Advertisement

The Value of Intensive Sampling—A Comparison of Fluvial Loads

  • Saurav KumarEmail author
  • Adil Godrej
  • Harold Post
  • Karl Berger
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Most long-term sampling regimes are calendar based, collecting one or two samples per month regardless of the stream conditions. Loads estimated with calendar-based sampling are often used for expensive water quality mitigation measures. In this paper, we have tested the differences between the calendar-based and extensive sampling methods for two watersheds of different sizes, and three parameters—total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids. Based on the results obtained and the costs associated with the remediation, a simple decision-making framework is proposed for watershed managers to decide on the applicability of a calendar-based sampling method. Direct loads (DL) were computed using a method based on an intensive sampling of flow and other water quality parameters. Weighted regression loads (WL) were estimated using the WRTDS model designed for modified calendar-based sampling. The results suggest that for trend analysis and planning on a larger scale, long-term loads obtained from a modified calendar-based sampling regime may be used as a reasonable substitute for loads obtained from intensive sampling. However, for purposes where accurate daily loads are needed (e.g., water quality model calibration) WL may not be an effective substitute for DL. Finally, we recommend that the costs of control measures should be assessed when deciding on a sampling regime.

Keywords

Nutrient loads Sampling methods Regression methods WRTDS Remediation costs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the stakeholders of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for their continued (since 1982) support of the Potomac River (PR01) monitoring program and (since 1973) the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Program (ST30). We will also like to acknowledge the work by Dr. Thomas Grizzard who was instrumental in developing this study. Unfortunately, he passed away before this manuscript could be written and is not included as an author as per the journal policy.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors are aware of no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allan IJ et al (2006) Strategic monitoring for the European water framework directive. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 25:704–715.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2006.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arabkhedri M, Lai F, Noor-Akma I, Mohamad-Roslan M (2010) An application of adaptive cluster sampling for estimating total suspended sediment load. Hydrol Res 41:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck MW, Hagy JD (2015) Adaptation of a weighted regression approach to evaluate water quality trends in an estuary. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 20:637–655.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-015-9452-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donigian A (2002) Watershed model calibration and validation: The HSPF experience Proc WEF 2002:44–73Google Scholar
  5. Easton Z et al. (2017) Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Review of the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. STAC Publication Number 17–007. Edgewater, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. FWPCA (2002) Fedral Water Pollution Control Act vol 33 U.S. Code § 1251. United States Senate and House of Representatives, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Harmel R, Cooper R, Slade R, Haney R, Arnold J (2006) Cumulative uncertainty in measured streamflow and water quality data for small watersheds. Trans ASABE 49:13Google Scholar
  8. He Y, Gui Z, Su C, Chen X, Chen D, Lin K, Bai X (2018) Response of sediment load to hydrological change in the upstream part of the Lancang-Mekong River over the past 50 years. Water 10:888.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w10070888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Helsel D, Hirsch R (2002) Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 4, Hydrologic Analysis and Interpretation, chapter A3. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Hirsch RM, De Cicco LA (2015) User guide to Exploration and Graphics for RivEr Trends (EGRET) and dataRetrieval: R packages for hydrologic data, Version 1.0: Originally posted October 8, 2014; Version 2.0: February 5, 2015 edn., Reston, VA, USA. doi: https://doi.org/10.3133/tm4A10
  11. Hirsch RM, Moyer DL, Archfield SA (2010) Weighted regressions on time, discharge, and season (WRTDS), with an application to Chesapeake Bay River inputs. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46:857–880.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00482.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horowitz AJ, Clarke RT, Merten GH (2015) The effects of sample scheduling and sample numbers on estimates of the annual fluxes of suspended sediment in fluvial systems. Hydrol Process 29:531–543.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnes P (2007) Uncertainties in annual riverine phosphorus load estimation: impact of load estimation methodology, sampling frequency, baseflow index and catchment population density. J Hydrol 332:241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kronvang B, Bruhn A (1996) Choice of sampling strategy and estimation method for calculating nitrogen and phosphorus transport in small lowland streams. Hydrol Process 10:1483–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kumar S, Godrej AN, Grizzard TJ (2013) Watershed size effects on applicability of regression-based methods for fluvial loads estimation. Water Resour Res 49:7698–7710.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR013704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee CJ, Hirsch RM, Schwarz GE, Holtschlag DJ, Preston SD, Crawford CG, Vecchia AV (2016) An evaluation of methods for estimating decadal stream loads. J Hydrol 542:185–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maher WA, Cullen PW, Norris RH (1994) Framework for designing sampling programs. Environ Monit Assess 30:139–162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00545619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moyer DL, Hirsch RM, Hyer KE (2012) Comparison of Two Regression-Based Approaches for Determining Nutrient and Sediment Fluxes and Trends in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5244. U.S. Geological Survey Richmond, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Park YS, Engel BA (2015) Analysis for regression model behavior by sampling strategy for annual pollutant load estimation. J Environ Qual 44:1843–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robertson DM, Roerish ED (1999) Influence of various water quality sampling strategies on load estimates for small streams. Water Resour Res 35:3747–3759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sadeghi SHR, Saeidi P (2010) Reliability of sediment rating curves for a deciduous forest watershed in Iran. Hydrol Sci J 55:821–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sadeghi SHR et al (2008) Development, evaluation and interpretation of sediment rating curves for a Japanese small mountainous reforested watershed. Geoderma 144:198–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sprague LA, Hirsch RM, Aulenbach BT (2011) Nitrate in the Mississippi River and its tributaries, 1980 to 2008: are we making Progress? Environ Sci Technol 45:7209–7216.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es201221s CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stenback GA, Crumpton WG, Schilling KE, Helmers MJ (2011) Rating curve estimation of nutrient loads in Iowa rivers. J Hydrol 396:158–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. von Storch H (1995) Misuses of statistical analysis in climate research. In: von Storch H, Navarra A (eds) Analysis of climate variability. Springer, New York, pp 11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wainger LA (2012) Opportunities for reducing Total maximum daily load (TMDL) compliance costs: lessons from the Chesapeake Bay. Environ Sci Technol 46:9256–9265.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es300540k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhang Q, Harman CJ, Ball WP (2016) An improved method for interpretation of riverine concentration-discharge relationships indicates long-term shifts in reservoir sediment trapping. Geophys Res Lett 43:10,215–210,224.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering and Texas A&M AgriLife Research El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringVirginia TechManassasUSA
  3. 3.Metropolitan Washington Council of GovernmentsWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations