A WATER AND
Report Prepared for:
12100 Park 35 Circle
And
Northeast
Report Prepared by:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
November 9, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
Executive Summary |
Page 1 |
|
1.0 Introduction |
Page 2 |
|
1.1 Project Objectives |
Page 2 |
|
1.2 Project Background and Significance |
Page 2 |
|
2.0 Methods and Materials |
Page 14 |
|
2.1 Data Collection and Analysis |
Page 14 |
|
2.2 Modeling |
Page 16 |
|
3.0 Results and Discussion |
Page 18 |
List of Figures
|
Figure 1-1 |
Page 4 |
|
Figure 1-2 Caddo |
Page 5 |
|
Figure 1-3 Daily Average Streamflow in Big Cypress Creek at USGS Gage 07346000 |
Page 8 |
|
Figure 1-4 Combined Gaged Daily Average Inflows to |
Page 8 |
|
Figure 1-5 Nutrient Sampling Locations in the Ungaged |
Page 11 |
|
Figure 2-1 Caddo |
Page 15 |
|
Figure 2-2 Input Streamflows and Concentrations Used in the LOADEST Model |
Page 20 |
|
Figure 3-1 Average Daily Inflows to and Outflows from |
Page 19 |
|
Figure 3-2 Cumulative |
Page 19 |
|
Figure 3-3 Total Nitrogen Concentrations and Streamflows Measured in Black |
Page 22 |
|
Figure 3-4 Modeled Annual Total Phosphorus Load Entering |
Page 25 |
|
Figure 3-5 Annual Total Phosphorus Loads in |
Page 26 |
|
Figure 3-6 |
Page 26 |
|
List of Figures Continued | |
|
Figure 3-7 Annual Average and Median Water Surface Elevations of Caddo Lake, 1980-2006 |
Page 28 |
|
Figure 3-8 |
Page 28 |
|
Figure 3-9 Annual Inflows and Predicted Annual Average Total Phosphorus Concentrations, 1980-2006 |
Page 29 |
List of Tables
|
Table 1-1 Historical Total Phosphorus Loading of |
Page 10 |
|
Table 2-1 Watersheds Modeled Using LOADEST |
Page 16 |
|
Table 3-1 Average, Median1 and |
Page 20 |
|
Table 3-2 Average, Median1 and |
Page 21 |
|
Table 3-4 Nitrogen Phosphorus Ratios (mg-at/l) at Nutrient study Stations July 2006-2007 |
Page 24 |
List of Appendices
|
Appendix A Water Quality Sampling Results |
Page 31 |
|
Appendix B G, Appendix G Revision 1, and Amendment 1 to Appendix G |
Page 44 |
|
Appendix C LOADEST FILES – in Caddo Nutrient.pdf file only | |
|
LOADEST Output Files |
Page 116 |
Executive Summary
Intensive water quality monitoring was conducted from July, 2006 through May 2007 at locations in each of the major tributaries of
Total phosphorus loading into
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Objectives
The Caddo Lake Water and Nutrient Budget Special Study described here has been developed to determine the quantities, seasonal patterns and source watersheds of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) presently being supplied to plant and microbial populations in Caddo Lake over an annual cycle. This information will be used to support the development of a nutrient budget to assess the trophic status (i.e., stage of reservoir eutrophication or nutrient enrichment) of
The special study objectives are as follows:
· Determine the volume and seasonal patterns of water delivery to the
· Measure the quantities of nutrients entering
· Measure the amounts of water and nutrients lost from
· Identify the watersheds most influential in driving hydrologic and biological processes in
· Estimate the annual gain or loss of phosphorous and nitrogen in
· Assess the trophic status of
· Placement of one to three stage recorders on James Bayou (TCEQ Station No. 10319) according to manufacturer’s installation recommendations and similar to recent USGS equipment installation at four locations on Big Cypress Creek to obtain streamflow information from the last major, ungaged watershed tributary to Caddo Lake; and
· Directly assess the nutrient output of Lake O’ the Pines and to evaluate gain/loss of water and nutrients between Ferrells Bridge Dam and the new USGS gage station (07346080) on Big Cypress Creek upstream of State Highway 43 near
This study was funded by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Cypress Creek Basin Clean Rivers Program, which is administered and directed by the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District (NETMWD).
1.2 Project Background and Significance
Big Cypress Creek is impounded to form
In 2000, portions of
USGS 07346280 10286 Mouth of 15249 Junction of Boat Lanes 1K & 1L 15275 Goose Prairie 14236 Devil’s Elbow 10283 Caddo Mid
![]()
Figure 1-2 Caddo
Impaired waters, the 303(d) list (40 CFR subsections 130.7). Lake O’ the Pines, impounded by Ferrill’s Bridge Dam on Big Cypress Creek about 50 stream miles above
This study was initiated to assess the sources and extent of nutrient input (loading) into
The watershed of
Figure 1-2 summarizes the daily average streamflows during the period of record (1924-2007) in Big Cypress Creek at USGS Gauge 07346000. This gauge is located near Ferrells Bridge Dam which impounds Lake O’ the Pines, upstream of
Streamflow in Black Cypress Bayou, which joins Big Cypress Creek downstream from the City of
Based on the sizes of their drainage basins relative to Black Cypress Bayou (the gaged watershed closest and most similar in terms of average rainfall, agricultural development and vegetation), James Bayou, the direct tributaries, and the ungaged portions of the major watersheds exhibited a total average inflow to Caddo Lake (October 1979-May 2007) of 62.354 cms, or an average annual volume of 1,967,742,590 m3/yr. Assuming a volume on the order of 156,641,800 m3 at the spillway elevation of 51.36 meters msl, results in an average annual turnover for the period of record (annual inflow/lake volume), or lake volume replacement of 12.6/year.
Average total phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations (and other parameters) are available for the lowermost stations of most of the streams tributary to
Figure 1-4 Combined Gaged Daily Average Inflows to
records, while James Bayou and the minor streams generally have data covering much shorter periods.
A first-order estimate of nutrient loading into
from Black Cypress Bayou flows adjusted to reflect the ungaged drainage areas (Figure 1-4).
The assignment of a total phosphorus concentration to the ungaged drainages is problematic since the highest values are averaged from relatively few measurements. Alternatively, weighting the results from the more frequently sampled locations by averaging overall values gives a total phosphorus concentration of 0.132 g/m3, a somewhat lower annual phosphorus load of 55,836 kg/yr from the lower 0402/0401 watersheds, and a total Caddo Lake load of 202,396 kg/year. Either estimate implies a relatively high areal loading rate, 1866-2170 mg/m2 of lake surface. By way of comparison, the raw areal loading rate into
However, other factors, primarily lake depth and annual flushing rate, are important in determining the effective loading of the lake. To estimate expected phosphorus concentrations in
TP (mg/m3) = (mgTP/m2*year)
Z (r + s)
Z = average depth (reservoir volume/reservoir area, 1.43 m),[7]
r = flushing rate (reservoir volume/annual inflow, 12.6), and
s = sedimentation coefficient (10/Z)
TPlow = ______1866_______
1.43(12.6 + 10/1.43)
= 66.60 mg/m3 or 0.067 mg/l
TPhigh = _____2170______
1.43(12.6 + 10/1.43)
= 77.45 mg/m3 or 0.077 mg/l
Table 1-1
Historical Total Phosphorus Loading of
|
Tributary (TCEQ Station) |
Mean Annual Flow, 1979-2004 (m3/sec) |
Mean Total Phosphorus (g/m3) |
n |
Mean Annual Phosphorus Load Lbs/yr (kg/yr) |
|
Big (15511) |
16.705 |
0.076 |
31 |
40,064 |
|
Little (10332) |
14.467 |
0.120 |
40 |
54,785 |
|
Black (10245) |
9.720 |
0.089 |
32 |
27,299 |
|
James Bayou (10321) |
8.058 |
0.096 |
41 |
24,412 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggerty Creek (14997) |
|
0.550 |
2 |
|
|
Big (10295) |
|
0.098 |
29 |
|
|
Big SH43 (15022) |
|
0.258 |
4 |
|
|
Big Cypress Marshall Intake (16254) |
|
0.117 |
30 |
|
|
(15509) |
|
0.116 |
11 |
|
|
Kitchen Creek |
|
0.195 |
4 |
|
|
Lower 0402/0401 Watersheds |
13.404 (unweighted estimate) |
.0210 (average) |
|
88,829 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235,389 | |||
This model is intended to predict open water average concentrations in a completely mixed basin. As noted above, average total phosphorus concentrations exceeding 0.05 mg/l in open lake waters are generally considered indicative of eutrophic conditions. Application of the same model to
With respect to measured nutrient levels within
Devil’s Elbow, Station 14236 (n=8), 0.133 mg/l
Goose Prairie, Station 15275 (n=5), 0.229 mg/l
Mouth of
Darville et al reported lakewide average total phosphorus levels to average 0.126 mg/l, noted substantially higher nutrient levels in the wetlands than in the open waters of
That nutrient and sediment should accumulate in the portions of the lake that receive the bulk of inflowing water, with its load of dissolved and suspended materials, and that eutrophic conditions should result are not surprising, nor do these conditions necessarily warrant action. Such eutrophic conditions are a natural and largely unavoidable feature of the aging of a lake or reservoir, and
The purpose of this study is to further our understanding of the present condition and potential future of
2.0 Methods and Materials
2.1 Data Collection and Analysis
Water samples were collected for nutrient analysis from each of the four major tributaries to
Streamflows on James Bayou, the ungaged areas below the three USGS gages, and the direct tributaries to
In 2006 the USGS also installed an additional stream gage in Big Cypress Creek below this confluence to better monitor inflows of water, nutrients and other materials to
Water samples were collected monthly when “low flow” conditions prevailed at the Little Cypress Creek gage (streamflows less than 100 cfs, roughly the 40th percentile flow for that stream), weekly at flows above 100 cfs, and daily at high flows (above the 75th percentile flow of 660 cfs) to assure adequate sampling at higher flow regimes, and particularly, to obtain information on nutrient concentrations over one or more storm hydrographs. Samples at the
oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity) were measured concurrent with water sample collections.
