Water-Quality Monitoring in the USDA & USGS Showcase Watersheds

Water-Quality Monitoring in the USDA & USGS Showcase Watersheds 2010-2013

January 30th, 2017

Ken Hyer & Jimmy Webber USGS Richmond, VA [email protected]; [email protected]

Primary Collaborators: Judy Denver, DE Mike Langland, PA JK Böhlke, Reston, VA Dean Hively, MD USGS and the Chesapeake

• Science for Effective Decisions

• Watershed Agreement

• USGS Science Themes • Fish, wildlife and habitats • Water quality • Climate and land change • Summarize and inform Measure and Explain Water-Quality Change

1. Measure progress • Loads • Trends Inform Strategies 2. Explain water-quality changes • Sources, land change Explain Enhance Change Models • Management practices

3. Enhance CBP models MeasureMeasure Progress 4. Inform management Monitor Conditions Load & Trend Estimation in the

Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Non-tidal network Network monitoring location Nutrient & sediment concentrations are measured during monthly and targeted Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Monitoring Network high-flow sampling events. Goals:

Quantify loads of Estimate trends in loads nutrients and sediment to detect effects of in the nontidal rivers of changes in land the Chesapeake Bay management effects on watershed water quality

Daily Load = Daily Concentration * Mean Daily Discharge

2,340 annual samples! Load & Trend Estimation in the NY Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network

Total Nitrogen per Acre Loads and Trends 2005-20141 Susquehanna Trends • Improving: 54% Trend Direction • Degrading: 27% No Trend • No Trend: 19% Improving PA NJ Degrading Averagea Yield (lbs/ac) 1.19 – 6.88 6.89 – 13.75 13.76 – 33.44 Western MD Potomac WV Shore

DE VA Eastern Shore York

James

Why are trends 1Data available online: improving or degrading? http://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/ Water-Quality Monitoring in the USDA & USGS Showcase Watersheds 2010-2013: Impetus for this process-level work

Non-tidal network monitoring location

2009 Executive Order tasked the 2 USDA and USGS to partner in the 52.5 mi Mixed Conewago Creek, PA Showcase Watersheds to describe the Landuse linkage between the implementation of conservation practices and water- quality improvements. 36.5 mi2 Row Crop Upper Chester, MD 57.8 mi2 Agriculture Suburban Development Smith Creek, VA

105.4 mi2 Difficult Run, VA Poultry & Cattle Production

Hyer and others (2016) Water-Quality Monitoring in the USDA & USGS Showcase Watersheds 2010-2013: Impetus for this process-level work

2009 Executive Order tasked the Benefits Challenges USDA and USGS to partner in the Showcase Watersheds to describe the We can isolate different basin High cost for such intensive linkage between the implementation types monitoring of conservation practices and water- quality improvements. We can potentially resolve How to transfer knowledge of specific sources of sediment and individual basins to a regional nutrients scale?

Enhanced spatial resolution can How to link water-quality reveal nutrient and sediment response to BMP “hot spots” implementation?

Hyer and others (2016) Water-Quality Monitoring in the USDA & USGS Showcase Watersheds 2010-2013: Objectives

To investigate sediment and nutrient dynamics in four relatively small watersheds that represent a range of land-use patterns and underlying geology.

Objectives for the initial phase of this study: Future Objectives: These objectives will be achieved through continued To characterize current water-quality conditions. monitoring and analysis and are not addressed by the initial 3 years of this ongoing study.

To identify the dominant sources, sinks, and transport process To continue monitoring to compute short and long-term of nitrogen and, to a lesser extent, phosphorus. nutrient and sediment trends.

To further enhance the understanding of nutrient sources and To provide guidance to study partners related to the transport processes. implementation of conservation practices.

To link the implementation of conservation practices with the understanding of nutrient and sediment sources and transport To quantify the implementation of conservation practices processes to explain the observed water-quality trends.

To document patterns in water quality using existing long- To determine how regionally representative the observations term nitrogen data. and conditions encountered within these four watersheds are within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

8 Hyer and others (2016) Smith Creek ,VA: Study Design

Intensive Monitoring at the Streamgage Sampling Location Streamgage Monthly and Storm- Continuous Water- targeted Sampling: Quality Monitoring: Nutrients, sediment, major WT, Sp. Cond, pH, ions, nitrate isotopes, metals DO, Turb., Nitrate

Hyer and others (2016) Smith Creek ,VA: Study Design

Intensive Monitoring at the Streamgage Sampling Location Streamgage Monthly and Storm- Continuous Water- Synoptic targeted Sampling: Quality Monitoring: Nutrients, sediment, major WT, Sp. Cond, pH, ions, nitrate isotopes, metals DO, Turb., Nitrate

Extensive Monitoring of the Watershed

Annual baseflow sampling of ~35 monitoring locations throughout the watershed over a 1-2 day period.

