HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 Water Quality in the Ludlow Watershed 1991/1992WATER QUALITY
IN THE
LUDLOW WATERSHED
1991 -1992
Prepared by Glenn Gately
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
for
Washington State Department of Ecology
April 1993
WASHINGTON STATE
0EPAATMENT OF
ECOLOGY
This project was funded in part by
Washington State Department of Ecology
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............... .............................ii
INTRODUCTION .......... ............................... .. ..1
Oak Bay Basin ..................:...1
Ludlow Bay Basin ...................1
Paradise Bay Basin ............ ....4
Bywater Bay Basin .. ...............4
Squamish Harbor Basin ..............4
METHODS........................ ..............................5
DATA INTERPRETATION ............ .............................12
RESULTS........................ .............................13
Oak Bay Basin .....................13
Ludlow Bay Basin.. ..............18
Paradise Bay Basin ................18
Bywater Bay Basin .................20
Squamish Harbor Basin .............20
DISCUSSION ..................... .............................22
Oak Bay Basin .....................22
Ludlow Bay Basin ..................24
Paradise Bay Basin ................26
Bywater Bay Basin.. .26
Squamish Harbor Basin .............27
REFERENCES ............... ............................... ...29
APPENDIX A: Quality Control ..................... ..........30
APPENDIX B: Sample Site Locations ................ ..........35
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Appreciation and thanks go to all those who contributed to
this study:
Debra Bouchard for planning the study;
Pat Rubida for surveying streams and collecting samples;
Brian McLaughlin for surveying streams and collecting
samples;
Teresa Barron for helpful suggestions;
Craig Ward, Shirley Van Hoover, and Lynn Krum for
administrative support;
Mary Mandell and Laurie Frey for speedy and accurate typing;
Tim Determan (Washington Department of Ecology) for
technical support and reviewing the draft;
Gerald Lukes (Washington Department of Health) for providing
marine water quality data and reviewing the draft;
Stewart Lombard (Washington Department of Ecology Quality
Assurance Section) for reviewing the draft;
Tom Smayda (Vasey Engineering Company) for reviewing the
draft;
Cecelia Larsen (Ludlow Watershed Management Committee) for
her excelent job of editing the draft;
John Merchant (Port Townsend Sewage Treatment Plant) for
allowing us to use his laboratory;
Craig Hanson (Kitsap Sewage Treatment Plant) for excellent
service in analyzing fecal coliform samples; and
The Ludlow Watershed Management Committee for their
helpfulness and patience.
ii
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the freshwater monitoring conducted
in the Ludlow Watershed by Jefferson County Water Quality staff
during 1991 and 1992. The work was partially funded by
Washington State Department of Ecology Grant TAX90218, a
Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant.
The Ludlow Watershed, which comprises about 23,000 acres, is
located on the Olympic Peninsula in northeastern Jefferson County
(Figure 1). It is divided into five basins (Figure 2).
Oak Bay Basin
Oak Bay Basin at the north end of the Watershed contains
4,664 acres of gently sloping forests. It is transected by
several, small, unnamed tributaries which flow into Oak Bay or
Mats Mats Bay. The western shore of Oak Bay is lined with
houses. There is a County park at the northern end of Oak Bay.
Agriculture in this basin is primarily limited to horse and
cattle grazing in pastures around Mats Mats Bay. A rock quarry,
located on the east side of Mats Mats Bay, produces about 300,000
tons of crushed rock.per year. A herring bait facility is also
located on the east side, where herring are held in floating net
pens for about two weeks prior to packing. Mats Mats Bay has a
public boat launch and moorage.
In October 1992, there were 367 acres approved for
commercial shellfish growing in Oak Bay. Recreational shellfish
harvesting occurs on county land along the south shore of Indian
Island and in Oak Bay County Park at the north end of Oak Bay..
Geoduck clams occur in the bay.
In Mats Mats Bay, oysters are grown commercially in the
north end of the bay. In 1992, 15 acres were approved for
commercial growing.
Ludlow Bay Basin
Ludlow Bay Basin, the largest basin in the Watershed,
encompasses 11,085 acres of mostly forested lands. Ludlow Bay
Basin has the highest population density of the Watershed. A
resort and marina are located on the north side of the bay.
Facilities include a fuel dock, hotel, restaurant, grocery store,
marine supply store, and public restrooms. A yacht club also has
a dock on the south side. Although not located directly on the
bay, a golf course drains into it. A log dump -and- storage
operation at the north end of the Inner Bay has typically
contained 5 -7 million board feet of predominantly Douglas fir and
red alder with lesser amounts of western hemlock and western
redcedar (Jeff Grant, Pope and Talbot, personal communication).
A wastewater treatment plant discharges about 0.1 million gallons
of treated effluent into the Outer Bay each day.
1
•
RSHED
N
•
i0 20
ss- hatched area) in
2
.t
}- '� •�:,
:a
•
�;� .,` Port Townsend.
•�
Fort Angeles
LUDLOW WATE
JEFFERS O Seattle
COUNTY
• Tacoma
Vi cin ity Map
SCALE: �(
Miles 30. �vUK
Figure I. Map showing Ludlow Watershed (cro eastern Jefferson County.
•
RSHED
N
•
i0 20
ss- hatched area) in
2
Woad
Womd
Marrowalons
61add /
t /
`Oak
Ludlow Watershed
� gay
Basin
\r
�+ z/ //.
` Ludlow Bay Basin Pgra s
Bay
,
Squamish Harbor Bas �
� ! � Byw4
1 / Basin
j Bay
Legend
Watershed 8 o u n d a r y
—' — Basin Boundary
S a o I i : 1 lack ■ 7950 toot 1115/91
Figure 2. Map showing the Ludlow Watershed and its five basins,
3
Ludlow Creek is the primary source of freshwater to Ludlow
Bay. The mainstem is 4.5 miles long and has 33.5 miles of
additional tributaries, including intermittent ones. Ludlow Creek
drains about 8,600 acres of mostly forested land. Animal grazing
occurs at the headwater of the North Fork. Several smaller,
intermittent drainages also flow into Ludlow Bay.
Paradise Bay Basin
The Paradise Bay Basin is composed primarily of 1,306 acres
of steeply sloping forested lands. Most of the residential
development (Paradise Bay Community) occurs near the center of
the embayment. The remainder of the basin contains scattered
houses and several unnamed drainages, which all flow east into
the Bay. Geoduck clams occur in the bay.
Bywater Bay Basin
Bywater Bay Basin has 957 acres of gently sloping forested
lands with scattered residential dwellings. The southern portion
of the Basin is crossed by State Highway 104 with access to the
Hood Canal Bridge. To the north of the bridge is Bywater Bay
State Park, which has a saltwater beach and public boat launch.
At least one unnamed, intermittent tributary flows into the Bay.
Shellfish are grown commercially in the middle of the bay.
Recreational harvest occurs on the Wolfe Property (State Park
land) at the north end of the bay.
Squamish Harbor Basin
Squamish Harbor basin drains 5,182 acres of gently to
steeply sloping forest lands. Residential development is
confined primarily to the shores of the harbor in the communities
of Shine and Bridgehaven. The Shine Rock Quarry, located three
miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge, produces 72,000 tons of
basalt rock annually. Shine Creek, having 17.2 miles of mainstem
and tributaries is the major drainage system of the basin. This
stream originates on Pope Resources' golf course and flows
through mostly forested land, although much of the land has been
recently clearcut. Several small, intermittent streams also
empty into Squamish Harbor.
In 1992, there were 1,450 acres approved for commercial
shellfish growing and two commercial growers. Geoduck clams are
intermittently harvested. Recreational harvesting occurs at
three locations in Squamish Harbor.
METHODS
Ambient and storm event water quality monitoring was
conducted on streams within the five basins of the Ludlow
Watershed from February 1991 to April 1992 (Figure 3).. The
parameters measured were: flow, fecal coliform, total suspended
solids, conductivity, pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen.
Flows were taken at the downstream sites.
Ordinarilly, stream velocity was measured with the use of a
model 201D Marsh- McBirney current meter and stream flow was
calculated by the summation of incremental partial discharges
across the stream. When the stream was too deep to safely wade
or too shallow to cover the meter probe, flows were visually
estimated. Such estimates are designated by an "e" in Tables 5
and 7.
At site LD1, where Shine Creek passed through three 3 -foot
diameter culverts, stream flow was obtained by summing the
discharges from each of the culverts. Culvert discharges were
calculated by multiplying the cross - sectional area of the water
occupying each culvert by its velocity. Velocities in the
culverts, as well as in the typical stream reaches, were taken at
six- tenths the total depth as measured from the surface.
At two sites (LD6 and LDS) flows were usually calculated by
a method in which the flow was caught in a container of_known
volume while being timed with a stopwatch . Both methods used are
described in Guidance for Conducting Water Quality Assessments
(Anon. 1989).
Fecal coliform samples were collected about 6 inches below
the water surface in 100 ml sterilized polypropylene bottles,
transported on ice, and delivered to a State accredited
laboratory where they were analyzed by the membrane filtration
method within 30 hours from the time of collection. Lost samples
(due to poor commercial bus transportation) necessitated changing
to a different State-accredited laboratory during the study.
Samples were not analyzed if the 30 -hour maximum holding time was
exceeded.
Total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity samples were
collected in 500 ml dark, polyethylene bottles, transported on
ice, and refrigerated. TSS samples were analyzed within 7 days
and turbidity samples within 48 hours of collection. The
analyses were conducted at the Port Townsend Sewage Treatment
Plant laboratory (State accredited) by County staff. TSS was
analyzed by Method 209D and turbidity by Method 214A (APHA 1980).
Turbidity samples were analyzed on an Engineered Systems and
Designs' Model 800 meter.
Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH were
measured on -site with a Cole- Parmer Model 5566 Water Analyzer
(manufactured by ICM Company, Portland, Oregon). Conductivity
measurements were meter- compensated to 25 0C. Dissolved oxygen
and pH results are not reported because variations in replicate
5
./) I -
Is. LD11
-1
OAK LEGEND
13 a ( -
0 Ambient
■ Storm event
A Ambient and storm event
1=1 , 'I- Z" I I I I I I I I,=-
\j
t."A-M MAT'S
1
AXSA
L08
LD21
06-1 LD7 ' \
....
LN
L U Lv
I A
LUDLOW
L
f %:
SAY
LD2
L031
f�� I
(
LLD
FARA1715;F— FAY
f
f
__
_ -
LD41
N'
LD51..
KEY I -1AP
D1
ub"
A4
Part
ro.nieltd
HA 809
P\
E"
PitaJECT
AREA
Hood CXnall"',
Figure 3.
Map showing ambient and storm event sample. sites,
6
samples made their accuracy suspect. At the conclusion of the
fieldwork, the Water Analyzer was returned to the manufacturer
and the probe was found to be faulty.
Laboratory and field replicates and QC sample results are
reported in Appendix A.
Rainfall data was measured at Center, approximately midway
between the north and south ends of the Watershed. Data are
reported in Table 1 to help interpret the results. However,
large variations in rainfall within the Watershed were sometimes
observed. On some dates heavy rainfall was observed at one end
of the Watershed and no rainfall was observed at the other end.
Thus, this data may not be representative of rainfall at the
sample sites.
Water quality criteria for the various classes of waters and
their beneficial uses are given in Water Quality Standards for
Surface Waters of the State of Washington (Chapter 173 -201 WAC).
Criteria for the parameters are summarized in Tables 2A and 2B.
Although all waters monitored are designated Class AA
(extraordinary), criteria for the other classes are given in
order to allow one to assess the extent of impairment when Class
AA criteria are exceeded. Beneficial uses for the various
classes are given in Table 3.
The State fecal coliform standard has two parts:
(1) the geometric mean value (GMV) of the samples should not
exceed a certain value (dependent upon the class
designation); and
(2) not more than 10% of the samples should exceed another
value (Tables 2A and 2B).
If either of these parts is not met, the standard is
violated.
7
Table 1. Rainfall accumulation at Center, Washington in
relationship to ambient and storm event sampling dates.
Sample
Sample
Rainfall accumulations
date
type
1 -day
3 -day
(inches)
(inches)
1991
February
13
Ambient
0.09
0.59
March 13
Ambient
0.00
0.27
August 22
Ambient
0.00
0.18
September
17
Ambient
0.00
0.00
November
25
Ambient
0.06
0.21
December
17
Ambient
0.10
0.10
1992
January 27
Ambient
0.87
1.73
February
19
Ambient
0.21
0.28
February
24
Storm event 0.00
0.12
March 9
Ambient
0.00
0.00
April 22
Storm event 0.00
0.90
1 Accumulation period ended at 0900 on the day of stream
sampling.
E:l
.4
e-i
O
N
I
M
t`
H
U
Cl
4J
ro
m
c
O
41
0+
A
N
ro
3
a
0! 34
a+ CO
to c
.0 'C
N S4
W O
w�
41
w x
O 0
N v
ro�
N
N
ro N
-1 N
U ro
EnU
010
�4 4-1
(a ro
> 01
A N
4J v
O Q)
44
ro
••% TS
)4 N
+� N
� O
U a
.3
41 o
w ,••1
010
�a
)= A
0 +1
N 0
-M
N
N QJ
� 3
rod
E b
w
TA
a
W
E
y
W
a
P4
i
N O
c .0
o w
11 tll
•.i w
'L1 �
O a
U
-4 U ..
coo
c
4J O
C c
ro
aci 4J
� v
3 �4
O
E A
N N
H >4
ro J
a
�4 a~
7 ll
+t 4
ro
tU O
04 a
N 3
+1 ON
� c
>
a
X N
U �4
ro
A �
tl) A
4
N
A
3 � ,
. ,-4
ro
� N
� � 0
v N O
N ro "•i
U N 4j
y U E
0 �4
4J 0
O 44
0 'r.
t0 N ro
0 4J c
N E •..1
.
Q) 'd 4 -4
ul ro
N >a ro
L4 7
-4 $4 w
4)
iQ O
M
a� aa) H
� U U
F O 3
.a
1
c
ro
E
m
�
a
N
N
tU
ro
ro
N
,--I
rl
� .•.
r4
ro c0 4J
U�
U
U
ro+
U
tr
• r-
N•.1
N
N
•.E
E
O O
N ro
ro
ro
U..
.ro
row
O
O
OT O to
,-4 v
d
v
N O
1 N
U
);
N N
v
to 7 0
ro
ro
n
ro
_
to
to
VI 41
A
%O U V
v
c
H0F
w
z s4 z
tr >4
H
Ln U Ln >
to O
0
VIAA
O
N
rl N
'O it 't3 N
wk
000304
ro
NO
Me
N O
0 E o
H
-ON
U
rots
O ro0
0.50+07
U+
ti•
•-+ �-
N N rl
9 E �4 -H O
o E+
E
N
U
U Z U W
O—
0
VI uW U
ro (0101- OT
Ul
Ow
AOA o-G
H sr
N
1-4 O
e 4 N U
N M
ID
0
`,f,• O
W w r0
I)
(0
U VI d'
H VI •r1 VI A
VI 4=
A
to
w
t
0
ro
0 A
N
m
U�.-t
U
c++
N r•I
w 0, E
U+
t r
it ro -4
N .-1
O E O
N
O E
E
.0 0
ro ro
O N O
ro
O
• +U 7
,4 U
.•1 N r-1
LO
U k
--
03
co co
• •O to
N
VI dB U
E
.-I N
co
co N
044
ro
II
I N O
r4 O
N
VI 41
A
to 7
o
. ro
a VI N
�o U v
`
'C7
E-4 0
z
0 tno v
0
Ln x to >
ro
>4
-4
U O
E
VIAroA
ro
oA
O.
•.li
r1 N
c 3•+ 0 0
'0
--,4 -4
7 N 7 N
ro
c r. 4-J
N O
w E 0
1.r O w U c
to
0
roro
oroo
0+ O+c7
u+
to N r+
9 D .�4 _4 O
o f
E
to
C-) 4J
1-
UE U P
o--
•'0N
X
VI 40 U
ro Z ro x tr
. %�
to
co v
0O
AtArl
0
n U
r1N
O%
In 7 -
o
w w ro
u
ro
0 Vt ri
H A •.4 Vt A
VI 41
A
%O U V
0
N
_
i1
>,
0
W
Q
.14
d
N
O
41
4J
U
N
b
S+
1-1
y
cE0
b
.0
04
>a
U
�4
E
N
A.
w
w
E
E+
O
i
N O
c .0
o w
11 tll
•.i w
'L1 �
O a
U
-4 U ..
coo
c
4J O
C c
ro
aci 4J
� v
3 �4
O
E A
N N
H >4
ro J
a
�4 a~
7 ll
+t 4
ro
tU O
04 a
N 3
+1 ON
� c
>
a
X N
U �4
ro
A �
tl) A
4
N
A
3 � ,
. ,-4
ro
� N
� � 0
v N O
N ro "•i
U N 4j
y U E
0 �4
4J 0
O 44
0 'r.
t0 N ro
0 4J c
N E •..1
.
Q) 'd 4 -4
ul ro
N >a ro
L4 7
-4 $4 w
4)
iQ O
M
a� aa) H
� U U
F O 3
.a
I
n
U
3
ar
JA
ro
N
C
O
W
IT
C
N
C
N ?�
>4
a) ro
4J c
3 �
l4
a) O
44 4J
U ro
O N
N
ar
w N
it to
r
W U
O
N ate)
(1) JJ
N ro
ro ZT
rl •.•I
U N
to
O
� rt
> 'O
.0 N
41
3a +OJ
w3
I O
{J 0
••4 .]
w
U a)
v +)
4 9
W
o U
)4 JJ
3
U2 U
ro
W
14
N (A
a) .••1
A ,t
ro
E
0
N
u�
N •'i
(a W
U
N O
-roi U+
U
W '
E
H K
a)
ri
N r-1
N a)
-ro+ k
U a)
Lr
N O
U k
a)
)a
w
yJ
W
ro
c�
ro
L4
ro
ro
a�4 i
U
b
C 4
N
NN
O
)a
•i
41
�
fu �
.� w
f0�
,-�
to
>
Nro
E
C 0
U
U
U
C
01 tn
N
a)
NO
N
ja
N N
a
In 0 O
}I r1
ro
ro
ro
U1
U)
VI JJ
n
10 U v
}O) O
JJ
Ems+ 0 H
C
'J)
z 01 Z
Sa
11
In U Ln >
�
(a O
c
i
o
vt .0 n
o
a)
N a)
a)
r/ N rl
a N
R5
N
ri W
r-4
r
0NCro
C
N
ro O
.Q
44
o ooUO
(a
O�J
ro
MOO
r+
,4
O g
w >4U
--
U
y W
0
o ro-�
M D 17%9 0
U
O+
a)
rI
ri N U
X E X ••4 O
O
!~
N
N fs.
rl
w
U z U )•i
O E
VI ow o
(d (a aP is
O
O a)
0
,o0Ja0SG
ON tD
a)
4J +3
a)
rl N
14 N b
In
rd
J»
w
OJ
+J
- U VI n
H VI ••-i VI 11
VI ,1J
A
N
N
b
�
O 3
4J
tT
a)
;
Table 3. Beneficial water uses (denoted by "X") of the different
classes of surface waters listed in the Water Ouality Standards
for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (Chapter 173 -201
WAC) .