Sampling procedures, preservation and holding times, methods of chemical analysis, laboratory reporting limits, and QA/QC procedures conformed to the practices presently in use in the Cypress Creek Basin Clean Rivers Program and are documented in Appendix G, Revision 1 of the current (2006-2007) QAPP (Appendix B).
2.2 Modeling
To estimate the phosphorus (P) load into
LOADEST incorporates three statistical methods, Adjusted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (AMLE) and Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), and Least Absolute Deviation (LAD). The AMLE and MLE methods are used when the observed versus simulated residuals are normally distributed. The LAD method may be used when the residuals are not normally distributed. The model and supporting model documentation may be found at the file transfer protocol site at ftpdcolka.cr.usgs.gov.
For the study LOADEST simulations were completed for the Little Cypress, Big Cypress, Black Cypress, and James Bayou watersheds. As shown in Table 2-1, the simulations used USGS streamflow gages 07346045, 07346000, and 07346070. James Bayou streamflow was estimated based on a drainage area ratio of Black Cypress Bayou to James Bayou.
Table 2-1
Watersheds modeled using LOADEST
|
Watershed |
USGS ID |
Watershed Area (km2) |
Period of record for Phosphorus data |
|
Big |
07346000 |
1,360 |
1979-2007 |
|
Little |
07346070 |
1,080 |
1974-2007 |
|
Black |
07346045 |
584 |
1974-2007 |
|
James Bayou |
ungaged |
540 |
1972-2007 |
To model the total phosphorus loading for each watershed, both streamflow and phosphorus concentration values are required. Figure 2-2 shows the input streamflow and concentration used for each watershed and plotted versus each other. As is typical in most settings, total phosphorus concentration decreases as streamflow increases. The phosphorus data used in this model were collected from the 1970s through May 2007 and include the information from the SWQMIS data base in addition to the data collected during this study (Appendix A).
Phosphorus concentrations that were below the detection limits of the laboratory analysis method were censored. LOADEST provides a method by which to incorporate these censored data into the calibration input file (calib.inp). For each concentration that was below the detection limit, a less-than sign, “<”, was placed before the detection limit to denote the censored data within the LOADEST model.
Figure 2-2
Input streamflows and concentrations used in the LOADEST model
3.0 Results and Discussion
Figure 3-1 presents average daily inflows to
Table 3-1 lists average values and ranges of parameters measured in the field during the period July 2006 through May 2007 concurrent with the collection of water samples for laboratory analysis. The results of those analyses are summarized in Table 3-2. The complete data set is presented in Appendix A; field measured parameters are in Table A-1, while Table A-2 contains the results of laboratory water chemistry analyses.
During the 2006-2007 study period, lowest dissolved oxygen concentrations tended to occur during the summer – fall low flow period, while low pH and clarity (Secchi depth) tended to coincide with the initial high flow period in January and February. The episodes of dissolved oxygen supersaturation common during the latter period reflect the influx of relatively cold runoff water (Appendix Table A-1). A large proportion of the inorganic nitrogen (i.e., ammonia, nitrite and nitrate) data consisted of censored values, that is, while the material may have been present, the concentrations were less than could be reliably measured using the prescribed laboratory techniques (Appendix Table A-2). Mean and median values were therefore calculated with (1) censored values set to one-half their respective detection limits, and (2) censored values set to zero to span the range of probable results. The summary results in Table 3-2 show that the bulk of nitrogen entering Caddo Lake is bound to organic matter (living algal and bacterial cells and organic detritus) rather than as inorganic nitrogen immediately available for uptake and growth. Dissolved phosphorus was not monitored during this study as experience in the region has shown that detectable levels of this more available form are rarely obtained. The consistently low levels of these nutrients suggest that growth rates in both inflowing water and that exiting
Linear regression analyses of total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total organic carbon concentrations of streamflow during the study period consistently showed negative relationships (lower concentrations at higher flows). While the slopes of the regressions were often significant (P<0.05), the r2 numbers were also consistently low, most likely because the relationships are non-linear, as is the case in Figure 3-3, where both linear and polynomial trend lines are plotted.
Table 3-1
Average, Median1 and
|
Date |
Discharge (cfs) |
Temperature (C) |
pH |
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) |
Secchi Depth (m) |
|
Station 15135, Big Cypress Creek below | ||||||
|
Average |
248 |
14.9 |
6.7 |
161 |
11.4 |
0.95 |
|
Median |
124 |
12.0 |
6.7 |
159 |
11.6 |
0.94 |
|
Minimum |
15 |
8.0 |
5.8 |
137 |
4.4 |
0.75 |
|
Maximum |
1660 |
29.6 |
7.5 |
182 |
18.5 |
1.17 |
|
Station 10295, Big Cypress Creek at SH 43 (n=20) | ||||||
|
Average |
1643 |
15.7 |
6.4 |
112 |
8.9 |
0.73 |
|
Median |
664 |
12.9 |
6.4 |
114 |
8.4 |
0.80 |
|
Minimum |
38 |
5.6 |
5.4 |
45 |
5.0 |
0.29 |
|
Maximum |
10619 |
32.0 |
7.4 |
172 |
16.4 |
1.35 |
|
Station 10332, Little Cypress Creek at US 59 (n=20) | ||||||
|
Average |
866 |
14.6 |
6.3 |
125 |
8.6 |
0.74 |
|
Median |
301 |
11.7 |
6.3 |
131 |
8.7 |
0.70 |
|
Minimum |
0 |
5.9 |
5.1 |
49 |
2.2 |
0.14 |
|
Maximum |
5700 |
28.5 |
7.2 |
178 |
16.4 |
1.44 |
|
Station 10245, Black | ||||||
|
Average |
578 |
14.0 |
6.3 |
90 |
8.5 |
0.68 |
|
Median |
239 |
11.0 |
6.4 |
68 |
9.2 |
0.67 |
|
Minimum |
0 |
5.3 |
5.2 |
37 |
0.6 |
0.23 |
|
Maximum |
4830 |
27.7 |
7.2 |
278 |
16.3 |
1.04 |
|
Station 10319, James Bayou at CR 3312 (n=20) | ||||||
|
Average |
NA |
14.4 |
6.2 |
94 |
7.3 |
0.82 |
|
Median |
NA |
12.1 |
6.2 |
93 |
6.5 |
0.84 |
|
Minimum |
NA |
5.1 |
5.3 |
30 |
2.1 |
0.51 |
|
Maximum |
NA |
28.5 |
7.1 |
162 |
15.1 |
1.22 |
|
Station 18843, | ||||||
|
Average |
2793 |
16.1 |
6.6 |
116 |
10.1 |
0.50 |
|
Median |
1830 |
14.5 |
6.8 |
118 |
8.8 |
0.50 |
|
Minimum |
0 |
6.5 |
4.8 |
56 |
5.9 |
0.29 |
|
Maximum |
10342 |
31.6 |
9.0 |
192 |
19.6 |
0.71 |
Table 3-2
Average, Median1 and
|
Station 15135, Big Cypress Creek below | |||||||||
|
|
Cl (mg/l) |
NO2 (mg/l) |
NO3 (mg/l) |
NH3 (mg/l) |
TKN (mg/l) |
P(mg/l) |
TOC mg/l) | ||
|
n |
19 |
19 |
19 |
19 |
19 |
19 |
19 | ||
|
Average |
15.2 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.52 |
0.08 |
5.3 | ||
|
Median |
15.1 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.55 |
0.06 |
5.2 | ||
|
Min. |
13.0 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.17 |
0.03 |
4.4 | ||
|
Max. |
18.0 |
0.04 |
0.03 |
0.14 |
0.81 |
0.39 |
8.2 | ||
|
Station 10295, Big Cypress Creek at SH 43 | |||||||||
|
n |
20 |
20 |
20 |
18 |
18 |
18 |
19 | ||
|
Average |
11.3 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.63 |
0.12 |
9.1 | ||
|
Median |
12.7 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.01 |
0.67 |
0.08 |
9.2 | ||
|
Min. |
3.1 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.28 |
0.01 |
5.9 | ||
|
Max. |
16.1 |
0.14 |
0.12 |
0.16 |
1.13 |
0.48 |
12.8 | ||
|
Station 10332, Little Cypress Creek at SH 59 | |||||||||
|
n |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
19 |
19 |
20 | ||
|
Average |
13.2 |
0.01 |
0.06 |
0.03 |
0.62 |
0.13 |
9.3 | ||
|
Median |
13.6 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
0.01 |
0.61 |
0.12 |
8.9 | ||
|
Min. |
4.3 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.07 |
0.05 |
6.3 | ||
|
Max. |
21.2 |
0.10 |
0.28 |
0.14 |
1.35 |
0.28 |
13.5 | ||
|
Station 10245, Black | |||||||||
|
n |
20 |
20 |
20 |
18 |
18 |
18 |
19 | ||
|
Average |
8.3 |
0.01 |
0.05 |
0.12 |
0.83 |
0.14 |
11.8 | ||
|
Median |
6.4 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.78 |
0.12 |
10.2 | ||
|
Min. |
2.2 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.32 |
0.02 |
6.7 | ||
|
Max. |
34.5 |
0.01 |
0.20 |
0.68 |
1.64 |
0.39 |
21.8 | ||
|
Station 10319, James Bayou at CR 3312 | |||||||||
|
n |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 | ||
|
Average |
15.0 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.04 |
0.63 |
0.11 |
11.8 | ||
|
Median |
15.6 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.59 |
0.08 |
11.5 | ||
|
Min. |
1.0 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
0.01 |
7.9 | ||
|
Max. |
25.7 |
0.03 |
0.10 |
0.11 |
1.27 |
0.40 |
16.7 | ||
Table 3-2 continued
|
Station 18843, | |||||||
|
|
Cl (mg/l) |
NO2 mg/l) |
NO3 (mg/l) |
NH3 (mg/l) |
TKN (mg/l) |
P (mg/l) |
TOC (mg/l) |
|
n |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
|
Average |
13.0 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.80 |
0.15 |
9.3 |
|
Median |
12.6 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.76 |
0.09 |
8.7 |
|
Min. |
4.7 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
6.3 |
|
Max. |
20.5 |
0.01 |
0.14 |
0.15 |
1.37 |
1.06 |
14.2 |
1 Censored values assumed to equal one-half lab detection limit
A comparison of monitoring stations using a nonparametric analysis of variance (Kruskal-Wallis AOV) indicated statistically significant (P<0.05) differences in total phosphorus concentration between the Big Cypress Creek station below Lake O’ the Pines and the stations on Little Cypress (10332) and Black Cypress Creeks. A single, very high value for total phosphorus (1.06 mg/l) was obtained from the Caddo Dam station on October 29, 2006. Its elimination from the data set results in an average total phosphorus concentration of 0.11 mg/l in the water exiting
The results for total nitrogen showed that average concentrations were lowest at the
With the exception of the uppermost station on Big Cypress Creek, total phosphorus averages between 1979 and 2006 (Table 1-1) tend to be somewhat lower than those measured during this study. Other parameters measured sufficient times during the period 1979 through 2005 to permit comparison with the data collected during this study include chloride, TKN and TOC at all the stations except 10319, James Bayou. These averages, compared in Table 3-3, exhibit substantial differences between particular pairs, but no general pattern is evident.
