Environmental Protection Agency Department of Agriculture 

Office of Inspector General Office of Inspector General 

Evaluation Report: 

Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Requires Better Coordination of 

Environmental and Agricultural Resources 

EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00004 

USDA OIG Report No. 50601-10-Hq 

November 20, 2006 
About This Joint Report 

The Offices of Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture jointly conducted this evaluation. The Chesapeake Bay 

Program is a partnership of Federal, State, and local governments, as well as non-profits 

and academia. We conducted this review jointly to identify areas of mutual concern 

and opportunities to enhance the Federal partnership as they relate to environmental and 

agricultural issues for the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Abbreviations 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

CBPO Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

CEAP Conservation Effects Assessment Project 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

FS Forest Service 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

NFCA Non-Funded Cooperative Agreement 

NFS National Forest System 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Cover photo: A Virginia pond serves as a reservoir to stock cattle’s alternative water source 

(EPA OIG photo). 
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Agriculture 

Office of Inspector General Office of Inspector General 

November 20, 2006 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better Coordination 

 of Environmental and Agricultural Resources 

EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00004 

USDA OIG Report No. 50601-10-Hq 

TO: Donald S. Welsh Mark Rey 

Regional Administrator Under Secretary 

Region 3 Natural Resources and Environment 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Offices of Inspector General (OIG) 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). This report contains findings that describe issues the EPA and USDA OIGs have 

identified and corrective actions recommended by both OIGs. This report represents the opinion 

of the OIGs and does not necessarily represent the final EPA or USDA positions. Final 

determinations on matters in this report will be made by Agency managers in accordance with 

established resolution procedures. 

This evaluation was conducted to respond to the concern of U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski 

from Maryland, that the goals to clean up the Chesapeake Bay may not be achieved. This 

evaluation is part of a series of evaluations that the EPA OIG is conducting to determine whether 

best management practices and other controls are adequate to achieve the Chesapeake Bay’s 

long-term water quality goals. The EPA OIG requested the USDA OIG to partner in this 

particular evaluation because of its expertise in agricultural issues and programs. 

Action Required 

We held an exit conference with EPA on July 17, 2006, and EPA provided its written response 

on October 23, 2006. EPA concurred with our findings and recommendations, and its full 

response is in Appendix E. Based on EPA’s response, we made changes to the report as 

appropriate. In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, EPA is required to provide a written 

response to this report on the status of recommendations within 90 calendar days. This is to 
include a corrective action plan for agreed upon actions, including milestone dates. In addition 

to providing us with a paper copy of your response, EPA is requested to email an electronic 

version to fuller.linda@epa.gov. We have no objections to further release of this report to the 

public. The report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. If you or any of your staff have 

any questions related to EPA issues, please contact Bill Roderick, Acting Inspector General, at 

(202) 566-0847; Dan Engelberg, Product Line Director, at (202) 566-0830; or Linda Fuller, 

Assignment Manager, at (617) 918-1485. 

We held an exit conference with USDA on July 6, 2006, and USDA provided its written 

response on October 12, 2006. USDA also concurred with our findings and recommendations, 

and its full response is in Appendix F. The USDA response contained sufficient justification to 

reach management decisions on Recommendations 5, 6, and 7. We ask USDA to please follow 

Departmental and your internal agency procedures in forwarding final-action correspondence to 

the Director, Planning and Accountability Division, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

Excerpts from the USDA response and the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) position will be

presented in a separate memorandum to USDA. 

Based on the response, management decision has not been reached for Recommendation 4. The 

information needed to reach management decision is set forth in the OIG Position section after 

the recommendation. In accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a 

reply within 60 days describing the corrective actions taken or planned and the timeframes for 

implementation for those recommendations for which a management decision has not yet been 

reached. Please note that the regulation requires a management decision be reached for all 

recommendations within a maximum of 6 months from the date of report issuance. Final action 

on the management decisions should be completed within 1 year of the date of the management 

decisions to preclude being listed in the Department’s annual Performance and Accountability 

Report. 

This report will also be available to the public at http://www.usda.gov/oig/rptsaudits.htm. 

For questions related to USDA, please contact Robert W. Young, Assistant Inspector General for 

Audit, at (202) 720-6945, or Ernest M. Hayashi, Director, Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Division, at (202) 720-2887. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by EPA and USDA during this 

review. 

Bill A. Roderick Phyllis K. Fong /s/ 

Acting Inspector General Inspector General 

Office of Inspector General Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture 
cc: Congress 

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski 

EPA

Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water 

Jon Scholl, Counselor to the Administrator for Agricultural Policy 

Rebecca Hanmer, Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

Lorraine Fleury, Audit Coordinator, Region 3 

Michael Mason, Office of Water 

USDA 

Gale A. Buchanan, Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics 

Floyd Gaibler, Acting Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services 
Executive Summary 

Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Requires Better Coordination of 

Environmental and Agricultural Resources 

Purpose of Review 

We conducted this review 

at the request of U.S. 

Senator Barbara A. 

Mikulski of Maryland. 

Our overall objective was 

to identify principal 

barriers to achieving 

nutrient reduction goals in 

the Chesapeake Bay. This 

report, the first of several 

planned, is on agriculture 

issues. It was prepared 

through a partnership 

between the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Offices of 

Inspector General. The 

report concentrated on 

agricultural best 

management practices 

used to address nonpoint 

nutrient and sediment 

loading to the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed. 

What We Found 

Despite significant efforts to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 

excess nutrients and sediment continue to impair the Bay’s water quality. Improving 

water quality conditions in the Bay is necessary to support living resources throughout 

the ecosystem, which in turn supports commercial and recreational uses, such as 

fishing/shellfishing. At the current rate of progress, the watershed will remain impaired 

for decades. State-level partners have committed the agricultural community to making 

the largest nutrient reductions, but numerous practices abound and are generally 

performed on a voluntary basis. Few of the agricultural practices in the tributary 

strategies have been implemented because the agricultural community considers many 

of these practices as either being unprofitable or requiring significant changes in 

farming techniques. Although the State-level partners have provided substantial funding 

to implement these practices, one of the key State partners acknowledged substantial 

additional funding is still needed. At the Federal level, applications for USDA’s 

technical and financial assistance programs went unfunded, making it difficult to expand 

incentives for Bay area agricultural producers. 

EPA must improve its coordination and collaboration with its Bay partners and the 

agricultural community to better reduce nutrients and sediment entering the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed. However, members of the agricultural community have been reluctant 

to participate with EPA because of EPA’s regulatory enforcement role. USDA, a Bay 

partner at the Federal level, could significantly assist EPA in implementing the needed 

conservation practices within the agricultural community. Given its many conservation 

programs, extensive field organization, and long experience working with the 

agricultural community, USDA's commitment and collaboration would significantly 

contribute to the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office’s plan for long-term 

improvement to the Bay’s water quality. However, USDA has not coordinated a 

Department-wide strategy or policy to address its commitment as a Bay partner. 

What We Recommend 

We recommend that EPA execute a new Memorandum of Agreement with USDA that specifically identifies tasks and 

timeframes for meeting mutually shared goals in the cleanup of the Bay. Further, the two agencies should agree to a 

method to track progress. Also, EPA, USDA, and the States, with assistance from land grant universities and 

agricultural organizations, should revisit State tributary strategies to ensure that an effective and cost-efficient 

combination of conservation practices are adopted and implemented. USDA should assign a senior level official to 

coordinate with EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program and review the feasibility of targeting USDA funds geographically. 

Although these steps will not by themselves solve the Bay’s problems, they will significantly assist the Bay partners in 

cleaning up the Bay. EPA and USDA generally concurred with our findings and recommendations. 

 For further information, contact: 

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Inspector General at (202) 566-2391; or 

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of 

Inspector General, at FOIASTAFF@oig.usda.gov 

To review the full report online, click on: 

• www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/ 

20061120-2007-P-00004.pdf; or 

• www.usda.gov/oig/rptsaudits.htm 

EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00004 

USDA OIG Report No. 50601-10-Hq 

November 20, 2006 
Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better Coordination 

of Environmental and Agricultural Resources 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1	 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose.....................................................................................................................

Background .............................................................................................................. 

Scope and Methodology .........................................................................................

Structure of Report ....................................................................................................

 1 

1 

 9 

 9 

2	 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Will Not Be Restored by 2010 at Current Level of Effort ......... 11 

Establishing Water Quality Standards and an Equitable Allocation 

 to Reduce Nutrients and Sediment First Priority................................................... 

Despite Early Progress, Restoration Could Be Decades Away .................................. 

Agricultural Community Key to Achieving Goals....................................................... 

Substantial Financial Commitment Needed to Implement Strategies...................... 

 Better Partnership Needed ........................................................................................ 

11 

13 

15 

16 

19 

3	 EPA Needs to Improve Its Coordination and Collaboration with the 


 Agricultural Community ..................................................................................................... 20 

Agricultural Practices in Tributary Strategies Not Widely

 Implemented by Agricultural Community.......................................................... 

EPA Needs to Engage the Agricultural Community to 

 Commit to Implementing Tributary Strategies.................................................... 

Effective EPA-USDA Partnership Could Help Advance Alternative Practices............... 

20 

23 

27 

4	 USDA Needs to Improve Coordination to Restore Chesapeake Bay................................... 30 

Role of USDA ............................................................................................................. 30 

 Providing Leadership................................................................................................. 

Bringing USDA’s Resources to Bear ............................................................................ 

 Evaluating USDA’s Performance ................................................................................ 

31 

32 

38 

5 	 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................. 43 

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 43 

 Recommendations................................................................................................... 44 

EPA and USDA Responses and OIGs’ Comments...................................................... 45 

Appendices 

A Agricultural Best Management Practices for Chesapeake Bay Watershed.........................

B Details on Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................

C Agricultural Best Management Practices’ Progress and Challenges...................................

D Alternative Agricultural Management Practices..................................................................

E EPA Response to OIG Draft Report......................................................................................

F USDA Response to OIG Draft Report ...................................................................................

 46 

 48 

 50 

 54 

 57

 58 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Purpose 

In 2000, the Chesapeake Bay partners agreed to improve water quality in the Bay and its 

tributaries to the level necessary to support aquatic life and be removed from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) impaired waters list by 2010. Bay 

stakeholders have questioned whether the needed nutrient reduction goals will be met, 

prompting interest from U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland. The Senator 

requested the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) to evaluate the progress being made 

by the Chesapeake Bay Program. The EPA OIG is evaluating progress in controlling both 

nonpoint and point source pollution. Control of nonpoint source pollution is being 

evaluated in three phases: agriculture, land use, and air deposition. For this report, EPA 

OIG partnered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) OIG to evaluate best 

management practices proposed by Bay partners to control agricultural pollution. The EPA 

OIG has also examined the effectiveness of EPA grant funds in targeting Chesapeake Bay 

priorities. 

For this evaluation, EPA OIG and USDA OIG sought to answer the following questions: 

1. How are Bay stakeholders choosing and applying agricultural best management 

practices or conservation practices to address nonpoint nutrient and sediment 

loading to the Chesapeake Bay watershed? 

2. What alternative approaches to reducing nutrient loadings have been proposed for 

the Chesapeake Bay and similar communities? 

3. What challenges must be overcome to effectively implement the current and 

alternative best management practices in the Bay watershed? 

4. What is the feasibility of implementing the short- and long-term management 

practices needed to reduce nutrient and sediment loading to the Chesapeake Bay? 

Background 

Bay Watershed Ecology and Geography 

The Chesapeake Bay is North America’s largest and most biologically diverse estuary, 

home to more than 16 million people and 3,600 species of plants, fish, and animals. For 

more than 300 years, the Bay and its tributaries have sustained the region’s economy. The 

Bay watershed is also an important recreational and educational resource. 

1
A watershed refers to a geographic area in which water drains to a common outlet. The 

Chesapeake Bay watershed includes not only the Bay and its tributaries, but also the 

surrounding land. The Chesapeake Bay 

watershed covers 64,000 square miles and 

includes parts of six States – Delaware, 

Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 

and West Virginia – and all of the District of 

Columbia (see Figure 1). 

The Bay watershed is comprised of 

approximately 23 percent agricultural 

land (crops, livestock, and pasture), 9 percent 

developed land, 58 percent forest cover, and 

10 percent mixed open land. In this area, 

agriculture is characterized by smaller farms 

and a wider range of products than elsewhere 

in the United States (farms in the Bay 

watershed are approximately 180 acres while 

the U.S. average is 500 acres). However, 

poultry and hog operations in the 

Mid-Atlantic region tend to have more 

birds/animals per acre than farms elsewhere 

in the country. Figure 1: Map of Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

(Source: Chesapeake Bay Foundation) 

Bay Pollution Sources and Impacts 

Nutrient and sediment overload have been identified as the primary causes of water quality 

degradation and loss of aquatic life. 

• Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus aid in the growth of plants and, in 

water, can fuel large algae blooms that block sunlight and, as the algae die and 

decompose, deplete the oxygen in the water. Without sunlight, underwater bay 

grasses cannot grow and blue crabs and fish cannot live, depriving larger fish of 

food sources. Nutrients come from many sources, such as lawn fertilizer, sewage 

treatment plants, septic systems, cropland, livestock, and the air. 

• Sediment refers to the loose particles of clay, silt, and sand that are suspended in a 

body of water and eventually settle to the bottom. Sediment reaches waterways 

primarily from stream and shoreline erosion, forests, and urban and agricultural 

lands. Sediment also prevents sunlight from reaching aquatic plants, and carries 

excess nutrients to water bodies. 

Figures 2a to 2c show the relative contributions of nutrients (specifically, nitrogen and 

phosphorus) and sediment from various sectors: 

2
Figure 2a: Sources of Nitrogen to Bay (2004) 

Urban 

16% 

Agriculture 

40% 

Point Source 

21% 

Mixed Open Atmospheric Deposition to

7% Water

Forest 1%

15%

Figure 2b: Sources of Phosphorus to Bay (2004) 

Urban 

17% 

Mixed Open 

12% 

Atmospheric Deposition to 

Forest Water 

Agriculture 

45% 

Point Source 

23% 

2% 1% 

Figure 2c: Sources of Sediment to Bay (2004) 

Urban 

Agriculture 

62% 

Forest 

20% 

Mixed Open 

8% 

10% 

Source (all three charts): Chesapeake Bay Program 

While the precise percentages have been questioned by stakeholders, the agricultural 

community is the largest contributor of nutrients and sediment to the Bay. Of the 

Chesapeake Bay modeled nutrient and sediment loads from agricultural sources, the 

signatory States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania contribute approximately 

87 percent of nitrogen and phosphorus and 89 percent of sediment; the headwater States of 

Delaware, New York, and West Virginia contribute the remainder. Although agriculture 

employs only about 4 percent of the labor force in the Mid-Atlantic region, sub-watersheds 

in southern New York, northern and southeastern Pennsylvania, western Maryland, and 

western Virginia rank in the top 10 percent of U.S. watersheds for manure nitrogen runoff 

and leaching, manure nitrogen loadings from concentrated animal feeding operations, and 

soil loss from erosion. Further, watersheds in southeast Pennsylvania and the southern 

3
Virginia coast rank in the top 10 percent of U.S. watersheds for nitrogen loadings from 

commercial fertilizer application. These high levels of runoff and loadings are due to a 

combination of factors, including rainfall, soil characteristics, and on-farm management 

practices including manure application.1 

Stakeholders in Chesapeake Bay Restoration 

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a regional partnership of State and Federal agencies, 

academic institutions, and non-government organizations formed in 1983 to lead and direct 

restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. It supports the goals of the Chesapeake Bay 

Agreements (1983, 1987, and 2000) signed by the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 

Virginia (referred to as the “signatory States”); the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake 

Bay Commission (a tri-state legislative advisory body); and EPA. The Program is 

comprised of numerous committees and sub-committees responsible for technical and 

administrative actions. They work under the umbrella of the Chesapeake Executive 

Council, which consists of the governors of the signatory States; the Mayor of the District 

of Columbia; the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission;2

 and the EPA Administrator, 

who represents the Federal Government on the council. 

