Source/Contact

							                                                                                            1


                   Chesapeake Bay Program Indicator Framework
                             Reporting Level Indicators
                             Indicator and Data Survey


A. Category/Name/Source/Contact

(1) Category of Indicator
       __ Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health
       ___ Restoration and Protection Efforts
       _x__ Watershed Health
       ___ Bay Health

(2) Name of Indicator: Chesapeake Bay watershed suspended 10 year sediment flow-
adjusted concentration trend and short-term yield indicators

(3) Data Set Description:

      For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or long-
       term monitoring.) - Short - term trend and yield monitoring.
      Which parameters were measured directly? Discharge and suspended sediment
       concentrations at 45 long-term monitoring stream sites in the Chesapeake Bay
       watershed.
      Which were obtained by calculation? Flow-adjusted concentration trends were
       calculated using ESTIMATOR, a 7-parameter water quality model (Langland et
       al. 2006) at 33 of the 45 sites. Computations include both linear and non-linear
       time and flow coefficients. Trends are presented as a “continuous” change over
       time for all sites. The model for trend estimation is calibrated for a single time
       period (10 year ) rather than for a series of time intervals (such as the moving-
       window approached used in other analyzes for load estimation) Loads from the
       ESTIMATOR from the last 5 years were used to compute median yields at all 45
       sites.

(4) Source(s) of Data: USGS, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Susquehanna River Basin
Commission, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, West Virginia Department of
Agriculture.

      Is the complete data set accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and
       embedded definitions? If yes, please indicate where complete dataset can be
       obtained. Yes, complete data set can be obtained from CBPO

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different): Mike Langland, USGS and
Mike Mallonee, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, CBPO

Reviewed by JG
                                                                                         2



(6) CBPO Contact: Katie Foreman (800-YOUR-BAY ext 837)


B. Communication Questions (complete either part 1, 2, or 3)

3. Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health indicators only
   (7c) What is the longshort-term trend?

      Over the past 10 years, sediment concentration trends show mixed responses
       among the monitoring sites with the majority of results being not significant, 5
       sites indicate improving conditions while 6 sites indicate degrading conditions.
       The trend results indicate that in some locations, management actions, such as
       erosion and runoff controls may have contributed to reducing sediment
       concentrations in streams.
      Data from the River Input Monitoring Program, which monitors nine tributaries
       immediately above tidal waters, shows
           o Non-significant 10 year trends in suspended sediment concentration at 7 of
               the 9 sites , including the Susquehanna, Patuxent, Potomac Pumunkey,
               Mattaponi, James and Appotmattox Rivers.
           o The only significant trend indicating improving (downward) trends was
               the Rappahannock River.
           o The only significant trend indicated degrading (upward) trends was the
               Choptank River.



(9c) What is the current status?

      Median yields for suspended sediment were estimated for the last five years at 45
       sites and classified into thirds as high, medium, and low. While the distribution
       was spatially variable, there were some general patterns in location.
      Sites in the high yield classification where generally located in Susquehanna
       River basin and evenly disturbed in Maryland and Virginia. Sites classified as
       medium and low were fairly evenly distributed across the entire Chesapeake Bay
       Watershed.

(10c) What does this indicator tell us?
    Over the past 10 years, suspended sediment concentration trends show mixed
      responses among the monitoring sites with the majority of results being not
      significant. The trend results indicate that in some locations, management actions,
      such as erosion and runoff controls may have contributed to reduced sediment
      concentrations in streams. In addition, in the last 5 years higher yields indicate a
      tendency to be located in the northern half of the watershed, conversely for lower
      yields.