Table 3-3
Average Parameter Values (mg/l) Recorded in the 1980-2006 Period of Record (POR) and During the
|
|
Chloride |
TKN |
TOC | |||
|
|
Study |
POR |
Study |
POR |
Study |
POR |
|
15135 |
15.2 |
NA |
0.52 |
0.89 |
5.3 |
8.7 |
|
10295 |
11.2 |
14.9 |
0.62 |
0.60 |
9.1 |
8.8 |
|
10332 |
13.2 |
21.0 |
0.62 |
0.78 |
9.3 |
9.6 |
|
10245 |
8.3 |
8.1 |
0.83 |
0.59 |
11.8 |
9.2 |
Nutrient data are particularly sparse for the minor drainages surrounding
Although it is desirable to balance nutrient inflows to Caddo lake with corresponding outflows, inflows from the minor ungaged drainages can only be estimated by application of drainage area and nutrient concentration ratios, resulting in substantial uncertainty. Aggregate total phosphorus loading during the study period totaled 114,622 kg, of which only 78,025 kg originates in the four major watersheds, while outflow from Caddo Dam totaled 68,627 kg, a difference of 45,995 kg. TMDL studies in
Living tissues, particularly rapidly growing plankton populations, tend to exhibit a nitrogen-phosphorus (N:P) ratio of 16:1 on an atom for atom basis, and are expected to take up those nutrients in that ratio for growth. Comparison of total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations on that basis in the samples collected during the study period shows large variations in the N:P ratio among sample dates, but the average and median values tended to show the expected balance except in the lower Big Cypress Creek station (10295) and Little Cypress Creek (10332) in which nitrogen appears to be in short supply (Table 3-4). With respect to potential nutrient limitation or control on production and coupled respiration, both total phosphorus and TKN represent nutrient reservoirs that are of relatively limited availability; the phosphorus contained in living and dead organic material, adsorbed to particulates, or present as polyphosphate, and the nitrogen present primarily as organic matter. In this condition, the nutrient loads entering Caddo Lake represent potential nutrients, that is while they can eventually be utilized for population growth and the accumulation of biomass, the actual rates at which photosynthesis and respiration can occur will to depend on the rates of nutrient regeneration from suspended particles, sediments and living populations, given appropriate conditions of temperature, light, and other nutrients.
Table 3-4
Nitrogen Phosphorus Ratios (mg-at/l) at Nutrient Study Stations, July 2006- June2007
|
Station |
15135 |
10295 |
10332 |
10245 |
10319 |
18843 |
|
Average |
19.0 |
9.1 |
12.5 |
21.5 |
17.8 |
19.8 |
|
Median |
17.5 |
9.2 |
11.9 |
13.7 |
13.6 |
19.1 |
|
Minimum |
2.2 |
5.9 |
4.2 |
4.9 |
3.1 |
0.1 |
|
Maximum |
46.0 |
12.8 |
37.9 |
121.8 |
76.0 |
40.2 |
Initial runs of the LOADEST model were performed to select the best regression models based on the data collected during the 2006-2007 study period, and applied to the historical data available from the TCEQ data base. Residuals for the four model simulations were normally distributed so, the AMLE load estimates were used and are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5. LOADEST files, including the initial regression development and validation and the total phosphorus load output files from four locations, Big Cypress Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Black Cypress Creek, and James Bayou are included on electronic media as they extend over several hundred pages. Although all available streamflow data was included in the LOADEST model, for loading analysis only the 26-year period 1980-2006 is considered here because streamflow data is available for all three gaged watersheds then and the both the frequency and reliability of nutrient data tends to become much less prior to 1980.
Nitrogen loads were not modeled due to the lack of interpretable data on the various nitrogen species, and inability to accurately assess the fate of what appears to essentially be an organic nitrogen load entering Caddo lake. In addition, the phosphorus concentrations present in Caddo Lake and its tributaries and our experience in the Cypress Creek Basin with the widespread phosphorus loading of agricultural soils that occurred with past fertilization practices and indicated that, given the constraints of time and resources, this study would be best served by focusing the modeling effort on phosphorus loading.
During the period including 1980-2006, modeled total phosphorus loads averaged 182,786 kg/year. The substantial variation among years is shown in Figure 3-4, and the distribution of loads among the four major tributaries and the aggregate minor drainages closest to Caddo lake is presented in Figure 3-5. This can be compared with the estimated total loading for the study period of 114,622 kg. The three gaged watersheds (Big Cypress Creek, Little Cypress Creek and Black Cypress Bayou), which were independently modeled, exhibit relatively similar patterns of annual loading, reflecting the dominance of climatic conditions. This figure also indicates that the largest contributor of phosphorus to
Seasonal patterns in total phosphorus loads entering
In order to better assess the impact of phosphorus loading on
(winter-spring) and utilization (summer) will be a function of the conditions prevalent over an entire year (Figure 3-7).
