SPARROW: A Model Designed for Use With Monitoring Networks Richard A. Smith, Gregory E. Schwarz, and Richard B. Alexander US Geological Survey, Reston,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Contaminants at the Estuary Interface Jon Leatherbarrow 1 Rainer Hoenicke 2 Lester McKee 1 1 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 California Resources Agency.
Advertisements

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Prepared in cooperation with the Johnson County Stormwater Management Program Casey J. Lee U.S.
SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basins (MARB) Dale Robertson, Richard Alexander, and David Saad U.S. Geological Survey USGS/USEPA.
SWAMP Team Members Contact Information Karen Taberski: , Nelia White:
Delaware River Basin SPARROW Model Mary Chepiga Susan Colarullo Jeff Fischer
5. Final Remarks Information and the GIS package developed will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented watershed management practices in.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Welcome to the USGS Webinar: New Science and Online Management Tools to Help Guide Action on Nutrients.
The Effect of the Changing Dynamics of the Conowingo Dam on the Chesapeake Bay Mukhtar Ibrahim and Karl Berger, COG staff Water Resources Technical Committee.
Gulf Restoration Network Decision. Nutrients Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus (P) Sources include: NPS: fertilizer/manure runoff, septic tank overflow Point sources:
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Nutrient Loads to the Gulf of Mexico Mike Woodside U.S. Geological Survey TN.
Scenario Builder and Watershed Model Progress toward the MPA Gary Shenk, Guido Yactayo, Gopal Bhatt Modeling Workgroup 12/2/14 1.
SOURCES AND FLUX OF NUTRIENTS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN: MONITORING, MODELING, & RESEARCH NEEDS Donald A. Goolsby, U.S. Geological Survey.
Assessment of Ecological Condition in Coastal Waters Impacted by Hurricane Katrina.
Contaminant Source and Watershed Characterization Data Needs Gregory McIsaac, Robert Howarth, and Richard B. Alexander Univ. of Illinois Cornell Univ.
Estimating the Sources and Transport of Nitrogen in the Mississippi River Basin Using Spatially Referenced Modeling Techniques R.B. Alexander, R.A. Smith,
Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Stephen.
SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi River Basin Iowa Science Assessment Davenport, IA Nov. 14, 2012 (608) By Dale M. Robertson*
0 The National Hydrography Dataset Plus a tool for SPARROW Watershed Modeling Richard Moore (presented by Alan Rea)
Nutrient Monitoring on the Ohio River: Balancing Information Needs.
Water Quality Modeling in GIS Application of Schematic Network Processing Schema Links and Nodes have unique behaviors based on their type A framework.
SPARROW Water- Quality Modeling: Application of the National Hydrography Dataset What is SPARROW? Use of NHD SPARROW results By Craig Johnston and Richard.
Pomme de Terre Lake Water Quality Summary Pomme de Terre Lake Water Quality Summary US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Section.
Hydrologic Issues in Mountaintop Mining Areas Ronald Evaldi, USGS-WSC, Charleston, WV Daniel Evans, USGS-WSC, Louisville, KY Hugh Bevans, USGS-WSC, Charleston,
Nutrient and Sediment Concentrations, Yields and Loads in Impaired Streams and Rivers in the Taunton River Basin, Massachusetts, Jeffrey R. Barbaro.
Long Island Sound Prospects for the Urban Sea- John Mullaney  Chapter 5: Metals, Organic Compounds, and Nutrients in Long Island Sound: Sources, Magnitudes,
Measuring Carbon Co-Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Policies: In-stream vs. Edge-of-Field Assessments of Water Quality. Measuring Carbon Co-Benefits.
Transitory storage of N R in watersheds occurs in both surface and subsurface reservoirs. The factors pertaining to storage examined here are: precipitation,
Co-Benefits from Conservation Policies that Promote Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: The Corn Belt CARD, Iowa State University Presented at the Forestry.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Regional scale point source nutrient load estimation in support of SPARROW* modeling Gerard McMahon,
Water Quality Data, Maps, and Graphs Over the Web · Chemical concentrations in water, sediment, and aquatic organism tissues.
The Importance of Watershed Modeling for Conservation Policy Or What is an Economist Doing at a SWAT Workshop?
Assessing Alternative Policies for the Control of Nutrients in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Catherine L. Kling, Silvia Secchi, Hongli Feng, Philip.
The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water.
