20240807-004: WPD EII Quality Assurance Project Plan Part 4 — original pdf

Backup

Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 4 of 4 (Biology) Project #: 216 Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Project Lead: Andrew Clamann Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a tool that was created by the City of Austin’s Watershed Protection Department (WPD) to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method to assess the ecological integrity of Austin’s urban and non-urban streams and determine baseline conditions for targeted protective measures and restoration, thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. The WPD Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division (EMC) has determined the need to revise the EII by applying a new framework, based on the stream functional pyramid developed by Harman et al. (2012), to approach stream assessment by using the enhanced Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model to simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds at any given point. GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model (Zhang et al., 2023). It can simulate the hydrological response of a watershed to specific hydrological and meteorological inputs. With the adoption of the stream functional pyramid approach and the simulation capability of GSSHA, the Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 (EII 2.0) can be a supportive tool to analyze projects and make informed decisions in watershed management that help reduce the impact of anthropogenic influences and environmental issues and to preserve Austin’s aquatic resources. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The revisions to the Environmental Integrity Index program reflected in this QAPP have been largely influenced by the Stream Functions Pyramid (Figure 1) which provides a new framework for approaching stream assessment (Harman et al., 2012). This tool emphasizes the critical role of foundational facets of the stream system from which all other facets are dependent. Success of the ultimate response variable (biology) is influenced by all other underlying layers. Therefore, if the goal of a monitoring program is to facilitate/inform preservation or restoration of ecological integrity, then a bottom- up perspective may be the most effective.  Figure 1. Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman et al., 2012). A framework for approaching stream assessment. For the purpose of the objectives, parameters, and scoring, of the EII 2.0 program, the WPD Applied Watershed Research (AWR) Section adapted the functional pyramid (Figure 2) to apply more directly to the urban environment and to watersheds as a unit instead of streams. The primary difference is that the composition of each level has been simplified and the Hydraulics and Geomorphology levels have been integrated into one layer called “Geomorphology/Hydraulics.” Figure 2. EII 2.0 modified watershed functional pyramid. Each layer in this pyramid has a distinct modeling and monitoring approach. This implicitly includes geology as the underlying and fundamental framework for this pyramid, and the climate around it which drives the hydrologic cycle and many other factors that affect all layers. Project History The EII is a comprehensive biological, chemical and physical monitoring tool designed to assess the ecological integrity and the comparative degree of impairment of Austin’s watersheds. It was originally developed and tested in urban watersheds in 1994 and 1995 and initiated citywide in 1996. The methods of the original program were documented in  Environmental Integrity Index Methodology (City of Austin, 2002). By the year 2000, water quality sampling was conducted quarterly, and the biological and habitat surveys were completed annually. The City of Austin planning watersheds were grouped into three phases with approximately 150 total sites sampled on a three-year rotating basis (~50 sites sampled per year). Phase 1 primarily included the urban watersheds sampled historically under the Water Watchdog volunteer program (Project 20) while Phase 2 and Phase 3 included suburban and developing watersheds. In 2009, the watersheds were regrouped into two phases for sampling on a two-year rotating schedule. This regrouping was designed to increase site visit frequency to improve the resolution of temporal trend evaluation and align with frequency requirements of the Clean Rivers Program of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Although the methods have remained relatively stable over time, the project has evolved slowly due to advancements in technology, staff bandwidth, and state-of-the-science. A retrospective of the project after 25+ years of work indicated that much could be gained with strategic advancements to the program. The EII has been used in the Department’s Master Plan process to evaluate the current