Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 Water Quality Monitoring Progress ReportQUILCENE WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT NOVEMBER 1992 - APRIL 1993 Prepared by Glenn Gately Jefferson County Planning and Building Department Port Townsend, Washington 98368 for Washington State Department of Ecology August 1993 i WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF E C O L O G Y - This project was funded in part by Washington State Department of Ecology TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INTRODUCTION .......... ............................... 1 STUDY AREA ............. ............................... 3 METHODS .............. ............................... 5 Seal Counts .......... ............................... 5 Marine Water Monitoring .................... ........... 5 Freshwater Monitoring .... ............................... 5 Concentration vs. Loading Comparisons ....................... 6 Rainfall .............. ............................... 7 Statistical Comparisons ... ............................... 7 Fecal Coliform Standards .. ............................... 7 RESULTS............... ............................... 8 Seals in 1992 -93 ....... ............................... 8 Marine Water Quality in 1992 -93 ............................ 8 Freshwater Quality in 1992 -93 ............................. 8 Seal Population Comparisons .............................. 8 Marine Water Quality Comparisons ......................... 14 Freshwater Quality Comparisons ........................... 14 Big Quilcene River ... ............................... 14 Little Quilcene River . ............................... 14 Donovan Creek ..... ............................... 29 Cemetery Drain .................................... 29 All Streams ....... ............................... 29 Rainfall............. ............................... 29 Correlations .......... ............................... 29 i DISCUSSION ........................ 31 Effects of Remedial Actions on Freshwater Quality ................. 31 Effects of Seals and Freshwater Loadings on Marine Water Quality .... 32 CONCLUSIONS ....* ...... ............................... 33 REFERENCES ................ _ ...................... 34 APPENDIX A (Tables) APPENDIX B (Septic Repairs) APPENDIX C (Best Management Practices) ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are extremely grateful to the individuals and organizations who contributed to this study. Washington Department of Ecology funded seventy -five percent of this study through a Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant (TAX90094). Tim Determan (DOE) administered the grant with great patience, assisted with the field work and statistical analysis, and reviewed the draft. Washington Department of Health funded the fecal coliform analyses, which were conducted at their Seattle lab. Don Melvin (DOH) coordinated the marine sampling with the freshwater sampling, transported our samples to the DOH lab, and provided the marine data used in this study. Don Lennartson and Frank Meriwether (DOH) reviewed the draft. Aldo Palmisano of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowed us the use of the Marrowstone Field Station Laboratory, and Judy Ransom graciously shared some laboratory bench space with us. Brian McLaughlin showed us the customary seal counting sites and gave us some training in counting seals. Jim Donaldson of the Coast Oyster Company provided a boat to conduct the seal counts from, and Gene Lalander drove the boat and assisted with the counting. Murlan Winjum of Olympia Oyster offered us backup boat service for the seal count. Phil Henry of the Washington Department of Game loaned us the spotting scope to.aid in the seal counts. John Calambokidis kindly allowed us to use some unpublished seal census data. Linda Atkins of the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department provided the summary of septic repairs in Appendix B. Al Latham and Doug Humes of the Jefferson County Conservation District assisted with the field work; Al Latham provided the summary of Best Management Practices in Appendix C. Al Jakeway of the Jefferson County Conservation District obtained permission to sample on private property. Laurie Frey of the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department typed the manuscript. We especially thank the farmers and homeowners who have contributed time and money to improve our water for the fish, shellfish, birds, animals, and people who depend on it. iii Quilcene Bay is well recognized as a valuable shellfish growing area. Serving approximately 10 commercial growers, the Bay is world famous for the quality of its oysters. Additionally, Quilcene Bay is recognized as one of a few areas where oyster seed is produced commercially. Countries as far away as Japan are supplied with oyster seed from Quilcene Bay. Unfortunately, the rich shellfish resources of Quilcene Bay have proved susceptible to contamination - a trend prevalent throughout the waters of Puget Sound and Hood Canal. In January 1985, 204 acres in the north end of Quilcene Bay were closed due to elevated fecal coliform levels (Cook 1984, 1985). Because the closed area has a soft substrate, which is not suitable for shellfish growing, the closure did not actually impact any shellfish growers. However, the closure is a warning that Quilcene Bays' shellfish industry is at risk. Causes of the contamination have been investigated in several studies. Cook (1984) considered the Little Quilcene River and Donovan Creek to be major fecal coliform contributors. Banks et al. (1987) and Welch and Banks (1987) concluded that failing septic systems, livestock, and harbor seals were all sources of contamination. Calambokidis et al. (1987) concluded seals had the potential of being major polluters. In a subsequent study, Calambokidis et al. (1989) concluded that seals were not the primary cause of bacterial contamination in Quilcene Bay, although they were the primary cause elsewhere. An historical overview of Quilcene Bay's seal population was obtained by interviews