currentwaterquality.montana.edu/temp-pages/604/files-images/... · web viewland use specific...

Water Quality Monitoring Methods Selection Guide

Updated 05/12/2019Authors:W. Adam Sigler Water Quality Associate SpecialistMontana State University Extension Water Quality

Katie MakarowskiWater Quality SpecialistMontana Department of Environmental Quality

Eric Trum

Mark Ockey

Holly Kreiner

Sigler, W Adam, 06/05/19,

From Tracy’s email:Hi Adam. I have to warn you that I really, really enjoy editing and sometimes I get pretty bogged down in it. So it looks like a lot of comments on this...hope you're not sorry you asked!Overall it's really, really good info. The main comment I had is that as I read it the first time, I had trouble remembering what the goal was of the document. Was it to help me write a SAP/SOP? Was it to understand the steps or reasons for monitoring a project/site/action? So I did some work on the intro paragraph and then throughout the document adding text to connect information back to the goal - to help select data collection methods. For example, the five sections were great info, but I kept forgetting why you guys were telling me all this - it's to help me think about which methods will tell me what I want to know, right? Because why I'm collecting data and what I'm trying to find out is key to which methods I pick. So I added text along those lines. Take or leave any of it - maybe I just wasn't getting it and it's not necessary.I'm looking at the other doc you sent now, too. TW

Document Sections

1. Current Conditions................................................................................................................. 6

2. Pollution source assessment..................................................................................................8

3. Project Effectiveness............................................................................................................ 10

4. Trend.................................................................................................................................... 12

5. Outreach and Education.......................................................................................................14

6. Glossary of Terms.................................................................................................................16

7. Additional Resources............................................................................................................16

8. Parameters of Interest (list compiled from all sections).......................................................16

tracy wendt, 05/31/19,

Document pages are not numbered

How to use this guide

The purpose of this guide is to provide guidance to identify monitoring objectives and appropriate monitoring methods to achieve objectives.

Step 1: State goals Prior to using this guide to determine your monitoring objectives, parameters of interest, and data collection methods, it is important to clarify the desired outcome of your data collection effort by establishing goals for your efforts. The sections of this document are organized around different types of goals.

Step 2: Identify objectives and associated parameters of interest

Browse the list of general objectives and associated parameters in this document. Use

the examples to help articulate your own detailed objectives, including which include

specific parameters of interest. This document includes several general

objectives to provide ideas, but these are missing the specifics needed to make your

objectives complete. We have also provided a few examples of detailed objectives for

guidance (see the box below).Step 3: Identify Select methods associated with selected identified parameters As part of writing your objectives in the previous step, you should have selected parameter(s) of interest. Next, see the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guide in Appendix 1 to find an overview and step-by step methods for data collection for your parameter(s). Select methods to implement based on the parameters you have identified. Information in the SOP guide can should be adapted to develop your own SOPs for sampling and data analysis (Step 4).

Step 4: Write your SAP and SOP

After you have determined stated your goals, identified parameters, articulated and objectives, and selected methods, summarize that information into a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). MDEQ has provides additional guidance for developing a SAP (referenced in the Additional

An objective is more focused and outlines specific and measurable steps for achieving your goal. It should typically start with the word “To” and include all or most of the following: A specific parameter or group of

parameters A specific location or reach of a

waterbody A relevant timeframe Specific context if it is central to

A goal is a desired outcome from an effort and can be relatively broad.

Example Goal 1: Address the algae concern in Spring Creek. (related to current conditions; Section 1)Example Goal 2: Identify pollution source(s) that are contributing to impairments in Dell Creek. (related to source assessment; Section 2)

Example Objective: To determine changes in nitrate concentration between point A and point B, during July and August, in the town section of Dell Creek, where the highest septic system density occurs. (related to general objective and parameters of interest in


I made some edits to help connect this summary back to the steps detailed above. Also, we all know what MDEQ is, but I’d still spell it out the first time.


