EPA 903-R-00-016

CBP/TRS 248/00

July 1999

Reprinted June 2001

Environmental Outcome-Based Management:

Using Environmental Goals and Measures

in the Chesapeake Bay Program

Chesapeake Bay Program

A Watershed Partnership
i

New York

Virginia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

D.C. West Virginia Delaware

For more information about the Chesapeake Bay Program, call 1-800-YOURBAY,

or visit the Bay Program web-site at www.chesapeakebay.net

Recycled/Recyclable - Printed on Recycled Paper 30% Post Consumer

FORWARD

The Chesapeake Bay Program is the unique regional partnership of federal, state and local government agencies which has been leading the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since the signing of the

first Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1983. The Bay is one of the most carefully monitored bodies of

water in the world, and a considerable amount of information on environmental conditions has been

collected. Over the past decade, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Chesapeake Bay Program partners have maintained a systematic approach for the use of this information

to inform the public about the state of the Bay, to establish measurable restoration goals, and to

inform many other program management decisions. EPA believes that much of the progress of this

restoration program can be attributed to its partnership approach and the participants’ willingness to

set bold, long-term environmental goals and to use environmental and other outcome measures to

monitor results and inform the public. Lessons learned from this program may be of particular

interest to other natural resource agencies and to any governmental entity with interest in outcomebased management.

This document has been a collaborative effort of managers and staff of the EPA Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FORWARD............................................................................................................................................i

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................ii

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1

1. ESTABLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOME-BASED MANAGEMENT...................5

• Monitoring Program......................................................................................................5

• Development of Environmental Outcome Measures.....................................................5

• Challenges Faced...........................................................................................................7

2. CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS...............................9

• Environmental Indicator Framework.............................................................................9

• Review and Development of Indicators.........................................................................10

• Indicator Products..........................................................................................................11

• Requests and Feedback.................................................................................................12

3. MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS...............................................................15

• Program Planning and Assessment...............................................................................15

• Targeting Resources....................................................................................................15

• Environmental Impacts of Results-Based Management..................................................16

• Continuing Challenges................................................................................................16

FUTURE DIRECTIONS.........................................................................................................................19

APPENDICES:

A. CBP Organizational Structure

B. CBP Measurable Environmental Commitments

C. CBP Environmental Indicators: Categorization Framework

D. CBP Environmental Indicators: Development and Approval Process

ii

Chesapeake Bay Program

A Watershed Partnership
1

Chair of

Chesapeake

Bay

Commission

Mayor of DC

Governor of MD Governor of VA Governor of PA

EPA Administrator Executive Council

★ ★ ★

The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership

INTRODUCTION

The Chesapeake Bay Program

is the premier watershed restoration effort currently

underway in the United States.

It proceeds from a congressionally-funded $27 million,

five-year study undertaken in

the mid 1970s, when scientists

began to observe the loss of

living resources and the public

became concerned about

environmental degradation in

general. The study identified

the main source of the Bay’s

degradation as an oversupply of

nutrients entering the Bay, and

advocated programs that would

limit nutrient loadings from

point sources like wastewater

treatment plants and nonpoint

sources like fertilizer running

off farmland. The historic

Chesapeake Bay Agreement of

1983, signed by the governors

of Maryland, Pennsylvania and

Virginia, the mayor of the

District of Columbia, the

administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) for the United States

government and the chair of the

Chesapeake Bay Commission,

representing the state legislatures of the three states, called

for all jurisdictions and agencies to focus their existing

pollution control programs on

reducing nutrient loads to the

Bay. Subsequent agreements

and amendments in 1987 and

1992 reflected a strong ecosystem management approach

stressing the interdependent

relationships between living

resources and their environment, and included

commitments to a set of specific and far-reaching goals tied

to the restoration of the health

of the Bay. The latest agreement, called Chesapeake 2000,

is the most comprehensive and

far-reaching agreement in the

Bay Program’s history. Most

commitments in the new

agreement are scheduled for

completion by 2010.

The Bay Program is a voluntary, consensus-based effort

focused on an interstate watershed, and built on top of the

national and state level environmental regulatory programs.

The Bay Program carries out its

work through a series of committees, advisory committees

and subcommittees which

guide and advise the program

in all aspects of Bay restoration

activities (see Appendix A).

The chief governing board of

the program, the Chesapeake

Executive Council, is comprised of the Bay Agreement

signatories and meets annually.

EPA represents all federal

agencies, and currently, there

are 22 agencies and departments participating as Bay

Program partners. Formal

advisory committees for citizens, the scientific community,

and local governments serve as

sounding boards for program

policy and report to the Executive Council at the annual

meeting. A policy level Principals’ Staff Committee, which

includes the chief environmental and policy representatives of

the governors, mayor and Bay

Commission, and the EPA

Regional Administrator, meet

several times a year. Ongoing

management of the program is

by the Implementation Committee which meets every six

weeks and includes representa-
Growth of Measurable

Environmental Goals

tives of Bay Agreement signatories, federal agencies, and

chairs of subcommittees and

advisory committees. The

advisory committees, the

Federal Agencies Committee,

the subcommittees and

workgroups meet regularly and

play important roles in program

development and implementation. Because the solutions to

the Bay’s problems require the

active involvement and, to a

great extent, behavioral

changes on the part of industry,

governments and the public,

widespread understanding of

Bay problems and their causes

is very important.

EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office was established in

1984 to coordinate the activities, investigations, and

planning of the signatory

jurisdictions and the other

cooperating federal agencies.

The Bay Program Office

manages federal funds (approximately $19 million

annually), which are distributed

predominantly to states for

implementation of Bay restoration activities and to others for

continuing scientific assessments. The Bay Program

Office maintains the core data

center and facilities for scientific study, computer modeling

and program implementation,

and coordinates and supports

the extensive committee structure reporting to the Executive

Council.

Environmental

Outcome-Based

Management

The availability and use of

environmental outcome information has had a profound

effect on the operation of the

Chesapeake Bay Program. This

“managing for results” approach has brought with it new

modes of decision making and

new standards for accountability and responsibility,

particularly to the public. The

development of environmental

indicators/outcome measures

has enabled the Bay Program to

communicate a clear and

consistent public message,

accelerated goal setting, sharpened the program’s ability to

garner and target resources, and

improved the program’s ability

to regularly evaluate its management strategies.

Environmental indicators/

outcome measures have supported goal setting for the Bay

Program both in longer-term

Strategic Implementation Plans

and for annual planning and

budgeting. Improvements in

data collection and analyses to

support indicators enable

participants to set measurable

goals and commitments with a

clear baseline established. The

Bay Program has over 40

measurable goals in place at

this time and several more

under active development (see

Appendix B).

Value of Goal-Setting

The program can point to a

landmark goal adopted in 1987

for a 40% reduction in nutrient

loading by the year 2000 as the

highly successful prototype for

many subsequent goals. It was

the origin for an outcome-based

management ethic which has

grown stronger over the years.

This single goal, adopted by the

chief executives of the program

through a voluntary agreement,

has succeeded in leveraging

several hundreds of million

dollars in programs and private

initiatives to reduce point and

nonpoint source nutrients to the

Bay and its rivers. This goal

has been remarkably effective

in promoting governmental

accountability and performance

to meet the objective.

The development and formal

adoption of a large number of

new goals has occurred since

this landmark goal was adopted

and since the indicator program

was initiated in 1991. Several

important new goals were

adopted in the Chesapeake

2000 agreement, including the

2

87 88 89 90 92 93 94 96 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Cumulative # of Goals
3

EPA Bay Program Budget

(fiscal year)

primary goal to improve water

quality sufficiently to sustain

the living resources of the Bay

and its tidal tributaries, by

2010, and to maintain that

water quality into the future.