FISH AND SHELLFISH
Salmonid migration
x
CLASS
BENEFICIAL USES
AA
A B C
WATER SUPPLY
x
Salmonid spawning
Domestic
x
x
Industrial
x
x x x
Agricultural
x
x x
STOCK WATERING
x
x x
FISH AND SHELLFISH
Salmonid migration
x
x
x x
Salmonid rearing
x
x
x
Salmonid spawning
x
x
x
Salmonid harvesting
x
x
x
Other fish migration
x
x
x x
Other fish rearing
x
x
x
Other fish spawning
x
x
x
Other fish harvesting
x
x
x
Clam /oyster /mussel rearing
x
x
x
Clam /oyster /mussel spawning
x
x
x
Clam /oyster /mussel harvesting
x
x
Crustacean and other
shellfish rearing)
x
x
x
Crustacean and other
shellfish spawning)
x
x
x
Crustacean and-other
shellfish harvesting)
x
x
x
WILDLIFE HABITAT
x
x
x
RECREATION
Primary contact recreation
x
x
Secondary contact recreation
x
x
Sport fishing
x
x
x
x
Boating
x
x
x
x
Aesthetic enjoyment
x
x
x
x
COMMERCE & NAVIGATION
x
x
x
x
1 Crab, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.
11
DATA INTERPRETATION
Fecal coliform results are interpreted by comparing
geometric mean values (GMVs) to State standards (Tables 2A and
2B). The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173 -201A) does not
specify a minimum number of samples from which to calculate a
mean value. The Washington Department of Health (DOH) has a
policy of calculating a GMV from a minimum of 15 samples. There
is good justification for having a large sample size because
fecal coliform concentrations are highly variable.
Sample sizes in this study are small, especially when dry
season and wet season samples are considered separately. Despite
the small sample sizes in this study, comparisons have been made
to the standard to help the reader evaluate the data. Caution
should be exercised and sample size considered before drawing
conclusions.
For the same reason (small sample size), fecal coliform
loadings must also be interpreted with caution.
No State standard exists for evaluating fecal coliform
concentrations in shellfish tissue. Studies often reference a
230 fc /gm Federal (Food and Drug Administration) guideline. This
guideline was intended to assess shellfish marketability, for
which purpose shellfish are tested after processing.
The 230fc /100gm level is used by DOH (1990) in the Puget
Sound Ambient Monitoring Program to place shellfish in the most
contaminated of three categories (<30, 30 -230, and >230
fc /100gm). Thus, reference is made to this 230 fc /100gm
concentration in evaluating data cited in this study.
As in water, fecal coliform concentrations in shellfish
tissue are often highly variable and sample size.must be
considered in the evaluation.
12
RESULTS
Oak Bay Basin
Three unnamed tributaries of Mats Mats Bay were monitored
under the ambient sampling program and a fourth tributary was
sampled during storm events (Figure 3). Samples from all three
ambient sites (LD6, LD7, LD8) exceeded the 50fc /100m1 State
standard on some dates (Table 4). Fecal coliform levels at all
three sites were highest (range 240- 540fc /100ml) in samples taken
January 27, 1992. This date is associated with the greatest
rainfall of all the dates sampled (Table 1).
A fourth Mats Mats Bay tributary (LD21), sampled during
storm events, -had almost no fecal coliform bacteria on the two
dates sampled (Table 5). Site LD6, sampled on the same dates,
averaged 67fc /100ml.
During the dry season (sample size 2), sites LD6 and LD7
failed both parts of the standard (Tables 2A and 6). During the
wet season (sample size 6), sites LD6, LD7, and LD8 had GMVs
below the 50fc /100ml limit, but failed to meet the second part of
the standard ( <_ 10% of the samples >
100fc /100ml) .
Flows for all four Mats Mats tributaries (sites LD6, LD7,
LD8, and LD21) were always low, never exceeding 0.5cfs on any of
the dates sampled (Tables 5 and 7). Thus, fecal coliform
loadings for these tributaries were comparatively low and usually
did not exceed 0.1 billion fc /day (Tables 5 and 7).
Total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity were highest at
ambient sites LD6, LD7, and LD8 on January 27, 1992 when rainfall
was greatest (Table 1). On this date TSS ranged from 47 to
127mg /1 and turbidity from 63 to 88 NTUs for the three sites
(Table 4). Storm event site LD21 had a TSS value of 38mg /1 on
February 24, 1992 (Table 5). Temperatures in all four Mats Mats
Bay tributaries remained below the 16.0° C Class AA limit.
Conductivity ranged from 77µmho /cm at site LD21 to 225gmho /cm at
site LD8.
Besides the four streams flowing into Mats Mats Bay, one
additional stream in the Oak Bay Basin was sampled. An unnamed
tributary which flows into Oak Bay, was sampled at site LD11 on
two storm event dates. The mean fecal coliform level for these
dates was 17fc /100ml. Both parts of the fecal coliform standard
were met. Of the eight storm event sites monitored in the Ludlow
Watershed, site LD11 had the highest flows (mean flow 2.0cfs;
Table 5).
13
N
co
1 %0
1
I
I
in
o
ao M
a1
ry
N
to
M In
Aa
to
N
a
3
•.�
'�
r
1O
r-
N
M
O
> R r.
c0
1
I
1
'i
M
.--I
01 r
N
4\ o
r
I I
I
N
to
-W
r
ko
N r4
m
O N
a
I
r-1
'•1
ri
r
ri
M
r•1
v V'
r•1
o
Z
,�"
•i4 •� .
'�
r
o
1
1
t
M
111
r-1
ro
9 41
N
M
F
a
N
to
0 ... (a
t]
co
N
Ln
co
%o
ri co
c•
d- co
c0
01
,
a�
E
N
%D
H
I
M
to
O
0
M
to
m-
ro
N
'
4J
111
Aa
to
N
a
`�
'�
r
1O
r-
N
M
ro
to
I
c0
1
I
1
'i
M
.--I
01 r
aI
W
I
1
c0
w
r
In co
m
4
o
,�"
•i4 •� .
'�
r
o
1
1
t
M
111
�
M
co
N
M
F
a
N
1.4
ro
r-1
co
N
O
Az
c•
,
a�
E
N
%D
H
I
M
to
O
0
M
m-
ro
b
E
w
M %D
In
r
ry
'•1
(a
a
o r
4
in
14
14
m
to
4J
111
to
N
a
`�
'�
r
1O
r-
N
M
1
I
I
4J
>1
m
4
,�"
•i4 •� .
'�
r
o
1
1
t
M
111
�
M
co
N
M
F
a
N
1.4
N
r-1
co
N
O
Az
E
N
%D
H
I
M
to
O
0
M
O
ro
H
4
m
>11
co
N
H
I
I
'd'
O
N
N
l0
ro
a
M
1
I
.-1
N
H
N
1•1
A
>s
4
-4 '�
D
1-1
H
'-I
W
r
N
d
ro G m
'c
a
o
1
s�
r
,•;
rn
r 1
io
t.
w
4J at
o 1:4 -4
s+
E w r-1
c
z
4
N fA
w
M
O
O
k0
01
O
r
C
V
R
•'
c-;
�
M
v
M
,
N
,d
v
co
o
t
I
1
W
n
%0
co
m
a
cr
I
1
1
m
N
N
to
�4 O
r
O
O
%0
v
row°
`O
;
c°
' 1
,°a
H
cm
G*. O w
V v
$4
m
13,
%0
a
0o
t
o
0
0
%0
o
co
r-
N
+-3
•.i
'-1
ro
..
O
�
01
01
.-1
01
N
01
a7 M
01
H
14
H
01
14
01
01
01
'-1
01
01
01
-1
4J
4J
0%
01
01
r4
r
H
3 7Oi
ro
M
r•1
' 1
rn
a
N
f1
N
N
d G4
A
ri
03
>�
>a
01
v
N
N
0
m
C
f1.
Sa
U
3
+1
a)
7
sa
U
w
z
a
E
to
aroi
h
w
z
.1 i
N
>a
v
A
v
O
z
m
LL
i;
ro
N
N
fJ
a)
4
a)
ro
sa
m
a
s4
Q)
w
O
N
�4
W
A
4
a1
O
z
C
O
G
a1
x
• ro
m
N
-4
m
4
1,7
>
w
U
O
C
O
U
b
ro
QJ
O
41
ro
as
d
LL
R
a)
E
.r
9
C
.••1
m
N
1
n
N
O
to
0
>
M
tD
n
O1
I
in
tD
to
r-
0
O ..
\ o
41 1-1
�
$4
%0
N1
n
I
N
ON
co
n
n
yl O tn
Q
00
v
O
1
%D
n
to
co
In ❑
U N
a'
ri
'•I
rl
.-1
r•1
14
ri
a
C
.Q)
a ZL 41
id N1
a b
A
In
c1
n
c0
r1
v
N
N
O
d
m
N
n
v
to
v
v
tD
41 -4
w
H
'•1
H
'•1
H
H
'•1
C
a
C
O
c0
14
c0
IT
IT
N
14
41
O1
O
O
I
O
O)
O
O1
A
v
1D
r1
n
to
to
0)
I
-.
0.
0
co
I
(n
00
00
0)
C x
N
01
Ci
Ny
A
v
N
In
n
v
O
N
co
�
Ey
w
•.�•1
co
n
n
ao
O
co
co
0
to
m
01 ul
C
111
H
N
1
14
N
.-1
e-1
ro
r1
.i
N
1
H
N
%D
'•1
'>7
0
N �
N
>1
O
O
i-i .•.
.14 .-.
:1
O
In
111
1
ri
.-i
r•1
14
'•1
I
ri
N
n
O1
1+
I.1 11
E
14
°a
�4
v
T!