Over the 26 year period examined, lake volumes were replaced an average of 8.1 times/year, substantially less than the 12.6 times/year estimated in the introduction using the spillway elevation and a long term average inflow estimate. Likewise, the 26-year average areal phosphorus load calculated from the modeled phosphorus loads and lake areas derived from annual median water surface elevations is 1587 mg/m3, about 85% of the low end of the range estimated in the introduction. Figure 3-8 summarizes the turnover and areal phosphorus load in
Annual predictions of
confidence in the present assessment of the level of total phosphorus loading and the trophic condition of
The phosphorus concentrations observed in
although the physical and biological characteristics of a given water body can greatly influence its response to particular levels of nutrient.[13] This last point is important here:
The most direct information available concerning “natural” phosphorus concentrations in the region comes from the data base contained in the SWAT model used in the
APPENDIX A
Water Quality Sampling Results
Table A-1
Field Measured Parameters at Station 15135
Big Cypress Creek below
|
Date |
Discharge (cfs) |
Temperature (C) |
pH |
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) |
Secchi Depth (m) |
|
07/13/06 |
38 |
27.6 |
7.2 |
175 |
8.6 |
0.96 |
|
08/01/06 |
43 |
28.9 |
7.1 |
182 |
4.4 |
0.94 |
|
08/18/06 |
45 |
29.6 |
7.1 |
182 |
6.4 |
1.17 |
|
10/29/06 |
39 |
18.7 |
7.5 |
180 |
8.4 |
0.92 |
|
01/03/07 |
107 |
11.1 |
6.9 |
172 |
12.6 |
0.93 |
|
01/14/07 |
575 |
11.0 |
6.6 |
156 |
15.9 |
0.75 |
|
01/18/07 |
|
8.7 |
6.4 |
160 |
10.3 |
0.79 |
|
01/21/07 |
54 |
9.5 |
6.7 |
161 |
18.5 |
0.9 |
|
01/25/07 |
79 |
8.8 |
6.5 |
158 |
14.3 |
0.91 |
|
01/28/07 |
538 |
8.8 |
6.5 |
157 |
13.7 |
0.81 |
|
02/01/07 |
1,660 |
8.0 |
6.5 |
157 |
14.9 |
0.77 |
|
02/08/07 |
592 |
9.0 |
5.8 |
158 |
10.1 |
0.92 |
|
02/18/07 |
180 |
8.7 |
6.6 |
137 |
13.1 |
1.02 |
|
03/04/08 |
158 |
11.9 |
6.6 |
152 |
12.7 |
1.14 |
|
03/08/07 |
153 |
12.0 |
6.5 |
151 |
12.4 |
1.11 |
|
03/15/07 |
141 |
13.0 |
6.9 |
140 |
11.2 |
1.02 |
|
03/22/07 |
124 |
14.8 |
6.9 |
153 |
11.9 |
0.94 |
|
04/01/07 |
136 |
16.8 |
6.5 |
159 |
9.8 |
0.98 |
|
05/06/07 |
35 |
19.5 |
6.8 |
163 |
10.1 |
1.06 |
|
5/31/2007 |
15 |
21.6 |
6.9 |
160 |
9 |
0.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
248 |
14.9 |
6.7 |
161 |
11.4 |
0.95 |
|
Median |
124 |
12.0 |
6.7 |
159 |
11.6 |
0.94 |
|
Minimum |
15 |
8.0 |
5.8 |
137 |
4.4 |
0.75 |
|
Maximum |
1660 |
29.6 |
7.5 |
182 |
18.5 |
1.17 |
Table A-1 Continued
Field Measured Parameters at Station 10295
Big Cypress Creek at SH 43
|
Date |
Discharge (cfs) |
Temperature (C) |
pH |
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) |
Secchi Depth (m) |
|
07/13/06 |
38 |
30.2 |
7.4 |
172 |
7.9 |
>0.90 |
|
08/01/06 |
246 |
30.5 |
6.9 |
154 |
7.0 |
1.04 |
|
08/18/06 |
45.35 |
32.0 |
7.3 |
154 |
6.7 |
1.35 |
|
10/29/06 |
39 |
17.8 |
6.8 |
160 |
6.8 |
0.84 |
|
01/03/07 |
445 |
10.6 |
6.4 |
104 |
11.2 |
0.40 |
|
01/14/07 |
454 |
11.0 |
6.6 |
84 |
13.1 |
0.29 |
|
01/18/07 |
10,619 |
5.8 |
5.7 |
45 |
8.5 |
0.35 |
|
01/21/07 |
6,206 |
5.6 |
6.6 |
48 |
16.4 |
0.39 |
|
01/25/07 |
2,904 |
6.7 |
5.8 |
60 |
11.8 |
0.67 |
|
01/28/07 |
2,410 |
7.1 |
5.4 |
77 |
11.9 |
0.80 |
|
02/01/07 |
2,749 |
6.7 |
6.4 |
109 |
11.6 |
1.06 |
|
02/08/07 |
1,217 |
9.1 |
5.4 |
133 |
9.5 |
0.96 |
|
02/18/07 |
853 |
8.4 |
6.5 |
108 |
9.1 |
0.80 |
|
03/04/08 |
618 |
13.3 |
6.0 |
123 |
8.2 |
0.97 |
|
03/08/07 |
480 |
12.4 |
6.2 |
126 |
9.1 |
1.01 |
|
03/15/07 |
710 |
16.9 |
6.3 |
129 |
6.7 |
0.82 |
|
03/22/07 |
435 |
19.2 |
6.4 |
115 |
6.3 |
0.89 |
|
04/01/07 |
1242 |
23.2 |
6.2 |
118 |
5.0 |
0.40 |
|
05/06/07 |
906 |
22.9 |
6.4 |
112 |
5.6 |
0.43 |
|
05/31/07 |
242 |
24.5 |
6.7 |
110 |
5.1 |
0.49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
1643 |
15.7 |
6.4 |
112 |
8.9 |
0.73 |
|
Median |
664 |
12.9 |
6.4 |
114 |
8.4 |
0.80 |
|
Minimum |
38 |
5.6 |
5.4 |
45 |
5.0 |
0.29 |
|
Maximum |
10619 |
32.0 |
7.4 |
172 |
16.4 |
1.35 |
Table A-1 Continued
Field Measured Parameters at Station 10332
Little Cypress Creek at US 59
|
Date |
Discharge (cfs) |
Temperature (C) |
pH |
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) |
Secchi Depth (m) |
|
07/13/06 |
6.3 |
28.0 |
6.9 |
135 |
4.8 |
0.58 |
|
08/01/06 |
14 |
28.4 |
6.9 |
176 |
3.5 |
0.78 |
|
08/18/06 |
0.35 |
28.5 |
6.9 |
178 |
2.2 |
0.74 |
|
10/29/06 |
0 |
14.6 |
7.2 |
151 |
6.1 |
0.65 |
|
01/03/07 |
116 |
8.0 |
6.3 |
130 |
13.6 |
0.34 |
|
01/14/07 |
159 |
10.7 |
6.3 |
66 |
13.4 |
0.14 |
|
01/18/07 |
5,700 |
6.0 |
6.0 |
49 |
9.0 |
0.48 |
|
01/21/07 |
4,270 |
5.9 |
6.3 |
51 |
16.4 |
0.54 |
|
01/25/07 |
1,920 |
6.5 |
6.2 |
62 |
10.5 |
0.98 |
|
01/28/07 |
1,170 |
7.7 |
5.1 |
91 |
10.7 |
1.01 |
|
02/01/07 |
723 |
5.9 |
5.9 |
123 |
13.0 |
1.17 |
|
02/08/07 |
326 |
10.0 |
5.5 |
153 |
8.8 |
1.16 |
|
02/18/07 |
361 |
6.7 |
6.2 |
132 |
8.6 |
0.91 |
|
03/04/08 |
275 |
11.3 |
6.2 |
164 |
9.8 |
1.44 |
|
03/08/07 |
185 |
12.0 |
6.2 |
168 |
10.2 |
1.28 |
|
03/15/07 |
348 |
17.1 |
6.3 |
128 |
6.5 |
0.47 |
|
03/22/07 |
189 |
19.3 |
6.6 |
176 |
7.5 |
0.94 |
|
04/01/07 |
801 |
20.2 |
6.3 |
115 |
5.5 |
0.35 |
|
05/06/07 |
632 |
23.1 |
6.5 |
110 |
6.1 |
0.48 |
|
05/31/07 |
15 |
21.6 |
6.9 |
160 |
9 |
0.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
866 |
14.6 |
6.3 |
125 |
8.6 |
0.74 |
|
Median |
301 |
11.7 |
6.3 |
131 |
8.7 |
0.70 |
|
Minimum |
0 |
5.9 |
5.1 |
49 |
2.2 |
0.14 |
|
Maximum |
5700 |
28.5 |
7.2 |
178 |
16.4 |
1.44 |
Table A-1 Continued
Field Measured Parameters at Station 10245
Black
|
Date |
Discharge (cfs) |
Temperature (C) |
pH |
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) |
Secchi Depth (m) |
|
07/13/06 |
0.06 |
27.4 |
7.2 |
256 |
2.9 |
0.85 |
|
08/01/06 |
189 |
27.7 |
5.9 |
122 |
3.7 |
0.52 |
|
08/18/06 |
0 |
27.2 |
6.6 |
136 |
0.6 |
0.54 |
|
10/20/06 |
0 |
13.1 |
6.8 |
278 |
5.0 |
0.91 |
|
01/03/07 |
252 |
8.1 |
6.0 |
68 |
12.7 |
0.56 |
|
01/14/07 |
221 |
9.7 |
6.2 |
44 |
14.1 |
0.23 |
|
01/18/07 |
4,830 |
5.3 |
5.9 |
37 |
8.2 |
0.43 |
|
01/21/07 |
1,830 |
5.8 |
6.5 |
39 |
16.3 |
0.66 |
|
01/25/07 |
905 |
6.4 |
5.8 |
39 |
12.0 |
0.92 |
|
01/28/07 |
702 |
7.3 |
5.2 |
53 |
11.9 |
0.92 |
|
02/01/07 |
366 |
5.9 |
6.4 |
59 |
13.5 |
0.78 |
|
02/08/07 |
299 |
9.7 |
5.5 |
64 |
9.2 |
1.04 |
|
02/18/07 |
312 |
6.1 |
6.5 |
55 |
9.3 |
0.88 |
|
03/04/08 |
180 |
11.3 |
6.2 |
73 |
9.3 |
0.93 |
|
03/08/07 |
139 |
11.0 |
6.4 |
73 |
10.0 |
0.87 |
|
03/22/07 |
122 |
18.7 |
6.5 |
82 |
5.7 |
0.67 |
|
04/01/07 |
305 |
20.0 |
6.3 |
76 |
5.3 |
0.23 |
|
05/06/07 |
239 |
22.3 |
6.6 |
64 |
6.4 |
0.50 |
|
05/31/07 |
98 |
22.1 |
6.7 |
89 |
5.5 |
0.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
578 |
14.0 |
6.3 |
90 |
8.5 |
0.68 |
|
Median |
239 |
11.0 |
6.4 |
68 |
9.2 |
0.67 |
|
Minimum |
0 |
5.3 |
5.2 |
37 |
0.6 |
0.23 |
|
Maximum |
4830 |
27.7 |
7.2 |
278 |
16.3 |
1.04 |
Table A-1 Continued
Field Measured Parameters at Station 10319
James Bayou at CR 3312
|
Date |
Discharge (observation) |
Temperature (C) |
pH |
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) |
Secchi Depth (m) |
|
07/13/06 |
0 |
27.7 |
7.1 |
121 |
3.1 |
0.72 |
|
08/01/06 |
high |
28.5 |
6.3 |
162 |
3.3 |
0.83 |
|
08/18/06 |
0 |
27.2 |
6.6 |
136 |
2.1 |
0.75 |
|
10/29/06 |
0 |
12.3 |
6.4 |
150 |
6.5 |
>0.69 |
|
10/29/06 |
0 |
12.3 |
6.4 |
150 |
6.5 |
>0.69 |
|
01/03/07 |
normal |
7.2 |
6.1 |
105 |
13.1 |
0.51 |
|
01/18/07 |
flood |
5.1 |
5.9 |
30 |
8.7 |
0.54 |
|
01/21/07 |
flood |
5.8 |
6.7 |
38 |
15.1 |
0.68 |
|
01/25/07 |
high |
6.6 |
5.7 |
53 |
11.3 |
0.94 |
|
01/28/07 |
high |
7.6 |
5.7 |
54 |
10.8 |
0.85 |
|
02/01/07 |
high |
5.5 |
5.9 |
68 |
11.7 |
1.02 |
|
02/08/07 |
high |
10.5 |