EPA 

As the representative of the Federal Government, EPA and its Chesapeake Bay 

Program Office (CBPO) coordinate partner activity and implementation of 

strategies to meet the restoration goals of the Chesapeake Bay. The EPA/CBPO, 

headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is part of EPA’s Region 3. Since 1991, the 

EPA/CBPO budget has remained stable at approximately $20 million annually. In 

Fiscal Year 2006, the funds were distributed as follows: 

• $8 million to States in implementation grants, 

• $2 to $3 million in watershed-wide monitoring and modeling efforts, 

• $6 million for special projects/staffing, and 

• $3.5 to $4.0 million for administrative support. 

EPA's mission is to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment – 

air, water, and land. EPA was established to consolidate a variety of Federal 

research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to ensure 

environmental protection. The EPA Administrator provides overall supervision of 

the Agency and is responsible directly to the President of the United States. The 

EPA Administrator is supported by nine Assistant Administrators overseeing 

1 Chesapeake Bay Futures, Choices for the 21st Century, Chapter 7, page 86, prepared by Chesapeake Bay’s 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 

2

 The Chesapeake Bay Commission was formed in 1980 and serves the General Assemblies of Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, and Virginia, guiding them in cooperatively managing the Chesapeake Bay. Each State has a

seven-member delegation consisting of five State legislators, the governor or their designee, and a citizen 

representative. 

4
administrative, financial, enforcement/compliance, and specific environmental 

programs related to air, water, and land. In addition, the Counselor to the 

Administrator for Agricultural Policy advises the EPA Administrator on agricultural 

issues and serves as a liaison to the agricultural community, including agricultural 

organizations and agencies. 

EPA’s organizational structure includes a national headquarters and 10 regional 

offices, each of which is responsible for several States (and territories as 

appropriate). Each regional office is responsible within its States for the execution 

of the Agency's environmental programs. EPA delegates responsibility for issuing 

permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance to States and tribes, and 

provides direct support through grants to State environmental programs. EPA also 

relies on partnerships with public and private entities to solve environmental 

problems not generally addressed by laws and regulations. Partnership efforts 

require reaching out to various stakeholder groups, such as the agricultural 

community. For example, to assist in such communication, EPA Region 3 has an 

agricultural liaison. 

EPA’s 2003-2008 Strategic Plan includes goals related to the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed, with targets for nutrient and sediment reduction and increased growth of 

submerged aquatic vegetation. However, the plan notes that improving Bay water 

quality is a partnership effort and that more specific goals guiding Bay restoration 

are delineated in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. See next section, “Chesapeake 

Bay Cleanup Approach,” for additional information on Bay restoration goals. 

USDA 

Among the many Federal agencies that provide expertise and resources to the 

Chesapeake Bay restoration effort is USDA. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary 

of Agriculture lead USDA in achieving its mission to provide leadership on food, 

agriculture, natural resources, and related issues based on sound public policy, the 

best available science, and efficient management. To accomplish this mission, 

USDA activities are performed under 7 mission areas with 17 agencies as shown in 

Table 1 that follows. 

5
Table 1: USDA Missions 

USDA Mission Area USDA Agency 

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

Risk Management Agency (RMA) 

Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration (GIPSA) 

Natural Resources and Environment Forest Service (FS) 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Research, Education and Economics Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

Cooperative State Research, Education and 

Extension Service (CSREES) 

Economic Research Service (ERS) 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

Rural Development Rural Business-Cooperative Services (RBCS) 

Rural Housing Service (RHS) 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 

Source: USDA 

Each mission area is under the direction of an under secretary. However, leadership 

and authorities are limited to their unique mission areas. 

The organizational structure of USDA’s agencies is diverse. Some agencies operate 

with one nationwide office (e.g., CSREES), some agencies operate with national 

and regional or area offices (e.g., ARS), and other agencies operate with national, 

State and local offices (e.g., NRCS and FSA). Agencies within the Natural 

Resources and Environment mission area (NRCS and FS) are characterized by 

decentralized management, delegating significant responsibilities and management 

decisions to the State and local offices. Agencies within the Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services mission area (e.g., FSA) retain policy making and other 

managerial decision making processes closer to the agency’s headquarters. In 

agricultural communities, USDA has positioned “USDA service centers” which 

provide a single location where customers can access the services provided by FSA, 

NRCS, and Rural Development. Like EPA, USDA agencies also rely heavily on 

partnerships with both State and other governmental entities and non-governmental 

organizations to accomplish their mission. NRCS’ approximately 2,900 field 

offices are often co-located with State and local conservation offices in an effort to 

better serve the customer. Customers accessing services provided by NRCS’ 

11,251 permanent Federal field employees may work with a combination of 

6
Federal, local, or State employees – and not perceive any distinction. FSA’s 2,350 

service centers are staffed with a combination of 4,287 permanent Federal 

employees and 9,008 permanent non-Federal FSA employees. 

The two USDA agencies providing the largest amount of conservation funds in the 

Chesapeake Bay area are NRCS and FSA. NRCS allocates its funds to each NRCS 

State office based on a number of factors, including natural resource concern, 

resource base, performance incentive, and State-specific concerns. Once funds are 

allocated to the State NRCS offices, the State Conservationist, with the advice of 

the State Technical Committee (representatives of various stakeholders), in turn 

allocates the funds across the State. NRCS expects the State Conservationist to 

allocate funds to achieve the greatest environmental impact. Consequently, in the 

Chesapeake Bay States, the majority of funds may be allocated to land within the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. In contrast, FSA funding for conservation practices is 

through nationwide competition. However, FSA recognized the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed as a conservation priority area and has effectively increased funding to 

the watershed by making all land within the Chesapeake Bay eligible for 

enrollment. FSA further augments its contribution to the watershed through its 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) partnerships with State 

governments, which are used to focus funds on local environmental issues. Each of 

the six Chesapeake Bay States has a CREP agreement with FSA. 

Through its technical services, research, outreach, and cost-share programs, USDA 

can significantly affect producers’ agricultural practices. The goal of USDA’s 

conservation programs is to support agricultural productivity while helping to 

sustain environmental quality by encouraging practices to reduce soil erosion, 

enhance water supplies, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce 

damages caused by floods and other natural disasters. These conservation programs 

are offered on a voluntary, incentive-based approach. USDA (as a department or 

through its agencies) has agreements with the Chesapeake Executive Council 

expressing USDA’s commitment, as a partner organization, to manage the 

watershed as a cohesive ecosystem and to achieve the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 

Agreement. Details on the major USDA agencies and programs that support 

Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts can be found in Chapter 4. 

USDA has created a strategic plan to implement its vision. The framework of this 

plan depends on these key activities: expanding markets for agricultural products 

and supporting international economic development; further developing alternative 

markets for agricultural products and activities; providing financing needed to help 

expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities, and infrastructure in rural 

America; enhancing food safety by taking steps to reduce the prevalence of 

foodborne hazards from farm to table; improving nutrition and health by providing 

food assistance and nutrition education and promotion; and managing and 

protecting America's public and private lands working cooperatively with other 

levels of government and the private sector. A copy of the USDA strategic plan can 

be found at: http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/usdasp/usdasp.htm 

7
Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Approach 

In 2000, with an agreement known as the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the Chesapeake 

Bay Program partners recommitted to their overall mission of Bay restoration and 

established new goals. The agreement provided for the goal of improving water quality in 

the Bay and its tributaries so that these waters may be removed from EPA’s impaired 

waters list by 2010 when Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act would require the 

calculation and allocation of a total daily maximum load among the States. At this time, 

the non-signatory Bay watershed States of New York, Delaware, and West Virginia also 

agreed to nutrient and sediment goals. 

All the States within the Bay watershed either have or are expected to prepare tributary 

strategies. These strategies are river-specific cleanup plans that include specific best 

management practices to be employed to reduce the amount of nutrients and sediment 

flowing into the Bay. These strategies are designed to work on a watershed-by-watershed 

basis to reduce pollution from point and nonpoint sources. 

EPA/CBPO uses the term “best management practices” to describe practices used by all 

sectors to reduce nonpoint source pollution. While State tributary strategies delineate 

practices for all sectors, agricultural best management practices include conservation 

tillage, nutrient management, buffer strips, and other activities that reduce soil loss, prevent 

runoff, and provide for the proper application rates of nutrients to cropland. In USDA, the 

analogous term is “conservation practices.” For the purposes of this report, these terms are 

interchangeable. Following are some examples of agricultural best management practices. 

Appendix A shows each of the 26 agricultural best management practices for which 

Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania have set implementation goals. As explained in our 

Scope and Methodology section, we limited our review of practices to the signatory States. 

Table 2: Selected Agricultural Best Management Practices for Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Practice Description 

Cover Crops Non-harvested crops (e.g., rye, wheat, barley) are planted to maintain 

vegetative cover on cropland, holding nutrients at the root zone. 

Trapped nitrogen can be released and used by the crops. 

Riparian Forest Buffers Linear wooded areas are located along rivers, streams, and shorelines. 

Buffers filter nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants from runoff and 

remove nutrients from groundwater. 

Nutrient Management 

Plan Implementation 

Plans recommend appropriate rates of nutrient application, timing of 

applications, and placement of nutrients to result in economically 

optimum crop yields while managing the level of nutrient loss. 

Off-stream Watering 

with Fencing 

Limits livestock access to streams with fencing and by providing an 

alternative drinking water source. 

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 

8
Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our evaluation from May 2005 through February 2006 in accordance with 

Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. 

This evaluation was conducted jointly by the EPA OIG and USDA OIG. We reviewed the 

progress the Chesapeake Bay Program partners had been making in reducing nutrients from 

1985 to 2004, and the activities the Bay partners had taken in meeting the agricultural 

nutrient reduction goals resulting from the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement until the end of 

2005. 

We interviewed EPA and USDA staff representing various Federal programs, State staff 

involved in developing and implementing State tributary strategies, agricultural producers, 

and experts from academia and other fields involved in Chesapeake Bay restoration. We 

reviewed the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, State tributary strategies, data from the 

Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model, and other related documents. We did not 

audit the reliability of the data included in these reports. 

Appendix B provides further details on our scope and methodology, including prior 

evaluations of this program. 

Structure of Report 

Regarding the four questions in our “Purpose” section, we found the following regarding 

each: 

Question 1: Agricultural producers have chosen conservation practices that have been 

deemed cost effective, eligible for USDA cost share funding, and/or required by 

Federal/State regulations. 

Question 2: A number of alternative approaches were identified, but there is no one 

approach or practice that can address the area’s nutrient imbalance. EPA/CBPO is 

working with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service on developing new approaches. 

Question 3: While each practice has its own challenge, generally, many of the 

conservation practices included in the State Tributary Strategies were not cost effective 

for the producer or suitable to the region. 

Question 4: Current management practices will fail to achieve Chesapeake Bay goals 

due to Bay partners' insufficient financial support and coordination. 

9
These issues are discussed in further detail in the subsequent chapters of this report. These 

subsequent chapters are broken up as follows: 

Chapter 2: The overall progress of Bay partners in achieving nutrient/sediment goals. 

Chapter 3: EPA’s efforts to coordinate with the agricultural community. 

Chapter 4: USDA’s role as a Bay partner. 

Due to the overlapping nature of the issues discussed in those three chapters, we are 

providing an overall conclusion and all of our recommendations in Chapter 5. 

10
Chapter 2 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Will Not Be Restored by 2010 

at Current Level of Effort 

Despite significant efforts to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 

excess nutrients and sediment continue to impair the Bay’s water quality. At the current 

rate of progress, the watershed will remain impaired for decades, exceeding the 2010 

cleanup deadline. Improving water quality conditions in the Bay is necessary to support 

living resources throughout the ecosystem, which in turn supports commercial and 

recreational uses, such as fishing/shellfishing. Establishing water quality standards and 

determining an equitable method to distribute the load reductions among partners were 

initially priorities. Now, more than half-way to the 2010 deadline for attaining their goals, 

States are just beginning to prepare implementation plans, and are finding that available 

resources are unlikely to support substantial financing needed to implement all the 

practices included in their strategies. Federal programs can contribute resources, but the 

current level of funding cannot be expected to fill the gaps. In their tributary strategies, 

States committed the agricultural community to making the largest nutrient reductions. 

However, no one method is used to achieve reductions, numerous practices abound, and 

implementation of these practices is carried out by thousands of land owners primarily on a 

voluntary basis. As the lead Federal agency responsible for coordinating project efforts, 

EPA/CBPO needs to strengthen its partnership not only with the agricultural community, 

but also with its Federal and State partners to utilize that extensive field organization. By 

doing so, EPA/CBPO will be able to obtain greater commitment from all sectors. 

Establishing Water Quality Standards and an Equitable Allocation 

to Reduce Nutrients and Sediment First Priority 

The Bay partners set the nutrient and sediment reduction goals based on the need to 

improve water quality so that the Bay and its tributaries could be removed from the 

impaired waters list by 2010. Accordingly, the Bay partners’ first priority was to develop 

and agree to an equitable allocation for reductions by each partner and set water quality 

standards. EPA’s 2003 Strategy for Water Quality Standards and Criteria provides that 

“water quality standards and criteria are the regulatory and scientific foundation of 

programs established under the Clean Water Act to protect the Nation’s waters.” However, 

completing the standards, tributary strategies, and implementation plans took the partners 

more than half-way through their 10-year timeframe. While these activities are a major 

accomplishment for the Bay partners, the implementation phase will likely take decades 

before the ultimate goal of a clean Bay is achieved. 

11
With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the Bay partners agreed to: 

• By 2001, define the water quality conditions necessary to protect aquatic living 

resources and then assign load reductions for nitrogen and phosphorus to each 

major tributary; 

• By 2001, using a process parallel to that established for nutrients, determine the 

sediment load reductions necessary to achieve the water quality conditions that 

protect aquatic living resources, and assign load reductions for sediment to each 

major tributary; 

• By 2003, the jurisdictions with tidal waters will use their best efforts to adopt new 

or revised water quality standards consistent with the defined water quality 

conditions. 

On March 21, 2003, and April 15, 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff 

Committee and representatives of the headwater States adopted the nutrient and sediment 

cap load allocations and submerged aquatic vegetation restoration goals for the Chesapeake 

Bay. EPA/CBPO defined the water quality conditions in its April 2003 Ambient Water 

Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity, and Chlorophyll a for the 

Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. This document provided EPA/CBPO’s 

recommendations to the Chesapeake Bay States for use in establishing their water quality 

standards. In October 2003, EPA/CBPO issued Technical Support Document for 

Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability to assist the States in 

development and adoption of refined water quality standards. 

The State partners with tidal waters agreed to revise their water quality standards and 

submitted revisions to EPA for approval as shown in Table 3: 

Table 3: EPA Approval of Water Quality Standards 

State 

Date Standards 

Submitted to EPA 

Date Approved 

by EPA 

Delaware 07/2004 12/2004 

District of Columbia 11/2005 02/2006 

Maryland 08/2005 08/2005 

Virginia 06/2005 *

 01/2006 * 

06/2005 

01/2006 

 *Virginia did not include chlorophyll a in the tidal James until its 2006 submission 

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 

Through a six-State memorandum of understanding, the headwater and signatory States 

adopted cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that not only were 

expected to be achieved, but also to be maintained even in the face of increasing 

development in the watershed. The Bay partners need to ensure that increasing 

development is well planned. Development increases impervious surface cover and 

destroys open space, which reduces the capacity of the watershed to store and use nutrients 

and sediment. 

12
In making their allocation decisions, the partners factored in both equity and feasibility of 

achieving reductions. This systematic process conducted during 2003 established 

Bay-wide 2010 loading goals of 183 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.8 million pounds of 

phosphorus, and 4.15 million tons sediment per year. These levels were the amounts the 

Bay could accept while meeting water quality goals. Subsequently, allocations of nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and sediment loading were assigned to each State and each tributary basin 

within each State. Leaders of each State agreed to reduce nutrients and sediment to its 

target load allocation. Table 4 shows the 2004 loading to the Bay by State (including 

Washington, DC) and the 2010 loading allocated to each partner jurisdiction. 

