/ A METHOD TO SIMPLY PRIORITIZE AND ASSIST MONITORING STATION SELECTION V ------- A METHOD TO SIMPLY PRIORITIZE AND ASSIST MONITORING STATION SELECTION DATA ANALYSIS BRANCH SURVEILLANCE & ANALYSIS DIVISION REGION VIII - ROCKY MOUNTAIN PRAIRIE REGION U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DENVER, COLORADO NOVEMBER, 1976 ------- FOREWORD Many techniques have been and are being developed to prioritize monitoring station locations and to offer a better monitoring strategy. This paper is basically an empirical effort, which, if it improves the allocation of resources; regardless of the underlying pitfalls or lack of scientific astuteness, will make the effort worthwhile. Elaborate, statistical formulae are often used to abstract the real world into a model. In most, if not all, cases the dynamics of broad-based, natural conditions create significant perturbations. Too many dynamic interactions elude quantification. Qualitative judgements and common sense must, it seems, always accompany the quantitative workup. -1- ------- INTRODUCTION Selection of primary trend monitoring stations to include in a state or regional network is an artful process. Constrained by very limited or dimin- ishing resources the job is made much more demanding. Classically, the rationale for initial station selection is based on determining "worst" polluted areas, sorting out man's responsibility and focusing needed cleanup on these areas. As resources expand stations may be added to examine pristine conditions and/or to answer the question, "Are cleanup programs and/or grants-in-aid cost effective as they relate to the national goals of maximum attainability of fishable and swimmable waters?" Non-degradation analysis becomes important as land uses become potentially disruptive. A more richly endowed program may also grow to include lake and groundwater stations and to meet other still more specific needs. Determination of trends is difficult in the dynamic water environment. Trend data must frequently be gathered over protracted periods to even out long term "natural" variations. Documentation of the complex phenomena related to runoff and other trends related to relatively infrequent events may require many years of data. Monitoring programs begun today can only aid the water quality manager of the future. Many concerns impact station selection. Examples of high concern are intakes at public water supplies and heavily used recreation areas. Other more specific concerns relate to station location along Wild and Scenic rivers, -2- ------- at important commercial fisheries, at major confluences, below dams, above and below major point sources, at state and international boundaries, above and below major federal grant projects and/or in relation to other developed areas such as timberlands, grazelands, etc. As one concern for selection interacts with another either stronger or weaker justification for station selection or station retention evolves. The task of allocating our resources in the proper or best mix must address the realities of flow, channel, and other morphometric characteristics, Low or no flows, and shallow meandering conditions can reduce the importance of a seemingly important watercourse. Conditions, such as channelization and dams, reduces the dynamics of a watercourse and the consequent need for frequent monitoring. High sediment related to infrequent runoff events may require special "on-off" monitoring apparatus.^ So far this discussion is really an affirmation of what concerns or con- siderations the water quality manager already deals with. By taking this discussion one step further a quantitative technique is given which should aid water quality managers structure their program priorities. This technique quantifies "worst", to "least" pollution at primary stations in Region VIII from 1970 thru 1975, specifically, at National Stream Accounting Network (NASOAN) sites, National Water Quality Surveillance System (NWQSS) locations and at "primary" state monitoring stations. Quantification is based on a ^Quantification of Pollutants in Agricultural Runoff, J. N. Dornbush, et al. EPA 23:66012-74-005, 1974. -3- ------- developed approach comparable to one outlined in "Quantitative Methods for o Preliminary Design of Water Quality Surveillance Systems - 1972" (EPA-R5-72-001). This modified technique gauges seven important parameters at each station. In turn, the average station value or station priority is determined from the individual parameter values. Stations are ranked from highest (worst) to lowest (least) station priority value. Rationale and calculation of the ranking is based on the formula as shown in Table 1. Data in each of seven (7) parameter areas; namely BOD, nitrogen, phosphorous, dissolved