Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Implementation Team (GIT) Funding Program - Scope #7 - Hypoxia Collaborative: Sampling Strategy and Design for Chesapeake Bay Habitat Assessment

Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Implementation Team (GIT) Funding Program

The Chesapeake Bay Trust has been designated to receive federal funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Implementation Team Funding Program. The work funded by this initiative advances outcomes identified in the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Each year, certain outcomes are chosen by the Chesapeake Bay Program as top priorities to address, and these stretch across all Goal Implementation Teams (GIT) and workgroups.

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement contains five themes consisting of 10 goals that will advance the restoration and protection of the Bay watershed. These goals are interrelated: improvements in water quality can mean healthier fish and shellfish; the conservation of land can mean more habitat for wildlife; and a boost in environmental literacy can mean a rise in stewards of the Bay’s resources. Each goal is linked to a set of outcomes, or time-bound and measurable targets that will directly contribute to its achievement.

Scientific, Technical Assessment, and Reporting (STAR) – Scope # 7

The goal of STAR is to coordinate the monitoring, modeling, and analysis needed to explain and communicate the health of and changes in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. To learn more about STAR visit their website at https://www.chesapeakebay.net/who/group/scientific-and-technicalanalysis-and-reporting.

Scope #7 - Hypoxia Collaborative: Sampling Strategy and Design for Chesapeake Bay Habitat Assessment

Purpose and Outcome of Scope #7: Since 2003, cost-effective, robust, continuous, and real-time water quality monitoring asset development suitable for extended deployments in the open waters of the tidal Chesapeake Bay estuarine has been needed. This enhanced data will address the data needs that can inform the criteria assessment for short-duration criteria (i.e., less than the 30-day mean).

While seasonal to multi-season fixed station deployments of high temporal density water quality monitoring infrastructure were integrated into nearshore shallow water environments (i.e., shallow water designated waters are defined by USEPA 2003 as ≤ 2m) in the early 2000s, offshore (i.e., habitats typically associated with mid-channel regions of the Bay and its tidal tributaries located away from the nearshore, shallow water zone) open water water-column environments in the tidal bay and tributary system were not represented in those monitoring technologies. Efforts to address the challenges of continuous monitoring in the open-water water-column has ensued (e.g., https://cbos.org/ and https://buoybay.noaa.gov/); however, deployments had limited vertical resolution to inform habitat assessments or limited deployment durations compared to the data collection timeframes outlined in the Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria (USEPA 2003).

Successful offshore water column water quality assessment was made for several years by Virginia Institute of Marine Science (e.g., York and Rappahannock Rivers) and Maryland Department of Natural Resources (i.e., Harris Creek, MD, oyster restoration site) in more protected, relatively shallow water environments. In 2018, a pilot study was conducted to address the shortcomings of all previous monitoring efforts by developing robust, easily deployable high temporal frequency water quality data collection infrastructure that could operate in the open waters of Chesapeake Bay and its larger tidal tributaries. Project success was demonstrated using vertical arrays of a chain of sensors (Caribbean Wind, 2020) setting the stage for investable infrastructure that could address the two decades-long gap in criteria assessment.

This project aims to use a Chesapeake Bay water quality model and/or select tributary water quality models calibrated to Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring data and interpolation of the model data at potential monitoring sites to 1) inform and evaluate monitoring site location effectiveness to accurately inform assessments of water quality (i.e., dissolved oxygen conditions at 1-day mean, 7- day mean and 30- day mean) habitat conditions in defined regions (e.g., Bay segment, tributary), 2) consider monitoring resource availability and resource limitations in creating an accurate assessment of the habitat conditions with monitoring suite options that express tradeoffs in accuracy and bias to match dissolved oxygen conditions in order to inform considerations of optimizing monitoring resource choices, 3) work with monitoring community practitioners across the CBP partnership in a small series of meetings to understand and document field work limitations that represent filters on where monitoring activities and infrastructure can be effectively implemented, 4) use the deployment specific limitations of the partners as a rule set to provide a scenario- based approach for illustrating site selection options for up to 2-3 segments that are used to engage partners during the meetings in value of output to inform utility of site selection, and make adjustments in the rule set based on pilot work discussions with partners in collaboration meetings, 5) use the information on monitoring location limitation filters to inform development of an automated protocol and 6) demonstrate the automated protocol application in 10 segments that represent a spectrum of geographies and sizes among the 92 Bay segments as informed by the community.

Final outputs of segment sampling strategy options and the approach rule set and algorithms used to derive the segment site selection options will be made available to inform future use of the approach by Chesapeake Bay partners when further evaluating site selection options and tradeoffs for optimizing resource allocation in monitoring strategies across all 92 Bay segments.

Key Tasks of Scope #7:

• A table identifying 10 segments used during this study as informed by community input to address a spectrum of geographic, size, and potentially other sets of considerations.
• A rule set that is community-informed to create GIS or masking layers of areas informing choices on unsuitable/suitable sites for deploying nearshore and offshore monitoring infrastructure.
• An algorithm that automates masking effects that could then be applied in a GIS style evaluation for creating monitoring siting suitability maps in the future for any of the 92 segments.
• At least 10 maps with site options derived from application of the algorithm in the 10 community-based segment selection informing deployment location options
• Statistical summary outputs of interpolation scenario runs that use at least a decadal time series of model data to inform and create scenario tables that express a set of monitoring suite options linked with their site options, and statistics of accuracy and bias from the model-based assessments of performance (e.g., a progression of monitoring options may reflect optimal combinations of 1-3 offshore vertical arrays placed in deeper waters coupled with 1-6 nearshore continuous monitoring instruments (potentially 18 combinations in this set of resources)).
• Statistical summary outputs of interpolation scenario runs that use at least a decadal time series of model data to inform and create scenario tables that express a set of monitoring suite options linked with their site options, and statistics of accuracy and bias from the model-based assessments of performance (e.g., a progression of monitoring options may reflect optimal combinations of 1-3 offshore vertical arrays placed in deeper waters coupled with 1-6 nearshore continuous monitoring instruments (potentially 18 combinations in this set of resources)).

Eligibility

_ You can learn more about this opportunity by visiting the funder's website.