EO.e
A
O
v
co
(1
O
N
P1
C>1
tD
N
N
H
14
N
1f1
ri
ro0
w
w
Rl
d'
N it
al
C
v
M
n
c•1
to
?c 4J
ro
n
i
)
01
tD
N
1
tp
O
v
v
ro 3
� �
N
A
LLN..
co
v
to
v
C .,4
a
o
tD
I
N
0 rl 2T
v
ri
H
I
n
.-1
v
v
O ❑
1 N
a
tT
4
A
v
00
00
0
o
N
o
tD
C CS
O
N
c1
.H %
E.c
w
m
N
ko
at
v
v
co
tl.
ro c 1
F."
tD
M
H
t0
01
01
111
N❑
ro
11
c0
O
1
11
v
O
O
b
I
4j
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N >.
W •+ —
> ro
.,.1 Cat N
111
N
'•1
cn
O1
N
n
0) 21
1 C C
14
O
01
O
1
O
n
O
O
0.,, 0
a
U •.•1
O
e-i
O
O
O
O
O
•.i N
ro '-1
31 t0
ro -1 .,1
O
tD
r1
'•1
N
14
'•1
111
ro
U A
A
In
M
O-
O
O\
t•1
M
O
c m
O
Tl
C
n
n
H
1
n
N
t11
00
'•i
ro
tD
�
I
N
C•
Q) °a
U
(: r-1
0l O c•1
j+ E
$4
r1
rl
e-1
I
D
d
r 1
01
r1
i-1 0 0
O.
t`1
v
v
I
tD
�-+m N
cOWO
Kc
ka U
C%
❑
W O U
ro a ••'1
U w
A
to
n
H
m
v
01
111
co
4j —
N
m
rl
N
N
N
to
w
.-+
H
10 >4 C
ro -H
>4 co
C
ri
tD
N
IA
co
tD
n
41 C
ro
rl
O
c1
O
N
V
n
N
•4y3
al
'i 41 0
,%„
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
to
to
A
CT
3 N
ko
of
m
v
m
N Cl
O W
w
O
01
m
'•I
111
t•1
1.1 iJ W
r•i U
a
o
o�
al ro ro
w —
04
o
a
o
0
0
.+
o
ro N
3 N
to
ri
v
O
to
r+41
A
H
rf
v
O
m
V•
111
N
e-1 •.1
01
• •-1 !n
w.
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
to ❑
--4
1
A �+ F.
)✓. +1
tD
4
N
N
v
I11
td
n
c0 ro 10
ro"1
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
E4Mvl
In 1n
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
15
A
•Ci
N
i�
ro
C
N
N
b
Ol
3.+
ro
N
tr
G
4
O
I ^'1
t.
C'
+C
O
a.
N•
a�
it
sa
0
U
C
ro
N
3
O
14
w
Ol
41
ro
4J
N
W
.4
3
O
•c
N
N
t7 1•i
`. ro
W N
7 QI
> N
� tU
ro r,
N
U y
-4
1•i
41
Q) a4.Ji
O
v
tT N
.ri
WD
rT �
c li
ro ro
c
. ro
z N
�ro
4) 41
N ro
.i J-1
N U1
tH N
ri 4
m +1
Iii
rd LI
N O
c
0
N
C li
O d
N �
ro4-3
vv
N 3
Al r_
c
IO .•i
O
4 O
d r�l
3 U
w
li O
1-t c
O cd
(4-4 C
W
N S.i
•ri IOJ
ro to
b+
N �
ro ri
N s
b 0
N
O 0
W M
r f tT 4)
U 4J �
C tT
ri tU •ri
ro U k.
N N C
w a•ri
�O
N
ri
A
ro
H
N n•
N 41
0) W
O tr
ri o
O
A r•I
N 0 U
c w
0
N
to
N r4
N B
O
r+ o
U
W
61 �
2Ji E
c O
ro O
a �+
\
U
W
z
N V
a) J•1
N UI
z
r-t
rti O �
f•+ ri O
< A U
OW tN
0 r-I
z s
0
0
0 U--
N U
ro w
v
N � �
3 r- •Oi
a U
w
z
N
}.1 n•
N b
W J.1
£ VI
41
r4
N O I;
tn00
1 ri O
A \
ri
O o
N O
NU'\
N U
W
$4 1-1
• G O
ro ri
a\
U
w
z
r•1
ro >,•ri
N N N 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
wwwzzzz
0 0 0 w w to n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M MN ri
wMinmwmw
ri ri ri N C r•tN
O
�t11O000M
01 0� tt1 0� d' v n I 1 1 1 I I I I
I 1 1 ri to NN
v ri M I I I I
NnMe1•
V
w w w w
N N N 0 0 0 0 O N N O N N N
v N w z z z z z N w I z W w o
>•t >+ > >i >+ » >I >t
000x, n 00000000
ri H H ri to to
nwrir-IM0ID nn. - I I nNtnw
ri r•I ri M ri N t0 H N V'
ul
kD tn QOM V -w r- riH ri N10 tom
a%N MMtn N N 1 v 1 Mrs I N 1
{ 1
I I I I 1 M 1 r•1 1-1 1 W 1 w
V• r♦ M N n M dr M n V 'O N ri
V
%D %D %D to %a W%0 NNNr•4 NNNN
N O N 0 0 0
0 z N z z z I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
>+ >t
O O O
O O O O O to I I I I l l i t l
ra ra '
H to M
ri to r4 O ri N 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 L 1
ri %D C W r-i r•i
O
coo
to a%N 0\
v 0% to ri ri ri
N 1 1 1 1 1
1 �Od•OOO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. I
tn�•Mrnr•tw
ra ri
N N N N N N I 1 1 1 1 1 I t I
,.1
C
N
11 >
C N
L r♦ ri ri ri r•I ra r♦
•rig -i NMC%O nw c r•I N M"W m 0r,
4Oin in aaima •riaa0Q0OIm O
aaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa
16
1.1
O
c
3
ri
O
O
\
N
E
N
C
ro
tr
is
O
O
tn
c
ro
i.i
N
.L.1
ro
ro
:4
1r
J-1
O
W
O
ro
>
ro
tU
U
t•i
+1
tv
O
tT �
0
roO
ri
Fi N
y •ri
y1 C
ro ro --
�4
N 0
U
� p
W O
r•1
C
ro
N .0
N d1
. 14 {-I
. U �
ro
44
Q N
.roty
t0 �
� ro
N N
!V
O 4j
W
r1 N-1
ri O
O
U ^w
0
r•I
U C
Ol ro
W C
W
N N
N k
17
.
L p to
rn
� O O N ra
I M c't
I O O
y
co
I 1
I t O O to O r'1
0
�
a
.4
a
I I
t 1
o o N o 0
o O
n
Ul
41 Ct
o�
lh N U) t•1 d'
ON
IS
n
1
'r to .4
1 r-I O O O O O O
0 O O N O O
O O O
Q) w
10
w
O
ip
M N t
O 01 r- N O V' e•1
r4 r-1 H
41.4
r4 O 01 O �O r♦ O
.-I ri
C 3
0 0
1
1 O O O v O O
O O O
tO 0
W 0
O
C
.,c -+
N
rl
co
N d
0
U -•I
N
1 U1 co ID co C
N N N
Hi fO
ri A
a
�O
1 N N p r-I ri N O
..
U)
U
N)
W
oa t
%D r y v n
.4
0 Lo to
Q) a
�1 N
rl
1 N f r'1 N Ln m O
O to N
U O
in
14
1 N '1
C .
3�
O 0.
r-1 r
ril
v
o r
d w
ra
.a
co
c o m ra o
ri
I
p
,a
I
1
I I
0 1 1 o O o 0 0
1 0 0
�. N
'
r♦ a%
4
y N N �
ko !fl t, w
m
1Qa
m C'1 tb
O O O O •"1 o
O H
a
1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
N t6
N
4) 41
.�
e 1 C d O \O to N n
o
CA r�-1
o
C
3 rn
1
.� o o v o
It
.��
0
1
0 0
0 0 0
0
us a%
PW
,4
o >,
ro
W W
(C
N
!`
N N N N 1-1 to T-4 r-
t� N a%
_ L
y N N
3 S4
r7
N{
N 14 � `r �
`� �
f4 0
OA
v•rl
1-1 Q)
-
1Q SQ 11
b I~
r 1
0
1` co O '-1 N v OI n
C ri r I
41 >4J
d ('1
ko N N r-
10 is
ra
cn M
b Z v
w
G U
tP >~ G
N O
1 O O
O
I 1 1 � V' cn %a co
�O
1 %D
1 N N
N U
t17 TJ
•.i i].
►a
v
1 I 1 r� l�
O N
4
W E W
b
N '-4
CO
%0
1 O O to d' O O M
c'1 O
In 0
IT U
a
a
I Q\ co
o.
Q)
N
•rd .
U
TS W tO
-V r,
C
N ••1 U
N O
0
O r-1 N
>a a
U
r-I O W
co
o� off H ° v
i
Ln m
"' d
U
Q))' �o
w
o a
cov
c ra 4J
U 0
0
0
•i H Ln
.r4 to (D
a ►]
W 14
b U r-i
0
.r4
G N O
U
N
• 1
O
U
W N
O
I %a to ' N �
Qw
C)
s
to — (a
)1 -.-1
to
C) 14 U
w (a
�N O
-rd 4J
U
0 i4 4J
U 4)
U .�
�O
I d' In N co %O �D v
r-I n
`4 H
'II '�
ja W
A
e4
I N V ri rn
C v td
r-4 41
to
tO > O
z to
4)i to
W CO
N
rN
3 r.