with long -time residents (Calambokidis et al. 1987). One resident stated that there were about 200 seals in the Bay prior to the bounty years of 1923 to 1960. Four people interviewed reported that seal numbers were low during the 1940s and 1950s (as low as 10). One person reported seeing 25 -35 seals hauled - out on logs in the late 1960s. In 1972 seals become legally protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Calambokidis et al. (1987) believed that this probably marked the beginning of an increasing seal population in Quilcene Bay and other parts of Puget Sound. Seal counts made from 1977 to 1993 by Cascadia Research show an increasing trend (Calambokidis et al. 1987; Calambokidis et al. 1989; Cascadia Research, unpublished data). The highest count recorded, 428 seals, was made in December 1992 (Cascadia Research, unpublished data). Prior to December 1990, seals in Quilcene Bay used predominantly two haul - out sites: log booms located in the closed area in the northern part of the Bay and oyster rafts in the southern part of the Bay. When Pope and Talbot removed the log booms in December 1990, seal use in the northern end of the Bay declined dramatically (Evenson and Calambokidis 1992). Removal of the log booms presented the opportunity of comparing contaminant levels prior to their removal to levels occurring after their removal. Since the closure in 1985, some failing septic systems have been repaired (Appendix B). The Jefferson County Department of Environmental Health has held workshops to educate the public regarding the effects of failing septic systems on water quality and shellfish. Furthermore, Jefferson County has made low interest loans available for septic repair (Anon. 1992). At the same time, the Jefferson County Conservation District worked with farmers in drawing up conservation plans and implementing best management practices (BMPs; Appendix C). In November 1992, the Washington Department of Health reinitiated monitoring in Quilcene Bay to determine if conditions had improved enough to reopen the closed area. The decision to reinitiate monitoring offers an opportunity to assess the seals as contributors to the problem. In November 1992, Jefferson County began monitoring Quilcene Bay's tributaries and counting seals. 1 This report summarizes the findings of the first six months of this continuing study. The study's two main objectives are: 1) to assess the effects of remedial actions (i.e., septic repairs and farm BMPs) on the water quality of Quilcene Bay's four major tributaries; and 2) to assess the effects of: a. freshwater loadings; and b. seals on marine water quality. x 2 STUDY AREA Quilcene Bay is located in eastern Jefferson County, about 30 miles south of Port Townsend, Washington (Figure 1). It is about 3 miles long and 1 mile across at its widest point. The northern one -third is shallow and much of its bottom is exposed on extreme low tides. All four major tributaries enter the northern, shallow end. The site of the log booms is marked by vertical pilings on the east side of the Bay approximately across from the mouth of the Big Quilcene River. Nothing now remains that is useable as a haul -out. However, Pope and Talbot intends to install new log booms when they reopen their facility within the next two years (Jerry Clark, Pope and Talbot, personal communication). A line extending from the pilings to the mouth of the Big Quilcene River marks the southern boundary of the closed area. Oyster rafts are located near the east shore about 3 miles from the head of the Bay. These rafts have been used as seal haul -outs prior to the removal of the log booms, but their usage appears to have increased since their removal in December 1990. 3 zittze QW/ cen Donovan Creek • e Ater LQ3 DV2 Cemetery Drai 2 � N CD3 " Closed Area 6�9 Log boom site BQ3 i KEY MAP tort - • Townse d PROJECT AREA Jefferson Co. Q Boat n - Seattle Haven )food Cane. 4 W 1 LEGEND O Marine water sampling site Freshwater sampling site ® Seal counting site 1 Mile U) Z 0 Q m w a '�i J Z LU O Z J U m _ C'1 Oyster rafts l51 Figure 1. Map of Quilcene Bay showing the area closed to shellfish harvesting, seal haul -outs, water sampling sites, and seal counting sites. 4 Seals were counted with the aid of 7x35 binoculars and a 15 -60 power spotting scope one day each month, usually 1 or 2 days before collecting water samples. Counts in the area of the old log booms, were made from a high vantage point along East Quilcene Bay Road (Figure 1). This was the same location used by Calambokidis et al. (1987; 1989) to count seals hauled -out on the log booms. Because counts in this area were anticipated to be low due to the removal of the log booms, additional monitoring (not used by Calambokidis et al. (1987; 1989) was conducted. Seals were counted from a parking area at the north end of the Bay (near the mouth of Donovan Creek). Additionally, counts in the closed area were made from a boat during high tide by slowly and methodically sweeping back and forth through the area. In Calambokidis et al.'s study (1987; 1989), the oyster rafts were generally observed from the west shore, near the Boat Haven. Calambokidis et al. (1989) considered this a relatively poor site due to the distance (about 1 mile) from the seals and lack of elevation. On November 2, 1992 we counted seals hauled -out on the oyster rafts (and nearby fish pen) from the Boat Haven and from the east shore, adjacent to the rafts. From the Boat Haven we counted 251 seals; one hour later, from the east shore, we counted 317 seals. All subsequent counts were made from the east shore. Seals in the water near the rafts (a small percentage of the total) and seals on the fish pen were included in the count. Marine Water Monitoring Eight marine sites were sampled monthly by Washington Department of Health (DOH) as part of their Restoration Program (Figure 1). DOH staff measured temperature and salinity and collected fecal coliform samples by boat. Fecal coliform samples were analyzed by the Most Probable Number (MPN) procedure using A -1 medium (APHA 1992). The same method was used in the