74 
consider if it makes sense (in terms of leveraging resources, coordinating, and under¬ 
standing the relationship between segments and restoration activities) to discontinue 
a segment’s monitoring after one or two years if noncompliance of the segment is 
shown. Finally, in the case of segments crossing two or more jurisdictional bound¬ 
aries, all affected states will be involved in any decision to discontinue monitoring 
prior to the end of the full three-year assessment period. 
Importantly, the scenario described above and illustrated in Figure VII-6 does not 
form an assessment that is lower in quality than one based on three years data. Non- 
compliance is clearly established; that status would not change no matter what takes 
place in ensuing years. The same approach may not be viable using alternative 
assessment strategies such as the water clarity-acres approach for the clarity criteria. 
Since the water clarity-acres assessment method relies on the mean of three years of 
data, non-compliance could not be established in fewer than three years. The reverse, 
however, may be true. However, if the segment's SAV restoration acreage goal was 
attained during any single year, then compliance would be established and the deci¬ 
sion could be made to discontinue monitoring. 
SEGMENT PRIORITIZATION SCHEDULE 
The states’ prioritization schedule for assessing shallow water monitoring segments, 
(Figures VII-4 and VII-5) is based on several criteria—SAV coverage, maximization 
of resources, partnerships, and management needs such as dissolved oxygen criteria. 
Segment prioritization through SAV coverage is based on assessing segments that 
are close to meeting the state-adopted SAV restoration acreage goal for the indi¬ 
vidual segment. All states have agreed to assess attainment by each segment’s 
single-best SAV acreage for the most recent three-year period with the jurisdiction’s 
adopted segment-specific SAV restoration acreage (see Chapter 5 for further 
details). Many Chesapeake Bay segments range between 50 and 100 percent of 
meeting their restoration goals. 
Appendix G lists all the Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia 
segments and their relative success (by percent) in reaching their respective state- 
adopted SAV restoration acreages. Those segments that have already met their SAV 
restoration acreages constitute a lower priority for shallow-water assessment. 
Segments that have not achieved any acres in meeting their SAV restoration acreage 
form a lower priority as well. The higher the percentage attainment in meeting a 
segment’s SAV restoration acreage, the greater the priority was given for assessing 
the shallow waters of that segment. 
On the states’ 2006 303(d) lists, eight Maryland segments and six Virginia segments 
have met their adopted SAV restoration acreages. The segments that have already 
attained their shallow-water designated use are low priority for shallow-water assess¬ 
ment. Fourteen Maryland segments and five Virginia segments range between 50 and 
100 percent of meeting their SAV restoration acreages (Appendix 1). These segments 
chapter vii • 
Shallow water Monitoring and Application for Criteria Assessment 
