71 
YEAR ASSESSMENT 
COMPLETE 
Figure VII-5. Schedule for shallow-water monitoring of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay segments. 
Source: Maryland Department of Natural Resources 
To illustrate this approach, two hypothetical scenarios are illustrated below. In the 
first example (Figure VII-6), it is assumed that monitoring was conducted for one 
year and that full attainment was achieved during all scheduled sampling dates over 
the next two years. The shallow-water monitoring over the first year indicated that 
on all of the dates, the applicable criterion was violated in 15 percent or more of the 
segment. The CFD indicates that the segment would be in noncompliance even if all 
future sampling dates had 100 percent compliance. In this case, the state could have 
decided to move the monitoring effort to a new shallow-water segment even after a 
single year of study. 
In the second example (Figure VII-7), the same assumptions are made and moni¬ 
toring is conducted over one year. In this case, however, criteria exceedance is much 
less extensive spatially and the CFD indicates that full compliance could be possible 
if the current level of attainment is found in future monitoring. Since neither compli¬ 
ance nor noncompliance could be established during the first year, shallow-water 
monitoring would need to continue. The same analysis could take place after the 
second year of monitoring and the decision could be revisited. It may turn out that a 
full three years of monitoring are necessary to determine if the segment remained in 
full compliance. 
Although determining noncompliance in fewer than three years works in theory, the 
yearly segment data must be analyzed in time to adequately design and implement a 
sampling scheme for a new segment. The states must have the flexibility to deploy 
chapter vii 
Shallow water Monitoring and Application for Criteria Assessment 
