Geology topics

Peter J. Tango

Publications and source records attributed to Peter J. Tango.

11 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Advancing monitoring approaches to enhance tidal Chesapeake Bay habitat assessment for submerged aquatic vegetation, water clarity, chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen

Water quality monitoring capacity has been declining for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) at a time when information needs are growing, and data gaps exist to address critical decision-support for managers. The CBP Scientific Technical Assessment and Reporting Team is leading a Principal’s Staff Committee requested gap analyses toward understanding support needed to improve water quality monitoring and analysis programming. Advanced technologies and alternative monitoring approaches in the form of satellite-based measurements, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) algorithms for data interpretation, continuous water quality in-situ sensor arrays, and community science efforts offer a growing portfolio of valuable opportunities for expanding data collections and analysis program capacities. However, since 1985, each of these options are examples of growing opportunities to enhance water quality assessments yet has seen limited adoption into elements of Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring programs. Where new technologies have been adopted (e.g., shallow water continuous water quality monitoring), such temporally rich data streams have supported Bay health insights yet had limited use in regulatory water quality criteria assessment. This Scientific Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) supported workshop provided the ideal forum for engaging our CBP partnership regarding the maturity of new and evolving monitoring and analysis capacities to address program information needs while appreciating limitations with adopting new tools and approaches. Improving natural resources monitoring efficiency and effectiveness will expand the scientific and technical foundations for making robust, strategic choices on decisions for CBP Partnership community-based priorities, policies, and management actions. Workshop findings and recommendations reflect progress in science, technology, and analyses addressing long-standing programmatic limitations in data collection and analysis capacities. State-of-the-science updates highlighted in the workshop span the spectrum of efforts representing improvements, successes, remaining challenges toward operationalizing protocols, and guidance toward research, or adoption and implementation by monitoring programs.

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia↗

USGS2025

Using monitoring and partnerships to provide management-relevant information about Chesapeake Bay rivers

The lands and waters of the Chesapeake Bay watershed provide more than $100 billion in economic benefits—an amount that is expected to increase by achieving the region’s clean-water goals. Achieving those goals requires accurate and timely information about the health of the watershed’s rivers and streams. The Chesapeake Bay nontidal monitoring network (NTN), a partnership of local, state, and federal agencies, as well as other partners, was established in 2004 to provide this information. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzes data collected from NTN stations to provide monitoring-based information about the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment entering the Chesapeake Bay through its nontidal rivers. Thus, data collected from the NTN inform watershed management by providing decision makers with information on which to base their restoration and conservation actions.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗

USGS2024

Observing systems, modeling, and forecasting

Predicting harmful algal blooms (HABs) requires integrating physical, chemical, and biological data collected from observing networks and then assimilating these data into models, which are used to generate forecasts. In 2005, the Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy 2005-2015 (HARRNESS, 2005) made recommendations on how to improve HAB modeling and forecasting over the next decade. Key HARRNESS recommendations related to sensing, networking, and modeling HABs included: ● Support the development and validation of new and improved technologies for remote cell and toxin detection, and for modeling and forecasting, ● Improve coordination of monitoring/ and modeling efforts, both at national and regional levels, ● Improve the use of networking technologies for monitoring and modeling efforts, ● Conduct sustained time series measurements of the biotic, chemical, and physical environments impacted by HABs, ● Develop food web models on the ecosystem fate and effects of toxins, ● Develop and improve species-specific models that link to physical-biological models. Here we review HAB observing, modeling, and forecasting advances and technologies and recommend research and management priorities for the next decade and beyond. Our report encompasses sensing technologies, sensor networking and data management, models and forecasts, and the paths to operationalize forecasts. Continued improvements of deployable sensors are foundational to improving early warning indicators, models, and forecasts, which are only as good as the underlying data. Sensing technology has advanced considerably in the last decade; for example, more capable fluorometric pigment sensors can track changes in bloom biomass in real-time. Additionally, automated imaging/classifying systems to identify and quantify key harmful algal (HA) taxa are being routinely deployed. However, deployable toxin sensors are available for only some HAB toxins and continue to be identified as a critical need by researchers and managers. As more and improved sensors and technologies become available, the data quality associated with each sensor needs to be assessed. Data quality encompasses the reliability, accuracy, and uncertainty associated with sensor-generated data. These data need to be of known quality so that researchers, managers, and end-users can reliably determine if the information is appropriate for their intended applications. Many of the data quality recommendations from HARRNESS (2005) are still relevant and have been reiterated within the management community. Understanding and documenting data quality, and when applicable, standardizing best practices for sensor use, continue to be recommended.