solids, DO, fecal coliform and turbidity; were known to be reasonably well distributed and generally sampled at monthly intervals. Each were indiv- idually examined and developed for ranking calculation. (A general bias toward sewage treatment plants, non-point sources and some industrial discharges is present, however, this is not considered a serious limitation, but rather a general bias toward parameters of national significance.) -4- ------- TABLE 1 RANKING SYSTEM * PARAMFTER AREA EDITING LIMITS CALCULATION BOD mg/1 N mg/1 N03 mg/1 P mg/1 P04 mg/1 D1s solved residue mq/1 D.O. mg/1 F. Coli, #/100ml Turbidity JTlJ's or FTU1 s 0-100 0 - 20 0 - 60 0 - 20 0 - 60 0 - 10,000 0 - 20 0 - 5,000,000 None Mean _ 5 Hi-15% Standard dev. Mean — 0.6 Hi-15% Standard dev. Mean — 2.6 Hi-15% Standard dev. Mean — 0.03 Hi-15% Standard dev. Mean — 0.09 Hi-15% Standard dev. Mean — 500 Hi-15% Standard dev. 5.0 — Low value Log High Value (Log 2.3 = 200) Harmonic Mean of — 25 High 15% Harmonic Standard dev. - 2.3 AVERAGE OF 1-7 = STATION RANKING Values used as acceptable levels were selected from a general review of State Standards, EPA's "Hater Quality Criteria-1972,"and Region VIII's "Water Quality Inventory-1975". -5- ------- More site-specific parameters; such as, cyanide, zinc, mercury and/or biological indicators as available can be used to supplement the basic ranking. STATION RANKING CALCULATION The simple priority approach, suggested by the more complex process of Beckers, et.al.,^ was first used to attempt station ranking. The following modified formula was later used at the basis for the station ranking. Mean of the Priority# = high 15% of — Level of acceptable the observations concentration Standard deviation of the observations Some parameter areas did become distorted by use of this simple formula. An arithmetric mean of "the high 15" was only useful for BOD, nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved residue. Distortions resulted from use of the arithmetic mean for D.O., fecal coliform and turbidity and the following special treatment was developed for each of these areas. D.O. and fecal coliform were treated such that the "worst" event which might temporarily damage or render an ecosystem suspect for continued body contact recreation, were used as the basis for ranking. The formula used for D.O. is based on the lowest recorded D.O. condition so the calculation becomes: Quantitative Methods for Preliminary Design of Water Quality Surveillance Systems, 1972; Charles V. Beckers, et.al., EPA-R5-72-001 . -6- ------- Level of Lowest Priority# = acceptable — D.O. recorded concentration, namely 5 or 6.0 mg/1 Since bacterial growth and die-off generally follows an exponential growth curve, a logarithmic base was used for the fecal coliform analysis. Thus, the log 10 of the worst or most unsanitary condition was used to adjust this part of overall calculation as follows: Log 10 of the highest Priority# = value recorded Log of the acceptable concentration, namely 2.3 or the log 10 of 200/100 ml (natura logs could be used to increase the impact of this parameter on the station ranking), For turbidity, in order to effectively average infrequently high values, a formula suggested by Steele, et.al., was used. This formula employed use of the harmonic mean: Harmonic. Number of observations Mpan = Sum of the reciprocal of each observation, which then gave rise to the following formula: Harmonic mean Level of Priority# = of the high 15% — acceptable con- of the observations centration, namely, 25 or 50 JTU's Standard deviation as determined by use of the Harmonic distribution Some bias for the fecal coliform calculation was unavoidable since a maximum negative (good) value of 2.3 results from use of the log 10 of the 200/100 ml standard selected as an acceptable level. A maximum rating of 5 was possible in the other six areas. (Any negative priority number for fecal coliform should be considered a good indicator.) An Assessment of Areal and Temporal Variations in Stream-flow Quality Using Selected Data from the National Stream Quality Accounting Network, Open File Report 74-217, T.D. Steele, et.al., U.S. Geological Survey, August, 1974. -7- ------- The station priority is the average of the seven individual priority numbers. (For practical purposes, four of seven parameter areas were required "for sufficient data" but good or better judgement is needed as less parameter groups are available.) Although in theory there is no theoretical limit, in practice, a maximum station priority of five (5) suggested itself since the highest values found in each parameter area was approximately five (5). (In instances where a value of 5+ is shown high, anomalous values or turbidity values of >1000 JTU's may account for this.) Thus, for averaging no value in excess of five (5) was used. A state-by-state analysis follows. A STATE-BY-STATE OVERVIEW Each state's ranking is divided into two parts. Part A is a ranking of the state "primary" stations. An important determinant made in this section are the candidates suggested for removal from the state primary network. Part B is a ranking of the NASQAN and NWOSS stations. In only a few instances were candidates for removal suggested among NASQAN-NWQSS stations since the underlying rationale of the NASQAN is to locate these stations at major hydrologic accounting locations and that of the NWQSS is to bracket long term problem areas associated with important land uses. -8- ------- COLORADO Eleven candidates for non-primary stations are suggested by Colorado's primary network ranking illustrated in Table 2A. Of these stations, five (5) are located at/or near NASQAN sites, four (4) appear redundant for trend purposes, one has especially low flow, and another is near a dam construction site which will be completed in the near future. Suggested non-point sources and relocation possibilities are also noted in the comments section of the Table. No state data gaps were noted among the seven (7) parameter areas. However, a reasonable flow estimate could not be provided for six (6) stations. BOD and fecal coliform gaps were noted in Table 2B for the NASQAN-NWQSS stations. Turbidity data were scant at three (3) NASQAN stations. -9- ------- ccLor, : :ion table 2k RAKKE; PRIMLY 5'Ai.^S Station Pnor.t/ comments 1. Fountain Oee:-. below Colo. Springs 2. Little Thompson River near Milllken 3. Big Thompson River near mouth A. Cache La Poudre near Greeley 5. Arkansas River at Coolidge, Ks. 6. S. Platte at Julesburg 7. Arkansas River near Nepesta 8. Arkansas River near La Junta 9. S. Platte River at Kersey 10. St. Vrain Creek below Longmont 11. S. Platte River at Henderson 12. Boulder Creek at County Line 13. Uncompahgre River at Delta 14. Gunnison River at Grand Junction 15. Colorado River at Newcastle 16. Cache La Poudre at Ft. Collins 17. Eagle River at Gypsum 18. Rio Grande River east of Manassa 19. Clear Creek at Wheatridge 20. S. Platte River above Littleton 21. Colorado River near Dotsero 22. Roaring Fork at mouth 23. Eagle River at Avon 24. Bear Creek at County Line 25. Clear Creek above Golden 26. Yampa River near Miner 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.2 -0.6 (c) Low flow and channel characteristics (c) Also a NASQAN Station (c) Also a NASQAN Station (c) Seems redundant no significant change from Nepesta or Coolidge.Ks, See 05 and #7 NPS suggested (c) A NASQAN is located nearby (c) Seems redundant - see #4 NPS suggested (c) A NASQAN Station is located near Labatos Relocation suggested closer to mouth Relocation above new dam suggested (c) Seems redundant - see *15 & NASQAN NPS suggested (c) Seems redundant - see *17 (c) Dam near completion (c) A NASQAU Station is located nearbv at Maybell (c)=Candidate for non-primary status RANKING 3Y CATEGORY Turb BOD H P F. Coli. Residue "iO Mean Flow rfs. 1. 5.0+ 3,1 2.7 3.4 4.2 4.4 4.5 IV 2. 5.0+ 3.2 2.7 3.4 4.0 4.8 2.0 N/A 3. 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.9 3.4 N/A 4. 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.2 4.3 3.2 101 5. 5.0+ -0.2 3.8 2.4 4.1 6.0+ 1.5 222 6. 5.0+ 1.5 3.0 2.9 4.2 4.2 0.6 470 7. 5.0+ 1.4 3.0 5.0+ 3.0 1.5 1.8 683 8. 5.0+ 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 0.8 246 9. 2.0 2.0 3.8 2.7 4.4 3.8 1.7 754 10. 4.4 3.5 2.6 3.6 2.2 2.0 2.4 N/A 11. 1.3 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.2 2.0 0.9 347 12. 5.0+ 1.4 2.8 3.9 2.0 1.4 0.2 90.4 13. 5.0+ -1.9 3.6 3.0 1 .2 3.3 0.6 276 14. 5.0+ -2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 0.0 2561 15. 5.0+ -1.0 1.6 2.4 2.1 1.0 -0.5 3589 16. -1 .8 1.7 3.9 3.1 2.3 2.3 0.6 N/A 17. 5.0+ -1.9 3.3 2.7 0.9 1.0 1.9 565 18. -0.5 0.7 0.8 2.6 3.1 0.4 0.5 593 19. -0.7 2.5 1.1 3.5 2.0 -0.4 0.0 N/A 20. 5.0+ 0.2 2.7 2.4 0.6 -4.4 -1.9 225 21. 5.0+ -1.3 0.0 2.3 0.2 -1.9 1.2 2093 22. 0.7 -3.2 0.0 2.4 1.1 -C.l -0.1 1365 23. -4.4 0.2 1.4 2.6 1.3 1.0 -3.1 U/A 24. 1.0 0.5 1.4 2.9 1 .2 -2.0 -0.<> 53.3 25. -0.6 -0.1 0.4 3.3 1 .2 -4.3 -1 2 228 26. -0.7 -3.2 0.8 2.8 2.0 -?.0 466+ HA - .lot Available NPS - (Ion-Point Source ------- 2B CA'!-.'.JCSS c;..c- kankee primary staticni> Locadcp Station Priority 1. S. Platte River 3t Julesburg 2.8 2. San Miguel River at Uravan (NWQSS) 2.7 3. San Miguel River below Uravan (NWQSS) 2.2 4. Colorado River near Utah bo-der 1.8 5. Rio Grande River near LObatos 1.3 6. Gunnison River near Gr. Junction 1 .0 7. Little Snake River near Lilly 0.1 8. Yampa River near Maybell 0.1 9. White River below Meeker (NWQSS) Arkansas River at Coolldge, Ks. Comments Point source oriented Energy related Insufficient data Insufficient data Turb BOD N P F. Coll. Residue DO Mean rlov cfs 1. 5.0+ - 2.3 2.7 - 4.6 0.6 470 2. 5.0+ - 4.0 2.4 - 2.4 0.0 N/A 3. 5.0+ - 2.7 1.8 - 2.5 -1.2 N/A 4. - - 2.5 3.0 - 2.7 -1.0 5730 5. -2.5 3.1 2.5 4.1 1.6 0.5 0.0 593 6. - - 2.5 0.8 - 1.9 -1.1 2561 7. - - -0.4 0.8 - 0.3 -0.1 569 8. -0.8 - 0.6 2.4 - -0.2 -1.4 1547 9. - - - - - - - 616 222 ------- MONTANA There was little or no data in STORET to evaluate the nine (9) Montana state primary stations, therefore no ranking or other judgement regarding the candidacy for non-primary status is possible for Montana's network. Overconcentration of stations on the Yellowstone River at Billings is suggested by the NASOAN-NWOSS summary given in Table 3B. Parameter coverage for NASQAN and NWQSS is generally adequate in each of the seven (7) categories4 Two (2) stations require turbidity, BOD and fecal coliform data. Flow data estimates are unavailable at all nine (9) Montana primary stations. -12- ------- MONTANA NASQAN-NWQSS RANKING TABLE JB PRIORITY RANKING Location Network Station Priority Ranking by Category Comments Turb. BOD N FC Mean Flow DO (cfs) 1. Yellowstone R. nr Miles 1.0 City (NWQSS) 2. Tongue River at Miles City 1.0 3. Yellowstone R. nr Sindey 0.9 (NWQSS & NASQAN) ' 4. Milk River at Nashua 0.8 5. Yellowstone River at 0.2 Huntley (NWQSS) 6. Yellowstone River at -0.5 Billings 7. Yellowstone River at -0.5 Laurel (NWQSS) 8. Bighorn River at Bighorn -0.7 9. Missouri River near -0.9 Culbertson 10. Missouri R. at Toston -1.3 11. Kootenai R. near Copeland -2.4 Missouri River at Virgelle Missouri R. below Ft. Peck Musselshell R. at Mosby N. Fk. Flathead R. at Flathead B.C. STATE OF MONTANA Tongue R. Confluence 5.0+ 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.9 -1.4 1.7 NPS suggested NPS suggested NPS suggested NPS suggested 5.0+ 5.0+ 5.0+ 0.7 Appears duDlication 3.5 of #7 NPS suggested No confluence station 2.4 on the Yellowstone is available NPS suggested New stations New stations New stations Mew stations -2.5 1.3 0.3 -1.2 2.3 ¦0.5 -0.6 3.0 1.4 -0.7 -2.0 -1.2 0.6 0.6 -3.4 -3.6 1.5 -0.8 -2.0 4.0 0.6 -2.1 -4.5 -4.2 -2.7 0.8 0.1 -2.6 1.3 3.5 -4.8 5.0+ 1.0 1.4 -2.2 -0.5 0.5 -2.2 -3.0 3.3 0.0 -5.0+ -2.6 -4.0 2.6 0.2 Insufficient data Insufficient data Insufficient data Insufficient data -3.0 -5.0 -5.0+ -3.0 11340 0.4 -3.1 2.9 1.0 -1.5 1.9 427 -1.0 -2.2 2.8 1.4 -2.0 1.2 13030 684 N/A 6862 N/A 3870 10280 5292 1 5660 8364 9553 249 974 There is insufficient data in STORET for analysis of the 9 primary stations identified in the state program plans. ------- NORTH DAKOTA Only 22 or the 54 stations in the North Dakota State Primary Network had sufficient data for ranking. As determined by a review of Table 4A, two (2) of the state primary stations are considered candidates for nonprimary stations due to low ranking. No turbidity data are available for the state network. Frequent gaps in BOD and nitrogen coverage is also indicated at some state stations. Fre- quent BOD and some turbidity gaps are noted in Table 4B for the NASQAN-NWQSS stations. Flow data estimates are unavailable at four (4) of the 22 ranked state stations. -14- ------- Tio; - 4A .iASGAN-WQSS - DAKOTA Location 1. Red River of tne North below Fargo 2. Souris River near Westhope* 3. Little Missouri River near Watford 4. Souris River near Sherwood (NWQSS) 5. Knife River at Hazen 6. Cannonball River at Breien 7. Red River of the North at Osloi Minn. 8. Missouri River at Bismarck , 9. Missouri River near Schmidt on 10. Missouri River at Garrison i PRIMARY STATIONS Station Priority 3.3 2.8 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.2 0.6 -0.8 -1.4 -2.4 Comments Paired station above Fargo is suggested •Funded by NWQSS and NASQAN RANGING BY CATEGORY Turb BOO N P F. Coli. Residue DO Mean Flow cfs 1. 5.0+ 3.5 3.2 5.0+ 2.1 -0.1 4.6 539 2. 5.0+ 1 .2 0.2 4.5 -0.3 2.6 -0.6 196 3. 5.0+ - 0.7 2.9 1.6 3.4 -1.2 605 4. -1 .5 - 2.9 3.1 0.1 2.4 5.0 107 5. - 0.7 0.7 2.5 1.1 2.9 0.4 181 6. - - 1 .7 2.7 0.0 2.8 -1 .4 246 7. 2.6 - 1.0 -0.1 1 .0 -1.6 1.0 3672 8. -3.1 - 0.5 2.6 -0.4 -2.0 -2.8 21720 3. -3.0 - -4.7 3.6 0.5 -2.7 -2.4 N/A 10. -5.0+ -5.0+ 1.3 -2.3 -1.0 -2.4 N/A ------- •csn TAB'.E 4B SAi.'KED PRMHRf STATIC'.'tS L?cat!on Priority Ratinq 1 Souris River of Sawyer 3.0 2. Souris River - Towner 2.9 3. Goose River near Hillsboro 2.8 4. Little Missouri River - Medora 2.7 5. Park River i'J. of Oakwood 2.6 6. Forest River near Minto 2.6 7. Pembina River S. of Pembina 2.3 8. Sheyenne River - Valley City 2.2 9. Red River - Grand Forks 2.1 10. Maple River - Ellendale 2.0 11. Heart River - Mandan 1 .9 12. James River W. of Oakes 1 .8 13. Red River - Pembina 1.8 14. Park River on 1-29 1.8 15. Pipestem River - Buchanan 1.7 16. Sheyenne River at Harwood 1.7 17. James River at Jamestown 1 .6 18. Elm River - Ellendale 1.6 19. Heart River S. of Gladstone 1.5 20. Forrest River 8 miles E. of Minto 1.4 21. Missouri River S. of Williston 0.8 22. Square Butte Creek - Center 0.7 Comments (c) Low Flow (c) Low Flow (c) Also an Energy Impact Station (c) *;iitrate analyses were by Drobe method and are higher than normally encountered (c)=Candidate for non-primary status. RAiiKKJG BY CATEGORY Turb BOD II" P F. Coli. Residue 30 Mean Flow cfs 1 . - 2.9 3.1 -0.1 4.1 5.0+ =150 2. 