Chesapeake Bay Program Indicator Framework
Reporting Level Indicators
Indicator and Data Survey, Posted: 9/23/2015
A. Category/Name/Source/Contact
(1) Category of Indicator
___ Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health
_x Restoration and Protection Efforts
___ Watershed Health
___ Bay Health
(2) Name of Indicator: Restoring Wetlands on Agricultural Lands
(3) Data Set Description: acres of wetlands established, rehabilitated or re-established on
agricultural lands in the Bay watershed


For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or longterm monitoring.) Tracking.
Which parameters were measured directly? Which were obtained by calculation?
Acreage measured directly.
(4) Source(s) of Data: MD, VA, PA, DC, DE, NY, WV. Beginning in 2010, the data
used are from the CBP watershed model scenario input deck. Input deck data were
developed using state submissions (reported via the National Environmental Information
Exchange Network - NEIEN), and the CBP Scenario Builder tool.

Is the complete data set accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and
embedded definitions? If yes, please indicate where complete dataset can be
obtained. Yes, refer to
http://ches.communitymodeling.org/models/CBPhase5/index.php
(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different): Jennifer Greiner (Habitat GIT
coordinator, FWS) and Kyle Runion (Habitat GIT staff, CRC; runion.kyle@epa.gov,
410-267-9830),
(6) CBPO Contact: Kyle Runion (Habitat GIT staff, CRC; runion.kyle@epa.gov, 410267-9830)
B. Communication Questions (complete either part 1, 2, or 3)
1. Restoration and Protection Efforts indicators only
(7a) How much has been completed since 2010 (baseline year)?
1
Between 2010 and 2014, 6,191 acres of wetlands were established, rehabilitated or reestablished on agricultural lands in the Bay watershed.
(8a) How much was done last year?
93 acres were established, rehabilitated or re-established on agricultural lands in the Bay
watershed in 2014. In 2013, Maryland restored 223 acres while in 2014 MD only restored
24 acres. No other state restored more than 32 while in other years, these states accounted
for hundreds to thousands of acres restored. The annual average acreage required to meet
the goal is slightly under 8000. A substantial increase in annual restoration activities must
occur to meet this goal.
(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal?
In 2014, the Chesapeake Bay Program adopted a goal to create or reestablish 85,000
acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands by 2025. This goal is based on the wetland
restoration targets outlined in the Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) that will help
watershed jurisdictions meet the goals of the Bay’s “pollution diet,” or Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL). Under this target of 85,000 , 83,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal
wetlands should be created or reestablished on agricultural lands. Between 2010 and
2014, 7.45% of the goal has been achieved.
(10a) What does this indicator tell us? acres of wetlands established, rehabilitated or reestablished on agricultural lands in the Bay watershed
(11a) Why is it important to report this information?
High quality, abundant wetlands are vital to the restoration of a healthy Chesapeake Bay.
Wetlands provide:
Water Quality and Flood Control Benefits
Wetlands catch runoff, take up excess nutrients, filter out sediments and contaminants,
and release the water slowly into the water body. By holding onto excess rain water and
dampening storm surges wetlands provide important flood control benefits and protect
against erosion.
Habitat/Wildlife Benefits
Many migratory ducks, geese, and swans winter in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and
rely on wetlands for food and habitat. Wetlands provide year-round habitat to other key
species such as beavers, osprey, and mussels.
Added Scenic and Recreational Value
Over 46 million Americans enjoy recreational fishing, 5 million enjoy hunting waterfowl.
(12a) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator?
(Detail and diagnostic indicators can be spatially-specific, parameter-specific,
temporally-specific information, etc.) ? None.
2
2. Bay Health or Watershed Health indicators only
(7b) What is the long-term trend? (since start of data collection) N/A
(8b) What is the short-term trend? (3 to 5 year trend) N/A
(9b) What is the current status in relation to a goal? N/A
(10b) What is the key story told by this indicator? N/A
(11b) Why is it important to report this information? N/A
(12b) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator?
N/A
3. Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health indicators only
(7c) What is the long-term trend? (since start of data collection) N/A
(8c) What is the short-term trend? (3 to 5 year trend) N/A
(9c) What is the current status? N/A
(10c) What is the key story told by this indicator? N/A
(11c) Why is it important to report this information? N/A
(12c) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator?
N/A
4. All indicators
(7d) What did the most recent data show compared to the previous year? 93 acres were
established, rehabilitated or re-established on agricultural lands in the Bay watershed in
2014 compared to 287 acres in 2013.
(8d) If this was a significant increase/decrease:

