The following information is available below:
  • Progress Reporting
    • Phase 6 NEIEN Appendix
    • Codes List and Tables
    • NEIEN Submission Instructions
    • Document Exchange Template
    • NEIEN Schema
  • 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.

Trends Over Time

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

Tributary Reports

The Chesapeake Bay Program and the U.S. Geologic Survey are compiling tributary basin reports for 12 major tributaries or tributary groups in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. These reports summarize the following in one place: 1) How 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.

The tributary reports are posted as they are made available. It is anticipated that the reports will be updated every two years.

  • Potomac
  • MD Upper Western Shore-Bush, Gunpowder, Middle
  • Patapsco/Back
  • MD Lower W. Shore-Severn, Magothy, Rhode/West, South
  • Patuxent
  • Rappahannock
  • York, includes Mattaponi and Pamunkey
  • James, includes Elizabeth and Lafayette
  • MD Upper Eastern Shore-Northeast, Back Creek, Elk, Sassafras, Chester, Eastern Bay
  • Choptank, Little Choptank, Honga
  • Lower E. Shore-Fishing Bay, Nanticoke, Manokin, Wicomico, Big, Pocomoke, Tangier
  • Upper Mainstem

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.

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.


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 W atershed 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 the Phase 6 Chesapeake Watershed Model 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 Jeff Sweeney at or 410-267-9844 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. 


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.