Chesapeake Bay Program
US. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information _,,_„,
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EPA 903-R-99-014
CBP/TRS 223/99
July 1999
Environmental Outcome-Based Management:
Using Environmental Goals and Measures
in the Chesapeake Bay Program
EPA Report Collection
Regional Center for Environmental Information
U.S. EPA Region HI
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
FORWARD
The Chesapeake Bay Program is the unique regional partnership of federal, state and local govern-
ment 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 seven years, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its
Chesapeake Bay Program partners have maintained a systematic approach for the use of this infor-
mation 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' willing-
ness 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
outcome-based management.
This document has been a collaborative effort of managers and staff of the EPA Region 3 Chesa-
peake Bay Program Office.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
New York
For more information about the Chesapeake Bay Program, call J-800-YOURBAY,
or visit the Bay Program web-site at www.chesapeakebay.net
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
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. MAN AGING 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
U.S. EFA Region III
Regional Center for Environment,
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
KogioiMKcnUTtm I mmmmimil Informal,,,,, ChCSaDCake BAV PrOgraiTI
US r-PA Region III r f O
1650ArchSt
Philadelphia. PA 1(tKn
n
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay Program
is the premier watershed resto-
ration effort currently
underway in the United States.
It proceeds from a congression-
ally-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 Environ-
mental Protection Agency
(EPA) for the United States
government and the chair of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission,
representing the state legisla-
tures of the three states, called
for all jurisdictions and agen-
cies to focus their existing
pollution control programs on
reducing nutrient loads to the
Bay. Subsequent agreements
and amendments in 1987 and
1992 reflect a strong ecosystem
management approach stressing
the interdependent relationships
The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership
1
' Governor of MD , Governor of VA Governor of PA
Chair of |
' Chesapeake ^j|,
Bay 7|y
s Commission %'_;
between living resources and
their environment, and include
commitments to a set of spe-
cific and far-reaching goals tied
to the restoration of the health
of the Bay.
The Bay Program is a volun-
tary, consensus-based effort
focused on an interstate water-
shed, and built on top of the
national and state level environ-
mental regulatory programs.
The Bay Program carries out its
work through a series of com-
mittees, 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 com-
prised of the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement signatories and
meets annually. EPA repre-
sents all federal agencies, and
currently, there are 25 agencies
and departments participating
as Bay Program partners.
Formal advisory committees
for citizens, the scientific
community, and local govern-
ments 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 envi-
ronmental and policy
representatives of the gover-
nors, mayor and Bay
Commission, and the EPA
Regional Administrator, meet
several times a year. Ongoing
management of the program is
by the Implementation Com-
mittee which meets every six
weeks and includes representa-
tives of the Bay Agreement
signatories, federal agencies,
and chairs of subcommittees
and advisory committees. The
advisory committees, the
Federal Agencies Committee,
the subcommittees and
1
-------
workgroups meet regularly and
play important roles in program
development and implementa-
tion. 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 Pro-
gram Office was established in
1984 to coordinate the activi-
ties, investigations, and
planning of the signatory
jurisdictions and the other
cooperating federal agencies.
The Bay Program Office
manages federal funds (ap-
proximately $19 million
annually), which are distributed
predominantly to states for
implementation of Bay restora-
tion activities and to others for
continuing scientific assess-
ments. The Bay Program
Office maintains the core data
center and facilities for scien-
tific study, computer modeling
and program implementation,
and coordinates and supports
the extensive committee struc-
ture reporting to the Executive
Council.
Environmental
Outcome-Based
Management
The availability and use of
environmental outcome infor-
mation has had a profound
effect on the operation of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. This
2
"managing for results" ap-
proach has brought with it new
modes of decision making and
new standards for accountabil-
ity 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, sharp-
ened the program's ability to
garner and target resources, and
improved the program's ability
to regularly evaluate its man-
agement strategies.
Environmental indicators/
outcome measures have sup-
ported 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 30
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 1992. Several
important new goals are likely
to occur through the Chesa-
peake 2000 Bay Agreement
renewal process scheduled for
completion in 2000.
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. Addi-
tionally, Bay Program Office
Growth of Measurable
Environmental Goals
90 92 93 94 96
-------
EPA Bay Program Budget
(fiscal year)
25
s
a'
"o
2 10-
5
5-
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
staff believe that the increased
support given to the program in
recent years reflects the enthu-
siasm for supporting effective
federal-state-local partnerships
to address problems. Unlike
many other EPA programs, the
Bay Program does not have
independent regulatory authori-
ties, 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 indi-
cators, 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. Other leveraged
federal agency resources were
estimated at an additional $17
million in FY 1994. Bay
Program Office staff estimate
that state governments contrib-
uted about $100 million per
year for several years prior to
and including 1996. The state
and local expenditures to
implement tributary-specific
nutrient reduction strategies are
estimated to be about $400
million per year from 1997
through the year 2000.