Table 4: Reductions Needed from 2004 Loading to 2010 Allocation Goals 

Nitrogen 

(million pounds/year 

Phosphorus 

(million pounds/year) 

Sediment 

(million tons/year) 

Jurisdiction 2004 

2010 

Goal 

Reductions 

Needed 2004 

2010 

Goal 

Reductions 

Needed 2004 

2010 

Goal 

Reductions 

Needed 

Pennsylvania 

Maryland 

Virginia 

Washington, DC 

New York 

Delaware 

West Virginia 

 Bay-Wide 1 

107 72 35 

57 37 20 

74 51 23 

4 2 1 

17 13 5 

5 3 2 

7 5 2 

270 1832 87

3.6 2.3 1.4 

3.8 2.9 0.9 

9.2 6.0 3.2 

0.1 0.3 None 

0.9 0.6 0.4 

0.4 0.3 0.1 

0.7 0.4 0.3 

18.7 12.8 6.2

1.14 

0.99 

2.27 

0.01 

0.14 

0.05 

0.32 

4.92 

0.99 0.14 

0.71 0.28 

1.94 0.33 

0.01 0.00 

0.13 0.00 

0.04 0.01 

0.32 0.00 

4.15 0.78 

1

Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding. 2 Includes 8 million pounds of nitrogen from air deposition; EPA has committed to reducing this load through its air 

program controls. The total nitrogen load allocated to the State jurisdictions is 175 million pounds (with a reduction of 

79 million pounds needed). 

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 

Based on Table 4, Bay partners must reduce approximately 87 million pounds of nitrogen, 

6.2 million pounds of phosphorus, and almost 0.8 million tons of sediment from entering 

the Bay each year from 2004 levels. However, these cuts are so great that the 

implementation levels needed to meet their cap load will not be possible with current 

programs and resources. 

The CBPO and its partners accomplished much in establishing a scientifically sound basis 

for reducing nutrients to the Bay during the 5 years following the signing of the 2000 

Agreement. CBPO’s Associate Director for Science stated that in 2000, when the 2010 

commitment was made, the partners did not know the full scope of the restoration 

challenge. He further noted that when the processes were largely completed and initial 

estimates of cost and effort were made, “local governments found the magnitude of the 

effort to meet Chesapeake Bay water quality standards sobering.” 

Despite Early Progress, Restoration Could Be Decades Away 

By the year 2000, Bay partners had achieved approximately 80 percent of the nutrient goal 

set forth in the 1987 Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Though that goal had not been met, the 

2000 Agreement set new, more ambitious goals. However, attaining these new goals is 

unlikely by the Agreement’s deadline of 2010 because the current rates of reduction fall 

13
short of the amount needed. In fact, it could take decades to reach target loads and even 

longer to reach ecological restoration goals. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program estimated that between 1985 and 2004, modeled loads of 

nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to the Bay have been reduced as detailed in Table 5: 

Table 5: Bay-Wide Progress from 1985 to 2004 

Pollutant Estimated Reductions* Percent of Goal Reached 

Nitrogen 67 million pounds 41% 

Phosphorus 8 million pounds 58% 

Sediment 1 million tons 54% 

* Accounts for increased loads due to population growth 

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 

Table 6: 1985-2004 Annualized Reduction Rates for Meeting Goals to Reduce Loads 

Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment 

(million pounds) (million pounds) (million tons) 

Annualized reduction rate 

(additional units reduced per year) 3.4 0.4 0.05

Time to reach 2010 loading cap 28 years 15 years 15 years 

at annualized rate 

Source: OIG analysis of Chesapeake Bay Program data 

These reductions are attributed to improved nutrient removal technology by wastewater 

treatments plants, State bans on phosphates in detergents, and the various best management 

practices implemented to control nonpoint source pollution. The above progress represents 

net reductions throughout the watershed based on loads from all sectors. Therefore, overall 

reductions have been made in the face of population growth. 

Based on the modeled loading rates, the Bay partners will not meet their 2010 goals for 

reducing those loads. For example, based on EPA/CBPO estimates of nitrogen reductions 

between 1985 and 2004, loads decreased at a rate of 3.4 million pounds annually. 

However, meeting the Bay loading goals by the 2010 deadline would require a reduction 

rate of 16 million pounds of nitrogen each year from 2004 to 2010. Achieving the 

remaining reductions may be even more challenging because the easier problems have been 

addressed. Therefore, it is not likely the Bay partners will reduce nitrogen by 2010 to the 

extent necessary; it may be decades before this level of reduction can be reached. Based on 

EPA/CBPO’s modeled nutrient and sediment loading to the Bay between 1985 and 2004, 

we calculated annualized rates of reductions (additional units reduced per year) to 

determine an estimate of a timeframe to meet the 2010 cap loads. Details for annualized 

modeled load reductions for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment are in Table 6. 

Meeting loading goals alone does not mean the Bay's water quality and aquatic resources 

will be immediately restored to desired conditions. Even if modeled load goals are met, 

Chesapeake Bay Program staff note that it could take another 10 years for pollution control 

practices to result in Bay water quality improvement. Further, since actual loads vary 

14 
greatly based on a given year’s rainfall, modeled load reductions may not be apparent in 

the short term. Therefore, while it may be decades before reduction targets are reached, 

ecological restoration will take even longer. 

Agricultural Community Key to Achieving Goals 

Agricultural operations are by far the largest source of nutrient and sediment loads to the 

Bay, representing over 40 percent of the nutrient load and 60 percent of the land-based 

sediment load. In developing their tributary strategies, State partners committed the 

agricultural community to reducing approximately 60 percent of the total nutrient loading 

and 90 percent of the sediment loading through the application of best management 

practices on cropland and animal operations, according to EPA/CBPO. This represents 

reductions of approximately 54 million pounds of nitrogen, 3.3 million pounds of 

phosphorus, and 0.67 million tons of sediment from 2004 levels by 2010. 

Aside from being a major source of nutrients and sediment to the Bay, another reason for 

placing an ambitious goal on the agricultural community is that implementation of 

agricultural practices has been determined to be cost effective. The Chesapeake Bay 

Commission evaluated a number of best management practices for the agriculture and 

urban sectors and selected six practices it deemed "most cost-effective and widely 

applicable." (The information about practice costs and efficiencies was assembled by the 

CBPO.) One practice identified was wastewater treatment plant upgrades (the subject of a 

subsequent OIG review) while the other five were agricultural practices: 

• Diet and feed adjustments 

• Traditional nutrient management 

• Enhanced nutrient management 

• Conservation tillage 

• Cover crops 

If these five practices were implemented to the maximum extent possible, the Chesapeake 

Bay Commission estimated that Bay stakeholders could achieve nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

sediment reductions of 44, 30, and 100 percent, respectively, at an estimated cost of 

$630 million per year. This cost is far lower with greater benefits in comparison to other 

sectors and practices. 

Figure 3a shows each sector’s relative responsibility for achieving the Bay-wide nitrogen 

reduction goal (i.e., percent of the Bay-wide nitrogen reduction goal that each sector is 

expected to assume). Figure 3b shows the estimated relative cost associated with 

implementation in each sector. 

15
 Figure 3a: Nitrogen Reduction 

 Per Tributary Strategies 

Point source 

20% 

Agriculture 

64% 

Septic

3%

Urban runoff 

13% 

Figure 3b: Annualized Cost 

 Per Tributary Strategies 

Point source 

5% 

Septic Agriculture 

15% 13% 

Urban runoff 

67% 

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 

The figures show that while States expect implementation of agricultural practices in the 

tributary strategies to make up 64 percent of reductions from all sectors, the estimated cost 

to achieve this goal is only 13 percent of the total cost, indicating the cost benefit of 

implementing the agricultural practices. 

Substantial Financial Commitment Needed to Implement Strategies 

Despite the general cost-effectiveness of agricultural best management practices, the cost 

of implementing them to the level necessary to achieve nutrient and sediment goals is 

significant. Implementing tributary strategies will require a substantial financial 

commitment from the States, which have recently started to identify and generate funding 

sources. Federal funding can help States, but needs to be better coordinated with tributary 

strategy goals (see Chapters 3 and 4). However, Federal funding at current levels cannot be 

expected to fill all the gaps. 

In their tributary strategies, States estimated capital costs for implementing agricultural 

practices at over $2 billion. See Table 7 for cost estimates by State (Maryland’s tributary 

strategy was not clear on how its total agricultural costs were calculated). 

Table 7: State Agricultural Cost Estimates 

State Estimated Cost (millions) 

Maryland $651 

Pennsylvania $593 

Virginia $740 

West Virginia $179 

 Total $2,163 

Sources: States’ Tributary Strategies 

16
Figures for New York and Delaware are not available because these States have not yet 

completed their tributary strategies. Maryland determined that it will only be able to fund 

$280 million of its agricultural costs, leaving a shortfall of $371 million, or 57 percent. 

Shortfall estimates for the other States were not available. 

EPA/CBPO expected the State partners to develop implementation plans identifying how 

the best management practices in the tributary strategies were to be funded and 

implemented, along with any funding gaps. More than half-way to the 2010-year goal, 

only Maryland and West Virginia had issued draft implementation plans. 

Despite the lack of plans or comprehensive funding strategies, Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

and Virginia have instituted or proposed various funding mechanisms to support Bay 

commitments. However, the new revenues must also support other needed investments, 

such as upgrading wastewater treatment facilities. For example, in 2004, Maryland 

established the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Restoration Fund supported by a 

$2.50 monthly fee on sewer bills and an annual $30 fee on septic system owners. The 

sewer fees will be used to upgrade wastewater treatment plants while the septic fees will 

provide $3 to $4 million annually for planting approximately 100,000 acres of cover crops 

to prevent nutrient runoff. Cover crops, such as rye, wheat, or barley, maintain a vegetative 

cover holding nutrients to the root. Nonetheless, these additional funds do not come close 

to funding cover crop planting. According to Maryland’s tributary strategy coordinator, at 

least 300,000 acres must be planted before Maryland can see an impact in water quality. 

Maryland’s tributary strategy goal for cover crops is 600,000 acres. 

While the Federal Government provides funding for agricultural programs it cannot fill the 

gap. The amount of Federal funding is limited and some Federal programs limit benefits. 

For example, in the case of cover crops, USDA limits funding of this activity up to a 

maximum of 3 years to encourage agriculture producers to test its applicability to their 

long-term goals. To be effective, cover crops need to be planted on a continuous basis. 

EPA provides substantially less funding for agricultural practices than USDA, and does so 

generally just for demonstration projects. 

While USDA provides substantial funding and technical assistance to farm and forest 

landowners as well as conservation organizations in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the 

Department does not specifically target its funding to meeting the Chesapeake Bay goals 

(see Chapter 4). Other Federal program funding is not as significant, must be shared 

between urban and agricultural sector projects, and is usually for demonstration projects. 

These programs include: the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants and Targeted 

Watersheds Grants Programs administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in 

cooperation with EPA/CBPO, and the Nonpoint Source Management Grants Program 

(Clean Water Action Section 319) administered by EPA Region 3. 

Funding for the Small Watershed Grants comes primarily from EPA with additional 

funding from USDA’s Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Chesapeake Bay Trust, and the 

Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment. In 2005, 88 projects from both urban and 

17
agricultural sectors were selected to receive $3.06 million from the Small Watershed 

Grants program. The Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant Program was 

introduced in 2005 with a budget of $7.9 million and a subsequent budget of $6 million in 

2006. The 2005 grant funds were awarded in 2006 as follows: $4.3 million for crop and 

manure management, $1.5 million for market-based incentive projects, and $1.3 million for 

urban/suburban stormwater management projects. The 2006 funds will be awarded in 

2007. 

EPA’s Region 3, in which most of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is located, administers 

the Section 319 program that provides grants to control nonpoint source pollution. Again, 

these grants are directed at a variety of sectors, not just agriculture or the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed specifically. 

Participation in this 

program is voluntary. 

Some typical agricultural 

activities funded under 

these grants include: 

salaries for technical 

assistants, construction of 

animal waste storage 

structures, and stream bank 

stabilization. 

Table 8 shows how much funding the signatory States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 

Virginia distributed to agricultural projects from 2003 to 2005. This funding was awarded 

for Statewide activities, not just within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The amount of 

funding differs by each State and year. From 2003 to 2005, Virginia generally awarded 

50 percent of the Section 319 funds to agricultural projects, Maryland a third or less, and 

Pennsylvania a high of 17 percent in 2003. 

 An animal waste storage tank (EPA OIG photo). 

Table 8: EPA Section 319 Funding for Agricultural Projects 

 Total 319 Funds Awarded Total Dollars to Percent to 

Year to Signatory States Agricultural Projects Agricultural Projects 

2003 $14,416,000 $4,402,506 31% 

2004 14,460,700 3,505,163 24% 

2005 12,573,500 3,250,827 26% 

Totals $41,450,200 $11,158,496 27% 

Sources: Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source Programs

For the same period of time, USDA provided over $250 million to Maryland, Virginia, and 

Pennsylvania for Statewide activities through its cost-share programs. 

EPA’s Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program is also limited to funding 

demonstration projects. The grants essentially function as seed money; they do not support 

ongoing practices. With some exceptions, USDA cost-share programs support practices 

for a longer period of time. EPA issued guidelines in 2003 to facilitate the integration 

18
between Section 319 program goals and USDA conservation programs. The guidelines 

noted that the 2002 Farm Bill has provided more conservation funding for agricultural 

producers than any previous Farm Bill. 

As the lead Federal Agency, EPA/CBPO needs to coordinate the limited Federal funds, 

which often have different or competing missions and objectives, to ensure that they are 

used more effectively to accomplish the Bay goals. The EPA/CBPO is currently in the 

process of doing this. On January 10, 2005, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council issued 

Directive 04-2, Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals - Next Steps, with the 

purpose to address next steps that will advance Tributary Strategy implementation and 

identify measures to implement actions that can be taken quickly. The steps include: 

• Determining Funding Priorities 

• Engaging the Department of Agriculture 

• Finding Opportunities in the Farm Bill 

• Establishing a Watershed Funding Network 

• Improving Coordination of Federal Agencies 

• Managing Urban Stormwater 

• Implementing and Enforcing Air and Water Laws 

The Chesapeake Bay Program recently established a mechanism – the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Assistance Network – to improve coordination among available Federal and 

State funding sources. The mandate has been written and contacts established, and the 

2006 work plan is to develop information from the major Federal sources about how to 

improve access to their funding programs for tributary strategy implementation. A report 

is being developed for presentation to the Fall 2006 Federal Principals’ meeting of the 

17 agencies that signed Directive 04-2. 

Better Partnership Needed 

EPA recognizes that USDA is an influential partner in the agricultural community because 

of its extensive field organization and experience with the community and its many 

conservation programs. At the Federal level, EPA and USDA are key to accomplishing the 

environmental goals of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. However, in the past, their 

relationship has been one of two independent entities, often constrained by their mandated 

goals and directions, rather than partners with a common objective. Chapter 3 discusses 

how EPA can better coordinate Bay activities with USDA and other organizations, and 

Chapter 4 discusses how USDA can become a more visible and active presence in 

encouraging conservation practices in the Bay watershed. While this report focuses on 

activities of these two major Federal partners, EPA also needs to strengthen its relationship 

with other partners within the agricultural community, such as land grant universities, State 

agricultural agencies, and professional agricultural organizations. These other 

organizations need to complement the efforts by EPA and USDA. Overall conclusions and 

recommendations are in Chapter 5. 

19
Chapter 3 

EPA Needs to Improve Its Coordination and Collaboration 

with the Agricultural Community 

EPA must improve its coordination and collaboration with the agricultural community to 

assist the Bay partners in realizing the nutrient and sediment reductions needed to clean up 

the Chesapeake Bay watershed. State partners developed tributary strategies relying 

heavily on the agricultural community to reduce nutrients and sediments. However, few of 

the agricultural practices included in the strategies have been reported as implemented 

because they are either unprofitable or require significant change in farming techniques. 

The Clean Water Act states that EPA shall provide support to carry out the Chesapeake 

2000 Agreement. To meet the aggressive schedule of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, 

EPA will need to coordinate and collaborate with its other Federal partners as well as the 

State agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations to work with the 

approximately 87,000 farms in the Bay watershed to adopt, on a long-term basis, the 

various practices in the tributary strategies. USDA, one of EPA’s Federal partners, could 

significantly assist in obtaining greater participation by the agricultural community. 

