Chesapeake Bay Shallow Water Monitoring - Progress on

Implementation and Analysis

Bruce MichaelDirector, Tidewater Ecosystem

Assessment Division

MSC Meeting, May 17, 2006

Chesapeake Bay Shallow Water Monitoring DesignConsists of 2 Components Integrated with Other Forms of Monitoring

•Continuous Monitors- All criteria- Shallow-water designated use

•Water Quality Mapping- All criteria - Shallow & open-water designated use

•Existing Fixed Stations- All criteria - All but shallow-water designated use

ContinuousMonitors

Buoys/Profilers

Mapping

Fixed Station

Continuous Monitors

YSI 6600 EDS – Measures Dissolved Oxygen, Turbidity, Chlorophyll, Water Temperature,Salinity, pH

• Generally, deployed April – October, over a 3-year period

• A subset of meters are telemetered real-time to website

• Measures water quality parameters every 15 minutes

• Monthly cruises, April – October, over a 3-year period• Measures water quality parameters every 4 seconds

YSI 6600 EDS – Measures Dissolved Oxygen, Turbidity, Chlorophyll, Water Temperature, Salinity, pH

Dataview Real – Time GIS Software

Electronics

YSI/Flow Unit

Water Quality Mapping Stowaway

Water Quality Mapping

Virginia – 2006 Proposed Tidal Monitoring Sites

Better Coordination with OtherLong-Term Monitoring Programs

New 2006 Segments and Partners

• Entire Potomac• CBL• SMCM• VA DEQ• VIMS• COG• GMU• CBOS• EPA• NOAA• USGS• US Army• St. Mary’s Co.

• Choptank• HPL• USDA• Creekwatchers

• Wicomico• SU & HPL• Creekwatchers• NERRS

Org. Area Day

SWCM St. Mary’s Mon/Tue

CBL Lower Pot. Monday

DNR Piney Pt. Monday

DNR Nomini Monday

CBL Upper Pot Tuesday

DNR Upper Olig. Tuesday

DNR Lower Olig. Tuesday

DNR Dahlgren Friday

SMCM MD Tribs Mon/Fri

12.5 - 19

10 - 12.5

7.5 - 10

5 - 7.5

2.5 - 5

0 - 2.5

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

100 +

60 - 100

50 - 60

40 - 50

30 - 40

20 - 30

10 - 20

0 - 10

Chlorophyll (ug/l)

37.5 +

30 - 37.5

22.5 - 30

15 - 22.5

7.5 - 15

0 - 7.5

Turbidity (NTU)

Water Quality MappingPotomac River

April 10-14th 2006

Water Quality Criteria Assessment Protocols (CAP) Workgroup

The Chesapeake Bay Program established this workgroup to:

- develop assessment methods to evaluate attainment of the criteria and designated uses,

- address many unresolved issues regarding assessment of water quality criteria

CAP Workgroup’s SWM Chlorophyll/Turbidity/DO Analysis Team

Elgin Perry – statistics consultant Ken Moore - VIMS Walter Boynton - CBL Julie Baldizar – USGS Bill Romano – MD DNR Mark Trice – MD DNR MD & VA State and Federal partners

CAP Workgroup SWM Tasks

- Shallow water issues * water clarity assessment procedures * chlorophyll assessment procedures * use of fixed stations for high frequency DO measurements * temporal adjustment of spatial mapping data

- Reporting * how should assessment results be reported * what type of information should be reported * how should information be managed/stored * what is the schedule for reporting assessment results

Directions Needed for Potential

Water Clarity Assessment

1.Baywide Consistency

2.Simplicity

3.Use of CFD for Clarity Assessment

SAV Area A

SAV Area B

Clarity Criteria Assessment Method 1 (MD&VA)

Attainment ofSAV Acreage Goal

Attainment Defined as:

SAV Acreage > SAV Goal

Single Best Year

AttainmentDepth

Contour

SAV Area A

SAV Area B

Clarity Criteria Assessment Method 2 (VA)

Attainment ofWater Clarity Acreage Goal

Attainment Defined as:

SAV Acreage < SAV Goal

Water Clarity Acreage > WC Goal

Single Best Year

Water Clarity Area B

Water Clarity Area A

AttainmentDepth

Contour

SAV Area A

SAV Area B

Clarity Criteria Assessment Method 3 (MD)

Attainment of Water Clarity Criteria Based on CFD

AttainmentDepth

Contour

Attainment Defined as:

SAV Acreage < SAV Goal

Calculate % Area in Attainment

Assess Using CFD

No GrowZone

AttainmentArea

Non-AttainmentArea

SAV Area A

SAV Area B

Clarity Criteria Assessment Method 4 (MD)

Attainment of CombinedSAV & WC Acreage Goals

AttainmentDepth

Contour

Attainment Defined as:

SAV Acreage < SAV Goal

SAV Acreage + WC Acreage) > SAV Goal

No GrowZone

Clarity AttainmentArea

Non-AttainmentArea

Issues Related to Current State Standards

Method 1 - Attainment of SAV Acreage Goal

• No Issues. Method is accepted by both States, CBPO and EPA Region 3

Method 2 - Attainment of Water Clarity Acreage Goal

• No attainment depth and thus not consistent definition of spatial extent.