ON
rO.1 o v
y
r 4
14 CA
14 H 0 r•i r-1 N N
a% N
G 1� G
44
I�
J,
a\
w a% O\ a% 01
-1 rn rn rn o+
O m O>+
27 N U
y
0
b
(A
14
rn m
ri ri to ri r♦ ra 14
m ro
(0 P
1-1
N
m 4J
tO 1 d I 4J
(d JJ 4J
c')
i l: Q1
N1 N r'1 r-4
cq N
Ey
H
ri N N ri N 14 a%
N >r o 41 0
4J 0 O
G Ha Nx
m 14
t'
A
1J >T f1 > U !; A Sr
10 A r-1
W W C7
y
W
U1 Z o h G4 =
i 4
M r M
17
Ludlow Bay Basin
Results of the ambient monitoring conducted at three sites
on Ludlow Creek (Figure 3) are shown in Table 8. Fecal coliform
GMVs were higher during the dry season than the wet season. Dry
season GMVs for sites LD2, LD3, and LD4 were 66, 41, and 601
fc /100ml respectively, compared to 8, 11, and life /100ml for the
wet season (Table 6). The worst conditions during the dry season
were observed at upstream site LD4 (GMV 601 /fc /1OOml). Site LD4
failed both parts of the fecal coliform standard in the dry
season and the second part in the wet season. Additionally, site
LD2 failed to meet the first part of the standard during the dry
season. Mean fecal coliform loadings were 2.6 billion fc /day in
the dry season and 2.0 billion fc /day in the wet season (Table
7) .
TSS was less than 8mg /l on all sampling dates except on
January 27, 1992, a date associated with high rainfall (Table 1).
On this date TSS measured 53, 12, and 39mg /l for sites LD2, LD3,
and LD4 respectively (Table 8). Similarly, turbidity values on
this date (55, 14, and 60 NTUs) were also higher than those
obtained on other dates (<5 NTUs). Temperatures at the three
sites ranged from 1.8 to 14.7 0C_. Conductivity at sites LD3 and
LD4 ranged from 99 to 164µmho /cm. Downstream site LD2 had higher
conductivity values (up to 3'56µmho /cm), but this site is tidally
influenced.
Paradise Bay Basin
Two unnamed tributaries (sites LD31 and LD41) of Paradise
Bay were sampled in February (Figure 3). In April,. site LD41 was
sampled a second time, but site LD31 could not be sampled due to
lack of flow. On February 24, fecal coliform measured 13fc /10Oml
at site LD31 (Table 5). Whereas, on the same date, site LD41 on
the other tributary had a fecal coliform level of 124fc /100ml.
On the next sampling date in April, site LD41 had a level of only
6fc /100ml. Based onta sample size of 2, site LD41 failed the
second part of the fecal coliform standard; 50% of the samples
exceeded 100fc /1OOml. Based on a single sample, loading at site
LD31 was calculated to be 0.01 billion fc /day. Mean loading at
site LD41 for the two dates was 0.92 billion fc /day. For both
tributaries (sites LD31 and LD41), TSS ranged from 2.0 to
7.4mg /l, turbidity from 10 to 13 NTUs, temperature from 8.4 to
9.1 °C, and conductivity from 148 to 162gmho /cm (Table 5).
18
a
a
3
O
N
d
w
N
-4
N
d
.i
LL
ro
N
N
01
H
a
ro
rn
rn
O+
c
w
x
n�
m
s.,
U
3
0
a
N
G
0
ro
U
O
N
01
x
J-1
4J
ro
'O
m
>a
N
ro
tll
N
�1
0)
O)
ro
ro
4
-4
ro
CP M
v id
11 O
ro t7w
3:.,4
w
co
N.
S2
ro
H
v
p
>. a
>
•.IUV M
4.) o p
0 o to a
.O N
O �ro N
V C]
a
p
a
d
>4
J-I
ro M
s4 p
n. a
F- U
W —
E+ �
a
a�
in
a
4
-M ' . M
•O a p
.., F a
.a z
>4
E� N
p
a
.y.
O
a
a
M
rol;N a
4-J N 'O
O R.•M
E N -4
_0 o
N N N
p
a
p
a
}.1 O M
rl O O p
ro w .•1 a
U• ,4 -�
v -4 U
W O W
U
N
a
a
v
ro
'O
r-I
iL
!r
ro
w
t0 O M 01 tn d. h co rl
M C v M tD tO 1n to to
ON M r- V' r, t` tD to 111
O\ 1•1 111 -T in In N N M
tD N Co to ON .--I ON tD co
14 M tD 1` tD 1` O to Ot
ei r1 N N N P4 M M 14
co ON N rl aD M M tD In
l� w N N r- 111 1` W tD
.-1 '-1
00 0o I` M O\ M Ot r- h
I. In c4 In to
I
n tD D1 O\ n 10 r4 M M
r, In M c. t0 4 9 in 9
O I O M ,-4 01 O co
• I O
N Ot M tD In d'
M 1 W N r1 O to tD
N -T M
In 1 r4 to tD C' O N
1 In
N W tD co v n tD r,
o%
v rl 01 M M M M M
1` N N N N co tD
N
O N 4 N N N rl N N
N W co tp tD O
. M
1` r•1 M ri N ei In N N'
I r o
rl 1 In O cO M M tD N
ri D1 M
it „1 M
M 1`
M 1 In M N N
to I tD to M co to O1 .•�-
.� I d' 01
ri N
'-I 01 .ti '•i N
ON O1 e4 O1 N O1
O1 '4 •-i. 01 O1 01 0%
01 M r-4 01 1••1
01 01 rl '•I N
m r-4 n m
M '1 rl - (A O1
L 4 n I-q .•1
N a) N N
N wQ
?d U O 4.) O) O Sa U
4 31 O+ Q > U G Cl Sa
w m z o h w
N
d
a
N
O
z
v
a
ro
N
N
v ai
41 11
ai i
� N
ro
>4 >s
ro r-
04 •.1
s4
N
.1r ro
11 N
O
.-I
ro
.-1 7
N N
,Q O
> ro
O (L)
z w
4J
C N
O A.
0
.s~
C) N
x a�
ro
++ •-1
N
N In
I � O
N v
>v U
41 v
-.4 '-I
> '-I
.,.1 0
.IJ U
U
O N
s4
a tv
O 3
U
N
ro LL
� ro
S.r N
O
yJ N
ro p
a� a
1: 41
H y
.4 N
Bywater Bay Basin
Monitoring results of Bywater Bay's single, unnamed
tributary stream, sampled at storm event site LD51, are shown in
Table 5. Fecal coliform GMV for the two dates was 42fc /100ml.
Both parts of the fecal coliform standard were met (Table 6).
Mean fecal coliform loading was 0.49 billion fc /day. Mean TSS
was 4.3mg /1, turbidity 6.3 NTUs, temperature 8.4 °C, and
conductivity 150µmho /cm.
Squamish Harbor Basin
Ambient monitoring results of the sampling conducted at site
LD1 on Shine Creek are shown in Table 9. The highest fecal
coliform level occurred on January 27, 1992, the date associated
with the greatest rainfall (Table 1). The dry season GMV was
11fc /100ml and the wet season GMV 17fc /100ml (Table 6). Both
parts of the standard were met for both seasons. Mean loading
was calculated at 0.91 billion fc /day for the dry season and 5.5
billion fc /day for the wet season.
Over the entire study, TSS ranged from 0.6 to 5.9mg /l and
turbidity from 0.5 to 7.9 NTUs. Conductivity ranged from 125 to
5900gmho /cm; the upper value indicates tidal influence at this
estuarine site.
Temperature ranged from 3.1 to 16.0 °C. This upper
temperature, which occurred in August 1991, is the maximum
allowed under the Class AA standard (Table 2A). Thus, the
standard was barely met in August.
The two unnamed tributaries (sites LD61 and LD71), sampled
twice during storm events, had low levels of fecal coliform; GMVs
for both streams were less than 9fc /100ml (Table 5). Mean
loadings for each of these low -flow streams were less than 0.1
billion fc /day.
Mean values for other parameters measured at site LD61 were:
TSS 4.3 mg /1, turbidity 6.3 NTUs, temperature 8.40C, and
conductivity 150 µmho /cm (Table 5). Mean values at site LD71 on
the other tributary were: TSS 4.5mg /l, turbidity 11 NTUs,
temperature 9.2 °C, and conductivity 175µmho /cm.
20
N
01
N
0)
�-I
T-1
O
O
�
O
r-4
a., ..
z
ON
.,-1 0 U
cn
> U o
.O
r-1
•rf --� U1
O
O
r�
O
4J O N
Co
O
N
r-
M
111
O
U1
r-1
rr
U L
o1
Co
U1
N
N
%0
ON
U7
10
04
J
rq
H
H
r1
H
r1
U1
LO
I~
f0
O
'O
U
rn
X
S-1
4l
O
4-3
O
O
U
-�
4J
r-1
p
r-I
l-
t-
r-1
U
M
rZ
v
O
3
O
O
H
•.
N
O
>1
H
4J
A
aH
In
;
co
H
d.
qr
0)
LO
co
D
N
-r+ Ei
ri
4
4
r.;
r�
9
o
ri
a)
J0 z
o
W ,"
z
W
E-4
lz
0
4-)
v
rl 'O
rl
O
N
r-I
W
a%
co
N
fA
t0 En
VI
0)
14
f0 M
}J (D rO
r-4
l
1;
N
14
ri
O
In
N
4
O -04-H
r-i
E
ON
0 O
U1 •r-4
U1 N
f0
�w
m
+J 9:
7y
O -r-1
.-.
aJ
0
r-4
•H
w 3
w o -r4
c0 O
r4 O o
4.7
044
c0 44 r-1
%o
I
d•
LO
N
co
%D
w
lw
U
Ul
U- 4\
r-1
I
N
�4
O1
O
?�
N r-i U
b
•r4 -H w
p
O
U
to 1=
:3 O
r-I
'O
4J
ON
01
r-1
01
N.
ON
Rf
�1 f0
ON
ri
ri
Ol
cn
OV
O1
GI U
r-1
r-i
o1
O1
r-I
O\
rl
41
41 O
O
rn
O1
r-1
r-4
N
".�
M
C1
r-1
r1
r,
01
O7
4J
N
b
r!
