The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water

The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past,

present and future opportunities

Katie ForemanWater Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO

MASC Non-tidal Water Quality WorkshopMay 7-8, 2008

Outline

• History and Objectives

• Network Development

• Challenges

• STAC recommendations for design improvement

• Discussion questions and session goals

The NT network was developed with 3

objectives in mind

• Developed by the Non-tidal Water Quality Workgroup in 2004 for consistency in monitoring

• Objectives:1. Measure and assess the status and trends

of nutrient and sediment in tributary strategy basins

2. Assess the factors affecting nutrient and sediment status and trends

3. Improve calibration and verification of partners’ watershed models

200 sites were proposed

• 200 candidate sites

• Site criteria:• Outlets of tributary strategy

basins• Highest nutrient load

delivery regions• Low monitoring site density

regions

• Funding was limiting factor – states prioritized sites

Limitations of candidate sites

• 200 candidate sites address only the first objective

• Need to study representativeness of sites

• Lack of funding requires prioritizing new site implementation

Current non-tidal water quality network (88 sites)

• 70 primary sites ($45,000/yr/site)

• 18 secondary sites (25,000/yr/site)

• 2007 Sampling cost: $3.6 million

• mostly existing funds, $300,000- CBP

#S

#S#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S #S

#S#S#S #S

#S #S #S

#S#S

#S#S #S #S

#S #S #S

#S#S#S#S

#S #S#S #S#S

#S

#S#S#S

#S #S#S #S

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S

#S#S

#S#S

#S #S#S #S

#S #S#S

#S#S #S

#S #S#S #S#S #S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S #S#S#S

New York

Ch

esap

eak

e B

ay

Pennsylvania

Wes

t Virg

inia

Virginia

Maryland

Delaw

are

D.C.

Major Drainage BasinsEastern Shore MDEastern Shore VAJames RiverPatuxent RiverPotomac RiverRappahannock RiverSusquehanna RiverWestern Shore MDYork River

Streams 100K NHD

NTWQ Sampling Locations#S Primary#S Secondary#S River Input Monitoring

N

Fig. 1 Active non-tidal water-quality monitoring network sites in the Chesapeake Bay watersehd calendar year 2007

0 30 60 Miles

Criteria for sampling and analysis

• Chemistry samples minimum of 12/yr (primary vs. secondary).

• Standardized parameters, sampling, and analytical techniques.

• 3 years of data for load calculations, 5 years for trends.

Parameters are standardized

Required NTN ParametersAdditional RIM Parameters

(Recommended for NTN)

Total Nitrogen, as N (TDN + PN) or (TKN + NO23)

Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN)

Ammonium, as N (dissolved) (NH3F) Particulate Nitrogen (PN)

Nitrate + Nitrite, as N (dissolved) (NO23F) Total Dissolved Phosphorus (TDP)

Total Phosphorus, as P(TP) or (TDP + PP)

Particulate Phosphorus (PP)

Phosphate, as P (dissolved) (PO4F) Particulate Carbon (PC), or TOC

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)

Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) (Storm events only)

Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)

SSC-Sand & SSC-Fines (4 storms per year) Chlorophyll-a (corrected) (CHLA)

Field Parameters: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, pH, Specific Conductance

Analytical techniques are standardized

Parameter Recommended Method MDL

Total Nitrogen, as N (TN) Standard Methods - 20th ed. 4500-Norg C 0.004-0.05 mg/L

Ammonium, as N (dissolved) (NH3F) EPA 350.1 0.004-0.05 mg/L

Nitrate + Nitrite, as N (dissolved) (NO23F) EPA 353.2 0.002-0.05 mg/L

Total Phosphorus, as P (TP) EPA 365.1 or 365.4 0.001-0.01 mg/L

Phosphate, as P (dissolved) (PO4F) EPA 365.1 0.002 mg/L

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Standard Methods - 20th ed. 2540 D, or USGS I-3765

1.0-10.0 mg/L

Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) ASTM 3977-97, Method B (filtration) 0.5 mg/L

Suspended Sediment – Coarse ( > 62 um) ASTM 3977-97, Method C (wet sieve) 0.5 mg/L

Suspended Sediment – Fine (< 62 um) ASTM 3977-97, Method C 0.5 mg/L

Total Dissolved Phosphorus (TDP) Acid or alkaline persulfate digestion, then EPA 365.1

0.001-0.01 mg/L

Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN) Standard Methods - 20th ed. Method 4500-Norg D (alkaline persulfate)

0.004-0.05 mg/L

Particulate Nitrogen (PN) EPA 440.1

Particulate Carbon (PC) EPA 440.1

Total Organic Carbon (or Particulate C) Standard Methods - 20th ed. Method 5310 B 0.03-0.5 mg/L

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Standard Methods - 20th ed. Method 5310 B 0.03-0.5 mg/L

Chlorophyll-a (CHLA) Standard Methods - 20th ed. Method 10200H

Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) Standard Methods - 20th ed. 2540 E, or USGS I-3765

1.0-10.0 mg/L

Almost 1200 samples collected in 2007

State Collection Agency# Primary Stations

Primary Samples/Goal (% Goal)

# Secondary Stations

Secondary Samples /Goal

(% Goal)

Delaware DEDNREC 2 24/40 (60%) 0 -

Maryland MDDNR 13 241/260 (93%) 0 -USGS 7 106/140 (76%) 0 -

New York SRBC/NYSDEC 5 80/100 (80%) 0 -

Pennsylvania PADEP/SCRO 6 123/120 (103%) 0 -USGS 3 45/60 (75%) 0 -SRBC 18 275/360 (76%) 0 -

Virginia VADEQ 0 - 18 213/216 (99%)VADEQ/USGS 12 206/240 (86%) 0 -

-

West Virginia WVDEP/USGS /WVDA

4 71/80 (89%) 0 -

Total All 70 1171/1400 (84%) 18 213/216 (99%)

Network Challenges

• Coordination of many agencies

• Logistical constraints given size of watershed (storm sampling)

• Funding (stream gage funding dependent on states)

• Only 1/3 of proposed sites are fully implemented

• Spatial representativeness is unknown

STAC recommends changes to improve the network

• 2005 STAC reports made 11 main recommendations

STAC Publication 05-006


1. Evaluate spatial representativeness of current network

2. Use models to optimize network design

3. Add sites at smaller scales



4. Target high pollution areas (urban, ag. areas)

5. Monitor unmonitored areas (coastal plain)

6. Augment with info. from other programs

7. Use sensor technologies and automated samplers



8. Improve point source load estimates

9. Use adaptive management and increase flexibility of program

10. Integrate monitoring and modeling programs



11. Expanded network should be responsive to multiple objectives and be flexible.


Session Goals

• Discuss the STAC recommendations for the enhancement of the network.

• Prioritize STAC recommendations for the enhancement of the network and create a plan for carrying out those recommendations.

Discussion Questions

• How can site selection be optimized to incorporate all objectives of the program?

• Is the monitoring program able to support the development of key watershed health indicators and other management tools?– additional parameters and/or improved multi-

agency monitoring coordination?

Discussion Questions

• How would a flexible monitoring program be structured?

• What are key coordination efforts that need to be implemented to augment network data with other monitoring program data?– smaller scales, BMP projects

• What are the needs for the non-tidal database to be enhanced?

Expected session outcomes

• Prioritize STAC recommendations for the enhancement of the network.

• Create a plan for non-tidal workgroup to carrying out selected recommendations.

Documents

The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water