Water Quality Goal Implementation Team (GIT 3) Publications

This report explores how climate change and variability affect nutrient and sediment cycling and BMP performance in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

View document [PDF, 14.4 MB] A Systematic Review of Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Impacts and Uncertainty: Watershed Processes, Pollutant Delivery and BMP Performance

This backgrounder provides an overview of updates, governance, policy and procedures for the Chesapeake Bay Program's suite of computer modeling tools.

View document [PDF, 293.9 KB] Understanding Chesapeake Bay Modeling Tools

This report review the available science on the nutrient and sediment removal efficiencies associated with agricultural ditch best management practices.

View document [PDF, 3.5 MB] Agricultural Ditch Management BMP Expert Panel Report

This report provides protocols to estimate the nutrient and sediment pollutant load reduction associated with different shoreline management practices.

View document [PDF, 5.3 MB] BMP Panel Report for Shoreline Management (Amended)

This document provides a detailed framework by which Chesapeake Bay Program partners will build rigor and transparency for best management practice verification.

View document [PDF, 1.5 MB] Strengthening Verification of Best Management Practices Implemented in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Shoreline Management Projects (WQGIT Approved 7/13/15, WTWG Revised 6/1/17).

View document [PDF, 5.3 MB] Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Shoreline Management Projects

This 2017 addendum provides previously undocumented features of the procedures for assessing attainment of the Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria as well as refinements and clarifications to the previously published Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria assessment procedures.

View document [PDF, 4.2 MB] 2017 Technical Addendum Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries

View document [PDF, 1.6 MB] Recommendations of Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Cover Crop Practices

View document [PDF, 1.9 MB] Recommendations of Phase 6 Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Conservation Tillage Practices

View document [PDF, 2.9 MB] Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Nutrient Management Practices

View document [PDF, 4.4 MB] Wetland Expert Panel recommendations for non-tidal wetland BMPs

View document [PDF, 4.5 MB] Manure Treatment Technologies BMP Expert Panel Recommendations

View document [PDF, 3.7 MB] Impervious Disconnection to Amended Soils BMP Expert Panel recommendations

View document [PDF, 3.9 MB] Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Oyster Aquaculture Practices

View document [PDF, 3.5 MB] Animal Waste Management Systems Expert Panel Recommendations

Recommendations from an expert panel for the Urban Tree Canopy Expansion best management practice, as well as for an Urban Forest Planting BMP.

View document [PDF, 4.2 MB] Urban Tree Canopy BMP Expert Panel Recommendations

View document [PDF, 3.1 MB] Street Sweeping and Storm Drain Cleaning Expert Panel Report

View document [PDF, 5.2 MB] Shoreline Management BMP Expert Panel Report-Final

Seasonal median water quality values were compared between stations in mid-Bay and lateral regions in seven east-west transects in the mainstem Chesapeake Bay. Comparisons were made over seven years, 1985-1991, for April-October surface layer medians of total phosphorus, total nitrogen, dissoslved orthophosphate, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, total suspended solida, chlorophyll a, Secchi depth, and salinity. Comparisons were also made using spring (March-May) and summer (June-September) medians of surface and bottom salinity and dissolved oxygen. Comparisons were made using difference plots of raw data, scatter plots of annual seasonal medians, nand the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test on annual seasonal medians. The graphical and statistical analyses confirmed each other. Correlation coefficients were also calculated between mid-Bay and lateral data series to estimate their degree of similarity over time, but could not be tested for statistical significance.

View document [PDF, 476.8 KB] Comparison of Mid-Bay and Lateral Station Water Quality Data in the Chesapeake Bay Mainstem

View document [PDF, 1.0 MB] Continuous High Residue Minimum Soil Disturbance BMP

View document [PDF, 2.6 MB] Resource Improvement Report

November 2022 version.

View document [PDF, 589.3 KB] BMP Review Protocol

This fact sheet explains why the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement includes a Water Quality Standards Attainment and Monitoring Outcome and how this outcome was developed.

View document [PDF, 594.6 KB] Water Quality Standards Attainment and Monitoring Outcome Justification

This fact sheet explains why the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement includes 2017 and 2025 Watershed Implementation Plan Outcomes and how these outcomes were developed.

View document [PDF, 666.2 KB] 2017 and 2025 Watershed Implementation Plans Outcomes Justification

View document [PDF, 1.5 MB] Nutrient Application Management for Phase 5.3.2

Approved by the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team, February 10, 2014.

View document [PDF, 356.9 KB] Homeowner BMP crediting memo

Developed by the BMP Verification Committee and Water Quality Goal Implementation Team, these principles were adopted by the Principals' Staff Committee to guide the jurisdictions’ development and implementation of BMP verification programs.

View document [PDF, 44.8 KB] BMP Verification Principles

View document [PDF, 1.2 MB] Stormwater retrofits expert panel report (without appendices)

View document [PDF, 954.5 KB] Stormwater Performance Standards BMP panel report (without appendices)

Creation of the Nutrient and Scenario Builder tool was achieved with the excellent assistance of the Chesapeake Bay Program Information Technology contractor’s team led by Jessica Rigelman. With her leadership, Jonathan Lewis, Robert Weiss, Mark Lane, and Aaron Knister built a complex functional software product under a very tight deadline. Their questions along the way helped to strengthen the methodology. Without Jessica Rigelman’s encouragement of all of us, this project would not have been accomplished.

View document [PDF, 3.1 MB] Documentation for Scenario Builder