• Method of summarizing multiple cruises in one year is unclear.

• Comparison to goal precludes use of CFD.

Method 3 - Attainment of Water Clarity Criteria Based on CFD

• No issues other than those related to normal use of CFD.

Method 4 - Attainment of Combined SAV & WC Acreage Goals

• Method of summarizing multiple cruises in one year is unclear.

• Comparison to goal precludes use of CFD.

Chlorophyll and Turbidity Measurement Issues

Although YSI 6600 chlorophyll approximates extractive chlorophyll a at many stations, the criteria will be in terms of chlorophyll a

kd will be used to evaluate the Bay water clarity standards, so turbidity would be used at shallow water sites

kd can also be used in the Gallegos optical model to partition light attenuation into TSS and chlorophyll components

Develop a post-calibration chlorophyll model

Match extractive and YSI 6600 chlorophyll Outlier prediction model to remove data Test for significant differences (adjust all

data, or only for significant differences?) Geographical differences Background fluorescence adjustment Photo-inhibition (diel study conducted on

the Patuxent estuary)

Develop a kd model

Using linear regression, USGS found that turbidity was the best single variable predictor of kd at 5 of 10 sites (r2 from 0.23 to 0.62)

Turbidity was significant, but not best at one site

Other than turbidity, TP, DOC, salinity, TN, DIN, and TVS were found to good predictors of kd

VA found that in general, turbidity was the best predictor of kd in their systems

Next steps

Complete assembling multiyear shallow water monitoring database (MD and VA)

Determine best model approach based on spatial distribution (lumping or splitting)

Evaluate models using both continuous and water quality mapping data

Provide documentation for review Publish by late 2006

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

12:00:00 AM 4:48:00 AM 9:36:00 AM 2:24:00 PM 7:12:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 4:48:00 AM

Time

DO

(m

g/l

)

Time of Day Averaged Continuous Monitoring DOMagothy R., April 15 - October 31, 2001

Average 15-minute intervals of Continuous Monitoring DO data from a 2-week period surrounding a water quality mapping cruise (8/22/01).

Fit 3rd-order polynomial regression of averaged continuous monitoring DO data from 5am to 1-hr after DATAFLOW cruise.

Use regression equation to obtain time-based correction factor for water quality mapping and adjust to daily minimum (0600).

Mapping Data - (Predicted (Tcollected) - Predicted T0600)

y = -60.124x3 + 96.685x2 - 40.923x + 11.81

R2 = 0.9792

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

12:00:00 AM 2:24:00 AM 4:48:00 AM 7:12:00 AM 9:36:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 2:24:00 PM

Time

DO

(m

g/l

)

Correcting DO Data for Time of Day to “Normalize” Water Quality Mapping

2.53

3.54

4.55

5.56

6.57

7.58

8.5

8:24:00 8:52:48 9:21:36 9:50:24 10:19:12 10:48:00 11:16:48 11:45:36

Time

DO

(m

g/l

)

Uncorrected DO Corrected DO

Water Quality Mapping:Uncorrected vs. Corrected (to daily min.)

08/22/01 Magothy River

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2_3 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 7_8

DO Range (mg/l)

% M

ago

thy

Are

a

%Area_Uncorrected

%Area_Corrected

% Surface Water Area DO < 5 mg/l

Non-Corrected Data - 6.48%Corrected Data (6am) - 51.44%

Uncorrected Corrected

<5 mg/l

>5 mg/l

Corrected vs Non-Corrected Spatial Data Minimum DO Cruise

Water Quality Criteria Assessment Protocols Workgroup

SCHEDULE

- Workgroup efforts initiated in spring 2005

- Assessment results for States 2006 impaired waters listing for dissolved oxygen and shallow water SAV coverage completed in November 2005

- Concerted efforts beginning January 2006 to complete tasks by June 2006 meeting of Water Quality Steering Committee to review efforts.

- Develop draft document addressing criteria assessment issues for science review - summer 2006

- Complete/release technical report by December 2006 for States to consider in updating regulations