LA
ri
r-
r-1
r-1
N
ON
ri
Q
r♦
O
>1
is
p
iL
N
G1 N
r-I
O
.0
N
�
c0
r-1
04
O
-W
N
I.1
U
Ea
O
F
J�
f4
IS
i].
>
U
II
>a
tO t~
as
N
(d
41
O
N
c0
O
ca
E-4 4J
t!1
w
z
Q
cn
z
?1
DISCUSSION
Oak Bay Basin
Mats Mats Bay
All three of Mats Mats Bay's tributaries sampled under our
ambient monitoring program violated the Class AA standards for
fecal coliform. Concentrations were higher in the dry season
(GMV 115 -123 fc /100ml) than in the wet season
(GMV 10- 35fc /100ml). In two of the tributaries (LD6 and LD7),
fecal coliform mean daily loadings were as high or higher in the
dry season as they were in the wet season despite the 4 -5 times
greater wet season flows.
In Rubida's 1988 study (1989), fecal coliform concentrations
were only slightly higher in the dry season (GMV 52 -55 fc /100ml)
than in the wet season (GMV 23 -39 fc /100ml) for the three
tributaries, based on 2 dry season samples and 2 -3 wet season
samples. Based on a sample size of two, the dry season GMVs
slightly exceeded the Class AA standards.
In a 1989 study, Smayda and Harper (1989) reported that the
flow- weighted GMV for all three tributaries combined was 230
fc /100ml in the dry season; no wet season data was collected.
This level exceeds the Class AA standard.
Several monitoring studies have been conducted on the marine
water of Mats Mats Bay. In 1987, based on 13 samples collected
from May to July, Harper -Owes (1987) reported a fecal coliform
GMV of 4 fc /100ml, well below the 14 fc /100m1 limit for Class AA
marine water.
In another 1987 study, conducted during 1 week in September,
the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (now
Department of Health or DOH) sampled 13 stations in Mats Mats Bay
four times. Three of these stations failed the second part of
the Class AA standard (unpublished data).
From March 1988_ to January 1989, Rubida (1989) collected 50-
samples at 4 stations in the bay. Fecal coliform GMVs were 2
fc /100m1 or less at the 4 stations. Both parts of the standard
were met.
In 1989, Smayda and Harper (1989) collected 28 samples at 4
marine stations from July to October. The GMV for all samples
was less than 2.5 fc /100ml. Both parts of the standard were met.
Since 1989, DOH has been collecting samples at 15 stations
in Mats Mats Bay under an ambient monitoring program. Based on
71 samples collected in 1989, fecal coliform levels met Class AA
standards at all 15 stations (unpublished data). No samples were
collected in 1990. In 1991 -92, when 195 samples,were collected,
fecal coliform levels violated the standard at 6 of the 15
stations (DOH, unpublished data). During the September 1991
sampling period, when the weather was "dry" and "about 20 boats
were moored in the bay, 42 of the 90 samples collected exceeded
the 14 fc /100ml standard (Gerald Lukes, DOH, personal
communication).
22
Elevated fecal coliform levels may be partly due to the
morphometry of Mats Mats Bay and its circulation pattern. Mats
Mats Bay is almost totally closed. Water enters and.exits the
bay through a long, narrow channel, approximately 3300 ft. by 300
ft. Smayda and Harper (1989) calculated that bay water is
exchanged at the rate of 1.3 times each day. However, despite
this great exchange rate, they observed that surface current was
toward the bay regardless of tidal direction, when even light (2-
5 knots), northerly breezes occurred. They surmised that the
light winds which prevail during summer and fall serve to hold
floating and near - surface objects within the bay. From
temperature and salinity measurments, Smayda and Harper
ascertained that vertical mixing did not occur from July through
September, but did occur in October. Thus fecal coliform
occurring in freshwater, which floats on top of the denser
saltwater, could become concentrated in Mats Mats Bay surface
water, at least during the summer months.
Limited shellfish data exists for Mats Mats Bay. Six
oysters collected from July to October 1989 had a fecal coliform
GMV of 333 fc /100ml (Smayda and Harper 1989). This exceeds the
230 fc /100gm guideline promulgated by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration regulating commercial shellfish sales. Oysters
collected near the stream mouths displayed greater concentrations
(GMV 552 fc /100gm) than did samples collected from a more distant
point (GMV 259 fc /100ml). Other data include one shellfish
sample collected in June 1985 having 20 fc /100gm and three in
1987 having concentrations of 20, 78, and 1300 fc /100gm
(unpublished data, Jefferson County Department of Health).
The concentration of fecal coliform in the freshwater,
surface layer, could help explain the elevated fecal coliform
levels in the oyster samples. Oysters, which filter large
volumes of water each day, concentate algae and microorganisms
including bacteria. Because they inhabit the intertidal zone,
oysters are highly exposed to surface water.
What are some of the possible causes of the elevated fecal
coliform levels in the Mats Mats Bay tributaries? The LD6
drainage is primarily uninhabited forestland. However, there are
a few homes in the area which are possible sources.
Forestland predominates in the LD7 drainage. A few houses
on Verner Road could potentially convey pollutants via the
ditches along Verner Road and West Mats Mats Road. The potential
for pollution is increasing on the hillside above Mats Mats Road;
building sites are now being cleared. Several streamlets,
draining this hillside, empty into the ditch on West Mats Mats
Road
The LD8 drainage originates on the west side of Oak Bay
Road. Two wetlands, one in an alder forest, the other in an
adjacent clearcut, are headwaters for the drainage. Flows from
these wetlands pass under Oak Bay Road through separate culverts.
These two headwater sources, and a third water source originating
on the north side of Mats Mats Beach Road, all flow through a
horse farm. Although to a large extent dense underbrush forms a
natural barrier to the streamlets, some direct animal access or
contaminated surface runoff probably contributes to the elevated
23
fecal coliform levels at site LD8.
From site LD8 at Bay Shore Drive, the stream flows for about
1,000 feet through a pasture before emptying into Mats Mats Bay..
The stream is unfenced in this pasture. Two dirt - covered
culverts provide the animals passage across the stream. Two or
three horses usually occupy the pasture. The only home which
could possibly be a source of pollution to this tributary is
located on Mats Mats Beach Road.
The fourth Mats Mats Bay tributary (LD21), sampled twice
during storm events, showed almost no fecal coliform bacteria
present. This small stream flows through forestland, where there
are presently no homes or domestic animals. No previous water
quality data exists for this tributary.
Oak Bay
Fecal coliform levels in the unnamed tributary (LD11) to Oak
Bay met Class AA standards. There are no domestic animals
upstream of the sampling site and only two homes near the stream.
No other data is known to exist for this small (2 cfs) stream.
DOH sampled five stations in Oak Bay from 1988 to 1992 under
their ambient monitoring program. Fecal coliform GMVs were less
than 2 fc /100ml at all five stations (16 -28 samples per station)
during this period (DOH, unpublished data). Thus, marine Class
AA standards were met.
Ludlow Bay Basin
In Ludlow Creek, fecal coliform levels were highest during
the dry season when Class AA violations occurred at downstream
site LD2 (GMV 66 fc /100ml) and upstream site LD4 (GMV 601
fc /100ml). Wet season GMVs were less than 12 fc /100ml at all
three Ludlow Creek sites. However, wet season data from site LD4
failed the second part of the standard.
Rubida (1989) sampled the same three sites in 1988 -89 and
found that site LD4 had a dry season GMV of 68 fc /100ml, which
was about 3 times greater than the wet season GMV and a violation
of the Class AA standard. No substantial differences were
observed for wet and dry seasons at the other two sites; GMVs
were less than 36 fc /100ml.
- Smayda and Jones (1991) summarized Ludlow Creek water
quality data collected in 1984 and 1989. Fecal coliform levels
measured on three dates (March, May, and September) in 1984
ranged from 23 to 33 fc /100ml. In 1989 fecal coliform samples
collected once each month from June to October had levels mostly
between 14 and 33 fc /100ml except for the August sample, which
had a level of 80 fc /100m1.
The highest fecal coliform levels occurred at upstream site
LD4. The stream forks approximately 50 feet upstream of this
site at Embody Road (County section). The west fork which drains
a forested hillside, contributes most of the flow to the main
stem. Between the forestland and the main stem, the west fork
flows through about 1,000 feet of unfenced grazing land through
two separate pastures. The pasture upstream of Embody Road
24
(private section) did not appear to be recently used. The
pasture downstream of Embody Road (private section) contained cow
manure, but no animals were observed. The stream channel in this
pasture is not well defined. It is likely that this stream
overflows its channel during the rainy season.
The north fork upstream of Embody Road (County section)
drains agricultural lands in Beaver Valley for a distance of
about 1 mile. The stream through this section has been
channelized and has a very low gradient and slow flow. The
stream appears fenced for the most part and is hidden from view
by a dense canopy of herbs and shrubs.
Between site LD4 on Embody Road and site LD3 on Beaver
Valley Road, the stream flows through forested wetlands with
beaver dams and standing water. It is probably due to this large
wetland habitat that fecal coliform levels decrease from site LD4
to site LD3.
This same kind of wetland habitat extends another 0.4 miles
downstream of site LD3 on Beaver Valley Road before the gradient
increases and the stream takes on a more characteristic stream -
like appearance. From site LD3 to site LD2 on Paradise Bay Road,
the stream flows through forestland, where there are no homes or
domestic animals. This would explain the similar fecal coliform
levels at these two sites.
Site LD2 is located on the estuary. Seepage of saltwater
from soils previously inundated with tidal water probably
accounts for the slightly higher conductivity measurements at
this site compared to the two upstream sites.
