1. The Utility of Spatially Explicit Parameters in Phosphorus Water Quality Monitoring Graduate Student: Mark Breunig Graduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley 1

2. 2 1.Background Information 2.Objectives 3.Methods 4.Discussion PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

3. 3 1.Background Information 2.Objectives 3.Methods 4.Discussion PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

4. PHOSPHORUS Eutrophication …Models, Legislation

5. 2001 – 157 sites 2002 – 78 sites 2003 – 5 sites Total: 240 sites R 2 = 43% p < 0.001

6. Water Chemistryug/l Secchi Depth106 Suspended Chlorophyll a 70 Average for category88 Benthic Benthic Chlorophyll a 39 Diatom Nutrient Index 57 Diatom Siltation Index 74 Diatom Biotic Index 72 Average for category61 Macroinvertebrates Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 88 Percent EPT Individuals 87 Percent EPT Taxa 91 Average for category 89 Fish Fish IBI 55 Percent Carnivores 55 Percent Intolerant 67 Average for category 59 Average of category averages 74 Total Phosphorus concentrations proposed by work group (ug/l) Least Impacted Reference Condition Minimum EffectCriteria Possible use in implementation Factor in ORW consideration Factor in ERW consideration Enforcement Level Streams – intermittent, headwater and mainstem for cold, cool and warm water natural communities 506074 Rivers5075103

7. PHOSPHORUS Although efforts are underway to set stream standards in Wisconsin and elsewhere, there is still controversy regarding the mechanisms that control stream phosphorous concentrations. This represents a collective misunderstanding of the fundamental processes that control water quality at the catchment scale (Boomer et al. 2008).

8. 8 WHAT? spatially explicit…

9. 9 27% Land Use X

10. 10 27% Land Use X

11. 11 spatially explicit parameters… the location of landscape features within a watershed is significant -why?- flow path characteristics are a “driving factor” in this process

12. 12 flow path characteristics surface overland flow only distance time topography connectivity run-on – cumulative effects?

13. 13 1.Background Information 2.Objectives 3.Methods 4.Discussion PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

14. 14 Objectives Derive spatially explicit parameters Demonstrate the utility of spatially explicit parameters

15. 15 1.Background Information 2.Objectives 3.Methods 4.Discussion PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

16. 16 Methods attempting to improve explained variation in observed data set Asses the utility of spatial parameters by… observed data set => over 200 sites across Wisconsin wade-able streams fixed monthly summer sampling Source: USGS

17. 2001 – 157 sites 2002 – 78 sites 2003 – 5 sites Total: 240 sites R 2 = 43% p < 0.001

18. 18 Methods 30m DEM - USGS 30m 2001 NALCD – USGS SSURGO (feature) – NRCS Robertson Watersheds Sampling Locations Raw Data – Water Quality Results Details of data management

19. 19 Methods Details of data management OPERATION SSURGO Visual Basic/Arc Objects: For each county in Wisconsin 1.Query SSURGO database 2.Export query results as table 3.Join table to shapefile 4.Shapefile to 30m raster Next

20. 20 Methods Details of data management OPERATION FLOWPATH Visual Basic/Arc Objects: For each pixel in watershed Calculate spatially explicit metric along flowpath Next

21. 21 1.Background Information 2.Objectives 3.Methods 4.Discussion PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

22. Σ ( e FL ag * β ) Σ ( e FL all * β ) Pixel Value (proportion – no units)

23. 23 Potential Barriers In Recognizing Signal SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE MATHMATICS WATER QUALITY METRIC BOUNDARY DELINEATION RANDOMNESS

24. 24 SPATIAL SCALE

25. s Field-Scale vs. Basin-Scale Do remotely sensed basin-scale observations adequately represent surface overland flow paths? …sometimes *snap plus *micro-topology

26. Resolution Is 30m resolution enough? pixel

27. TEMPORAL SCALE

28. Properly Considering Time Is it appropriate to model surface overland flow path characteristics as a “long-term annual average” or must the time step be smaller? *wet years/dry years *variations in rainfall distribution *hour/minute time step – saturated areas

29. MATHMATICS

30. SUMMARY STATISTICS What is the best way of summarizing flow path characteristics for thousands of pixels – measures of central tendency?

31. WATER QUALITY METRIC

33. BOUNDARY DELINEATION

34. 34 27% Land Use X

35. 35 27% of “Watershed” not contributing but… % LU changes only 1% RANDOM SPATIAL CONFIGURATION?

36. HYDROLOGIC CONNECTIVITY Can the utility of spatially explicit parameters be demonstrated without accurately modeling hydrologic connectivity?

37. …Continued efforts generate a suite of spatially explicit parameters test utility of parameters

38. The Utility of Spatially Explicit Parameters in Phosphorus Water Quality Monitoring Graduate Student: Mark Breunig Graduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley 38