This will mean setting increased nutrient reduction goals

and for the first time setting

sediment reduction goals

Baywide.

Experience has shown that

growing public support of and

financial investment in the Bay

Program have been associated

with the development and

communication of bottom-line

environmental results. Additionally, Bay Program Office

staff believe that the increased

support given to the program in

recent years reflects the enthusiasm for supporting effective

federal-state-local voluntary

partnerships to address problems. Unlike many other EPA

programs, the Bay Program

does not have independent

regulatory authorities, and

strong support by state and

local governments and other

institutions is key to its success.

Coincident with vigorous

efforts to develop goals and

environmental indicators,

federal funds appropriated for

the EPA Chesapeake Bay

Program increased from approximately $13 million in FY

1991 to nearly $21 million in

FY 1996 before leveling off to

the current level of roughly $19

million. When matching funds

and other leveraging options

are considered, total dollars

spent by all federal agencies,

state and local governments and

other entities is significantly

higher than this total alone.

Estimates are that approximately $150 million are spent

each year by a combination of

the EPA, other federal agencies, and the states.

198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

0

5

10

15

20

25

CBP Budget (millions of dollars)
CHAPTER 1 

ESTABLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOME-BASED MANAGEMENT

• 	 Characterize existing conditions

• 	 Detect changes or trends in water quality

• 	 Understand processes and linkages between water 

quality and living resources

Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program

Applications:

• 	 Evaluate water quality management programs

• 	 Calibrate and verify water quality models

• 	 Characterize SAV habitat requirements

• 	 Support development of living resource habitat goals

• 	 Establish a baseline for environmental assessments

• 	 Stimulate research projects on hypoxia, phytoplankton,

and fish recruitment

Objectives:

Monitoring Stations

5

Monitoring Program

The Chesapeake Bay is one of

the most carefully monitored

bodies of water in the world.

Because concern for the Bay

dates back to the 1970s, and

implementation of restoration

efforts has been going on for

over a decade, there is a considerable body of scientific

information and data on environmental conditions in the

Bay. Consistent and comparable data on all traditional

water parameters have been

taken at over 130 sites in the

watershed and the open Bay

since 1984. The data and trend

analyses available from this

monitoring program are some

of the best in America. A

major strength of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s

monitoring program, and

outcome-based management

approach, is that it does not rely

solely on EPA generated data,

but leverages and accesses

many other reliable information

sources maintained by cooperating state and federal agencies

(Maryland, Pennsylvania,

Virginia and District of Columbia environmental agencies, U.

S. Geological Survey, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U. S. Army

Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, U. S.

Forest Service). This greatly

extends the ability to report on

the major aspects of the ecosystem and fill any gaps in

knowledge.

Initially, these environmental

data were collected and analyzed to define the condition of

the water quality and living

resources, and to better understand the nature of the Bay’s

problems. These data were also

used in the development of a

watershed model to foster

understanding of Bay water

quality processes and the

sensitivity of such processes to

external nutrient loading,

determined to be the main

cause of the Bay’s degradation.

From this model, in 1987, Bay

Program participants set the

core program goal of a 40

percent nutrient reduction by

the year 2000. Subsequent

monitoring data have been used

to validate this early model and

to construct other simulation

models used to assess the

effectiveness of different

pollution control strategies.

The monitoring data were

otherwise used to develop

scientific theories and strategies

for the restoration of the Bay.

Because these data serve as the

foundation of its efforts, Bay

Program staff have put special

emphasis on establishing

quality control and quality

assurance for all aspects of the

monitoring programs in the Bay

area.

Development of

Environmental Outcome

Measures

Although the environmental

data were critical to program

development, prior to 1991

they were not used systematically to inform Bay Program

partners and the public of the

Bay’s condition, environmental
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM • ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

TRACK 2: LIVING RESOURCE INDICATOR

Striped Bass Spawning Stock

Source: Rugolo, et. al., 1994.

Summary Report to the Striped Bass Management Board, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission.

Baywide Female Spawning Stock Biomass GOAL: The goal for a 

recovered fishery is a 

spawning stock biomass 

(SSB) equal to the 

average SSBs recorded 

during 1960 through 1972.

STATUS: Successful 

management measures 

led to decreased harvest 

pressure. The Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries 

Commission has 

declared the stock 

restored as of

January 1, 1995. 

1960 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SSB index: Females ages 4-15 yrs

Restoration Goal

Fishing moratoria:

MD & DE: 1985-1990

VA: 1989-1990

98

The briefing slides include the goal which the indicator tracks

and a succinct summary of the status conveyed by the

information presented.

6

problems and progress being

made in the restoration. Environmental monitoring data and

trends were presented to the

public in the triennial “State of

the Bay” reports, but the frequency and presentation were

not geared to a very eager and

interested public audience.

Prior to 1995, these triennial

reports focused almost exclusively on the water quality of

the Bay, and much less attention was devoted to describing

the health and abundance of the

living resources, which have

been the primary public concern. By failing to more

frequently advise the public of

the relative importance of

environmental problems affecting the Bay, the program was

losing an opportunity to dispel

some of the misinformation

surrounding the source of the

Bay’s problems. For example,

in response to information

distributed by environmental

advocacy groups in the region,

many citizens believed that

toxic emissions from large

industrial sources were the key

problem in the Bay area, when

in fact, nutrient pollution from

agriculture and urban/suburban

development is the primary

problem.

Moreover, environmental

outcome information was not

used to make or justify management decisions. Progress

was reported in terms of the

number and timeliness of

strategies, management plans,

and other documents included

in the list of 1987 Bay Agreement commitments, rather than

the environmental results

achieved. Although strong,

long-term goals were included

in the 1987 Bay Agreement,

few intermediate measures of

environmental progress were

used. Budget requests did not

reflect past or desired program

outcomes and consequently

presented a less compelling

rationale for resources. Early

in 1991, EPA leadership decided to make the program

more accountable to the public

on a day-to-day basis by defining and communicating the

bottom line environmental

results achieved by the restoration program. Based on a

series of interviews with EPA

staff about primary success

measures, the Bay Program

Office began to develop a set of

environmental indicators/

outcome measures to support

goal setting and to serve as

targets and endpoints for the

restoration effort. This set was

displayed in a first version of

the currently-used briefing

package called Environmental

Indicators: Measuring Our

Progress. A cross-disciplinary

EPA quality action team was

formed to brainstorm additional

success measures and to discuss

available data bases and appropriate interpretation of the data.

While EPA staff began this

effort, states and other stakeholders became involved early

on following a briefing to the

Bay Program’s Implementation

Committee. The partners in the

program soon embraced the

environmental indicators

approach and it was decided to

refine the initial structure

through the Bay Program

committee and workgroup

structure. Individual indicators

were eventually assigned to

appropriate Bay Program

subcommittees for review,
CHALLENGES FACED

The effort to put consensus outcome measures

in place faced several challenges along the way.

Such challenges or obstacles include those

listed below and are provided so as to alert

others to the typical reactions one might anticipate in an effort like this:

• Some organizations and individuals were

reluctant to share data for fear of its inaccurate

or unfavorable interpretation. They expressed

concern that inappropriate conclusions would

be drawn or blame for poor results would be

assigned unfairly. Given the consensus-based

nature of this intergovernmental effort, the

political implications of such mistakes could be

costly.

• Others had invested heavily in their data

collection and analysis and were unwilling to

share the information due to loss of control on

the end use or loss of credit for the extensive

work involved.

• In some cases, where data were available, the

analysis required was costly or not yet in place.

• In other cases, data and/or indicators were not

available for some topics of special public

interest, like fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

because of cost or technical difficulties

associated with obtaining data.

• Many resisted using outcome measures to

depict Bay Program progress because the

environmental systems had not been thoroughly

studied or understood in a cause and effect

fashion; or because the results were not under

the direct control of the program. Impacts on

the Bay from natural causes, such as severe

weather conditions, and other external factors

affect the success of restoration efforts and are

difficult to characterize to the public.

In spite of these obstacles, the briefing package

contained enough valuable information that

several Bay Program members began to use the

materials in presentations to a wide variety of

audiences ranging from federal and state

environmental resource managers to scientists.

The initial feedback to the sharing of such

results-oriented information was extremely

positive. Other feedback received during these

presentations was used to refine and improve

the presentation materials. After seeing the

presentation, several organizations began to

share additional information and data that could

be used to develop more indicators.

7

revision, approval and maintenance. The subcommittees

were also responsible for

reaching consensus on which

data sets to use and how the

data used in the indicators

should be interpreted. Often

these decisions were reached at

the workgroup level first,

where scientists and resource

managers knowledgeable in a

very specific area (such as

oyster fisheries) could have

discussions about data interpretation. Once the workgroup

members had reached consensus, it was presented to the

Subcommittee for endorsement.

This was often quite challenging since it was hard sometimes

to choose just one, or a few sets

of data to be representative of

an indicator for the whole Bay,

and even harder sometimes to

get different jurisdictions to

agree on the interpretation of

the data. Sometimes it took

many months before the discussions eventually resulted in

consensus being reached.

While the briefing package was

being used quite successfully in

presentations to managers and

scientists, there were concerns

that the materials were too

technical to be useful for public

audiences. Workshops were

subsequently held in 1994 and

1995 to build stakeholder

involvement in the design and

refinement of the measures and

the communication products.

The stakeholders included

representatives of citizen

groups and the press. The goal

of the workshops was to reach

consensus on clear messages

that could be used with key

indicators to help convey a

story to the public about the

overall health of the Bay and

how the water quality and

living resources were responding to restoration efforts.
CHAPTER 2

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

Hierarchy of Indicators

Actions by 

EPA/State 

Regulatory 

Agencies

Responses of 

the Regulated 

and 

Nonregulated

Community

Changes in 

Discharge/

Emission 

Quantities

Changes 

in Ambient 

Conditions

Changes in 

Uptake and/or 

Assimilation

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS

Changes in 

Health, 

Ecology, or 

Other Effects

Administrative Environmental

This is how we measure environmental change

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Total Phosphorus (mg/l)

Year

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

= < 2 1/4 in

= 2 1/4 - 4 3/4 in

= > 4 3/4 in

BLUE CRAB

Source: EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation

9

Environmental

Indicator Framework

As commonly employed, an

environmental indicator is a

discreet measure of one aspect

of environmental quality that

can be used alone or in combination with other indicators to

deliver a message or tell a story

related to the overall environmental health of an ecosystem.

For example, indicators based

on ambient concentrations of

nitrogen and phosphorous in an

estuary could be combined with

an indicator based on total

acreage of submerged aquatic

vegetation to tell a story about

the effects of water quality on

Bay living resources. As

additional indicators are included, the message or story

may become more refined and

robust.

The Bay Program’s environmental indicators are used for

this primary purpose of communicating the health of the

Bay and its rivers to public

audiences. But they also serve

several other importance

purposes in tandem. Specifically, the Bay Program’s

environmental indicators were

established for five principal

purposes:

• To evaluate progress in the

Chesapeake Bay restoration

effort;

• To monitor environmental

condition and environmental

response to restoration efforts;

• To provide information

needed to establish restoration

goals;

• To regularly inform and

involve the public in achieving

the restoration goals;

• To make detailed information

and reference data for these

indicators available upon

request so that others may

participate in the tracking of

progress.

The measures are characterized

by their position in a hierarchy

from level 1 through level 6,

ranging from indicators used to

measure administrative actions,

such as issuing permits, to

those that are indirect or direct

measures of ecological or

human health. Specifically, the

six levels include:

Level 1: Actions by EPA/State

Regulatory Agencies

Level 2: Responses of the

Regulated and Non-regulated

Community

Level 3: Changes in

Discharge/Emission Quantities

Level 4: Changes in Ambient

Conditions

Level 5: Changes in Uptake

and/or Assimilation

Level 6: Changes in Health,

Ecology, or Other Effects

All information captured by

this continuum has value for

stakeholders and policy makers.

Although the indicators toward

the higher end of the continuum

(levels 4 through 6) portray a

clearer, more direct image of

the environmental condition,

indicators at the lower levels

(levels 1 through 3) are needed

to establish a link between the

actions taken and effects
Levels 1-6 =

Hierarchy of

Indicators

(actions to

impacts)

Levels 1-6 = 

Hierarchy of 

Indicators 

(actions to 

impacts)

Tracks 1, 2, & 3 =

Areas of Focus

Tracks 1, 2, & 3 = 

LIVING

RESOURCES

RESTORATION RESTORATION RESTORATION

TRACK 3

Toxics Toxics

TRACK 2

Living Resources TRACK 1

Nutrients

AMBIENT CONDITIONS

PROGRAM / ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES PROGRAM / ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES PROGRAM / ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES

TRACK 4

Cross-Cutting

How the Hierarchy and Tracks Work Together

10

observed. It is important to

maintain indicators along the

continuum in order to

demonstrate the linkage

between actions by man and

responses in the natural system.

A basic tenet of the Bay

Program’s indicators effort is

that outcome measures be

clearly associated with strategic

goals for the program. The Bay

Program has developed a

framework for linking

environmental outcome

measures to strategic program

goals, as articulated in the 1987

Bay Agreement, and the three

primary restoration objectives:

reduction of nutrient

enrichment effects, protection

and enhancement of living

resources, and reduction of

adverse toxic impacts. Each

indicator briefing slide is

identified with one of the

restoration objectives (or

tracks). Indicators with

multiple impacts are identified

as cross-cutting. The briefing

slides also include the goal

which the indicator tracks and a

succinct summary of the status

conveyed by the information

presented.

The three main tracks,

nutrients, living resources and

toxics, converge on the same

objective as you move up the

hierarchy towards level 6

indicators. For example, the

nutrient track takes you from

management actions to nutrient

loadings to nutrient levels and

ultimately to the health and

abundance of Bay grasses and

other living resources. The

living resources track takes you

from habitat and harvest to

population measures. The

toxics track takes you from

releases of chemical

contaminants into the

environment to concentrations

in the environment and in

living resources. The common

measures of greatest

importance for all of the tracks

are the living resource

indicators.

Recently, Bay Program Office

staff have developed an

additional organizing

framework that places Bay

Program indicators into one or

several categorizes. This effort

was initiated in order to

account for the various ways

that the Bay Program, EPA

Region III, and other EPA

offices and programs are

organizing indicators. The

categories are described in

Appendix C. All existing

indicators, as well as those

under development, are

organized within this

framework and listed in

Appendix C.

Review and Development

of Indicators

At this time, the Bay Program

uses over 90 indicators to

gauge the progress of this

restoration effort. For

environmental indicators to be

effective in tracking the health

of the Chesapeake Bay, the data

that underlie them must be

updated frequently. The Bay

Program Office Environmental

Indicators Coordinator, as well

as personnel from Bay Program

subcommittees and

workgroups, request data from

numerous sources on a regular

basis. In addition to Bay

Program monitoring data, a

wide range of data are obtained

from a host of federal and state

agencies and Bay area

universities.

In addition to existing

indicators, a large number of
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM • ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

TRACK 2: LIVING RESOURCE INDICATOR

Acres of Bay Grasses

 

GOAL: The interim goal is 

to restore Bay grasses to 

all areas where they were 

mapped from 1971 -1990.

STATUS: Total acreage in 

2000 is 69,126. The 

increase from 1999 reflects 

a strong recovery of 

grasses in portions of the 

upper Bay.

*Note - Hatched area of bar includes estimated additional acreage.

Source: Chesapeake Bay Data Base—Baywide.

 

Interim Goal (114,000 acres)

600

78798081828384858687888990919293949596979899

2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bay Grasses in 1,000 Acres

Potential Habitat (600,000 acres)

No Surveys

1979-83

114

Changes in Discharge Quantities Changes in Ambient Conditions

Changes in Health/Ecology

Measuring Environmental Change

O

@

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM • ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

TRACK 1: NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT INDICATOR

Point Source Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Bay

 

 

GOAL: Reduce point source 

nitrogen loads to support 

achievement of the nutrient 

reduction goal.

STATUS: Nitrogen loads 

declined 31% between 1985 

and 2000 through industrial 

reductions and some 

installment of nutrient 

removal technology (NRT) 

technology.

An additional 11% reduction 

is expected through 2010 

due to increasing NRT 

implementation as well as 

general treatment efficiency 

improvements.

If no further actions are 

taken, we anticipate 

increased loads after 2010 

due to population growth.

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office Point Source Data Base, 5/01. Data used in chart 

are from all facilities in Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Data through 1999 are actual; 2000 and 

after are projections. 858687

888990919293949596979899

20002005201020152020

Delivered Nitrogen Load (millions lbs/yr)

Industrial Nitrogen

Municipal Nitrogen

100

80

40

60

20

0

projected

11

potential and proposed

indicators are in the

developmental phase. New

indicators are added and old

ones updated, modified or

deleted on a regular basis,

based on changing priorities

and availability of contributing

data. The process of adding,

deleting, or modifying

indicators is a collaborative

one, involving most Bay

Program committees,

subcommittees and

workgroups. Through

consensus, workgroups and/or

subcommittees decide which

data to use for a particular

indicator. They agree on data

interpretation and key messages

and information to be conveyed

with the data. The

Implementation Committee

periodically reviews and may

recommend modifications to

indicators. 

A Range of Indicator

Products

As previously noted, an

important impetus for indicator

development was EPA’s

interest in defining and

communicating the bottom line

environmental results achieved

by the restoration program to

the public, and to do so on a

fairly continuous basis, not just

every three years. To help

focus on simply stated bottomline results, EPA staff utilized

the image of a backyard

barbecue with friends and

neighbors, where discussions of

the Bay’s condition might take

place. Lay persons at that

gathering would be less

interested in technical

descriptions of water quality

than in the progress made in

restoring the shad and striped

bass populations, and to hear

this in very simple terms. Bay

Program participants tried to

keep that image in mind as they

proposed refinement and

development of environmental

indicator related products.

The Communication and

Education Subcommittee

continues to play an active role

in keeping this vision alive,
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM • ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

TRACK 4: CROSS-CUTTING INDICATOR

Bernie Fowler's "Sneaker Index"

 

 

GOAL: Restore Bernie’s 

sneaker visibility to chest 

depth (57 to 63 inches).

STATUS: Wading in the 

Patuxent River at 

Broomes Island, MD, 

Bernie has seen 

improvements in water 

clarity since 1988. He 

says, "although this is not 

a scientific measure, it 

puts restoring the River 

on a human scale."

Source: Former MD State Senator C. Bernard Fowler 50’s 60’s888990

919293949596979899

20002001

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Visibility in Feet

 63"

57"

10" 8"

16" 16" 18"

28" 28"

40"

Goal

37"

44.5"

35.5"

41.5" 39.5"

31"

12

especially as it relates to using

environmental indicator

information in products

developed to inform and

educate the public on Bay

problems, potential solutions,

and progress, and to stimulate

their involvement in the

restoration. The Bernie Fowler

Sneaker Index (figure below) is

an example of an indicator that

has popular support because it

reinforces the importance of

citizen involvement in the

restoration, and demonstrates

that this can be done quite

simply. Although the index is

not strictly based on scientific

data, it highlights citizen efforts

to keep track of local water

quality conditions and to be

advocates for water quality

improvements.

The Environmental Indicators:

Measuring Our Progress

briefing package has been

improved and updated over

time and helps to reinforce a

clear public message. A full set

of speakers notes is available

for consistent interpretation of

the data. The Communication

and Education Subcommittee

developed and continuously

improves a presentation using

key environmental indicators

titled The Chesapeake Bay:

How is it Doing? Annual

reports of restoration progress,

including the popular fact sheet

Chesapeake 2000 and the Bay:

Where Are We and Where are

We Going?, and the triennial

“State of the Bay” reports

demonstrate extensive uses of

the environmental indicators.

Press releases and fact sheets

reinforce a consistent public

message using the outcome

measures. The Bay Program

web-site

(www.chesapeakebay.net)

includes all indicator related

briefing packages,

presentations and fact sheets,

and the materials may be

viewed and downloaded

by on-line users.

Requests and Feedback

In 1996, the Bay Program

Office began tracking requests

for environmental indicator

information and products made

by people outside of the office

(many people within the office

make these requests frequently

and continuously). In 1996,

there were 41 requests for

Environmental Indicators:

Measuring Our Progress and

The Chesapeake Bay: How is it

Doing? slide presentation

materials and information. By

1997, both of the slide

presentations and associated

materials were available on the

web-site. In 1997, there were

89 requests for slide

presentation materials and

information. In 1998, there

were 93 requests.

In 1997, the Bay Program

began to solicit feedback by

sending feedback forms with

the slide presentation materials

and including a feedback form

with the web-site materials.

The results are summarized in

the tables below and continue

to demonstrate the great value

of these products to our

customers. One part of the

form asks for “suggestions for

improvement”. Most

suggestions were implemented

by making revisions or

improvements.
 

9

20

7

2

7

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

6

5

13

29

8

22

34

21

0.59

0.85

0.38

97

98

99

Excellent Good Fair Poor Improvements Total

Feedback

Total

Requests

Response

 Rate Year

 

6

25

10

4

4

3

2

1

0

0

0

0

12

4

7

13

30

13

49

35

31

0.27

0.86

0.41

97

98

99

Excellent Good Fair Poor Improvements Total

Feedback

Total

Requests

Response

 Rate Year

Feedback Summary

Environmental Indicators: Measuring Our Progress

Feedback Summary

Chesapeake Bay: How is it Doing?

13
15

CHAPTER 3

MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS

Program Planning and

Assessment

The use of environmental goals

and outcome measures in

planning and assessing program

results has had a remarkable

effect on the culture of the Bay

Program Office and the broader

Bay Program. Committee

operations have been strengthened because an outcome

measure can be used to gauge

progress for more than one

issue or concern. A focus on

results, rather than activities

performed, has encouraged

professional creativity in

developing solutions to Bay

problems. Necessary work to

develop shared definitions of

environmental measures results

in greater inter-state consistency in goal setting and

progress measurement. This

facilitates clear communication

to the public. Finally, as

previously noted, improvements in the environmental

indicators have facilitated goalsetting, thus better defining

intended program outcomes

and improving accountability to

the public.