1 The National Rivers and Streams Survey – An Overview and Results.
Changes in Phosphorus Concentrations and Loads in the Assabet River Following Mandated Reductions in Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges U.S. Geological.
SPARROW Surface Water Quality Workshop October 29-31, 2002 Reston, Virginia Section 5. Comparison of GIS Approaches, Data Sources and Management.
PNAMP Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring Management Question: Are the Primary Habitat Factors Limiting the Status of the Salmon and Steelhead Populations.
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and Mississippi River Basin Nutrient Losses Herb Buxton, USGSRob Magnien, NOAA Co-Chairs, Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Workgroup,
1 Floodplain Management Session 11 Biology Water Quality Prepared by Susan Bolton, PhD, PE.
Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
South Carolina Surface Water Monitoring: Different Designs for Different Objectives Presented by David Chestnut.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Using Monitoring Data from Multiple Networks/Agencies to Calibrate Nutrient SPARROW* Models, Southeastern.
Problems Associated with Comparing In Situ Water Quality Measurements to Pollution Model Output for Geographic Analyses Presentation to the Annual Meeting.
Delaware River Basin SPARROW Model Mary Chepiga, , Susan Colarullo, , Jeff Fischer, ,
Vision for the National Geospatial Framework for Surface Water Robert M. Hirsch Associate Director for Water U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological.
USGS Kansas Water Science Center
Response of benthic algae communities to nutrient enrichment in agricultural streams: Implications for establishing nutrient criteria R.W. Black 1, P.W.
Item 3b Guadalupe River Monitoring WY 2010 Jen Hunt, Ben Greenfield, Sarah Lowe, Lester McKee Sources, Pathway, and Loading Work Group May 6th, 2010.
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and Nutrient Management in the Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton, U.S. Geological Survey.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey The Rivers Component of the National Monitoring Network Jerad Bales National Monitoring Conference.
Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner.
Presented to: Severn River Association 2008 State of the Severn Anne Arundel County Government Department of Public Works Ron Bowen, P.E. October 21, 2008.
KWWOA Annual Conference April 2014 Development of a Kentucky Nutrient Strategy Paulette Akers Kentucky Division of Water Frankfort, KY.
Results and Discussion The above graph depicts FC colony plate averages for each sample site. Samples are ordered from upstream to downstream as indicated.
Relating Surface Water Nutrients in the Pacific Northwest to Watershed Attributes Using the USGS SPARROW Model Daniel Wise, Hydrologist US Geological Survey.
Opportunities for Collaboration on Water- Quality Issues in the Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton, Office of Water Quality.
Integrating the NAWQA approach to assessments in rivers and streams By Donna Myers, Bill Wilber, Anne Hoos, and Charlie Crawford U.S. Geological Survey,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Surface Water Monitoring Pam Anderson, MPCA May 20 th, 2015.
NAWQA Nutrient Synthesis Past, Present, and Future USGS Workshop on Nutrient Processes in the Upper Mississippi River Basin UMESC, LaCrosse, WI March 25.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Virginia (703) NHD Flow and Velocity Project Greg Schwarz, Reston,
Development of Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Rivers and Streams in Ohio Ohio EPA ORSANCO, October 20, 2009 George Elmaraghy, P.E., Chief.
The National Monitoring Network: Monitoring & Management of Alabama Rivers Fred Leslie Alabama Dept of Environmental Management National Monitoring Conference.
Request approval to proceed to EMC with 2014 Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan.
Integrated Approach for Assessing and Communicating Progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Water-Quality Standards Scott Phillips USGS, STAR May 14, 2012 PSC.
Impacts of Livestock Waste on Surface Water Quality By the North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality For the Livestock Manure Nutrient.
TTWG Report & Technical Topics SRRTTF Meeting Dave Dilks March 16, 2016.
Bayesian SPARROW Model Song Qian Ibrahim Alameddine The University of Toledo American University of Beirut.
What oysters can tell us about the sources of pollution in Monie Bay, Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Ben Fertig August 11, 2009.
Public Meeting February 19, 2009
Jacob Piske, Eric Peterson, Bill Perry
Presentation transcript:

SPARROW: A Model Designed for Use With Monitoring Networks Richard A. Smith, Gregory E. Schwarz, and Richard B. Alexander US Geological Survey, Reston, VA 5 th National Water Quality Monitoring Conference San Jose, California May , 2006

Presentation Outline Objectives of SPARROW modeling Brief description of SPARROW Example applications of the national-scale model Selected current and near-future activities Announcements

Objectives of SPARROW Modeling 1. Describe national and regional water quality conditions (status and trends) based on “targeted”* sampling. 2. Investigate factors controlling water quality. 3. Predict water quality under alternative scenarios. 4. Analyze and optimize sampling designs. * Non-randomized sampling

SPARROW (SPAtially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes) Watershed Attributes A model relating water quality monitoring data to watershed attributes using a spatial reference frame based on a stream- channel network Monitoring Data Stream Network: Spatial Reference Frame SPARROW Model

Monitored Stream Load Sources Land-to-water trans./loss In-stream Trans./loss Error SPARROW Model Describes the mass balance between the rate of contaminant supply from sources and the rate of contaminant transport past monitoring stations

Model Output (reach-level) :  transport rate, yield, concentration  contributions from sources, downstream delivery  uncertainty (error) measures TN Yield TN Delivery to Coastal Waters

Applications of SPARROW Modeling 1. Desribe national and regional water quality conditions based on “targeted”* sampling 2. Investigate factors controlling water quality 3. Predict water quality under alternative scenarios 4. Analyze and optimize sampling designs * Non-randomized sampling

Percent of Stream Miles in With Total Phosphorus Concentrations Below a Criterion Percent of watersheds with TP concentrations < 0.1 mg/L for selected regions An Example of Objective 1: Model-Based Assessment

Nutrient Source Contributions From the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico Draft (Sept 2005) Objective 2: Investigate Controlling Factors

Headwater Streams and the Clean Water Act In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on the regulatory limits of the Clean Water Act (specifically, tributaries (?) to the “navigable waters”). In preparation, the EPA and AWRA invited papers for a conference on the importance of headwater streams to water quality. One paper in this conference (Alexander, Boyer, Smith, Schwarz, and Moore: in rev. JAWRA ) used the New England SPARROW model to quantify the contribution of headwater streams to nitrogen loads and streamflow in Northeastern streams of varying stream order. 2 nd Example: Investigate Controlling Factors

Headwater Stream Contributions to Mean-Annual N Load and Streamflow in the Northeastern Region Nitrogen LoadStreamflow Conclusion: A large percentage of the nitrogen (and streamflow) present in higher order streams and rivers comes from headwater (first order) streams.

Assessing the water-quality response to changes in pollution sources using SPARROW Predicted changes in fecal coliform bacteria in response to changes in livestock wastes, Change in Total (Confined and Unconfined) Livestock Waste, Smith et al., 2004, American Geophysical Union Objective 3: Predict Water Quality Under Alternative Scenarios

Objective 4: Analyze and Optimize Network Monitoring Effect of More Monitoring Data on Model Accuracy Model Stations Parameters Needed to Reduce Parameter Error by 1%: Stations (Cost Per Year) National ($700,000) Ches. Bay ($200,000) N. England ($100,000) N. Carolina44 7 1($100,000) Tenn./Ken.36 7 <1(<$100,000) Notes:1. New stations are similarly located. 2. Based on total nitrogen models. 3. Other models would also improve with more monitoring.

Selected Current and Future Activities National suspended sediment model Trends in nutrient loads to estuaries Suite of models of stream metabolism (organic carbon, chlorophyll, D.O.) Model of mercury in fish tissue Models of biological metrics

Preliminary SPARROW Model of Fish Species Richness 695 NAWQA Sampling Sites SPARROW Predictions for 62,000 stream reaches Richness: # species present

Announcements

SPARROW Documentation Schwarz, Hoos, Alexander, and Smith, 2006, The SPARROW Surface Water-Quality Model - Theory, Application, and User Documentation: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods book 6, chapter B3. –Detailed description of the theoretical foundations of the SPARROW model. –Extensive practical discussion of appropriate SPARROW model specifications. –Guide for the recently developed ‘user-oriented’ SPARROW program code. Publication Imminent!

SPARROW Training Course Late October, 2006 Denver Training Center Open to USGS and non-USGS attendees

SPARROW Website:

Objective 4: Analyze and Optimize Network Monitoring Effect of More Monitoring on Model Accuracy: Estimated Contribution of Nitrogen Sources to Gulf of Mexico Current Network and Model +100 Sta. (+ $10M/yr) +379 Sta. (+$38M/yr) SourceContribution (percent) 90% Confidence Interval Corn cropland Atmosphere Other cropland Unconfined animals Urban sources Notes:1. Assumes stations are selected randomly. 2. All model predictions improve with more monitoring; these are only important examples.

Marginal Cost of Improving TN Model Accuracy Objective 4: Analyze and Optimize Network Monitoring