To what do you attribute it? In 2013, Maryland restored 223 acres while in 2014
MD only restored 24 acres. No other state restored more than 32.
 Is this educated speculation or actual cause? Actual Cause
(9d) What is the goal, target, threshold or expected outcome for this indicator? In 2014,
the Chesapeake Bay Program adopted a goal to create or reestablish 85,000 acres of tidal
and non-tidal wetlands by 2025. This goal is based on the wetland restoration targets
outlined in the Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) that will help watershed
jurisdictions meet the goals of the Bay’s “pollution diet,” or Total Maximum Daily Load
3
(TMDL). Under this target, 83,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands should be created
or reestablished on agricultural lands.
(10d) Was a new goal, target, threshold or expected outcome established since last
reporting? No Why?
(11d) Did the methodology of data collection or analysis change from previous year(s)?
Why and how?
All data reported here reflect only established, rehabilitated, or re-established wetlands on
agricultural lands. These wetlands are considered functional and of benefit since they
provide increased wetland habitat, among other services. Although partners report
information for wetlands establishment or re-establishment in urban areas, these data are
not included in this indicator since some (such as urban stormwater ponds) are
established primarily to capture stormwater runoff and are not considered to be valuable
habitat.
Beginning in 2010, the CBP watershed model progress scenario input deck are used in
the indicator. Input deck data are developed using state submissions (reported via the
National Environmental Information Exchange Network - NEIEN), and the CBP
Scenario Builder tool. Any negative values reported indicate the state corrected incorrect
data from previous years (before 2010) and therefore does not affect new the current
implementation reporting period. These corrections are adjusted in the indicator data
spreadsheet by indicating negative values as zero restoration acres gained in that year.

If so, how will this improve your/our future work? Less duplication of effort and
reduced workload for data providers.
C. Temporal Considerations
(13) Data Collection Date(s): May, annually.
(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual): Annual
(a) Source Data: MD, VA, PA, DC, WV, NY, DE
(b) Indicator: Gain in Wetland Acreage
(15) For annual reporting, month spatial data is available for reporting: May
D. Spatial Considerations
(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other): None currently
available. Seeking HUC 10 watershed scale data.
(17) Acceptable Level of Spatial Aggregation (e.g. - county, state, major basin, tributary
basin, HUC): HUC 10
(18) Are there geographic areas with missing data? If so, where? NA
4
(19) The spatial extent of this indicator best described as: B
(a) Chesapeake Bay (estuary)
(b) Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(c) Other (please describe): _______________________
Please submit any appropriate examples of how this information has been mapped or
otherwise portrayed geographically in the past. Maryland MDE and DNR have GIS tools
to target wetland restoration.
(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically? Currently by
State only.
E. Data Analysis and Interpretation: (Please provide appropriate references and
location of documentation if hard to find.)
(21) Is the conceptual model used to transform these measurements into an indicator
widely accepted as a scientifically sound representation of the phenomenon it indicates?
(i.e., how well do the data represent the phenomenon?) Yes for acreage. However, the
ability of restored acreage to replace lost functions is not well documented through
monitoring.
(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and
presentation of the indicator? Acreages of wetland BMPs implemented (agricultural
wetland restoration) in each state are added to get total acreage of wetlands restored
watershed-wide.
(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed
model) No
(24) Are the computations widely accepted as a scientifically sound? Reported acreage is
quality controlled by the state.
(25) Have appropriate statistical methods been used to generalize or portray data beyond
the time or spatial locations where measurements were made (e.g., statistical survey
inference, no generalization is possible)? No
(26) Are there established reference points, thresholds or ranges of values for this
indicator that unambiguously reflect the desired state of the environment?
(health/stressors only) No
F. Data Quality: (Please provide appropriate references and location of documentation
if hard to find.)
(27) Were the data collected according to an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Plan?
5
If no, complete questions 28a – 28d:
Yes. Procedures at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for acquiring and managing data
are documented in the following EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan:
 “Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Nonpoint Source Data –
Chesapeake Bay Program” on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance
Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).
(28a) Are the sampling design, monitoring plan and/or tracking system used to collect the
data over time and space based on sound scientific principles? N/A
(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and
analytical procedures used? N/A
(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and
technically valid? N/A
(28d) To what extent are the procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the
data documented and accessible? N/A
(29) Are the descriptions of the study or survey design clear, complete and sufficient to
enable the study or survey to be reproduced?
Yes. Please see http://ches.communitymodeling.org/models/CBPhase5/index.php for the
most recent documentation (December 2010). Updated Phase 5.3.2 documentation will
be completed in 2012.
Study/survey design procedures for managing nonpoint source data can found at:
 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) “Standard Operating Procedures for
Managing Nonpoint Source Data – Chesapeake Bay Program” on file for the EPA
grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data
record? Yes.
(31) If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and
methods comparable? Yes
(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the
underlying data set? No
(33) Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from
the data and the utility of the indicator? N/A
(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record? Please explain.
These data only include wetlands that were restored for the purposes of improving
water quality. Additional projects that provide benefits to living resources but do not
6
provide water quality improvements are not included. Projects which enhance the
function of existing wetlands are also not included.
G. Additional Information (optional)
(35) Please provide any other information about this indicator you believe is necessary to
aid communication and any prevent potential miss-representation.
Data are sourced from the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Scenario Input
Deck and sometimes these source data are negative values. These negative values
indicate the state corrected incorrect data from years prior to 2010 and therefore does not
affect the current implementation of restoration work in this reporting period. In order to
report whole figures, these corrections were adjusted in the indicator worksheet by
indicating the negative values as zero restoration acres gained in that year.
7