analysis of samples collected from 1986 to 1989 by Rubida and Calambokidis (1990). Data from five of the eight sites sampled in 1992 -93 are compared to data collected at the five marine sites sampled in 1986 -89 (see Statistical Comparisons). These five DOH sites with corresponding 1986 -89 site numbers in parentheses are: site 19 (Q1), site 3(Q2), site 18(Q3), site 1(Q4), and site 5(Q5). The first three pairs are located fairly close to one another, whereas agreement between the last two pairs is not as good. DOH sites 1 and 5 were closer to shore than were sites Q4 and Q5, which were approximately in mid - channel ( Rubida and Calambokidis 1990). Freshwater Monitoring The Big Quilcene River and Little Quilcene River were sampled at the same sites that they were , in 1986 -89. Except during high tide, Donovan Creek and Cemetery Drain were sampled at the same estuarine sites sampled in 1986 -89. During high tide, Donovan Creek was sampled about 2000 feet upstream and Cemetery Drain about 900 feet upstream of the usual sample sites. These upstream sites are designated by the letter "u" following the site number in Table Al. For the purpose of statistical analysis, no differentiation has been made. It should be mentioned, however, that Jakeway Creek, which flows through an unfenced pasture, empties into Donovan Creek between sites DV2 and DV2u. Thus, samples taken from site DV2u would not be affected by Jakeway Creek. 5 Jakeway Creek's effect on Donovan Creek appeared minimal on the one day it was monitored (not part of the regular monitoring plan). On April 12, 1993, when cattle were being pastured and 1.2 inches of rain had fallen during the preceding 4 days, Jakeway Creek's flow and loading (measured at its mouth) were 4% and 10% respectively of Donovan Creek's (at site DV2). Freshwater samples were collected from the four tributaries on the same day that marine samples were collected, except in February, when they were collected 2 days later. Temperature, conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, and flows were measured on site. Fecal coliform, turbidity, and total suspended solid (TSS) samples were analyzed in the laboratory. Coliform samples were analyzed by the MPN method by the Washington Department of Health Laboratory in Seattle. Turbidity and TSS were analyzed at Jefferson County's laboratory, which is accredited by the Washington Department of Ecology. Sampling procedures and laboratory methods are described in the Quilcene /Dabob Watershed /Stream Survey Plan and Quality Assurance Management Plan (Jefferson County 1991). . Stream velocity was measured with Marsh - McBirney current meter Model 201 D. Flow was calculated by taking numerous velocity measurements across the stream and then calculating flows for individual subsections, and summing them. The formula used was: Q= sum(a x v) where Q is the total flow (cubic feet per second or cfs); a is the area (cmZ) of an individual subsection; and v is the corresponding mean velocity (feet per second) of that subsection. Loading is a term describing the number of fecal coliform bacteria flowing past a point in a given period of time. Loading was calculated by the formula: fc loading (billions per day) =fc x Q x 0.0246 where fc is the fecal coliform count per 100ml- of water; and Q is the stream flow (cfs). Freshwater samples collected in 1986 -89 were analyzed by the membrane filtration procedure, whereas those collected in 1992 -93 were analyzed by the MPN method. Because of this difference, two kinds of errors are possible when making comparisons. First, the MPN method tends to give higher results than the membrane filtration method (Don Lennartson, DOH, personal communication). Thus, the 1986- 89 data would be biased upward. Second, a lower detection limit (0 fc /100ml-) was used with the membrane filtration method (1986 -89 data) compared to the detection limit (1.8 MPN /100ml-) used with the MPN method (1992 -93 data). This would also bias the 1986 -89 data upward when there are many data points below 1.8MPN /100mL (see Freshwater Quality Comparisons in RESULTS). Concentration vs. Loading Comparisons Fecal coliform comparisons between the 1986 -89 data and the 1992 -93 data were made in two ways: concentration and loading. Concentration measures the density of the fecal coliform bacteria in the water and is expressed as the number of organisms in 100 milliliters of water (i.e., fc /100mL). The State standard is based on this parameter (see Fecal Coliform Standards). Loading refers to the rate at which fecal coliform bacteria flow past a given point, or if measured near the stream mouth, the rate at which the bacteria enter the marine environment (e.g., billions fc /day). Loading is dependent upon both concentration and flow (see Freshwater Monitoring). Thus, streams with low concentrations and high flows such as the Big Quilcene River may have loadings similar to streams with high concentrations and low flows such as Cemetery Drain and Donovan Creek. Because loading is based on flow as well as on concentration, loading trends and concentration trends do not necessarily behave similarly. This was evidenced for the Big Quilcene River (Figures 7 and 8) and Little Quilcene River (Figures 9 and 10) (see Freshwater Civality in 1992 -93 in RESULTS). Of the two parameters, loading is the better indicator of a stream's effect upon the marine environment. Rainfall For each sampling date, Rubida and Calambokidis (1990) reported rainfall accumulation for the 4 -day period prior to sampling. We reported both 1 -day and 4 -day rainfalls, but only used 4- day.rainfalls in the statistical comparisons. Rainfall data for the 1986 -89 period was measured at the US Forest Service District Ranger Station in Quilcene. We obtained rainfall data for the period 1992- 93 from the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery (about 1 mile from the Ranger Station) because their data were more complete. ' Statistical Comparisons The following statistical analyses were conducted to determine significant differences (no. 1 below), trends (no.2), and associations (no.3) for data collected