Criteria Attainment and Assessing Management

Effectiveness

Peter Tango USGS @ CBPOCo-chair Bob Hirsch USGSStaff Expert Katie Foreman UMCES@CBPO

May 20, 2009

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Year

Annual Net Export(kg N03/ha) ControlAnnual Net Export(kg N03/ha) Clearcut

Ann

ual N

et E

xpor

t (kg

NO

3/ha

)

Recreated from Bormann and Likens 1979 in Waring and Schlesinger 1985. Forest Ecosystems Concepts and Management

60 yr old Deforested Recoveryforest

Lessons from Hubbard Brook Forest in New Hampshire

Expression of land usechange, nutrient exportand recovery of nutrientretention with revegetation.

MACROALGAE AND SEAGRASS COVERAGE, AND CHLOROPHYLL-a CONCENTRATIONS IN HILLSBOROUGH BAY

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

YEAR

MAC

ROAL

GAE

AND

SEA

GRA

SS C

OVE

RAG

E,

ha

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

CHLO

ROPH

YLL-

a CO

NCEN

TRAT

ION,

ug/

l

MACROALGAE COVERAGE

SEAGRASS COVERAGE

CHLOROPHYLL-a CONC

Johannson, 2002

System Responses: Chesapeake Bay tidal tributaries and Hillsborough Bay, FL

Assessing effectiveness of nutrient controls: Decrease nutrient load Improve Water Quality

Recovery TrajectoryDegradation TrajectoryLess nutrients

N&PMore nutrients

N&P

Less algae andturbidity

More algae andturbidity

More O2 in Deep water

Less O2 in Deep water

More light and Benthic production

More N&P uptakeLess resuspension

HigherRedox/nitrification

Healthyoysters

Expanded tidalwetlands

Less nutrientrecycling

Eroded tidalwetlands

Less light and Benthic production

Degradedoysters

LowerRedox/nitrification

Less N&P uptakeMore resuspension

More nutrientrecycling

SedimentAccumulation

Sea levelrise

DiseaseHarvest

Restoration

Wat

er C

larit

y Fe

edba

ck

Nut

rient

Fee

dbac

k

Nut

rient

Fee

dbac

k

Conceptual model of Chesapeake Bay degradation and recovery. Page 21 in Kemp et al. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 303:1-29.

Conceptual Model of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem and Response Trajectories

Recovery TrajectoryDegradation TrajectoryLess nutrients

N&PMore nutrients

N&P

Less algae andturbidity

More algae andturbidity

More O2 in Deep water

Less O2 in Deep water

More light and Benthic production

More N&P uptakeLess resuspension

HigherRedox/nitrification

Healthyoysters

Expanded tidalwetlands

Less nutrientrecycling

Eroded tidalwetlands

Less light and Benthic production

Degradedoysters

LowerRedox/nitrification

Less N&P uptakeMore resuspension

More nutrientrecycling

SedimentAccumulation

Sea levelrise

DiseaseHarvest

Restoration

Wat

er C

larit

y Fe

edba

ck

Nut

rient

Fee

dbac

k

Nut

rient

Fee

dbac

k

Conceptual model of Chesapeake Bay degradation and recovery. Page 21 in Kemp et al. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 303:1-29.

Climate Variability

Fish and Wildlife Management

Invasive Species

Historical Land UsePatterns

1985 Scenario, 420TN 28.4TP1 : Intermediate C Scenario, 378TN 24.5TP2 : 91 -'00 Base Scenario, 340TN 24.1TP3 : Intermediate B Scenario, 279TN 17.2TP4 : Tributary Strategy 2010a Scenario, 236TN 21.1TP5 : Intermediate A Scenario, 209TN 13.7TP6 : 2003 Allocation Scenario, 175TN 12.8TP7 : E3 2010 Scenario, 138TN 12.0TP8 : Does not meet WQS at E3

Lee Curry, CBP Modeling SC 2009.

Projected Spatial Pattern of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment in Response to Nutrient Load Reductions for

Chesapeake Bay

Criteria assessment:

(The Quest for the Holy Grail)

Open Water (applied year round) 30-day mean (5.5 mg/l @ 0-0.5 ppt, 5.0 mg/l @ >0.5 ppt) 7-day mean (4.0 mg/l) instantaneous minimum (3.2 mg/l @ < 29°C, 4.3 mg/l @ > 29°C)

Migratory Fish and Spawning Nursery (applied spring) 7-day mean (6.0 mg/l) instantaneous minimum (5.0 mg/l)

Deep Water (applied summer) 30-day mean (3.0 mg/l) 1-day mean (2.3 mg/l) instantaneous minimum (1 mg/l)

Deep Channel (applied summer) instantaneous minimum (1 mg/l)

Criteria assessment task: Is the 30-day Dissolved Oxygen mean the Holy Grail?

OW

M

DW

DC

MODEL ONLY -- Various Scenarios -- Non-Attainment Mainstem Average

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Observed Bad Trib Strat BTS+40%

non-

atta

inm

ent

DO Open Water non-summer MonthlyDO Open Water Summer InstantaneousDO Open Water Summer MonthlyDO Deep Water InstantaneousDO Deep Water DailyDO Deep Water MonthlyDO Deep Channel Instantaneous

Assessable Criteria are Limiting!!

“It’s only a model!”

Gary Shenk USEPA 2009

Spectral Analysis – task activities

• Allows us to combine short-term variation from CONMON stations to long-term variation from mid-channel data.

+

day month

DO

DO

week

DO “Wow”

“Oooo”

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 13 26 39 52 65 78 91 104

week

DO

(mg/

l)Actual implementationof Spectral Analysis

7 day criteriaTish Robertson VADEQ 2009

Instant Day Week BiWeekly Monthly Seasonal Annual MultiAn

Watershed

TributaryStrategy

Sub-watershed

Reach

Point

Space and Time Scales: The Present Watershed Water Quality Monitoring

Network

88 Station Nontidal Monitoring Network

Addressing Gaps in the

Nontidal Network

Task Activities: Network

CharacterizationLand Cover Classification:(based on visual analysis of NLCD 2001)

Predominant land use identified (if possible)

Multiple land uses identified in order of extent

J. Blomquist USGS 2009

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Min 10th %ile 25th %ile Median50th %ile

75th %ile 90th %ile Max

24 mi275 mi2

118 mi2

1001 mi2

6302 mi227100 mi2

300 mi2

Dra

inag

e A

rea

(Squ

are

mile

s)

Statistics

Distribution of Drainage Areas represented by the CBP Nontidal Network 88 stations.

Space and Time Scales of Desired Measures of Watershed Management Effectiveness: Present NT

Network Characterization

Dra

inag

e ar

ea

Statistical distribution for network sites

Nontidal NetworkNumber of monitoring sites by size and land cover class

Initial Design vs. Current Implementation

ID Priority Areas:Targeting for Restoration

• Watershed– Regional and local-scale

information– Different settings

• Environmental framework • Land-use patterns

• Tidal Chesapeake Bay– SAV planting sites

USGS SPARROW model

Sampling Design Needs

CBP Management Segmentation Scheme

• Sampling Site Locations• Sampling Design Options

Paired? Nested?Upstream, Downstream?

• Sampling Frequency• Standard Protocols • Analytical Considerations

Charge!