DEP’s Watershed Planning Program Updates and Use of External Data

Bureau of Water Resources, Division of Watershed Management, Watershed Planning Program

Watershed Planning Program Updates

Water Quality Standards, Monitoring and Assessment, Total Maximum Daily Loads,

Grants

∗ Develop and implement the Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) regulations (314 CMR 4.00)

∗ Monitor the surface waters in the Commonwealth and manage the data∗ Assess surface water quality conditions and attainment of existing and

designated uses∗ Protect high quality waters

and develop plans to restore impaired surface waters

∗ Support other programs, such as the nonpoint source (319) and water quality management planning (604(b)) grant programs, watershed-based plans (WBP), and MassDEP’s Watershed-based Planning Tool

Scope Watershed Planning Program

∗ Proposed regulation out for public comment in 2019;∗ Adopting new/updated pollutant criteria for

protection of aquatic life and human health that have been recommended by EPA since 2002;

∗ Designating 153 additional streams as cold water streams (recommendations from MassWildlife);

∗ Updating site- specific criteria in Table 28 (copper, zinc, nitrogen);

∗ Updating and enhancing the consistency, clarity and accuracy of the basin tables.

Proposed Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00)

∗ Funded USGS Study - Site-specific criteria development – aluminum & copper

∗ Marine Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Review∗ Biomonitoring Method Development in

Estuarine Waters – southeastern Mass∗ Biological Criteria Development

Freshwater- underway

Updates - Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00)

∗ EPA Water Quality Data Portal∗ https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/water-quality-

portal-data-discovery-tool

MassDEP Water Quality Data Available For Download

Monitoring - Probabilistic Surveys (2011 to 2018)

∗ Wadable Streams -182 stations 2011-2015

∗ Lakes and Ponds –75 Lakes (2016-2018)

∗ Planned for 2020 -Marine and Coastal

∗ Reference Site Network - 38 sites sampled since 2011∗ Temperature Network 2017 (38 Sites)∗ Chloride Network – (249 Stations with both Chloride and

Conductivity Data , 2442 samples since 2012)∗ Connecticut River – Loading network initiated in 2017, 6

stations in operation by 2020 ∗ Mount Hope Bay/Taunton River – (2) Buoys deployed in

2016, 4 additional Loading stations to be added in 2019∗ Statewide Eel grass mapping∗ Regional Monitoring Networks (RMNs) – climate change∗ 2019 Surveys planned Taunton & Connecticut River

MassDEP Targeted Monitoring

∗ Grants announced in November∗ Focus on the bacterial monitoring

and building capacity ∗ “Over many years, regional

watershed organizations have been doing great work collecting data on water quality across the state,” said MassDEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg.

∗ “These new grants will support and enhance the actions of watershed groups with existing bacteria monitoring programs, as well as assist groups that wish to develop or expand their monitoring programs.”

MassDEP Updates: Watershed Group Monitoring Grants for bacterial monitoring

∗ Congratulations to the grant recipients!

DEP Updates: Watershed Group Monitoring Grants

• Nashua River Watershed Association• Connecticut River Conservancy• Housatonic Valley Authority• Cohasset Center for Student Coastal Research• French River Connection• Taunton River Watershed Association• Neponset River Watershed Association• Charles River Watershed Association• Farmington River Watershed Association• North and South Rivers Watershed Association• Berkshire Community College• Blackstone River Coalition• OARS (Assabet, Sudbury and Concord Rivers)• Ipswich River Watershed Association• Salem Sound Coast Watch• Mystic River Watershed Association• UMass Dartmouth

Updates: Partnerships

∗ 2019-2021 MassBays and partners (MassDEP, EPA, and ERG) will∗ produce an online

application: "AquaQAPP” to help users develop SAPs and QAPPs

∗ hire a circuit rider to provide one-on-one technical support

∗ host workshops∗ facilitate data upload to WQX,

EPA's national data management and archiving system

∗ Aiming to build a visual report on the State of the Bays

Updates: Partnerships

∗ UMass Data Collaborative – support for QAPP development, QAPP review, and external data review plus Training

Marie-Francoise in her natural habitatJerry Schoen

Why, What, How, and of What Quality

∗ Spend the next 20 minutes on…

∗ Why does DEP collect water quality data?

∗ What kinds of data are collected?

∗ What & how could watershed groups best contribute?

∗ What quality control is needed to use the data?

∗ For “assessment” (reported in “Integrated List” to EPA)∗ TMDL-support∗ Other objectives∗ Pollutant source ID ∗ Establish baseline conditions∗ Long-term trends∗ Post-restoration monitoring

Why: DEP Watershed Planning Program Monitoring Objectives

Are you sure it’s supposed to look

like this?

