Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks:

Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner

Priorities

Peter TangoUSGS @CBPO

January 2009STAC+Senior

Managers; DraftRecommendationsReport Provided

to MASC

Summer/Autumn 2008

STAC Mon Workshops

I, II, III

February/March 2009STAC/Senior Managers Recommendations,

MASC Response, and Realignment Options presented to the CBP Management Board

for final decisions

March 2009US EPA amends

Monitoring Section ofCBP Grant Guidance to

carry out Management Board’s

Decisions

March 25, 2008Proposal Presented

To STAC

The Yearlong Program Review Process:CBP Partner Monitoring Networks

Review and Reporting Schedule Timeline

Winter 2007/08Proposal developed

for STAC Review

STAC-MON REVIEW 2008 WORKSHOPS:

STAC/Senior Manager Findings• Continuing operation of the monitoring

networks in a status quo condition is unacceptable.

• Delisting of the Bay segments and determining the effectiveness of our management actions are the responsibility of the Partnership and should be the priority of the monitoring program.

STAC-MON REVIEW: CBP Senior Managers’ Priorities

• Deliver information to support spatially explicit delisting decisions– Minimize tidal water monitoring while supporting

Bay criteria assessments

• Assess effectiveness of management actions to reduce nutrient and sediment loads in the watershed– Expand the watershed monitoring network to

support analysis of management effectiveness at local, Tributary Strategy and regional scales.

DECISIONS REQUESTED

• Desired monitoring network realignment option directed towards “making delisting decisions” and “assessing management effectiveness”?

• Additional information wanted detailing

changes in the monitoring networks for finalizing the Partner’s monitoring network transition plan?

Minimum Monitoring SupportTidal Bay Delisting Decisions

Monitoring Elements:• June-September water column

measurements• Annual Baywide SAV aerial survey• Annual Benthic Monitoring

AssessmentAssumptions:• Summer open-water 30-day

mean, deep water 30-day mean and instantaneous deep channel D.O. criteria are fully protective of the remaining D.O. criteria.

• Shallow-water bay grass designated use delisting decision based solely on SAV acreage

• No nutrient criteria = no nutrient monitoring in the Bay.

SAV Aerial Survey

B-IBI resultsLiving resourcebased criteria

Current and future Watershed Network Water Quality Monitoring sites where loads can be calculated within the Chesapeake Bay Basin

The CBP Watershed Monitoring Network Nutrient and Sediment Load calculation sites:

Year Sites 2007 332008 732009 792010 88

• Regional nutrient load assessments presently available for 33 sites.

• Quantify trends potentially reflective of control practices.

• Data used to calibrate Watershed models

• “Spatial density… inadequate for determining effectiveness of control actions being taken on the land” (STAC 2005)

Active and Proposed Watershed Network Water Quality Monitoring sites in the Chesapeake Bay

BasinProposed Watershed ActivitiesRespecting New Objectives:

• Refine/Expand our existing network to document load changes at local, tributary strategy and regional scales

• Assess change from different major source sectors, e.g. agriculture, urban, suburban

• Strategically Partner on Priority Watershed Implementation sites

• Develop indicators that related Measured nutrient and sediment changes to allocations needed to meet the Bay TMDL

Secondary Stations

18 sites where monitoring is onlypartially implemented.

Fully implementation monitoring isrequired for the sites to contributeto nutrient and sediment load site Network, ie. The Primary StationWatershed Network.

This directly addresses the STAC2005 critique regarding spatialdensity of monitoring stations in watershed.

Before full implementation for anysuch site, prioritization will bemade by representativenessof landscape character associatedwith these sites.

Status QuoExisting CBP + State Match

Monitoring NetworksResources

$4.3M

Watershed Network $0.9 M

Tidal Network$3.4 M

• Tidal Mainstem and Tributary Monitoring $1.3M• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation $0.6M• Shallow Water Monitoring $0.6M• Phytoplankton Monitoring $0.4M• Benthic Invertebrate Community Monitoring $0.4M• Ecosystem Processes $0.1M• Watershed Water Quality Monitoring I: Network $0.3M• Watershed Water Quality Monitoring II: River Input $0.6M• Total $4.3M

CBP Baywide and Basinwide Partners Monitoring Networks

Realignment Options• Option 1. Minimize monitoring effort in the tidal Chesapeake Bay to

that needed for supporting criteria assessment; maximize information for assessing management effectiveness in the watershed.

• Option 2. Minimize monitoring effort in the tidal Chesapeake Bay for supporting criteria assessment, sustain additional diagnostic monitoring at reduced rate; maximize watershed assessment of Management effectiveness.

• Option 3. Minimize monitoring effort in the tidal Chesapeake Bay for supporting criteria assessment, sustain additional diagnostic monitoring, provide for decision options by supporting DATAFLOW assessments; maximize assessing management effectiveness in the watershed.

• Option 4. Status quo

Monitoring Programming Option

1

Option

2

Option

3

Status

Quo

Listing/Delisting

Seasons: Cruises

Benthic & SAV

SummerAs needed

Apr-OctAs needed

Apr-OctAs needed

Mar-NovAs needed

Cruises 4 MD, VA 7 MD, VA 7 MD, VA 16 MD,

14 VA

Shallow water diagnostics

Other diagnostics (Nutrients, Phytoplankton, Ecosystem Processes, other)

Nutrients

Nutrient/sediment load analyses for expanded data

Load Indicator Development

Additional Support for Priority Watershed Monitoring (e.g. source sectors, small watersheds)

Existing Network Support

WA

TE

RS

HE

D

TID

AL

Status Quovs.

