options are likely to be more restrictive than the biological reference curve approach. 
If states choose to apply the biological reference curve, then there should be a strong 
incentive to collect relevant data to strengthen the scientific basis of those reference 
curves in the future. 
MONITORING TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT 
OF CRITERIA ATTAINMENT 
To support the development of cumulative frequency distributions for criteria attain¬ 
ment assessment purposes, additional monitoring will be required. The current 
fixed-station Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program will support many 
aspects of the effort to assess criteria attainment. However, some aspects will require 
new monitoring in areas of Chesapeake Bay tidal waters from which data have not yet 
been collected. Other aspects will require new types of monitoring based on new 
technologies that will better address the technical requirements of the criteria as they 
are currently defined. The Chesapeake Bay Program has developed a tidal monitoring 
network design that identifies the needs and proposes options for addressing those 
needs. Many of those options can feasibly be implemented, but additional monitoring 
will be expensive, and it is expected that available funds will limit what can be done. 
The following describes options for conducting monitoring to support the assess¬ 
ment of criteria attainment. Given that funding may be limited, the monitoring 
options are divided into three categories based on funding level. The first category, 
‘recommended’, assumes that funding will be available to conduct monitoring to 
fully support the assessment of criteria attainment. The ‘recommended’ level of 
monitoring is based on technological needs to provide a set of data that can be 
defended legally and scientifically in making decisions regarding the attainment of 
designated uses. The second category, ‘adequate’, assumes that funding will be 
somewhat limited, but will be sufficient to collect enough data to support the devel¬ 
opment of cumulative frequency distributions for most criteria components in most 
Chesapeake Bay Program segments and tidal-water designated uses. The third cate¬ 
gory, ‘marginal’, assumes that monitoring will be significantly limited by available 
funding and that it will not be possible to assess all criteria components in all 
segments of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. 
Efforts are underway to develop the tools necessary to generate verifiable and quan¬ 
titative estimates of error and the levels of monitoring required for given levels of 
accuracy acceptable to management agencies. The three general categories defined 
above were developed to give the reader some perspective on the range of options 
available and the adequacy of the options. 
SHALLOW-WATER MONITORING 
Resource managers rely upon habitat and water quality monitoring data to charac¬ 
terize problem areas in a watershed, such as areas of low dissolved oxygen, and to 
chapter vi 
Recommended Implementation Procedures 