MA WQS – Classify waters, designate uses and define criteria for “supporting designated uses”

DESIGNATED USES∗ Aquatic Life

(Cold Water Fishery, Warm Water Fishery)∗ Fish Consumption∗ Public Water Supply (acknowledged as

use but not assessed) ∗ Shellfish Harvesting∗ Primary Contact Rec. (e.g., swimming) ∗ Secondary Contact Rec. (e.g., boating)∗ Aesthetics∗ Agricultural (presumed support)∗ Industrial (presumed support)

USE: AQUATIC LIFE (sub-categories Cold Water and Warm Water Fisheries)

• Macroinvertebrate community (RBP III)• Fish community (WPP and DFW surveys) • Primary producers

• Benthic Algae• Chlorophyll-a• Aquatic macrophytes (i.e. plants)• Algal blooms• Eel grass (estuaries)

• Habitat & flow data (e.g. visible dewatering)• Non-native species (presence or absence)• Toxicity testing (NPDES associated testing)

USE: AQUATIC LIFE (continued)

• Water Quality• Dissolved oxygen (discrete and continuous)• pH• Temperature (discrete and continuous)• Nutrients (TP, TN, NH3-N)

• Invasive species (presence/absence)• Fish kills• Toxic pollutants (e.g., metals and chloride)• Tissue chemical assays• Emerging contaminants • Sediment chemistry

AESTHETIC USE “free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that settle to form

objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum or other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable odor, color, taste or turbidity; or produce undesirable or

nuisance species of aquatic life” • Aesthetic observations (pictures!)

• Blooms, scums, water odors, discoloration, taste, visual turbidity, highly cloudy/murky

• Secchi disk transparency• Trash (CA has done a trash TMDL!)

• Cyanobacteria advisories• Algal blooms • Macroalgae (estuaries)• Macrophyte cover (lakes and impounded

reaches)

PRIMARY CONTACT RECREATION(wading, swimming, diving, surfing and water skiing )

• Aesthetics (Scums, sheens, debris, deposits observed)• Pathogens (e.g., E. coli, Enterococci) and beach postings• Transparency (Secchi)• Macrophyte density• Algal blooms, chlorophyll• Harmful algal blooms, cyanotoxins • Bathing beach closures• Presence of CSOs (potential indicators:

fluorescent whitening agents, surfactants, bacteria)

SECONDARY CONTACT RECREATION(fishing, boating)

• Aesthetics (Scums, sheens, debris, deposits observed)• Pathogens (e.g., E. coli, Enterococci) and beach postings• Harmful algal blooms, cyanotoxins • Bathing beach closures• Presence of CSOs - potential indicators:

• fluorescent whitening agents • surfactants• bacteria

Photo credit: Dave Griffin

FINFISH/SHELLFISH CONSUMPTION• DPH fish consumption advisories (based on fish tissue testing)

• E.g., Mercury, PCBs, Pesticides• Shellfish bed closures (non-management) & National Shellfish Sanitation

Program approval

For the purpose of assessment and 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report reporting, the status of the Fish Consumption Use (human consumption of fish) is reported as its own use rather than part of the Secondary Contact Recreational Use.

But we’re only able to get to a limited number of these sites in any given year

MassDEP Data “Needs” and Potential for Volunteer Monitoring

Parameters: ∗ Bacteria: E. coli (freshwater), Enterococci (marine)

∗ Continuous temperature, optic DO/temp, conductivity deployments

∗ Visual records (pictures) for aesthetics, blooms, stressors, fish kills, spills, no/low flows, etc.

∗ Eutrophication indicators, such as nutrient levels (TP, TN), chlorophyll-a (lakes), cyanobacteria (counts, toxins), Secchi depth

∗ Benthic macroinvertebrate data, habitat scores, metrics

Projects:

∗ Project-specific baseline conditions

∗ “Success story” data documenting improvements

∗ Long-term fixed site data for trends analysis

∗ Sources of pollutants (e.g., bacteria source tracking)

Usefulness of Continuous Data(preliminary data)

MA. Freshwater Model for SC vs. Cl

y = 0.2753x - 18.987R² = 0.9445

N = 2426P < 0.001

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Chlo

ride

conc

entr

atio

n (m

g/L)

Specific conductivity (uS/cm)

230 mg/L Chloride

904

uS/c

m

860 mg/L Chloride31

93 u

S/cm

∗ “Best Practices for Continuous Monitoring of Temperature and Flow in WadeableStreams” (EPA/600/R-13/170F )

∗ https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_stamp_j001.pdf

Continuous Monitoring Guidance

Other Potential Issues

∗ Micro-plastics∗ Climate change-related∗ Trash∗ Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care

Products (PPCPs) and PFAS∗ Invasive species∗ HABS & Cyanotoxins∗ Dam issues∗ Healthy watersheds ∗ BMP effectiveness

∗ Generate data of known and documented quality∗ Standardize procedures (SOPS) for field and lab∗ Training ensures consistent data collection and handling∗ QC data and documentation promotes usability of data

∗ Meet project objectives now (e.g. data to make good decisions about how to protect your riveror lake)

∗ Useable for later analyses (e.g. trend analysis)∗ Data use by other organizations (e.g. DEP)

∗ No guarantees, but valid data more likely when QA/QC measures implemented

How to collect data(or why write a QAPP, SAP, SOP?)