during the two periods (1986 -89 and 1992 -93): 1) Analysis of variance to test for significant differences between the means for the two time periods; 2) Linear regression to test for significant trends overtime (1986 to 1993); 3) Spearman Correlation Analysis, a non - parametric test based on ranking, to test relationships between various combinations of factors. Coefficients which range from -1 to + 1 are calculated. A -1 indicates perfect negative correlation, a + 1 indicates perfect positive correlation, and a a zero indicates no relationship at all. Statistical analyses were performed using STATGRAPHICS (STSC 1991). Fecal coliform concentrations and loadings were log transformed for statistical analyses. Geometric mean values (GMVs) were calculated by retransforming the mean of the log transformed values. When a concentration was less than the detectable limit of 1.8 MPN /100mL, this value was used for any calculations. Fecal Coliform Standards Hood Canal, including Quilcene /Dabob Bays and associated tributaries, are classified as AA (extraordinary) by State water quality standards (Chapter 173- 201 A WAC). There are separate standards for freshwater and marine water and two parts for each. Waters must meet both parts in order to comply with the standard. The standards are as follows: Part 1: Fecal coliforms are not to exceed a geometric mean of 14 fc per 100 mL (marine) or 50 fc per 100 mL (freshwater); Part 2: Not more than 10 percent of samples are to exceed 43 fc per 100 mL (marine) or 100 fc per 100 mL (freshwater). RESULTS Seals in 1992 -93 One seal was the maximum observed in the closed area for the six monthly counts from November to April (Table 1). Over 300 seals were observed on the oyster rafts in the south end of the Bay in November and December; fewer than 21 were counted at any one time from January to April (Table 1). Marine Water Quality in 1992 -93 Fecal coliform GMVs ranged from 2.5 to 4.6 MPN /100mL at the 8 sites monitored in Quilcene Bay (Table 1). Thus, Part 1 of the State Class AA standard (GMV <_ 14 fc /100mL) was met at all sites. Part 2 of the standard (s 10% of the samples > 43 fc /100mL) was met at all sites except site 5. This is due to a measurement of 49 MPN /100mL in the November sample. About 200 seals were observed on the nearby oyster rafts when this sample was collected. Freshwater Quality in 1992 -93 Fecal coliform GMVs ranged from 3 to 41 MPN /100mL for samples collected in the Big Quilcene River, Little Quilcene River, and Donovan Creek (Table 2). Thus, Part 1 of the Class AA standard (GMV <_ 50fc /100mL) was met. However, 2 out of 6 (33 %) samples from Donovan Creek exceeded 100fc /100mL, thereby failing Part 2 of the standard ( <_ 10% of the samples > 100fc /100mL). Cemetery Drain failed both parts of the standard. It had a GMV of 141 MPN /100mL (Table 2) and 3 out of 6 (58 %) samples exceeded 100fc /100mL (Table Al). Total fecal coliform loading for all four streams combined ranged from 3.6 billion fc /day in December to 757 billion fc /day in January (Table 2). Mean total loading over the six month period was 33 billion fc /day. Each stream ranked as the highest contributor during one or two of the months: Big Quilcene River in December and March, Little Quilcene River in November, Donovan Creek in April, and Cemetery Drain in January and February. Over the six month period, Donovan Creek contributed an average of 13% of the total loading and each of the other streams contributed about 29 %. Seal Population Comparisons Prior to the removal of the log booms in December 1990, seals predominantly used two haul -outs in Quilcene Bay: the log looms in the closed area and oyster rafts at the south end of the Bay. Data collected from 1985 to 1988 suggests a possible preference for the log booms (Table 4). Seal counts during this period were substantially higher at the log booms on 9 out of 11 days; counts at the log booms ranged from 58 to 202 (Calambokidis et al. 1989). After their removal, 1 seal was the highest count made in the closed area out of six monthly counts made from November 1992 to April 1993 ( Tabbe 1). Potential use of the closed area by seals still exists. Large numbers of seals continue to use Quilcene Bay (Table 5). The highest count recorded, 428 seals, occurred recently on November 20, 1992 (Cascadia Research, unpublished data). The seal population of Quilcene Bay varies seasonally. Calambokidis et al. (1989) reported that the highest average counts occurred from September to December and that the highest single count occurred in December. The lowest counts generally occurred from February through April. Our data support these reported trends (Table 1). Comparisons of seal numbers at Quilcene Bay, V5 O� r CL Q O N 01 r L CD O E O w m C ty U 0 C L C co N C O U N vi C C ry V C O U E O •O V cd U w CD C .` ca CD C� In W > C o cd O 0 E J U LL 0 U Co O N CM N � t 2U) o = _ N 9 ca w co co co ca co co N O Q 00 1 T; O I T 1U� 1 1 T r O O I aD co N N O Lo 1 0 co 1 co 1 0 1 W O co C M c+) N U - co O 1 N N t: V N r r 1 0 0 1 r I O I Q) � �I 0 w N N co co M M 0) a) a) U to r co N co N as C\j r T I T N I N IT 1 W O co co N T N N V I T T T T 1 V V 't co co co O OR co ^ O O T T T r V V V I T 1 v V M co O c O�� M O O co T O V N V N I\ I N V T M 0 c co ao w co O O co aD O T T V V I r r T T V V N V V N = O N V V i V V~ n V V N co co co co OR M M^ C) CV) T r r n^ 1 r T C6 V V V T r V V O O If O CR ao 4 O 4 N r NVN I r T r V Vnet V� N 00 00 00 CR c0 O O O r T T T V V V O r I T r T n V V N m N (AJm —1 CO JfA[Y] CO I = V- W LL W u- = W W N N M M M > I Q a m e a) a OD O O C3 •�- N r r N M v C� In W > C o cd O 0 E J U LL 0 U Co O N CM N � t 2U) o = _ N 9 L. 0 W- E w .0 r.+ L N rn _O C rn O Q�j r= CA Er �a O C N 0 C) � r 0.0 CO E � 0 09 EZ µ0 E O 0 v m w m L C 0 V 0 L CV 'C 0 cc i O m �Iui M Q J M m M 0 U C I�I O N ca ca > 0 C U J U p C T Q Q Z J a. U U LL m m cis 0 I�I�rrMl, CO O C Oi r N N CD M Co N N 17 c0 O C 0; M et L j to r 0017000 O CO CO M r co N CO O T r N n00000 O N N CV 4 N C7 4 M st O CO N r O T T N T- O� O O O O CD d' IT 000M O N N co C O d0' co La r N c� v 000000 N N O M r Pz pj N co T- (� r 0 0001,. 