-------
CHAPTER 1
ESTABLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOME-BASED MANAGEMENT
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 consid-
erable body of scientific
information and data on envi-
ronmental conditions in the
Bay. Consistent and compa-
rable 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 Chesa-
peake 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 cooper-
ating state and federal agencies
(Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and District of Colum-
bia 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
Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program
Objectives:
• Characterize existing conditions
• Detect changes or trends in water quality
• Understand processes and linkages between water
quality and living resources
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
Monitoring Stations
the major aspects of the ecosys-
tem and fill any gaps in
knowledge.
Initially, these environmental
data were collected and ana-
lyzed to define the condition of
the water quality and living
resources, and to better under-
stand 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 systemati-
cally to inform Bay Program
partners and the public of the
Bay's condition, environmental
-------
problems and progress being
made in the restoration. Envi-
ronmental monitoring data and
trends were presented to the
public in the triennial "State of
the Bay" reports, but the fre-
quency and presentation were
not geared to a very eager and
interested public audience.
Prior to 1995, these triennial
reports focused almost exclu-
sively on the water quality of
the Bay, and much less atten-
tion was devoted to describing
the health and abundance of the
living resources, which have
been the primary public con-
cern. By failing to more
frequently advise the public of
the relative importance of
environmental problems affect-
ing 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 man-
agement 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 Agree-
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM • ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Striped Bass Spawning Stock
Baywide Female Spawning Stock Biomass
Fishing moratoria:
MD&DE: 1985-1990
VA: 1989-1990
SOUIM Hugolo. *t. *J. 1994
Swnmaty Report to tw Smp*d B«H U*n*gafrOTt Board AUwnc State* Mann* Fi*r»rrt
ConvmMion
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.
TRACK 2: LIVING RESOURCE INDICATOR
The briefing slides include the goal which the indicator tracks
and a succinct summary of the status conveyed by the
information presented.
ment 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
refle'ct past or desired program
outcomes and consequently
presented a less compelling
rationale for resources. Early
in 1991, EPA leadership de-
cided to make the program
more accountable to the public
on a day-to-day basis by defin-
ing and communicating the
bottom line environmental
results achieved by the restora-
tion 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 appro-
priate interpretation of the data.
While EPA staff began this
effort, states and other stake-
holders 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,
-------
revision, approval and mainte-
nance. 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 interpre-
tation. Once the workgroup
members had reached consen-
sus, it was presented to the
Subcommittee for endorsement.
This was often quite challeng-
ing 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 discus-
sions 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 respond-
ing to restoration efforts.
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 antici-
pate 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.
-------
CHAPTER 2
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
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 combi-
nation with other indicators to
deliver a message or tell a story
related to the overall environ-
mental 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 in-
cluded, the message or story
may become more refined and
robust.
The Bay Program's environ-
mental indicators are used for
this primary purpose of com-
municating the health of the
Bay and its rivers to public
audiences. But they also serve
several other importance
purposes in tandem. Specifi-
cally, the Bay Program's
environmental indicators were
established for five principal
purposes:
• To evaluate progress in the
Chesapeake Bay restoration
effort;
Hierarchy of Indicators
This is how we measure environmental change
Administrative
] L
Environmental
Sourc« EPA Oftic* o* Pokey, Planning and Evalual
• 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
-------
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
How the Hierarchy and Tracks Work Together
Levels 1-3 =
Hierarchy of &
Indicators
(acU'JflS i'J
PROGRAM /ADMNSTRATVE MEASURES
Tracks 1, 2,
Areas of ri/
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 about 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
10
-------
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. See Appendix D for
further details regarding review
and development of 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 bottom-
line 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,
Measuring Environmental Change
Changes in Discharge Quantities Changes in Ambient Conditions
Point Source Nitrogen Loads D<
tollvirid Nltrogwi Load (mllllont lb«/yr)
» « I S
T
_~ o__i.,*_c».~. _,»._»»
slivered to the Bay
GOAL: Reduce point
source nitrogen loads to
support achievement of the
nutrient reduction goal.
STATUS: Nitrogen loads
declined 18% between
1985 and 1997, through
industrial reductions and
some installment of
biological nutrient removal
(BNR) technology.
An additional 12%
reduction is expected by
2000, due to increasing
BNR implementation as
well as general treatment
efficiency improvements.
Observed Nitrogen Concentrations
in the Mainstem Bay
Annual Median Concentrations: 1965 -1996
The annual median
concentialion In 1998 was
higher than the low level
observed in 1997,
probably due to higher
than avenge freshwater
flow In 1998, especially
during the first half of the
year.
We expect future declines
as efforts to reduce
nitrogen loads are
accelerated.
Changes in Health/Ecology
Acres of Bay Grasses
GOAL: The Interim goal Is
to restore Bay grasses to
all areas where they were
observed since 1971.
STATUS: Total acreage
Increased In 1996 and
1997 then decreased In
1998. The 1998 acreage
represents 56% of the
Interim restoration goat.