Environmental indicators are

used to develop and evaluate

the effectiveness of program

strategies. For example, to

achieve the goal of 40 percent

nutrient reduction by the year

2000, Bay Program signatories

agreed in the 1992 amendments

to develop and begin implementation of tributary-specific

strategies. These strategies

require activities beyond the

traditional controls on point

sources, such as wastewater

treatment plants, and focus on

improved technologies. Bay

Program participants are using

a set of environmental indicators, rather than counts of

outputs like enforcement

actions taken, to evaluate the

success of these tributary

strategies. In 2000, information

indicated that the phosphorus

reduction goal was met on time.

Achievement of the nitrogen

reduction goal will run two or

three years late, primarily due

to construction schedules for

treatment plant improvements.

As a result of the recently

signed Chesapeake 2000

agreement increased nutrient,

and for the first time sediment,

reduction goals for 2010 will be

set by the end of 2001. This

will require the development of

new indicators that will be used

to track achievement of these

goals.

Targeting Resources

The availability of accepted

environmental goals and indicators has allowed the Bay

Program to better target its

resources. Within the Bay

Program, screening criteria set

by the Budget Steering Committee for allocation of funds

give great weight to proposals

which most directly address

commitments contained in the

Bay agreement. Achievement

of measurable environmental

commitments are one of the

principal methods for subcommittees to demonstrate resource

needs and program success.

Projects from subcommittees

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

CBP 12/12/00

Total Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay

from "Potomac and North" Tributary Basins

 

GOAL: Reduce controllable 

loads of nutrients 40% by 

the year 2000 and maintain 

those reduced levels into 

the future.

STATUS: In "Potomac and 

north" tributary basins , 

phosphorus loads declined 

3.8 million lbs/yr between 

1985 and 2000. We expect 

to reach the goal by 2000.

Nitrogen loads declined 35 

million lbs/yr. We expect to 

reach the goal through 

tributary strategy 

implementation, however, 

strategies will not be 

completely implemented by 

the end of 2000. Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3 Watershed Model.

Data include total nitrogen and phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay, from point and 

nonpoint sources, from "Potomac and north" tributary basins, from Chesapeake Bay 

Agreement jurisdictions (MD, PA, VA and DC) only.

Phosphorus Nitrogen

1985 2000

Estimate

Tributary

Strategy

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Nitrogen Loads (millions of lbs/yr)

Nitrogen Goal

(for "Potomac and 

north" basins)

1985 2000

Estimate

Tributary

Strategy

0

5

10

15

20

25

Phosphorus Loads (millions of lbs/yr)

Phosphorus Goal

(for "Potomac and 

north" basins)

"Potomac and north" tributary basins include: Susquehanna, 

Potomac, Patuxent, Western and Eastern Shore, MD.
16

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM • ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

TRACK 2: LIVING RESOURCE INDICATOR

Stream Miles Opened to Migratory Fish

Source: EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

GOAL: To restore access 

to historical spawning 

grounds for migratory fish.

STATUS: The removal of 

stream blockages and 

construction of fish 

passages in 2000 

reopened 54 new miles of 

historic spawning habitat 

to migratory fish, and an 

additional 25.3 miles to 

resident fish. Total miles 

made available to 

migratory fish since 1988 

is 816 with an additional 

107 miles to resident fish.

 

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Cumulative Miles of River Habitat Opened

Year 1998 goal (731 miles)

Year 2003 goal (1,357 miles)

Opened to Anadromous Fish

Opened, but not yet to Anadromous Fish

with non-measurable objectives

are at a decided disadvantage

against outcome-oriented

projects in the contest for

scarce financial resources. The

costs for high quality data, and

data collection and analysis are

considerable. About $2.2

million per year of federal

funds supports the monitoring

and data a analysis costs for air,

water, living resources, and

submerged aquatic vegetation.

Approximately $400,000 per

year is devoted to operate the

computer simulation models to

examine the potential results of

alternative strategies. These

expenditures support the development of bottom-line

environmental performance

measures. Also, about

$100,000 is used annually to

develop, update and maintain

indicators and indicator products.

Environmental Impacts

of Results-Based

Management

Environmental results-based

management has impacted the

Bay Program in several ways

programmatically. However,

the benefits of environmental

results-based management are

not just programmatic changes,

but more importantly, measurable environmental

improvements. The environmental benefits gained through

goal setting, indicator development and the targeting of

resources are illustrated in the

following example. In 1993,

Bay Program partners voluntarily committed to removing

stream blockages and reopening 1,357 miles of Bay

tributaries for migratory fish by

the year 2003. Resources have

been targeted and progress is

reported annually. As a result,

hundreds of miles of historic

spawning habitat have been

reopened, and even though the

interim goal was not attained

on time, it can be argued that

without the goal and indicator,

resources would not have been

targeted for this purpose and

very few miles, if any, would

have been reopened. The longterm goal is projected to be met

on time.

The Bay Program model of

managing for environmental

results has been shared with

other EPA offices and programs, other federal agency

offices, state and local government agencies, and nonprofit

organizations seeking to develop and implement

environmental goals and indicator programs. The Bay

Program was part of an EPA

and Office of Management and

Budget case study and pilot

project, the results of which

were used to implement Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA) requirements.

Continuing Challenges

While environmental indicators/outcome measures

represent a common currency

among the different government agencies and

organizations involved in the

Bay Program, these entities

may draw different conclusions

as to the appropriate course of

action to follow in response to

these indicators. For example,

the supply of blue crabs has

declined over the past several

years. While the participants in

the Bay Program agree that this

decline has occurred, they at

times may disagree on the

cause for this, its severity, and

the appropriate response. To

some, placing limits on harvesting the crabs is necessary; to

others in jurisdictions that place
17

great economic and societal

value on this industry, that

response is unacceptable.

Nonetheless, the presence of a

key indicator to track status and

trends for this vital resource

promotes the timely discussion

of viewpoints and potential

solutions. Most importantly, it

assists the public in monitoring

the data and the ultimate resolution.

Although the Bay Program has

benefitted from the support of

national and local leaders in

setting measurable environmental goals, political costs may be

suffered by leaders and agency

management if these goals are

not met. Many federal government managers are reluctant to

include annual performance

goals supported by outcome

measures, because success in

attaining such goals is affected

by factors beyond the control of

the program managers and by

time lags. The amount of time

it takes to achieve measurable

environmental improvements

from the time abatement or

restoration actions begin can be

both uncertain and lengthy.

The Chesapeake Bay Program

has emphasized the importance

of the 40 percent nutrient

reduction goal, and, while

many positive steps have been

taken to achieve this goal, the

ever-increasing pace of development in the watershed works

against the progress made.

Increased public understanding

of the complexity of ecosystem

interactions and the time

required before actions yield

observable results may lessen

political cost. Bay Program

leadership will need to consider

how to keep public enthusiasm

and confidence in the program

if important goals are not met

or met on time.

Mature Female Blue Crabs

• Mature female abundance is 

currently below the previous 

historical low set in 1968.

• Action needs to be taken to 

reduce fishing effort as a way to 

reduce fishing mortality.

Chesapeake Bay Program

68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 2000

-2

-1

0

1

2

Spawning Female Index

Average

Blue Crabs Hanging On
15

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The development of outcome measures will

proceed in several promising directions to meet

the needs of program managers and the general

public and to keep the program in the forefront

of national ecosystem protection efforts. The

Bay Program is placing high priority on

localizing the measures, i.e., developing more

river-specific or sub-watershed measures in

addition to Bay-wide average measures. The

public has shown a great interest in data which

describe the condition of local rivers and natural

resources and the program will enhance its

ability to collect and display this information in a

way that is indexed geographically.

