Presentation III 1

Designing and

Implementing Effective

Monitoring - Element I

(Handbook; Chapter 12.6)

Texas Watershed Planning Short Course

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Larry Hauck

hauck@tiaer.tarleton.edu

Presentation III 2

Element i ─ “A monitoring component to

evaluate the effectiveness of the

implementation efforts over time, measured

against the criteria established to determine

whether loading reductions are being

achieved over time and substantial progress

is being made toward attaining water quality

standards.”

Presentation III 3

Why Monitor?

Measurable progress is critical to ensuring

continued support of your watershed

project, and progress is best and most

meaningfully measured using water quality

data relevant to identified problems in the

water body.

Ultimate goal is to protect and restore water

bodies for their intended uses.

Presentation III 4

The goal is to restore

and protect water bodies

Presentation III 5

1. Define specific data quality objectives

2. Know approximate budget and personnel

constraints

3. Review existing data

4. Determine sample locations, sampling

procedures and frequency, variables to monitor

and analytic techniques (i.e., develop a

monitoring design plan and QAPP)

5. Initiate and continue monitoring program

6. Prepare regular reports and recommendations

7. Modify and adjust monitoring as needed

Steps of a successful monitoring plan:

Presentation III 6

• Analyze long-term trends

• Document changes in management and pollutant

source activities

• Measure performance of specific management

practices

• Fill data gaps in watershed characterization (e.g.,

suspected hotspots)

• Track compliance and enforcement in point

sources

• Provide data for educating and informing

stakeholder

• Calibrate and validate models

Step 1. Define Specific Data Quality

Objectives

Presentation III 7

• Monitoring can be very expensive

(e.g., wet-weather monitoring,

streamflow gauges, etc.)

• Monitoring can require specialized

skills of personnel and their availability

when needed (routine monitoring vs.

wet-weather monitoring demands on

personnel)

Step 2. Know Budget and Personnel

Constraints

Presentation III 8

• Is good streamflow data available

(e.g., USGS streamflow recording

station)?

• What is the nature of the water quality

data (e.g., temporal and spatial

density)

• What do the data show?

• Can existing data be used to

characterize pre-management

conditions?

Step 3. Review Existing Data

Presentation III 9

• What questions are we trying to answer?

• What assessment techniques will be used?

• What statistical power and precision is

needed?

• Can we control for the effects of weather and

other sources of variation?

• What are our constraints (financial, personnel,

time, etc.)?

• Will our design allow us to attribute changes

in water quality to the implementation

program?

Step 4. Develop a Monitoring Design Plan

Presentation III 10

• Coordination with other monitoring

programs (SWQM, CRP, etc.) if possible.

• Is there a role for volunteer monitoring in

your project? (Texas Stream Team, River

Systems Institute, Texas State Univ.)

Financial and Personnel Constraints

Always Exist!

Presentation III 11

• Obtaining adequate pre-treatment or

pre-implementation water quality data

is often a problem. And this problem

is not easily overcome without

delaying implementation efforts.

Past Experiences Indicate:

Presentation III 12

• Before and After (Time Trends or Time

Series Analysis) Uncorrected for

Meteorological Variables

• Before and After Time Trends Corrected for

Streamflows

• Above and Below (Upstream –

Downstream) with Before and After

• Paired Watershed Study Design (Before-

After-Control-Impact or BACI)

• Multiple watersheds

Common Statistical Designs for Monitoring

Lag Time

Range of reported lag times between

treatment and response

<1 year for stream nutrients and indicator

bacteria to respond to livestock exclusion

10 years for macroinvertebrates to respond

to treatment of mine drainage

10 – 50 years for stream nitrate levels to

respond to improvements in agricultural

nutrient management.

Track It

Effective water quality and land use monitoring tells you where you are and allows for mid-course corrections.

Use minimum detectable change (MDC) or

other means to estimate the monitoring

frequency needed to detect:

The load reduction required by the WPP

Interim reductions that trigger adaptive

management actions

If the monitoring objective is to detect and

document a change in water quality due to

implementation, selected sampling frequency

should be able to detect the magnitude of the

anticipated change within the natural variability

of the system being monitored.

Important Consideration

Spooner et al 1987

Presentation III 16

• Monitor one or more sites over time.

• Advantage: Easiest to conduct with limited

resources.

• Disadvantage: Sensitivity is low, difficult to

attribute changes to land treatment

measures, long monitoring period needed.

• By adding streamflow measurements, the

disadvantages may be partially overcome.