5.3 |
74 |
5.9 |
1.05 |
|
02/18/07 |
high |
6.5 |
6.9 |
73 |
6.7 |
1.22 |
|
03/04/08 |
high |
10.7 |
5.9 |
90 |
8.9 |
0.99 |
|
03/08/07 |
high |
11.8 |
6 |
91 |
9.1 |
1.04 |
|
03/15/07 |
high |
17 |
5.9 |
94 |
4.8 |
0.9 |
|
03/22/07 |
high |
19.4 |
6.2 |
101 |
4.1 |
0.75 |
|
04/01/07 |
high |
19.8 |
6.1 |
106 |
4.1 |
0.87 |
|
05/06/07 |
high |
23.5 |
6.6 |
96 |
4.9 |
0.61 |
|
05/31/07 |
low |
22.2 |
6.9 |
80 |
4.3 |
0.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
14.4 |
6.2 |
94 |
7.3 |
0.82 |
|
Median |
|
12.1 |
6.2 |
93 |
6.5 |
0.84 |
|
Minimum |
|
5.1 |
5.3 |
30 |
2.1 |
0.51 |
|
Maximum |
|
28.5 |
7.1 |
162 |
15.1 |
1.22 |
Table A-1 Continued
Field Measured Parameters at Station 18843
|
Date |
Discharge (cfs) |
Temperature (C) |
pH |
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) |
Secchi Depth (m) |
|
07/13/06 |
0 |
30.3 |
9.0 |
156 |
7.4 |
0.55 |
|
08/01/06 |
0 |
30.5 |
7.8 |
164 |
5.9 |
0.71 |
|
08/18/06 |
0 |
31.6 |
7.9 |
168 |
6.9 |
0.62 |
|
10/29/06 |
0 |
17.2 |
6.9 |
192 |
8.5 |
0.66 |
|
01/03/07 |
100 |
10.3 |
6.9 |
181 |
11.1 |
0.59 |
|
01/14/07 |
2,545 |
13.8 |
7.2 |
118 |
14.0 |
0.37 |
|
01/18/07 |
9,188 |
7.6 |
6.1 |
121 |
9.9 |
0.48 |
|
01/21/07 |
10,342 |
6.6 |
7.1 |
87 |
16.0 |
0.30 |
|
01/25/07 |
7,342 |
6.5 |
5.6 |
56 |
19.6 |
0.39 |
|
01/28/07 |
5,353 |
7.1 |
4.8 |
56 |
11.4 |
0.39 |
|
02/01/07 |
3,814 |
6.5 |
5.4 |
58 |
11.3 |
0.33 |
|
02/08/07 |
3,085 |
9.8 |
5.4 |
67 |
8.5 |
0.54 |
|
02/18/07 |
2,167 |
7.2 |
7.7 |
79 |
8.9 |
0.29 |
|
03/04/08 |
1,789 |
9.8 |
6.3 |
111 |
10.4 |
0.4 |
|
03/08/07 |
1,504 |
15.1 |
5.9 |
101 |
11.1 |
0.48 |
|
03/15/07 |
1600 |
18.3 |
6 |
99 |
8.2 |
0.62 |
|
03/22/07 |
1654 |
20 |
6.2 |
118 |
8.74 |
0.61 |
|
04/01/07 |
2620 |
22.5 |
6.7 |
122 |
8.7 |
0.65 |
|
05/06/07 |
1870 |
25.2 |
6.8 |
130 |
8.0 |
0.52 |
|
05/31/07 |
880 |
25.3 |
7.1 |
129 |
7.3 |
0.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
2793 |
16.1 |
6.6 |
116 |
10.1 |
0.50 |
|
Median |
1830 |
14.5 |
6.8 |
118 |
8.8 |
0.50 |
|
Minimum |
0 |
6.5 |
4.8 |
56 |
5.9 |
0.29 |
|
Maximum |
10342 |
31.6 |
9.0 |
192 |
19.6 |
0.71 |
Table A-2
Water Quality Parameters in Samples Collected at TCEQ Station 15135
Big Cypress Creek below
|
Date |
Cl |
NO2 |
NO3 |
NH3 |
TKN |
P |
TOC |
|
|
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
|
07/13/06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08/01/06 |
17.0 |
<0.01 |
0.0201 |
0.1 |
0.58 |
0.057 |
8.24 |
|
08/18/06 |
16.9 |
<0.01 |
0.0222 |
0.14 |
0.744 |
0.389 |
6.66 |
|
10/29/06 |
18.0 |
<0.005 |
<0.005 |
<0.01 |
0.709 |
0.0343 |
6.93 |
|
01/03/07* |
17.6 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.66 |
0.063 |
4.74 |
|
01/03/07* |
17.4 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0308 |
0.519 |
0.06 |
4.66 |
|
01/14/07 |
15.7 |
<0.01 |
0.0206 |
<0.01 |
0.18 |
0.081 |
4.4 |
|
01/18/07 |
16.1 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.61 |
0.104 |
4.67 |
|
01/21/07 |
16.2 |
<0.01 |
0.027 |
0.0401 |
0.55 |
0.0452 |
4.55 |
|
01/25/07 |
16 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.17 |
0.182 |
4.47 |
|
01/28/07 |
16.3 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.632 |
0.0995 |
4.65 |
|
02/01/07 |
15.1 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.428 |
0.0547 |
4.46 |
|
02/08/07 |
15 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.019 |
0.545 |
0.0601 |
4.7 |
|
02/18/07* |
15.1 |
<0.01 |
0.0284 |
<0.01 |
0.69 |
0.0778 |
5.93 |
|
02/18/07* |
15.1 |
<0.01 |
0.0283 |
<0.01 |
0.663 |
0.0628 |
4.67 |
|
03/04/08 |
13.6 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.805 |
0.043 |
5.36 |
|
03/08/07 |
13 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.519 |
0.0686 |
5.17 |
|
03/15/07 |
13.3 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.32 |
0.0501 |
5.18 |
|
03/22/07* |
13.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.022 |
0.496 |
0.0464 |
5.34 |
|
03/22/07* |
13.3 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.32 |
0.06 |
5.18 |
|
04/01/07 |
13.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.022 |
0.496 |
0.0464 |
5.34 |
|
05/06/07 |
13.3 |
0.0406 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.344 |
0.0963 |
5.91 |
|
05/31/07 |
14.0 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.104 |
0.791 |
0.0547 |
5.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average1 |
15.2 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.52 |
0.08 |
5.3 |
|
Median1 |
15.1 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.55 |
0.06 |
5.2 |
|
Average2 |
15.2 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.52 |
0.08 |
5.3 |
|
Median2 |
15.1 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.55 |
0.06 |
5.2 |
*Duplicate samples
<Result less than laboratory detection limit
1<values assumed to equal laboratory detection limit
2<values assumed to equal zero
Table A-2 Continued
Water Quality Parameters in Samples Collected at TCEQ Station 10295
Big Cypress Creek at SH 43
|
Date |
Cl |
NO2 |
NO3 |
NH3 |
TKN |
P |
TOC |
|
|
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
|
07/13/06 |
16.4 |
<0.01 |
0.0407 |
0.01* |
0.49 |
0.0289 |
7.29 |
|
08/01/06* |
15.8 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0618 |
0.71 |
0.479 |
9.38 |
|
08/01/06* |
15.8 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0327 |
0.918 |
<0.005 |
9.3 |
|
08/18/06 |
14.9 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.534 |
0.0479 |
9.48 |
|
10/29/06 |
16.1 |
<0.005 |
0.003 |
0.0342 |
0.574 |
0.196 |
9.31 |
|
01/03/07 |
10.3 |
<0.01 |
0.0655 |
<0.01 |
0.75 |
0.114 |
7.69 |
|
01/14/07 |
7.58 |
<0.01 |
0.076 |
<0.01 |
0.616 |
0.0832 |
8.6 |
|
01/18/07 |
3.07 |
<0.01 |
0.0583 |
<0.01 |
0.317 |
0.148 |
9.22 |
|
01/21/07 |
3.7 |
<0.01 |
0.0516 |
0.0524 |
0.631 |
0.0778 |
9.29 |
|
01/25/07* |
5.56 |
<0.01 |
0.0422 |
<0.01 |
0.445 |
0.0819 |
8.52 |
|
01/25/07* |
5.37 |
<0.01 |
0.0364 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
01/28/07 |
7.98 |
<0.01 |
0.0603 |
0.0205 |
0.323 |
0.116 |
7.65 |
|
02/01/07 |
10.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.491 |
0.0547 |
6.59 |
|
02/08/07 |
12.9 |
<0.01 |
0.0288 |
0.0109 |
0.828 |
0.0764 |
5.89 |
|
02/18/07 |
13.6 |
<0.01 |
0.0463 |
<0.01 |
0.718 |
0.0792 |
6.61 |
|
03/04/08 |
13.1 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.276 |
0.0955 |
8.69 |
|
03/08/07* |
14 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.744 |
0.0711 |
8.62 |
|
03/08/07* |
14 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.711 |
0.041 |
8.65 |
|
03/15/07 |
15.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0446 |
0.472 |
0.0691 |
9.5 |
|
03/22/07 |
13.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0635 |
0.756 |
0.227 |
11.1 |
|
04/01/07 |
11.8 |
<0.01 |
0.048 |
0.159 |
0.746 |
0.115 |
12.8 |
|
05/06/07 |
11.8 |
0.139 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
1.13 |
0.204 |
11.4 |
|
05/31/07* |
12.5 |
<0.01 |
0.120 |
0.0628 |
1.08 |
0.196 |
11.6 |
|
05/31/07* |
12.5 |
<0.01 |
0.119 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
12.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average1 |
11.3 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.63 |
0.12 |
9.1 |
|
Median1 |
12.7 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.01 |
0.67 |
0.08 |
9.2 |
|
Average2 |
11.3 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.63 |
0.12 |
9.1 |
|
Median2 |
12.7 |
0.00 |
0.02 |
0.00 |
0.67 |
0.08 |
9.2 |
*Duplicate samples
NA = Not analyzed
<Result less than lab detection limit
1<values assumed to equal lab detection limit
2<values assumed to equal zero
Table A-2 Continued
Water Quality Parameters in Samples Collected at TCEQ Station 10332
Little Cypress Creek at SH 59
|
Date |
Cl |
NO2 |
NO3 |
NH3 |