Option 1

Watershed Network $0.9 M

Tidal Network $3.4 M

• Tidal Mainstem and Tributary Monitoring $1.3M 1.0M• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation $0.6M 0.6M• Shallow Water Monitoring $0.6M• Phytoplankton Monitoring $0.4M• Benthic Invertebrate Community Monitoring $0.4M 0.4M• Ecosystem Processes $0.1M• Watershed Water Quality Monitoring I: Network $0.3M 1.7M• Watershed Water Quality Monitoring II: River Input $0.6M_________0.6M_• $4.3M $4.3M

Nontidal Programs

$2.3 M

Status Quo Option 1

Watershed Network $2.3 M

Tidal Network $2.0 M

Status Quo Option 1

This boundary expresses an uncertainty in the exact dollar value of each option

Status Quovs.

Option 1, 2

Watershed Network $0.9 M

Tidal Network $3.4 M

• Tidal Mainstem and Tributary Monitoring $1.3M 1.0M 1.2M• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation $0.6M 0.6M 0.6M• Shallow Water Monitoring $0.6M• Phytoplankton Monitoring $0.4M• Benthic Invertebrate Community Monitoring $0.4M 0.4M 0.4M• Ecosystem Processes $0.1M• Watershed Water Quality Monitoring I: Network $0.3M 1.7M 1.5M• Watershed Water Quality Monitoring II: River Input $0.6M___ 0.6M___0.6M• Total $4.3M $4.3M $4.3M

Status Option Option Quo 1 2

Watershed Network $2.3 M

Tidal Programs

$2.0 MStatus Quo Option 2 Option 1

WatershedNetwork $2.1 M

Tidal Network$2.0 M

Tidal Network$2.2 M

Status Quovs.

Option 1, 2, 3

WatershedNetwork $0.9 M

Tidal Network $3.4 M

• Tidal Mainstem and Tributary Monitoring $1.3M 1.0M 1.2M 1.2M• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation $0.6M 0.6M 0.6M 0.6M• Shallow Water Monitoring $0.6M 0.3M • Phytoplankton Monitoring $0.4M• Benthic Invertebrate Community Monitoring $0.4M 0.4M 0.4M 0.4M• Ecosystem Processes $0.1M• Watershed Water Quality Monitoring I: Network $0.3M 1.7M 1.5M 1.2M• Watershed Water Quality Monitoring II: River Input $0.6M____ 0.6M___0.6M___ 0.6M__• Total $4.3M 4.3M 4.3M 4.3M

Status Option Option Option Quo 1 2 3

Watershed Network$2.3 M

Status Quo Option 3 Option 2 Option 1

WatershedNetwork $2.1 M

Tidal Networks

$2.0 M

Tidal Networks

$2.2 M

WatershedNetwork $1.8 M

Tidal Network $2.5 M

Transition Plan• New FY RFPs to reflect realignment decision by the CBP

Management Board in March 2009.

• Over the summer and fall, Technical Support Services Team and Workgroups conduct analyses on network efficiencies.

• Finalize details of refinements to the Partner’s Tidal and Watershed Monitoring Network structure based on CBP Management Board’s realignment decision.

• Continue existing water year monitoring efforts through the end of the 2009 water year.

• Enact new Partnership’s Tidal and Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Network January 1, 2010.

• Schedule the next review to evaluate how the new networks are meeting the stated management priorities and adapt the networks where necessary.

DECISIONS REQUESTED

• Decision on a desired monitoring network realignment option directed towards “making delisting decisions” and “assessing management effectiveness”?

DECISIONS REQUESTED

• Decision on the transition plan. What additional information is wanted by the Management Board detailing changes in the monitoring networks for finalizing the Partner’s monitoring network transition plan?

Thank you

Tidal Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries

Watershed

Parameters • Mainstem and tidal tributaries D.O., salinity, temperature, pH, Secchi, Chlorophyll a.

SAV

Benthic community

•Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment at present and new priority stations.

•Prioritize and maximize new stations based on needs for 1) source-type local scale, 2) partner on targeted monitoring and 3) robustness to tributary strategies • Load indicator development

Year-round

Base and storm flow sampling protocol

Seasons June – September Annual SAV

Sampling events

4 Monthly cruisesAerial overflightsBenthic sampling

Option 1. Minimize monitoring effort in the tidal Chesapeake Bay to that needed for supporting criteria assessment; maximize information for assessing management effectiveness in the watershed.

Tidal Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries

Watershed

Parameters Mainstem and tidal tributaries D.O., salinity, temperature, pH, Secchi, Chlorophyll a. Limited nutrient suite.

SAV

Benthic community

Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment at present and new priority stations.

Limited set of new stations for 1) source-type 2) targeted monitoring and 3) robustness to tributary strategies Load indicator development

Year-round

Base and storm flow sampling protocol

Seasons April-October (except SAV to include Polyhaline)

Sampling events

7 Monthly cruisesSAV Aerial SurveyBenthic sampling

Option 2. Minimize monitoring effort in the tidal Chesapeake Bay for supporting criteria assessment, sustain additional diagnostic monitoring at reduced rate; maximize watershed assessment of Management effectiveness.

Tidal Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries

Watershed

Parameters Mainstem and tidal tributaries D.O., salinity, temperature, pH, Secchi, Chlorophyll a. Limited nutrient suite.

SAV, Benthic community

Shallow water, other?

Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment at present and new priority stations.

Limited set of new stations for 1) source-type assessments and 2) robustness to tributary strategies Load indicator development

Year-round

Base and storm flow sampling protocol

Seasons April-October (except SAV to include Polyhaline)

Sampling events

7 Monthly cruisesSAV Aerial SurveyBenthic sampling, other?

Option 3. Minimize monitoring effort in the tidal Chesapeake Bay for supporting criteria assessment, sustain additional diagnostic monitoring, provide for decision options by supporting DATAFLOW assessments; maximize assessing management effectiveness in the watershed.