Chesapeake Bay ProgramMonitoring Activities

and Monitoring Network Design

Chesapeake Bay ProgramMonitoring Activities

and Monitoring Network Design

Stephen D. Preston U.S. Geological Survey / Chesapeake Bay Program Office

Annapolis, Maryland

0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles

AgricultureBarenForestUrbanWater

Chesapeake BayWatershed

Land Use

Chesapeake Bay GeographyChesapeake Bay Geography

Watershed Characteristics

* 64,000 square miles in area

* includes parts of six States & DC

* 9 major drainages

Bay Characteristics

* 4,500 square miles in area

* encompassed by two States MD and VA

* most drainage comes from PA, MD and VA

PA

NY

MDDE

WV

VA

Chesapeake Bay ImpairmentsChesapeake Bay Impairments

Variety of Ecological Impacts - Eutrophication • Anoxia • Seasonal Algal Blooms• Loss of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation• Loss of Economically Important Species

Tidal Water-Quality MonitoringTidal Water-Quality Monitoring

Objectives of Tidal MonitoringObjectives of Tidal Monitoring

A. Characterization, Status- Water-Quality Criteria- Nutrient Reduction Goals- Biological and Ecological Indicators

B. Temporal Changes - Long-Term Trends

C. Tidal Water-Quality Modeling

D. Understanding of Processes Related to the Attainment of Water-Quality Criteria and Other Restoration Goals

A. Cross Section of Chesapeake Bay or Tidal Tributary

B. Oblique View of the “Chesapeake Bay” and its Tidal Tributaries

Shallow Water

Open WaterDeep Water

Deep Channel

Open WaterHabitatShallow Water

Habitat

Deep Water

Deep Channel

Migratory FinfishSpawning andNursery Habitat

Designated Uses for Chesapeake BayDesignated Uses for Chesapeake Bay

DissolvedOxygen

Chlorophylla

WaterClarity

MigratorySpawning and

NurseryX X

Shallow Water X X X

Open Water X X

Deep Water X

Deep Channel X

Application of Water-Quality CriteriaApplication of Water-Quality Criteria

Spatial Extent of Tidal MonitoringSpatial Extent of Tidal Monitoring

CBP Monitoring

Segmentation

Potential Approaches for Tidal MonitoringPotential Approaches for Tidal Monitoring

A. Buoy Systems* Potential Need - Dissolved Oxygen Criteria

B. Probability-Based Monitoring * Potential Need - Shallow-Water Monitoring

C. Fixed-Station Monitoring * Potential Need - All Objectives, Some Designated Uses

D. Continuous Underway Monitoring Systems * Potential Need - Detailed Spatial Assessment

E. Remote Sensing (Aerial Over-flights, Satellite Imagery)

* Potential Need - Chlorophyll Criteria Attainment

$$$$

$$$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$$$

$$$

$ $$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$$$

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$

$

$$

$

$$ $

$$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $$

$

$

$$

$

$$

$ $$

$

$$

$

$

$$

$

$

$$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

Fixed-Station

Water-Quality Monitoring

Network

in Relation to the

Open Water, Deep Water

and Deep Channel

Designated Uses

Interpretation Of Fixed-Station DataInterpretation Of Fixed-Station Data

Continuous Underway MonitoringContinuous Underway Monitoring

Continuous Underway MonitoringContinuous Underway Monitoring

Non-Tidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network Design

Non-Tidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network Design

Objectives of Non-Tidal MonitoringObjectives of Non-Tidal Monitoring

A. Flux from the Watershed - Load Estimation

B. Temporal Changes - Long-Term Trends

C. Effectiveness of BMP’s - Watershed Modeling

D. Research / Education

Objectives – Load EstimationObjectives – Load Estimation

WRIR 99-4238, Belval and Sprague

WRIR 98-4192, Langland

Objectives – Trend AnalysisObjectives – Trend Analysis

Factors Affecting Nutrient Trends In Major Rivers of the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Sprague and others (2000)

WRIR 00-4218

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

0

2

4

6

8

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 DIS

CH

AR

GE

, IN

CU

BIC

FE

ET

PE

R S

EC

ON

D

TOTAL NITROGEN

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE

CONCENTRATION

EXPLANATION

Patuxent RiverPatuxent River

NITROGENSOURCES

1985

1998

POINT SOURCE

URBANFOREST

AGRICULTURESEPTIC

ATMOSPHERIC

DELI

VER

ED

LO

AD

, IN

10

5 K

ILO

GR

AM

S P

ER

YEA

R

0-0.1

0.1-0.2

0.9-162.

No

data

0.8-0.9

0.7-0.8

0.6-0.7

0.5-0.6

0.4-0.5

0.3-0.4

0.2-0.3

gm / m2-yr

Total NitrogenDelivered Yield

Patuxent River Basin

%

% %

%%%%

%%

%% %%

%%% %%%%

%% %%%%

%%

%

%%%

%% %%

%% %%% %%

%

% %% %% %

%% %%% %% %

%%% %%% %% %

%% %%% % %% %

%% %%%%

%%% %% %

%%%

%%%% %

%%% % %%%% %%% % %%

%%%% %%

%%% %%% %%

% %% %

%% %%

%

%

% %%%% %% %

%% %%%%% %%%%

%% %%%%%%

%%%

%%% %%%% %%% %%

%% %% %% %

%% %%% %% % %%% %%% %% %%% %%% %%% %%%%%% %

%%% %% %%%%% %%% % %%% % %%%% %%% %%% %%%% %% %%% %%% %%% %% %%

% %%%

%

%

%%%%

%

%%

%

%%

%

%% %

%%

%%

%%%%

%

%

%

%%

%%

%%

%

%

%

% % %%

%

%%%

% %%%

%

%

%%

%%%

%

%

%

%%

%%

%

%%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%%

%

%

%

%%

%

% %%

%

% %% %%

%

% % %

%%

%

% %

%

%%

%

%% %

%

Time Period - 1987

Time Period - 1992

Chesapeake Bay

Stream-Load

Data Base

Chesapeake Bay

Stream-Load

Data Base

“Non-tidal”data base

• Constructed in mid-1990’s (NSC/USGS)

• Contains nutrient and sediment data collected by State, Federal, and NGO’s.

• 3 years minimum• Updated through 2002• Linked to GIS so

allows for analysis

• 703 Stream Gages

• 176 QW Associated with Stream Gages

• 313 Active Stream Gages 389 Active Water-Quality

• 118 Sites Meet Frequency and/or Parameter Criteria for trends

• >1700 Water Quality

Initial Network Design

Nontidal Water-Quality

Monitoring

• Implementation of strategies to meet water-quality criteria

• Nontidal network will provide first measure of water-quality improvements

Areas of different loadings

• Enhance network to target nutrient sources and loads– Assess reductions

– Using SPARROW late 1990s version

Initial Network Design

• Evaluate current sites• Propose new locations

– Tributary Basin boundaries

– High load areas