Another priority is the development of more

simplified or composite measures, such as an

overall index of Bay health, which will be based

on key environmental indicators and outcome

measures. With a multitude of existing

measures, this becomes an area of increasing

need in order to maintain a clear message for the

public.

Key gaps in the indicators hierarchy and

continuum will be need to be filled over time to

complete the “cause and effect picture” for the

watershed. Bay Program participants will

continue to identify these gaps, which will serve

as the focus for future data collection efforts.

Reflecting the growing interest in sustainability,

new emphasis is being placed on measures

reflecting stewardship and land use and in nontraditional areas such as social and demographic

patterns. Sustainable development indicators

and briefing materials have been recently

developed by EPA Bay Program Office staff to

help the program measure trends in these areas

and to stimulate further discussion of the links

between land activities and water quality. New

goals and a long term vision for a sustainable

Chesapeake Bay are likely results of this effort.

LESSONS LEARNED

• Be persistent. There are many obstacles and

challenges to be met along the path to

developing and gaining endorsement for using

indicators/outcome measures to set goals and

measure progress. However, the payoff can be

tremendous in terms of public enthusiasm and

interest, and internal and external political

support.

• Work hard to reach consensus among key

stakeholders on the selection of appropriate

measures, interpretation of data and use. Once

sold on the value of the measure they will help

maintain it over time.

• Don’t wait for the system in which you are

working to be perfectly modeled or understood

by the scientists or experts. Data gaps and

analytical problems will always exist, and

insistence on using best available information

will inspire improvement over time.

• Maintain the link to the strategic goals of

organization. Indicators must have a clear end

use to be effective. Too many measures

developed for their own sake detract from the

focus of the program. Link budget support as

well to a commitment to develop tangible

measures.

• The leadership must push for the development

and use of these measures. This approach

requires persistence and patience and a longterm vision for the program.

• Share the environmental outcome information

with the public and partners on a regular basis.

This will often yield greater understanding of

your efforts and help create the necessary public

and political support for goal-setting and

necessary environmental improvements.

To monitor future developments in outcomebased measures for the Chesapeake Bay

Program, check the web-site at

www.chesapeakebay.net.

1

Chesapeake Bay Program Measurable Environmental Commitments (as of 12/30/2003)

Goal Category Commitment Title Commitment

Lead

Commitment 

Due Date

Source of Goal

Nutrients 40% Nutrient Reduction - Total Nitrogen Reduction to Meet 2000 Goal -

229.9 Million Pound Cap

Nutrient

Subcommittee

(NSC)

12-31-00 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement

Nutrients 40% Nutrient Reduction -Total Phosphorus Reduction to Meet 2000 Goal -

15.44 Million Pound Cap

NSC 12-31-00 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement

Nutrients/

Sediments

Correct the nutrient and sediment-related problems in the Chesapeake Bay

and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove the Bay and the tidal portions of

its tributaries from the list of impaired waters under the Clean Water Act.

NSC 12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Nutrients Nitrogen: 175 million pounds/yr cap load allocation by 2010 NSC 12-31-10 Directive 03-02

Nutrients Phosphorus : 12.8 million pounds/yr cap load allocation by 2010 NSC 12-31-10 Directive 03-02

Sediments Land Based Sediment: 4.15 million tons/yr cap load allocation by 2010 NSC 12-31-10 Directive 03-02

Living

Resources

Fish Passage - Five Year Target of 582.05 miles Living

Resources

Subcommittee

(LRSc)

12-31-98 Directive 93-4

Living

Resources

Fish Passage - Ten Year Target of 1356.7 miles LRSc 12-31-03 Directive 93-4

Living

Resources

Waterfowl Targets - Restore waterfowl population and habitat to 1970 levels. LRSc 12-31-00 Chesapeake Bay Waterfowl

Policy and Management Plan

1990

Living

Resources

Aquatic Reef Restoration - Restore 5,000 acres in MD & VA - 1,000 acres in

the Potomac.

LRSc 12-31-99 Aquatic Reef Habitat Plan 1994

Living

Resources

Achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in native oysters in the Chesapeake

Bay, based upon a 1994 baseline.

LRSc 12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Living

Resources

Interim SAV Restoration Goal - 114,000 Acres Baywide LRSc 12-31-05 Directive 93-3

Living

Resources

SAV Restoration Goal - 185,000 Acres Baywide by 2010 LRSc 12-31-10 Adoption Statement: Submerged

Aquatic Vegetation (Dec. 2003)
Goal Category Commitment Title Commitment

Lead

Commitment 

Due Date

Source of Goal

Chesapeake Bay Program Measurable Environmental Commitments (as of 12/30/03) 2

Living

Resources

Wetlands Goals - No Annual Net Loss, Long-Term Net Gain LRSc Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy

1988

Living

Resources

Achieve a net resource gain by restoring 25,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal

wetlands.

LRSc 12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Toxics Increase the adoption of IPM in the watershed consistent

with Administration's goal IPM on 75% of US Agricultural land

Toxics

Subcommittee

(TSC),USDA

01-01-00 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994

Toxics Achieve 75% voluntary reduction of toxic releases for federal facilities in the

watershed.

TSC 12-31-00 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994

Toxics Achieve 75% voluntary participation of industrial facilities, commercial

establishments, and small businesses in pollution prevention programs.

TSC 12-31-00 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994

Toxics Establish volunteer IPM practices on 75% of all Agricultural, Recreation., and

Public lands.

TSC 12-31-00 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994

Toxics Achieve 65% voluntary reduction in Toxics Release Inventory chemicals from

watershed industries from a 1988 baseline.

TSC 12-31-00 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994

Toxics Achieve 75% voluntary reduction in Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern

chemicals from industries in the watershed from a 1988 baseline.

TSC 12-31-00 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994

Toxics Achieve 100% participation by all state and local governments in the

watershed in the implementation of pollution prevention programs.

TSC 12-31-00 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994

Toxics Promote voluntary IPM practices on 50% of the commercial land and 25% of

the residential land within the watershed.

TSC 12-31-00 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994
Goal Category Commitment Title Commitment

Lead

Commitment 

Due Date

Source of Goal

Chesapeake Bay Program Measurable Environmental Commitments (as of 12/30/03) 3

Toxics Eliminate all acute and chronic toxic effects from discharges under the

NPDES (water permit) program

TSC 12-31-05 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide

Toxics Reduction and Prevention

Strategy 1994

Toxics Zero release of chemical contaminants from point and nonpoint

sources, with emphasis on elimination of mixing zones for persistent or

bioaccumulative toxics.

TSC 12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership and Toxics 2000

Strategy

Toxics Reduce TRI chemicals 20% watershed-wide, 1998-2010. TSC 12-31-10 Toxics 2000 Strategy

Toxics Reduce chemicals of concern 15% in impacted areas/areas at risk, 1998-2005. TSC 12-31-05 Toxics 2000 Strategy

Toxics Reduce TRI chemicals 40% from federal facilities, 2001-2006. TSC 12-31-06 Toxics 2000 Strategy

Toxics Reduce chemicals of concern 50% from federal facilities in impacted

areas/areas at risk, 2001-2006.

TSC 12-31-06 Toxics 2000 Strategy

Toxics Businesses for Bay participants will prevent or recycle one billion pounds of

hazardous substances, 1999-2005.

TSC 12-31-05 Toxics 2000 Strategy

Toxics Reduce nonpoint sources of chemicals of concern to the Regions

of Concern 30% by 2010. Baselines to be developed by 2002.