water quality conditions of Austin’s watershed. Additionally, it has been used to satisfy a portion of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Perhaps the most valuable product of the EII is a long-term dataset that substantiates a baseline condition from which models can be developed. Objective Zero, a concept which WPD uses to identify target conditions for aspirational environmental goals (Herrington, 2017), could not be efficiently informed by the structure of EII as it existed in 2022. The 2022 fiscal year was the last year of traditional phase-based quarterly water quality sampling and annual biological monitoring; however, a small number of sites were monitored in 2023 to satisfy regulatory obligations. Field data collection and data analysis methods were developed through four subcommittees reflecting the modified watershed functional pyramid: Hydrology, Geomorphology, Physicochemical and Biology. Each subcommittee evaluated the successes and failures of the past 30 years of EII program, reviewed the relevant body of work (both COA projects and literature), and discussed goals and aspirations to meet the needs (both current and future) of the rapidly growing community in the context of climate change and evolving environmental stressors. Previous Annual EII Reports • Water Watchdog Water Quality Report SR-94-01 • Environmental Integrity Index (EII) Phase 2 (2001) Watersheds Report SR-03-11 • Environmental Integrity Index Phase 1 (2003) Watersheds Report SR-06-04 • EII Phase II (2004) Watersheds Report SR-06-01 • Environmental Integrity Index Phase 3 (2005) Watershed Summary Report SR-06-10 • Environmental Integrity Index Phase 1 (2006) Watershed Summary Report SR-07-11 • Environmental Integrity Index Phase II Watershed Summary Report SR-08-10 • Environmental Integrity Index Phase 3 (2008) Watershed Summary Report SR-09-06 • Environmental Integrity Index Phase I and II (2009-2010) Watershed Summary Report SR-12-01 • Environmental Integrity Index Annual Report 2011-2012 SR-13-18 • Environmental Integrity Index Phase I and II (2013-2014) Watershed Summary Report SR-15-08 • Environmental Integrity Index Phase I & II (2015-2016) Watershed Summary Report SR-19-08 Previous EII Methodology and Related Reports • Bioassessment Strategies for Nonpoint Source Polluted Creeks CM-96-01 • Environmental Integrity Index Methodology CM-99-01 • Effects of Hydrology on Bioassessment in Austin, Texas SR-00-02 • Water Resource Evaluation Standard Operating Procedures Manual SR-04-04, revised 2015 • Recolonization and Succession of Macroinvertebrate Communities During Drought & Flood SR-04-12 • A Revision of Environmental Integrity Index (EII) Diatom Metrics SR-02-03 • A review of surface water quality trends in streams and reservoirs in Austin:1994-2018 SR-18-03 • Comparison of surber (COA) & Kicknet (TCEQ) benthic macroinvertebrate sampling methods SR-07-10 • Flow and impervious cover thresholds in aquatic communities in Austin SR-15-12 • Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrate QC Detritus Samples, Detection Probabilities and Potential Impacts to EII Scores SR-16-15  • Benthic Macroinvertebrate Indicators of Water Quality Degradation SR-19-01 • Linking Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics to Stream Hydrology using Functional Data Analysis DR-20-01 Project Objectives EII 2.0 (Project 216) will continue the functional objective of EII (Project 16) to primarily communicate a city-wide assessment of water quality and watershed health to internal and external stakeholders, in addition to providing context and informing COA watershed health problem identification, prioritization, and solution planning. The Biology QAPP is one component of EII 2.0 that seeks to inform the top, or response variables, of the Stream Functional Pyramid with the following objectives: 1. Collect biological (benthic macroinvertebrate and diatom) rapid bioassessment data at selected sites to validate the estimated scores and/or metrics for all sites in the model network. 2. Annually calculate Index of Riparian Integrity scores using available geospatial data to assess riparian integrity in each of the model network reaches. Policy Relation Results from the EII 2.0 monitoring program will be used as an environmental input to the Watershed Health Decision Support System (WHDSS). This system is a part of the Department’s Strategic Plan in prioritizing its work in either improving or preserving stream conditions throughout the City, while incorporating equity. Specifically, through WHDSS, the EII 2.0 will identify those streams that require environmental mitigation or protection (or some combination of both). Some EII 2.0 data will be submitted as a component of our regulatory requirements to TCEQ in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit and obligations associated with the Clean Rivers Program (CRP) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Summary