1 / 14

Peter Tango USGS @CBPO

Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner Priorities A Nontidal WG Review June 17, 2009. Peter Tango USGS @CBPO. WATERSHED TIDAL.

cisco
Download Presentation

Peter Tango USGS @CBPO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks:Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner PrioritiesA Nontidal WG ReviewJune 17, 2009 Peter Tango USGS @CBPO

  2. WATERSHED TIDAL

  3. WATERSHED TIDAL

  4. WATERSHED TIDAL

  5. WATERSHED TIDAL

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

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

  8. 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, i.e. 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.

  9. MRAT Needs • Focus priorities. • Field Monitoring • Analysis and Interpretation • % Field vs. % Analysis tradeoffs

  10. MRAT Needs • Scheduling priorities. • Compare Single full-funding event versus phased-in funding over 2-4 years. • Year 1: What are priorities for first $250K, $500K, $750K, $1M? • Year 2: What are the priorities after year 1 for the next $250K, $500K, $750K? • Year 3? • Year 4?

  11. Example Scenario Structure for a Decision Tree: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Scenarios 3 or 4 year 3 yrs 2 yrs 3 yrs 2 yrs 2 yrs 1 yr 250 500 250 250 250 500 750 250 500 250 250 500 750 1M Scenarios: 1 1-yr & 1 4-yr, then 3 2-yr and 3 3-yr opportunities = 8 scenarios

  12. MRAT Needs • Partnering opportunities • Tighten $ estimates on the scenarios for recommendations.

  13. THANK YOU!

  14. WATERSHED TIDAL

More Related