11
-------
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
Snapshot of Chesapeake Bay:
How's it Doing?, and the
triennial "State of the Bay"
reports demonstrate extensive
uses of the environmental
indicators. Press packages and
fact sheets, and a highly
popular wall poster entitled •
Bringing the Bay Home all
reinforce a consistent public
message using the outcome
measures. Touch the Bay, an
interactive, touch-screen
presentation, uses animation to
explain processes and to
display important
environmental indicator
information. The Bay Program
web-site
(www.chesapeakebay.net)
includes all indicator related
briefing packages,
presentations and fact sheets,
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM • ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Bernie Fowler's "Sneaker Index1
SO'160'1 It >9 »0 41 >2 »1 M 95 K 17 M M
SoufO* C .
K»nl Mountford, u S EPA O«MpMk« Bay Program.
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."
and the materials may be
downloaded and printed 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.
TRACK 4: CROSS-CUTTING NDICATOR
12
-------
Feedback Summary
Environmental Indicators:
Year
97
98
Excellent
9
•20
Measuring Our Progress
Good Fair Poor Improvements _ ,, ,
K Feedback
2 (
7 (
Feedback Summary
Chesapeake Bay: How is
Year
97
98
Excellent
6
25
) 0 £
) 0 6
it Doing?
•> 13
> 29
Good Fair Poor Improvements F ,, ,
4 :
4 ]
> 0 1
0 t
2 13
I 30
Total
Requests
22
34
Total
Requests
49
35
Response
Rate
0.59
0.85
Response
Rate
0,27
0.86
13
-------
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 strength-
ened because an environmental
indicator 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 consis-
tency in goal setting and
progress measurement. This
facilitates clear communication
to the public. Finally, as
previously noted, improve-
ments in the environmental
indicators have facilitated goal-
setting, 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
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM- ENV RONMENTAL NDICATORS
Total Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay
from Tributary Basins with Strategies
GOAL: Reduce controllable
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
(for IriMjtaries
wth strategies
In place)
Soiree Chesapeake Bey Program Phese IV Wetershel Model
Detairdude total ntrogen and phoiphci IB loads delivered to the teuton pert end
nonpart scutes,fron Chesapeake BayAffoemontluiedceanelMO, PA, VAendDC)
where Trlbtfery 3reitgtes tovebemlroflemefited(Susqueh*nr«, Potamc, PetiKert,
Western «nd Eestem Shere.UD
loads of nutrients 40% by
the year 2000 and maintain
those reduced levels into
the future.
STATUS: In areas of the
Bay where tributary
strategies have been
implemented, phosphorus
loads declined 3 million
fcs/yr between 1985 and
1997. We expect to reach
the goal by 2000.
Nitrogen loads declined 26
million Ibs/yr. We expect to
reach the goal through
tributary strategy
implementation, but more
will need to be done in
order to reach the goal by
2000.
TRACK 1: NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT INDICATOR
agreed in the 1992 amendments
to develop and begin imple-
mentation of tributary-specific
strategies. These strategies
require activities beyond the
traditional controls on point
sources, such as wastewater
treatment plants, and will likely
include 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 1997, information
indicated that the 40% nutrient
reduction goal will not be met
at the current program pace
because of the difficulty in
controlling sources of nitrogen.
In response to these findings,
Pennsylvania is seeking oppor-
tunities for implementing
additional nutrient reduction
technologies at point source
facilities. Also, greater atten-
tion is being placed on examin-
ing the effects of nitrogen
components of air pollution on
the Bay and the loading from
animal agriculture.
Targeting Resources
The availability of accepted
environmental goals and indi-
cators has allowed the Bay
Program to better target its
resources. Within the Bay
Program, screening criteria set
by the Budget Steering Com-
mittee for allocation of
competitive funds give great
weight to proposals which most
directly address (1) the
Overarching Chesapeake Bay
Program Themes; (2) the
Strategic Implementation
Priorities as adopted by the
Implementation Committee and
the Principals' Staff Commit-
tee; and (3) commitments
contained in the Bay Agree-
15
-------
ments and other directives. The
Overarching Chesapeake Bay
Themes include the use of
funds to support bottom-line
environmental performance
measures. The costs for high
quality data, and data collection
and analysis are considerable.
About $2.5 million per year of
federal funds supports the
monitoring costs for air, water,
living resources, and sub-
merged aquatic vegetation.
Approximately $600,000 per
year is devoted to operate the
computer simulation models to
examine the potential results of
alternative strategies. Also,
about $100,000 is used annu-
ally to develop, update and
maintain indicators and indica-
tor products. Environmental
indicators are one of the princi-
pal methods for subcommittees
to demonstrate resource needs
and program success. Projects
from subcommittees with non-
measurable objectives are at a
decided disadvantage against
outcome-oriented projects in
the contest for scarce financial
resources.
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, measur-
able environmental
improvements. The environ-
16
mental benefits gained through
goal setting, indicator develop-
ment and the targeting of
resources are illustrated in the
following example. In 1993,
Bay Program partners voluntar-
ily committed to removing
stream blockages and reopen-
ing 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 long-
term goal is projected to be
met.
The Bay Program model of ».
managing for environmental
results has been shared with
other EPA offices and pro-
grams, other federal agency
offices, state and local govern-
ment agencies, and non-profit
organizations seeking to de-
velop and implement
environmental goals and indi-
cator 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 Gov-
ernment Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) require-
ments.