Report↗

USGS2022

A water quality barometer for Chesapeake Bay: Assessing spatial and temporal patterns using long-term monitoring data

This paper develops a barometer that indexes water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and summarizes quality over spatial regions and temporal periods. The barometer has a basis in risk assessment and hydrology, and is a function of three different metrics of water quality relative to numerical criteria: relative frequency of criterion attainment; magnitude of deviation from a numerical criterion; and duration of criterion attainment. Metrics associated with these features are calculated at the station level, allowing flexibility for simultaneously evaluating multiple stressors, different designated uses, and physical characteristics of the water. The barometer score is then created as a geometric mean of the three metrics. The water quality barometer (WQB) station scores may be spatially aggregated to report habitat scores across a spectrum of spatial resolutions (e.g., management segment, tidal subsystem, or the whole tidal bay). Dissolved oxygen measurements in the Chesapeake Bay collected during summer seasons of 1985 to 2020 are used to evaluate water quality. The WQB score and its bootstrapped confidence interval are reported at the station, segment, tidal subsystem and whole tidal bay levels. Notably, water quality interpreted through application of the WQB with dissolved oxygen concentration data and averaged over the 29-year period of record is good (i.e. protects aquatic living resources) in tributaries such as the James River, Rappahannock River and others; but is not as good in areas such as the Upper Tributaries and the York River. Recent summaries indicate that while the water quality is improving in much of the bay and its tidal tributaries, however, there is an indication of decline in quality in the period 20182020, especially in the upper regions of the Bay. The barometer is designed around using the time series data produced by the Chesapeake Bay Programs annual monitoring strategy; the approach has application to other large water bodies with large scale monitoring programs with extended time series or for integrating information from environmental sensor systems.

Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2022

Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in three tributaries of Chesapeake Bay: Detecting responses following nutrient reductions

Many coastal ecosystems suffer from eutrophication, algal blooms, and dead zones due to excessive anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). This has led to regional restoration efforts that focus on managing watershed loads of N and P. In Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, dual nutrient reductions of N and P have been pursued since the 1980s. However, it remains unclear whether nutrient limitation – an indicator of restriction of algal growth by supplies of N and P – has changed in the tributaries of Chesapeake Bay following decades of reduction efforts. Toward that end, we analyzed historical data from nutrient-addition bioassay experiments and data from the Chesapeake Bay long-term water-quality monitoring program for six stations in three tidal tributaries (i.e., Patuxent, Potomac, and Choptank Rivers). Classification and regression tree (CART) models were developed using concurrent collections of water-quality parameters for each bioassay monitoring location during 1990-2003, which satisfactorily predicted the bioassay-based measures of nutrient limitation (classification accuracy = 96%). Predictions from the CART models using water-quality monitoring data showed enhanced nutrient limitation over the period of 1985-2020 at four of the six stations, including the downstream station in each of these three tributaries. These results indicate detectable, long-term water-quality improvements in the tidal tributaries. Overall, this research provides a new analytical tool for detecting signs of ecosystem recovery following nutrient reductions. More broadly, the approach can be adapted to other waterbodies with long-term bioassays and water-quality data sets to detect ecosystem recovery.