However, these Federal partners have been constrained by their mandated missions and 

have not significantly worked together to mesh their goals for the overall benefit of the Bay 

watershed. Furthermore, EPA will need to rely and build upon the extensive field 

operations and experience these other partners, including USDA, already have with the 

agricultural community. Without leveraging these resources, experience, and access 

available to these partners, EPA will miss the opportunity to achieve its overall goals. 

Agricultural Practices in Tributary Strategies 

Not Widely Implemented by Agricultural Community 

As of 2004, only 3 of the 26 agricultural best management practices for which State 

implementation goals were set were close to being met or had exceeded their 2010 targets. 

It is up to individual producers to implement the practices and, with few exceptions, 

producer implementation is voluntary. Producers face multiple challenges in implementing 

best management practices (see Appendix C for progress and challenges). If the producer 

does not believe a practice will be beneficial or technically feasible, the practice is less 

likely to be adopted. Likewise, practices that are supported by Federal and State cost share 

programs and perceived as profitable are more widely implemented. Without producer 

acceptance of practices, nutrient reductions will be limited, thus preventing Bay cleanup. 

In developing their tributary strategies, States chose a mix of best management practices 

from a menu of practices that could either be measured by the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

model or were in the process of peer review. States do not receive credit in the model for 

implementation of practices that have not been fully defined or peer reviewed. Signatory 

States developed implementation goals in their strategies for 26 of the practices that are 

20
either credited in the model or still under peer review, though not all States committed to 

goals for each best management practice. 

As of 2004, though goals for 3 practices were nearly met or exceeded, 46 percent of the 

practices included in the strategies (12 of the 26) were reported as not being implemented 

at all. Table 9 shows the progress in best management practice implementation as of 2004. 

Table 9: Reported Best Management Practice Implementation Progress - 2004 

Percent of Goal Number of Proportion of 

Implemented Practices 26 Practices* 

0% 12 46%

1% - 25% 7 27% 

26% - 50% 0 0% 

51% - 75% 3 12% 

76% - 100% 2 8% 

Over 100% 2 8% 

*Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding 

Source: OIG analysis of Chesapeake Bay Program data 

The figures in Table 9 represent only the percentage of goal achieved in units implemented 

(e.g., acres), not pounds of nutrients or sediment reduced. Actual reductions vary by soil 

characteristics and other best management practices applied on the same land. 

EPA/CBPO staff stated all but 1 of the 12 practices identified as not being implemented are 

being applied to some degree in the Bay watershed, as a pilot-project or at small scales. 

They believe current tracking cannot identify smaller-scale projects in a 64,000-squaremile watershed. Without further evidence, we cannot change the above results. However, 

being able to adequately track the project’s progress is a critical program activity. This is 

an activity that the EPA/CBPO, States, and USDA may wish to collaborate on as part of 

our recommended task force. 

Based on our review of various studies of producers’ preferences with regard to adopting 

conservation practices, we determined that the likelihood of producers implementing best 

management practices is based on whether the practices are: 

• Profitable 

• Environmentally effective 

• Required by Federal or State regulations 

• Financed at least in part by government or other cost-share programs 

• Easy to implement 

The three practices with the most success in being implemented (conservation tillage, offstream watering with fencing and rotational grazing, and nutrient management plans) meet 

the producer criteria of profitability, being required by regulation, and/or having financial 

support available. Conservation tillage saves a producer costs in time and equipment by 

21
requiring as little as one trip across a field for planting. Nutrient management plans and 

off-stream watering with fencing can be eligible for USDA cost-share programs. Nutrient 

management plans may also be required by law depending on the State. 

A significant percentage of the best management practices still have a zero rate of 

implementation because producers do not recognize many of the practices as being costeffective, technically feasible, or in their long-term interests. For example, alternative 

crops such as switch grass used for carbon sequestration currently have no market, so it 

would not make sense for a producer to raise such a crop. Similarly, to plant cover crops, a 

producer must incur seed, herbicide, and labor costs, but cannot harvest or sell the crops. 

Planting commodity cover crops, also known as small grain enhancement, could help 

address the financial barrier to implementation in that these types of cover crops may be 

harvested and sold. According to EPA/CBPO’s Associate Director for Science, this 

practice is under research and is advocated in Maryland. Of the Bay partners, only 

Maryland has set a goal for commodity cover crops in its tributary strategy, but no 

implementation is reported as of 2004. The Maryland Department of Agriculture has 

introduced a new commodity cover crop program to its 2006-2007 cost share program. 

As stated earlier in this report, State or Federal funds are available in some areas to assist 

producers with cover crop planting costs. However, feasibility also plays a role in adoption 

of practices. For cover crops, efficiency depends highly on the timing of planting; nitrogen 

uptake and trapping diminishes rapidly if crops are planted too late in the Fall. Producers 

have difficulty getting cover crops planted early enough to be efficient due to weather and 

time of harvest, and because optimal planting time coincides with a farmer’s busiest time of 

year. State tributary strategy goals (i.e., cap loads) rely on early planting of cover crops on 

76 percent of available acres. 

Other practices included in the strategies – such as continuous no-till, precision agriculture, 

dairy precision feeding, and ammonia emissions reduction – are new and complex in 

nature, require investment in new equipment, or involve change in farming technique. 

A January 2001 USDA study, Adoption of Agricultural Production Practices: Lessons 

Learned from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Area Studies Project, reported that 

experienced farmers are less likely to implement newer, technologically complex practices 

because either they believe they have sufficient knowledge to manage crop nutrients and/or 

they are reluctant to switch practices they have used for years. Many in the agricultural 

population are nearing retirement age, and the next generation may not continue to farm the 

land.3 The high land value in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area means that developers 

may offer producers an attractive sum of money for their land, further hindering adoption 

of practices that require long-term investment. Therefore, it is important that the Bay 

partners identify how they will provide the technical or financial assistance necessary to 

encourage practices that result in economic benefits to producers as well as environmental 

improvement. 

3

 USDA’s analysis of national figures on farm succession indicated “mixed signals.” While 37.7 percent of all farms 

reported multiple farm operators, an indication of succession potential, most of these other operators were most likely 

spouses. USDA estimated that probably only 9.1 percent of farms nationally had evidence of a succession plan. 

22
EPA Needs to Engage the Agricultural Community to Commit to 

Implementing Tributary Strategies 

The Chesapeake Bay partners are relying on the agricultural community to make the largest 

share of reductions. Yet there is little evidence that the agricultural community is 

committed to carrying out many of the practices included in the tributary strategies to the 

level needed to significantly reduce nutrients. There are approximately 87,000 farms 

covering about 23 percent of the watershed. In operating their farms, agricultural 

producers rely on a variety of experts for technical advice, including veterinarians, feed 

suppliers, land grant university professionals, State agricultural office staff, cooperative 

extension agents, and USDA conservation staff. Therefore, if the Bay goals are to be met, 

EPA needs to mobilize the assistance of these experts and parties in obtaining greater 

commitment by the agricultural community in implementing the practices called for in the 

tributary strategies. Specifically, EPA needs to strengthen its partnership with USDA, 

including obtaining the attention of senior level USDA management and working with 

them to consider significant program or policy changes in USDA activities. EPA also 

needs to strengthen its working relationship with the other Bay partners. 

While not the only partner, USDA is a critical partner within the agricultural community. 

USDA agencies such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm 

Service Agency, and Forest Service have earned the trust of the agricultural community 

over the decades by providing significant technical and financial assistance to producers. 

EPA has recognized the critical role USDA can play in the restoration effort and USDA has 

participated in the Bay program at the staff level. While EPA has been successful in 

obtaining USDA technical staff assistance, obtaining high-level USDA interest has not 

been as forthcoming (see also Chapter 4). This is a concern because to get the amount of 

nutrient reductions from the agricultural community within the aggressive time frame of 

the strategies may require USDA consideration of innovative practices or policy changes. 

For example, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel4 reported that 

USDA-authorized cost-share levels are not being used to their maximum levels, are not 

allowed to be geographically targeted, and do not include all commodities or conservation 

practices. Examining these policy issues requires involvement of senior level management. 

USDA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Chesapeake Executive Council 

on January 25, 1994, that provided for an Agricultural Steering Committee and high level 

management participation. The EPA/CBPO Director said the USDA Secretary did not 

designate a senior level policy maker to the Steering Committee and the Agricultural 

Steering Committee was not established. However, the EPA/CBPO staff stated that USDA 

does provide technical expertise to the Nutrient Subcommittee, Modeling Subcommittee, 

Land Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee, Tributary Strategy Workgroup, Forestry 

Workgroup, Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Regional Manure and Litter 

Use Task Force, and others. 

4

 The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel was established by the Chesapeake Executive Council to 

identify funding sources sufficient to implement basin-wide cleanup plans. 

23
On October 31, 2002, the Chesapeake Executive Council (made up of the governors of 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Mayor of Washington, DC; the EPA 

Administrator; and the Chesapeake Bay Commission Chair) issued a Resolution to 

Enhance the Role of the United States Department of Agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay 

Partnership. The resolution “urged” USDA to “make the Chesapeake Bay watershed a 

priority objective by heightening coordination efforts with other Federal departments and 

agencies.” It was not until June 2005 that the USDA/NRCS East Regional Assistant Chief 

began attending meetings of the Chesapeake Executive Council’s Principals Staff 

Committee (State and Federal agency representatives serving as policy advisors to the 

Executive Council). 

Some additional actions to improve the EPA and USDA partnership were highlighted by 

EPA/CBPO. The NRCS Chief, representing the USDA Deputy Under Secretary, attended 

the Federal Principals Meeting in October 2005. This meeting resulted in the issuance of 

the Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperative Conservation in the Chesapeake Bay 

Program, which was signed by the USDA Deputy Under Secretary. Also, the USDA 

Deputy Under Secretary signed the Chesapeake Bay’s manure strategy and met with State 

governors in November 2005. In late July 2006, the EPA/CBPO’s Associate Director for 

Science expanded its contact with USDA/NRCS’ State Conservationists beyond Maryland, 

to Virginia and Pennsylvania. But these initial contacts with the USDA/NRCS State 

Conservationists in the Bay watershed need to be followed up with attendance at the State 

technical committee meetings, which are open to all interested stakeholders and provide 

advisory feedback to the State Conservationists. We believe that these are good steps in 

EPA/CBPO’s understanding of how local priorities are established, especially in areas of 

the watershed that are further away from the Chesapeake Bay. 

We commend EPA’s and USDA’s recent efforts in improving their partnership. But these 

actions are working within the current program structure. In our opinion, to meet the 

significant reductions needed from the agricultural community, EPA and USDA should 

reexamine their priorities and consider policy changes. Such significant changes will need 

to be negotiated by high-level managers from both agencies. We believe the two agencies 

could start this process by developing mutual goals and measures that could benefit the 

Bay’s water quality and the agricultural producers. 

We identified some common elements to an effective partnership as follows: 

• Common goals and objectives 

• Partners’ recognition of benefit 

• Mutual ownership of the goal and outcome 

• Clearly stated terms and defined roles 

• Trust and credibility 

• Understanding each other’s perspective 

• Ability to monitor, evaluate, and measure performance of the outcome of the 

partnership efforts 

24
We found that the EPA and USDA partnership lacks these common elements. Section 

117(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the Clean Water Act states that EPA/CBPO shall provide support to the 

Chesapeake Bay Executive Council “in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and 

local authorities, assisting the signatories to the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement in developing 

and implementing specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of the signatories to 

the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.” As the lead Federal agency for the Chesapeake Bay 

project, EPA needs to take the initiative to address these partnership weaknesses. EPA and 

its partners spent a lot of time defining water quality and negotiating and determining an 

equitable allocation to reduce nutrients and sediment to the Bay. Now these partners need 

to develop mutual goals and measures for the implementation phase. Key partners need to 

have their roles clearly defined. The agricultural community as a whole needs to know and 

accept its role in the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. USDA, State agricultural agencies, 

land grant universities, and professional organizations can assist in this endeavor. 

Mutual goals 

A key component of an effective partnership is having mutual goals and measures. Also, 

each partner should be able to recognize the benefit of the partnership. EPA is focused on 

improving water quality on a watershed basis. The agricultural community is concerned 

with soil erosion, water quality protection, and maintaining a viable agricultural presence in 

the region. USDA/NRCS stated that it works through an established partnership to help 

private landowners meet their conservation goals. These goals are compatible. However, 

as previously stated, some of the practices included in the tributary strategies identified as a 

means to improve the water quality of the Bay may not be viewed as economically 

beneficial by a producer. If EPA and its partners hope to gain greater participation from 

the agricultural community, they need to: 

(1) identify and promote practices that may be more readily accepted; and/or 

(2) assist producers in minimizing their financial burden in implementing practices 

that may significantly reduce nutrient pollution but may not be cost-effective. 

Trust 

EPA does not enjoy the trust of the agricultural community and will need to establish 

relationships with the various agricultural organizations to promote the Bay’s cleanup 

goals. Though most of the practices in the tributary strategy would be implemented on a 

voluntary basis, the agricultural community is concerned that EPA as a regulatory agency 

may use this information to take enforcement actions. USDA/NRCS stated that it does not 

want to jeopardize the trust it has developed over the decades with private landowners and 

the agricultural community by a closer alignment with EPA because of the latter’s greater 

focus on the regulatory approach in addressing corrective actions. It stressed its 

responsibility as enacted by Congress to maintain the confidentiality of farmers’ and 

ranchers’ conservation plans and related resource information. It indicated that farmers 

would be unwilling to take voluntary steps to improve their operation if they felt that 

information could be used for future regulatory enforcement for purposes of the Clean Air 

25
Act or the Clean Water Act. One step in gaining trust is for EPA to better understand 

USDA’s mission and priority setting-process, and consider how it can incorporate USDA’s 

goals of assisting landowners and producers into the Bay’s cleanup goals. EPA will also 

need to explain its perspective to the agricultural community; it cannot assume that its 

goals are self-evident. 

Ability to monitor, evaluate, measure performance 

Providing an accurate picture of the progress the agricultural community is making in 

controlling nutrient pollution is a project on which EPA/CBPO and USDA should 

collaborate. The agricultural community believes it has done much to reduce nutrient 

pollution and questions its nutrient contribution as calculated by EPA/CBPO. Additionally, 

EPA/CBPO indicated that more practices are being implemented than are tracked and 

reported. We believe that both EPA/CBPO and USDA share the same mutual goals of 

restoring the Chesapeake Bay and, therefore, share comparable performance measures and 

outcomes. However, because measurement of nutrient and sediment runoff is not an easy 

task, these two Federal partners need to pool their resources and expertise to develop 

models that are mutually compatible yet address each of their program’s mandated goals 

and performance measures. Working together to develop compatible but distinct 

measurement tracking systems could overcome the often competing agenda that has 

characterized their past working relationship. 

EPA/CBPO developed a sophisticated quantitative best management practices tracking and 

crediting system. EPA/CBPO relies on the watershed model as the primary means to 

develop and track best management practice implementation and nutrient reduction goals 

and progress. Program staff in USDA indicated they questioned EPA/CBPO watershed 

model. In 2004, the Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee 

identified weaknesses in best management practice efficiency assumptions and 

implementation estimates. For example, the current phase of the watershed model gives 

full nutrient reduction credit for nutrient management plans written without assurance that 

the plans are implemented. EPA/CBPO staff reported that they are addressing these 

weaknesses in its next version – Phase 5 of the model – and will continue improvements in 

the future as new information becomes available. They stated that the Phase 5 watershed 

model, currently being calibrated, accounts for all manure and chemical fertilizer nutrient 

inputs – making mostly irrelevant plans written versus plan implemented. In our opinion, 

EPA/CBPO could further develop trust by the agricultural community if it coordinated its 

modeling efforts with USDA. 

Roles/Expectations 

The EPA and USDA partnership could benefit greatly from establishing clearly stated 

terms and defined roles in meeting the goals of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. 

EPA/CBPO’s Director indicated that they were considering proposing that USDA sign a 

Memorandum of Agreement. If USDA agrees to do this, this document should be very 

explicit, describing activities and timeframes expected from both parties. For example, 

26
EPA/CBPO stated that it would like to see technical assistance provided for enhanced 

nutrient management. 