Continuing Challenges
While environmental indica-
tors/outcome measures
represent a common currency
among the different govern-
ment 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 few
years. While the participants in
the Bay Program agree that this
decline has occurred, they at
Stream Miles Opened to Mi]
-n idnn
Cumulative Miles of River Habitat Opene
Year 2003 goal (1,357 miles)
Year 1 998 joal (731 miles)
D Opened, but not yet to Anadromous Fish M
• Opened to Anadromous Fish E
_ iill
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Source EPA ChMip«»h« B*y Progrwn Offtca
juratory Fish
GOAL: To restore access
to historical spawning
grounds for migratory
fish.
STATUS: The removal of
stream blockages and
construction of fish
passages, between 1988
and 1998, have reopened
523.5 miles of historic
spawning habitat to
migratory fish, and an
additional 121 .5 miles to
resident fish. A total of
645 miles have been
opened.
-------
times may disagree on the
cause for this, its severity, and
the appropriate response. To
some, placing limits on harvest-
.ing the crabs is necessary; to
others in jurisdictions that place
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 monitioring
the data and the ultimate reso-
lution.
Although the Bay Program has
benefitted from the support of
national and local leaders in
setting measurable environmen-
tal goals, political costs may be
suffered by leaders and agency
management if these goals are
not met. Many federal govern-
ment 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 devel-
opment 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 this important goal or others,
are not met or met on time.
17
-------
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 non-
traditional 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.
To monitor future developments in outcome-
based measures for the Chesapeake Bay
Program, check the web-site at
www.chesapeakebay.net.
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 long-
term 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.
79
-------
o>
;_
3
•*-i
CJ
3
03
.a
c
«
WD
O
es
w
£
cs
o>
o.
«
CM
O>
A
u
v
^
93
U
o.
n*
CM
CU
A
U
»^N
C
o
U
CU
£
'•+->
1
X
U-l
te
03
•^^
cn
v>
"03
.&
*S
_c
*£
c-
oo
C
a
^
*S
o
U
rt •)
o
p
o
J
"^^
t'
00
>
S
00
'§ u
C
-4—>
03
•4— >
.22 -b
ry^ ^
cu
•^^
1—4
E
o
U
_, *j
o o
'•S £
ra (u
l|
^1
^)
S
5
5_
o
U
-c
Ǥ
UH
<
w
C
'8
o
P
o
O
1 f
O w
C3 .y "H
•a ^
1 -
W (y^j
C/l
0
3 U
Oi
bO
•a
o
2
60
'C
0
'S
o
S
w
o
•s
£
E
U
•c
3
Z
•
CL,
O-
-------
to
I
<§
g
2
I
§•
o
O
•s
S
3
O
Cfl
g S
Ifi
B o
U
u
u
1-8
U
B
u
•«•*
1
O
U
o
01
13
i
I
et
Cfl
I
u
OS
u
o
o
3
c/o
05
O
O
o
o
o
fS
eduction
rogen
^
B °-
•£u
o _.
3 U
•O S
u 3
g §
o
Sl
3 "S
1
OS
at
U
oo
o
o
U
Z
o
o
o
fS
Reduction
Phospho
o
I"
3 "2
•o £
B B
.2 .2
o
2|
3 T
C ^
a
u
o? S
ca E
u TS
•* g
| E
B. ^f
03 <
O
O
U
Z
na iver
Cap
nd Cap
nd
ou
•ilsl
30 =
Sf S 53
3 = 2
CA *5 m
• I/J ^
1^2
•^3 ' es
u o
|-«o
III
-S -g -a
« 3 «
•M ^
O
Sl
3 "«
£ £
B
E
(tt CJ
co E
4> "O
^ C
2 g
O
O
u
CA
z
u •«
i
~
o w' _
•a * ^
fi3!
-S *o
S g J
a M ft
III
o
3
O
1
^ 2
>-i C
!s ^
' -Q CC
III
o
3
0
o
-< £
pa E
u "O
U
z
C.
OS
0 &.U
^u^
0 •— 3
|s«s
•See
£ cl
5 I S
s = s
S 22 '
•^ ' Is
u o
fe E O
03 o _c-
IF!
B
o
3 "8
O v
(» OS
u
E
B
E
U
Z
e-g §
2 3 B-
s2
" 53 A
* 3 vo
W « o\
1 -H 0
0 rh c
OS O .2
^ B *•*
M .2 3
? 3 «J
i -o os
'C ."— 45
H Z PM
o
3
O
cn
1
Of
•< 42
P5 E
II
o
U
Cfl
U g
!«£
v> O —
g« -
•.c • os
u o
O
all
V}
o
4!
OS
ai
pi i
u
g
Ji
E
(N
u
en
OS T3
w §
•
c« g a
B (£ .2
12!
•C ' os
o
jr. g '-5
B£ w H
« « £.
