1. Citizens Advisory Council
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: PA Emphasis
Mike Langland
USGS
Citizens Advisory Council
June 21, 2016

2. Acknowledgements Load and Trend Analysis
Jeff Chanat Joel Blomquist Mike Mallonee
Gavin Yang Ken Hyer Doug Moyer
Mike Langland Bob Hirsch Many Others!!
USGS Nontidal Web Page (
Cassandra Ladino Scott Phillips
Water-Quality Monitoring Partners
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NY State Dept. of Env. Conservation PA Dept. of Env. Protection
Susquehanna River Basin Comm. DC Dept. of the Environment
DE Dept. Natural Resources and Env. Control MD Dept. of Natural Resources
VA Dept. of Env. Quality WV Dept. of Env. Protection
U.S. Geological Survey (All Bay States) WV Dept. of Ag.

3. Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Monitoring Network
How are nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads responding to restoration activities and changing land use across the Bay watershed -- by site and subwatershed?
What are the trends in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads being delivered to the Chesapeake Bay from the nontidal portions of the watershed?
While the current monitoring network is designed to answer several question, today I’ll focus on 2 questions.

4. Importance of Monitoring Data
Explain water-quality progress
Document water quality improvements
Response to management practices
Inform management
Mid Point Assessment (2017)
2-yr Progress “milestones” by CBP
Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP)
Progress toward Chesapeake Bay TMDL’s
Enhance models with monitoring data to explain change
CBP WSM and Estuarine models
USGS SPARROW
Monitoring provides the foundation to measure progress toward attaining water-quality standards and document water-quality improvements as practices are implemented to meet local and the Bay TMDL’s.
The monitoring data and multiple analytical tools to help explain water-quality change with the focus on how water quality is responding to management practices.
All of this information is needed to inform management for multiple needs (read bullets).
-This improved understanding is being used to enhance the WSM and estuary models
Today we will focus on monitoring results for N, P, and S with an emphasis on Susquehanna Basin

5. USGS Nontidal Web Page http://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/
All the results come from the CBP nontidal network and associated trend results. This is the Website you can go to for more info.

6. Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Monitoring Network
Purpose
Collect water-quality samples using consistent methodology
Collect water-quality samples across the full range of hydrologic conditions
Specific Objectives
Increase spatial resolution across land uses, rock types, drainage area
Add sites to help with model calibration, WIP sites, political boundaries
5 years for loads, 10 years for trends
Monitoring Stations
117 monitoring stations
30 with records > 30 yrs
81 with records > 10 yrs
6 with records 5-10 yrs
30 (green on map) with records < 5 years
34 sites PA, 40 in Susquehanna RB
Drainage areas range from 1 to 27,100 mi2
Monitoring Stations
117 monitoring stations
30 with records > 30 yrs
81 with records > 10 yrs
6 with records 5-10 yrs
30 (green on map) with records < 5 years
34 sites PA, 40 in Susquehanna RB
Drainage areas range from 1 to 27,100 mi2
Let’s take a look at the current network. This figure shows the spatial distribution and density of monitored sites. The network has evolved over time as the needs and uses of the data increased.
Points
2004: Red sites have results for today’s presentation.
TMDL: Green sites implemented in Some of the most visible evidence of USGS’ role in the Bay Partnership is through our involvement in the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Water-quality Monitoring Network.
The “NTN” is a collaborative effort through which water-quality data collected by the USGS, bay States, District of Columbia, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission are assembled for the purpose of estimating loads (mass of constituent passing a gaged area per unit time), as well as trends in load over time.
The history of the CBNTN dates to the mid-1980s, when the USGS began reporting fluxes and trends at nine nontidal stations near the Fall Line in Maryland and Virginia…
… as of 2014, we have…
The USGS is responsible for coordinating data collection across this network, assembling and analyzing data, and communicating load and trend results to Bay constituent jurisdictions, the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program, and the broader stakeholder communities. It’s helpful to have at least a coarse understanding of how those results are produced…

7. WHY LOAD and TREND ESTIMATION?
Loads (concentration times streamflow) TMDL
Reflects “actual” changes in nutrient and sediment inputs with changing stream flow
Compare sites using load per acre
Trends in load
Changes due to landuse, input sources, and BMPs
Analyze ancillary data to further refine
Use USGS statistical package to estimate loads and trends from monitoring data (WRTDS, Hirsch and others, 2010, Moyer and others, 2012)
Remove affects of climatic variability; effects of “human- induced” change can be more easily identified
Importance of Load and Trend Estimation.