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West V↗

USGS2021

Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay: Development of an empirical approach for water-quality management

Understanding the temporal and spatial roles of nutrient limitation on phytoplankton growth is necessary for developing successful management strategies. Chesapeake Bay has well-documented seasonal and spatial variations in nutrient limitation, but it remains unknown whether these patterns of nutrient limitation have changed in response to nutrient management efforts. We analyzed historical data from nutrient bioassay experiments (1992–2002) and data from long-term, fixed-site water-quality monitoring program (1990–2017) to develop empirical approaches for predicting nutrient limitation in the surface waters of the mainstem Bay. Results from classification and regression trees (CART) matched the seasonal and spatial patterns of bioassay-based nutrient limitation in the 1992–2002 period much better than two simpler, non-statistical approaches. An ensemble approach of three selected CART models satisfactorily reproduced the bioassay-based results (classification rate = 99%). This empirical approach can be used to characterize nutrient limitation from long-term water-quality monitoring data on much broader geographic and temporal scales than would be feasible using bioassays, providing a new tool for informing water-quality management. Results from our application of the approach to 21 tidal monitoring stations for the period of 2007–2017 showed modest changes in nutrient limitation patterns, with expanded areas of nitrogen-limitation and contracted areas of nutrient saturation (i.e., not limited by nitrogen or phosphorus). These changes imply that long-term reductions in nitrogen load have led to expanded areas with nutrient-limited phytoplankton growth in the Bay, reflecting long-term water-quality improvements in the context of nutrient enrichment. However, nutrient limitation patterns remain unchanged in the majority of the mainstem, suggesting that nutrient loads should be further reduced to achieve a less nutrient-saturated ecosystem.

Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2018

Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen criterion attainment deficit: Three decades of temporal and spatial patterns

Low dissolved oxygen (DO) conditions are a recurring issue in waters of Chesapeake Bay, with detrimental effects on aquatic living resources. The Chesapeake Bay Program partnership has developed criteria guidance supporting the definition of state water quality standards and associated assessment procedures for DO and other parameters, which provides a binary classification of attainment or impairment. Evaluating time series of these two outcomes alone, however, provides limited information on water quality change over time or space. Here we introduce an extension of the existing Chesapeake Bay water quality criterion assessment framework to quantify the amount of impairment shown by space-time exceedance of DO criterion (“attainment deficit”) for a specific tidal management unit (i.e., segment). We demonstrate the usefulness of this extended framework by applying it to Bay segments for each 3-year assessment period between 1985 and 2016. In general, the attainment deficit for the most recent period assessed (i.e., 2014–2016) is considerably worse for deep channel (DC; n = 10) segments than open water (OW; n = 92) and deep water (DW; n = 18) segments. Most subgroups – classified by designated uses, salinity zones, or tidal systems – show better (or similar) attainment status in 2014–2016 than their initial status (1985–1987). Some significant temporal trends (p < 0.1) were detected, presenting evidence on the recovery for portions of Chesapeake Bay with respect to DO criterion attainment. Significant, improving trends were observed in seven OW segments, four DW segments, and one DC segment over the 30 3-year assessment periods (1985–2016). Likewise, significant, improving trends were observed in 15 OW, five DW, and four DC segments over the recent 15 assessment periods (2000–2016). Subgroups showed mixed trends, with the Patuxent, Nanticoke, and Choptank Rivers experiencing significant, improving short-term (2000–2016) trends while Elizabeth experiencing a significant, degrading short-term trend. The general lack of significantly improving trends across the Bay suggests that further actions will be necessary to achieve full attainment of DO criterion. Insights revealed in this work are critical for understanding the dynamics of the Bay ecosystem and for further assessing the effectiveness of management initiatives aimed toward Bay restoration.

Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2018

Chesapeake Bay's water quality condition has been recovering: Insights from a multimetric indicator assessment of thirty years of tidal monitoring data