TKN |
P |
TOC |
|
|
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
|
07/13/06 |
11.7 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.572 |
0.275 |
9.62 |
|
08/01/06 |
16.9 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0488 |
0.624 |
0.121 |
10.6 |
|
08/18/06 |
16.4 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.087 |
0.53 |
0.147 |
9.52 |
|
10/29/06 |
13.7 |
<0.005 |
<0.005 |
<0.005 |
0.45 |
0.125 |
7.47 |
|
01/03/07 |
12.9 |
<0.01 |
0.258 |
<0.01 |
0.49 |
0.17 |
8.31 |
|
01/14/07 |
5.99 |
<0.01 |
0.12 |
<0.01 |
0.611 |
0.11 |
8 |
|
01/18/07* |
4.25 |
<0.01 |
0.0597 |
<0.01 |
0.362 |
0.14 |
9.91 |
|
01/18/07* |
4.25 |
<0.01 |
0.0608 |
<0.01 |
NA |
NA |
10.3 |
|
01/21/07 |
4.61 |
<0.01 |
0.0445 |
0.0225 |
0.621 |
0.0873 |
9.11 |
|
01/25/07 |
6.16 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.665 |
0.125 |
8.62 |
|
01/28/07 |
9.82 |
<0.01 |
0.0391 |
<0.01 |
0.283 |
0.0941 |
7.67 |
|
02/01/07* |
13.5 |
<0.01 |
0.0466 |
<0.01 |
0.375 |
0.0683 |
7.25 |
|
02/01/07* |
13.6 |
<0.01 |
0.048 |
<0.01 |
0.5 |
0.131 |
7.06 |
|
02/08/07 |
18.2 |
<0.01 |
0.148 |
<0.01 |
0.435 |
0.106 |
6.34 |
|
02/18/07 |
18.7 |
<0.01 |
0.0877 |
<0.01 |
0.702 |
0.116 |
6.88 |
|
03/04/08 |
19.6 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0747 |
0.045 |
8.5 |
|
03/08/07 |
21 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.605 |
0.0791 |
8.3 |
|
03/15/07 |
16.3 |
<0.01 |
0.0253 |
0.0792 |
0.675 |
0.0851 |
11.2 |
|
03/22/07 |
21.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0842 |
0.652 |
0.157 |
11.4 |
|
04/01/07 |
11.2 |
<0.01 |
0.0543 |
0.142 |
1.28 |
0.0778 |
13.5 |
|
05/06/07 |
13.2 |
0.102 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
1.35 |
0.218 |
13.4 |
|
05/31/07 |
17.2 |
<0.01 |
0.283 |
0.0879 |
1.20 |
0.259 |
11.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average1 |
13.2 |
0.01 |
0.06 |
0.03 |
0.62 |
0.13 |
9.3 |
|
Median1 |
13.6 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
0.01 |
0.61 |
0.12 |
8.9 |
|
Average2 |
13.2 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.03 |
0.62 |
0.13 |
9.3 |
|
Median2 |
13.6 |
0.00 |
0.04 |
0.00 |
0.61 |
0.12 |
8.9 |
*Duplicate samples
NA = Not analyzed
<Result less than lab detection limit
1<values assumed to equal lab detection limit
2<values assumed to equal zero
Table A-2 Continued
Water Quality Parameters in Samples Collected at TCEQ Station 10243
Black
|
Date |
Cl |
NO2 |
NO3 |
NH3 |
TKN |
P |
TOC |
|
|
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
mg/l |
|
07/13/06 |
28.8 |
<0.01 |
0.198 |
0.532 |
1.56 |
0.174 |
14.8 |
|
08/01/06 |
4.95 |
<0.01 |
0.154 |
0.14 |
0.793 |
0.207 |
16.2 |
|
08/18/06 |
7.52 |
<0.01 |
0.0317 |
0.68 |
1.49 |
0.389 |
21.8 |
|
10/20/06 |
34.5 |
<0.005 |
0.0902 |
0.46 |
1.64 |
0.219 |
17 |
|
01/03/07 |
6.44 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.005 |
0.559 |
0.119 |
10 |
|
01/14/07* |
4.31 |
<0.01 |
0.0487 |
<0.01 |
0.783 |
0.037 |
9.1 |
|
01/14/07* |
4.27 |
<0.01 |
0.0571 |
<0.01 |
0.909 |
0.086 |
8.91 |
|
01/18/07 |
2.23 |
<0.01 |
0.0535 |
<0.01 |
0.48 |
0.132 |
9.93 |
|
01/21/07 |
2.6 |
<0.01 |
0.0416 |
0.0504 |
0.689 |
0.052 |
9.81 |
|
01/25/07 |
3.92 |
<0.01 |
0.0318 |
<0.01 |
0.5 |
0.181 |
7.78 |
|
01/28/07 |
5.25 |
<0.01 |
0.0333 |
<0.01 |
0.322 |
0.121 |
7.87 |
|
02/01/07 |
4.96 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.469 |
0.0561 |
7.51 |
|
02/08/07* |
5.98 |
<0.01 |
0.00946 |
<0.01 |
0.514 |
0.0846 |
6.68 |
|
02/08/07* |
5.99 |
<0.01 |
0.0103 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
02/18/07 |
7.42 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0114 |
0.501 |
0.067 |
7.08 |
|
03/04/08 |
7.3 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0462 |
0.401 |
0.117 |
10.2 |
|
03/08/07 |
8.15 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.932 |
0.0671 |
10.2 |
|
03/15/07* |
6.97 |
<0.01 |
0.0338 |
0.211 |
1.12 |
0.211 |
14.2 |
|
03/15/07* |
6.95 |
<0.01 |
0.0344 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
14.4 |
|
03/22/07 |
8.37 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.134 |
0.916 |
0.0168 |
14.1 |
|
04/01/07 |
7.22 |
<0.01 |
0.0287 |
0.106 |
0.564 |
0.265 |
16.0 |
|
05/06/07 |
5.77 |
<0.01 |
0.0924 |
0.02 |
1.11 |
0.167 |
12.8 |
|
05/31/07 |
10.6 |
<0.01 |
0.178 |
0.0620 |
1.13 |
0.239 |
13.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average1 |
8.3 |
0.01 |
0.05 |
0.12 |
0.83 |
0.14 |
11.8 |
|
Median1 |
6.4 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.78 |
0.12 |
10.2 |
|
Average2 |
8.3 |
0.00 |
0.05 |
0.12 |
0.83 |
0.14 |
11.8 |
|
Median2 |
6.4 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.78 |
0.12 |
10.2 |
*Duplicate samples
NA = Not analyzed
<Result less than lab detection limit
1<values assumed to equal lab detection limit
2<values assumed to equal zero
Table A-2 Continued
Water Quality Parameters in Samples Collected at TCEQ Station 10319
James Bayou at CR 3312
|
Date |
Cl |
NO2 |
NO3 |
NH3 |
TKN |
P |
TOC |
|
|
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
|
07/13/06 |
13.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.387 |
0.0792 |
15.7 |
|
08/01/06 |
22.3 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0665 |
0.987 |
0.029 |
13 |
|
08/18/06 |
25.6 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0935 |
0.88 |
0.145 |
14.8 |
|
10/29/06* |
25.7 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.051 |
0.872 |
0.0751 |
15.3 |
|
10/29/06* |
23.1 |
<0.005 |
0.0399 |
0.112 |
0.51 |
0.398 |
8.77 |
|
10/29/06 |
22.6 |
<0.005 |
0.0392 |
0.102 |
0.596 |
0.289 |
8.41 |
|
01/03/07 |
19.4 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.615 |
0.104 |
11.7 |
|
01/18/07 |
1.0* |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.028 |
0.58 |
0.098 |
11.5 |
|
01/21/07 |
3.35 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.108 |
0.594 |
0.0683 |
10.5 |
|
01/25/07 |
6.92 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.331 |
0.071 |
8.82 |
|
01/28/07* |
8.03 |
<0.01 |
0.0353 |
<0.01 |
0.421 |
0.106 |
8.61 |
|
01/28/07* |
8 |
<0.01 |
0.0231 |
<0.01 |
0.339 |
0.105 |
8.64 |
|
02/01/07 |
9.79 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.41 |
0.0533 |
7.9 |
|
02/08/07 |
11.5 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0056 |
0.486 |
0.071 |
8.14 |
|
02/18/07 |
13.8 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.76 |
0.0642 |
9.01 |
|
03/04/08 |
15.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.211 |
0.0846 |
11.3 |
|
03/08/07 |
16.5 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.583 |
0.149 |
10.7 |
|
03/15/07 |
19 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0402 |
0.874 |
0.0631 |
16.2 |
|
03/22/07 |
15.6 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0652 |
0.818 |
0.215 |
15.6 |
|
04/01/07* |
19 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0743 |
1.27 |
0.0769 |
16.7 |
|
04/01/07* |
18.9 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.025 |
<0.005 |
16.5 |
|
05/06/07 |
17.6 |
0.0285 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
1.04 |
0.134 |
12.8 |
|
05/31/07 |
9.82 |
<0.01 |
0.104 |
0.0769 |
0.977 |
0.132 |
11.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average1 |
15.0 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.04 |
0.63 |
0.11 |
11.8 |
|
Median1 |
15.6 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.59 |
0.08 |
11.5 |
|
Average2 |
15.7 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
0.63 |
0.11 |
11.8 |
|
Median2 |
16.1 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.59 |
0.08 |
11.5 |
*Duplicate samples
<Result less than lab detection limit
1<values assumed to equal lab detection limit
2<values assumed to equal zero
Table A-2 Continued