Hyer and others (2016) Smith Creek, VA:

Spatial Water-Quality Characterization

Sampling Location Streamgage Synoptic

War 2 Lacey Geology Branch Spring Spring Limestone

Landuse1 Shale Forested Other Pasture/Hay Sinkhole3 Row Crop

Smith Ck. Sp. Developed Lacey War Branch Spring Spring

Big Spring

Smith Creek Spring

1Landuse from 2Geology from Dicken 3Sinkholes from NLCD 2011 and others (2005) Hubbard (1983) Hyer and others (2016) Smith Creek, VA:

Spatial Water-Quality Characterization

Sampling Location Streamgage Synoptic

War 2 Lacey Geology Branch Spring Spring Limestone

Landuse1 Shale Forested Other Pasture/Hay Sinkhole3 Row Crop Developed Smith Ck. Sp. Total Nitrogen, Lacey War Branch in milligrams per liter4 Spring Spring 0.0 to 2.0 2.1 to 4.0 4.1 to 6.0 6.1 to 8.0 8.1 to 10.0 Big Spring

Smith Creek Spring

4Total nitrogen concentrations 1Landuse from 2Geology from Dicken 3Sinkholes from from May 2013 synoptic NLCD 2011 and others (2005) Hubbard (1983) Hyer and others (2016) sampling event. Smith Creek, VA:

Spatial Water-Quality Characterization

Sampling Location Streamgage Synoptic

War 2 Lacey Geology Branch Spring Spring Limestone

Landuse1 Shale Forested Other Pasture/Hay Sinkhole3 Row Crop Developed Smith Ck. Sp. Total Nitrogen, Lacey War Branch in milligrams per liter4 Total Nitrogen, Spring Spring 0.0 to 2.0 4 in pounds per day 2.1 to 4.0 0 to 150 4.1 to 6.0 151 to 300 6.1 to 8.0 301 to 450 8.1 to 10.0 451 to 600 Big 601 to 750 Spring

Smith Creek Spring

Spatial Water-Quality Characterization

Cluster Group3 Sampling Location Streamgage Limestone Spring Type Synoptic Undeveloped, High Gradient, Forested Type Landuse1 Dry Fork Type Forested Smith Creek Type Pasture/Hay Row Crop Developed

Geology2 3 Lacey War Branch Sinkhole Spring Spring

Big Spring

Smith Creek Spring

3Cluster groups assigned to 1 2 Landuse from Sinkholes from samples during May 2013 Hyer and others (2016) NLCD 2011 Hubbard (1983) synoptic sampling event. Nitrogen Sources: Smith Creek, VA Common delta N-15 values of nitrate sources: Forest soils Septic

Art. fert. Manure 1

1Sources derived from county-based landuse estimates from 2002. Conewago Creek is an average of Dauphin and Lebanon Counties (PA), Difficult Run is based on Fairfax County (VA), Smith Creek is an average of Shenandoah Hyer and others (2016) and Rockingham Counties (VA), Upper Chester is an average of Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties (MD). Nitrogen Sources: Upper Chester, MD Common delta N-15 values of nitrate sources: Forest soils Septic

Art. fert. Manure 1

Spatial Water-Quality Characterization

Sampling Location Streamgage Synoptic

Landuse1 Forested Pasture/Hay Row Crop outlet of Developed flow

Cluster Group2 Oxic, high agriculture type Anoxic, low agriculture type

Northern, high total phosphorus type

High-NaCl type

2Cluster groups assigned to 1 Landuse from samples during April 2013 Hyer and others (2016) NLCD 2011 synoptic sampling event. Nitrogen Sources: Difficult Run, VA Common delta N-15 values of nitrate sources: Forest soils Septic

Art. fert. Manure 1

1Sources derived from county-based landuse estimates from 2002. Conewago Creek is an average of Dauphin and Lebanon Counties (PA), Difficult Run is based on Fairfax County (VA), Smith Creek is an average of Shenandoah Hyer and others (2016) and Rockingham Counties (VA), Upper Chester is an average of Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties (MD). Captain Hickory Run Difficult Run: Difficult Run nr Great Falls, VA

Nitrate-N Concentrations USGS: 01646000 Geochemically Similar Geochemically

Little Difficult Run

Nitrate-N, in mg/L 1 0.0 – 1.0 1.1 – 2.0 2 Conventional Septic System 2.1 – 3.0 2 Alternative Septic System 3.1 – 4.0 4.1 – 5.0

1Nitrate-N data based on the 2GIS data of properties served average of 6 synoptic events by septic systems provided by Hyer and others (2016) between 2011 and 2015. Fairfax County, May 2015. Conewago Creek, PA: Total Phosphorus Yields

% Landuse1 Bellaire 20.5 mi2 Bellaire

Falmouth Ag. 47.5 mi2 For. Dev.

Landuse1 Forested Pasture/Hay Row Crop Low/High Development Falmouth Wetlands/Open Water

Ag. For.

Dev.

