example: presence of water quality concerns · web viewproject effectiveness monitoring accompanies...

Water Quality Monitoring Methods Selection Guide

Updated 11/26/2018Authors: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

Document Sections

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

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

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

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

5. Outreach and Education....................................................................................................................13

6. Glossary of Terms..............................................................................................................................15

7. Parameters of Interest (list compiled from all sections)....................................................................15

Document Sections (including monitoring objectives)

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

1.1. To characterize channel morphology and instream habitat........................................................6

1.2. To characterize riparian vegetation.............................................................................................7

1.3. To characterize fine sediment deposition in critical habitats for fish or other aquatic life..........7

1.4. To characterize nutrient concentrations......................................................................................7

1.5. To characterize metal concentrations.........................................................................................7

1.6. To characterize extent of reaches with nuisance algae growth...................................................7

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

2.1. To determine which tributaries or stream reaches are contributing the largest concentrations or loads of pollutants...............................................................................................................................8

2.2. To evaluate roads as a source of pollution (sediment, phosphorus, oil & grease, deicer/salt, sand, fish passage)...................................................................................................................................9

2.3. To evaluate livestock as a source of pollution.............................................................................9

2.4. To evaluate mining as a source of pollution................................................................................9

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

3.1. To assess whether vegetative cover is improving......................................................................10

3.2. To assess whether stream bank stability is improving...............................................................10

3.3. To quantify pollutant load reduction from project implementation..........................................10

3.4. To determine whether livestock management practices have improved watershed conditions.11

3.5. To determine whether road sediment source is being reduced................................................11

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

4.1. To evaluate instream pollutant concentration changes over time............................................12

5. Outreach and Education....................................................................................................................13

5.1. To demonstrate basic water monitoring and water science concepts with youth....................13

5.2. To increase public understanding of local water quality conditions and concerns....................13

5.3. To increase public engagement in citizen science water monitoring efforts.............................13

5.4. To foster public stewardship of water resources.......................................................................13

6. Glossary of Terms..............................................................................................................................15

7. Parameters of Interest (list compiled from all sections)....................................................................15

Adam Sigler, 10/22/18,

I want to explore using a different smart heading level for the sections that are types of objectives so that we can list all of the objectives here easily, but can still reference all top level sections in the general table of contents above.

How to use this guide

The purpose of this guide is to provide guidance for the identification and selection of monitoring objectives for your water quality monitoring effort and the appropriate monitoring methods for achieving them.

Step 1: State goals Prior to using this guide to determine your monitoring objectives and methods, it is important to clarify the desired outcome of your data collection effort by establishing goals.

Step 2: Identify objectives and associated parameters of interest

Browse the list of example objectives and associated parameters in this document to

help articulate your own detailed objectives and identify parameters of interest.

This document includes several example objectives; however, it is important to note

they are missing several of the specifics that will be needed to make your objectives

complete (see Objective Example below).Step 3: Identify methods associated with selected parameters Once you have selected your parameter(s), use the Standard Operating Procure guide (Appendix 1) to find the overview and step-by step instructions for each method. This guide can be used to develop your SOPs (see Step 4).

Step 4: Write your SAP and SOP

After you have articulated goals and objectives, identified parameters and selected methods and a data analysis protocol, summarize the information in a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). A Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) should also be written; which serves as the field guide for data collection and should be appended to your SAP. Utilize the Standard Operating Procedures guide (Appendix 1) for the development of your SOP. For guidance in writing your Sampling and Analysis Plan navigate to Additional Resources (Appendix __).

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 the question.

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

Example: Address the algae concern in Spring Creek. Example: Identify pollution source(s) that are exacerbating impairments in Dell Creek.

Example: To determine changes in nitrate concentration during July and August in the town section of Spring Creek between point A and point B where the highest septic system density occurs.

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

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

A subsequent objective might be identifying 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; for example, after a project has been implemented.

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 monitoring the success of your efforts are laid out in Section 5.

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.

One common goal for collecting information on current conditions is to determine whether there are water quality concerns present. To accomplish this, you

Example: Presence of water quality concernsLocals have observed increased algae in Elm Creek every summer and are curious whether excessive nutrient-loading is the cause. They establish a goal to determine the concentration of nutrients in Elm Creek. Their objective is:“To characterize nutrient concentrations by collecting TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4 samples bi-weekly from July - September at sites

Kreiner, Holly, 10/22/18,

For the DEQ call out box, consider instead..“While only MT DEQ can designate a waterbody as “impaired,” groups can identify water quality concerns that provide valuable information that DEQ can utilize or follow-up on.”

Sigler, W Adam, 10/05/18,

This is an interesting suggestion Mark and is more similar to how we started writing this document before deciding we wanted to organize things around around objectives.After the last call we are planning to more explicitly list parameters under the individual objectives. The methods (SOPs) will then be organized in the appendix by parameter. I think the SOP appendix can be organized in the way you are suggesting and perhaps some people will go straight there if they already know what they want to do and skip the objectives part.

Ockey, Mark, 09/26/18,

The “objectives” lists in sections 1-5 lump monitoring parameters/protocols and sampling designs in the same basket. This is confusing. It would be better to separate them out. Also, rather than trying to identify every conceivable objective and then match up each of them with every conceivable parameter/protocol (a process that is both endless and duplicative), consider making a list of potential parameters/protocols, divided up as follows: --Existing Data (e.g. USGS gage data, WQX data, previous reports); --Direct Observations (e.g. GIS mapping, on-the-ground surveys); --Water Chemistry (e.g. dipping bottles, installing probes); --Physical Measurements (e.g. flow, habitat, veg, channel morph); --Modeling and Surrogates (e.g. WEPP, STEPL, RUSLE, road density, land-use statistics).


Might need to modify this text if we end up with the two categories of E&O objectives: 1) actual water monitoring; 2) effectiveness of E&O monitoring.

Makarowski, Katie, 09/17/18,

I think we should clarify what we mean by “project” here.

Trum, Eric, 09/26/18,

… their watershed/their river…

Trum, Eric, 09/26/18,

As opposed to You – as used previously.

should compare your collected data to the water quality standards or thresholds for that specific 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.

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

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

1.1.1. Width/depth ratio1.1.2. Rosgen stream type1.1.3. Greenline to greenline width1.1.4. Longitudinal profile1.1.5. Residual pool depth1.1.6. Large woody debris1.1.7. Extent of undercut banks/fish

cover1.1.8. Pool frequency (e.g., number

of pools per 1000 ft)1.1.9. Riffle fines < 2mm and < 6mm1.1.10. Pool tail fines < 6mm1.1.11. Entrenchment ratio1.1.12. Channel slope

1.2. To characterize riparian vegetation

1.2.1. Greenline species composition1.2.2. Percent bank cover1.2.3. Flesh this list out from MIM and other sources

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

1.3.1. Percent fine sediment <6mm in riffles1.3.2. Percent fine sediment <2mm in riffles1.3.3. Percent fine sediment < 6mm in pool tails

1.4. To characterize nutrient concentrations

1.4.1. Nutrient (TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4) concentrations in water column1.4.2. Dissolved oxygen concentration range (in prairie streams)1.4.3. Macroinvertebrate assemblage

1.5. To characterize metal concentrations

1.5.1. Metal concentrations in water column1.5.2. Metal concentration in stream bottom sediment

1.6. To characterize extent of reaches with nuisance algae growth

1.6.1. Benthic algae (in western/transitional streams)

Waterbodies that do not meet 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. Visit Additional Resources (Appendix __) for links for identifying MT’s impaired waters and


Does this make sense to keep separate from number 1?


Parameters will appear multiple times, so I think we should describe them in a single list; possibly in the appendix.

Makarowski, Katie, 09/17/18,

Discuss as a group to what degree we want to define/describe each parameter/method here in the body versus in the appendix. For example, what is width/depth ratio and why is it relevant to channel morphology or instream habitat?

1.6.2. Chlorophyll in an area of stream bottom1.6.3. Presence of toxins (HABs)1.6.4. Periphyton biomass in an area of stream bottom

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

There are two primary approaches commonly employed to help identify sources of pollution. The first 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 are 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.

Point sources of pollution are any single identifiable source from which pollutants are discharged; e.g. a pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, concentrated animal feeding operation.

Non-point source pollution comes from diffuse sources throughout the watershed rather than a specific, identifiable source.

Measuring stream discharge is necessary to calculate the “load” of a pollutant. Visit Additional Resources (Appendix __) for information about where to collect stream discharge data.

Example: Reach Break MonitoringLocals are interested in identifying which sections of their town are contributing the greatest sediment loads to impaired Burd Creek. Their objective is:“To determine which sections of Burd Creek are receiving the largest sediments loads by collecting TSS samples at 10 outfalls along the creek immediately following five

Example: Land Use Specific AssessmentA watershed group hopes to ascertain which dirt roads are having the greatest impact on Tucker Creek. Their first objective is: “To characterize the number of unpaved roads crossing Tucker Creek, length and distance of unpaved roads from Tucker Creek and density of unpaved roads in the Tucker Creek watershed.” Their second objective is : “To qualify their assessment by conducting a pool-tail fine assessment in August just below locations of


Not sure about timing for pool tail fine assessment. We need to make sure suggested timing is included in SOP appendix.


Need an specific example like Prickly Pear above for this and subsequent sections.

A list of objectives 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

o Nutrient (TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4) concentrations in water columno

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

o Density of unpaved roadso Length of roads adjacent to streamso Number of roads crossing streamso Culvert sizeo Culvert orientation to channel gradeo Erosion contributing to sediment loado Phosphorus in water columno Oil & grease in water columno Chloride, sodium, magnesium, and TDS in water column

2.3. To evaluate livestock as a source of pollution

o Land area or number parcels with livestock grazing presento Stocking density in areas of interesto Number of livestock confinement operations and proximity to

streamso Extent of bank trampling, hummocking, or puggingo Extent of woody browseo Range health: stubble height, species diversity, bare ground

2.4. To evaluate mining as a source of pollution

o Types of mining present in watershedo Presence of tailings and proximity to stream networko Extent of active and abandoned surface disturbanceo Presence of discharging adits

3. Project Effectiveness Project effectiveness monitoring accompanies implementation of management or restoration measures and helps determine whether those efforts are producing the expected results (Bernhardt et al., 2007). This section addresses monitoring focused on success of specific projects rather than larger scale (cumulative) outcomes, which is covered in the Trend section that follows. Instream measures of water quality can take decades to reflect the elimination of pollutant sources and/or the results of restoration activities (Hall et al., 2014; Meals et al., 2010).

Project effectiveness monitoring can demonstrate whether a project is functioning as designed or if maintenance or additional actions are required so the intended effects can be accomplished (e.g., improving water quality). Monitoring the appropriate short-term indicators helps ensure that the project is proceeding along a pathway toward 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 if management or discrete projects are meeting localized short-term objectives, they are contributing to improved water quality. Cumulatively, discrete restoration projects and improved management will result in long-term water quality improvements and overall watershed improvement.

A list of objectives associated with assessing project effectiveness are provided below:

3.1. To assess whether vegetative cover is improving

o Vegetation survival rate

o Noxious weed growth

o Riparian species composition

o Upland species encroachment

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 site for three years in September to assess percent survival of

Example: Long-term project effectivenessA watershed group works with local farmer to adopt cover-cropping practices for his operation and their goal is to ascertain whether this project improves water quality on Smith Creek. Their objective is: “To collect nutrient (TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4 ) and sediment (TSS) samples bi-weekly between October-December and March-June for one year before and three


We don’t have references in other sections. Should we leave these since the work is done and possibly work toward adding them in other sections later?

3.2. To assess whether stream bank stability is improving

o Extent of bank that is classified as stableo Extent of bare ground along bankso Species composition along the greenlineo Stubble heighto Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI)o Look at SVAP bank stability question for metrics

3.3. To quantify pollutant load reduction from project implementation.

o See DEQ extensive document on estimating load reduction

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

o Width of riparian buffero Presence of managed riparian pastures o Number of stream miles with an existing grazing plano Hoof shearo Stubble heighto Greenline species diversityo Time spent at water sources away from riparian areas

3.5. To determine whether road sediment source is being reduced

o Density of unpaved roadso Length of roads adjacent to streamso Number of roads crossing streamso Culvert sizeo Culvert orientation to channel gradeo Erosion contributing to sediment loado Phosphorus in water columno Oil & grease in water columno Chloride, sodium, magnesium, and TDS in water column

4. Trend Monitoring the change in water resource conditions over time is referred to as a trend analysis. Water quality may improve or degrade over time. The expectation is 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 with the same, or at least comparable, methods through time in a manner that is repeatable. If methods are inconsistent over time, it becomes unclear whether changes are real or simply due to differences in data collection. Trend analysis typically requires use of statistics to determine whether a possible increase or decrease in quality is meaningful 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, stream shading by riparian vegetation is more likely to be related to conditions immediately surrounding the site while instream water quality at a site 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 is 0.05 mg/L, that change could be very difficult to detect unless sampling times are tightly controlled.

Example: Local-scale trend analysisA watershed group is raising awareness about the E. Coli concern in a local swimming hole and conducting outreach to dog owners to pick up after their pets in the park surrounding Isle Creek. They want to determine if decreased dog waste runoff is reducing E. Coli in the stream. Their objective is: “To collect E. Coli samples bi-weekly from June-September above and below the park annually for five years.”

Example: Local-scale trend analysisA group discovers that Way Creek is listed as nutrient-impaired by MT DEQ. Foreseeing that restoration efforts would be implemented to restore water quality, the group decides to start a long-term nutrient monitoring effort to track whether water quality improves, worsens or stays the same over time. Their objective is: “To track nutrient concentrations by collecting TN, TP, NO2+3, NH3+4 samples bi-weekly from July – September for 10


There might be another opportunity for a callout box here. We could pull out some of this more technical information into call out boxes labeled “Technical Tips.”

An example of an objective associated with trend analysis are provided below:

4.1. To evaluate instream pollutant concentration changes over time

o Nutrient concentrationso Metals concentrationso Turbidity

5. Outreach and EducationAn important and ongoing objective for many watershed groups is to enhance the knowledge of water quality conditions and concerns, increase public engagement in water monitoring or restoration efforts, and foster watershed stewardship in their communities. Social monitoring tactics can be used to assess the success of outreach, education, and engagement efforts.

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

Float method Turbidity with secchi tubes Gravelometers Macroinvertebrate kick nets pH test strips Hach test kits for nutrients, DO, etc

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

Parameters of interesto Number of volunteers participating in educational workshop

or evento Number of visits to educational sections of website (e.g.

Google analytics)o Number of people that open educational e-newsletter (e.g.

Mailchimp)o Assessment of public survey/quiz answers

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

Parameters of interesto Number of volunteers who participate in volunteer program o Number of visits to monitoring websiteo Number of people that open e-newsletter o Number of people who sign up for more information at

community event o Number of people who attend year-end presentation or

receive report of findings

5.4. To foster public stewardship of water resources

Parameters of interest


Method rather than parameter


The implication here is that we will have methods in the SOP appendix to collect data on these parameters. I like it but would place it at a lower priority than getting an initial document complete with water resource monitoring methods.


I wonder if we deviate from the parameters of interest approach here and simply list SOPs? This section is so different from the others.


I like the idea of encouraging outreach and education associated with other monitoring efforts, but do want to keep other sections succinct and focused. Let’s discuss options.

Trum, Eric, 09/27/18,

Getting to this last minute but should we consider incorporating this into other sections. A lot of what we have is monitoring outputs as with project effectiveness. The reason they are done is to increase knowledge, stewardship, and ultimately water quality...

o Number of volunteers who elect to take lead in volunteer monitoring program

o Number of people who elect to implement a best management practice for water quality

6. Glossary of Terms

7. Parameters of Interest (list compiled from all sections)

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) Riffle fines < 2mm and < 6mm Pool tail fines < 6mm Entrenchment ratio Channel slope ………………. Complete list from all sections above

How do we organize this list? By parameter type? Alphabetical?

I’m thinking this is probably the place to reference the specific methods in the SOP.

Points raised and/or remaining to be addressed

1. Analysis guidancea. Where is the most efficient place to include succinct insight on guidance? Perhaps

associated with each objective?b. There is a separate effort underway to provide detailed guidance on analysis for specific

applications. This should be able to be leveraged later in the process.2. Additional guidance on data collection for specific objectives.

a. I think adding insight about sample timing etc. to capture long term trends or conduct source assessment could be useful. However, I want to accomplish our primary objective of delivering an inventory of SOPs before broadening the scope in this way.

Methods (compiling for SOP appendix)

3. Water Column Methodsa. Turbidity with Secchi Tubes b. Turbidity with Turbidity Metersc. Total Suspended Solids Grab Samples

4. Substrate and Channela. Fine sediment in riffles w gravelometerb. Fine sediment in riffles < 2mmc. Pool tail finesd. Cross sections e. Residual pool depthf. Pool/Riffle ratiog. BEHIh. Bank erosion pins

5. Ripariana. Photo Monitoring….b. Photo monitoring for bank stabilityc. Stubble height (MIM)d. Stream bank alteration (MIM)e. Woody species usef. Green line (DEQ; focus on disturbed or bare ground versus binding veg)g. Woody species height classh. Streambank stability and cover i. Woody species age class j. Green line to greenline widthk. SVAP “bank stability” questionl. BLM Proper Functioning Condition

i. Vegetation, questions 6, 7, 9, 11ii. Geomorphology, questions 15, 17

m.6. Computer based

a. GIS analysis of grazing allotment extentb. Aerial image analysis of grazing impactc. GIS or aerial image analysis of unpaved road density, parallel segments and crossingsd. GIS or aerial image analysis of paved road density and crossingse. WEPP:Road forest road erosion prediction model (Water Erosion Prediction Project,

USDA Forest Service (Flanagan and Livingston, 1995; http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/); used to predict runoff, erosion, and sediment delivery from forest roads; predicts sediment yields based on specific soil, climate, ground cover, and topographic conditions.

7. Othera. Size and placement of culverts

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/

Notes on Methods for appendix

Method for identifying reach breaks

Reach breaks could be identified roughly equidistant without consideration of land characteristics or could be determined based on more meaningful transitions along a stream. Meaningful breaks might include consideration of vegetation types (forest versus range), topography (steep canyons versus valleys), land use (wild areas, agriculture, residential development, etc.) or other land attributes.

Photo monitoring for bank stability

Photo monitoring can qualitatively capture changes in bank stability over time. Photo points might be focused in high impact areas where change is expected to occur, or might be spread out across a reach. Photos might focus on eroding bank sections, areas with high frequency of hoof sheer, livestock channel crossing areas, etc.

Additional Resources

example: presence of water quality concerns · web viewproject effectiveness monitoring accompanies...

Documents