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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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 2007 33 2008 73 2009 79 2010 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)

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 1 2 3 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

16. 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.

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

18. 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?

19. Thank you

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.