1Landuse from 2011 National Land Cover Dataset. http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php Hyer and others (2016) Implementation of Conservation Practices

Number of USDA-compliant conservation practices implemented in the Showcase Watersheds

Watershed 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Conewago Creek 131 50 110 90 122 86 93 682 Smith Creek 292 66 99 117 202 312 316 1,404 Upper Chester 183 120 117 210 200 276 88 1194

Hyer and others (2016) Water-Quality Patterns

Percentage of values equal to or less than the maximum daily streamflow 0.0 to 20.0 20.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 60.0 60.1 to 80.0 80.1 to 100.0 Streamflow not available

Hyer and others (2016) Nitrogen Input Patterns

Future objectives will be addressed using watershed specific dynamic nitrogen input datasets.

Nitrogen Sources Manure1 Atmospheric Deposition2 Fertilizer (farm)3 Fertilizer (nonfarm)3 Septic4 Sanitary Sewer4

1Mass of nitrogen available from manure 2Atmospheric wet deposition data computed 3Fertilizer inputs were computed 4Wastewater inputs were computed following computed following methods outlined by Ruddy following methods outlined by Ruddy and using the approach outlined by methods outlined by Lindsey and others (2009) and others (2006) using livestock counts as others (2006) using data from the National Gronberg and Spahr (2012). using population data from the US Census. reported by the Census of Agriculture. Atmospheric Deposition Program. Water-Quality Monitoring in the USDA & USGS Showcase Watersheds 2010-2013: Lessons Learned

To characterize current Monthly, stormflow, and spatial water-quality monitoring resulted in a detailed understanding of hydrologic, water-quality conditions. seasonal, and spatial water chemistry patterns within the study watersheds.

Difficult Run: The primary source To identify the dominant Smith Creek and Conewago Upper Chester: The primary of nitrogen is likely from a mixture sources, sinks, and transport Creek: The primary source source of nitrogen and phosphorus of sources including septic system of nitrogen is likely are likely inorganic fertilizers and process of nitrogen and, to a leachate, atmospheric deposition, agricultural manure. nitrogen fixation by legume crops. lesser extent, phosphorus. and fertilizer application.

Management activities for nitrogen would likely be most To provide guidance to Conservation practices that target the application effective by the ongoing maintance of septic systems, the study partners related to the of manure and fertilizer could be important for management of fertilizer applications, and the possible reducing the nitrogen load within the agricultural implementation of expansion of the sanitary-sewer infrastructure within watersheds. conservation practices. Difficult Run.

24 Hyer and others (2016) Water-Quality Monitoring in the USDA & USGS Showcase Watersheds 2010-2013: Lessons Learned (continued)

The implementation of conservation practices increased Implementation of conservation practices within To quantify the in the agricultural watersheds during the study period, Difficult Run increased during the study period, implementation of with cover cropping, nutrient management plans, with stream restoration becoming one of the streambank fencing, and terracing being some of the conservation practices principle management activities. principle management activities.

Long-term data do not exist To document changes in Within Smith Creek, WRTDS trends Within Difficult Run, WRTDS within Upper Chester to support report slight increases in nitrate trends report slight increases in a trend analysis, however, water quality using existing concentration and slight decreases in nitrate concentration and load empirical nitrate concentrations long-term nitrogen data. nitrate load from 1985-2014. from 1985-2014. appear to have increased between 1996 and 2014.

Changes in management actions may take several years or decades to The initial 3 years of this ongoing study do not be fully realized in streams due to groundwater residence times and address the relation between water-quality changes transport processes. and the implementation of conservation practices. Future work will investigate these linkages, which are likely complicated because The functionality and efficiency of each conservation practice is difficult to quantify.

25 Hyer and others (2016) Water-Quality Monitoring in the USDA & USGS Showcase Watersheds 2010-2013

th January 30 , 2017 References Cited

Gronberg, J.M., and Spahr, N.E., 2012, County-level estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus from commercial fertilizer for the conterminous United States, 1987-2006: U.S. Geological Survey Ken Hyer & Jimmy Webber Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5207, 20 p. USGS Richmond, VA Hyer, K.E., Denver, J.M., Langland, M.J., Webber, J.S., Böhlke, J.K., Hively, W.D., and Clune, [email protected]; J.W., 2016, Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting [email protected] geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Primary Collaborators: Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report Judy Denver, DE 2016–5093, 211 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20165093. Mike Langland, PA Lindsey, B.D., Berndt, M.P., Katz, B.G., Ardis, A.F., and Skach, K.A., 2009, Factors affecting JK Böhlke, Reston, VA water quality in selected carbonate aquifers in the United States 1993-2005: U.S. Geological Dean Hively, MD Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5240, 117 p.

Ruddy, B.C., Lorenz, D.L., and Mueller, D.K., 2006, County-level estimates of nutrient inputs to the land surface of the conterminous United States, 1982-2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5012, 17 p.