1 / 17

Presentation to the Monitoring Re-Alignment Action Team October 7, 2009 Presentation prepared by:

Recommendations to improve coordinated nontidal monitoring, assessment and communication activities in support of Chesapeake Bay restoration. Presentation to the Monitoring Re-Alignment Action Team October 7, 2009 Presentation prepared by: Scott Phillips Joel Blomquist Katie Foreman.

poppy
Download Presentation

Presentation to the Monitoring Re-Alignment Action Team October 7, 2009 Presentation prepared by:

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. Recommendations to improve coordinated nontidal monitoring, assessment and communication activities in support of Chesapeake Bay restoration Presentation to the Monitoring Re-Alignment Action Team October 7, 2009 Presentation prepared by: Scott Phillips Joel Blomquist Katie Foreman

  2. Who created recommendations for improved nontidal monitoring and assessment? MRAT Optimization and Effectiveness Team • Core work was conducted by CBP nontidal workgroup • Additional participants by other federal, state river basin, academics, colleagues • Weekly optimization and effectiveness meetings, conference calls, email voting, many drafts to a recommendations document

  3. Nontidal O&E Team Findings Nontidal O&E team identified 4 topic areas where enhancement was needed to address charge and respond to STAC review. 1) Improve the Nontidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network, 2) Enhance assessment of existing information, 3) Utilize small watershed studies to assess effects of management actions, and 4) Develop additional communication products.

  4. 1. Improve NTN - Findings • Foundation for all analysis and communication of status and changes in WQ in the CB watershed. Large historical investment. • Cooperative Network is growing – 85 sites, data analysis and reporting not currently funded for maturing network. • Representative analysis done, objectives of the network revised to reflect priority to look at effectiveness of management actions.

  5. 1. Improve NTN - Recommendations • Make strategic improvements to the NTN to support assessment the effects of management actions in a more quantitative fashion in the future — additional sites in:         a. watersheds with predominantly urban land use,        b. watersheds with predominantly agricultural land use,        c. Coastal Plain watersheds, and        d. basins where substantial BMP investments are planned, and other watersheds that can be used for baseline conditions.

  6. 2. Enhance assessment of existing information - Findings • Need a more strategic approach to analysis and communication of results from the NTN to achieve the following goals: • Describe the status of water-quality conditions to better focus management actions, • Document water-quality change, and • Explain water-quality change. • Need significant improvements in current and historical information on land use, point sources, population, agricultural activity and management activity.

  7. 2. Enhance assessment of existing information - Recommendations • Utilize long-term data sets to communicate patterns of change over time and explain effects of changes in the watershed.   • Utilize sites with the shorter period of record to describe the status of concentrations and loads across the watershed to support targeting of restoration efforts. • Refine methods to use additional partner monitoring to improve spatial resolution of current assessments. • Use available data to evaluate and improve watershed models. • Many more…

  8. 2. Enhance assessment of existing information – Recommendations (con’t) There is a missing piece to explaining water quality change • The MRAT team has concluded that the implementation data available at this time is insufficient for the evaluation of the effects of management actions. An effort is needed to: • assemble and document historical information on land use, point sources, population, and agricultural activity, • create a sustainable process for tracking watershed information in the future, and • make this information available to support assessment, research, and modeling efforts.

  9. 3. Utilize small watershed studies – Findings • Small watershed studies provide the best opportunities to assess the effectiveness of management actions and understand the multiple factors affecting water-quality change. • There are over 60 studies in the watershed that have conducted or are currently conducting small watershed monitoring and assessment. • These studies vary in the parameters sampled, frequency of sampling, sampling design, quality assurance levels, and type of management activity.

  10. 3. Utilize small watershed studies-Recommendations • The CBP NTN should locate a sentinel long-term nontidal network site in selected small watershed study areas with increased implementation in order to provide a long-term monitoring • Synthesize lessons learned in past and on-going small watershed studies and ground-water quality studies and integrate these results into communication products to support watershed assessments and management decisions. NOTE: In order to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions, MRAT participants identified the following spatial and temporally-specific information as critical: changes in land activities, management actions, and water quality.