•s
E
& S
pa E
£ B
« 2
O
o
U
(Sl
Z
S3 &
.:: B.^
OS « TS
111
E S ON
Jll
es e S
£••2 S
C- — £Z
03 —
OS ^ "*
, s ^
i ^ °
B ir, <
o i —
'.C os
U O
a -5
03 C ®
if!
B
M
3 "g
CA tf
CQ
X
•3
a,
Cu
-------
o
(A
g «
2; -v-
E «5
.t: O
E g
la
u
o
U
•^^
E
I
1
O
U
o
ct
U
"c!
cS
g
i
^
tc
•< ^2
|
Chesapeake Bay
1992 Amendmen'
o
o
1
t*~>
I
—
U
en
Z,
•ibutary Strategy Reductions - York River
trogen Reduction Goal - 4.5 Million Pound Cap
losphorus Reduction Goal - 0.59 Million Pound Cap
HZO.
E
O
n
S T
eg &
•*w
c
u
g
&£]
•< i
Chesapeake Bay
1992 Amendmeni
cs
<*>
i
""
U
en
£
•ibutary Strategy Reductions - James River
trogen Reduction Goal - 29.6 Million Pound Cap
losphorus Reduction Goal - 4.04 Million Pound Cap
HZa.
c
0
u '-g
si
l<2
Directive 93-3
irj
o
ro
i
"
«
£
w: "e
u C
S E ^
c! ^ rft
~ 1 •§ *
J OS en d-
«
terim SAV Restoration Goal - 114,000 Acres Baywid
c
CQ
3
0
g
an
OS
Directive 93-4
e>
^
i
fS
u
en
tt
on
i
i
bl
cs
£
w
cs
cs
CL.
.E
sw
0$
3
0)
u
Resour
Directive 93-4
OS
2
rri
fS
u
en
ea
_j
K
—
E
««
0
r4
00
V5
<
i
CJ
61
C!
1
J3
E
W
o
O
a
>.
o
S
K
B
— cs
1 ~
O §
•C e
~? C
^ 0)
Chesapeake Bay-
Policy and Mana
1990
o
=}
ro
fs|
^-
u
en
OS
^5
Os
Q
•*•*
'cs
"••
^2
CS
Si
aterfowl Targets - Restore waterfowl population and
els.
£ &
"cs
8
fc.
o
n
U
OS
^j
Os
Cs
^*
e
.5
P*
^^
cs
!S
Aquatic Reef Hal
2
^
fS
u
tf
^
w:
fc.
U
CS
0
o
o
v£
1
^
^^
«
juatic Reef Restoration - Restore 5,000 acres in MD .
the Potomac.
< .E
cfl
0
O
S
Resour
^
• M
HM
O
ft*
on
•o
c
—
+*
V
f
Chesapeake Bay
1988
-s
T3 ^
- c -t
y R or
en S g
J £ l£
•£
A
o
etlands Goals - No Annual Net Loss, Long-Term Net
^
CS
3
u
u
fc.
a
o
on
U
e£
c
o
^2
gi
w 5
2 2
c ^
• M ^J
C3 C
pa "
Chesapeake Bay-
Toxics Reduction
Strategy 1994
o
o
I
o
*
-------
R
O
O
o
Cfl
o
I s
C Q
o M
U
41
o
U
H
•4-i
B
|
'1
O
U
L.
O
U
"«
o
O
c
*•*
4> S
•o C
— • c
^ ™*
ll
pa w
^> 5
R .2
Pa 'y •**
4) 3 ^
J£ T3 °^
R 41 ^
x g 2
U H 55
o
0
i
en
H
E
ts
g
&
R
L.
3
"5
Ml
HM
"e5
Establish volunteer IPM practices on 75% of
and Public lands.
"S _
.£ R
20
.2 S
.E 1
< PH
E
•+..»
4> g
S 2
g ft.
*1
pa w
>-> S
R .2
Pa 'y f
4) 3 ^
•* •« 2
R 4> _
05*^4^
V *p w
U H 55
o
*?
2
1/3
H
4)
.B
•B
E
3
on
&
R
.B
•3
E
o
h.
Eliminate all acute and chronic toxic effects f
NPDES (water permit) program
es
o
O
E
•- E 1
8l|
IE §
& < U
_o
•4-1
41 SJ
•B 5
ifi
"35 T3
CQ *
^»
cC S
« "S g
4* 3 ^^
•* "0 2
« 4> "
S.« g2
g.§ ^
an
o
=?
T-H
1
C/)
H
on
0
w
c
4)
E
»M^
41
on
R
ju s5
c* E
Achieve 65% voluntary reduction in Toxics I
from watershed industries from a 1988 base!
E
O
si
M oi
E
•*^
4t SJ
•o S
1*
*55 "O
CO w
^> 5
C5 .2
M -5 S
41 3 *^
x. -o 2
R 41 "
4* ei •>•»
B, M
R g 41
«>."•*;
« x 2
f- o i
U H M
o
o
1
1«<
1
in
H
E
h<
41
U
O
U
•£• 4*
M ^
o *
H -0
oc
pa2
R B
«> §
Achieve 75% voluntary reduction in Chesaj
chemicals from industries in the watershed ft
E
_o
41 tj
||
Cfl «
E
•«•»
41 g
1 o-
"35 "O
ee c
CQ
i^*
rt 'J
4> s g;
•* "o 2
es 4i "
4) Qj "•*>
°« « M
R Jl 4>
K .- "B
g K 2
e^a
o
O
*•-.