Another tool that EPA/CBPO could use in enhancing its partnership with USDA is EPA’s 

own National Strategy for Agriculture issued in April 2006. The Strategy’s 

implementation goals include: 

• EPA will identify the impact of EPA's rules, policies, etc., on agriculture as part of 

its routine practice. 

• EPA will work with the agricultural sector through collaboration, innovative and 

voluntary programs, financial incentives, and traditional regulatory approaches. 

• EPA will develop an effective communication strategy and marketing network to 

better communicate with agriculture, assist with technology transfer, and show 

environmental results. 

• EPA will identify existing environmental measures and, where needed, modify 

them or develop new ones to demonstrate environmental improvements that can be 

achieved through new practices or technologies. Additionally, EPA should identify 

and assess environmental improvements related to agriculture and, where 

appropriate, use performance measures similar to or in harmony with those used by 

USDA. 

We believe that these are all good practices that EPA/CBPO needs to incorporate in 

strengthening its working relationship with all of its Bay partners, yet at the same time 

acknowledging the mandated mission of each agency, if it is to further the overall effort of 

cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. 

While USDA can make a major contribution to the Bay’s cleanup, EPA/CBPO should not 

rely on USDA alone to assist in garnering the agricultural community’s commitment. 

Many of the practices require long-term commitment or a change in current farming 

operations. It is up to the individual producer to decide which practices to implement. 

EPA/CBPO does have a relationship with the local land grant universities which provide 

technical assistance to producers and should continue this relationship. EPA/CBPO should 

also cultivate ongoing relationships with professional agricultural organizations to better 

understand the business side of agricultural operations in order to move toward goals of 

both improved water quality and a productive and sustainable agricultural sector in the 

region. 

Effective EPA-USDA Partnership Could Help Advance Alternative 

Practices 

An effective EPA and USDA partnership could help further research, dissemination of 

information, and adoption of promising alternative practices. 

There is an imbalance of agricultural nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. That is, 

the total nutrient inputs, including manure, chemical fertilizer, and atmospheric deposition, 

27
Dry manure compost ready to be used as a soil additive 

(EPA OIG photo) 

exceed crop uptake. In the regions of 

the Chesapeake Bay watershed with 

intensive animal agriculture, more 

manure is generated than can be 

applied as fertilizer to meet crop needs, 

and the excess nutrients enter the Bay 

and its tributaries. State tributary 

strategies outline best management 

practices to manage this excess. 

However, given the rate of nutrient 

reduction progress to date, the 

substantial reductions still to be 

achieved, and the challenges 

associated with the current practices 

outlined in the strategies, sharply 

reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay will require technological advances and 

systemic changes. 

Though a regional strategy and research agreement have been initiated to coordinate and 

research innovative approaches to managing excess nutrients, EPA and USDA must take 

actions to ensure that effective approaches reach and are accepted by their intended 

audience. 

EPA is attempting to address the nutrient imbalance at a regional level with a manure 

management strategy, signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council and USDA in 

November 2005. The 2005 strategy identified opportunities for better managing manure 

nutrients in the Bay watershed, such as reducing surplus nutrients by adjusting animal diets 

and building markets and technologies for alternative uses of manure and poultry litter. 

The strategy calls on the participation of EPA and Chesapeake Bay Program Committee 

members, State agricultural and water quality agencies, and USDA agencies to provide 

education and outreach, technical assistance, and/or financial resources. 

Also, EPA/CBPO has signed an agreement with USDA to better coordinate research 

efforts. EPA/CBPO, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, and the Mid-Atlantic Water 

Quality Program of the Land Grant Universities signed a 5-year, Non-Funded Cooperative 

Agreement on October 5, 2005, to strengthen the cooperation among its signatories to reach 

the Chesapeake 2000 commitments and work together to reach goals of mutual interest in 

research, outreach, and education. However, the participants did not include specific 

projects or milestones in the agreement showing how the commitments would be achieved. 

Though the results of the strategy and agreement remain to be seen, the academic 

community, private industry, and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service have developed a 

variety of alternative products and approaches to deal with the abundance of manure, such 

as anaerobic digestion, a process that generates energy from manure (see Appendix D). As 

mentioned earlier, practices that are technologically advanced are not easily accepted by 

producers. Key stakeholders have recognized the need for demonstration projects to not 

28
only identify and develop viable new conservation practices but to serve as a starting point 

to evaluate their economic feasibility and then promote their launching. 

Overall conclusions and recommendations are in Chapter 5. 

29
Chapter 4 

USDA Needs to Improve Coordination to Restore 

Chesapeake Bay 

While USDA has long been a Federal partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program, it has not 

significantly influenced the formulation and implementation of policy to address the 

environmental problems faced by the Program. Even though USDA agencies have been 

encouraging science-based conservation practices in the region for years, they have not 

significantly adapted their strategies to meet the specific needs of the Chesapeake Bay. In 

other words, USDA has approached the Bay’s unique environmental problems as if they 

were similar to the problems of any other region. This “business as usual” model will not 

suffice to see Chesapeake Bay removed from the impaired waters list by 2010. If this goal 

is to be accomplished, USDA working with the EPA must better communicate and 

coordinate its conservation efforts to better address the Chesapeake Bay’s unique needs. 

Role of USDA 

Because many of the environmental problems faced by the Chesapeake Bay are related to 

farming practices, their solutions involve the implementation of environmentally 

progressive agricultural policies and models. The adoption of these policies and models 

requires the consent of individual producers and landowners – many of whom may not see 

an immediate incentive to cooperate. Thus, the ultimate success of the Chesapeake Bay 

Program depends upon encouraging landowners to adopt farming and natural resources 

conservation practices consonant with the Bay’s long-term environmental health. 

Of all the agencies in the Federal Government, USDA may be best positioned to persuade 

farming producers to adopt progressive agricultural practices and to help communities and 

private landowners conserve natural resources. The Chesapeake Bay’s 41 million acres of 

land consist of 24 million acres of forests and 12 million acres of farms – nearly 80 percent 

of this land is privately owned. The Forest Service is the largest Federal land manager in 

the Bay watershed with 1.2 million acres of National Forest System land. Moreover, 

USDA has an extensive field office organization with about 200 field service offices 

manned by staff providing technical and financial assistance to producers and landowners. 

During the 10-year period prior to fiscal year 2005, three USDA agencies provided 

significant funding to encourage landowners and communities to voluntarily adopt and 

install conservation practices in the Chesapeake Bay area: $305 million from the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); $287 million from the Farm Service Agency 

(FSA); and $61 million from the Forest Service (FS). Annual Departmental spending, in 

total dollars unadjusted for inflation, for conservation practices in the States involved in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed has increased from $27 million in fiscal year 1995 to 

$142 million in fiscal year 2004. Since the signatory States have projected they will not be 

30
able to meet the costs for implementing environmentally sound agricultural policies by 

2010, it is essential that Federal funds spent in this watershed contribute to the goals of the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Providing Leadership 

USDA has not implemented a coordinated Departmentwide approach to addressing the 

Bay’s unique environmental needs. Although USDA agencies have devoted significant 

funds to projects that will improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay, they have continued 

previously existing conservation programs. 

USDA has signed two agreements directly with the Chesapeake Executive Council. 

In January 1994, the USDA Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment 

signed a memorandum of agreement between USDA and the Chesapeake Executive 

Council.5 This agreement committed USDA conservation agencies to work with State, 

local, and other Federal agencies to develop and implement the concept of total resource 

management planning on agricultural lands. This agreement also committed USDA’s 

science agencies to efficiently coordinate watershed-based research, and funding for that 

research, among Federal, State, and private entities. Six months later, in July 1994, 

USDA’s Deputy Secretary, along with the EPA Administrator, the Secretary of the Interior, 

and others, committed the Federal Government’s executive agencies to work with the 

Chesapeake Executive Council to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed.6 These agreements express USDA’s commitment, as a partner agency, to 

manage the watershed as a cohesive ecosystem and to achieve the goals of the Chesapeake 

2000 Agreement. But these agreements do not commit USDA to any specific action. As a 

result, USDA has continued, for the most part, to implement programs in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed that, presumably, it would have implemented similarly without entering into 

these agreements at all. 

Without discounting the conservation efforts of USDA agencies, USDA, at the 

Departmental level, has done little to coordinate actions needed to directly fulfill these 

agreements. USDA did create a Water Quality Working Group – comprised of agency 

representatives from the conservation, science, and budget agencies – to exchange 

information between USDA agencies on water quality issues across the United States. 

While the Chesapeake Bay is part of the group’s activities, this group has a national 

function and thus the Bay would only be a small part of its deliberations. 

As a partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program, USDA is also indirectly a party to other 

agreements and directives signed by the Executive Council. Though some of these 

agreements call for actions that fall within USDA’s purview, there has not been a 

coordinated Department-wide strategy or policy on addressing this commitment. These 

agreements include the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, signed in June 2000 by the 

Chesapeake Bay Program partners, which guides the restoration efforts throughout the Bay 

5 Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Department of Agriculture and the Chesapeake Bay Executive 

Council. 6 Agreement of Federal Agencies on Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake Bay. 

31
watershed. Built on the foundation of Bay agreements signed in 1983 and 1987, 

Chesapeake 2000 is the most comprehensive and far-reaching agreement in the Bay 

Program's history. 

In 2005, after a recommendation by the Blue Ribbon Finance Panel to the Chesapeake 

Executive Council, USDA appointed a deputy under secretary as a high-level official to the 

Chesapeake Executive Council’s Principals’ Staff Committee. This position was 

immediately delegated to the NRCS Regional Chief, with the Maryland NRCS State 

Conservationist as the alternate representative. The NRCS Regional Chief is a high-level 

official within NRCS but has limited official authority beyond NRCS and the Natural 

Resources and Environment mission area. Delegating this duty in this way effectively 

meant that the position no longer possessed high-level influence through the Department 

and could not provide the Department-wide leadership needed to address the Bay’s 

environmental problems. Although the NRCS Regional Chief may be appropriately 

positioned to be the USDA high-level official appointed to the Chesapeake Executive 

Council’s Principals’ Staff Committee, this position lacks the authority that comes with 

Departmental standing. This authority is crucial to providing coordination for all USDA 

agencies, as other agencies in other mission areas will look only to the Department for 

guidance. A senior FSA manager, an agency under a different mission area, reported that 

his agency could not follow direction from NRCS or any another agency from a different 

mission area. 

While other USDA activities may have gone undocumented, it is clear that the Department 

has not provided the coordination necessary to fulfill the spirit of its agreements with the 

Chesapeake Executive Council. In such circumstances, the relevant agencies have 

continued to conduct “business as usual.” Remedying this situation will involve appointing 

a high-level, Departmental official to participate in the Chesapeake Executive Council and 

to coordinate, direct, and oversee the activities of the USDA agencies working in the 

watershed. Among that official’s initial tasks will be taking steps to help bring USDA’s 

conservation resources to effectively complement the ongoing restoration of the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed as a regional problem, and improving the relevant agencies’ 

ability to report useful performance data. 

Bringing USDA’s Resources to Bear 

USDA agencies contribute to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s conservation efforts in two 

broad categories – producer/landowner assistance and research funding. FS also 

contributes through direct natural resource management of public lands and through 

partnership building with communities and watershed groups. NRCS, FSA, and FS all 

provide financial assistance to encourage producers/landowners to become better stewards 

of the land. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and FS provide research, or funding for 

research, promoting the best available agricultural science and enhancing urban and rural 

forest ecosystems and their management. 

32
Financial Assistance for Producers 

Although NRCS, FSA, and FS expend significant resources in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, all three agencies, to varying degrees, tend to follow nationwide 

program goals that are not necessarily well adapted to the regional needs of the Bay. 

The diverse array of USDA programs (e.g., Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program, Farmland Preservation, etc.) could clearly accomplish more for the Bay if 

guidelines for their implementation were adjusted to maximize water quality and 

ecological benefits. The Chesapeake Bay Program was created presupposing that 

the Bay’s environmental problems can best be addressed regionally and 

geographically; however, because USDA’s agencies are Federal and are therefore 

designed to operate nationally (and to treat all States equally), they tend to resist the 

kind of regional planning the Chesapeake Bay Program represents. Nevertheless, 

we believe that the lessons learned in the Chesapeake Bay would be applicable in 

this and other major watersheds and estuaries, such as the Mississippi River delta 

and the Great Lakes regions. 

NRCS 

NRCS’ relationship to the Chesapeake Bay Program exemplifies this 

problem. As the largest USDA conservation agency in the watershed, 

NRCS helps producers identify which science-based conservation practices 

are needed to maintain and improve their natural resources, and then assists 

them financially in implementing those practices. NRCS does not, however, 

permit the establishment of geographic priorities in its allocation 

methodologies; instead, it tends to emphasize conservation from the 

perspective of the individual producer on a discrete piece of land. 

EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program addresses similar problems, but 

approaches those problems from the perspective of an entire watershed. 

Early in the program’s history, natural resources agencies and local 

stakeholders devised “tributary strategies” to reduce the amount of nutrients 

and sediment flowing from producers’ land into tributary rivers and then 

into the Bay; these strategies constitute a long-term plan that will provide 

the most effective and efficient means of repairing the environmental 

damage to the Chesapeake Bay. 

While USDA managers participated in the creation of these tributary 

strategies, USDA agencies are not necessarily committed to implementing 

them. Officials at NRCS regard that agency’s role as continuing to meet 

agricultural producers’ needs with its available conservation practices, i.e., 

to do what is best for the individual producer based on that producer’s 

discrete piece of land. Although the causes for the environmental problems 

facing the Bay are regional in scope, NRCS officials do not have enough 

flexibility to implement the Chesapeake Bay Program’s tributary strategies 

33
because of their agency’s prohibition against funding particular geographic 

regions. 

Consequently, NRCS has not augmented its conservation program funding 

in the Bay’s watershed. Nationwide, NRCS conservation programs have 

been turning away producers due to a lack of funding. In fiscal year 2005, 

NRCS did not fund about 2,000 Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP) applications and 1,500 other conservation program applications in 

the six States comprising the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Each of these 

unfunded applications is a missed opportunity to help restore the 

Chesapeake Bay’s water quality. 

NRCS has also been turning away many applications for technical 

assistance. Technical assistance is the vehicle NRCS uses to provide a 

substantive level of technical expertise, background, and support for 

Federal, tribal, State, and local conservation programs. This technical base 

enables other NRCS programs by facilitating conservation planning, 

interagency coordination, technical consultations, and collaboration with 

agricultural decision makers. We found that NRCS conservation district 

employees often did not have the time to record requests they knew could 

not be funded. As a result, although technical assistance is vital, we were 

unable to identify the exact number of requests for technical assistance in 

the Chesapeake Bay States that went unfunded. 

To meet the needs of unfunded conservation programs in the Chesapeake 

Bay region, NRCS would need to target or redirect funds to the States in the 

Bay’s watershed. However, NRCS officials repeatedly and consistently told 

us that they cannot allocate funds for a particular region’s geographic needs. 

Although there is no legislative requirement preventing NRCS from 

targeting funds in this way, simply because NRCS could target funds 

geographically does not mean NRCS should do so. Barring the possibility 

of a budget increase, NRCS would have to shift funds away from other 

States to those in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. NRCS officials have 

explained that shifting funds from one area to another entails major 

economic and political ramifications. Moreover, they stated that if they 

allowed geographic considerations to enter into their allocation process, they 

would be inundated with requests for special consideration from many 

regions. While we found NRCS’ program allocation methodologies 

reasonable, we question how NRCS can remain an effective Chesapeake 

Bay Program partner if it cannot fund States to support the program’s 

tributary strategies and it will not allocate funds to support the unique 

geographical needs of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

We conclude that how NRCS allocates its funds is a difficult issue, and one 

that should be resolved by high-level cooperation between USDA officials. 

In some instances, USDA does recognize the Chesapeake Bay’s special 

34
needs and has specifically targeted funding to address those needs. In 2005 

NRCS made $20 million in EQIP funds available for the Conservation 

Innovation Grants, and has specifically targeted $5 million toward proposals 

demonstrating the use of innovative technologies or approaches, or both, to 

address one or more of the natural resource concerns within the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed. Additionally, we note that NRCS has directed some funding 

to provide liaison staff co-located with the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Whatever the difficulties involved, given the Federal Government’s decision 

to identify Chesapeake Bay as a priority for environmental cleanup, some 

corresponding priority for funding must also be arrived at. 