2.0 3.3 3.0 1 .4 2.6 5 .0A = 175 3. 1.5 2.8 3.5 1.7 2.4 5.0+ 62 .9 4. - 2.8 2.8 1 .7 3.0 3.1 474 5. - 3.7 4.1 0.5 3.0 1 .9 = 55 6. - 3.0 2.6 0.0 5.0+ 2.5 48 7. - 3.1 3.0 0.5 2.1 2.9 =180 8. -- 0.6 3.0 3.1 2.2 2.6 1.5 119 9. 1.1 2.3 3.6 o ro 2.7 2.8 2455 10. 2.2 - 2.6 1 .9 2.4 0.6 = 18 11 . 0.3 1 .9 2.6 1.3 3.0 2.3 257 12. - - 2.6 3.0 1.0 2.8 -0.3 =100 13. -0.2 3.1 2.9 0.7 3.2 1.2 =3125 14. - 3.2 2.8 0.7 2.5 -0.3 N/A 15. 1.7 - 2.3 0.9 3.5 0.1 15.5 16. - 3.3 3.3 0.6 2.8 -0.7 17. - 2.8 2.5 1 .0 2.3 -0.4 Ep. f: 18. 1.4 - 3.0 1 .6 i 5 0.6 = 47 19. - 2.2 2.2 0.1 3.6 -0.6 N/A 20. - 2.4 2.5 0.1 2.5 -0.4 = 48 21. - 1 .8 0.6 0.7 2.5 -1.9 ,1/A 22 -0.9 - 1.9 1.7 2.6 -1 .6 ;;/a ------- TABLE 4B cotit. STATE OF H, DAKOTA STATIONS WITH INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR PRIORITY RANKING 1. Apple Creek - Bismarck 2. Beaver Creek - Linton 3. Spring Creek - Zap (also an Energy Impact Station) - (c) 4. Knife River - Mazen (also a NASQAN and Energy Impact Station) - (c) 5. Green River - Gladstone 6. Antelope River - Carson 7. Big Muddy Creek - Almont 8. Cedar Creek - Raleigh 9. Cannonball River - Srelen (also a NASQAN station) - (c) 10. N. Fork Great (Grand) River - Bowman-Haley Dam 11. Spring Creek - Bowman-Haley Dam 12. Beaver Creek - Jamestown (no data) 13. Cottonwood Creek - La Moure 14. Elm River - Ellendale 15. Bois de Sioux - Fairmount 16. Antelope Creek - Abercrombie 17. Wild Rice River - Abercrombie 18. Bald Hill Creek - Dazey 19. Maple River - W. Fargo 20. Rush River - Harwood 21. Turtle River - Manuel 22. Forest River - fl. Br./Fordvil le 23. Cart Creek - Hoople (no data) 24. Park River - N. Br./Hoople 25. Park River - M. Br./Hoople 26. Park River - S. Br./Park River 27. Tongue River - Pembina 28. Des Locs Pine - Foxholm 29. Willow Creek - Willow City 30. Deep River - Upham 31. Little Muddy Creek - Williston 32. White Earth River - White Earth -17- ------- SOUTH DAKOTA As seen in Table 5A, ranking of the 42 state primary stations suggests non-primary status for at least four stations now covered by NASQAN and at one covered by NWQSS monitoring. Non-primary candidacy is also suggested at four (4) other stations with low individual station rankings and low flow and also suggested at one (1) station below a major dam. Less frequent monitoring at the NASQAN site may be warranted in the future as determined by variability analysis of the data below this dam site. Both turbidity and BOD data are lacking in the state program. Turbidity is lacking for the NASOAN-NWQSS stations. Flow estimates were not determinable at 12 state primary stations. -18- ------- STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TABLE 5A PRIORITY RANKING Network Stati on Ranking by Category Mean Flow Locati on Priori ty Comments T BOD N P FC R DO (cfs) 1. Biq Sioux River at Brandon 3.3 _ - 3.0 3.6 3.0 2.8 4.2 N/A 2. Vermillion River near Wakonda 2.8 - - 2.3 2.9 1 .4 3.3 3.9 120 3. James River near Stratford 2.8 - - 1.3 4.4 1.1 3.4 2.8 N/A 4. Belle Fourche River near 2.7 - - 2.9 2.7 1.3 3.2 3.3 269 Sturgis 5. Big Sioux River near Richland 2.7 - - 2.2 2.9 0.7 2.7 5.0 862 6. Big Sioux River near Dell 2.7 (c) Also a NWQSS Station - - 2.6 4.2 1.1 2.8 2.6 275 Rapi ds 7. James River above Mitchell 2.6 - - 3.0 5.0+ 0.1 2.8 2.1 N/A 8. James River below Mitchell 2.4 - - 1.1 2.7 0.5 2.7 5.0+ N/A 9. Big Sioux River near Brookings 2.4 - - 1.1 3.2 0.5 3.4 3.8 169 10. Grand River near Little Eagle 2.4 (c) Also a NAS0AN Station - - 1.0 3.5 0.5 2.9 3.9 241 11. Big Sioux River near Watertown 2.3 - - 2.6 2.6 1.2 2.5 2.4 N/A 12. Little Minnesota River near 2.2 - - 0.6 3.1 0.9 4.0 2.3 N/A Peever 13. Vermillion River near Vermillion 2.2 - - 2.7 3.6 1.3 3.1 0.5 N/A 14. James River below Huron 2.1 - - 1.1 2.7 1.7 2.6 2.5 237 15. James River above Huron 2.0 - - 1.1 4.5 0.7 2.8 0.9 yZ37 16. James River near Heel a 2.0 - - 2.6 3.2 0.0 2.0 2.2 St 82 17. Grand River at Shadehill 2.0 NPS suggested - 1.1 1.0 -0.2 5.0 3.0 122 18. Whetstone River near Big 1.9 - - 1.8 3.2 1.0 2.5 0.8 N/A Stone City 19. White River near Oglala 1.9 - - 1.2 3.9 1 .0 2.7 0.7 57.5 20. Cheyenne River at Edgemont 1.7 - - 0.9 3.5 0.8 4.5 -1 .4 106 21. Cheyenne River near Wasta 1.6 (c) MPS suggested - 2.1 2.5 0.4 4.4 -1.2 370 22. Belle Fourche River near Belle 1.5 - - 1.2 2.3 1.4 3.0 -0.3 0*87.8 Fourche 23. Redwater River at Belle Fourche 1.5 - - 1.0 3.3 1.8 4.0 -2.5 132 24. White River near Kadoka 1.5 - - 2.1 3.0 1 .4 2.2 -1.1 289 25. Marean River near Usta 1.4 - - 1.5 3.4 0.8 2.7 -1.2 i.138 26. Little Missouri at Camp Crook 1.2 (c) - 0.9 2.5 -0.1 3.4 -0.6 139 27. 