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

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 (http://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/) 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.

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.

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

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.

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 2010-11 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…

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.

Load and Trend Example: Susquehanna River Total Nitrogen Susquehanna River At Marietta, PA, 1987-2014 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

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

Total Nitrogen per Acre Loads Bay watershed Range: 1.19 to 33.4 lbs/ac Average: 7.33 lbs/ac PA results: 3.3-33.4 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

Acre Loads and Trends: 2005-2014 Total Nitrogen per Acre Loads and Trends: 2005-2014 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

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.

Changes in Nitrogen per Acre Loads: 2005-2014 Improvements - WWTP upgrades - Point source reductions - Agricultural practices - Land reversion - Less N in rainfall Download figure: http://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/maps.html

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

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

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.

Acre Loads and Trends: 2005-2014 Total Phosphorus per Acre Loads and Trends: 2005-2014 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

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.

Phosphorus per Acre Loads: 2005-2014 Changes in Phosphorus per Acre Loads: 2005-2014 Improvements - Point source upgrades - Agricultural practices - Land conversion - Construction management actions Download figure: http://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/maps.html

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

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.

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?

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

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…

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