  11. 4. Develop additional communication products - Findings • Results from the NTN are not well represented in CBP communication products • Currently, 2 indicators are included in the CBP’s Bay Barometer for watershed health: • Total nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay (using NTN data and modeled data) • Stream Health Indicator (Chesapeake Bay Basin-wide Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity)

  12. 4. Develop additional communication products - Recommendations • Fill communication gaps in the following areas: • Communicate status and trends of nutrient and sediment to a large audience—such as through the Bay Barometer, • Explain observed water quality change in relation to management actions, • Link current conditions and long term trends with management goals, • Communicate summary results on management effectiveness for focused studies, and • Incorporate State assessments in Chesapeake Bay communications products.

  13. Costs of enhancement to nontidal monitoring and assessment • Costs of nontidal monitoring and assessment enhancements are summarized in table 4 of nontidal MRAT report. • Total cost of all activities are $2-$3.7 million/year. • Activities were prioritized and the cost of highest priority activities are $645,000-$720,000/year, which is only about 20-30% of budget for all recommended activities

  14. Option 1: Additional $556,000 investment • Data management and data analysis support of the 85 site NTN ($300,000) • 3 new monitoring sites in small watersheds with enhanced implementation ($135,000) • Synthesize lessons learned from global literature review of small watershed studies ($100,000) • Initial investment in gathering information on watershed and management actions important to explaining water quality change ($21,000)

  15. Option 2: Additional $1.2 Million investment • All of the investment from option 1 ($556,000) • Larger investment in gathering information on watershed and management actions important to explaining water quality change ($251,000) • Add 5 new monitoring sites in small watersheds with enhanced implementation and predominant landuses ($225,000) • Increase funding to interpret and synthesis results from small watershed studies and provide monitoring support to these studies ($100,000) • Increase funding to develop additional trend analysis techniques for documenting water quality change ($100,000)

  16. Option 3 – Additional $2-3.7 million investment • All activities identified in the report are supported in the following topic areas: 1) Improve the Nontidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network, 2) Enhance assessment of existing information, 3) Utilize small watershed studies to assess effects of management actions, and 4) Develop additional communication products.

  17. Thank you! • CBP nontidal water quality workgroup and MRAT optimization and effectiveness issue team including the following participants: Iris Anderson, VIMS; Jon Anderson, MSU; Peter Bergstrom, NOAA; Joel Blomquist, USGS; Walt Boynton, VIMS; Denise Breitburg, SERC; Mark Brush, VIMS; Claire Buchanan, ICPRB; Doug Chambers, USGS WV; Bill Dennison, UMCES; Jon Doughnout, ODU; Suzan Doughton, ODU; Katie Foreman, UMCES; Sherm Garrison, MDDNR; Jake Goodwin, CRC; Kirk Havens, VIMS; Carlton Haywood, ICPRB; Dave Heicher, SRBC; Bob Hirsch, USGS; Rick Hoffman, VADEQ; Cindy Johnson, VADEQ; Jackie Johnson, ICPRB; Renee Karrh, MDDNR; Jeni Keisman, UMCES; Mike Lane, ODU; Mary Ellen Ley, USGS; Roberto Llanso, Versar; Bruce Michael, MDDNR; Hassan Mirsajadi, DNREC; Ken Moore, VIMS; Derick Orner, NOAA; Bob Orth, VIMS; Tom Parham, MDDNR; Elgin Perry, Consultant; Scott Phillips, USGS; Bill Richardson, USEPA; Bill Romano, MDDNR; Tony Shaw, PADEP; Rick Shertzer, PADEP; Nita Sylvester, USEPA; Peter Tango, USGS; Howard Townsend, NOAA; Mark Trice, MDDNR; Lyle Varnell, VIMS; Lisa Wainger, UMCES; Denice Wardrop, PSU; Don Weller, SERC; Charlie Poukish, MDE; Peter Freehafer, NYDEC; Ken Hyer, USGS; Ron Klauda, MDDNR; Mike Langland, USGS; Kevin McGonigal, SRBC; Doug Moyer, USGS; Gary Shenk, USEPA; Rich Batiuk, USEPA; Bob Hirsch, USGS; Mike Mallonee, ICPRB; Fred Irani, USGS; Ed Reilly, NYDEC; Julie Winters, USEPA.

More Related