'Keya Paha River near Wewela 1.1 (c) - 0.9 3.1 0.5 1.1 -0.2 70.9 ------- STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA (cont.) Network ivtu i n Stati on Ranking by Category Me^n Flow Location Priority Comments T BOD N P FC R DO (cfs) 28. White River near Oacoma 0.8 (c) Also a NASOAN Station - - 1.4 3.4 1.1 0.5 -2.2 538 29. Little White River near Tuthi11 0.6 (c) Low flow - - 1.0 5.0+ 1.1 -2.6 -1.6 ^ 20 30. Battle Creek near Keystone 0.4 (c) Low flow - - 0.9 2.7 0.2 -1.4 -0.5 11.7 31. Rapid Creek below Pactola Res. 0.3 - - 1.2 2.8 -1 .5 1.3 -2.2 45.3 32. Little White River near White Ri ver -0.5 (c) - - 0.9 3.5 0.5 -5.0+ -2.5 131 33. Spearfish Creek in Spearfish -1.1 (c) Low flow - - 0.9 4.0 -2.3 -4.9 -3.4 50.2 34. Moreau River near Whitehorse - Insufficient data - - - - - - 192 Bad River at Powell - II II _ _ - - - - N/A Bad River near Ft. Pierre - II II _ - - - - 155 James River near Yankton - Insufficient data - - a likely trend station - - - - N/A Rapid Creek near Farmingdale - Insufficient data - - - - - - 56 Missouri River at Oahe Dam - (c) Insufficient data - - near a NASOAN Station - - - - N/A Missouri River at Big Bend Dam - Insufficient data - - - - - - N/A Missouri River at Ft. Randall Dam Insufficient data (c) Also a NASQAN Station - - _ _ _ _ 24,400 Missouri River at Gavins Pt. Dam - (c) Insufficient data - - - - - - ^25,520 C = Candidate for non-primary status ------- TABLE 5B NASQM-IIWQSS - SOUTH DAKOTA Location Station Priority Ranking by Category Comments T BOD N FC R DO Mean Flow (cfs) 1. Big Sioux River at N. Cliff Avenue (NWQSS) 2. James River near Scotland 3.0 2.4 1.9 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.5 5.0 1.7 1.4 2.8 0.5 3.0 5.0+ N/A 385 3. Big Sioux River near Dell Rapids (NWQSS) 4. Belle Fourche River near Flm Springs (NWQSS only) 5. Missouri River at Pierre 6. White River near Oacoma Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa Cheyenne River at Cherry Creek Grand River at Little Eagle Missouri River below Ft. Randall Dam 1.9 1.9 -1.0 Insufficient data (c) Below reservoir insufficient data 1.3 2.4 3.6 1.0 2.0 1.0 275 0.8 2.6 3.7 1.4 3.3 -0.1 366 - -5.0+ 1.1 -0.3 -1.0 1.0 -2.0 N/A 538 862 2^635 241 24,400 Missouri River at Sioux City, Iowa Insufficient data 31,910 (c) = Non-primary candidate ------- UTAH Since the state primary network was recently adopted, only three (3) of the 49 stations were rankable. As seen in Table 6A, two (2) of these three appear to be candidates for non-primary status. Due to the presence of two (2) NWQSS sites the NASOAN station on the Jordan River at Salt Lake City is a candidate for non-primary status assuming the NWQSS will continue to collect trend data for the long term. With one exception, as seen in Table 6B, BOD data are lacking at the NASQAN sites. Historical flow data are unavailable at the five (5) recently installed NWQSS sites. -22- ------- State of Utah TABLE SA RANKING PRIMARY STATIONS* Primary Ranking by Category Mean Flow Location Rating Comments T BOD M P FC R DO (cfs) 1. Colorado River above Moab 2.6 (c) A NASQAN Station 5.0+ 1.3 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.0 - N/A 2. Green River above Green River 2.3 is nearby 5.0+ -1.0 4.0 3.1 1.1 1.5 1708 3. Provo River above Provo Falls -0.3 (c) 5.0+ -5.0 -0.9 3.3 0.7® - 1.7 N/A ® Total coliform substituted for fecal coliform. (c) Candidate for Non-primary status. ------- NASQAN-HWQSS - UTAH TABLE 6B RANKED PRIMARY STATIONS Priority Location Rating Comments 1. San Juan Rivsr near Bluff 2. Colorado River above Mill Creek near Moab (NWQSS) 3. Jordan River at Salt Lake City 4. White River at mouth (NWQSS) 5. Jordan River at Cudahy Lane (NWQSS) 6. San Juan at Shiprock, New Mexico 7. Colorado River at N-163 near Moab (NWQSS) 8. Jordan River at 5800 S.W. (NWQSS) 9. Sevier River near Lynndyl 10. Green River at Green River 11. Colorado River near Cisco 12. Bear River near Corinne 13. Colorado at Lees Ferry, Ariz. Beaver River at Adamsville Green River near Glendale Bear Lake Outlet Channel near Paris, Idaho Weber River near Plain City 2.8 2.7 Point Source Oriented 2.4 (c) NWQSS paired stations Bracket Salt Lake City 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.2 Point Source Oriented 2.1 2.1 2.0 1 .0 1 .0 0.8 (c) Below dam (c) Low flow insufficient data Insufficient data Insufficient data Insufficient data Ranking b.y Category Mean Flow 1 BOD N FC R DO (cfs) 5.0+ - 1 .7 3.2 0.3 1 .8 4.7 2604 3.9 - 1.7 2.9 - 2.6 2.3 N/A 3.2 - 3.6 4.1 0.1 3.6 -0.2 141 5.0+ - 0.0 3.2 - 3.8 -0.1 N/A 0.6 - 2.1 3.4 2.3 