TSC 12-31-10 Toxics 2000 Strategy

Toxics No net increase of chemical contaminants from developing lands

by 2010.

TSC 12-31-10 Toxics 2000 Strategy

Cross Cutting Reduce the Chesapeake Bay region SNC rate to half of its 1987 level , to a

rate of 5.8% by the end of 1990.

NSC, TSC 12-31-90 US EPA Administrator Bill Reilly

at 1989 Executive Council

Meeting - statement

Cross Cutting Reduce the Chesapeake Bay region SNC rate for federal facilities to zero by

the end of 1990.

Federal

Agencies

Committee

(FAC)

12-31-90 US EPA Administrator Bill Reilly

at 1989 Executive Council

Meeting - statement
Goal Category Commitment Title Commitment

Lead

Commitment 

Due Date

Source of Goal

Chesapeake Bay Program Measurable Environmental Commitments (as of 12/30/03) 4

Cross Cutting Recognize 165 (10%) of the local governments in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed as Bay Partner Communities.

Local

Government

Advisory

Committee

(LGAC)

12-31-00 Local Government Participation

Action Plan 1996

Cross Cutting Encourage 20% of the 165 Bay Partner Communities, recognized in 2000, to

achieve a higher tier.

LGAC 12-31-05 Local Government Participation

Action Plan 1996

Cross Cutting Recognize 330 (20%) of the local governments in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed as Bay Partner Communities.

LGAC 12-31-05 Local Government Participation

Action Plan 1996

Cross Cutting Increase the number of designated water trails in the Chesapeake Bay region

by 500 miles.

Land, Growth

&Stewardship

Subcommittee

(LGSS)

12-31-05 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Cross Cutting Restore riparian forests on 2,010 miles of stream and shoreline in the

watershed, targeting efforts where they will be of greatest value to water

quality and living resources.

NSC, Forestry

Workgroup

12-31-10 Adoption Statement on Riparian

Forest Buffers 1996

Cross Cutting Conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline. NSC, Forestry

Workgroup

ongoing Adoption Statement on Riparian

Forest Buffers 1996

Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Cross Cutting Restore riparian forests on 10,000 miles of stream and shoreline in the

watershed, targeting efforts where they will be of greatest value to water

quality and living resources.

NSC, Forestry

Workgroup

12-31-10 Directive 03-01

Cross Cutting Work with local governments, community groups and watershed

organizations to develop and implement locally supported watershed

management plans in two thirds of the Bay watershed covered by the

Agreement.

Community

Watershed

Taskforce

(CWTF)

12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Cross Cutting Expand by 50% the number and availability of boat waste pump-out facilities. LGSS/NSC 12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership
Goal Category Commitment Title Commitment

Lead

Commitment 

Due Date

Source of Goal

Chesapeake Bay Program Measurable Environmental Commitments (as of 12/30/03) 5

Cross Cutting Permanently preserve from development 20% of the land area in the

watershed by 2010.

LGSS 12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Cross Cutting Rehabilitate and restore 1,050 brownfield sites to productive use. LGSS 12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Cross Cutting Expand by 30% the system of public access points to the Bay, its tributaries

and related resource sites in an environmentally sensitive manner by working

with state and federal agencies, local governments and stakeholder

organizations.

LGSS 12-31-10 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Cross Cutting Reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development of forest and agricultural land

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30% measured as an average over five

years from the baseline of 1992-1997.

LGSS 12-31-12 Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership

Cross Cutting Beginning with the class of 2005, provide a meaningful Bay or stream

outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before

graduation from high school.

CESC 2005 and

every year

after

Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed

Partnership
Appendix C 1

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework 

This framework is an internal CBPO document that organizes CBP indicators into one or several

categorizes. This effort was initiated in order to account for the various ways that CBP, EPA Region III

and EPA Headquarters are organizing indicators. The categories are described below and the following

pages organize the indicators within this framework. All existing indicators, as well as those under

development are included.

CBP currently uses a “hierarchy” scheme that includes six levels, ranging from indicators that measure

administrative actions, such as issuing permits, to those that are direct or indirect measures of

ecological or human health. Specifically, the six levels include:

Level 1: Actions by EPA/State Regulatory Agencies

Level 2: Responses of the Regulated and Nonregulated Community

Level 3: Changes in Discharge/Emission Quantities

Level 4: Changes in Ambient Conditions

Level 5: Changes in Uptake and/or Assimilation

Level 6: Changes in Health, Ecology, or Other Effects

EPA Region III currently categorizes indicators or measures as either Actions, Stressors or Conditions.

At EPA Headquarters some branches may use one of the above schemes, but others may use another

scheme that categorizes indicators as either Pressure, State, or Response.

Categorization of CBP Indicators

CBP Performance Measure - Tracks progress related to an EC Adopted Goal. Example: SAV

CBP Environmental Condition (State) - Measures status and/or trends in ambient conditions,

uptake/assimilation, or health/ecology. Hierarchy levels 4-6. Example: SAV.

CBP Environmental Stressor (Pressure) - Measures trends in discharges and loadings of pollutants. 

Hierarchy level 3. Example: N loadings to the Bay (which is also a performance measure indicator). 

This category also includes some contextual indicators, like population, VMT, fish and shellfish harvest,

which can also be considered stressors.

Action (Response) - Measure responses of the regulated and unregulated community (and actions by

EPA/rules). Hierarchy level 1-2. Example: Acres Under Nutrient Management

Context - Are not considered actual “environmental” indicators, but do provided context to possibly help

understand some environmental conditions. Example: Blue Crab Harvest

Emerging Science or Consensus - Measures that have not yet been accepted by all members of

workgroups and/or subcommittees through consensus. Examples: many of the under development

indicators are included in this category since final approval has not yet been reached by the workgroups

or subcommittees. This category would also include data that is being generated through CBP funded

monitoring efforts that is still in the stage of being looked at and discussed by workgroups.
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework

This framework is an internal CBPO document that organizes CBP indicators into one or several

categorizes. This effort was initiated in order to account for the various ways that CBP, EPA Region III

and EPA Headquarters are organizing indicators. The categories are described below and the following

pages organize the indicators within this framework. All existing indicators, as well as those under

development are included.

CBP currently uses a “hierarchy” scheme that includes six levels, ranging from indicators that measure

administrative actions, such as issuing permits, to those that are direct or indirect measures of ecological

or human health. Specifically, the six levels include:

Level 1: Actions by EPA/State Regulatory Agencies

Level 2: Responses of the Regulated and Nonregulated Community

Level 3: Changes in Discharge/Emission Quantities

Level 4: Changes in Ambient Conditions

Level 5: Changes in Uptake and/or Assimilation

Level 6: Changes in Health, Ecology, or Other Effects

EPA Region III currently categorizes indicators or measures as either Actions, Stressors or Conditions.

At EPA Headquarters some branches may use one of the above schemes, but others may use another

scheme that categorizes indicators as either Pressure, State, or Response.

Categorization of CBP Indicators

CBP Performance Measure - Tracks progress related to an EC Adopted Goal. Example: SAV

CBP Environmental Condition (State) - Measures status and/or trends in ambient conditions,

uptake/assimilation, or health/ecology. Hierarchy levels 4-6. Example: SAV.

CBP Environmental Stressor (Pressure) - Measures trends in discharges and loadings of pollutants. 

Hierarchy level 3. Example: N loadings to the Bay (which is also a performance measure indicator). 

This category also includes some contextual indicators, like population, VMT, fish and shellfish harvest,

which can also be considered stressors.

Action (Response) - Measure responses of the regulated and unregulated community (and actions by

EPA/rules). Hierarchy level 1-2. Example: Acres Under Nutrient Management

Context - Are not considered actual “environmental” indicators, but do provided context to possibly help

understand some environmental conditions. Example: Blue Crab Harvest

Emerging Science or Consensus - Measures that have not yet been accepted by all members of

workgroups and/or subcommittees through consensus. Examples: many of the under development

indicators are included in this category since final approval has not yet been reached by the workgroups

or subcommittees. This category would also include data that is being generated through CBP funded

monitoring efforts that is still in the stage of being looked at and discussed by workgroups.
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicators Framework (12/07/04)

Title CBP

Hierarchy

Level

CBP

Performance

Measure

CBP

Environmental

Condition

(State)

CBP

Environmental

Stressors

(Pressure)

Actions

(Response)

Cont

ext

Emerging

Science

or

Consen

sus

2

APPROVED INDICATORS

Nutrient Enrichment Indicators:

Sources of Nutrient and Sediment Loads to

the Bay

x

Nutrient and Sediment Loads Delivered to

the Bay

3 x x

Point Source Phosphorus (P) Loads

Delivered to the Bay

3 x

Point Source Nitrogen (N) Loads Delivered

to the Bay

3 x

P Trends in Rivers Entering the Bay: Flow

Adjusted Concentrations

4 x

N Trends in Rivers Entering the Bay: Flow

Adjusted Concentrations

4 x

Sediment Trends in Rivers Entering the Bay:

Flow Adjusted Concentrations

4 x

 Nontidal Phosphorus Loads and River Flow

To the Chesapeake Bay

4 x

Nontidal Nitrogen Loads and River Flow To

the Chesapeake Bay

4 x

Nontidal Sediment Loads and River Flow To

the Chesapeake Bay

4 x

Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations: Mainstem

Bay Summer Trends

4 x

Bottom DO Concentrations in the Mainstem

Bay and Tidal Tributaries

4 x

Acres Under Nutrient Management 2 x

Municipal Wastewater Flow and Biological

Nutrient Removal (BNR)

2 x
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicators Framework (12/07/04)

Title CBP

Hierarchy

Level

CBP

Performance

Measure

CBP

Environmental

Condition

(State)

CBP

Environmental

Stressors

(Pressure)

Actions

(Response)

Cont

ext

Emerging

Science

or

Consen

sus

3

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Using Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)

2 x

Living Resource Indicators:

Acres of Bay Grasses (total) 6 x x

Acres of Bay Grasses: Density 6 x

Acres of Bay Grasses: Changes by Zone 6 x

Wetlands Restoration 6 x x

Stream Miles Opened for Migratory Fish 4 x x

Trends in Finfish: Striped Bass (juvenile

index)

6 x

Striped Bass Spawning Stock 6 x

American Shad: Population Trends 6 x

Hatchery Reared American Shad Stocking 6 x

Trends in Blue Crab: Commercial Harvest

and Fishing Mortality Rate

6 x x

Trends in Blue Crab: Juveniles 6 x

Trends in Blue Crab: Mature Females 6 x

Trends in Shellfish: Oysters: MD and VA

Commercial Harvest

6 x x

Trends in Shellfish: Oyster spat: MD Spat

Set

6 x

Trends in Shellfish: Oyster spat: James River

Spat Set

6 x

Designated Oyster Restoration Areas 6 x x

Trends in Waterfowl: Black Duck and

Mallard

6 x x

Trends in Waterfowl: Diving Ducks 6 x x
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicators Framework (12/07/04)

Title CBP

Hierarchy

Level

CBP

Performance

Measure

CBP

Environmental

Condition

(State)

CBP

Environmental

Stressors

(Pressure)

Actions

(Response)

Cont

ext

Emerging

Science

or

Consen

sus

4

Status and Trends for Chesapeake Bay

Waterfowl Doing Well

6 x x

Status and Trends for Chesapeake Bay

Waterfowl In Need of Management

6 x x

Toxics Indicators:

Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of

Chemical Contaminants

3 x x

Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of

Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern

3 x x

Releases and Transfers of Chemical

Contaminants from Federal Facilities

3 x x

Regions of Concern 6 x x

Status of Chemical Contaminant Effects on

Living Resources in the Bay’s Tidal Rivers 

6 x x

Tributyltin Concentration Levels: Hampton

Roads, VA

4 x

Tributyltin Concentration Levels: Sarah

Creek, VA

4 x

Cross Cutting Indicators:

Bald Eagle Population Count 6 x

Boat Waste Pump-Out Facilities and

Registered Boats

2 x

Public Access Points to the Chesapeake Bay

and Its Triburaries

x x

Water Trails in the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed

x x

Vehicle Miles Traveled vs. Population in

Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

x x

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions vs. Vehicle

Miles Traveled

3 x x
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicators Framework (12/07/04)

Title CBP

Hierarchy

Level

CBP

Performance

Measure

CBP

Environmental

Condition

(State)

CBP

Environmental

Stressors

(Pressure)

Actions

(Response)

Cont

ext

Emerging

Science

or

Consen

sus

5

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Population x x

Chesapeake Basin Population, Households

and MD Development

x x

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Development

Trends

x x

Chesapeake Basin Land Use and Pollutant

Loads

x x

Chesapeake Basin Forests 6 x

Riparian Forest Buffer Conservation and

Restoration

6 x x x

Chesapeake Watershed Preserved Lands 2 x x

Brownfields Redevelopment in Chesapeake

Bay Basin

2 x x

Benthic Community and Habitat Condition 6 x

River Flow into Chesapeake Bay 4 x

Secchi Depth in the Mainstem Bay and

Tidal Tributaries: Status and Trends

4 x

Chlorophyll a in the Mainstem Bay and

Tidal Tributaries: Status and Trends

4 x

Municipal Wastewater Flow and Population 3 x x

Municipal Wastewater Flow and Municipal

Phosphorus Discharges

3 x

Municipal Wastewater Flow and Municipal

Nitrogen Discharges

3 x

Municipal P Discharge and Population 3 x

Municipal N Discharge and Population 3 x

Municipal P Delivered Load and Population 3 x

Municipal N Delivered Load and Population 3 x
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicators Framework (12/07/04)

Title CBP

Hierarchy

Level

CBP

Performance

Measure

CBP

Environmental

Condition

(State)

CBP

Environmental

Stressors

(Pressure)

Actions

(Response)

Cont

ext

Emerging

Science

or

Consen

sus

6

Chesapeake Basin Sewage Disposal and

Septic System Loads

3 x x

Percent of Households on Septic vs. Sewer x x x

Bernie Fowler’s “Sneaker Index” x

Bay Watershed Residents Survey: Level of

Concern and Attitudes

x

Bay Watershed Residents Survey: Behaviors

and Attitudes

x

Knowledge of Bay Watershed Residents x

Perceptions of Bay W atershed Residents: 

Water Quality

x

Perceptions of Bay Watershed Residents:

Pollution

x

Attitudes of Bay Watershed Residents:

Causes of Pollution

x

Attitudes of Bay Watershed Residents:

Impact of Pollution Sources

x

Behaviors of Bay Watershed Residents x

Chesapeake Bay Partner Communities 2 x x

Chesapeake Bay Partner Communities:

Award Status

2 x x

Priorities for Development

Areas Meeting Water Quality Conditions

Necessary to Protect Aquatic Living

Resources (several)

5 x x x

Oyster population (to be used to track 10-

fold increase goal)

6 x x x