Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Prioritized Sites for Amphipod TIE Study Identify 12 potentially toxic inter-tidal sites Sample four sites at a time to find two suitable sites for amphipod.
Advertisements

TMDL Development Mainstem Monongahela River Watershed May 14, 2014.
The Effect of the Changing Dynamics of the Conowingo Dam on the Chesapeake Bay Mukhtar Ibrahim and Karl Berger, COG staff Water Resources Technical Committee.
Defining Restored Bay and Tidal Tributary Water Quality  Round Two  Draft Revised Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll Criteria.
James River Chlorophyll Study Status Update: January 2015 House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee David K. Paylor, DEQ Director.
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration An EPA Perspective Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA.
Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Stephen.
Chesapeake Bay Program Decision Framework Implementation.
National Water Quality Monitoring Network Design Alfred L. Korndoerfer, Jr. Karl Muessig.
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment National Water Quality Monitoring Council Meeting August 20, 2003.
Update on Chesapeake Bay Issues Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 17, 2009 Ted Graham & Steve Bieber COG Department.
Grand Haven Pond Study: An Investigation to Reduce Nutrient Loads and Evaluate Alternative Management Practices in Stormwater Ponds Mark Clark Wetlands.
Region III Activities to Implement National Vision to Improve Water Quality Monitoring National Water Quality Monitoring Council August 20, 2003.
Forestry BMP Review Process Mark Sievers, Tetra Tech Forestry Workgroup (FWG) Conference Call—February 1, 2012.
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Katherine Antos Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jenny Molloy Water Protection Division DC Draft Phase II WIP.
Collaborative Monitoring in the Great Lakes: Revisiting the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project Collaborative Monitoring in the Great Lakes: Revisiting.
Karl Berger Dept. of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Developments April 28, 2015.
The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water.
1 Survey of the Nation’s Lakes Presentation at NALMS’ 25 th Annual International Symposium Nov. 10, 2005.
Progress on Coordinating CBP and Federal Leadership Goals, Outcomes, and Actions Principals’ Staff Committee Meeting 2/16/12 Carin Bisland, Associate Director.
1 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board Meeting March 6, 2012 Discussion for the Final Evaluation of Milestones.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Jim Edward EPA Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office DDOE Meeting with Federal Partners February.
Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 30, 2010.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL & Watershed Implementation Plans The Role of Local Governments Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA Presentation.
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.
 Nutrient Limitation What’s happening in the Chesapeake Bay and how does it compare to our results?
Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
EPA Chesapeake Bay Trading and Offsets Workplan June 1, 2012.
Chesapeake Bay Hypoxia: History and Management Response Rich Batiuk Associate Director for Science Chesapeake Bay Program Office U.S. Environmental Protection.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey CBP Partnership Team- Enhance Monitoring in the Bay and its Watershed Scott Phillips, USGS Jonathan.
Clifton Bell, P.E., P.G. Chesapeake Bay Modeling Perspectives for the Regulated Community.
Adem.alabama.gov ADEM’s Monitoring Summary Reports Alabama – Tombigbee CWP Stakeholders Meeting Montgomery, Alabama 3 February 2010 Lisa Huff – ADEM Field.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL 2017 Midpoint Assessment: A Critical Path Forward Lucinda Power EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
SAV Management Strategy 1 Title of Presentation Date Image or Graphic.
Maryland Association of Counties Conference August 12, 2009 Bob Koroncai USEPA Region III The Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Water Resources Technical Committee Chesapeake Bay Program Overview & Updates July 10, 2008 Tanya T. Spano.
OVERVIEW: CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS AND WATER & CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITIES Water Resources Technical Committee Oct. 29, 2015 Presented by Tanya.
What do we have in common? Do more with less! PNAMP Integrated Status & Trend Monitoring Workgroup.
Water Quality Indicators and Monitoring Design to Support the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program: A Progress Report Dean E. Carpenter and William.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans: Why, What, and When Katherine Antos U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office MACo Winter Conference January.
Potential Activities, Costs, and Priorities for Watershed Monitoring Scott Phillips Joel Blomquist Katie Foreman Eff/Opt Conf Call July 24, 2009.
Stream Health Outcome Biennial Workplan Neely L. Law, PhD Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Program Sediment & Stream Coordinator Habitat.
Jeff Horan, Habitat GIT Chair February 16, 2012 CBP Decision Framework in Action.
Existing Non-tidal Monitoring Network. Existing Non-tidal Monitoring Network classified according to size of watershed and predominant land use upstream.
Carin Bisland, EPA Principals’ Staff Committee 5/14/12.
Collaborative Monitoring in the Great Lakes: Revisiting the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project Collaborative Monitoring in the Great Lakes: Revisiting.
Criteria Attainment and Assessing Management Effectiveness Peter Tango CBPO Co-chair Bob Hirsch USGS Staff Expert Katie Foreman May 20,
Integrated Approach for Assessing and Communicating Progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Water-Quality Standards Scott Phillips USGS, STAR May 14, 2012 PSC.
Watershed Monitoring *Background Watershed Stewardship Plan-2004 Gap Projects IRWMP-Dec Policies SFEI study-2007 Joint TC/WC meeting-June 2010 *Proposed.
Technical Support in Engineering Construction Phase of Craney Island Eastward Expansion Mac Sisson, Harry Wang, Jian Shen, Albert Kuo, and Wenping Gong.
For EBTJV meeting October 26, 2010 Executive Order Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
Chesapeake bay program: Funding & Bay TMDL Midpoint Assessment
LCC Role in Conservation Science and Science Delivery
Proposed Bay TMDL Schedule
2025 Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Load Projections
Michael, B. D. , Trice, T. M. , Heyer, C. J. , Stankelis, R. M
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Water & Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association March 22, 2017
Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2.0
Jon Capacasa, Director Water Protection Division U.S. EPA Region III
SMR Nutrient Initiative Group Background Information Review
Presentation transcript:

Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner Priorities Peter Tango

January 2009 STAC+Senior Managers; Draft Recommendations Report Provided to MASC Summer/Autumn 2008 STAC Mon Workshops I, II, III February/March 2009 STAC/Senior Managers Recommendations, MASC Response, and Realignment Options presented to the CBP Management Board for final decisions March 2009 US EPA amends Monitoring Section of CBP Grant Guidance to carry out Management Board’s Decisions March 25, 2008 Proposal Presented To STAC The Yearlong Program Review Process: CBP Partner Monitoring Networks Review and Reporting Schedule Timeline Winter 2007/08 Proposal 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 Support Tidal Bay Delisting Decisions Monitoring Elements: June-September water column measurements Annual Baywide SAV aerial survey Annual Benthic Monitoring Assessment Assumptions: 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 results Living resource based 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: YearSites 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 Basin Proposed Watershed Activities Respecting 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 only partially implemented. Fully implementation monitoring is required for the sites to contribute to nutrient and sediment load site Network, ie. The Primary Station Watershed Network. This directly addresses the STAC 2005 critique regarding spatial density of monitoring stations in watershed. Before full implementation for any such site, prioritization will be made by representativeness of landscape character associated with these sites.

Status Quo Existing CBP + State Match Monitoring Networks Resources $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 Summer As needed Apr-Oct As needed Apr-Oct As needed Mar-Nov As needed Cruises4 MD, VA7 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 WATERSHED TIDAL

Status Quo vs. Option 1 Watershed Network $0.9 M Tidal Network $3.4 M Tidal Mainstem and Tributary Monitoring $1.3M1.0M Submerged Aquatic Vegetation $0.6M0.6M Shallow Water Monitoring $0.6M Phytoplankton Monitoring $0.4M Benthic Invertebrate Community Monitoring $0.4M0.4M 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 QuoOption 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 Quo vs. 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 M Status Quo Option 2 Option 1 Watershed Network $2.1 M Tidal Network $2.0 M Tidal Network $2.2 M

Status Quo vs. Option 1, 2, 3 Watershed Network $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 1.5M1.2M 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 Watershed Network $2.3 M Status QuoOption 3 Option 2 Option 1 Watershed Network $2.1 M Tidal Networks $2.0 M Tidal Networks $2.2 M Watershed Network $1.8 M Tidal Network $2.5 M

Transition Plan New FY RFPs to reflect realignment decision by the CBP Management Board in March 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, 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 cruises Aerial overflights Benthic 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 ParametersMainstem 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 SeasonsApril-October (except SAV to include Polyhaline) Sampling events 7 Monthly cruises SAV Aerial Survey Benthic 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 ParametersMainstem 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 SeasonsApril-October (except SAV to include Polyhaline) Sampling events 7 Monthly cruises SAV Aerial Survey Benthic 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.