To protect the aquatic living resources of Chesapeake Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership has developed guidance for state water quality standards, which include ambient water quality criteria to protect designated uses (DUs), and associated assessment procedures for dissolved oxygen (DO), water clarity/underwater bay grasses, and chlorophyll-a. For measuring progress toward meeting the respective states' water quality standards, a multimetric attainment indicator approach was developed to estimate combined standards attainment. We applied this approach to three decades of monitoring data of DO, water clarity/underwater bay grasses, and chlorophyll-a data on annually updated moving 3-year periods to track the progress in all 92 management segments of tidal waters in Chesapeake Bay. In 2014–2016, 40% of tidal water segment-DU-criterion combinations in the Bay (n = 291) are estimated to meet thresholds for attainment of their water quality criteria. This index score marks the best 3-year status in the entire record. Since 1985–1987, the indicator has followed a nonlinear trajectory, consistent with impacts from extreme weather events and subsequent recoveries. Over the period of record (1985–2016), the indicator exhibited a positive and statistically significant trend ( p < 0.05), indicating that the Bay has been recovering since 1985. Patterns of attainment of individual DUs are variable, but improvements in open water DO, deep channel DO, and water clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation have combined to drive the improvement in the Baywide indicator in 2014–2016 relative to its long-term median. Finally, the improvement in estimated Baywide attainment was statistically linked to the decline of total nitrogen, indicating responsiveness of attainment status to the reduction of nutrient load through various management actions since at least the 1980s.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗

USGS2016

Regional monitoring programs in the United States: Synthesis of four case studies from Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf Coasts

Water quality monitoring is a cornerstone of environmental protection and ambient monitoring provides managers with the critical data they need to take informed action. Unlike site-specific monitoring that is at the heart of regulatory permit compliance, regional monitoring can provide an integrated, holistic view of the environment, allowing managers to obtain a more complete picture of natural variability and cumulative impacts, and more effectively prioritize management actions. By reviewing four long-standing regional monitoring programs that cover portions of all three coasts in the United States – Chesapeake Bay, Tampa Bay, Southern California Bight, and San Francisco Bay – important insights can be gleaned about the benefits that regional monitoring provides to managers. These insights include the underlying reasons that make regional monitoring programs successful, the challenges to maintain relevance and viability in the face of ever-changing technology, competing demands and shifting management priorities. The lessons learned can help other managers achieve similar successes as they seek to establish and reinvigorate their own monitoring programs.

California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jerse↗

USGS2016

Chesapeake Bay recovery and factors affecting trends: Long-termmonitoring, indicators, and insights

Monitoring the outcome of restoration efforts is the only way to identify the status of a recovery and the most effective management strategies. In this paper, we discuss Chesapeake Bay and watershed recovery and factors influencing water quality trends. For over 30 years, the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s long-term tidal and watershed water quality monitoring networks have measured physical, chemical and biological parameters throughout the bay and its surrounding watershed underpinning an adaptive management process to drive ecosystem recovery. There are many natural and anthropogenic factors operating and interacting to affect the watershed and bay water quality recovery responses to management actions. Across habitats and indicators, the bay and its watershed continue to express a diverse spatial and temporal fabric of multiscale conditions, stressors and trends that show a range of health conditions and impairment s , as well as evidence of progress and degradation. Recurrent independent reviews of the monitoring program have driven a culture of continued adaptation of the monitoring networks to reflect ever evolving management information needs. The adherence to bay and watershed-wide consistent monitoring protocols provides monitoring data supporting analyses and development of scientific syntheses that underpin indicator and model development, regulatory assessments, targeting of management actions, evaluation of management effectiveness, and directing of priorities and policies.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2013

Deriving Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards

Achieving and maintaining the water quality conditions necessary to protect the aquatic living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries has required a foundation of quantifiable water quality criteria. Quantitative criteria serve as a critical basis for assessing the attainment of designated uses and measuring progress toward meeting water quality goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership. In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership committed to defining the water quality conditions necessary to protect aquatic living resources. Under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, States and authorized tribes have the primary responsibility for adopting water quality standards into law or regulation. The Chesapeake Bay Program partnership worked with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop and publish a guidance framework of ambient water quality criteria with designated uses and assessment procedures for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and chlorophyll a for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries in 2003. This article reviews the derivation of the water quality criteria, criteria assessment protocols, designated use boundaries, and their refinements published in six addendum documents since 2003 and successfully adopted into each jurisdiction's water quality standards used in developing the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load.

Chesapeake Bay↗