I
JS
Crt
H
£ .
.s |
'E M
E B.
Si
$ E
M U
"* £
0 &•
Achieve 100% participation by all state and 1
watershed in the implementation of pollution
"S
.c "R
*J O
2 o
^ E
"S 2
lr
•< 6,
_o
^^
E
1> «
| e-
pa R
^^ E
R .2
pa "S ^
4) s g;
•* "o 2
R U "
S.* S8
s J 5
U M rt
r^ rS *
U H c«
o
o
1
1
C/D
H
5?
(S
•B
E
R
•B
B
"R
'H
4)
E
1
4)
•4-1
Promote voluntary IPM practices on 50% of
of the residential land within the watershed.
"S „
.££ R
R ^
"S g
1 2
•< ftl
B
"«
.M
U
r
CS
PH
g*
qj vo
53
S 2
QJ C
"^ ^2
•R J
O 'S
•3 •<
o
C5
i
"H «.
4)
T! 1 1 ^ ?
o c "B c ^,
-^ O •< U C-
pa
c.
v:
0
41
B
on
Recognize 165 (10%) of the local government
watershed as Bay Partner Communities.
"3 _
.'£. R
t-> O
20
.2 E
.S 2
ir
•< PH
E
Cu
r
a-.
"£ . .
ftj \O
Sc\
^A
C VM
*• c
t ^
"R .2
J "
irv
9
^*
fj>
fS
U
O
„
o
o
•B
41
.a
g
U
1_
.—
'2
3
E
Encourage 20% of the 165 Bay Partner Com
to achieve a higher tier.
•a -
• M &
e5 rjj
1 E
.5 2
1 £
< PH
B
'es
^
u
r
R
PH
'B ._
4) ^
B ^
B 2
L. -•
S R
^ M
«n
^s .2
9 "5
J •<
o
i
i
fS
U
O
^
M
R
41
C.
K
on
U
"B
c
V3
Recognize 330 (20%) of the local governmeni
watershed as Bay Partner Communities.
"o _
•fp. R
2 o5
.2 E
.£ 2
< fc
CQ
•o
(U
cx
cx
-------
c
en
s «
E «
c
u
l-s
I2
o
U
H
*rf
I
I
o
U
cs
u
"ts
o
o
B
ei
*c
05
CL
5
O
*•»
C ^
1 s
+rt an
II
c 5
.2 *
%•• *^
II
•< ta
o
1
S
IM 3
0 0
•** W)
U"l
en .*
Z £
L.
**
Si ^
«S
11
2 «
s i
o •£
•6 o
C £
CO IWD
i^
E o
fl6 di
£ .e
^» S
<<- t
o ^
« fe4
Q) V
*c *^
1 S
S |
Q^ OO
C •** CJ
s 1 a
•iparian forests
d, targeting effi
nd living resoui
- J< «
2.C .
£ -C*
an ^-» C6
0 « 3
OS s: o-
"«
o
O
0
fc"
3
0
an
U
BS
'S
B
3
S o
" t!
LM ^
Is 3 *-
i u C
.2 X E
B U g
III
DM ? .E
w -? -g
W *(U ^d
& os S
o
0\
1
3
(/!)
H
U
en
;
••
"3
Ma
t^
00
^
V)
•s
to
2
^™
o
S
L.
U
en
B
_O
'So •
u o
i»-> ^
B9 «g
« g
u »
oc **
X 00
It
•a o
c* •**
"£ _
.> «
1 E
C "
11
-------
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.