Fecal coliform levels in Port Ludlow Bay have generally met
the 14 fc /100ml State standard. In 1984, GMVs ranged from <3 to
8 fc /100ml at it sites in the Bay (Patmont et al. 1985). The
highest GMVs occurred near the Wastewater Treatment Plant
discharge (4 fc /100ml) and at the marina (8 fc /100ml). In
monthly sampling conducted by Rubida (1989) from March 1988 to
January 1989 at four sites in Port Ludlow's Inner Bay, GMVs for
the 4 sites ranged from 1.1 to 4.0 fc /100ml. In a different
study, conducted in 1989 from June to October, 38 of -the 50
samples collected at five sites contained less than the
detectable limit (2 fc /100ml), and the remainder had less than 6
fc /100m1 (HLA 1990).
The upgrading of the Wastewater Treatment Plant in 1989
resulted in a substantial decrease in the fecal coliform
concentration of the effluent. In 1984 the fecal coliform GMV
was 77 fc /100ml (Patmont et al. 1985) ; in 1989 the GMV was. 11
fc /100m1, one - seventh the 1984 concentration (HLA 1990).
Several studies have indicated that boaters are a cause of
elevated fecal coliform levels in Port Ludlow Bay. Patmont et
al. (1985) reported that of the 11 sites sampled throughout Port
Ludlow Bay from March to November 1984, the highest fecal
coliform GMV (8 fc /100m1) occurred in samples from the site
closest to the marina. Furthermore, the GMV for the marina site
was about 13 times higher from May 28 to September 4 (51
fc /100ml), when 105 to 107 boats were moored in the Bay, than it
was from March 16 to April 10 (4 fc /100ml) , when less than three
boats were in moorage. The authors reported that 15 percent of
25
the shellfish samples collected in 1984 during summer weekends
had concentrations exceeding 230 fc /100gm.
In a separate study conducted in 1985, Patmont et al. (1985)
compared fecal coliform levels in water and butter clams to the
number of boats moored in the Bay during the Fourth of July
holiday period. They found that fecal coliform levels in both
the water and clams increased and decreased in a manner
corresponding to an increase and decrease in the number of moored
boats. Fecal coliform GMVs exceeded the State standards for
marine water on four of the eight days sampled. About 20 percent
of the clams sampled had fecal coliform concentrations above
230fc /100gm.
Rubida (1989) reported that high fecal coliform
concentrations in the Inner Bay were associated with increased
boating activity during the 1988 Fourth of July weekend. The GMV
for the eight sites sampled was 9 fc /100m1; the three highest
measurements were 37, 75, and 171 fc /100m1. Faust (1982)
reported that fecal coliform in shallow bays increased from 3 to
28 fc /100ml after the arrival of boaters on the Labor Day
weekend, and decreased soon after they departed.
Paradise Bay Basin
The unnamed tributary sampled at site LD31 is better
described as a ditch which runs along the last 0.2 miles of Tala
Shore Drive. Several streamlets draining the hillside flow into
it. There was very little flow in this ditch in February and
none in April. No houses or domestic animals were observed.
The other unnamed tributary sampled at site LD41 is a
typical small stream and flows all year. Based on only two
samples, this stream failed to meet the second part of the fecal
coliform State standard. The stream originates in forestland
(recent clearcut) and then flows through a populated area, the
Paradise Bay Community. Septic effluent is the most likely
source of the elevated fecal coliform level (124 fc /100ml)
measured in February -1992.
DOH does not monitor Paradise Bay under their ambient
monitoring program. No marine data for this embayment was found.
Bywater Bay Basin
The single tributary of Bywater Bay Basin, sampled twice
during storm events, passed the Class AA standard, but not by a
wide margin; the fecal coliform GMV at site LD51 was 42 fc /100ml.
This small stream drains forestland in which there are no houses
or domestic animals.
DOH sampled three stations in Bywater Bay a total of 22
times each from 1988 to 1992. Fecal coliform GMVs for this time
period were less than 2.0 fc /100m1 at all threa.stations
(unpublished data). Thus, the marine Class AA standard was met.
26
Squamish Harbor Basin
Fecal coliform levels in Shine Creek, the largest of the
basin's drainages, were low in both dry (GMV it fc /100ml) and wet
(GMV 17 fc /100ml) seasons. Fecal coliform levels would be
expected to be low in this stream which drains forestland having
no homes or domestic animals.
The stream temperature (16.0 °C) at site LD1 in August 1991
barely met the Class AA standard, which states that temperature
shall not exceed 16.0 °C due to human activities. Three factors
may explain the high temperature.
First, Shine Creek passes through a series of wetlands in
which beavers have created several wide, shallow impoundments.
These impoundments have no substantial tree canopy and are open
to sunlight penetration. The dark, organic bottom and tanin-
stained water contribute to the heat absorption.
Second, Shine Creek and a small tributary, Redtail Creek,
flow through a clearcut area upstream of Route 104. Although
stream buffers have been left, some sunlight penetration may be
occurring.
Third, stream warming apparently occurs in the golf course
ponds at the headwaters of Shine Creek (see following
discussion).
One could conceivably attribute the high temperature at this
estuarine site to tidal water coming in over a sun - warmed mud
flat. However, the fact that, at the time of sampling,
conductivity was 152 µmho /cm or only 0.4 percent of the
conductivity of sea water, this explanation would have to be
disallowed.
The temperature standard refers to increases "due to human
activities." Thus, forest management and golf course management
are the two most likely human activities affecting stream
temperature_
A temperature- related observation was made on Shine Creek on
July 2, 1991, when County water quality staff were characterizing
riparian habitat. While working a stream section upstream of
Route 104 (not a regular monitoring site), the survey crew noted
a sudden 4 to 6 inch rise in the water level and a change in
water transparency from clear to turbid. Within l minute, they
observed the water temperature change from 13.3 °C to 15.5 °C.
This increase of 2.2 °C exceeded the maximum allowable increase of
1.3 °C for a background temperature of 13.3 °C (Table 2A). The
increase was attributed to the rapid release of water from the
golf course pond. The release also caused some bank erosion and
bottom siltation.
Oxygen levels have not been reported in this study due to a
faulty instrument. No definite conclusions can be made.
However, oxygen levels at site LD1 appeared low on some dates
compared to measurements taken at other sites.= This could be due
to the lack of aeration in the slow moving, wetland section
immediately upstream of site LD1, and to the decomposition of
organic material in the wetland. Worst case conditions would
occur at sunrise before photosynthesis counteracts nighttime
oxygen consumption by the aquatic community.
From a fisheries standpoint, Shine Creek probably offers the
greatest potential as a salmon producer of all the streams in the
Ludlow Watershed. Thus, best management practices of this
drainage should be encouraged so that streambed siltation and
excessive stream temperatures are minimized. Future monitoring -
could include the use of continuous- recording thermographs to
better evaluate temperature conditions. Dissolved oxygen levels
should be further investigated.
Some of the conductivity measurements (617 -5900 µmho /cm)
taken at estuarine site LD1 have obviously been affected by the
tidal water. Even some of the lower readings (Table 9) are
probably slightly higher than normal due to seepage from
saltwater - saturated soils.
DOH sampled seven stations in Squamish Harbor a total of 21
times each from 1988 to 1992 under their ambient monitoring
program. Fecal coliform GMVs at the seven stations ranged from
1.9 to 2.5 fc /100ml (unpublished data); all were well within the
Class AA standard for marine water (14 fc /100ml).
28
REFERENCES
Anon. 1989. Guidance for conducting water quality assessments.
Washington Department of Ecology, Publ. No. 89 -28, Olympia,
Washington.
APHA. 1980. Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater, 15th ed. American Public Health Association,
Washington, D.C. -
DOH.1990. Shellfish tasks for the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program. Department of Health 1990 technical report, Olympia,
Washington.
Faust, M. 1982. Contribution of pleasure boats to fecal coliform
concentration in The River Estuary, Maryland, USA. The Science
of the Total Environment 25:255 -262.
HLA. 1990. 1989 water quality conditions of Port Ludlow Bay.
Harding Lawson Associates /Harper -Owes, Seattle, Washington.
Harper -Owes. 1987._ Proposed Seattle Yacht Club outstation
facility, Port Ludlow, water quality assessment. Harper -Owes,
Seattle, Washington.
Patmont, C.R., G.J. Pelletier, and M.E. Harper. 1985. Water
quality investigation of Port Ludlow. Harper -Owes, Seattle,
Washington.
Rubida, P. 1989. Jefferson County ambient water quality report.
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department, Port Townsend,
Washington.
Smayda, T.J. and M.E. Harper. 1989. circulation and water
quality of Mats Mats--Bay. HLA /Harper -Owes, Seattle, Washington.
Smayda, T.J.'and C. Jones. 1991. Water quality investigation in
Port Ludlow Bay, 1990 nonpoint source study. Harding Lawson
Associates, Seattle, Washington.
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice -
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
29
APPENDIX A
QUALITY CONTROL
QUALITY CONTROL
Field Replicates
Field replicates of those parameters measured with the Water
Analyzer (temperature, conductivity, pH, and dissolved oxygen) as
well as of flows were taken at the sampling sites. Two sets of
measurements were taken within a few minutes of one another.
Replicate water samples, collected in separate bottles within a
few minutes of one another, were taken for fecal coliform, total
suspended solids, and turbidity.
Replicate measurements provide an estimate of the random
variability (precision) in the results due to the instrument and
its use. The analysis of replicate samples provides an estimate
of the variability due to sampling and analysis. The results for
different parameters will exhibit different levels of variability
due to the nature of the measurement, sampling and /or analytical
process. The variability in fecal coliform results exhibits a
log normal distribution.
The standard deviation is an estimate of the absolute
variability of the results and usually increases with the
magnitude of the results. Precision is usually reported as
relative standard deviation (RSD). The RSD (or coefficient of
variation) is usually inversely proportional to the magnitude of
the rusults.