scores (of observed and estimated) bug and diatoms along with watershed health status will be shared with City Council, Boards and Commissions, other COA Departments and the citizens in the State of the Environment annual report, as well as through an interactive website. Project Committee The EII 2.0 project has four separate QAPP committees structured in accordance with the modified functional pyramid: Hydrology, Hydraulics/ Geomorphology, Physicochemical, and Biology. The biology committee structure (ARCI) is detailed in Table 1. Table 1. EII 2.0 Biology QAPP Committee Structure* Role Personnel Planning Data Analysis Modelling Report Collection I Writing A Project Manager Mateo Scoggins Project Lead Data Manager GIS Analysis Data Analyst Andrew Clamann Rob Clayton Yazmin Avila Julia Siegmund Committee Member Bianca Perez Lead Taxonomist Todd Jackson Committee Member Abel Porras A R R C R C R R A C C C C R I C A R R R C C C C A C R R C C R R C R I I C C *A = Accountable (ensures project has needed resources, held accountable if not completed); R = Responsible (leads development of study components, performs and delegates tasks, reviews deliverables before deemed complete); C = Consulted (specialist in specific component of study, available for comments); I = Informed (kept in the loop, comments optional)  Analysis Laboratory Benthic macroinvertebrate enumeration, identification, and storage shall continue to be conducted within the City of Austin Watershed Protection Department laboratory and completed by City of Austin staff as it has been for the previous three decades. Diatom enumeration, identification, and reporting shall be conducted by a contract lab. Table 2. Laboratories Lab Contract Analysis Type Diatom Identification City of Austin WPD Benthic Macroinvertebrate Identification Personnel Time Table 3. Estimated Time Budget Task Project Management Taxonomist/QC Officer Field Data Management Reporting Personnel Andrew Clamann Todd Jackson AWR (various) DA/DS (various) AWR (various) Work Time Estimated 80hrs annually Estimated 250hrs annually Estimated 200hrs annually Estimated 80hrs annually Estimated 80hrs annually Project Funding This project will be funded by the operating budget. Estimated cost for diatom samples from contract lab are approximately $200 per sample for which the proposed site list of 24 sites can be reasonably assumed to be $4,800. Estimated cost for benthic macroinvertebrate ID are included in the overall in-house staff time budget which also includes planning, preparation, field, analysis, data management and reporting time. Table 4. Project Funding Sources FDU (Fund Department Unit) 5100 6300 3140 (field, benthic and diatom processing) Project Schedule Data generated for the EII 2.0 QAPP 4 of 4 (biology) is a component of Project 216. Q1 of each fiscal year (preferably October) shall include a field reconnaissance of randomly selected sites (see Field Methods) plus any new stormwater sites to determine that each of the desired sites are accessible, safe, and contain appropriate habitat (see Field Methods section). Sample collection covered under this QAPP is anticipated to begin Q3 of FY 2024 and shall continue for the purpose of model validation in perpetuity until otherwise modified by QAPP Acceptance Subcommittee consensus. Biological monitoring field work will target the TCEQ “index period” of March 15 to October 15, with lab identification and data entry completion by the end of Q4. One of the four quarterly water quality sample events described in EII 2.0 QAPP 3 of 4 (physicochemical) shall precede the start of the annual biological sampling event such that the water quality data can be paired with biological data. Index of Riparian Integrity (IRI) scores will be calculated biennially in Q1 using the most current GIS data available for analysis. Table 5. Project Schedule Target FY Q1 FY Q2 FY Q3 FY Q4 Following FY Q1 Oct Following FY Q1 Nov Following FY Q1 Dec Field reconnaissance of selected random sites ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Field data collection Taxonomic Identification Annual report drafting Annual report review Modeling and Analytical Methods Analysis to Select Metrics for Biological Community Scoring Historically, the EII program used 9 community metrics for benthic macroinvertebrates and 4 community metrics for diatoms averaged into an Aquatic Life Use score. Extensive analysis was performed on WPD historical data to assess the response of these metrics plus over 50 others to four relevant environmental stressors (conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and impervious cover). These four stressors were found to be suitable variables with strong correlations to community integrity with identifiable thresholds for community changes (King, 2021). The additional metrics that were assessed include community metrics commonly used in scientific literature, as well as a newly developed Austin-area specific Pollution Tolerance Index (PTI) that was created during this process. Local historical data was used to develop a regional PTI metric that reflects the sensitivity of taxa to each of the four stressors. This new PTI metric was analyzed along with the other metrics. The biological metrics that are selected for calculation of the EII 2.0 biology score must respond well to changes in the other levels of the Stream Functional Pyramid to accurately estimate scores based on the other levels. This analysis ensures that biological metrics are chosen based on observed response to environmental stressors. A Spearman Rank Correlation was run on all possible metric and stressor pairs to quantify the stressor/metric relationship and select the metrics that respond best to the stressors. Model to Estimate Biology Scores A model built in Watershed Modeling System (WMS) using GSSHA and deep learning will use input time series data to estimate Biology Scores representing benthic macroinvertebrate and diatom community integrity. This model is a deterministic 2-D gridded model that uses land use, impervious cover, and a digital elevation map as its inputs along with precipitation and meteorological data as its forcing function to determine time series of hydrology, geomorphology, and physicochemistry at each grid in the stream. These time series are then input into an artificial neural network, which takes each time step from the time series (in this case, daily averages of flow, sediment flux, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) as discrete inputs and assigns weights through various hidden network layers to minimize the error in estimating the outputs of the corresponding bug and diatom metrics/scores. Approximately 80% of this data (years 2011- 2022) will be used by the artificial neural network to train the data. The remaining 20% will be used to test (or validate) the data. Bug and diatom data going forward will be used to validate the model. Index of Riparian Integrity The Index of Riparian Integrity (IRI) does not include a nexus with modeling, and analysis is limited to a GIS exercise using the most recent aerial photography and in-house data. IRI is a GIS-based tool that efficiently evaluates land cover in riparian zones, where buildings and paved surfaces are represented as impervious cover (IC), tree cover over pervious surfaces is represented by tree canopy (TC), and pervious surfaces without trees (only herbaceous vegetation or bare soil) is represented as pervious cover (PC) (City of Austin, 2021). The IRI tool looks at the distribution of these 3 types of cover (IC, TC, PC) in the Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ) of all of Austin’s creeks and applies a scoring criterion that qualitatively assesses the riparian area of our monitoring sites. The method is based on local available GIS data maintained by COA (Impervious Cover and Tree Canopy). The process is detailed below: 1. Processing of GIS data within the CWQZ.  2. Calculation of proportion of the 3 types of cover within the CWQZ areas intersecting with incremental drainage areas of monitoring sites. Areas not identified as IC or TC will be designated as PC. 3. Calculation of score using IRI equation: IRI = (100*TC + 55*PC) * (1 – IC) Field and Experimental Methods Sample Collection Timing Benthic macroinvertebrates and diatoms (periphyton) shall be collected within the TCEQ index period (March 15 to October 15) following one of the quarterly water quality sample events (see QAPP 3 of 4 Physicochemical) sampling so that water quality data can be paired with biological data. Site Selection Process Biological samples will be collected and identified pursuant to methods defined for screening level rapid bioassessments in the EMC Standard Operating Procedures manual (City of Austin, 2020). This protocol primarily includes a three- Surber composite and three-rock periphyton composite collected from within appropriate habitat as described in this section. Appropriate habitat will ideally be a large, shallow, stable, riffle that is typically a natural grade control feature primarily composed of cobble. However, not all stream reaches will contain this ideal scenario, therefore, appropriate habitat may be the best available habitat that may also include emergent/submergent vegetation, boulders, and other complex instream substrates. Within a sample year, water quality and bioassessments will be conducted at long term, stormwater, and randomly selected sites. Long term monitoring sites are established sites that have been monitored over several years for the EII (Project 16) and are therefore confirmed to have appropriate habitat for bioassessment and water quality monitoring. To ensure that newly established stormwater stations and randomly selected sites include appropriate habitat prior to initiating any sampling, a reconnaissance of any new site shall be conducted as follows: • During Q1 (preferably Oct) of each year the QAPP committee will determine if any new stormwater stations will be added or replaced and the DA/DS Section Manager will oversee a stratified random site list selection that generates a total of 90 random sites composed of 10 random sites for each of the eight clusters, plus 10 random sites for a waste- water effluent driven stream. • The Project Lead will oversee a site reconnaissance of any new stormwater stations in addition to a sufficient number of sites from the random site list to secure a total of nine sites (one from each cluster and one from effluent-driven stream) that have appropriate habitat. • Reconnaissance will begin at the GSSHA model point and proceed upstream within the GSSHA reach (3000ft) to find the best available riffle habitat upstream of- and as close to- the GSSHA model point (for random sites) or the stormwater station (for stormwater sites). Site reconnaissance of new stormwater or random sites may require contacting landowner(s). • If a stormwater station’s associated riffle within the GSSHA modeled reach is inaccessible, unsafe, or does not contain appropriate habitat, then the next GSSHA reach upstream shall be inspected to find an appropriate riffle habitat. If any randomly selected site is inaccessible, unsafe, or does not contain appropriate habitat, then the unsuitability of the site will be documented in Appendix A (Change Log) and the next site on the list for the respective cluster shall be the target of the next reconnaissance. • Once a site has been identified within the GSSHA reach 1) the latitude and longitude of the riffle shall be recorded, 2) a WRM site name/number shall be assigned, and 3) Table 6 and Appendix A shall be updated to reflect the updated site information. The Project Lead should determine that all sites have appropriate habitat prior to any samples being collected for the year. If suitable riffle habitat does not persist at the time of survey (e.g., no flow at riffle) alternative sample collection methods may be employed such as forcing water through a Surber sampler placed on suitable substrate (gravel/cobble).  Field Preservation and Sample Identification Macroinvertebrates shall be preserved in the field with detritus/substrate in Nalgene (or similar) bottles with 90% ethyl alcohol in the field prior to laboratory identification. Samples with little organic matter can remain in the lab with this field preservation for up to one month, however, samples with a high percentage of organic matter should be drained using a 500 µm (or smaller) screen and fresh alcohol replaced within a few days of collection. Diatoms shall be collected in 250ml amber plastic bottles and preserved upon arrival at the WPD EMC laboratory with 10% buffered formalin (8 ml per 250 ml sample) and refrigerated until delivery to diatomist. IRI data shall be calculated for all sites programmatically during the fall (prior to Dec 1) using the most recent GIS information. Sample Locations/maps Biological samples shall be collected during baseflow conditions annually from stormwater, long-term, and randomly selected sites. A site may be included in more than one category and additional sites collected with the same sample methodology may be used to validate the EII 2.0 model. • Stormwater sites: Biological samples shall be collected at appropriate riffle habitat closest to the stormwater monitoring station. Ideally, the riffle should be located within the same GSSHA 3,000ft reach, however, stormwater monitoring stations are designed in a stream based on adventitious channel morphology without consideration of biological habitat, and therefore appropriate riffle habitat may not exist within the same reach. If appropriate habitat does not exist within the reach, the next nearest GSSHA reach (upstream or downstream) with a suitable riffle will be sampled under a different site number and the data for the two different sites will be paired for the purpose of model validation. • Long-term sites: Biological samples shall be collected annually at designated long-term sites to provide insight for temporal and spatial trends (both climatic and anthropogenic). Long-term sites are those that have an extensive history of monitoring within the EII program (Project 16) and are known to have stable suitable riffle habitat. Long-term sites may change as necessary. • Randomly selected sites: Nine randomly selected sites will be sampled annually: one site for each of the eight modelled clusters in addition to one site characterizing wastewater-driven streams. At the beginning of each fiscal year, a list of 10 random sites from each of the eight modelled clusters plus one wastewater-driven stream (total of 90 sites) shall be generated resulting in a stratified random list. The Project Lead and/or delegates will perform reconnaissance on random sites to assure that at least one site for each cluster is safe, includes appropriate riffle habitat, and is physically/legally accessible (this may require property owner authorization). If the selected random site is dry during the Index Period, then an alternate site from the initial random list may be selected as a substitute for biological sampling. Although not specified within this QAPP, other sites that are sampled for biology pursuant to other QAPPs may be used, opportunistically, for model validation if sample protocols are the same. Based on these and other considerations, the site list and total number of sites per category/cluster (Table 6) will change over time. Table 6. Sample site list Site ID Site Short Name Stormwater Long term Random** Cluster ID 51 Barton @ Lost Creek Blvd 142 Bull @ Spicewood Springs Rd 7th crossing 3068 Elm @ FM969 1192 Gilleland @ FM 973 2956 Onion @ Ped Xing south of William Cannon 233 Rinard @ Bradshaw Rd 623 Slaughter @ FM1826 5285 Walnut @ Metric Blvd 463 Wells Branch @ Walnut Creek Park Rd 180 Blunn @ Riverside X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2 4 5 5 * 8 1 3 6 7 7  2754 Boggy @ Manor 231 Marble @ William Cannon 612 Onion @ FM 150 1366 Onion @ SAR 624 Waller @ 23rd TBD Annual random site representing Cluster 1 TBD Annual random site representing Cluster 2 TBD Annual random site representing Cluster 3 TBD Annual random site representing Cluster 4 TBD Annual random site representing Cluster 5 TBD Annual random site representing Cluster 6 TBD Annual random site representing Cluster 7 TBD Annual random site representing Cluster 8 TBD Annual random site representing ww effluent * Although site 1192 and one random site are located within one of the eight clusters of the model, these sites have been selected to characterize streams that are driven by wastewater effluent. Site 612 is not in a modeled cluster. ** Random sites shall be selected at the beginning of each fiscal year, site coordinates to be added to Appendix A. 7 1 * 8 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TBD* X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Figure 3. Sample site location map of the nine stormwater stations and nine routine long-term stations (three of which overlap with stormwater). The nine randomly selected sample sites are not shown. The preference is to input the new EII 2.0 sites to existing sites in the WRM database, so new data can be compared to historic data. All EII 2.0 sites will be inputted as the nearest existing EII site unless a site does not exist at that location or exceeds a reasonable distance (~50 feet) to be listed as the same site. If this occurs a new site will be added to the database. Note that since site equipment must be mounted near solid structures, in some instances this tolerance was exceeded.  IRI data is calculated through GIS analysis programmatically for all GSSHA points (see Figure 4) of the GSSHA model in accordance with the protocols described in the EII 2.0 methods document. Figure 4. Locations of all GSSHA modelled points for which IRI analysis will be conducted using the most recent GIS data Sample Conditions Biological samples will be collected annually within the index period (March 15 to October 15) under baseflow conditions. Biological sample events will not occur immediately after a storm event in which scouring the substrate occurs, as described in the EMC Standard Operating Procedures manual for routine rapid biological assessments. Evidence of a scouring event includes indicators such as a dominance of fresh deposition, tumbled cobble, fresh debris lines high in the floodplain, etc. The best professional judgement shall be used to determine how long sample collection shall be detained after a storm event based on the severity of flow, however two weeks shall be the default delay. Field Notes and Site Parameters At each site, the lead field staff (typically a benthic macroinvertebrate taxonomist) shall record the following minimum data: o Field staff names o COA flow type: “N” no flow or “B” baseflow (“S” storm and “E” should not be used) o TCEQ flow severity code (2351) o Field notes such as salient site conditions including, but not limited to, clarity/color/odor/etc. o 3 Photographs: top facing upstream, bottom facing upstream (riffle), bottom facing downstream o Flow measurement (138) and method (e.g., Marsh McBirney, gage, estimate, etc.) o Bug Sample Method (e.g., composite surber, composite kicknet, subsampled surber, subsampled kicknet) o Number of surbers (2080) (if surber used), or kicknet area sampled (2124) and total time (1539) o Number of grids (2999) if subsampled  o Diatom comments (include staff collecting, and any other information about method implementation) o Benthic comments (include staff collecting, number of vials, and any other information about method implementation including specimens released and taxa collected during the large/rare scan if subsampled) Number of Samples Two benthic macroinvertebrate and two diatom samples shall be collected at each site annually for all sites. The first of the two samples will be designated for processing/identification and the second sample shall be labelled “duplicate” and will remain preserved in the lab until the Project Lead determines that it is (or is not) necessary for the purpose of supporting the results of the initial sample. For example, if the results of the first sample are outside of the confidence limit intervals determined by the model, then it would increase confidence that the first sample adequately characterized the biological community if a duplicate sample yielded similar results. Unprocessed duplicate samples shall be stored in the laboratory at least until such time as the annual EII 2.0 score/model review deems unnecessary and disposed of no later than the publication date of the annual report. QA/QC All field data will be recorded in the fulcrum application, loaded into the WRM database as “P locked” and then reviewed by the Project Lead or a designated QC officer to “F lock”. Data entered by benthic taxonomist shall be entered manually, then P/F locked by Lead Taxonomist or delegate of the Lead Taxonomist. Data submitted by Diatomist shall be screened prior to entry for synonymy/new species/etc., uploaded as P locked, and then F locked by Project Lead or delegate of Project Lead. QA/QC for data entry will follow QMP procedures and laboratory QA/QC flags will be stored in WRM. QC for field/lab sorting/processing, sample disposition, reference collection vouchers, and taxonomic quality assurance shall follow procedures described in the Standard Operating Procedures. Assumptions The assumption is made that the biological collection methods sufficiently characterize the riffle biological community at each site at the time of sampling. The IRI method assumes that aerial photography and GIS attributes accurately characterizes two categories: impervious cover and pervious area covered by canopy; an assumption was made that if land cover was not impervious cover or tree canopy, then it was pervious cover and assumed to be the delta of the area that was not the other two. Tree canopy over impervious cover (IC) is considered IC. Reporting An annual report will be prepared to summarize progress in data collection and whether model needs are met. A decision will be made then on whether sampling strategies need to be adjusted for the following sample year. Information will be available to the public via a web-based interactive map (www.atxwatersheds.com/findyourwatershed/ or similar) with the most current modelled results. Raw data will be reposited in the WRM database and made available through Socrata portal. Distribution The QAPP is available in the WPD SharePoint. The project lead is responsible for informing all committee members via email if significant changes are proposed to the QAPP. Change Procedures Change Procedures: The Project Lead will maintain this QAPP. Proper document management procedures are followed during any update and the QAPP will be locked for editing. The original approved QAPP will be kept as documentation and any changes to the are summarized in the QAPP Revision History section below.  QAPP Acceptance Subcommittee This QAPP and subsequent substantive changes shall be ratified by consensus of the QAPP Acceptance Subcommittee. Table 7. QAPP Acceptance Subcommittee Role Project Manager Name Mateo Scoggins Date of Acceptance 11/13/2023 (!) Hydrology Project Lead (QAPP 1 of 4) Christina Bryant 11/13/2023 Hydraulics/Geomorphology Project Lead (QAPP 2 of 4) Zhen Xu Physicochemical Project Lead (QAPP 3 of 4) Angel Santiago Biology Project Lead (QAPP 4 of 4) Andrew Clamann 11/13/2023 Data Manager and GIS Analysis Data Analyst Lead taxonomist Yazmin Avila Julia Siegmund Todd Jackson 11/13/2023 11/14/2023 11/14/2023 11/13/2023 11/13/2023 QAPP Revision History The date, contact name, and brief description for all substantive changes to this QAPP shall be documented in the Revision History (Table 8). Legislative markup or other details documenting the specific changes (as necessary) shall be added to Appendix A Change Log. Table 8. Revision History Date Modified by Modification Description Date of QAPP Acceptance Subcommittee approval References City of Austin, 2002. Environmental Integrity Index Methodology. Environmental Resources Management Division, Watershed Protection Department, City of Austin. Water Quality Report Series COA-ERM 1999-01. https://services.austintexas.gov/watershed_protection/publications/document.cfm?id=186267. City of Austin, 2020. Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Standard Operating Procedures Manual 2019. Watershed Protection Department. Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division. City of Austin, Texas. Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006. Herrington, C.S. 2017. Objective Zero: Improving the water quality mission objectives of the Watershed Protection Department. SR-18-02, City of Austin, Watershed Protection Department. https://services.austintexas.gov/watershed_protection/publications/document.cfm?id=292410  King, Ryan S. 2021. Identification of stream diatom and macroinvertebrate community thresholds in response to stressors of concern in the Austin metropolitan area. Titan Ecological Analytics. City of Austin, Watershed Protection Department Professional Services Agreement, Contract #MA 6300 NA190000235 TCEQ 2023. Surface Water Quality Monitoring Procedures, Volume 2: Methods for Collecting and Analyzing Biological Assemblage and Habitat Data. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/publications/rg/rg-416  Appendix A Change Log Appendix B Annual Coordinated Monitoring Plan regulatory application Site # Site Name notes r e t a w m r o t S m r e T g n o L m o d n a R CRP1 TMDL1 MS4 MS4 MS4 storm bio Ecoli WQ BIO TCEQ # 233 Rinard @ Bradshaw Rd X X 4x X 142 Bull @ Spicewood 1st Xing 3068 Elm @ FM969 463 Wells Branch @ WLN Park 623 Slaughter @ FM1826 5285 Walnut @ Metric Blvd 2956 Onion @ Ped xing S of W.Cannon 51 Barton @ Lost Creek Blvd X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * * X * X X X 350 Bull Creek at Loop 360 930 Spicewood Springs trib to SHL 318 Taylor Slough South @ Reed 612 Onion at FM 150 503 Walnut at SPRR X 1192 Gilleland @ FM 973 X X 4x X *Alternate MS4 Stormwater site 4x X *Alternate MS4 Stormwater site 4x X 4x X *Alternate MS4 Stormwater site 4x X Can’t be an alternate MS4 Stormwater site because its USGS equipmnent. MS4 Stormwater site Collected annually and reported annually to all partners 4x X Collected annually for EII 2.0. What projects receive this report (TMDL or MS4)? 4x X *Alternate MS4 Stormwater site 4x X Alternate MS4 Stormwater site Collected annually for EII 2.0, MS4, and long-term monitoring, but only reported in odd-numbered years for TMDL. CRP QAPP for 2024 is wrong and needs an amendment. Even-numbered years. Suggest removing from LCRA CRP for FY2025 and replace with an Site 233 RIN @ Bradshaw on an annual basis starting in FY2025. Collected and reported annually for TMDL (nutrients and E. coli only) Collected and reported annually for TMDL (nutrients and E. coli only) 4x X Collected annually for long term monitoring, but reported to CRP in even-numbered years. Collected in odd-numbered years for CRP. Recommend removing from CRP in FY2024 and replacing with Site 1366 ONI @ SAR on an annual 4x 4x 4x 4x basis starting in FY2025 for CRP only. What other projects receive this report (TMDL or MS4)? 4x 4x LCRA CRP QAPP FY2024 states this site will be monitored in conjunction with EII, which is not true. Ignore that comment in the QAPP. This site is monitored quarterly every year. Collected during odd-numbered years for TMDL, but NOT in even- numbered years. CRP QAPP for 2024 is wrong and needs an amendment. What projects receive this report (TMDL or MS4)? 4x What projects receive this report (TMDL or MS4)? 38 Waller at Cesar Chavez paused 4x On hold, construction, will likely drop 624 Waller at 23rd X 497 Walnut at Loop 1 X 1191 Gilleland @ West Parsons X X X X X X X X X X X X X ? ? X X X X X X ? ? 231 Marble at William Cannon X 781 Waller at Shipe 502 Walnut at Old Manor 464 Walnut at IH35 2754 Boggy at Manor 180 Blunn at Riverside 1366 Onion at SAR TBD Cluster 1 annual random site TBD Cluster 2 annual random site TBD Cluster 3 annual random site TBD Cluster 4 annual random site TBD Cluster 5 annual random site TBD Cluster 6 annual random site TBD Cluster 7 annual random site TBD Cluster 8 annual random site TBD Cluster 9 annual random site 4x X 4x 4x 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X 4x X  4462 Wilbarger at Gregg Ln 5477 Wilbarger Creek upstream of Bitting School Road 13555 Bee Creek West @ Bee Creek Rd W of Lakeway 13558 Hamilton Creek u/s from Hamilton Pool 13561 Maha Creek @ Linden Rd, W of Cedar Creek 13562 Maha Creek @ Maha Loop E of Creedmoor 13556 Big Sandy Creek @ Nameless Rd 13557 Cow Creek @ Singleton Bend Rd 13559 Lick Creek West @ Pedernales Canyon 13560 Lick Creek East @ Pedernales Canyon Dr Dr 316 Deer Creek @ Running Deer Trail (AST) 1224 Bear Creek (West) @ Fritz Hughes Park Rd. TCONR 01 Bee Creek @ Loop 360 TCONR Cypress Creek u/s FM 2769 ** ** TCOEQMP odd yrs ** ** TCOEQMP odd yrs ** ** TCOEQMP odd yrs ** ** TCOEQMP odd yrs ** ** TCOEQMP odd yrs ** ** TCOEQMP odd yrs ** ** TCOEQMP even yrs ** ** TCOEQMP even yrs ** ** TCOEQMP even yrs ** ** TCOEQMP even yrs ** ** TCOEQMP even yrs ** ** TCOEQMP even yrs ** ** TCO TNRP ** ** TCO TNRP  TCONR TCONR TCONR 02 03 04 05 S.A.S. Tributary to Cypress Cr Long Hollow Creek u/s of FM2769 @ Wheless Preserve Hamilton Cr d/s Hamilton Pool ** ** TCO TNRP ** ** TCO TNRP ** ** TCO TNRP *baseflow water quality samples for TMDL and CRP must be processed at a NELAP accredited lab for data that is submitted to the TCEQ