This is where I got confused. If the purpose of the document is to select proper methodology, it seems logical that as the result, that should be the last step. Based on the steps, it seems like the ultimate goal is to write a SAP and SOP. Maybe change the title of step 4 to “Document selected methods” then describe how the methods are documented in the SAP/SOP as you’ve done here.


This feels like a description of how to document the methods, not how to select them. I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting it or if it could be more clear somehow.


This page set up is a little confusing. It looks like it’s two columns so I started reading it down one “column” then back up to the top of the second column (like you read a newspaper) and it didn’t make sense to me. For instance, if you read the second text box before the first, you wonder “more focused than what”? It could just be me being dense, but I’d tweak the formatting a little to direct the reader in the order you intend this to be read.


Add page number or section where this is found.


Not really organized around goals – to me that implies that it’s organized according to goals; but the document IS set up to accommodate a wide variety of goals…or support a wide variety of goals…


Should this identify who the target users of the guide are? Who is it written for? Consider changing “guidance” to “direction” or “instruction” to avoid repeating a variation of the word “guide”…The title implies that the purpose is to help readers select water quality monitoring methods, so I’d retool this a little to start with that: “The purpose of this guide is to help XXX select water quality monitoring methods appropriate to their watershed’s goals. The guide directs readers to the appropriate methods by first helping to identify objectives and parameters that support those goals, then select the methodology for collecting appropriate data to inform objectives and monitor changes. ” or something like that…

Resources section). The SAP should be accompanied by an SOP, which is the detailed instructions for use in the field. The SOP guide in Appendix 1 may be used as a template to/adapted to create your own SOPs.

How this guide is organized

The sections of this guide follow the typical are laid out in an order which often makes sense for evolution of monitoring progress towards objectives.

A group might first be interested in determiningDetermine the current condition of water resources (Section 1).

A subsequent objective might be identifyingIdentify sources of pollution (Section 2), which can be used to guide implementation of water quality improvement projects.

After projects are implemented it is prudent to follow-up with project effectiveness monitoring (Section 3).

Finally, trend analysis (Section 4) allows your group to determine how conditions change over time.

An additional important and ongoing objective for many watershed groups is to provide outreach and education to increase knowledge, engagement, and stewardship of water resources in their local communities. Methods for educational-based monitoring and assessing the success of your outreach efforts are laid out in Section 5.


I can’t make a comment in the text box, but for section 3, I’d remove “Implement projects and” because the section does not describe implementation of projects. You could add “implement projects” between steps two and three, maybe in a lighter blue or dotted line/box to imply a step takes place that isn’t described in the document?On step 1, un-capitalize “Current” and “Condition” since only the first word is capitalized in the other sections


I feel like this needs another sentence to tie into how these steps help you select your methods. As is, it’s not super clear how these steps fit with the overall purpose of the document – as important as they all are. We need to consider all of these things when selecting our methods…how do our recording current condition or source of pollution, or parameters being measured, effectiveness monitoring needs influence which methods we select? Maybe in each section, something could be added that describes how the method selected needs to consider your reason for assessing current conditions, the type of pollution source you’re trying to identify, etc.?

1. Current Conditions

Gathering information on current conditions provides a snapshot of a waterbody’s health that can be used for a variety of purposes. The method you select for monitoring the identified parameter should be tailored to the reason you are assessing current conditions.

One common goal reason for collecting information on current conditions is to determine whether there are water quality concerns present. To accomplish this, you should compare your collected data to the water quality standards or thresholds for that specific concern (i.e. parameter).

Another reason your group might monitor current conditions is to determine conditions prior to an anticipated change in the watershed (e.g. a management change or implementation of a project). Monitoring before an anticipated change is called “baseline monitoring.” Baseline data can be compared to data collected after a change in the watershed to assess effects on water quality.

Waterbodies that do not meet (whose?) water quality standards are considered “impaired waters.” While only DEQ has the jurisdiction to classify a waterbody as impaired, DEQ may incorporate the data collected by volunteers if their methods meets data quality requirements specified in DEQ’s assessment methods. See the Additional Resources section for Montana water quality standards and the DEQ Clean Water Act Information Center for a list of impaired

Example: Presence of water quality concernsLocals have observed algae growth in Elm Creek downstream from where the Elm Creek Spring flows into the creek and are curious whether high nutrient concentrations in the spring could be contributing to the issue. Their objective is:“To characterize nutrient concentrations in the Elm Creek Spring by collecting

Example: Baseline conditions monitoringA watershed group is working with a local landowner to provide an alternative water source for her livestock. Prior to this change, the group makes a goal to collect baseline information on the current health of the riparian area so they can quantify the success of their project later on. Their objective is:“To characterize riparian vegetation along landowner’s 0.5 mile stretch of Rocky Creek


It would be useful to note here where to find water quality standards or thresholds. Also, throughout the document be consistent with what term you’re using to describe the identified concern – is it concern, parameter, pollutant, etc.


I’d just change this wording so it’s not confused with the overarching use of the word “goals” in the beginning of the document.


I don’t know if this makes sense, but trying to tie together this step with the “method selection” intent of the document.


I’d change these headers to say SECTION 1, SECTION 2 etc. to make them easier to find and change the titles on each section to match the flow chart on the previous page.Capitalization in headers is inconsistent. For the next section, only the first word in the header is capitalized. Personally, I’d capitalize the full section title to make it really stand out.

A list of objectives and the relevant parameters associated with determining current conditions is provided below:

1.1. To characterize channel morphology and instream habitat

Width/depth ratio Rosgen stream type Greenline to greenline width Longitudinal profile Residual pool depth Large woody debris Extent of undercut banks/fish cover Pool frequency (e.g., number of pools per 1000 ft) Percent fine sediment <2mm and/or < 6 mm in riffles Percent fine sediment < 6mm in pool tails Median particle size (D50) Entrenchment ratio Channel slope

1.2. To characterize riparian vegetation

Greenline species composition Percent bank cover

1.3. To characterize fine sediment deposition in critical habitats for fish or other aquatic life

Percent fine sediment <2mm and/or < 6 mm in riffles Percent fine sediment < 6mm in pool tails

1.4. To characterize nutrient concentrations

Nutrient (TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4) concentrations in water column Dissolved oxygen concentration range (in prairie streams) Macroinvertebrate assemblage

1.5. To characterize metal concentrations

Metal concentrations in water column Metal concentration in stream bottom sediment

1.6. To characterize extent of reaches with nuisance algae growth

Benthic algae (in western/transitional streams) Chlorophyll in an area of stream bottom Presence of toxins (Harmful Algal Blooms) Periphyton biomass in an area of stream bottom


I wonder if, on each of these lists, there should be a note to think about our goals and realize that not all objectives/parameters will be appropriate to our site/watershed, but should be based on our specific needs.

2. Pollution source assessment

Once a water quality concern has been identified, it is useful to identify the source(s) of pollution. Identifying the land area where a pollutant concern is coming from sets the stage for working with the responsible entity to address the issue.

We overviewThere are two common approaches to help identifyidentifying sources of pollutionwater quality contaminants. The first approach is reach break monitoring. This involves collecting data at several locations along a stream to distinguish the reaches or tributaries from which the largest increases in concentration or load occur. Once reach breaks have been identified, more detailed assessments of specific reaches of interest often follow.

The second approach is land use specific assessment, which involves evaluating the land uses that are present in different parts of a watershed. This approach uses existing knowledge of the types of pollutants commonly associated with different land uses. For example, septic systems release nitrate but typically not metals; whereas mining activity often contributes metals but

typically not bacteria and nutrients. Land use specific assessments may involve water monitoring at strategic locations informed by changes in land use or may be conducted by estimating impact using aerial images or GIS without physical monitoring.

Think about the approach to identifying sources of contaminants when selecting your methods and make sure the method is

appropriate.

A point source of pollution has a legal definition but the general concept is a source that comes for a single identifiable source such as a pipe or one place along a stream. A classic example would be a waste water treatment plant.

Non-point sources of pollution come from various places spread out across a watershed, such as fertilizer from lawns and fields or sediment from forest roads.

Pollutant Load Determining the amount of pollutant coming from different sources requires calculation of load. Load is the amount of pollutant moving in a stream over a given time (example: kilograms per year) and is calculated as concentration times flow rate.

Example: Reach Break MonitoringLocals are familiar with a sedimentation issue at the downstream end of Burd Creek. They want to know if this issue extends upstream beyond the town of Burd and surrounding development or if stormwater runoff from unpaved areas in and around town is the likely source. Their objective is:“To assess stream bottom percent fine sediment in Burd Creek at three sites below the town of Burd and three sites above the town to see if there is a clear increase in sediment loading to the

Example: Land Use Specific AssessmentA watershed group is concerned about a metals impairment issue on Tucker Creek. Their first objective is: “To assess whatich land uses in the Tucker Creek watershed could be contributing metals to the creek and to determine where


Consider doing something different in the format for “example” text boxes vs “definition” text boxes. Different colors?


The “point source” text box is a different font than the others – I don’t know if that’s intentional or not.


Instead of introducing a term new to the document (pollutant) I’d keep using “water quality concern” or “parameter” just to be consistent and make it easier for the reader to follow

A list of objectives and the relevant parameters associated with identifying or quantifying pollution sources are provided below:

[2.1.] To determine which tributaries or stream reaches are contributing the largest concentrations or loads of pollutants; or to determine the farthest upstream extent of major pollutant sources.

Nutrient (TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4) concentrations in water column Percent fine sediment <2mm and/or < 6 mm in riffles Percent fine sediment < 6mm in pool tails

2.1.[2.2.] To evaluate roads as a source of pollution (sediment, phosphorus, oil & grease, deicer/salt, sand, fish passage)

Density of unpaved roads Length of roads adjacent to streams Number of roads crossing streams Culvert size Culvert orientation to channel grade Extent of road related erosion reaching stream network Phosphorus in water column Oil & grease in water column Chloride, sodium, magnesium, and TDS in water column

2.2.[2.3.] To evaluate agricultural land use as a source of pollution

Presence versus absence of livestock in an area of interest Land area or number parcels with livestock grazing present Number of livestock confinement operations and proximity to streams Extent of bank trampling, hummocking, or pugging Extent of woody browse Range health: stubble height, species diversity, bare ground

2.3.[2.4.] To evaluate mining as a source of pollution

Types of mining present in watershed Presence of tailings and proximity to stream network Extent of active and abandoned surface disturbance Presence of discharging adits

3. Project Effectiveness

Project effectiveness monitoring accompanies implementation of, or changes to, management or restoration measures and helps determine whether those efforts are producing the expected results. This section addresses monitoring focused on success of specific projects rather than larger scale (cumulative) outcomes, which is covered in Section 4: Trend Analysisthe Trend section that follows. It can take decades for water quality to reflect changes resulting from management or restoration measures implemented to reduce or eliminate water quality concerns. Make sure to select methods that yield both short-term and long-term effectiveness information. Instream water quality can take decades to reflect elimination of pollutant sources and/or effects from restoration activities.

Project effectiveness monitoring can demonstrate whether a project is functioning as designed or if maintenance or additional action is needed to meet goals. Monitoring the appropriate short-term indicators helps ensure the project is on its way to meeting goals. Monitoring short-term indicators can also help inform future restoration and resource management, demonstrate improvement to stakeholders, or meet legal obligations that may be associated with the project. The expectation is that ifIf individual projects are meeting localized short-term objectives, they are assumed to be contributing to improved water quality even if in-stream improvements are difficult to measure.

Example: Short-term project effectivenessA Conservation District implemented a stream bank restoration project on an incised section of Bear Creek. To ensure the design is functioning as planned, they plan to re-visit and assess the project following implementation. Their objective is: “To revisit the project site on Bear Creek for three years in September to assess percent survival of willow plantings and to ensure that the grade

Example: Long-term project effectivenessA watershed group is concerned about high summertime temperatures causing stress on trout in Smith Creek and they are working with a landowner to implement a riparian vegetation project to help address the issue. Their hope is that over time, increased woody riparian vegetation will decrease water temperatures by stabilizing banks, reducing channel width, and increasing channel shading. Their objective is: “To measure hourly air and water temperature at two locations on Smith Creek during July and August over the next 10 years to determine the number of days the water temperature exceeds 67 degrees F and to assess whether maximum daily water temperatures are getting lower relative to maximum daily air


I would add some narrative about long-term project effectiveness monitoring, too, so it’s clear how they differ. The example is helpful, but would be moreso if the short and long term monitoring examples given were for the same issue. Instead of using the Smith Creek example for long-term monitoring, extend the Bear Creek example. The project was to address incision, but probably ultimately to reduce sediment inputs by addressing incision, so short term would be visual assessments and long-term could be collecting TSS samples or whatever and looking at trends over 10 years or whatever. Or something like that?

A list of objectives and the relevant parameters associated with assessing project effectiveness are provided below:

3.1. To assess whether vegetative cover is improving

Vegetation survival rate Noxious weed growth Riparian species composition Upland species encroachment

3.2. To assess whether stream bank stability is improving

Extent of bank that is classified as stable Extent of bare ground along banks Species composition along the greenline Stubble height Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI)

3.3. To quantify pollutant load reduction from project implementation

See MDEQ Load Reduction Estimation Guide referenced in Additional Resources section

3.4. To determine whether livestock management practices have improved watershed conditions.

Width of riparian buffer Presence of managed riparian pastures Number of stream miles with an existing grazing plan Hoof shear Stubble height Greenline species diversity Cattle percent time spent at water sources away from riparian areas

3.5. To determine whether road pollution sources are being reduced

Density of unpaved roads Length of roads adjacent to streams Number of roads crossing streams Culvert size Culvert orientation to channel grade Extent of road related erosion reaching stream network Phosphorus in water column Oil & grease in water column Chloride, sodium, magnesium, and TDS in water column


I’d split these and make it clear which are short-term objectives and parameters and which are long-term to help readers select appropriate methods.

4. Trend analysis

Monitoring the changechanges in water resource conditions over time is referred to as a trend analysis. Water quality may improve or degrade over time. The expectation is thatIt seems intuitive that with better resource management and restoration project implementation within a watershed, water quality will improve. However, many watersheds have increasing stress from intensified land use, increasing population, and climate change which may result in degrading water resource conditions despite efforts to improve management.

To accurately evaluate trends in water quality, data must be collected consistently over time with the same or at least comparable methods. If methods are inconsistent over time, it may not be possible to tell if differences are due to changes in the waterbody or simply due to changes in monitoring.

Trend analysis typically requires use of statistics to determine whether an apparent increase or decrease is significant given the scatter in the data.

Evaluation of trend can be done at a local scale (i.e., individual sites or stream reaches) or at the watershed scale. Some parameters assessed at an individual site are only related to conditions immediately surrounding the site, while other parameters integrate the effects from the entire watershed upstream from that point. For example, percentage of the stream channel shading at a site is completely a function of

vegetation and other conditions at that site. Water quality on the other hand is determined by conditions extending from that site to the headwaters plus instream processes.

Trend monitoring methods should be selected with basic understanding of the amount of background variability in the parameter relative to the magnitude of change that is expected. If instream nutrient concentrations oscillate daily between 0.01 and 0.1 mg/L, and the expected change in concentration over a five-year period

Example: Watershed Watershed- scale trend analysisA watershed group has been working with the local conservation district and local farmers to increase the amount of cover crops planted in a watershed over the last 10 years. The intent is to reduce nitrate leaching to groundwater that feeds Spring Creek. Their objective is: “To assess changes in nitrate concentrations in Spring Creek during baseflow (fall & winter) to

Example: Local-scale trend analysisA local group has been observing an algae growth issue in Park Creek downstream from a waste disposal lagoon for a subdivision. The subdivision is going to connect to an advanced treatment facility and the group wants to see if there is a reduction in the algae issue. Their objective is: “To monitor the amount of algae growth in August in Park Creek immediately


This is awesome. I think for each section there should be a statement like this that helps the reader think about selecting methods appropriate for their situation and needs pertaining to the topic of that section. I went back and tried to add those in.


Scatter feels like a technical term here. Variance? Differences? Range?


Maybe include an example of a typical inconsistency that could result in data that isn’t really comparable, such as collecting data at the same time of the day, same time of the year/month, same location


I’d just clarify this a little – whose expectation? I made a suggested edit, but it could also be something like “It is often assumed that with better…” This is a really important point and I’m so glad the document calls it out – there are so many other factors that affect the watershed health/water quality!

is 0.05 mg/L, that change could be very difficult to detect unless sampling times are tightly controlled.

An example of an objective and the relevant parameters associated with trend analysis are provided below:

[4.1.] To evaluate instream pollutant parameter (water quality concern?) concentration changes over time

Nutrient (TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4) concentrations in water column Metals concentrations in water column Turbidity

4.1.[4.2.] To evaluate algae growth changes over time

Benthic algae (in western/transitional streams) Chlorophyll in an area of stream bottom


Consider adding shade objective/parameter since you use that example in the text above. Also, consider identifying whether these are local or watershed scale, since the distinction is made in the narrative above.

5. Outreach and Education

An important and ongoing objective for many watershed groups is to enhance public knowledge about water quality conditions and concerns, increase public engagement in restoration efforts, and foster watershed stewardship in their communities. Social monitoring can be used to assess the success of outreach, education, and engagement efforts. We are not currently including methods for social monitoring in this document.

A list of objectives associated with outreach and education is provided below:

5.1. To demonstrate basic water monitoring and water science concepts with youth

Student ability to perform a specific monitoring method Student level of understanding of a water resource concept

5.2. To increase public understanding of local water quality conditions and concerns

Number of volunteers participating in educational event Number of visits to educational sections of website (e.g. Google analytics) Number of people that open educational e-newsletter (e.g. Mailchimp)

5.3. To increase public engagement in citizen science water monitoring efforts

Number of volunteers who participate in volunteer program Number of visits to monitoring website Number of people who sign up for more information at community event Number of people who receive report of findings

5.4. To foster public stewardship of water resources

Number of participants in volunteer projects Number of people who implement a best management practice

6. Glossary of Terms

Goal - a desired outcome from an effort and can be relatively broad Load – quantity of pollutant moving in a stream over a period of time; measured by multiplying

concentration by flow rate. Objective – a desired outcome from an effort that is more focused than a goal and outlines

specific and measurable steps for achieving your goal. It should typically start with the word “To” and include specific information about the parameter that will be monitored, where and when.

Parameter – a condition or element that can be measured and quantified. Dissolved oxygen, pH and nitrate concentration are simple examples, along with all of the bulleted items under the objectives in sections 1-5 above.

Impairment (it might be useful to make a distinction between water quality concerns and “impairments” since some people don’t realize the implications of using the term “impairment” and use it interchangeably with “pollutant” or such…

Long-term… Short-term… Reach-scale… Watershed-scale… Pollutant Load Point-source… Non-point-source…

7. Additional Resources

Load Reduction Estimation Guide o Source: Montana DEQo https://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/Guidance

%20Documents/Load%20Reduction%20Estimation%20Guide.pdf Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Template

o Source: Montana DEQo http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/

Volunteer%20Monitoring/SAP_TEMPLATE_VM_3.21.16.docx Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) template – Supplemental Guidance

o Source: Montana DEQo http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/

Volunteer%20Monitoring/SAP_VM_SupplementalGuidance2018.pdf Montana water quality standards (Circular DEQ-7)

o Source: Montana DEQo http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WQPB/Standards/PDF/DEQ7/

DEQ-7_Final_May2017.pdf Montana Nutrient Standards

o Source: Montana DEQo http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WQPB/Standards/PDF/

NutrientRules/CircularDEQ12A_July2014_FINAL.pdf DEQ Clean Water Act Information Center

o Source: Montana DEQo http://deq.mt.gov/Water/Resources/cwaic

Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners (Bernhardt et al. 2007)

o Source: Restoration Ecology Journal o https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1526-

100X.2007.00244.x

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00244.x

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00244.x

http://deq.mt.gov/Water/Resources/cwaic

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WQPB/Standards/PDF/NutrientRules/CircularDEQ12A_July2014_FINAL.pdf

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WQPB/Standards/PDF/NutrientRules/CircularDEQ12A_July2014_FINAL.pdf

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WQPB/Standards/PDF/DEQ7/DEQ-7_Final_May2017.pdf

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WQPB/Standards/PDF/DEQ7/DEQ-7_Final_May2017.pdf

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/Volunteer%20Monitoring/SAP_VM_SupplementalGuidance2018.pdf

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/Volunteer%20Monitoring/SAP_VM_SupplementalGuidance2018.pdf

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/Volunteer%20Monitoring/SAP_TEMPLATE_VM_3.21.16.docx

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/Volunteer%20Monitoring/SAP_TEMPLATE_VM_3.21.16.docx

https://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/Guidance%20Documents/Load%20Reduction%20Estimation%20Guide.pdf

https://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/Guidance%20Documents/Load%20Reduction%20Estimation%20Guide.pdf

8. Parameters of interest index

All of the parameters of interest are included in the numbered list below and are in alphabetical order within category. Parameters which have SOPs in the appendix have a bullet below with the name of the SOP.

Office and/or Windshield Survey1. Density of unpaved roads2. Extent of active and abandoned surface disturbance3. Extent of road related erosion reaching stream network4. Land area or number parcels with livestock grazing present5. Length of roads adjacent to streams6. Number of livestock confinement operations and proximity to streams7. Number of roads crossing streams8. Number of stream miles with an existing grazing plan9. Presence of discharging adits10. Presence of managed riparian pastures11. Presence of tailings and proximity to stream network12. Presence versus absence of livestock in an area of interest13. Types of mining present in watershed

Riparian and/or Substrate Sampling14. Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI)15. Benthic algae (in western/transitional streams)16. Channel slope17. Chlorophyll in an area of stream bottom18. Culvert orientation to channel grade19. Culvert size20. Entrenchment ratio21. Extent of bank that is classified as stable22. Extent of bank trampling, hummocking, or pugging23. Extent of bare ground along banks24. Extent of undercut banks/fish cover25. Extent of woody browse26. Greenline species composition27. Greenline species diversity28. Greenline to greenline width29. Hoof shear30. Large woody debris31. Longitudinal profile32. Macroinvertebrate assemblage33. Median particle size (D50)

o Riffle Pebble Count with Gravelometer

34. Metal concentration in stream bottom sediment35. Noxious weed growth36. Percent bank cover37. Percent fine sediment <2mm and/or < 6 mm in riffles

o Riffle Pebble Count with Gravelometer38. Percent fine sediment < 6mm in pool tails

o Pool tail grid toss39. Periphyton biomass in an area of stream bottom40. Pool frequency (e.g., number of pools per 1000 ft)41. Residual pool depth

o Residual pool depth42. Riparian species composition43. Rosgen stream type44. Species composition along the greenline45. Stubble height46. Upland species encroachment47. Vegetation survival rate48. Width of riparian buffer49. Width/depth ratio

Water Column Sampling50. Dissolved oxygen concentration range (in prairie streams)51. Metal concentrations in water column52. Nutrient (TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4) concentrations in water column53. Presence of toxins (Harmful Algal Blooms)54. Turbidity

Other55. Cattle percent time spent at water sources away from riparian areas56. Range health: stubble height, species diversity, bare ground