FSA 

Unlike NRCS, FSA has recognized the unique needs of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed and has tailored its programs to meet those needs. FSA’s 

contribution to water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is largely 

through its Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP is a voluntary 

program for agricultural landowners and includes the Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP). In exchange for annual rental payments 

and cost-share assistance, landowners agree to establish long-term, resourceconserving cover crops on eligible farmland. Permanent cover crops 

significantly reduce sedimentation and generally do not require fertilizer, 

making CRP compatible with the Chesapeake Bay Program’s goals. 

FSA created and recognized the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a 

conservation priority area and devoted additional resources to it. As a 

result, the acreage in the Chesapeake Bay watershed devoted to FSA’s CRP 

has grown from 189,000 acres to 366,000 acres. FSA CRP rental payments 

and cost-share assistance have also increased proportionately over a 10-year 

period. In sum, FSA has grown its CRP in the watershed by 177,000 acres, 

at an approximate 10-year cost of $287 million, of which $122 million was 

for CREP rental and incentive payments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Much of FSA’s CRP growth has been through CREP. CREP is a 

partnership between USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation and State 

governments to fund riparian buffers, grass filter strips, wildlife habitat, and 

to restore wetland and other conservation practices on environmentally 

sensitive land. CREP came into existence in 1997 in large part due to the 

adoption of the Bay buffer goals in 1996 with Maryland as the first State in 

the program. All six Chesapeake Bay States (New York, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia) are USDA partners in 

this program. The two primary objectives of CREP are to coordinate 

Federal and non-Federal resources to address specific conservation 

objectives of a State and the nation in a cost-effective manner, and to 

35
improve water quality, erosion control, and wildlife habitat related to 

agricultural use in specific geographic areas. 

There are four important ways in which CREP differs from CRP. First, 

CREP is targeted to specific geographic areas. It is designed to focus 

conservation practices on addressing specific environmental concerns. 

Second, CREP is a joint undertaking among States, the Federal Government, 

and other stakeholders who have an interest in addressing particular 

environmental issues. Third, it is results oriented, and requires States to 

establish measurable objectives and conduct annual monitoring to measure 

progress toward implementing those objectives. Fourth, it is flexible, within 

existing legal constraints, and can be adapted to meet local conditions on the 

ground. 

FS 

The role of the Forest Service (FS) differs significantly from both NRCS 

and FSA since FS programs do not focus primarily on farmers and 

agricultural producers or on the delivery of incentives for landowners. The 

FS provides assistance to State forestry agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations, which in turn provide services directly to farmers and forest 

landowners. The FS also works through various partnerships to serve urban 

communities. The agency’s contributions to Bay restoration involve natural 

resource management including private forest land, forest research, and 

public land management. 

Because of the vital role of trees and forests in sustaining high water quality, 

the FS addresses the dual objectives of conserving and managing existing 

forests as well as using trees and forests as solutions to water quality 

problems associated with agricultural and urban lands. Many farmers are 

also forestland owners or tree farmers. As a result, FS works with States to 

expand forests in agricultural areas – particularly as buffers in riparian 

areas – since these buffers can substantially reduce the rate of nutrient and 

sediment flow from farmland while also providing habitat for wildlife. 

Since the early 1990s, FS has maintained a small staff stationed at the 

EPA/CBPO; this staff has served in a leadership and coordination role for 

forestry. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Program was established 

through this office to provide leadership specifically on Bay agreements as 

they relate to forestry, to coordinate forestry programs on a regional basis, 

and to develop strategies in collaboration with the EPA for using forestry to 

address water quality issues. This staff has contributed to policy initiatives 

by the Chesapeake Executive Council (FS supported the Riparian Forest 

Buffer Directives of 1994, 1996, and 2003; the Chesapeake 2000 

Agreement, and the Cooperative Conservation Resolution), has coordinated 

the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Forestry Workgroup for 15 years, and 

36
significantly advanced riparian buffer restoration, forest conservation, and 

the use of urban forestry for stormwater and air quality. The program also 

provides grant funding and technical assistance. 

Although not directly responsive to the Bay restoration, the National Forests 

also conduct erosion control, management, and restoration projects that 

indirectly improve water quality in Bay tributaries. The Forest Service 

Research Program has implemented a limited number of reviews in direct 

response to Bay restoration issues. 

The FS’ primary contribution to water quality in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed is through its grants to State Forestry agencies and 

nongovernmental partners under the Forest Stewardship Program, Urban 

and Community Forestry Program, and Forest Legacy Program authorized 

by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. State Forestry grants support 

many forest management and protection activities that are directly or 

indirectly oriented to improving Bay water quality. Over the 10 years 

ending in fiscal year 2004, FS spent $61 million in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. Approximately $11 million of the $61 million FS spent was over 

and above routine spending and directly targeted to improving water quality 

or addressing other Bay restoration goals. 

Funding for Research 

A similar contradiction exists between the national objectives of USDA’s science 

agencies and the regional needs of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Neither ARS nor 

CSREES has any means of providing funding specifically for the Bay. In other 

words, CSREES and ARS do not perform or fund water quality research within the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed with any higher priority than they do elsewhere. Both 

CSREES and ARS share national responsibility for conducting water quality 

research. Land grant institutions within the Chesapeake Bay watershed use 

CSREES funds for regional and national research, just as ARS conducts research in 

other parts of the U.S. that is applicable to water quality within the Chesapeake 

Bay. Within USDA, research funding for Chesapeake Bay watershed studies 

competes with other research projects nationwide, including the need to assess 

nutrient loads that exacerbate harmful algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico, 

containment loading studies within the Colorado and Rio Grande (and many other 

river basins), and research on how to mitigate and slow the decline of water 

resources in U.S. aquifers. Such water quality research may apply to many bodies 

of water, including the Chesapeake Bay. Land grant institutions within the 

watershed use CSREES funds for vital research,7

 just as ARS performs research 

applicable to water quality in Chesapeake Bay. But neither agency can demonstrate 

any research funded to better understand or resolve a problem specific to the 

7

 During the 10-year period ending in fiscal year 2004, CSREES provided almost $7 million for research on issues that 

are consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Program goals. 

37
Chesapeake Bay, and neither agency has the flexibility to change its mission to 

address EPA’s tributary strategies. 

In October 2005, ARS signed a “Non-funded Cooperative Agreement” (NFCA) 

with the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Water 

Quality Program of the Land Grant Universities. The stated purpose of the NFCA 

is to strengthen cooperation among the parties to fulfill the commitments of the 

Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. 

One of USDA’s challenges in providing stronger leadership within the Chesapeake Bay 

Program is enabling its agencies to reasonably allocate resources to resolve regional 

challenges. Although the existence of the Chesapeake Bay Program indicates that EPA has 

moved to confront environmental problems by watershed, USDA does not, in general, 

work in similar terms. The institutional difficulty involved in reorienting these agencies to 

address watersheds – rather than States – as the fundamental unit for environmental 

cleanup is formidable; however, by making the Chesapeake Bay a high priority we believe 

that the Federal Government has indicated that this reorientation is essential. 

Evaluating USDA’s Performance 

Because strengthening USDA’s role in the Chesapeake Bay Program requires identifying 

how different agencies within USDA can contribute to the program and coordinating those 

agencies’ contributions, it is vital that the Department be able to evaluate the relative 

success of its different programs. Although several agencies are running programs 

contributing to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s goals, they have not developed effective 

processes for collecting and summarizing accomplishment data. In other words, these 

agencies are able to cite the number of conservation projects they have funded in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed, but not how those projects have contributed to the Bay’s water 

quality. USDA thus cannot evaluate how its programs are contributing to the goals of the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. Without this information, effective overall coordination of Bay 

restoration efforts is difficult, if not impossible. 

Since the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Federal Government has 

begun to move away from evaluating its programs’ performance based on how much they 

do, and towards evaluating how effectively their actions accomplish clearly defined goals – 

i.e., away from evaluating output and towards evaluating outcome. Instead of stating, for 

instance, how many acres of agricultural land in a watershed have been taken out of 

production (output), FSA would be expected to state how effectively these actions have 

improved water quality in that watershed (outcome). Though implementing these resultsoriented performance measures is a challenging process, agencies will be expected, over 

time, to identify high-quality outcome measures, accurately monitor the performance of 

programs, and begin integrating this information with the costs associated with their 

actions. Since achieving the Chesapeake Bay Program’s goals involves evaluating how 

effectively a variety of programs are improving the water quality of the Bay and allocating 

resources accordingly, it is imperative that the participating agencies develop useful 

outcome-based performance measures. 

38
Although NRCS, FSA, and FS each have goals that include working to improve water 

quality in the Chesapeake Bay, these agencies have not yet developed and implemented 

performance measures capable of providing useful, outcome-oriented information. Until 

they have done so, they cannot state the degree to which their programs have succeeded. 

Likewise, without accurate performance information, USDA can have little assurance that 

agencies’ reported performance reflects their actual performance. 

Evaluating NRCS’ Performance 

At the time of our fieldwork, NRCS had four strategic goals: “enhance natural 

resource productivity to enable a strong agricultural and natural resource sector,” 

“reduce the unintended adverse effects of natural resource development to ensure a 

high-quality environment,” “reduce risks from drought and flooding to protect 

individual and community health and safety,” and “deliver high quality services to 

the public to enable natural resources stewardship.” Among its 11 objectives to 

support these strategic goals, NRCS aims to protect water and air resources from 

agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution, and maintains, restores, or enhances 

wetland ecosystems and fish and wildlife habitats by: 

• providing areawide planning and coordinating assistance in watersheds with 

nonpoint source pollution problems; 

• intensifying efforts to protect rivers and streams from the effects of nutrient 

loading; and 

• promoting stream, bank restoration, and riparian area establishment. 

To gauge how well NRCS is achieving its goals, the agency identified performance 

measures that associate program activities with appropriate units of input; these 

units measure how many acres or miles have been treated with a given conservation 

practice rather than how effectively that practice has improved water quality. In 

other words, these units do not measure outcome, but output. Thus, NRCS can 

reasonably show the number of conservation practices completed or the number of 

acres in the Wetland Reserve Program, but it cannot show the effect of the first acre 

or mile on water quality. Without outcome-based performance measures, NRCS 

cannot confidently state the degree to which its programs have succeeded. 

To correct this shortcoming, NRCS is developing the Conservation Effects 

Assessment Project (CEAP). The agency asserts that CEAP will provide 

scientifically credible estimates of the environmental benefits obtained from NRCS 

conservation programs. Begun in 2003, CEAP is collecting data to determine the 

best methodology and remains a work in progress. CEAP results will be supported 

with data from up to five components (cropland, wetland, wildlife, livestock, and 

grazing). NRCS anticipates releasing the final data results on the cropland 

component of CEAP, which is furthest along in testing and gathering data, by 

January 2008. However, preliminary cropland component data may be available as 

soon as January 2007. 

39
While NRCS’ conservation practices have almost certainly resulted in some 

improvement in Chesapeake Bay’s water quality, the agency cannot quantify any 

given practice’s effect on water quality – precisely the information USDA and EPA 

need for planning purposes. 

In May 2006, NRCS published a new strategic plan for 2005 – 2010 entitled, 

Productive Lands - Healthy Environment NRCS Strategic Plan. The new strategic 

plan has six new goals (High Quality, Productive Soils; Clean and Abundant Water; 

Healthy Plant and Animal Communities; Clean Air; An Adequate Energy Supply; 

and Working Farm and Ranch Lands) with outcome-based performance measures. 

For example, for the Clean and Abundant Water goal, NRCS has a clear outcomebased performance measure that addresses agricultural sediment and nutrient 

influence on water quality, The performance measure calls for agricultural 

producers to reduce potential delivery of a specific number of tons of sediment and 

nutrients from their operations. Specifically, agricultural producers are to reduce 

sediment delivery from agricultural operations by 70 million tons (of a total 970 

million tons from agricultural operations in 2003); reduce delivery of nitrogen from 

agricultural operations by 375,000 tons (of an estimated 6 million tons in 2003); 

and reduce delivery of phosphorus from agricultural operations by 70,000 tons (of 

an estimated 360,000 tons in 2003). Once these performance measures are fully 

implemented, they will provide USDA with useful outcome-based data concerning 

the success of NRCS’ programs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area. 

Evaluating FSA’s Performance 

FSA has three strategic goals: “supporting productive farms and ranches,” 

“supporting secure and affordable food and fiber,” and “conserving natural 

resources and enhancing the environment.” To accomplish this third goal, FSA 

strives to reduce erosion rates, reduce ground and surface water contamination, 

increase the populations of targeted species, and sequester more tons of carbon 

dioxide. To gauge how well FSA is accomplishing its goals, the agency has 

identified a number of performance measures, including: 

• maintaining or increasing the percentage of acres in compliance with highly 

erodible land and wetland provisions; 

• increasing the percentage of conservation acres with invasive species 

controls; 

• increasing acres managed under Continuous Conservation Reserve Program 

sign-up; 

• increasing CRP acres of riparian and grass buffers; and 

• increasing CRP-restored wetlands acres. 

Like NRCS’ performance measures, FSA’s performance measures record how 

many acres or miles have been treated with a given conservation practice rather 

than how effectively that practice has improved water quality. In other words, FSA 

can show the number of acres enrolled in CRP or the number of miles of riparian 

40
buffers enrolled in CRP, but it cannot show the effect of the first acre or mile on 

water quality. Without outcome-based performance measures, FSA cannot state the 

degree to which its programs have succeeded. 

To correct this shortcoming, FSA officials informed us they will soon announce a 

new system to quantitatively show the achievement of its outcomes. Currently, 

however, this new system remains a work in progress. 

While FSA’s conservation practices have almost certainly resulted in some 

improvement in Chesapeake Bay’s water quality, the agency cannot quantify any 

given practice’s effect on water quality – precisely the information USDA and EPA 

need for planning purposes. 

Evaluating FS’ Performance 

Among its national strategic goals, FS aims to “increase the area of forest and 

grassland watersheds in fully functional and productive condition.” To achieve that 

goal, FS determined that it should focus on the following objectives: 

• assess and restore high-priority watersheds and maintain riparian habitat in 

these watersheds; 

• monitor water quality impacts of activities on National Forest System lands; 

• restore and maintain native and desired nonnative plant and animal species 

diversity in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; and 

• reduce the rate of species endangerment by contributing to species recovery. 

To gauge how well it is achieving its objectives, FS identified several performance 

measures, including determining: 

• the number of inventoried forest and grassland watersheds in fully 

functioning condition as a percent of all watersheds; 

• acres of nonindustrial private forest land under approved stewardship 

management plans; 

• the percent of projects on National Forest System lands fully implementing 

best management practices; 

• allotment acres and percent administered to 100 percent of standard; 

• terrestrial and aquatic habitats enhanced to achieve desired ecological 

conditions; and 

• the value of partnership contributions that support habitat enhancement. 

Like NRCS and FSA, FS is currently developing a more comprehensive system of 

measures to better quantify how well its programs are meeting goals. Although 

these measures are still being developed, it appears they will continue to report 

primarily how many acres or miles have been treated with a given conservation 

practice rather than how effectively that practice has improved water quality. FS 

asserts that it currently makes rough estimates of the water quality and other 

41
benefits of its tree planting practices – these are not, however, outcome-based 

performance measures. 

While FS’ conservation practices have almost certainly resulted in some 

improvement in the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality, the agency cannot quantify the 

effect on water quality of the majority of its actions – precisely the information 

USDA and EPA need for planning purposes. 

One of USDA’s challenges to providing stronger leadership within the Chesapeake Bay 

Program will be to establish effective, outcome-based performance measures for evaluating 

how its conservation efforts are improving the Bay’s water quality. Though the significant 

sums spent on conservation over the past 10 years have almost certainly improved the 

quality of water in the Bay, the Department does not have adequate information to evaluate 

their impact or to plan future efforts. 

Overall conclusions and recommendations are in Chapter 5. 