Before and After (Time Trends or Time

Series Analysis)

Single Watershed – Before/After

Statistical Approach

Assumes similar climate and hydrology

between the “Before” and “After” periods

Monitoring covariates, such as flow, can aid in

adjusting for differences

Source Diagram: NRCS, NWQH

Presentation III 18

Before & After

Time Trends

Corrected for

Streamflow

An Example:

TCEQ

Sponsored

Project Through

§319(h) Grant

Assessing

TMDL Activities

Trend Analysis

Statistical Approach

Seasonal Kendall test (preferred

method)

Nonparametric test, so data do not

need to be normally distributed

Can accept censored data (< values)

Can accept some data gaps

Can deal with seasonality

Presentation III 20

Trends in Phosphorus(Volume-Weighted Data)

Site Location Period SRP Total P

NBR Main Stem Sites

BO020 Above

Stephenville

1997 – 2016 ▬ ▼

BO040 Below

Stephenville

1994 – 2016 ▼ ▼

BO070 Near Hico 1993 – 2016 ▼ ▼

BO090 Near Clifton 1996 – 2016 ▼ ▼

BO095 Near Valley Mills 1996 – 2016 ▼ ▼

Major Tributary Sites

GC100 Greens Creek 1993 – 2016 ▼ ▬

NC060 Neils Creek 1996 – 2016 ▼ ▬

Presentation III 21

Long-term Trend Analysis: Annual box and whisker plots of

PO4-P grab data for North Bosque River below Stephenville

WWTF. Data natural log transformed and flow-adjusted.

P removal

implemented

Flo

w A

dju

ste

d ln(P

O4

-P),

mg/L

Presentation III 22

Additional Methods for Trend Analysis

Change Point Statistics:

• Cumulative Sum Analysis

• Regression Tree Analysis

Purpose:

• To determine when a change in trend

occurred.

Presentation III 23

Cumulative Sum Analysis: PO4-P data for North Bosque River

near Valley Mills, TX.

I-Plan Approved

Presentation III 24

Microwatershed

Sampling

Sites:

TSSWCB

319 Project

Presentation III 25

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Normalized (kg/cow/ha)

SF020

SP020

NF009

SC020

DC040

GM06

SF085

GC045

HY060

NF050

AL020

LD040

LG060

DB035

IC020

GB025

GB040

NF020

GB020

Mic

row

ate

rsh

ed

Manure Hauled

Through 2006

Presentation III 26

Before & After Analysis EMC

Site

Cows

/ha

Manure

Hauled

(kg/cow/ha) Location PO4-P Total P

NF020 2.0 15.8 North Fork

GB040 3.7 15.0 Goose Branch

GB025 4.1 7.4 Goose Branch

IC020 1.0 7.4 Indian Creek

SC020 0.2 None Sims Creek

SP020 0 NA Spring Creek

SF020 0 NA South Fork

Before & After Nov00

Presentation III 27

• Sampling a flowing system over time above

and below potential sources.

• Advantage: Accounts for upstream inputs.

• Disadvantage: Sensitivity can be low

(especially if upstream inputs are

significant); requires twice as many sites as

Before & After Design.

• By adding streamflow measurements, the

disadvantages may be partially overcome.

Above and Below (Upstream –

Downstream) Design

Single Watershed – Above/Below

Spatial

Above and Below Practice Location

(upstream/downstream)

Source Diagram: NRCS, NWQH

Single Watershed – Above/Below

Before monitoring – helps account for inherent

differences within the watershed

Source Diagram: NRCS, NWQH

Before

MonitoringAfterMonitor-

ingNo Practice

Presentation III 30

Example of

Above and

Below

Design –

Sampling

Locations

Presentation III 31

Period

Control

Watershed

Treatment

Watershed

Calibration No BMP No BMP

Treatment No BMP BMP

Paired Watershed Study Design

Source: EPA. 1993. 841-F-93-009

Paired Watershed Approach

Source: J.D.

Hewlett. 1982.

Principles of

Forest Hydrology.

The University of

Georgia Press.

Presentation III 33

• Advantage: Controls for meteorological

(and to some extent hydrologic) variability,

in most cases water quality improvement

can be shown in much shorter time frame.

• Disadvantage: Requires close coordination

of monitoring and land treatment staff; close

proximity of paired stations an imperative;

control basin needs to stay a control.

Paired Watershed Study Design

Paired Watersheds

Statistical Approach

ANCOVA – analysis of covariance

Requires develop of a significant

regression relationship between control

and treatment watersheds during both

calibration and treatment periods

ANCOVA

Steps:

• Significant regression developed

during calibration and treatment

period

• Test for equal slopes

• Test for equal intercepts

• Difference between two regression

lines measure of % reduction

Paired Watersheds

Controlling Phosphorus in Runoff from Long-term Dairy Waste Application

Fields. AWRA , 2004 – McFarland and Hauck

Multiple Watersheds

Statistical Approach –Comparing Practices

Two Sample t-test comparing means for watersheds representing the “Standard Practice” and “Treatment”

Assumes samples random, independent, normally distributed and with equal variances

Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (nonparametric)

Multiple Watersheds

Statistical Approach (cont’d) –

Regression or Correlation Analysis

Assumes watersheds represent a

gradient for some parameter

Presentation III 39

Microwatershed

Sampling

Sites:

TSSWCB

319 Project

Presentation III 40

Geometric Mean Total Phosphorus

Concentration (mg/L) for Microwatershed Sites

(Storm Sample Data for: 2001-2007)

Determining Sources

Presentation III 42

Implications

of Sampling

Frequency

Presentation III 43

RevisitingAssessment of Current Conditions (North Bosque River)

Subsample monthlySoluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP)(June 1993 –May 1998):

Bimonthly (2 schemes)

Quarterly (3 schemes)

Presentation III 44

Bosque River

Watershed Sites

Presentation III 45

Comparison of Average Annual SRP from

Different Sampling Schemes - Site BO040

Biweekly / Two-Monthly / Six-Quarterly

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1995 (W) 1996 (N) 1997 (W) 1998 (N) 1999 (D) 2000 (D)

Ave

rag

e A

nnua

l SR

P (

pp

b)

Q6 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 M2 M1 B

Presentation III 46

Location, location, location

Where to sample?

