Tracking TMDL Progress
The following information is available below:
- Phase 3 WIP BMP Information
- Trends Over Time
- BMPs implemented
- Loads delivered to the streams and Bay
- Nutrients applied to the land
- Animal numbers
- Septic systems
- Manure Transport
- Tidal Water Quality Trends
- BMPs implemented
- Tributary Summaries
- SAV Reports
- River Trends
- Progress Reporting
- Phase 6 NEIEN Appendix
- Codes List and Tables
- NEIEN Submission Instructions
- Document Exchange Template
- NEIEN Schema
- CAST data update frequency
- 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
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.
Trends Over Time
View trends for loads, nutrients, animal units and septic systems for Bay jurisdictions from 1984 through 2025.
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, Appendices
- York (includes the Mattaponi and Pamunkey tributaries) Summary, Appendices
- James (includes the Appomattox, Chickahominy, and Elizabeth Tributaries) Summary, Appendix
- Lower E. Shore (includes the Nanticoke, Manokin, Wicomico, Big Annemessex, and Pocomoke Rivers, and Tangier Sound) Summary, Appendix
- Virginia Mainstem: Summary not available, Appendices
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.
- Back River
- Big Annemessex River
- Bush River
- Chesapeake Bay (CB2OH)
- Chesapeake Bay (CB3MH)
- Chesapeake Bay (CB4MH)
- Chesapeake Bay (CB5MH)
- Chesapeake Bay (CB6PH)
- Chesapeake Bay (CB7PH)
- Chesapeake Bay (CB8PH)
- Chickahominy River
- Eastern Bay
- Elizabeth Lafayette River
- Elk Bohemia Rivers
- Fishing Bay
- Gunpowder River
- Honga River
- Little Choptank River
- Lower Chester River
- Lower Choptank River
- Lower James River
- Lower Patuxent River
- Lower Potomac River (MD)
- Lower Potomac River (VA)
- Lower Rappahannock River
- Lower York River
- Lynnhaven River
- Magothy River
- Manokin River
- Mattaponi River
- Middle James River
- Middle Potomac River (MD)
- Middle Potomac River (VA)
- Middle Rappahannock River
- Middle River
- Middle Upper Chester River
- Middle York River
- Mobjack Bay
- Mouth James River
- Nanticoke River
- Pamunkey River
- Patapsco River
- Piankatank River
- Pocomoke River (MD)
- Pocomoke River (VA)
- Pocomoke Sound (MD)
- Pocomoke Sound (VA)
- Sassafras River
- Severn River
- South River
- Susquehanna Flats
- Tangier Sound (MD)
- Tangier Sound (VA)
- Upper Chesapeake Bay
- Upper Choptank River
- Upper James River
- Upper Patuxent River
- Upper Potomac River (DC)
- Upper Potomac River (MD)
- Upper Potomac River (VA)
- Upper Rappahannock River
- Upper Tangier Sound
- West Rhode River
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.
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.
- Phase 6 NEIEN Appendix (includes BMP credit duration)
- USDA Practices, NEIEN, and CAST BMPs
- Codes List Tables
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.
- Chesapeake Bay Basinwide BMP Verification Framework
- Jurisdictions' BMP tracking and reporting leads
- Chesapeake Bay Program Grant Guidance with requirements for reporting on Progress, Milestones, and WIPs
- Jurisdictional Quality Assurance Project Plans (Most of the QAPPs for 2022 are still in their draft form and have not been reviewed yet or approved):
- Delaware’s Point Source Quality Assurance Plan
- Delaware's Nonpoint Source Quality Assurance Plan
- District of Columbia's Quality Assurance Plan
- Maryland's Point Source Quality Assurance Plan
- Maryland's Nonpoint Source Quality Assurance Plan
- Maryland’s BMP Verification QAPP
- Maryland's Wastewater Quality Assurance Plan
- New York’s Nonpoint Source Quality Assurance Plan
- New York’s Point Source Quality Assurance Plan
- Pennsylvania’s BMP Verification QAPP
- Pennsylvania’s BMP Verification QAPP Addendum
- Pennsylvania's Point Source Quality Assurance Plan
- Virginia’s Quality Assurance Plan
- Virginia's BMP Verification Plan
- Virginia’s DCR QAPP for Agricultural Data to DEQ
- West Virginia’s Nonpoint Source Quality Assurance Plan
- West Virginia's Point Source Quality Assurance Plan
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 -Data should be submitted to Vanessa Van Note 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.
- District of Columbia-Data should be submitted to Alicia Ritzenthaler by close of business on October 1.
- All Maryland Reporters except DoD, Instructions for Maryland Reporters. Maryland DOD Template
- New York
- Virginia: All reporting organizations first need to have an authorized user register with the DEQ BMP Warehouse and have their role established. At that time, they can download the urban-suburban general upload template. It is the same template for all entities who need to report BMP data to VA. Please do so before you wish to upload anything because DEQ makes updates to the template and publishes new ones to the application. Contact William Keeling, DEQ, for more information.
- West Virginia
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.