2.9 2.9 N/A 5.0+ -3.3 3.4 2.3 2.4 0.9 5.0+ 2229 5.0+ - 1 .9 2.7 - 2.8 1 .2 N/A 1.0 - 2.1 3.6 1 .6 4.7 4.7 -0.6 N/A - - 1 .2 2.3 0.0 2.7 2.7 4.2 186 5.0+ - 0.6 2.5 1 .1 1 .7 1 .0 1708 - - 1 .6 2.9 -0.9 2.7 -1 .1 7686 1 .0 - 2.2 3.3 0.9 0.7 -1 .9 1754 ¦1 .7 - 0.9 3.9 -1 .5 3.4 0.0 17850 35.9 2033 363 466 ------- WYOMING With the exception of one (1) NASQAN and two (2) NWQSS sites primary station data are provided solely by the state in cooperation with the USGS. As seen in Table 7A, two (2) of the state financed stations are located at/or near NWOSS sites, 15 have low rankings, one is at a low flow site, and one is at the NASQAN station. All of these should be screened for possible non-primary status. Parameter coverage is generally lacking for BOD and nitrogen. Some stations do not have turbidity data available. Twelve locations do not have historical flow data available. Data are insufficient for ranking of nine (9) stations. -25- ------- State of Wyoming USGS Program TABLE 7A RANKED PRIMAKY SIATIONS Mean Flow Location Ranking Comments T BOD N P RC R un (cfs; 1. Bitter Creek near Garland 2.1 5.0+ * ~ 3.6 1.6 2.3 -2.1 147 2. Bighorn River at Kane 1.9 5.0+ 0.7 - 2.5 2.2 2.3 -0.1 2282 3. Powder River at Arvada 1.6 - -2.5 - 2.5 0.8 4.1 3.1 274 4. Goose Creek below Sheridan 1.5 4.2 1.0 1.4 3.3 2.5 0.7 -2.6 182 5. N. Platte River below Casper 1.0 (c) Also a NWQSS Sta. -0.5 -1.1 1.6 2.7 2.1 2.3 -0.5 VI 3000 6. N. Platte River above Seminoe 1.0 !!PS suggested 5.0+ _ _ 1.5 0.4 -1.6 -0.4 1098 7. Shell Creek near Greybull 0.8 1.4 - - 2.0 0.9 2.4 -2.4 N/A 8. Hind River at Riverton 0.8 2.4 - - 3.0 1.2 -1.5 -1.2 N/A 9. N. Platte River at Wyominq- 0.4 -3.9 0.9 - 2.8 2.0 1.5 -1.1 N/A Nebraska Border 10. Powder River (S. Fork) near 0.2 -2.9 - - 1.7 0.0 2.8 -0.4 N/A Kaycee 11. Laramie River near Ft. Laramie 0.0 0.6 - - 1.0 0.1 1.? -2.6 146 12. Belle Fourche River at Wyoming 0.0 (c) Low Flow - -2.4 - 0.3 1 .0 2.6 -1.5 87 and South Dakota Border 13. Belle Fourche River at Devils 0.0 - - _/i. 4 1.8 0.5 3.1 -0.8 N/A Tower 14. Bear River at Border -0.2 1.9 - - 2.4 0.0 -3.4 -2.0 421 15. Sweetwater River near Alcova -0.4 -0.5 - - 2.5 -0.2 -2.7 -1.3 126 16. North Platte River at Orin -0.4 -5.0+ - - 1.7 0.5 1.1 -0.3 N/A 17. North Platte River at Mills -0.4 (c) Also a NWQSS Sta. -0.5 - -0.4 1.4 -0.6 -1 .9 -0.4 N/A 18. Tongue River at Stateline -0.6 -3.7 -1.0 -5.0+ 2.2 0.6 1 .2 1.8 498 19". North Platte River below -0.8 (c) -5.0+ _ _ 1.0 -2.0 1.1 0.7 N/A G1endo 20. Wind River below Boysen Res. -0.9 (c) -5.0+ - - -0.1 -1.1 0.5 1.0 1412 21. Little Wind River above : -1.1 (c) -5.0+ - _ -0.2 -0.1 2.1 -2.2 N/A Arapahoe 22. Green River near LaBarge -1.3 -5.0+ - - 4.0 0.1 -4.4 -1.2 1650 ------- USGS - WYOMING (cont.) Location Pri ori ty Ranking RANKED PRIMARY Comments STATIONS T BOD Ranking by Category N P RC R 00 ^lean Flow (cfs) 23. Green River at Big Island -1.4 (c) -5.0+ _ -1.0 0.3 -0.1 -1.0 N/A 24. Wind River near Dubois -2.0 (c) -5.0+ - 2.3 -0.1 -5.0 -2.2 177 25. Tongue River near Dayton -2.2 -5.0+ -1.3 -5.0+ 1.3 0.3 -5.0+ -1.3 187 26. North Platte River at Alcova -2.2 (c) -5.0+ - 2.0 -1.7 -5.0+ -1.4 N/A 27. Encampment River at Mouth -2.3 (c) -5.0+ - -1.0 -0.5 -2.8 -2.2 236 28. North Platte River near -2.3 (c) -5.0+ - 0.0 -0.6 -5.0+ -0.7 434 Northgate, Colorado 29. Salt River above Res. near -2.5 (c) -5.0+ - 1.0 -0.3 -5.0+ -3.0 755 Etna 30. Green River below Fontenelle, -2.5 -5.0+ - -2.0 0.3 -3.8 -2.0 N/A Res. 31. Snake River above Res. near -3.3 (c) Also a NASQAN -5.0+ -5.0+ 1.0 0.0 -5.0+ -2.4 4549 A1pine.Wy. Wind River at Boysen Res. - Insufficient data - - - - - - Shoshone River below Buffalo Bill Dam - 11 H - - - - - - Shoshone River above Dry Creek - II II - - - - - - Green River at Warren Bridge - II II - - - - - - Green River near Green River - Insufficient Data, - - - - - - Blacks Fork River near Lyman - Insufficient Data - - - - - - Green River below Green River - Insufficient Data, - - - - - - Smiths Fork River near Lyman - Insufficient Data - - - - - - Blacks Fork River near Little - Insufficient Data - - - - - - Ameri ca (c) Candidate for non primary stations. ------- PROGRAM ANALYSIS Selection of stations for the NASQAN and NWQSS network is generally founded on good, but well-mixed reasons. Rationale for the NASQAN stations is basically the desire to provide good national-areal distribution of trend data at major water transport sites. To maximize trends downstream ends of (usually) major waterways are also included along with other "closed" basin stations. NWQSS stations in Region VIII are designed to identify areas of most needed industrial and urban pollution abatement effort and are located above and below major urban areas or in some special instances above and below major point sources. (Due to limited funding Region