Effects:Safety issues

Samples not takenReduced data quality

Communication Breakdown

FRUSTRATIONAnd wasted time and

money

Safety Issues

Fish population

Poor road safety

Wade into unsafe conditions

Poor communication

Rush

Non-representative samples

Use wrong bottle or label

Lose the sample bottles

Lose bacteria tabletsForget the anchor blocks/ poor anchoring

Forget elbows, locks etc

Fail to fill out the fieldsheet properly

No safety kit!

Forget probe guards

No lab dupes/blanks

Leave the lab in disarray

Not asking questions

Not filling out lab book correctly

No polarized sunglasses

Put hand in contaminated stream

Lack of crampons

VandalismPoor fieldsheetrecording

Forget the Nets

Forget the Alcohol

Scrape the bottom with bare hands

Don’t know your stream - just go exploring!

Forget equipment

Benthic SamplingLab Work

Water quality samples

Multiprobe deployment

“Creative ways to mess up in the field” … can be reduced/mitigate with planning & QA/QC

Provide training…. And check in later in the season… and re-train as needed

Laboratory & Data Management Issues (examples)

∗ Reporting errors∗ Inappropriate lab practices (e.g., calibrations that don’t bracket expected

range; holding times exceeded)∗ Lack of pre-calibration and/or post-survey checks for probes∗ Lack of or incomplete metadata∗ Lack of field QC samples ∗ Insufficient verification ∗ Lab fraud∗ Assuming data are fine without checking∗ Not adhering to good modeling practice

∗ Data collected by outside groups and submitted to MassDEP are termed “external” or “secondary” or “existing”, “non-direct”

∗ Data submitted gets stored and reviewed separately from DEP-generated data (Umass- MWWP has been doing reviews this year)

∗ External data can be valuable in extending the area, frequency, and types of data available to make assessments – if data is of known quality

∗ Guidance: https://www.mass.gov/guides/water-quality-monitoring-for-volunteers

DEP’s Use of “External” Data

∗ Scientifically-defensible, external data is useable to DEP in:∗ 305(b) Clean Water Act Assessments (“Integrated List”)∗ post-TMDL monitoring∗ development of Surface Water Quality Standards∗ problem identification

∗ Data-driven decisions: Credible data for 305(b) assessments minimizes the chance of:∗ Concluding the segment is impaired, when in fact it

is not impaired∗ Deciding not to declare a segment impaired,

when it is in fact impaired

∗ What’s in the Water? DEP needs more DATA that is more current, in more places, and for more pollutants!

Credible External Data is useful

How can External Data fit into Assessments?

AssessmentsIntegrated List Report & Support other projects

Data Quality ChecksQCed Data into Equis Database

Data ManagementRaw Data into DB/spreadsheets

SurveysField Data Lab Data

PlanningWhy and How: SAPs, SOPs and QAPPs

AssessmentsReports & Presentations Support other projects

Data Quality Checks QCed Data into final storage & submit to DEP

Data ManagementRaw Data Database/Spreadsheets

SurveysField Data Lab Data

PlanningWhy and How: SAPs, SOPs and QAPPs (DEP approval)

DEP Watershed Planning Program Watershed and Monitoring Groups

“External” Database

“External” Database

How to submit data to DEP DEP web page with guidance,

forms, and templates

Data submittal checklist:

Cover Letter/e-mail

Data file(s)

QA data/files

Statement of Data Integrity

Copy of approved QAPP (or QAPP on file)

∗ QAPP∗ Use of a state-certified or otherwise acceptable laboratory (send

Proficiency Testing samples if needed)∗ Demonstrated attention to QA/QC

∗ QC reports∗ data shows flagged/censored indicators

∗ Submit data using WPP’s Electronic Data Delivery “EDD” template, including QC data (other formats accepted, but complicates review/use)

∗ Narrative report containing data *∗ High usability score based on WPP’s

data review

* recommended

Data Quality Requirements for Use in CWA 305(b) Assessments

∗ Needs and opportunities:∗ Support ($$) for monitoring and data sharing∗ Reducing analytical costs – opportunities for cost sharing?∗ More inter-method comparison testing ∗ Better citizen–science tools for data collection and sharing

Data Sharing

Better use of resources if we’re all swimming the same direction -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> ->

Photo credit: Dave Griffin

Questions?