Submersion Series 2023 Survey

Submersion Series 2023 Survey

Share your thoughts on current CBP non-point source / BMP crediting.
Survey responses are anonymous and strictly for the purpose of informing the webinar planning team and WQGIT leadership with more information about participants’ current stance on these issues in advance of the June 6 webinar. Aggregate results may be shared to inform the discussion, but are not intended for citation or other purposes.
What type of organization do you represent?

State agencySoil and water conservation districtAcademic institutionNGO - environmentalNGO - industryFederal agencyLocal governmentOther
Are you a WQGIT member?

YesNo
Are you a member of another CBP GIT/Workgroup?
Please enter "No" or the name of the CBP group you are a member of.
For the decision maker (conservation service providers, state water quality managers, planners, etc.), what CURRENTLY gets the most weight to determine non-point source fund allocation and implementation? Drag and drop to rank the following from 1 to 7.
Other:
For the decision maker (conservation service providers, state water quality managers, planners, etc.), what SHOULD gets the most weight to determine non-point source fund allocation and implementation? Drag and drop to rank the following from 1 to 7.
Other:
When estimating the pollutant load reductions from non-point source investments, CAST is:
Evaluate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:
When evaluating non-point source efforts, I believe there are often better alternatives to CAST to evaluate pollutant load reductions.

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Agree, 5 is Disagree
There is a large amount of uncertainty about the benefits of any individual BMP for a variety of reasons (behavior, BMP performance, site conditions, climate & weather, etc).

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Agree, 5 is Disagree
Outside of what is required for BMP credit there is little incentive (credit awarded) for addressing uncertainty of performance and improving assurance of BMPs.

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Agree, 5 is Disagree
Finer scale understanding (beyond what CAST provides) of where nonpoint source loads originate on the landscape can improve nonpoint source program effectiveness.

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Agree, 5 is Disagree
Improved understanding & recognition of which land managers contribute the highest pollutant loads can improve nonpoint program effectiveness.

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Agree, 5 is Disagree
BMP innovation is limited by our current Bay TMDL crediting framework.

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Agree, 5 is Disagree
Our current TMDL accounting approach limits our ability to consider these factors (uncertainty about BMP performance, fine scale of loads, land manager variation, promote innovation, BMP assurance) in order to improve nonpoint source program effectiveness.

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Agree, 5 is Disagree
The way the Chesapeake Bay Program credits nonpoint source reductions strongly influences the way programs are implemented.

1

2

3

4

5

1 is Agree, 5 is Disagree
Has the current TMDL accounting/crediting framework limited efforts you think would be more effective? If so, describe:
As we move to the next chapter of Bay restoration, adjusting the way we evaluate BMP credit is

Not a priorityOne of many prioritiesA top priority
Should be Empty: