Communications Log

4/19/2017 –Ethan Meeting at Marsh (2:45 hr)Ethan came to the MSUEWQ office in Bozeman for a meeting for a few hours.

MSUEWQ overviewed current services in the data hub and Madison data collection objectives in 2017

o Future updates to streamline things included An option to download a list of sites from the database with coordinates and links to

the photo and data viewer for that site. This would make it far easier to add points to an arconline map.

A lot of conversation centered around different plotting layout options that could facilitate visualizing data in different ways to address different types of questions the user might have.

i. Drew out three different data visualization options1. Instructions for downloading the CSV and uploading to a story map to visualize photo points

and data viewer2. Create a story map with a demo of

different data and photo link/visualization options

3. Create data summary stats parallel to the photo upload stats

4. Add elevations to sites so that they can be ordered from upstream to downstream, sorting by decreasing elevation

5. Plot visualization optionsa. Boxplots; upstream to

downstream; parameter selection adjacent to the axis; site name, sample size, start date, end date (below x axis)

b. Complex plot; upstream to downstream

c. Seasonal; parallel to current Madison fancy page for individual sites viewed for last 3 years

6. Implement approach where a url is included for each site that says “data for stream” that links to the data viewer for

the whole stream. This will not be meaningful with the current data visualization options which are only by site.

7. Could a stream line feature be made clickable in an online map? Or would it be better just to do it as a stream data link on each site?

2. One story map for all things Madison works ona. Links to other types of data? USGS/snotel, geographic significance?

3. Q: Is there a way to see whole stream through time?a. Old and new streamb. Example, Moore’s creek, site Bricker’s House

4. Box plot vs pointsa. Box plot is good for determining broad projects, easier to interpret for volunteers

5. Madison Objectivea. Keep it relevantb. Project ID – Problems

6. Map to facilitate on-going efforts > conversationsa. Getting clipped stream layers from Ethan

1.ii. Kyle

1. Create a data viewer popup parallel to the photo vieweriii. Alyson

1. Update the Mandeville map to include the data viewer links2. Determine whether a line feature can be used as a clickable feature that could have a URL

associatedb. Monitoring objectives moving forward

i. Want to leverage turbidity real time monitoring to get a more comprehensive look at sediment across the watershed on the sediment impaired streams

ii. Groundwater nutrient inputs1. South meadow a very focused increase between Endecott ranch and the highway for nitrate;

the stream is dry at Endecott for a month and flowing at highway so it is definitely all groundwater sourced

2. Moore’s creek; increase in winter time OP through the Ennis section

3/20/2017 Ethan conversation at Watershed day at CapitalSigler and Ethan talked about updates to the data storage and visualization tools, made plans for a face to face meeting to discuss further. Outcome of the conversation was that an interactive map interface still seemed like the best way to present the diversity of information that the Madison wants to be able to convey to citizens in the watershed.

3/1/2017 Madeline web meeting on data entry

MSUEWQ had a web meeting with Madeline (BSWC member in Madison) about wrapping up date entry for 2016 data and for photos. We walked through an example of data upload and ensured that her password for the MSUEWQ data hub worked etc. Madeline thought it seemed straight forward, but appreciated the walk through.

12/09/2016 – Conference CallMSUEWQ had a conference call with Ethan to discuss data and photo entry into the VOEIS and MSUEWQ datahub.

Photos could have pop up box on story map Voeis – good for large quantities of data but not user friendly for upload of small amounts of

data or easy upload by citizens. For Photo database we are using the MSUEWQ data hub which is a Django based web

framework written in python language. This data hub lives on an MSU Extension server. Shared folder is in Box, under Watershed Partnerships for Madison. Serving broader needs

o First photo in repeat have annotated guidelines on photo, be able to access real-time via phone/tablet.

For Site names listed in the database, we will stick to convention MST_stream_description Edits to site Bricker’s House, More Creek Rd – Above town, Ennis Homestead – Below town

8/01/2016 – Madison Borrows IDEXX equipmentEthan borrowed the IDEXX equipment two different times in August and September to refine understanding of where E. coli concentration increases were happening on Moore’s creek to inform source tracking sampling to be sent off for sequencing.

6/29/2016 – Call with EthanTurbidity meter very valuable – this year 8 streams; 6 sites on each streams. At least once a month to collect samples

On a handful of streams, just doing photo monitoring – on 5-6 restoration sites. Ethan just got a tablet for monitoring this summer. Volunteers are taking ipad out into the field and taking photos with the tablet. Tablet does have wifi, could upload photos from tablet to database.

Ethan will send us SAP/SOP for photos to create sites in the database.

Still doing full sampling on 4 streams

1. Moore2. Jack3. Hotsprings

4. South Meadow

Want to do e. coli sampling on Moore’s creek as well. Possible data visualization on a map for Moore’s and south Meadow for turbidity and nutrients?

TP, TN, N+N going into EQUIS. Would like to have turbidity and/or photos quicker for volunteers to look at. Doing microplastics on main stem of Madison, Moore’s creek, and Jack Creek.

- We will o start thinking about data visualization for spatially distributed datao initially bar or boxplots for a stream with sites along the X axiso need to work on time series and boxplot selectable plotso Erin will create a page on our CMS site and also on wordpress where we can embed a

map and start thinking about linking to photo viewers and data viewerso Ethan said it would be cool to have data visualizable for people within a month after

collection so they can see what they have done sooner (before annual report)- We agreed we need to get data into VOEIS- Nutrient data is the only thing being funded by DEQ and hence the only thing going into EQUIS- Turbidity and photo data are not going anywhere; also field parameters for the 4 whole hog

streams

3/22/16 – Meeting in EnnisModifications to the data display (notes with Ethan before main meeting)

Display the date range for the data being displayed Display types

o Box Same, but perhaps allow for

selection of option to show years as separate boxes adjacent

o Time series Add all sites for stream on same plot

and select parameter and year Switch selection of site to

selection of year (site is legend)o Get Q into VOEIS (this came out of me

seeing the Q data displayed in Ethan’s presentation on Moores Crk)

o Include indication of what streams are listed for (something sigler thought about being useful from watching Ethan’s presentation)

Notes from main meeting:

People attendingo Jackie - MRFo Liz - MRFo Kevin - FSo Dave B – MSTo Ethan – MCDo Sunni – MCDo Erin – MSUEWQo Adam – MSUEWQ

Ethan 2015 prezo Odell and Blain have N from GW sources

DEQ still trying to figure out how listing might go for these. N high in GW entering simply means the N source is entering the stream

through GW. That is likely also the case for most of the other streams as well. This in itself does not seem like a reason to not list the stream. Possible human sources of N to groundwater include septic, municipal wastewater, cultivated soils (soil organic N and fertilizer), just to name a few.

Is there actually an impairment, is there algae growth; if the answer is no, it seems legit to not list and to not put a lot of effort toward figuring out N sources.

Figuring out N sources could include monitoring of shallow groundwater adjacent to streams and/or other geochemical methods. These approaches could be pretty innovative but would take a lot of work. Putting these efforts on the radar for possible future work might involve assessing whether the N is resulting in an issue in the spring creeks and how big a priority it is to identify the sources of N to groundwater. These processes move slow, so addressing them can take a lot of time. On the other hand; groundwater N levels are climbing in a lot of parts of the country, so revisiting these streams periodically to track N levels over time could be valuable. Incorporating winter time sampling can be a good way to get at the groundwater N concentrations/loads without the complications of surface water processes like algae uptake and denitrification.

o Blaine Spring Creek hatchery wetland project The treatment wetland could be a cool opportunity to assess the effectiveness

of the wetland at reducing pollutant loads. This could potentially even be done after the wetland is complete because if it was previously dumping straight to the creek, presumably testing the influent and effluent (to and from the wetland) after completion would allow for calculation of load reductions. This may be and likely is at least partially being done by the hatchery as part of their MPDES permit and/or by the MSU researchers working on the project.

Ethan said DEQ thought the biggest benefits from the wetland might be to sediment, but Otto’s group works on nitrogen removal a lot too, so that is worth considering.

o Jack Creek Project partners being Jack Creek Preserve and development related entities

have indicated they want to keep supporting work as it has been ongoing. Some project sponsors are at least partially motivated by demonstrating that

there is not an impact from development. Is the data being collected the right data to make that assessment?

Winter time nitrogen levels could be useful metric as well. From dispersed wastewater application, groundwater is possibly the most likely path to stream. Assessing this pathway can be done with instream sampling without as many confounding factors by sampling outside the growing season. Winter sampling when plants are not growing in and around the stream and/or when temperatures are low so denitrification rates are low.

Kevin noted that it is interesting that it is not listed for sediment when it is one of the more logged drainages in the area. Perhaps sediment monitoring could be interesting on the long term, but how high a priority is this?

Sunni brought up micro plastics as a metric for human influence on a watershed. Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation helps to support this type of work and it is occurring across the divide in the Gallatin drainage. There is uncertainty around any health implications associated with the level of microplastics. At this point, it is perhaps more of a general metric of human influence on a water resource. Implications of different levels may be less clearly tied to sources and/or impairment.

o Project oriented monitoring portion of conversation Monitoring to identify possible projects

Dave Bricker – do we have enough information to know at what point along the length of these streams the issues first arise?

Somewhat, but could be fleshed out more. Synoptic sampling for turbidity for example is a pretty straight forward way Stream Team members could be involved in this.

Photos somewhat parallel to windshield surveys could also be useful. This could be a problem if it were cast as a “sediment source” map with photos and people see their places on there. However, if it were cast as a “project opportunities” map, it could be better received. Stream team members who are tactful, well versed, and know landowners could be trained on the types of sediment sources and project potentials that might exist. They could be informed with some talking points for land owners and what to look for. They could go out and only with permission, talk to landowners and get photos of potential project sites. These potential project site photos could be compiled in a simple traditional google earth map.

Focus sampling on lower North Meadow to identify sources of sediment since lower section is impaired

Monitoring of project effectiveness Adam talked briefly overviewing the 4 page handout on project

effectiveness monitoring.o Knowing the project objective is critical for assessing success. o There are many different metrics for success and some are

easier to assess than others. Monitoring for improved water quality downstream can be hard

o Monitoring substrate conditions using pool tail fines etc is a feasible approach. Starting with the DEQ sites from the 2014 assessment could be an efficient way to proceed. This would take buy-in from DEQ to come down and show volunteers and coordinators how the methods work and where the observations should be made.

Ethan asked if this is a good use of time if DEQ will be back to do it in 5 years anyway and things should change slow.

Dave B said he thought so with so many streams listed for sediment.

Since changes in channel substrate should not be expected to change quickly and are a cumulative result of all upstream sediment loading, deciding what location to pilot this with should be thought about in the watershed context. What watersheds would you expect to see large sediment changes in over the coming years? The decision should weigh specific

projects but also be thinking about overall watershed sediment sources and changes.

Ethan will put together a map of all DEQ sediment substrate monitoring sites to revisit this question with the group.

Use DEQ’s data sheets at these sites to obtain same data and compare

o Quantifying pollutant load reduction with instream sampling is hard; refer to the cow on the edge of a big river example.

o Quantifying load reductions by assessing erosion rate changes at a site is more feasible. This could be done with bank pins or with assessing changes in extent of eroding bank.

Monitoring for enhanced habitat at the site of the project can be somewhat more straightforward.

o Photos are always goodo Greenline vegetation assessment can worko Other habitat specific metrics about bank condition could be

assessedo Some of the obvious streams with issues are

South Meadow where a project on Endecott’s went in in 2012 Moores Creek where a project went in on Goggins in 2015 Indian Creek but more from a flow perspective

o Could prioritize streams based on potential human health risk (Moores Creek, maybe Jack Creek)

o The TMDL timelines are uncertain. Nutrients should be coming first, possibly by this summer; then sediment, then temperature. Madison should work out priorities from their perspective. TMDL information can weigh in, but focus areas should strongly weigh local priorities independent of DEQ outcomes.

3/19/2014 – Riparian Assessments Conference Call (10:20 -11:30); Trisha, Sunni, Katie, Adam; riparian assessments

o Sigler; 2 objectives that riparian condition can help to address current condition for BMP project ID; BMP effectiveness

o Sunni Goal is to help landowners meet their goals Were this aligns with DEQ efforts Handful of restoration projects on the ground and done

Odell Project; Partners (PPS, FWP, MT Land Reliance, PP&L, River Design out of Whitefish, Tom Heinz); objective: to improve the fishery; filled a drain ditch and did some in-channel work; politics involved; phase 8

Monitoring to quantify benefits? project demonstrations; justification for stakeholders for having invested their

time and resources; are these efforts supporting the mission of the CD or Watershed group which is to enhance resources?

Justify grant monies Identifying new project opportunities?

Needs to be driven by landowners but facilitated by watershed group- Trisha

NRCS doesn’t explicitly have monitoring as a primary goal, but does have a goal of supporting the watershed group, so if the watershed group wants monitoring done, NRCS can get behind it; NRCS would ideally like to see projects come out of this (get people into programs), but this doesn’t need to drive things.

- Sigler What if we hold a workshop where landowners are empowered to assess their own

properties for possible assessments? Including an element of the perspective that DEQ, NRCS and FWP might have; largely from the perspective of potential funding.

- Sunni: What are the end goals of DEQ vs Landowners: DEQ: delisting; progress toward nonpoint source issue addressing Landowners: Watershed group:

Thoughts and action items coming out of call

1. Project ID monitoring - needs to be driven by the landowners and a landowner workshop might be a good tool for facilitating that with a target of summer 2015.

2. BMP effectiveness needs to be informed by a list of BMPs which Sunni is putting together. We will iterate on the list and then schedule a phone call with Trisha after she returns April 14 th. Then talk about incremental changes to the MST efforts that could be implemented this summer to incorporate BMP effectiveness metrics (possibly including aspects of riparian assessment methods).

2/13/2013 – Meeting with Sunni and Ethan12:45-1:45pm

Where to go with the program, how to incorporate old work, upcoming TMDL and impairments and linking source assessments. Will know stream status (impairments by end of winter/early spring. Opportunities for new monitoring, working with landowners

Moore’s creek a good candidate pilot stream for work with turbidity monitoring and sediment stuff as well as virtual tour.

Why do we care about impairments (ie: P and N)? Why should people spend time to care besides just knowing it’s impaired?

Address impairments through shared concerns and impacts. How does sediment and nutrients/algae impact ag? Create buy in and shared motivation to address impairments and make changes.

Monitor to estimate sediment load loss at different places in the watershed. Need a reasonable amount of data collected. Need continuous discharge and turbidity samples

Define goals for program..source assessment to inform WRP and projects down the line in conjunction with some component of baseline monitoring for those who don’t want to stop monitoring on the beautiful streams.

Pilot turbidity sampling in May to get some data collected before runoff and presented at June training