42
Chapter 5 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Conclusions 

The Chesapeake Bay watershed partners have measurably reduced nutrients flowing to the 

Bay since 1985, primarily by improving wastewater technology. However, their current 

rate of progress in reducing nutrients does not approach what is needed to remove the Bay 

and its tributaries from EPA’s impaired waters list by 2010. Most likely it will take 

decades to achieve the Bay water quality restoration goals. 

The latest nutrient reduction allocation relies on the agricultural community to voluntarily 

make the most significant contributions. For example, the agricultural community is 

expected to assume 64 percent of the Bay watershed’s total nitrogen reduction goal. The 

States prepared tributary strategies that were overly ambitious in reaching the 2010 

deadline and have not determined how all the practices will be financially supported. Most 

of the agricultural practices included in State tributary strategies have not been widely 

implemented by Bay farm producers. While the practices may be environmentally sound, 

they may not be economically beneficial to a business with a limited profit margin. USDA, 

a Bay partner, with its many conservation assistance programs and its extensive field 

offices and experience working with producers and landowners, can play a key role in 

recommending, developing, and implementing conservation practices that will help the 

agricultural community meet the Bay goals. To date, USDA and its many programs have 

not emphasized achieving the Bay goals. Even though USDA has expressed its 

commitment in signing two agreements with the Chesapeake Executive Council, there has 

not been a coordinated Department-wide strategy or policy on addressing this commitment. 

Furthermore, the Department has not been able to fully meet the requests by producers and 

landowners in the Bay watershed for technical assistance and other conservation assistance 

that could help meet the Bay Goals. 

EPA is responsible for obtaining the support of the appropriate State and Federal officials 

in achieving the objectives of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement using a combination of 

regulatory authorities and consensus agreements among the partners. While EPA has 

achieved success coordinating goals with environmental programs (e.g., developing 

consistent water quality standards across State lines; a basinwide National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System regulatory permitting approach), EPA is still grappling with 

how to effectively coordinate with the agricultural community. The agricultural 

community has reduced nutrient runoff, but this sector will still have to substantially cut 

loads to meet expectations set in the tributary strategies. Current practices and policies are 

not resulting in the significant nutrient reductions needed to improve the Bay. Therefore it 

is crucial, at the Federal level, for EPA and USDA to partner to identify workable strategies 

and coordinate available resources. The partnership of EPA and USDA will also need to 

identify and fast-track the use of alternative practices to obtain the level of effort needed to 

43
meet the current goals. EPA needs to be more aggressive in engaging the highest level of 

USDA management to identify new policies and practices that can both improve water 

quality and be compatible with agricultural operations. Continuing business as usual will 

not result in the substantial reductions required to restore the Bay. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the EPA Administrator: 

1. Propose executing a Memorandum of Agreement with the USDA to assist the 

Bay partners in meeting their nutrient reduction goals by: 

a. Identifying conservation practices USDA will promote with either 

technical assistance or cost-share programs. 

b. Developing procedures for promoting and fast-tracking alternative 

practices for cost-share programs and technical assistance. 

c. Establishing a task force to identify how USDA cost-share programs can 

better assist the States in carrying out their tributary strategies. 

d. Establishing demonstration projects to emphasize producer benefits, not 

just environmental benefits of best management practices in tributary 

strategies. 

e. Conducting research to quantify accurately the nutrient load reductions 

from alternative best management practice strategies to ensure these 

practices are the best for removing nutrients and to improve the models. 

f. Developing a tracking system to determine a more accurate picture of 

the agricultural community’s commitment to implementing the tributary 

strategies. 

We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator instruct EPA/CBPO to: 

2. Work with USDA, the States, local governments, land grant universities, and 

agricultural organizations to revisit State tributary strategies to ensure that the 

mix of best management practices chosen are those most suitable to the area, 

have the greatest potential for implementation, and can effectively reduce 

nutrient and sediment loss. 

3. Include development of implementation plans as a special condition in 

Chesapeake Bay Program grant agreements for States that have not submitted 

an implementation plan. 

44
We further recommend that the USDA Secretary or Deputy Secretary: 

4. Assign a senior level Departmental official to coordinate USDA goals and 

programs with EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Program. Delegate to that official 

authority to direct and coordinate goals and programs across USDA mission 

areas and agencies, and to monitor USDA actions to meet the Chesapeake Bay 

Program goals. 

5. Review the feasibility of targeting or redirecting USDA funds (or allocating 

USDA funds) on a regional and/or geographical basis to coordinate with the 

environmental restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, including the possibility of 

linking the availability of financial and technical assistance to proximity to the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

6. Direct USDA agencies to expedite the development and implementation of 

outcome-based performance measurements for evaluating the effectiveness of 

their conservation efforts and programs. 

We also recommend that the USDA NRCS Chief: 

7. Develop a tracking system for maintaining a list of technical assistance and 

financial assistance requests from landowners and agricultural producers that 

cannot be completed due to limited funding. 

EPA and USDA Responses and OIGs’ Comments 

EPA and USDA generally concurred with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 

EPA said it is continuing to work with its USDA partners to further enhance their 

collective efforts directed toward restoring Chesapeake Bay water quality. USDA will 

address the USDA responses and OIG position, as well as USDA actions needed to achieve 

final action, in a separate memorandum. See Appendices E and F for the entire responses. 

45
Appendix A 

Agricultural Best Management Practices 

for Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Best Management 

Practice Description 

1. Conservation Tillage Leaves crop residue (plant materials from past harvests) on the soil surface (minimum 

30-percent cover). Reduces runoff and soil erosion, and keeps nutrients on the field. 

2. Continuous No-Till No-Till is a type of conservation tillage (above) where crop is seeded directly into 

vegetative cover so minimal soil surface is disturbed (see previous index). Continuous 

No-Till is the practice of no-till for each crop planting for up to 5 years. 

3. Cover Crops 

(early only) 

Non-harvested crops (e.g., rye, wheat, barley) planted to maintain vegetative cover on 

cropland, holding nutrients at the root zone. Trapped nitrogen can be released and used 

by the following year’s crop. 

4. Small Grain 

Enhancement -type of 

cover crop (early) 

May be harvested for grain, hay, or silage. Some fertilizer is applied, but intent is to 

modify normal small grain production practices by eliminating Fall and Winter fertilization 

so that the crops scavenge available soil nitrogen. 

5. Land retirement (on 

highly erodible land) 

Takes marginal and highly erosive cropland out of production by planting permanent 

vegetative cover such as shrubs, grasses, and/or trees. 

6. Riparian forest buffers Linear wooded areas along rivers, stream, and shorelines (100-foot width recommended, 

35-foot width required). Filter nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants from runoff and 

remove nutrients from groundwater. 

7. Riparian grass buffers Linear strips of grass or other non-woody vegetation maintained between the edge of 

fields and streams, rivers, or tidal waters (100-foot width recommended, 35-foot width 

required). Filter nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants from runoff. 

8. Wetland restoration Re-establishes the natural hydraulic condition in a field that existed prior to the installation 

of subsurface or surface drainage. 

9. Tree planting Includes any tree planting on agricultural land (riparian buffers not included), converting 

agricultural land to forest. Targets lands that are highly erodible or identified as critical 

resource areas. 

10. Nutrient Management 

Plan Implementation 

Plans are developed to match crop nutrient needs with the expected crop yield based on 

soil productivity data or site yield history. Plans recommend appropriate rates of nutrient 

application, timing of applications and placement of nutrients to result in economically 

optimum crop yields while managing the level of nutrient loss. 

11. Yield reserve 

(Enhanced Nutrient 

Management) 

Reduces nitrogen application 15 percent below nutrient management plan 

recommendation (recommendation is typically set 35 percent higher than crop needs). 

An incentive or crop insurance is used to cover the risk of yield loss. 

12. Soil Conservation 

Plans 

Plans that meet criteria of the USDA-NRCS Field Office Technical Guide. Includes 

cultural and structural practices that control erosion, such as grass waterways, terraces, 

diversions, sediment basins, or drop structures. 

13. Managed precision 

agriculture 

Uses multiple management systems beyond standard nutrient management practices to 

further minimize nutrient loss. Identifies variables such as soil types, weather conditions, 

and yield data to more specifically apply and vary nutrients within field areas. 

14. Animal Waste 

Management Systems 

Allow for collection and containment of waste generated by confined animals. They are 

designed for the proper handling, storage, and utilization of wastes. Lagoons, ponds, or 

steel concrete tanks are used for the treatment and/or storage of liquid wastes. Storage 

sheds or pits are common for solid wastes. 

15. Phytase feed additivepoultry 

Phytase is a manufactured enzyme that improves the digestibility of organic phosphorus 

compounds contained in corn, soybean meal, and other poultry feed. Manure 

phosphorus reductions occur because less phosphorus needs to be blended into feed. 

46
Best Management 

Practice Description 

16. Phytase feed additiveswine 

Same as above, but for swine. 

17. Precision feeding – 

dairy 

Reduces excess dietary nutrients in feed to reduce manure nutrient content. 

18. Alternative uses of 

manure/ manure 

transport 

Reduces excess nutrient application by transporting the manure outside of the watershed 

or finding an alternative use for the excess manure. Alternative uses include: fertilization 

of commercial tree plantations, new fuel technologies, and pelletizing for fertilizer. 

19. Off-stream watering 

with fencing 

Limit livestock access to streams with fencing and by providing an alternative drinking 

water source. Fences can be planted with trees or grass, but are typically not wide 

enough to constitute a buffer. 

20. Off-stream watering 

without fencing 

Use alternative drinking water systems that partially remove livestock and animal waste 

from streams. 

21. Off-stream watering 

with stream fencing 

and rotational grazing 

(pasture) 

Combines stream fencing and alternative watering with cross fencing to enable rapid 

grazing of small areas in sequence. Once an area is intensively grazed of most 

vegetation, animals are moved to another area to allow pasture recovery. 

22. Precision rotational 

grazing 

No Chesapeake Bay Program definition found. 

23. Horse pasture 

management 

Use of rotational grazing practices to minimize nutrient and sediment loss from horse 

pastures. Practices include: streambank fencing, cross-fencing, off-stream watering, and 

stabilization of heavy use areas. 

24. Ammonia emissions 

reduction (poultry, 

swine, dairy) 

Reduction in livestock housing ammonia emissions through use of capture or control 

technologies. 

25. Non-urban stream 

restoration 

Stabilizes stream channel by restoring a stream’s natural hydrology and landscape. 

26. Carbon sequestration Conversion of cropland to hayland (warm season grasses) and managed as a permanent 

cover, providing a mechanism for sequestering carbon within the soil. 

Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA’s Watershed Academy Website, and Chester County (Pennsylvania) 

Tributary Strategy 

47
Appendix B 

Details on Scope and Methodology 

We interviewed experts from academia and other fields involved in Chesapeake Bay restoration to 

identify areas of concern. We also interviewed staff from EPA Region 3’s Chesapeake Bay 

Program Office to identify the program’s goals, structure, and process. We interviewed staff from 

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service, 

and Farm Service Agency, and EPA’s nonpoint source and concentrated animal feeding operation 

programs, to determine how these programs influenced agricultural activities in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed. We interviewed environmental and agricultural staff from Maryland, Virginia, and 

Pennsylvania State agencies to determine how State tributary strategies were developed and 

implemented. 

We reviewed State tributary strategies for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to identify best 

management practices selected by the States and their implementation goals. We also reviewed 

data provided by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office showing the progress the States were 

making in meeting their implementation targets as of 2004. In our analysis of progress and 

challenges, we included the 26 agricultural best management practices for which one or more of 

these three States had set an implementation goal. We did not validate the implementation rates 

reported in the tributary strategies. 

We also conducted site visits of farms implementing best management practices. These producers 

volunteered in response to a request by the Virginia State Department of Conservation and 

Recreation. 

We also identified conservation practices not commonly used within the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed to determine whether these practices or technologies could be adopted in the Bay area. 

From the National Agricultural Library’s Conservation Effects Assessment Bibliography, we 

selected 187 articles related to controlling nitrogen and phosphorus and improving water quality. 

We then selected 14 articles that merited further research. Additional alternative conservation 

practices were brought to our attention through interviews, conferences, and background reading. 

We then asked staff from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and an agricultural expert from the 

University of Maryland to assess the benefits and limitations of the practices identified when 

applied to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Management Controls 

Due to a concurrent review of the Chesapeake Bay’s Program Office operations and watershed 

model by the Government Accountability Office, we limited our review of management controls to 

understanding EPA’s and USDA’s role in working with the agricultural community to encourage 

the use of best management practices. See Chapters 3 and 4. EPA reported in its 2005 Annual 

Performance and Accountability Report that current pollutant loads continue to exceed the level 

needed to meet water quality standards. See Chapter 2 on the progress being made by the 

Chesapeake Bay partners in reducing nutrients and sediments. We did not audit the validity of 

48
financial data and other data used in our report for informational purposes. EPA financial data is 

subject to an annual audit by the Office of Inspector General. The Chesapeake Bay Program’s 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee had reviewed assumptions used in the Bay’s 

watershed model and these conclusions have been reported in Chapter 3. 

Prior Reviews 

The Government Accountability Office issued Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory 

Committee’s Views on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns 

(GAO-02-295) in February 2002. The Government Accountability Office found that programs 

targeted to specific environmental concerns were more effective at improving water quality than 

those programs that address environmental issues more generally. 

The Government Accountability Office issued Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better 

Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands (GAO-03-418) in April 2003. The 

Government Accountability Office reported that, nationally, almost half the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s field offices do not implement the conservation compliance provisions of 

the 1985 Food Security Act as required. 

The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission of the Virginia General Assembly issued its 

Review of Nutrient Management Planning in Virginia on January 6, 2005. In this report, the 

Commission stated that nutrient management plans written were generally of good quality but 

implementation was mixed and enforcement weak. 

The Government Accountability Office issued Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are 

Needed to Better Assess, Report and Manage Restoration Progress (GAO-06-96) in October 2005. 

The Government Accountability Office reported that the Chesapeake Bay Program (1) had not yet 

developed and implemented an integrated assessment approach for measuring progress; (2) did not 

effectively communicate the status of the health of the Bay to the public; and (3) did not have a 

comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy to meet the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 

Agreement. 

49
Appendix C 

Agricultural Best Management Practices’ 

Progress and Challenges 

Best 

Management 

Practice 8 

1. Conservation 

Tillage 

Percent of Goal 

Implemented 

Bay-Wide (2004) 

98.4% 

Factors Affecting Implementation and Impact 

Widely implemented, but decreases land available for manure transport/land 

application because it limits ability to incorporate manure into soil. 

Can increase infiltration and subsequent nutrient transport to groundwater. 

2. Continuous 

No-Till 

0.0% Benefits may take several years to be realized. Therefore, implementation 

requires technical assistance and trust. 

Single year State contracts can hinder long term investment. Producers must 

invest in a no-till planter (~$15,000), expensive for a small farm and takes a 

higher level of management. Not practical for dairy farms because they use 

crop residue for silage. 

3. Cover Crops 

(early only) 

0.0% According to Chesapeake Bay Commission, traditional cropping patterns and 

winter grain crops make it difficult to apply cover crops to more than about half 

of row crop acreage in the Chesapeake Bay region each year. 

Efficiency depends highly on timing of planting - nitrogen uptake and trapping 

diminishes rapidly if crops are planted too late in season. Producers have 

difficulty getting cover crops planted early enough to be efficient due to 

weather and time of harvest, and because optimal planting time coincides with 

a farmer’s busiest time of year. 

Little economic incentive for cover crop planting - costs to producer include 

seed, herbicide, and labor, but crops are not harvested so there is no 

immediate economic benefit. 

Without an inherent benefit to the farmer, a consistent yearly funding source is 

necessary to obtain participation. For example, in Maryland, producers 

resisted implementation because funding was not sustainable. Now, a "flush 

tax" provides consistent funding, but funding is still substantially short of need. 

4. Small Grain 

Enhancement -

type of cover crop 

(early) 

0.0% This type of cover crop is also known as a "commodity cover crop" and thus 

may be harvested for grain, hay, or silage. This addresses the costeffectiveness challenge of traditional cover crop implementation since the crop 

can be harvested to be used or sold, though upfront costs could hinder 

application. However, since fertilizer may be applied to these crops, its 

nitrogen reduction efficiency is less than that of traditional cover crops. 

5. Land retirement 

(on highly erodible 

land) 

53.6% Takes land out of production; USDA provides cost-share to farmers to convert 

cropland to grassland and yearly per-acre payments to make up for lost 

income. Consistent funding from farmer’s perspective (contracts are 

10-15 years), but costs to government do not always result in ultimate 

behavior change. 

8

 Though a goal was set for each of the practices above, several of these are part of a category of management options, 

and thus compete for the same available acreage. The goal is to convert one practice to another that can yield greater 

environmental benefit. For example, continuous no-till would replace conservation tillage, and enhanced nutrient 

management or precision agriculture would replace nutrient management implementation to achieve greater nutrient 

and sediment reduction. The off-stream watering practices 19, 20, and 21 and precision rotational grazing are 

considered pasture grazing best management practices and also compete with each other for the same available acres 

for implementation. 

50
Best 

Management 

Practice 8 

Percent of Goal 

Implemented 

Bay-Wide (2004) Factors Affecting Implementation and Impact 

6. Riparian forest 

buffers 

11.9% Effective at controlling nutrient and sediment loss. Could be more effective 

when combined with other practices, though this concept is not always 

promoted. Significant up-front investment in plant materials, labor, and 

technical design, and several years of maintenance required, but buffers can 

then last with minimal management for many years. 

7. Riparian grass 

buffers 

19.7% Cost effective, but some concern with land leasing agreements. 

8. Wetland 

restoration 

8.0% Wet soils are taken out of production. Can serve to filter water and sequester 

carbon. 

9. Tree planting 10.6% Farmers may be reluctant to plant trees because of the effort it takes to 

convert back to cropland. 

10. Nutrient 

Management Plan 

Implementation 

Exceeds goal Nitrogen-based plans will result in over-application of phosphorus because 

phosphorus is more prevalent in manure than is needed by crops. States are 

just now shifting to phosphorus-based plans. 

Difficult for producers to know how to comply and translate plan into practice 

Some producers believe the plan is unrealistic and prescribes insufficient 

nutrients for crops. 

Requires adequate enforcement and compliance to ensure effectiveness 

When excess manure is transported off-site, there is little control over 

application by those accepting manure. 

11. Yield reserve 

(Enhanced 

Nutrient 

Management 

0.0% Agricultural community hesitant to adopt a practice that might reduce yields 

and profits. According to a Virginia official, the practice is "not field-friendly" 

Therefore, the practice would require generous incentive payments and crop 

risk insurance. 

Wide annual variability makes it difficult to control for other factors impacting 

yields, such as climate and pests. Despite limitations, practice is still under 

consideration in Virginia, but needs greater proof of correlation between 

practice and reductions to warrant payment. 

12. Soil Conservation 

Plans 

52.0% Lack of technical assistance funding for plan revision/update. 

13. Managed 

precision 

agriculture 

0.0% Though Pennsylvania has a target in its tributary strategy, stakeholders are 

unsure as to whether the goal can be achieved per the definition used on 

larger farms in Midwest. 

Other drawbacks include: perceived risk, labor and farm economics, high level 

of technical expertise required (and time and effort to learn new technology), 

cost/fear of a “leaky pipe” (i.e., if I buy this one piece of equipment, will I then 

need additional pieces?), and that the use of such technology may not 

ultimately change how and what decisions are made. 

14. Animal Waste 

Management 

Systems 

68.8% Cost to farmer may be prohibitive even with cost share assistance. 

15. Phytase feed 

additive- poultry 

75.5% Generally accepted and implemented at 16+% efficiency level for phosphorus; 

States have committed to a 30% reduction if science shows no harm to birds 

will occur. 

Phytase enzyme is widely utilized since it is introduced at feed mills and 

poultry industry is integrated (several company owners making all decisions 

regarding feed for the region). 

Phytase enzyme reduces phosphorus only; no equivalent for nitrogen has yet 

been introduced to the region. 

51
Best 

Management 

Practice 8 

Percent of Goal 

Implemented 

Bay-Wide (2004) Factors Affecting Implementation and Impact 

16. Phytase feed 

additive- swine 

0.0% With the exception of Pennsylvania, Bay States have not set goals for swine 

phytase/ phosphorus reduction. Chesapeake Bay Program Office attributes 

this to the difficulty in tracking operations using phytase. The swine industry 

has a different marketing and distribution set-up than the poultry industry, 

which makes it difficult to determine which operations are using it. 

Although adopted by some swine producers, efficiencies are not well 

developed. 

17. Precision feeding 

– dairy 

0.0% The dairy industry is not integrated like swine and poultry; each dairy producer 

makes individual decisions about feed with veterinarians and feed 

consultants. Thus, achieving behavior changes throughout the industry is a 

greater challenge. Further, any effort to effect such behavior change must 

address farmers' concerns regarding adverse impact on milk production. 

Also, this practice may not have an impact on cropland nutrient loss for small 

dairies since these operations tend to have a nutrient deficit for crops. 

18. Alternative uses 

of manure/ 

manure 

transport 

14.8% (Nitrogen); 

11.7% (Phosphorus) 

State subsidies in Maryland and Delaware cause displacement of markets 

(i.e., Pennsylvania haulers cannot compete, even in Pennsylvania); Virginia 

has subsidy program but only within Virginia. 

A pellet plant makes poultry litter easily transportable for fertilizer use where 

needed, but additional markets are needed. Pellets are not yet profitable; 

however, a plant representative indicated that Senator Mikulski has been 

assisting in getting pellet fertilizer on the Federal purchase list. 

Regardless of market development activities, majority of crop farmers 

(specifically those without livestock) are not willing to accept manure from 

animal feeding operations because nutrient content varies, cannot be easily 

verified (as opposed to commercial fertilizer in which the content is identified), 

and manure is not used by crops as efficiently as commercial fertilizer. 

Special equipment is needed to apply manure (cost) versus commercial 

fertilizer, which is more convenient to obtain and apply (application often 

included in delivery price). Manure is associated with odor and neighbors 

may complain. Manure application may bring the producer under scrutiny of 

State and Federal regulators. 

Competition from biosolids industry is also a significant limiting factor. 

19. Off-stream 

watering with 

fencing 

21.6% This off-stream watering practice requires investment in developing off-site 

watering systems, though funding assistance is available. Other limiting 

factors include availability of water and labor required for maintenance and 

weed control. 20. Off-stream 

watering without 

fencing 

12.0% 

21. Off-stream 

watering with 

stream fencing 

and rotational 

grazing (pasture) 

Exceeds goal 

22. Precision 

rotational grazing 

0.0% Limiting factors similar to off-stream watering practice. Producer must be 

more involved in animal behavior. More management intensive, but less labor 

intensive than confined feeding. Though production may decrease, total profit 

may increase since the practice requires fewer inputs. 

23. Horse pasture 

management 

0.0% Practice needed to manage horses at large facilities not the same as Bay 

model definition. Horse management is not considered under USDA 

jurisdiction, so pasture not eligible for Federal cost-share dollars. Owners 

often do not have an agricultural background and thus may not be familiar 

with proper manure management practices; technical assistance could 

promote better management. 

52
Best 

Management 

Practice 8 

Percent of Goal 

Implemented 

Bay-Wide (2004) Factors Affecting Implementation and Impact 

24. Ammonia 

emissions 

reduction (poultry, 

swine, dairy) 

0.0% Included in strategy but not defined. High tech is now used on large farms in 

Midwest, but stakeholders are not yet sure how to adapt for small farms. 

Not economically feasible. Some pilot studies conducted, but there is yet no 

meaningful way to measure efficiencies. USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service has a standard but it is new, broad, and not yet applied 

through tech assistance or other programs. 

25. Non-urban stream 

restoration 

0.0% If implementation involves fending, farmer must provide alternate water source 

for livestock. Stream buffer must be certain width so cows can still graze with 

adequate protection for stream. 

26. Carbon 

sequestration 

0.0% Currently no market for alternative crops, nor infrastructure to support the 

practice. Widespread implementation would require a major shift in markets 

and require incentives. 

Sources: For progress, OIG analysis of Chesapeake Bay Program data. For challenges, interviews with EPA and 

USDA staff, State environmental and agricultural agency staff, agricultural associations, experts, and agricultural 

producers; and search of literature sources. 

53
Appendix D 

Alternative Agricultural Management Practices 

Practice Benefits Limitations Comments 

Whole farm nutrient budget 

Balanced nutrient 

inputs and outputspenalties leveled 

Producer's incentive - 

avoidance of tax if nutrient 

balance is not achieved. 

Record-keeping burden 

on producers, lack of 

political will. 

Mineral Accounting System program in 

the Netherlands, which required 

producers to balance nutrient flow, is now 

faltering. 

Best management 

practices implemented 

as a suite of practices 

Holistic approach - producers 

use modeling tools to 

calculate inputs and outputs. 

Technical assistance on 

a farm-by-farm basis 

would be required. 

Scientific and Technical Advisory 

Committee9

 Report recommends moving 

from individual best management 

practices to nutrient budget approach. 

New York and Pennsylvania have 

already developed modeling tools. 

Forage systems 

Cropping systems 

with crop cycles 

Forage cropping systems in 

two or three crop cycles as a 

means of removing nutrients. 

Producer preference to 

grow more profitable 

feed crops. May be 

limited by climate. 

Specific plant species 1. Forage species such as 

legumes and Bermuda grass 

identified as having high 

nutrient uptake properties. 

2. Warm season grasses 

grown for ethanol production. 

Root growth could be used 

for carbon credit system. 

1. Lack of market for 

forage crops. Corn, 

wheat, and soybeans are 

most economically 

feasible feed crops. 

2. Special equipment 

required, lack of 

infrastructure. 

Need a pilot study to see if ethanol/ 

carbon credits are economically feasible 

Haylage/other storage 

methods 

1. Haylage as a method of 

preserving forage to reduce 

nitrate concentration in 

grasses. 

2. Potential for higher quality 

livestock feed. 

1. Increased production 

costs and greater risk of 

spoilage. 

2. No significant 

advantage to using 

haylage versus other 

storage methods. 

Top growth from cover crop cut, stored 

as haylage and used for animal feed. 

Feeding regimes 

(Animals are inefficient at using nutrients – about 70-75 percent of the nutrients that they consume are eventually excreted.) 

Dairy cattle 

Significant reduction 

of phosphorus in diet 

1. Reduces phosphorus 

excreted and causes no 

adverse response in dairy 

cattle. 

2. Producer's incentive – 

cost of feed reduced. 

3. Producer's incentive - 

compliance with 

environmental regulations. 

Must get buy-in from 

veterinarians and 

nutritionists before 

changing diet. 

Focus on education and outreach to 

veterinarians and nutritionists. 

New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 

Maryland are working on dairy feed 

management. 

9 Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee drafted a report in 2004, Innovation in Agricultural Conservation for 

the Chesapeake Bay: Evaluating Progress & Addressing Future Challenges, that identified emerging science-based 

practices, programs, and policies that will aid nutrient reduction. 

54 
Practice Benefits Limitations Comments 

Dairy cattle 

Urea in milk (MUN) 

as measure of 

nitrogen in diet 

Promising as a means for 

assessing nitrogen in diet. 

Would aid in making feed 

adjustments. 

Producer's incentive - 

reduced cost of feed. 

• Must get buy-in from 

veterinarians and 

nutritionists before 

changing dairy diet. 

• Need to do a largescale pilot project to 

assess economic 

feasibility. 

Large-scale demonstration projects are 

needed. 

Poultry and swine 

Phytase and further 

reductions of 

phosphorus in diet. 

With the use of phytase as 

feed additive, amount of 

phosphorus can be reduced 

much further than initially 

predicted. Possible 

reductions 20% or more. 

Must establish the 

minimum phosphorus 

needs in diet for each 

animal species 

Precision agriculture 

Real time monitoring 

and nutrient mapping 

Application of less nutrients 

than the recommended rate. 

Requires special 

equipment and a lot of 

technical assistance. 

May not be feasible for 

small farm operations. 

Fertilizer application 

based on hydrology to 

manage nitrogen 

leaching 

Application of less nutrients 

than the recommended rate. 

Requires equipment and 

a lot of technical 

assistance. May not be 

feasible for small farm 

operations. 

Bio-energy 

Anaerobic digestion • Manure becomes a 

commodity. 

• Methane can generate 

energy and save energy 

costs for producer. 

• Work well with wet, harder – 

to-dispose dairy manure 

• Further development of 

process and markets. 

• Lack of established 

infrastructure. 

• Disposal of byproduct - 

contains nutrients. 

• Burning poultry litter 

can release arsenic. 

USDA Agricultural Research Service 

efforts are focused on bio-energy rather 

than feed adjustment. 

Generation of energy from biomass is 

very promising. More large-scale 

demonstration projects are needed. 

Cellulosic ethanol 

production from switch 

grass and manure 

1. Ethanol is a marketable 

product 

2. Switchgrass removes more 

nutrients from the soil than 

feed crops. 

• Lack of infrastructure; 

• Disposal of byproduct - 

contains nutrients; 

1. Competition from corn 

ethanol industry; 

2. Producers prefer to 

grow feed crops. 

Great potential but needs investment and 

government subsidies. 

Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass 

mentioned in the 2006 State of the Union 

Address. 

Soil treatments and manure additives 

Injection method for 

manure application to 

no-till crops 

Reduces atmospheric 

ammonia loss 

• Application rate very 

slow. 

• Limited to dairy 

manure. 

• Costs for special 

equipment. 

• Phosphorus builds up 

in the plow layer so must 

mix every few years 

Synthetic soil 

amendments to 

reduce erosion 

The addition of polymers are 

a way to reduce irrigationinduced erosion. 

Expense. 

Byproduct of polymer 

degradation has been 

identified as a toxin. 

55
Practice Benefits Limitations Comments 

Co-blend aluminum, 

iron, or other materials 

with manure to bind 

phosphorus and make 

insoluble 

1. Aluminum is already used 

by poultry industry in the litter 

to bind phosphorus 

2. Gypsum as soil additive 

will bind phosphorus 

3. Iron sulfate as a treatment 

for poultry litter will bind 

phosphorus. 

1. Aluminum may be 

toxic to fish and 

associated with 

Alzheimer’s 

2. Gypsum only works 

for 5-10 years 

3. Iron rejected by the 

poultry industry due to 

poultry health concerns; 

• Long term effects on 

birds, soil and humans 

unknown. 

Alum proposed as best management 

practice by manufacturer. 

Iron sulfate as soil 

amendment 

Can be used as chemical 

buffer at edge of field will 

make phosphorus insoluble 

and reduce runoff. 

• When used near 

poultry, may impact 

health. 

• Has not been adopted 

by producers 

Need to set up a demonstration project 

for use of iron sulfate as chemical buffer. 

Other 

Nutrient trading • It can act as an incentive to 

achieve pollution reductions 

versus Total Maximum Daily 

Load caps. 

• Brings in money beyond the 

usual funding sources. 

• Producer’s liability and 

responsibility for doing a 

practice that is not 

verifiable. 

• Easiest practices done 

first so difficult practices 

may not be done. 

• Balancing the purchase 

of credits for practices 

with tributary strategy’s 

goals may be 

problematic-consistency 

of credit estimations. 

• No trade transparency. 

Pennsylvania is active in development of 

nutrient trading. 

Algal systems to 

produce commercial 

fertilizer 

• On-the-farm treatment for 

dairy manure and creation of 

an transportable fertilizer 

product. 

• Inexpensive and easy to 

set up for producer. 

• Has not been tested in 

a large-scale pilot study 

• Establish infrastructure 

to manufacture and 

market end product. 

Need to set up a demonstration project. 

Phytoremediationwetland to take up 

nutrients 

Install wetland to take up 

nutrients 

Economic impact to 

producers due to land 

taken out of production. 

Wet areas in fields can be source of 

nutrient runoff. 

Test ideas such as planting hydrophilic 

species in wet areas instead of installing 

drains. 

Sources: Online literature searches and interviews with EPA/CBPO and USDA staff, a Chesapeake Bay Program 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee agricultural expert, and Maryland Department of Natural Resources staff. 

56
Appendix E 

EPA Response to OIG Draft Report 

57
 Appendix F 

USDA Response to OIG Draft Report 

58
59
60
61
62