Tracking TMDL Progress

The following information is available below:
  • Verification
    • Chesapeake Bay Basinwide BMP Verification Framework
    • Jurisdictions’ BMP tracking and reporting leads
    • Chesapeake Bay Program Grant Guidance
    • Jurisdictional Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs)
  • Federal Agencies
    • Federal Facility User Guide for Frequently Asked Questions
    • Annual Progress Reporting Templates
    • Milestones

Phase 3 WIP BMP Information

BMP information for each Bay jurisdiction in Phase 3 WIPs were synthesized into charts to assess BMP effectiveness, BMP cost-effectiveness, and overall costs. The charts are available at the link below. View the most effective nitrogen and phosphorus BMPs in the WIP3 as measured by percent of total reduction in the BMP Effectiveness charts. Determine the most cost-effective nitrogen and phosphorus BMPs in the WIP3 as measured by cost/year to reduce a pound of each nutrient in the BMP Cost-Effectiveness charts. Costs of all BMPs for the most recent annual progress year and WIP3 by state and sector are presented in the Overall Costs charts.

View WIP BMP Charts Compare Planning Targets

Trends Over Time

View trends for loads, nutrients, animal units and septic systems for Bay jurisdictions from 1984 through 2025.

Tributary Summaries

The Chesapeake Bay Program and its partners compiled tributary basin summaries for 12 major tributaries or tributary groups in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. These documents summarize the following in one place: 1) How nontidal and tidal water quality changes over time; 2) How factors that drive those changes change over time; and, 3) Current state of the science on connecting change in aquatic conditions to its drivers.

  • Choptank (includes the Choptank, Little Choptank, and Honga) Summary, Appendix
  • Potomac: Summary, Appendices, Story Map
  • Maryland Mainstem (includes the five Chesapeake Bay mainstem segments within the Maryland state boundary. Drainage basins include the Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay shorelines) Summary, Appendix
  • Maryland Upper Eastern Shore (includes the Northeast, Bohemia, Elk, Back Creek, Sassafras, and Chester Rivers, the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, and Eastern Bay) Summary, Appendix
  • Maryland Upper Western Shore (includes the Bush, Gunpowder, and Middle rivers) Summary, Appendix
  • Maryland Lower Western Shore (includes the Magothy, Severn, South, Rhode, and West rivers) Summary, Appendix
  • Patapsco and Back Summary, Appendix
  • Patuxent (includes the Western Branch tributary) Summary, Appendix
  • Rappahannock (includes the Corrotoman tributary) Summary, Storymap
  • York (includes the Mattaponi and Pamunkey tributaries) Summary, Appendices
  • James (includes the Appomattox, Chickahominy, and Elizabeth Tributaries) Summary, Storymap
  • Lower E. Shore (includes the Nanticoke, Manokin, Wicomico, Big Annemessex, and Pocomoke Rivers, and Tangier Sound) Summary, Appendix
  • Virginia Mainstem: Summary not available, Appendices

SAV Reports

The Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Synthesis Project brought together experts from the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership specializing in SAV, water quality, and land-use research and management. The goal of the project was to conduct a synthesis of multiple long-term datasets to determine what role the growing human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has played in influencing SAV distribution and abundance and if the sustained efforts and management actions implemented by the CBP partnership have benefited SAV habitat.

 In response to interest from resource managers, local planners, and watershed organizations, the SAV Synthesis Project team conducted segment-specific reviews of SAV trends and progress towards restoration targets and created SAV fact-sheets for each segment. This local-scale segment review aims to provide a summary of information that may guide local planning and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to encourage SAV recovery throughout the Bay.

 The information provided in these fact sheets, along with accompanying data and information linked or referenced here, should serve as references and guidance for resource managers and local planners in the identification and implementation of BMPs that benefit SAV recovery in their creeks, tributaries, or jurisdictional areas. These data are also available on an interactive map.

The Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Workgroup produced an interactive SAV Predicting Tool that models the past to predict the future, forecasting the relative role of climate change and habitat management on Chesapeake Bay SAV. 

River Trends

Scientists calculate flow-adjusted trends in nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment levels to better determine whether pollution has changed over time. You can download the data for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from 1990 forward. The data above the River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations has been adjusted for variations in flow by USGS using the Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model (Moyer and Blomquist, 2018).

Reports, maps, and other explanatory information is available to show the changes in water quality measured at the sampling stations in the non-tidal network. USGS's primary findings are:

  • For nitrogen loads: 41 percent of the NTN stations are improving, whereas 40 percent are degrading, and the remaining 19 percent have no trend.
  • For phosphorus loads: 44 percent of the NTN stations are improving, whereas one-third are degrading, and the remainder are showing no trend.
  • For suspended-sediment loads: 20 percent of the NTN stations are improving, whereas 42 percent are degrading, and the remainder are showing no trend.
View Trends

Progress Reporting

As of December 2010, all BMP information submitted to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office must be in a format compatible with the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) protocols that dictate the use of BMP-specific fields and units. Such information is utilized by CAST for the estimation of nutrient and sediment loads generated by different source areas within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN)

BMP information is submitted by the major jurisdictions to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office using NEIEN. NEIEN protocols dictate the use of BMP-specific fields and units. Such information is utilized by CAST for the estimation of nutrient and sediment loads generated by different source areas within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

TMDL Tracking Reports

Verification

The 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment set allocations for the Bay. Major jurisdictions create Watershed Implementation Plans for how to achieve the allocations. The Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans are under development and Interim Expectations have been established. BMPs are expected to be verified. Information on verification is below. 

Federal Agencies

Federal Facility User Guide for Frequently Asked Questions

This simple “How To” document will walk you through seven commonly-asked questions that can be used to determine what information is in CAST for your federal agency and help you build an effective and efficient implementation plan.

Annual Progress Reporting Templates

Federal facilities reporting BMP implementation toward meeting the Chesapeake Bay TMDL are encouraged to use the template specific to each state when reporting. Data are reported to each state, who then merges data from federal facilities and multiple other sources for reporting to the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Any questions on annual progress reporting should be directed to Auston Smith or the state representatives listed here: Tracking and Reporting Leads and Contact Information by Jurisdiction. Please verify with the state representative that the template below is current. 

Templates:

Milestones for 2016 to 2017

A Protocol was established for the 2016 to 2017 Milestones. While not applicable to the Phase III WIPs or future milestones, that information is below for archival purposes.