Presentation III 47

Edge of Field (acres)

100% Waste Application Fields

4.0 mg/L PO4-P

Microwatershed (hundreds

of acres)

45% Waste Application Fields

2.4 mg/L PO4-P

Entire Watershed (hundred

thousand acres)

3% Waste Application Fields

0.02 mg/L PO4-P

Major Subwatershed (tens of

thousands of acres)

7% Waste Application Fields

0.20 mg/L PO4-P

Scaling

Issues

Presentation III 48

• Initiate and continue monitoring

program.

• Prepare regular reports and

recommendations. (don’t wait until the

end of your project to look at the data

thoroughly)

• Modify and adjust monitoring as

needed.

Steps 5-7. Implement Your Monitoring

Design Plan & Build in an Evaluation

Process

Presentation III 49

• Consider delaying monitoring

components with anticipated long

response time to pollution control

practices (e.g., biological monitoring)

Steps 5-7. (Continued)

Presentation III 50

Document Changes

in

Management Activities:

An Example

Presentation III 51

No new management practices

New solid waste fields

New irrigation fields

Deep plow fields

Only apply commercial nitrogen

Application rate based on

soil test phosphorus

Filter strips

Sampling site

Dairy complex

Indicates waste disposal fields

Indicates dairy boundaries

Indicates microwatershed

boundary

Presentation III 52

Dairy 19 - Soil Test Phosphorus (0-6 inch)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 2

3A

3B 4

5A

5B 6

7A

7B 8 9

10

11

12

13

14A

14B

Field #

STP (ppm)

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Presentation III 53

Provide Data

for

Model Calibration &

Validation

Presentation III 54

Upper Oyster Creek

QUAL2K Model

Calibration

Upper Oyster Creek - Upper portion (8/16/2004)

Mainstem

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

020406080100

TSS (mgD/L) Avg(P) TSS (mgD/L) (O)

TSS Min(P) TSS Max(P)

Upper Oyster Creek - Upper portion (8/16/2004)

Mainstem

0

50

100

150

200

020406080100

NO3 (ugN/L) (O) NO3(ugN/L) Avg(P)NO3(ugN/L) Min(P) NO3(ugN/L) Max(P)NO3 (ugN/L) Min(O) NO3 (ugN/L) Max(O)

Upper Oyster Creek - Upper portion (8/16/2004) Mainstem

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0100.0

DO (mgO2/L) Avg(P) DO (mgO2/L) Avg(O) DO (mgO2/L) Min(P) DO (mgO2/L) Max(P)

DO (mgO2/L) Min(O) DO (mgO2/L) Max(O) DO sat(P)

Presentation III 55

Provide Data

for

Educating and Informing

Stakeholders

Presentation III 56

Presentation III 57

Preliminary Data Analysis

North Bosque River

Median Values for Jan. 1996 - Dec. 2000

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

BO020 BO040 BO060 BO070 BO080 BO085 BO090 BO100

Ort

ho

ph

os

ph

ate

Ph

os

ph

oru

s (

mg

/L)

Presentation III 58

Provide Data

to

Understand Complex

Systems

Presentation III 59

Identify Targets for Nutrients/Aquatic Plants

Data & Studies for use in Process

a. Periphytometer deployment in streams (Marty Matlock, TAMU)

b. Algal assay Lake Waco (Owen Lind, Baylor)

c. Fish survey (TIAER)

d. Benthic Macroinvertebrate (mainly upper watershed, TIAER)

e. Water quality data, Lake Waco and watershed (TIAER)

Presentation III 60

Matlock Periphytometer Treatment Array

Presentation III 61

URBAN2

URBAN1

Stream Bioassay SitesBO020

BO040

BO090

NC060 (Ref.)

HC060

MB060

BO070

BO100

Presentation III 62

Site P-limited N-limited Co-limited Other Total

BO020 0 0 0 3 3

BO040 1 0 0 2 3

BO070 0 1 1 1 3

BO090 1 0 1 0 2

BO100 2 0 0 1 3

MB060 0 1 0 1 2

NC060 2 0 0 0 2

HC060 0 0 0 1 1

Totals 6 2 2 9 19

Percent 32 11 11 47 100

Summary of Stream Bioassay Results: 1997-1998

Presentation III 63

Thank You

Questions?