(11c) Why is it important to report this information?
Reviewed by JG
                                                                                           3


      Suspended sediment consists of the fine and medium-grained particulate matter
       that is transported in streams and rivers. Excess sediment in stream channels,
       causes impaired benthic habitat and decreased water clarity. When delivered to
       the Chesapeake Bay, suspended sediment causes impaired aquatic habitat,
       reduced water clarity, and can fill in navigational channels and embayments.
      Sediment concentrations are highly variable and strongly related to streamflow
       conditions. Flow-adjusted trends are calculated in order to statistically determine
       whether concentrations have changed over time by removing the effects of natural
       variations in streamflow. Because flow-adjusted trends are independent of
       streamflow variations, they permit evaluation of the changes in sediment
       concentration that may result from erosion and runoff controls or other changes
       within the watershed.
      Suspended sediment concentrations are monitored near the head of tide (River
       Input Monitoring Program) in nine of the Bay's major tributaries, and at 36
       locations upstream from the River Input sites.

 (12c) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level
indicator?

Other indicators measuring nutrient and sediment pollution in the Bay Watershed are
related to this indicator – for instance the reporting level indicators of Total Sediment
Loads Delivered to the Bay as well as the Long-term Flow Adjusted Concentration Trend
Results (from 1985-2009) of Total Suspended Sediment at a subset of the same
monitoring locations depicted in this indicator.


C. Temporal Considerations


(13) Data Collection Date(s): Water year (October 1-September 30) 2000 -2009, starting
dates ranged from 2000 through 2009. For yields, the starting dates ranged from 2005
through 2009.


(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual):
        (a) Source Data:
                a. Annual
        (b) Indicator: Annual

(15) For annual reporting, month spatial data is available for reporting: Data are typically
analyzed by the USGS by April of each year; therefore there is a one year lag in the
availability of data for reporting to the Bay Barometer.

D. Spatial Considerations




Reviewed by JG
                                                                                             4


(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other): Symbols are mapped
at sampling locations indicating the direction) of change in nutrient and sediment
concentrations. Arrows with different directions (up or down) and sizes are portrayed to
present this information; no significant change is signified by a black line . Yields are
symbolized using colors to represent three classifications, high (orange), middle (yellow),
and low (blue).

(17) Acceptable Level of Spatial Aggregation (e.g. - county, state, major basin, tributary
basin, HUC):

Entire watershed

(18) Are there geographic areas with missing data? If so, where?

Most of the monitoring is conducted upstream from the head of tide. Thus, the trends are
not reflected for the majority of the Coastal Plain areas of the watershed.


(19) The spatial extent of this indicator best described as:
       (a) Chesapeake Bay (estuary)
       (b) Chesapeake Bay Watershed
       (c) Other (please describe): _______________________

Please submit any appropriate examples of how this information has been mapped or
otherwise portrayed geographically in the past.


   The short-term flow-adjusted trends and yields indicator is calculated, and results
   and maps are published annually by the U.S. Geological Survey as part of a larger
   effort to determine loads and trends in nutrient and sediment concentrations and
   streamflow in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.


(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically?

Yes.

E. Data Analysis and Interpretation: (Please provide appropriate references and
location of documentation if hard to find.)

(21) Is the conceptual model used to transform these measurements into an indicator
widely accepted as a scientifically sound representation of the phenomenon it indicates?
(i.e., how well do the data represent the phenomenon?)




Reviewed by JG
                                                                                             5


Yes. The flow-adjusted trends indicator is calculated, and published annually by the U.S.
Geological Survey as part of a larger effort to determine loads and trends in nutrient and
sediment concentrations and streamflow in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. A complete
description of data analysis methods can be found in Langland, M. J., and others,
Changes in streamflow and water quality in selected nontidal basins in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed, 1985-2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2006-5178, 75 p., available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5178/

Publication on the methodology specific for 10 year suspended sediment flow-adjusted
concentration trend and short-term yield indicator is forthcoming



(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and
presentation of the indicator?


Refer to Langland, M. J., and others, Changes in streamflow and water quality in
selected nontidal basins in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 1985-2004: U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5178, 75 p., available online at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5178/

Publication on the methodology specific for 10 year suspended sediment flow-adjusted
concentration trend and short-term yield indicator is forthcoming.