VIII coverage is scant for the NWQSS network). State primary networks are less clear and/or uniform in their underlying rationale for station selection. North and South Dakota, and Wyoming, have no separate designation of "primary" stations. Montana's nine (9) primary stations are located for site-specific purposes. Utah has recently shifted from a site-specific concept to an areal one. Colorado has wide areal dis- tribution for its trend stations and a total of 26 primary stations. Frequency of monitoring is quite irregular from one state program to another. As seen from a summary of regional programs assembled in Table 8, ongoing evaluation of needed frequency, especially for heavy metals, pesticides and radiological parameters, could yield significant benefits. Tests of variability based on variance of differing monitoring frequencies could also -28- ------- TABLE 8 REGION 8 PRIMARY LONG-TERM STATION PARAMETER COVERAGE AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY (1) FIELD CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL C 0 L 0 R F L 0 W T E M P E R A T U R E P U D I Q s 0 X Y G E N T U R B I D I T Y C 0 N D U C T A N C E B 0 D T 0 C C 0 D T K N N H 3 N 0 2 & N 0 3 p H 0 s P H 0 R 0 U S V 0 L s 0 L 1 D s T D s T s s M B A S C Y A N I D E M E T A L s c A T I 0 N S A N X 0 N s S A K s I L I C A 0 & G P H E N 0 L S H A R D N E S S C H L 0 R 0 P H Y L L a. P H Y T 0 P L A N K T 0 N P I r i p G Y T 0 N T 0 T A L C 0 L 1 F E C A L C 0 L 1 F E C A L S T R E P P- E s T I C I D E s R A D C H E :t i c A L NWQSS BH BU BU BW BW BU BW BU BW BU BW BW BW BW M/Q Q Q BW BW BW M/q q BW q NASQAN C C M (2) M M C M M M M M M M M M M M M M q M M ss/s M/Q CO BU BU BU BW BU BU BM BW BW BW BW BW BW BM BM BM BW BM BW BW BW BW BM Mr M/Q M/Q M/Q M/Q M/q M/Q M/q M/Q M/q M/Q ,M/q M/Q M/q ND q M/Q M/Q M/q q q M M M q q ,M/q q M/q ¦M/q M/q q SD (3) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M UT (4) M M M M M M M ni ss M / ss M M M ss ss s A . M M ss vre (5) M/q M/Q M/q M/q M/Q M/q (6) M/Q M/Q (6) M/q M/q M/Q M/q M/q ¦M/q M/q M/Q (6) M/Q M M M/Q BW » Biweekly C = Continuous Metals " arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury> selenium, M - Monthly S - Seasonally zinc, boron, barium, silver as necessary. BM - Bimonthly SS - Seasonally for sediment Anions - sulfate, chloride, fluoride, carbonate and bicarbonate. Q ¦ Quarterly A ¦ Annually Cations - calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium. 1. This is an overview of the state and federal programs for "primary" stations. Numerous exceptions to the stated frequency exist for individual stations or parameters. Certain options and contingencies also amplify or exclude some of the parameters and add a measure of needed flexibility. 2. Includes 24-hour profiles during critical periods. 3. Recorded if a USGS station is nearby. 4. Eight stations also include macrophyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish sampling annually. 5. Most stations are operated by t'JA USGS. 6. Selected stations only. ------- be used to suggest different monitoring. More frequent monitoring is suggested for assembling trend worthy data in many areas. No lakes or groundwater are monitored as part of the NASQAN, NWQSS or state programs. -30- ------- SUMMARY This "primary" station ranking is just a beqinninq. Lt is just a way nf ordering the data, looking at them, and putting them in a more manageable form. As developed, this ranking c/an provide a base from which supplemental data, knowledge, insights and concerns may guide further analysis. Each state's current mix of stations is given in Table 9. Suggestions of non-primary candidacy are intended to focus attention on possible change if further examination does not affirm continued monitoring needs. Once the determination is made to discontinue a station from the "primary" network it probably would continue to be part of the program but with less broad parameter coverage and/or less frequent sampling. The water quality manager, as always, is reliant on his powers of logic and judgement to add relevant information, especially for initial site selection when no data exist to rank a station. Hopefully this station ranking process can help decision making regarding the best station mix. By examining this process, some added insight can be applied to the process of selecting monitoring stations. CO State 26 USGS - NASQAN 7 NWQSS 3 Subtotal Apparent Duplicates 5 Total Coverag (^No primary designations made -- includes all stations. (^Operated by USGS for the State. (3)Duplication difficult to assess. TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF PRIMARY TREND STATIONS IN REGION VIII ,ia MT ND^ SD^ UT WYV"' TOTAL 9 54 42 49 40 220 13 7 9 13 1 50 4 4 2 5 2 20 290 1 3 5 6 20 ?7n -31- ------- |