Appendix C 1
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework (6/10/99)
Title
CBP
Hierarchy
Level
CBP
Perfor-
mance
Measure
CBP
Environ-
mental
Condition
(State)
CBP
Environ-
mental
Stressors
(Pressure)
Actions
(Response)
Con-
text
Emerg-
ing
Science
or
Consen-
sus
APPROVED INDICATORS
Nutrient Enrichment Indicators:
Total Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay
from All Bay Tributaries
Total Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay
from Tributary Basins with Strategies
Point Source Phosphorus (P) Loads Delivered
to the Bay
Point Source Nitrogen (N) Loads Delivered to
the Bay
P Levels in Rivers Entering the Bay Trends
N Levels in Rivers Entering the Bay: Trends
Sediment Levels in Rwers Entering the Bay
Trends
Observed P Concentrations in the Mamstem
Bay: Monthly Median Trends
Observed P Concentrations in the Mainstem
Bay: Annual Median Concentrations
P Concentrations in the Mainstem Bay and
Tidal Tributaries: Status and Trends
Observed N Concentrations in the Mainstem
Bay Monthly Median Trends
Observed N Concentrations in the Mainstem
Bay Annual Median Concentrations
N Concentrations in the Mainstem Bay and
Tidal Tributaries Status and Trends
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Mainstem
Bay Summer Trends
Bottom DO Concentrations in the Mamstem
Bay and Tidal Tributaries
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Appendix C 2
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework (6/10/99)
Title
CBP
Hierarchy
Level
CBP
Perfor-
mance
Measure
CBP
Environ-
mental
Condition
(State)
CBP
Environ-
mental
Stressors
(Pressure)
Actions
(Response)
Con-
text
Emerg-
ing
Science
or
Consen-
sus
Acres Under Nutrient Management
Municipal Wastewater Flow and Biological
Nutrient Removal (BNR)
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Using Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)
2
2
2
X
X
X
Living Resource Indicators:
Acres of Bay Grasses (total)
Acres of Bay Grasses. Density
Acres of Bay Grasses' Changes by Zone
Wetlands
Stream Miles Opened for Migratory Fish
Trends in Finfistv Striped Bass (juvenile
index)
Striped Bass Spawning Stock
American Shad Landings
American Shad Population Trends
Hatchery Reared American Shad Stocking
Trends in Blue Crab: Commercial Harvest
and Fishing Mortality Rate
Trends in Blue Crab: Juveniles
Trends in Blue Crab: Mature Females
Trends in Shellfish Oysters' MD and VA
Commercial Harvest
Trends in Shellfish: Oyster spat: MD Spat Set
Trends in Shellfish' Oyster spat: James River
Spat Set
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Appendix C 3
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework (6/10/99)
Title
CBP
Hierarchy
Level
CBP
Perfor-
mance
Measure
CBP
Environ-
mental
Condition
(State)
CBP
Environ-
mental
Stressors
(Pressure)
Actions
(Response)
Con-
text
Emerg-
ing
Science
or
Consen-
sus
1 997 Status of Fishery Stocks Important to
Chesapeake Bay
Trends in Waterfowl: Black Duck and Mallard
Trends in Waterfowl Diving Ducks
Status and Trends for Chesapeake Bay
Waterfowl
6
6
6
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Toxics Indicators:
Bald Eagle Population Count
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of
Chemical Contaminants
Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
Releases and Transfers of Chemical
Contaminants from Federal Facilities
Acres Under Integrated Pest Management
Pesticide Collection and Disposal Programs
Pesticide Container Recycling Programs
Consumption Bans and Advisories
Kepone in Finfish Tissue
Declines in MD Oyster Tissue Contaminants
Tnbutyltin Concentration Levels' Hampton
Roads, VA
Tributyltin Concentration Levels Sarah
Creek, VA
Trends in Rainfall Metals Concentrations'
Lead and Copper at Lewes, DE
Copper Concentrations in Sediments Mid-
Chesapeake Bay Mamstem
6
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
4
4
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Appendix C 4
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework (6/10/99)
Title
CBP
Hierarchy
Level
CBP
Perfor-
mance
Measure
CBP
Environ-
mental
Condition
(State)
CBP
Environ-
mental
Stressors
(Pressure)
Actions
(Response)
Con-
text
Emerg-
ing
Science
or
Consen-
sus
Copper Concentrations in Sediments.
Mamstem and Tributaries
Benzo[a]pyrene Concentrations in Sediments.
Mid-Chesapeake Bay Mainstem
Benzo[a]pyrene Concentrations in Sediments
Mamstem and Tributaries
4
4
4
X
X
X
Cross Cutting Indicators:
Dischargers in Significant Noncomphance
(SNC)
Recreational Boat Wastes
Vehicle Miles Traveled vs. Population in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions vs. Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Chesapeake Basin Population,
Households and MD Lot Sizes
Chesapeake Basin Land Use and Pollutant
Loads
Chesapeake Basin Forests
Riparian Forest Buffer Conservation and
Restoration
Benthic Community and Habitat Condition
River Flow into Chesapeake Bay
Secchi Depth in the Mainstem Bay and Tidal
Tributaries Status and Trends
Municipal Wastewater Flow and Population
Municipal Wastewater Flow and Municipal
Phosphorus Discharges
2
2
3
6
6
6
4
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Appendix C 5
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework (6/10/99)
Title
CBP
Hierarchy
Level
CBP
Perfor-
mance
Measure
CBP
Environ-
mental
Condition
(State)
CBP
Environ-
mental
Stressors
(Pressure)
Actions
(Response)
Con-
text
Emerg-
ing
Science
or
Consen-
sus
Municipal Wastewater Flow and Municipal
Nitrogen Discharges
Municipal P Discharge and Population
Municipal N Discharge and Population
Municipal P Delivered Load and Population
Municipal N Delivered Load and Population
Basmwide N Loadings from Septic Tanks
Percent of Households on Septic vs Sewer
Bernie Fowler's "Sneaker Index"
Bay Attitudes Survey Results. Major
Misconceptions
Bay Attitudes Survey Results Support for the
Clean-up
Bay Attitudes Survey Results' Causes of
Pollution
Bay Attitudes Survey Results Support for
Pollution Prevention
Bay Attitudes Survey Results: Pollution
Reduction Activities
Bay Attitudes Survey Results: Water Quality
Chesapeake Bay Partner Communities
Chesapeake Bay Partner Communities Award
Status
Chesapeake Bay Partner Communities.
Benchmark Achievement
Development that Works
Preventing Pollution
Conserving and Preserving Living Resources
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Appendix C 6
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework (6/10/99)
Title
CBP
Hierarchy
Level
CBP
Perfor-
mance
Measure
CBP
Environ-
mental
Condition
(State)
CBP
Environ-
mental
Stressors
(Pressure)
Actions
(Response)
Con-
text
Emerg-
ing
Science
or
Consen-
sus
Valuing Trees and Forests
Conserving the Countryside/Revitalizing
Communities
Community Participation
2
2
2
X
X
X
Completed/Awaiting Approval or Revision:
Condition of Benthic Community in Bottom
Waters of Tidal Tributaries and Mamstem
Ambient Toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay,
1 990- 1 995, Water Column Data
Ambient Toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay,
1 990- 1 995, Sediment Data
Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Index for
Sediment 1990-95
Chlorophyll a in the Mainstem Bay and Tidal
Tributaries: Status and Trends
Total Suspended Solids in the Mainstem Bay
and Tidal Tributaries: Status and Trends
6
6
6
6
4
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
Under Development and/or Awaiting Data:
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources
Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration
Zooplankton trends
Acres Under Integrated Pest Management'
Agricultural, Recreational and Public Land;
Commercial and Residential Land
Acres or Percent of Land Preserved from
Further Development
Trends in Acres of Low, Medium and High
Density Residential Development
3
6
6
2
2
X
x (data)
X
X
X
x (data)
x (data)
x
(D)
X
X
X
Appendix C 7
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Environmental Indicator Framework (6/10/99)
Title
CBP
Hierarchy
Level
CBP
Perfor-
mance
Measure
CBP
Environ-
mental
Condition
(State)
CBP
Environ-
mental
Stressors
(Pressure)
Actions
(Response)
Con-
text
Emerg-
ing
Science
or
Consen-
sus
Greenspace (miles by jurisdiction or region,
green space per capita)
Watershed organizations/associations/1 and
trusts (#s and % coverage)
x (data)
x (data)
"Wish List":
% of Development Occurring within
Urban/Directed Growth Areas
Achievement of SA V Acreage Goals by Bay
Segment
Economic value of a region's natural
resources
Nutrient Management - cost savings, fertilizer
application reduction
Atmospheric nitrogen loadings and deposition
trends
Pollution Prevention Programs: Industry and
Commercial Establishments, State and Local
Governments
6
3
2
x (data)
x (data)
x (data)
x (data)
x
X
(D)
x
Appendix C 8
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Environmental Indicators Development Process
Process relative to primary indicators products, i.e., data charts and interpretations, slide show, speaker
notes, register of all indicators.
SUGGESTIONS/REQUESTS for New Indicators or
Modifications to Existing Materials.
INPUT from: Implementation Committee, Subcommittees,
Advisory Committees, Other Agencies, Bay Publics, etc.
Received by Indicator Program Coordinator.
Added to register of all indicators.
NEW INDICATOR
or
MAJOR REVISION
Screening Factors:
- data availability
- environmental results
measure
- management needs
- request of Bay
Publics
- other
SCREENING STEP
Indicator Coordinator
consults with any or all:
- Subcommittee Chair
- Subcommittee Coordinator
- Other innovator
(5 working days)
Refer to appropriate
persons for data
development.
Note on register as
"hold" item.
Hold - Future
Development
Go Forward
To Develop-
ment Now
Relevant Subcommittee
requested to designate
lead person to review/
approve.
Indicator Coordinator asks
Subcommittee Coordinator to
secure necessary data and
interpretations from
designated Subcommittee leads.
(10 working days)
New Indicator
or Major
Revision?
Minor
\Revision? i
MODIFICATIONS
OF EXISTING
INDICATORS AND
MATERIALS
i.e. speakers notes
changes, updating data
to current year, clarify-
ing/updating chart
interpretation, refining
portrayal of existing
indicators.
DEVELOPMENT OF
EARLY DRAFTS AND
"MOCK UPS" by staff.
(time will vary)
Appendix D - 1
-------
continued from page 1
EDITS
Review of
edits in 3
working
days.
Draft submitted to Indicator Coordinator,
Subcommittee Coordinator(s),
Subcommittee Indicator Contact.
DRAFT REVIEW / REVISION
5 working day turn around for
comments by:
- Designated Subcommittee Lead
- Subcommittee Coordinator
- Indicator Coordinator
Production of Final Versions
(new and edited copy)
Incorporation into
Presentation Materials
Distribution of final hard copies of new
indicators and edits of existing
indicators to:
- Subcommittee Coordinator
- Subcommittee Chairs or Leads
- Indicator Coordinator
- Communications Office
- Two per jurisdiction
(annually)
Annual Presentation of
Indicators to Implementation
Committee members.
(10 day policy level review)
Appendix D - 2
------- |