The RSD is given by:
s
RSD ( %) = x 100
X
where s is the estimate of the standard deviation of the
individual results and X is the mean of the replicate results
(Zar 1984).
For duplicate results, this can be written as:
H1
2
RSD% = x 100
X
where IDI is the absolute difference between the.two values.
Field replicate results of the parameters measured in this
study are shown in Table A -1. Dissolved oxygen and pH results
were determined to be unreliable due to a defective probe and are
not reported.
31
Table A -1. Quality control field replicate results of parameters
reported in this study; "Dif." is the absolute difference between
values and "RSD" is the relative standard deviation in percent.
Date
Site
Rep.1 Rep.2
Dif.
RSD
Rep.1 Rep.2 Dif. RSD
0.5
1.6
Fecal coliform(fG100mL)I.
74.1
Row(cfs)
8 -22 -91
LD4
130 190
60
5.3
- - - -
9 -17 -91
LD2
57 160
103
16.0
- - - -
11 -25 -91
LD6
13 8
5
14.8
- - -
12 -17 -91
LD4
6 2
4
62.5
- - - -
1 -27 -92
LD1
94 98
4
0.6
- - - -
2 -19 -92
L07
10 9
1
3.3
- - - -
2 -24 -92
LD6
140 130
10
1.1
0.16 0.15 0.01 4.56
3 -09 -92
LD4
1 3
2
141.4
- - - -
4 -22 -92
LD41
3 11
8
52.6
0.18 0.19 0.01 3.82
Temperature( C) Conductivity(umholcm @ 25 C)
3 -13 -91
Total Suspended Solids(mg/L)
5.8
Turbidity(NTU)
9 -17 -91
LD2
0.5
1.6
1.1
74.1
2.5
2.5
0.0
0.0
11 -25 -91
LD6
5.8
6.0
0.2
2.4
9.7
10.5
0.8
5.6
12 -17 -91
LD4
3.8
3.6
0.2
3.8
4.7
5.0
0.3
4.4
1 -27 -92
LD1
6.2
5.6
0.6
7.2
8.0
7.8
0.2
1.8
2 -19 -92
LD7
7.0
6.4
0.6
6.3
22.0
22.0
0.0
0.0
2 -24 -92
LD6
14.2
13.2
1.0
5.2
20.0
20.0
0.0
OA
3 -09 -92
LD4
3.2
4.2
1.0
19.1
4.5
5.0
0.5
7.4
4 -22 -92
LD41
7.6
7.2
0.4
3.8
11.0
11.0
0.0
0.0
Temperature( C) Conductivity(umholcm @ 25 C)
3 -13 -91
LD3
5.8
5.7
0.1
1.2
111
115
4
2.5
8 -22 -91
L01
16.0
15.9
0.1
0.4
154
150
4
1.9
8 -22 -91
LD4
12.2
12.1
0.1
0.6
142
143
1
0.5
9 -17 -91
LD6
13.7
13.6
0.1
0.5
190
192
2
0.7
11 -21 -91
LD 6
8.1
8.2
0.1
0.9
198
191
7
2.5
12 -17 -91
LD4
5.3
5.3
0.0
0.0
161
166
5
2.2
2 -19 -92
LD3
5.7
5.7
0.0
0.0
125
126
1
0.6
2 -19 -92
LD6
6.4
6.4
0.0
0.0
160
161
1
0.4
2 -24 -92
LD6
8.4
8.4
0.0
0.0
134
135
1
0.5
3 -09 -92
LD4
6.4
6.6
0.2
2.2
150
152
2
0.9
4 -22 -92
LD6
9.6
9.6
0.0
0.0
186
186
0
0.0
4 -22 -92
LD41
9.1
9.0
0.1
0.8
162
161
1
0.4
RSDs for fecal
coliform
are
based on
natural
logs
- of the
results.
32
Duplicate temperature measurements agreed within ± 0.2 °C,
and usually within ± 0.1 °C. RSDs were less than 3 %.
Duplicate conductivity measurements agreed within ±
7µmho /cm; RSDs were less than 3 %.
Duplicate TSS values agreed within ± 1.1 mg /l; RSDs were
less than 8% except in two instances (19.1% and 74.1 %).
Duplicate turbidity values were within ± 0.8 NTUs; RSDs were
less than 8 %.
Flow measurements were replicated on only two dates. The
volumetric method was used at site LD6 on February 24, 1992, and
the current meter method was used at site LD41 on April 22, 1992.
In each case the difference between replicates was 0.01 cfs and
the RSDs were less than 5 %.
Seven of the nine fecal coliform field replicates had
differences of 10 fc /100ml or less; the other two differences
were 60 and 103 fc /100ml. The RSDs of the natural logs ranged
from 1 to 141 %.
Quality Control Checks
QC checks are "known" samples, supplied by the Quality
Assurance Section of DOE, to be analyzed with the usual run of
samples. Thus, by comparing the analytical results obtained for
the QC checks to their true values a measure of accuracy is
obtained. All QC checks analyzed in this study for TSS and
conductivity were found to be within acceptable limits (Table
A -2) .
Discussion-
Except for fecal coliform, variability for all other
parameters as determined from the replicate analyses was low and
acceptable. Accuracy for TSS and conductivity was also
acceptable. QC checks for the other reported parameters are not
available.
Fecal coliform duplicates indicated occasional moderate
variability (Table A -1) . Fortunately, the variation was
relatively low (< 10 fc /100ml) for values less than 50 fc /100m1,
the Class AA standard.
This variation is typical for fecal coliform. It points out
the need to exercise caution in interpreting -data close to a
State standard, especially when the GMV is based on a small
sample size. It also points out the advantage of having a large
sample size for determining trends and differences between sample
sites.
33
O C
r
b+ >r
r-
r-q
r-I-I
r-4
,—Oi
4-)
- -ri
R
(
O 0
�S7r
>1 :3
r-4
m
m
r4 :1 )a
(W (1 S
Q)
Q)
Q)
Q)
or +'
Q)
r
a>i
U
U
o
U
U
(13
a
04
04
•�
.r4 4
�4-)
� rd+°�
ftJ •rl rL3
In
N
O
N
O
4J ri Q)
IT 4-)
.4 ar W
C •rl
N
rn
N
to
d'
O
c�1
tyr
C1
crr
O 04
r. .,4
co
>r to i~
w r I
ch
of
m
a%
1
U O
co - U
3
tc1
d;
tr1
co
II
U U id
U Q) (tf
U
Q) >r
CJ
4J Ot 0
Q)
b
r-1
r-f N
•rj
44 W O
44-)
r-1
c" 1
tG
cn
W
U
O
44 PQ
-H
ri
0
crf
>c
M
dr
M
41
N
CN
O to 44
Q) r-1
rcy
1
"
co
-44j O
U
N
ch
>
I
RS 0 4J
14
v
c4
dr
c4
�
�
N
C7
N
C7
�
ko
r--1 O Q)
a i✓r
a
i to
v
e
o41 a�i
a�
r-
0
r
o,
.
--
0-1 r.
w (13
E4
N
v
N
IV
E1 >
O U�
WO2T
)-1 T3 G
Q) C • 4
1340 4
U
r-1 (0 4J
0) N
O ra 3 -*i
41 O
r.
co
w r. I~
P r-i
N
V
N
M
r!')
4J W Q) -H
O c0
t�
!~ .0 r-4
m >
to 41
U ro Q)
pC,
-ri W r-'1
>4 r-4 O Q
+J O to
-.-1 N C 4j
O
r—r O ad
f..
rtt to -rl Q)
Q) 4J U
Q)
I; Q) M
U 04
ri
N
ri
N
N
Q) m
Or 0
• 04 rd
((f
cl
to
O U c�0
1� to s:
N
N
N
N
N
to
Ol
Cl
a%
C%
m r-4 Q)
C%
r4 Rf :3 0
QI
L`
N
N
N
44-1 N r-I
41
N
N
N
N
N
Rt O to f0
c13
I
I
1
I
I
E4 4J P4 >
O
ri
ri
v
lw
d'
34
1
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE SITE LOCATIONS
SAMPLE SITE LOCATIONS
LD1 Shine Creek - Upstream side of three concrete culverts on
South Point Road.
LD2 Ludlow Creek - Upstream side of concrete culvert on Paradise
Bay Road.
LD3 Ludlow Creek - Upstream side of culvert on Beaver Valley
Road, about 300 feet south of intersection with Oak Bay
Road.
LD4 Ludlow Creek - Upstream side of culvert on Embody Rd.
(County section) off Beaver Valley Road.
LD6 Unnamed - Downstream side of culvert on Verner Road off Oak
Bay Road.
LD7 Unnamed - Downstream side of culvert on West Mats Mats Road
off Verner Road.
LD8 Unnamed - Downstream side of culvert on Bay Shore Drive off
Oak Bay Road; near driveway to horse farm.
LD11 Unnamed - Upstream side of culvert on Hiller Drive off Oak
Bay Road.
LD21 Unnamed - About 25 feet downstream of culvert on Oak Bay
Road; next to old growth stump; about 0.25 miles south of
intersection with Bay Shore Drive.
LD31 Unnamed (ditch) - About 12 feet upstream of culvert at end
of Tala Shore Drive (County section); near fire no. 830.
LD41 Unnamed - About-15 feet from downstream side of culvert at
61 Shore Drive (junction of East Maple Road);. samples taken
at upstream end of a concrete stream channel.
LD51 Unnamed - Upstream side of culvert on Seven Sisters Road off
Paradise Bay Road.
LD61 Unnamed- Stream is about 100 feet east of boat launch at
Hicks County Park off Shine Road; samples taken about 25
feet downstream of riprap on beach.
LD71 Unnamed - Downstream side of culvert at 1023 Shine Road;
flow taken on beach about 50 feet from culvert.
76