8. Load and Trend Example: Susquehanna River Total Nitrogen
Susquehanna River At Marietta, PA,
Load and Trend Example: Susquehanna River Total Nitrogen
33% reduction
Long-term trends 30 sites
13% reduction
Short-term trends 87 sites
TMDL Allocation Goal

9. Nontidal Network -Results
Loads
Pounds per acre
Trends
Directional change
Total mass change

10. Total Nitrogen per Acre Loads
Bay watershed
Range: 1.19 to 33.4 lbs/ac
Average: 7.33 lbs/ac
PA results:
lbs per acre
Avg 11.5 lbs per acre
Highest in southern areas
Explain blue, yellow. Red
Range and Avg
PA: Higher average than rest of Bay watershed

11. Acre Loads and Trends: 2005-2014
Total Nitrogen per
Acre Loads and Trends:
Chesapeake Watershed
Improving Trends: 54%
Degrading Trends: 27%
No Trend: 19%
PA: Majority improving
Improving: 14
Degrading: 3
No change: 1
Over all for N
PA: more improvements but coming down from higher average

12. Changes in Nitrogen per Acre Loads: 2005-2014 Susquehanna Watershed
-Here are changes for individual sites in Susq.
-Change in lbs per acre.
-Green is reducing amounts so improving. Orange is increasing amounts so degrading.
-Top four sites are NY. Middle is PA, and bottom is Conowingo, the outlet to the tidal waters and downstream of reservoirs. No change at this site.

13. Changes in Nitrogen per Acre Loads: 2005-2014
Improvements
- WWTP upgrades
- Point source reductions
- Agricultural practices
- Land reversion
- Less N in rainfall
Download figure:

14. Improvements through much of Susq.
Being offset by reservoir system on lower part of river. Notice worsening conditions at Conowingo. Show you the pattern.

15. Improvements through much of Susq.
Being offset by reservoir system on lower part of river. Notice worsening conditions at Conowingo. Show you the pattern.

16. Phosphorus Point sources (WW) Non point sources Natural sources
Phosphorus Inputs from 3 major sources
-P and NP
-Natural sources (areas in the watershed where high P concentrations exist due to rock decomposition.

17. Acre Loads and Trends: 2005-2014
Total Phosphorus per
Acre Loads and Trends:
Loads per acre:
Higher in PA
Lower part of basin
Bay Watershed trends:
Improving Trends : 68%
Degrading Trends : 20%
No Trend : 12%
P loads per acre is above the Average of watershed.
Trends in watershed
PA trends
PA trends: Majority improving
Improving: 13
Degrading: 3
No change: 1

18. Changes in Phosphorus per Acre Loads: 2005-2014 Susquehanna Watershed
Improvements through much of Susq.
Being offset by reservoir system on lower part of river. Notice worsening conditions at Conowingo. Show you the pattern.

19. Phosphorus per Acre Loads: 2005-2014
Changes in
Phosphorus per Acre Loads:
Improvements
- Point source upgrades
- Agricultural practices
- Land conversion
- Construction management
actions
Download figure:

20. Suspended Sediment per Acre Loads and Trends: 2005-2014
Watershed: loads per acre
Range 18 to 2,206 lbs/ac
Average load of 482 lbs/ac
PA similar
Watershed Trends
Improving: 50%
Degrading: 30%
No Trend : 20%
Watershed loads: similar to rest of watershed
PA: mixed results
Improving: 8
Degrading: 3
No change: 6

21. Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Monitoring Network – Loads to the Bay (Question #2)
What are the trends in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads being delivered to the bay from the nontidal portions of the watershed?
To answer this question, we look to the loads delivered from the nine River Input Monitoring stations.

22. Changes in Total Nitrogen Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations
Less Improvement in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment at the RIM sites vs. upstream sites.
WHY – much larger watersheds, more time needed to see change. Lag times
WHY?

23. *Although the Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers carry the largest loads, all RIM stations have an influence on their respective estuary.

24. Summary Watershed Trends
What Works
Upgrades to Industrial/WWTPs
Reductions in air emissions
Some agricultural practices
Challenges
Response times
Continued development and intensified agriculture
Ag will be asked for more reductions
Future Monitoring
Target restoration efforts at high loading locations
Target urban storm water
Improve ancillary data (explain trends
From UMCES, USGS, EPA (2014)
Quick summary about what is affecting the trends ACROSS the watershed
Three items that show the most promise…
Two major challenges
What we need in the future.
Let’s begin with findings about what works and start with WWTP…

25. Summary - PA Highlights
High loads per acre in some areas
Nitrogen: Lower SE portion of basin
Phosphorus: Lower Eastern portion
Improving trends
Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Mixed Results for Sediment
Other Challenges: continued development, intensified ag, lag times
To summarize for PA