Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Monitoring Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Water Board trainers outline HAB monitoring design and satellite screening tools
Summary
State Water Board trainers described how to design monitoring plans for harmful algal blooms (HABs), differentiate planktonic and benthic blooms, and use satellite tools (Sentinel‑3 CI and chlorophyll layers) to screen large lakes while stressing field verification and toxin testing.
Anna Holder, open data science, equity and tribal coordinator at the State Water Resources Control Board, opened a virtual training to walk tribal partners and water managers through monitoring design for harmful algal blooms (HABs) and the tools SWAMP uses to screen and prioritize field work.
Carly Nelson of the Board’s freshwater estuarine HAB program said cyanobacterial blooms can harm people and ecosystems: “They can change the physical conditions of a water body … and it can also cause dissolved oxygen levels to drop pretty quickly, which we often see with those massive fish die offs.” She described two broad bloom types: planktonic blooms that form visible surface scums and benthic mats attached to streambeds, and she emphasized that sampling methods and toxin testing must be chosen to match the bloom type.
Nelson and Marissa Van Dyke, a senior environmental scientist with the Board, recommended grounding any monitoring plan in clear objectives and historical data. “Monitoring plans are driven by the end goals,” Nelson said, adding that teams should identify the where, what and when of sampling, assess existing data resources, and document procedures so future staff can reproduce work.
Van Dyke demonstrated SWAMP’s satellite screening tools that rely on Sentinel‑3 imagery and pigment indices. She explained that satellites measure surface color reflectance to estimate chlorophyll‑a and phycocyanin (a cyanobacteria pigment) and that SWAMP’s cyanobacteria index (CI) and chlorophyll layers can screen hundreds of large lakes. Van Dyke cautioned about spatial limits: the satellite pixel covers roughly 300 meters square, so “the technology doesn't have the resolution to detect nearshore blooms” and field confirmation remains necessary.
Both trainers recommended using a mix of approaches depending on resources: low‑resource monitoring can rely on visual surveys and field checks, medium resources may add gene‑based screening, and high‑resource programs should incorporate toxin analyses to quantify concentrations. Van Dyke demonstrated app features that show time series back to 2003, daily or multi‑day composites, pixel‑count plots (used to judge confidence), recreational alert thresholds, and export/download functions for analysis.
The presenters also pointed attendees to complementary tools: EcoAtlas for statewide water resource mapping, CalHABMAP for coastal surveillance, and EPA dashboards that aggregate federal datasets. They encouraged teams to use regional analyses in monitoring design and to reach out for one‑on‑one demos if they needed help navigating the tools.
The trainers closed by inviting participants to the next technical session on sampling methods scheduled for May 27; Anna Holder said slides and the recording from this session would be posted by May 5.
The training focused on practical steps attendees can take next: define monitoring objectives, review historical data and available tool outputs, document sampling and data‑storage procedures, and plan field verification and toxin testing when satellite indices indicate elevated bloom conditions.