Water Quality Parameters in Samples Collected at TCEQ Station 18843
|
Date |
Cl |
NO2 |
NO3 |
NH3 |
TKN |
P |
TOC |
|
|
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
(mg/l) |
|
07/13/06* |
16.7 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
1 |
0.14 |
13.0 |
|
07/13/06* |
16.4 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
1.35 |
0.248 |
14.2 |
|
08/01/06 |
18.2 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.089 |
0.882 |
0.049 |
12.6 |
|
08/18/06 |
19.0 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
1.37 |
0.178 |
12.5 |
|
10/29/06 |
20.2 |
<0.005 |
0.0371 |
0.0493 |
<0.005 |
1.06 |
11.7 |
|
01/03/07 |
20.5 |
<0.01 |
0.144 |
0.056 |
1.33 |
0.094 |
7.93 |
|
01/14/07 |
16.6 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.7 |
0.0737 |
6.27 |
|
01/18/07 |
16.3 |
<0.01 |
0.058 |
0.036 |
0.57 |
0.153 |
7.48 |
|
01/21/07* |
10.2 |
<0.01 |
0.0543 |
0.0648 |
0.574 |
0.112 |
9.04 |
|
01/21/07* |
11.7 |
<0.01 |
0.0803 |
0.151 |
0.718 |
0.0846 |
9.19 |
|
01/25/07 |
4.72 |
<0.01 |
0.0524 |
<0.01 |
0.784 |
0.0982 |
8.91 |
|
01/28/07 |
5.2 |
<0.01 |
0.072 |
<0.01 |
0.719 |
0.09 |
8.77 |
|
02/01/07 |
4.88 |
<0.01 |
0.0456 |
<0.01 |
0.689 |
0.0792 |
8.56 |
|
02/08/07 |
5.99 |
<0.01 |
0.0409 |
0.0234 |
0.817 |
0.0656 |
7.99 |
|
02/18/07 |
8.59 |
<0.01 |
0.0602 |
0.0155 |
0.826 |
0.0832 |
8.11 |
|
03/04/08* |
10.4 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.741 |
0.145 |
6.8 |
|
03/04/08* |
10.3 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
03/08/07 |
10.9 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.959 |
0.119 |
7.14 |
|
03/15/07 |
11.8 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.789 |
0.163 |
7.46 |
|
03/22/07 |
12.6 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0232 |
0.541 |
0.0797 |
6.9 |
|
04/01/07 |
14 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.513 |
0.0371 |
7.56 |
|
05/06/07 |
16.4 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.6 |
0.0669 |
11.1 |
|
05/31/07 |
16.9 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.0593 |
1.17 |
0.0778 |
10.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average1 |
13.0 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.80 |
0.15 |
9.3 |
|
Median1 |
12.6 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.76 |
0.09 |
8.7 |
|
Average2 |
13.0 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.80 |
0.15 |
9.3 |
|
Median2 |
12.6 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.76 |
0.09 |
8.7 |
*Duplicate samples
NA = Not analyzed
<Result less than lab detection limit
1<values assumed to equal lab detection limit
2<values assumed to equal zero
APPENDIX B
Appendix G,
Appendix G Revision 1,
Amendment 1 to Appendix G
Appendix G to the Cypress Creek Planning Agency
Clean Rivers Program FY 2006/2007 QAPP
Caddo
Prepared by the
(Northeast Texas Municipal Water District)
In Cooperation with the
(TCEQ)
Effective Period
April 2006 - August 31, 2007
Questions concerning this QAPP should be directed to:
David Thomas
Technical Coordinator
HDR Engineering, Inc.
4401 West Gate,
(512) 912-5100
(512) 912-5158 FAX
SS-A1 APPROVAL PAGE
The following signatures are required for the special study:
Walt Sears, Jr., Northeast Texas Municipal Water District Date
General Manager
Paul Price,
Project Manager
Peggy Jones,
Quality Assurance Officer
David Thomas,
Technical Coordinator
Jennifer Delk, TCEQ CRP Project Manager Date
Sharon Coleman, TCEQ Acting CRP Lead Quality Date
Assurance Specialist
Laurie Curra, TCEQ CRP Program Manager and Project Quality Assurance Specialist Date
The Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency will secure written documentation from each project participant (e.g., subcontractors, other units of government, laboratories) stating the organization’s awareness of and commitment to requirements contained in this quality assurance project plan appendix and any amendments of this plan. The Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency will maintain this documentation as part of the project’s quality assurance records, and ensure that it will be available for review.
SS-A2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SS-A4 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION.. 6
SS-A6 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION.. 12
SS-A7 QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT DATA.. 13
SS-A8 SPECIAL TRAINING/CERTIFICATION.. 16
SS-A9 DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS. 16
SS-B1 SAMPLING PROCESS DESIGN.. 20
SS-B3 SAMPLING HANDLING AND CUSTODY.. 24
SS-B6 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE.. 32
SS-B7 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY.. 32
SS-B8 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE FOR SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES. 32
SS-B9 NON-DIRECT MEASUREMENTS. 32
SS-C1 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS. 39
SS-C2 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT.. 40
SS-D1 DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION.. 40
SS-D2 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS. 41
SS-D3 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS. 43
Tables:
Table SS-A7: Measurement Performance Specifications.................................................................. 14
Table SS-B1: Sampling Sites and Monitoring Frequencies .............................................................. 20
Table SS-B2: Sample Storage, Preservation and Handling Requirements......................................... 22
Table SS-C1: Assessments and Response Requirements ................................................................ 40
Figures:
Figure SS-A4: Water and Nutrient Budget Study Project Organization Chart................................... 10
Figure SS-B1: Water Quality Monitoring Sample Stations ............................................................. 21
Attachments:
Appendix G Document Adherence Letters for Distribution to Sub-Tier Participants........................... 45
Attachment 1 Chain of Custody form............................................................................................... 49
As described in Section A2 of the
AVS Acid Volatile Sulfide
AWRL Ambient Water Reporting Limit
BMP Best Management Practices
CAR Corrective Action Report
CLI Caddo Lake Institute
COC Chain-of Custody
CRP Clean Rivers Program
DM Data Manager
DMP Data Management Plan
DOC Demonstration of Capability
DQO Data Quality Objective
FCWD Franklin County Water District
FY Fiscal Year
HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.
MDMA Monitoring Data Management & Analysis
N/A Not Applicable
NETMWD Northeast Texas Municipal Water District
PM Project Manager
QA Quality Assurance
QM Quality Manual
QAO Quality Assurance Officer
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QAS Quality Assurance Specialist
QC Quality Control
QMP Quality Management Plan
RBP Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
RL Reporting Limit
RWA Receiving Water Assessment
SC Sampling Coordinator
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SWQM Surface Water Quality Monitoring
TC Technical Coordinator
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TCEQ
TRACS TCEQ Regulatory Activities and Compliance System
TSWQS
VOA Volatile Organic Analytes
WMT Watershed Management Team
As described in Section A3 of the
Jennifer Delk, Project Manager
Clean Rivers Program
MC-165
(512) 239-4712
Sharon Coleman
Acting CRP Lead Quality Assurance Specialist
MC-176
(512) 239-6340
David Manis
Manager, Monitoring Data Management and Analysis Section
MC-165
(512) 239-5853
Northeast Texas Municipal Water District
Walt Sears, Jr., General Manager
(903) 639-7538
HDR Engineering, Inc.