(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed
model)

USGS ESTIMATOR model

(24) Are the computations widely accepted as a scientifically sound? Yes. Models used
and calculations performed are published in peer-reviewed publications (Cohn et. al 1989
and Langland et al. 2006). Publication on the methodology specific for 10 year suspended
sediment flow-adjusted concentration trend and short-term yield indicator is forthcoming.




(25) Have appropriate statistical methods been used to generalize or portray data beyond
the time or spatial locations where measurements were made (e.g., statistical survey
inference, no generalization is possible)?

Every effort was made to minimize extrapolations beyond the available data and
technology of the water quality models.




Reviewed by JG
                                                                                           6


(26) Are there established reference points, thresholds or ranges of values for this
indicator that unambiguously reflect the desired state of the environment?
(health/stressors only)

      Stream quality is associated with lower nutrient concentrations and loads;
       therefore, the goal for short-term flow-adjusted trends and yields indicator is to
       observe downward trends in flow-adjusted suspended sediment concentrations
       and low suspended sediment yields at most monitoring sites in the watershed, and
       few upward trends and high yielding sites.
      The short-term flow-adjusted trends and yields indicator is used to describe the
       status of loading and direction of change in suspended sediment concentrations
       over the past 10 years. The amount of change in flow-adjusted trend and yield
       required to meet load-reduction goals varies among tributaries.


F. Data Quality: (Please provide appropriate references and location of documentation
if hard to find.)

(27) Were the data collected according to an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Plan?
     If no, complete questions 28a – 28d:

Yes

(28a) Are the sampling design, monitoring plan and/or tracking system used to collect the
data over time and space based on sound scientific principles?

Yes

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and
analytical procedures used?

The sampling and analytical methods adhere to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s guidance
for the Nontidal Network, which may be found on the web at:
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/msc/amqawg/Chapter%205%20Nov
%2008%20Final.pdf

(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and
technically valid?

Yes.

(28d) To what extent are the procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the
data documented and accessible?

State and federal partners collecting data for this indicator have individual Quality
Assurance Project Plans which document in detail each agency’s sampling and laboratory

Reviewed by JG
                                                                                              7


protocols. Individual Quality Assurance Project Plans for this indicator are on file at the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office:

   1. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection:
           Pennsylvania Quality Assurance Work Plan – Fixed Station Surface Water
            Quality Network Monitoring (Nov. 2007).

   2. Susquehanna River Basin Commission (includes NY stations):
           Assessment of Nutrient Sources from Mainstem and Selected Watersheds
            in the Susquehanna River Basin – Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
            (Sept. 2009).

   3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources:
           Non-tidal Network Program Nutrient and Sediment Load Trend
            Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan (July, 2009).

   4. U.S. Geological Survey – Maryland, Delaware and D.C. Water Science Center:
            Maryland River Input Nutrient and Sediment Loading Trends Component
             Quality-Assurance Project Plan (July 2009).

   5. U.S. Geological Survey – West Virginia Water Science Center:
            WV DEP Potomac River Nontidal Nutrient and Sediment Sampling –
             Quality Assurance Project Plan (April 2005).

   6. U.S. Geological Survey – Virginia Water Science Center:
            Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Virginia River Input Monitoring
             Program (July 2008).

   7. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
            Virginia CBP Non-Tidal Network Monitoring Program Quality
             Assurance/Quality Control Project Plan (July 2009).



(29) Are the descriptions of the study or survey design clear, complete and sufficient to
enable the study or survey to be reproduced?

Yes, see 28b

(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data
record?

Yes, see 28b

(31) If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and
methods comparable?

Reviewed by JG
                                                                                             8



Yes

(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the
underlying data set?

Yes, the flow-adjusted trend and yield analysis has an associated confidence interval

(33) Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from
the data and the utility of the indicator?

No

(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record? Please explain.

There are no major limitations in the data record, data was collected in a consistent
manner from 2000-2009. However, most of the monitoring is conducted upstream from
the head of tide. Thus, the trends are not reflected for the majority of the Coastal Plain
areas of the watershed.



G. Additional Information (optional)
(35) Please provide any other information about this indicator you believe is necessary to
aid communication and any prevent potential miss-representation.



        The flow-adjusted trends indicator is calculated, and published annually by the
         U.S. Geological Survey as part of a larger effort to determine loads and trends in
         nutrient and sediment concentrations and streamflow in the Chesapeake Bay
         watershed. A complete description of data analysis methods can be found in
         Langland, M. J., and others, Changes in streamflow and water quality in selected
         nontidal basins in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 1985-2004: U.S. Geological
         Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5178, 75 p., available online at
         http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5178/
        The US Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), in
         partnership with USGS, and agencies in six states throughout the Chesapeake Bay
         watershed, monitors streamflow, nutrients, and sediment as part of the CBP
         Nontidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network. There are 85 sites in the network,
         however, only 33 of these sites have adequate record to calculate flow-adjusted
         concentration trends from the past 10 years and only 45 have adequate enough
         record to compute short-term yields from the past 5 years.
        The network includes the River Input Monitoring Program which monitors
         streamflow and water quality at nine sites upstream from the head of tide at each
         of the major river basins draining to the Bay. The River Input sites collectively

Reviewed by JG
                                                                                       9


       represent 78 percent of area of the watershed and range in size from the
       Susquehanna River (27,000 square miles) to the Choptank River (100 square
       miles). These nine rivers account for approximately 93 percent of the streamflow
       entering Chesapeake Bay from the nontidal part of its watershed. However, many
       of the largest populated cities within the watershed are located downstream of
       these monitoring sites in the Coastal Plain region of the watershed.
      Results from the CBP Nontidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network are being
       used by resource managers, policy makers, and concerned citizens to help
       evaluate the effectiveness of strategies aimed at reducing nutrients and sediment
       entering streams and rivers of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and, eventually, the
       tidal waters of the Bay.
      Most of the monitoring is conducted upstream from the head of tide. Thus, the
       trends do not reflect the effects of management actions that are implemented in
       the majority of the Coastal Plain areas of the watershed.
      There are multiple factors affecting suspended sediment trends. The major factors
       include changes in suspended sediment sources and land use, population increase,
       implementation of management actions, and the influence of watershed
       characteristics including the lag time between implementing management actions
       to decrease sediment pollution and detecting a water-quality improvement.


                                      References

Cohn, T.A., DeLong, L.L., Gilroy, E.J., Hirsch, R.M., and Wells, R.M., 1989, Estimating
       constituent loads: Water Resources Research, v. 25, no. 5, p. 937-942.
Langland, M.J., Raffensperger, J.P., Moyer, D.L., Landwehr, J.M., and Schwarz, G.E.,
       2006, Changes in Streamflow and Water Quality in Selected Nontidal Basins in
       the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985-2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
       Investigations Report 2006-5178, 75 p.
Linker, L. C., G. W. Shenk, R. L. Dennis, and J. S. Sweeney. 2000. Cross-media models
       of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and airshed. Water Quality and Ecosystem
       Modeling 1: 91-122.
Moyer, D. L. 2005. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Virginia River Input
       Monitoring Program. USGS Water Resources.
Runkel, R. L., C. G. Crawford, and T. A. Cohn. 2004. Load Estimator (LOADEST): A
       FORTRAN Program for Estimating Constituent Loads in Streams and Rivers, p.
       69. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book 4, Chapter A5. USGS.
Tenbus, F. J. 2006. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Maryland River Input
       Monitoring Program, river input nutrient and sediment loading trends component,
       p. 41. USGS Water Resources.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Setting and allocating the Chesapeake Bay
       basin nutrient and sediment loads. US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office.




Reviewed by JG