4401 West Gate,
Paul Price, Project Manager Peggy Jones, Quality Assurance Officer/Data Manager
(512) 912-5100 (512) 912-5100
The Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency will provide copies of this project plan and any amendments or appendices of this plan to each person on this list and to each sub-tier project participant, e.g., subcontractors, other units of government, laboratories. The Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency will document distribution of the plan and any amendments and appendices, maintain this documentation as part of the project’s quality assurance records, and will be available for review.”
SS-A4 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION
As described in Section A4 of the
TCEQ
Laurie Curra
CRP Program Manager
Responsible for TCEQ activities supporting the development and implementation of the Texas Clean Rivers Program. Responsible for verifying that the QMP is followed by CRP staff. Supervises TCEQ CRP staff. Reviews and responds to any deficiencies, nonconformances, or findings related to the area of responsibility. Oversees the development of QA guidance for the CRP. Reviews and approves all QA audits, corrective actions, reviews, reports, work plans, contracts, QAPPs, and program QMP. Enforces corrective action, as required, where QA protocols are not met. Ensures CRP personnel are fully trained.
Sharon Coleman
Acting CRP Lead Quality Assurance Specialist
Participates in the development, approval, implementation, and maintenance of written quality assurance standards (e.g., Program Guidance, SOPs, QAPPs, QMP). Assists program and project manager in developing and implementing quality system. Serves on planning team for CRP special projects. Coordinates the review and approval of CRP QAPPs. Prepares and distributes annual audit plans. Conducts monitoring systems audits of Planning Agencies. Concurs with and monitors implementation of corrective actions. Conveys QA problems to appropriate management. Recommends that work be stopped in order to safeguard programmatic objectives, worker safety, public health, or environmental protection. Ensures maintenance of QAPPs and audit records for the CRP.
Jennifer Delk
CRP Project Manager
Responsible for the development, implementation, and maintenance of CRP contracts. Tracks deliverables. Participates in the development, approval, implementation, and maintenance of written quality assurance standards (e.g., Program Guidance, SOPs, QAPPs, QMP). Assists CRP Lead QA Specialist in conducting Planning Agency audits. Verifies QAPPs are being followed by contractors and that projects are producing data of known quality. Coordinates project planning with the Planning Agency Project Manager. Reviews and approves data and reports produced by contractors. Notifies QA Specialists of circumstances which may adversely affect the quality of data derived from the collection and analysis of samples. Develops, enforces, and monitors corrective action measures to ensure contractors meet deadlines and scheduled commitments.
Eric Reese
CRP Data Manager
Responsible for coordination and tracking of CRP data sets from initial submittal through CRP Project Manager review and approval. Performs automated data validation routines and coordinates error correction. Provides quality assured data sets to TCEQ Information Resources in compatible formats for uploading to the statewide database. Generates reports to assist CRP Project Managers’ data review. Provides training and guidance to CRP and Planning Agencies on technical data issues. Reviews and approves data-related portions of program QMP and project-specific QAPPs. Develops and maintains Standard Operating Procedures for CRP data management.
Laurie Curra
CRP Project Quality Assurance Specialist
Serves as liaison between CRP management and TCEQ QA management. Participates in the development, approval, implementation, and maintenance of written quality assurance standards (e.g., Program Guidance, SOPs, QAPPs, QMP). Serves on planning team for CRP special projects. Coordinates documentation and implementation of corrective action for the CRP.
Northeast Texas Municipal Water District
Walt Sears, Jr.
General Manager
Mr. Sears is the Executive Director of the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District (NETMWD) and is a member of the Steering Committee for the Cypress Creek Basin Clean Rivers Program. Mr. Sears will provide coordination and cooperation between the Cypress Creek Basin Steering Committee and HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR).
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Paul Price
As Project Manager, Mr. Price will be responsible for contact and coordination with NETMWD, TCEQ and other entities participating in the Cypress Creek Basin Clean Rivers Program activities. Mr. Price will be responsible for implementing and monitoring CRP requirements in contracts, QAPP’s and QAPP amendments and appendices. Mr. Price will designate HDR Engineering, Inc. staff with subordinate responsibility, and will oversee task progress and deliverables. He will be responsible for Conference Calls, CRP Meetings, Workshops, initial Quality Assurance with the Technical Coordinator and amending the QAPP to reflect any updates. He will also be responsible in performing necessary data analysis and development of conclusions and recommendations in technical deliverables. Ms. Jones and Mr. Thomas will assist Mr. Price as necessary on behalf of the Cypress Creek Basin Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency to ensure that 1) monitoring systems audits are conducted to verify that QAPP’s are followed by the Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency participants; 2) projects are producing data of known quality; 3) subcontractors are qualified to perform contracted work; 4) CRP project managers and/or QA Specialists are notified of deficiencies and nonconformances, and that issues are resolved; and 5) the validation of collected data are acceptable for reporting to the TCEQ.
Peggy Jones
Ms. Jones will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the Quality Assurance program that includes identifying, receiving, and maintaining project quality assurance records. This responsibility includes periodic contacts to obtain updates from the entities conducting monitoring or other activities relevant to the Cypress Creek Basin Clean Rivers Program, obtaining the results of water quality and biological analyses of samples collected by the Cypress Creek Basin field sampling personnel and coordinating with the TCEQ QAS to resolve QA-related issues. Ms Jones will be responsible for the determination and validation of all data collected to ensure the data quality objectives of the project are met and suitable for reporting to the TCEQ. Ms. Jones will notify Mr. Price of particular circumstances which may adversely affect the quality of data. Ms. Jones coordinates and monitors deficiencies, nonconformances and corrective action, coordinates and maintains records of data verification and validation, and coordinates the research and review of technical QA material and data related to water quality monitoring system design and analytical techniques. She will assist with the data management phase of the monitoring systems audit procedures for the Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency.
As the Data Manager, Ms. Jones will be responsible for ensuring that field data are properly reviewed and verified. Ms. Jones will be responsible for the transfer of basin quality-assured water quality and biological data to the TCEQ in a format compatible with the SWQM portion of the TRACS database. The Data Manager will also document task progress and track labor and non-labor expenditures to produce the necessary reimbursement forms and progress reports specified in the CRP contract. Ms. Jones will coordinate with Ms. Riddington to provide current, readily available information for website use. Ms. Jones will be responsible for the basin Data Management Plan and assist Mr. Price and Mr. Thomas in their duties as necessary on behalf of the
Planning Agency.
David Thomas
As Technical Coordinator, Mr. Thomas will be responsible for writing and maintaining the QAPP and monitoring its implementation that involves maintaining records of QAPP distribution (including appendices and amendments) and maintaining written records of sub-tier commitment to requirements specified in this QAPP. Mr. Thomas will be responsible for the supervision (through direct contact with the Sampling Coordinator) of all CRP field activities, including water quality and biological sampling and monitoring, and including equipment preparation, sampling, sample preservation, fieldwork, sample transport, and chain-of-custody maintenance in compliance with the approved QAPP. Mr. Thomas will be responsible for field direction of the biological monitoring efforts, analyzing samples, and producing both field and laboratory biological indices. Mr. Thomas will conduct a monitoring systems audit on the Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency participants to verify and assure compliance specified in the QAPP. In cooperation with the Sampling Coordinator, Mr. Thomas will ensure that field staff is properly trained and that training records are maintained. Mr. Thomas will assist Mr. Price and Ms. Jones in their duties as necessary on behalf of the Cypress Creek Basin Planning Agency.
Dr. Roy Darville
Caddo Lake Institute, Sampling Coordinator
Dr. Darville is a professor and chair of the Department of Biology at East Texas Baptist University and will be responsible for performing field sampling and data processing duties in accordance with standard operating procedures (SOP’s), data quality objectives (DQO’s) and this QAPP, reporting to the Technical Coordinator any deviation from SOP’s or DQO’s, maintaining proper documentation of sampling events, sample preservation, sample shipment, and field procedures at CRP designated stations. Dr. Darville will review data from monitoring events and provide data quality comments to the QAO. Dr. Darville will also participate in the training of local partners interested in participating in the monitoring plan sampling efforts to provide quality assured data for the CRP database and will oversee the work of the monitoring partners during the sampling events.
The sampling staff will be composed of various personnel provided by HDR Engineering, Inc., NETMWD, Franklin County Water District (FCWD), Caddo Lake Institute (CLI) and Titus County Fresh Water Supply District (TCFWSD). The primary responsibility will be to assist the technical and sampling coordinators in performing all field activities, including water quality and biological sampling and monitoring in compliance with the approved QAPP.
Bill Peery, Jr.,
Laboratory Manager, Ana-Lab Corporation
Mr. Peery will provide supervision for laboratory procedures and will serve as the primary point of contact for all laboratory activity conducted by Ana-Lab Corporation.
Roy White
Quality Assurance Officer, Ana-Lab Corporation
Mr. White will provide supervision for laboratory procedures, provide laboratory quality assurance/quality control and will be responsible for updating the laboratory’s QAP.
The Water and Nutrient Budget Study Project Organization Chart is presented in Figure SS-A4.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART
Figure SS-A4 Organization Chart - Lines of Communication
Laurie Curra CRP Program Manager Jennifer Delk CRP Project Manager Sharon Coleman Acting CRP Quality Assurance Specialist Eric Reese CRP Data Manager Walt Sears, Jr. Executive Director NETMWD Laurie Curra CRP Project QA Specialist