00 M CO M V O N N to O C7 O CO CO O O N .- N N N M M COO co T M 0 CIJ CIO 0 C) 0 0) C O Co (D M C70 N 6 T a r- N M v c� v CT C °3 tS O RS O O O CT co C N U a� a ca M 01 C oC,$ N N i > o • 00 5 Ctf � U LL Ch O MIm O N O CO co co M 6 N T r I.: r 6 I- O r N N C70 O O 0 CO CO co M O N r ►� 6 pj N co T- o I,- OOr0 0 Onmmm(D 00 CO co r N N N N O IT O c0 M to M 0 U M O O r N co 0 N CO CD O I� M O "It CO M CO M CO 0 M O M r CD M n T of r M d' 0 r O O O r N 0 CO co O MNOCONT c0 O O r to COO co T m: 1t C R v co I'. co v r' M O 0 N t0 O 0 M ll� r*,� O r N CA r CC) V) C7! N r r N N M CO M M � 0 0 0 0 0 r- O +„ LO CO 0 Cj co a r r r M v Ri v I C ca O V C co U O cis c a� U U O O U co U O _O O (ti U cs U CD 0) C CV E U d O 10 Table 3. Spearman correlation coefficients (CC) and associated probabilities of fecal coliform concentrations at five marine sites with other factors measured from 1986 to 1993 (November to April only). Numbers after factors refer to marine sites.' Site 19 Factor CC j Prob. BQ loading +0.6 .05 LQ loading +0.6 .06 CD loading +0.5 .12 DV loading +0.7 .03 Total loading +0.6 .12 FC conc. 3 +0.8 .003 FC conc. 18 +0.8 .002 FC conc. 1 +0.5 .08 FC conc. 5 +0.5 .07 Rainfall +0.6 .05 Salinity 19 -0.3 .18 Salinity 1 -0.7 .009 Salinity 5 -0.9 0.0004 Site 3 Factor CC Prob. BQ loading +0.7 .02 CD loading +0.5 .09 DV loading +0.7 .03 Total loading +0.7 .06 FC conc. 19 +0.8 .003 FC conc. 18 +0.5 .03 FC conc. 1 +0.6 .01 FC conc. 5 +0.3 .13 Rainfall +0.4 .11 Salinity 1 -0.6 .01 Salinity 5 -0.7 .004 Site 5 Factor CC Prob. FC conc. 19 +0.5 .07 FC conc. 3 +0.3 .13 FC conc. 18 +0.3 .11 FC conc. 1 +0.3 .17 Salinity 5 -0.4 .13 Site 18 Factor CC Prob. BQ loading +0.5 .06 ' LQ loading +0.4 .10 CD loading +0.4 .16 DV loading +0.4 .20 Total loading +0.6 .12 FC conc. 19 +0.8 .002 FC conc. 3 +0.5 .03 FC conc. 1 +0.4 .04 FC conc. 5 +0.3 .11 Rainfall +0.4 .06 Salinity 1 -0.4 .09 Salinity 5 -0.8 .001 Site 1 Factor CC Prob. BQ loading +0.8 .009 Total loading +0.5 .13 FC conc. 3 +0.6 .01 FC conc. 18 +0.4 .04 FC conc. 19 +0.5 .08 FC conc. 5 +0.3 .17 Salinity 19 -0.4 .17 Salinity 1 -0.6 .01 Salinity 5 -0.4 .12 I BQ =Big Quilcene river; LQ =Little Quilcene River; CD= Cemetary Drain; DV= Donovan Creek. 11 Table 4. Counts of harbor seals on log booms and oyster rafts in Quilcene Bay on different dates. Date Number of seals Source Log booms Oyster rafts 12/8/85 202 21 Calambokidis et al. 1987 9/11/86 146 15 Calambokidis et al. 1987 9/18/86 189 - 3 Calambokidis et al. 1987 9/21/86 161 32 Calambokidis et al. 1987 9/28186 136 57 Calambokidis et al. 1987 10/9/86 127 73 Calambokidis et al. 1987 10/10/86 146 33 Calambokidis et al. 1987 9/13/88 81 112 Calambokidis et al. 1989 9114/88 58 90 Calambokidis et al. 1989 12 Table 5. Annual high counts of harbor seals in Quilcene Bay made during different years. Year Range of dates No. of High count Source monitored counts I 1977 4/18- 10/28 " 39 168 1984 6/17 -10/12 7 155 1985 9/8 -12/8 14 223- 1986 1/26 -10/10 41 230 1988 1/16-12/6 32 403 1991 9/20 -12/26 3 69 1992 1/26-12/23 36 428 1993 115 -3/14 8 136 1 Includes land and air counts. Calambokidis et al. 1987 Calambokidis et al. 1987 Calambokidis et al. 1987 Calambokidis et al. 1987 Calambokidis et al. 1989 Evenson and Calambokidis 1992 Evenson and Calambokidis 1992; and Cascadia Research, unpublished data Cascadia Research, unpublished data 13 Dosewallips Delta, and Duckabush Delta suggests that movement occurs among these sites (Calambokidis et al 1990). Overall, based on data collected prior to 1989, Quilcene Bay's seal population was estimated to be increasing at about 10 percent per year (Calambokidis et al. 1989). Marine Water Quality Comparisons Marine fecal coliform concentrations measured in 1986 -89 and 1992 -93 are shown graphically in Figures 2 -6. At four of the five sites, regression lines had negative slopes, indicating a decreasing fecal coliform trend. At site 5 the regression line was slightly positive, indicating that concentrations tended to be higher in the more recent samples (Figure 6). In November 1992, DOH staff observed about 200 seals on the oyster rafts near site 5 when they monitored this site. The sample collected at this time had a fecal coliform concentration of 49MPN /100mL, the highest of any sample collected at this site. However,. none of the correlation coefficients associated with the regressions in Figures 2 -6 were statistically significant (p >.05). Neither were fecal coliform GMVs for the two time periods (1986 -89 and 1992 -93) at any of the five sites significantly different (P >.05). Thus, one cannot say with confidence (95% probability of being right) that the trends displayed by the samples were truly representative of conditions in Quilcene Bay. Freshwater Quality Comparisons Stream fecal coliform concentrations and loadings measured in 1986 -89 and in 1992 -93 are shown graphically in Figures 7 -15. None of the correlation coefficients associated with these regressions were statistically significant (p >.05). Neither were fecal coliform GMVs for the two time periods for any of the streams significantly different (P >.05). In other words, one cannot say with confidence (95% probability of being right) that the trends displayed in Figures 7 -15 truly represented conditions in the streams. Big Quilcene River Figure 7 suggests that fecal coliform concentrations in Big Quilcene River samples increased over time. However, the perceived "increase" may be due to the lower detection limit (Ofc /100ml-) inherent with the analytical method used for the 1986 -89 data (MF method) compared to the higher detection limit (1.8 MPN /100ml-) used for the 1992 -93 data (MPN method). Ten of the sixteen 1986 -89 data points were less than 1.8MPN /100mL. Had these ten points been plotted as 1.8 MPN /100ml-, the upward slope of the regression line would have been less pronounced and could even possibly have been downward. Figure 8 suggests fecal coliform loading in the Big Quilcene River decreased slightly. If a 1.8 MPN detection limit were used in calculating the 1986 -89 data, one might reasonably expect the regression line to slope downward more sharply, indicating a more pronounced decrease in loading over time. Little Quilcene River Fecal coliform concentration in the Little Quilcene River samples appeared to increase (Figure 9). Only 2 of sixteen 1986 -89 data points were much below 1.8fc /100mL. Thus, changing the detection limit to 1.8fc /100ml- would probably only have a slight effect. Despite the apparent increase in fecal coliform concentration, loading for the 14 Lu r47) C7- V) C!D ce- (13 Lu Z =) u- 2 . ......... a FIGURE 2. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS AT MARINE SITE 19 VERSUS TIME. 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 11991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 96% confidence limits) Lee ......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ................................ • • Ix 1.2 .............. ---- ------ -------- -------- :(Water--- Qualitg--Stundard-) ... .......................... .......... . .................... --------- ------------------- ---------------------- 0 L i3 L .......... ................ .......................... ...................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ................................ • Cl Eo 0.4 .............................. . ..... .......................... i .......................... i .......................... .......................... .......................................................................................... ..................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ................................ 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 11991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 96% confidence limits) Lee FIGURE 3. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS AT MARINE SITE 3 VERSUS TIME. : ...................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ...................................................... ................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... of ............................................................................................................................................................................................ :(Water Quality Standard) io..................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..................................................... .......................... .......................... ................................... ..................... .......................... ............... .......................... j .......................... j .......................... ........................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 1986 1987 1988 1989 1999 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 96% confidence limits) Lee 40 Is IP4 M Lu CL 6.3 0 IL H -j .0 0 i J <E U uj U. 2 Pwzz kt O • IL • 0.4 9 I . — FIGURE 4. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS AT MARINE SITE 18 VERSUS TIME. .......................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... .......................... ............................................................ — .......................... ....................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ............ .......... ....... ............ .......................... ...... ...................... ............... . .... ..................... a u .. ---------- -------- --------- w ----------- ---------- --------- --------- --------- ca......................... .......................... .......... .......................... ..................................................... ............ . . . . ............................ ................................ ................... ............. .......................... ........... . ............ .......................... .......................... .......................... ............. — — — — — — — — — — — — - . ... .......... ................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ........ . ....................................... 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) lee 40 Is vq M ui 11 6.3 0 LL 0 U 2.5 I J <1 LL -1-7 FIGURE 5. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS AT MARINE SITE I VERSUS TIME. ............................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... o ................ ......................... .......................... ............ .......................... (Water Quaii�y��$�andard) o -------- -------------------------- ------------------ : ----------- ......................... . ....... .......................... ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .................... . .................... ................................. . .... .................... ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... - - -------- a a *a: a 0 . ................................................... ........................ ...... .......................... .................... .......................... ................. ..................................... 1986 1987 1988 1989 1998 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) lee 48 is 2.S I LLJ a. 0 U. H -i 0 U -j C ID uj U. - I I 18 2 Fwd O • w4 L L 0.8 • 0.4 0 I - . FIGURE-6. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS AT MARINE SITE 6 VERSUS TIME. . .......................................................... .......................... ..................................................... .......................... ............................................................ ......................... . .......................... .......................... ......................... ...... ........ ..... . .... o ......................... .......................... * .......................... I .......................... ..... ............ ........ .......................... ........................................... .................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ................................ ............. .......................... .......................... ..........................; ..........................s.... O OHO O by *a w a . ................................ I .......................... .......................... .......................... .... ............................................................ .......................... ...................... 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) lee 40 Is 2.5 I X uj a. V) 0 LL 0 0 —j uj L 19 FIGURE 7. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF BIG QUILCENE RIVER (SITE BQ3) FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS TIME. .......... .......................... f ................................................................................... ... ........... ..... .......................... .......................... .......................... ((Water QuislitW Standard) ---------- ----------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- .......................... ; .......................... .......................... ........................................ . ...................................... ......................... - - - - - --- - - - - - - —4 .......................... : ............... .......... ...................... .......... .../..........................4 ;00 ..................................... .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 986 1987 1988 1989 1999 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) 19, 999 ISO .M W M I 0.1 20 0 IL H -j 0 IS U -j <E 0 w L I 0.1 20 3 2 0 FIGURE S. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF BIG QUXLCENE RIVER (SITE BQ3) FECAL COLIFORM LOADING VERSUS TIME. ........................................................................................................................................... .............. ........... .......................... t ............................... - .......................... * .......................... ................................................ .......................... .......................... ...................................................... .......... ......... .......................... ............................................................ — 00 . ....................................................... ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ...................................................... .................................................................................... ..................................................... .......................... ............................................................ 1986 1987 1988 1989 1998 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 96% confidence limits) I Lees Lee O M uj IL 0 M L 0 19 u J L i Z 0 21 C O CL E M 0 U. 0 U J (E 0 W L Z 0 H J J H 93 cs 9 0 FIGURE S. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF BIG QUXLCENE RIVER (SITE BQ3) FECAL COLIFORM LOADING VERSUS TIME. ........................................................................................................................................... .............. ........... .......................... t ............................... - .......................... * .......................... ................................................ .......................... .......................... ...................................................... .......... ......... .......................... ............................................................ — 00 . ....................................................... ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ...................................................... .................................................................................... ..................................................... .......................... ............................................................ 1986 1987 1988 1989 1998 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 96% confidence limits) I Lees Lee O M uj IL 0 M L 0 19 u J L i Z 0 21 FIGURE a. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF LITTLE QUILCENE RIVER (SITE LQ3) FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS TIME. . ........................................... ............... .................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... ............. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ........................ .......................... .......................... .......................... ...................................................... Water QuimlitW Stmeidard) 4� ---------- --------- -_ -_- ------- __a- - - - - -_ - ......................... ; ....... ................. .......................... ? ....................... .............................. .......................... .......................... ................................ - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ........................... .... ..................... ............................................................... .......................... ..................................................... ...................................................... 1986 1987 1988 1989 lase 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits-) 19,080 lase lee a: ui M I 0.1 22 0 IL H J 0 _j a 0 W IL I 0.1 22 C 0 M W 0 0 U U ui IL Z 0 M O 3 2 9 -1 FIGURE 19. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF LITTLE QUILCEME RIVER (SITE LQ3) FECAL COLIFORM LOADING VERSUS TIME. .. .......................... ....................................................... ................................................... .......................... .......................... ........................ ....... . ................................ .. ......................... ...................................................... ......... ................ .......................... .. ........................ ................ io o * .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ............................................... . .......................................................... ... . ................... ............................... ............................... ..................................................... .......................... ................................... . ............... .......................... .......................... ............................................................. . .............................. ............ ........ ....... 1986 1987 198e 1989 1990 1991 1992 1983 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) FIGURE 11. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF DONAVAN CREEK (SITE DV2) FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS TIME. ......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ......................... O O ......................... .......................... .................................. ............. .......................... .......................... (Water quality Standmi-d) -------------------------- --------- -- - - - - - - - -'- -------- - - - - -- .......... ................ ......................... ...... ................... ? .......................... ? ................................................................................................. -4 .......................... *.1 ..................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... . ............... ........ .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......... ........................................... 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 DATE 10,908 lees lee (p Is 0 LL J 0 IL I 0.1 (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) 24 C W a. 0 IL 0 C3 C Q UA U. Z 0 O 0 J �z F 9 �q FIGURE 12. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF DONAVAN CREEK (SITE DV2) FECAL COLXFORM LOADING VERSUS TIME. . ........................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ...................................................... pc ............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................................................... ......................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ............................................................ . ............................................................................................................................................. ................. ..................................................... ................... .................................................................................... ..................................................... .......................... .................................... 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) FIGURE 13. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF CEMETERY DRAIN (SITE COW FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS TIME. ....................... ....................... ....................................... ................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..................................................... ......................... .............. ... ....................... (water Quality Standard) oc......................... .......................... .......................... ................................................................................. .......................... ......................... ......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ......................... .......................... .......................... ......................... ..................... ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ...................................................... 1986 198? 198e 1989 199e 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) 19,900 ises ISO m ui a. 0 LL 0 IS 0 W L I 0.1 i CL (n 0 L 0 U W L Z 0 H J .4 C9 0 -i I I - 2.9 1.9 0.9 -9.1 -1.1 FIGURE 14. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF CEMETERY DRAIN (SITE COW LOADING VERSUS TIME. ......................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ........................................................... ............ : .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o is ................ . .............................. ...................................... .......................... ........................... ........ ............................... o -- — - -- — - -- . ................................... .................. .......................... .......................... ..................................................... ......................................... .. . ...... .................... ................................................................. .......................... .......................... ........................................................... ------ ---- less 1987 I988 less less 1991 I992 I993 DATE (dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) 500 80 O uj IL W 0 U. H J 8 0 U J C U uj IL Z 0 J H to 9.8 9.08 27 FIGURE 15. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF TOTAL LOADING (ALL STREAMS COMBINED) VERSUS TIME. -.., ................ ...\ .. ..................... ................. ...................................................... ..................... ........................... : sE................................ .... ............... ......................... ......................... . : .................................................................................. .............................. ............................. O ........... .......... . . ...................... I .............. ....................................... .......................... .......................... . ....................... ................................. .................................... ............ ..................... ............ ............. .......................... less 1987 Less 1969 Lego 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 96% confidence limits) 1000 Lee w a. I 28 0 tL 0 1• C 0 W L Z 0 J I 28 Little Quilcene River appears to have decreased (Figure 10). Donovan Creek Fecal coliform concentration in Donovan Creek apparently decreased slightly (Figure 11). Also, loading appeared to decrease (Figure 12). Cemetery Drain Fecal coliform concentration and loading from Cemetery Drain appeared to decrease (Figures 13 and 14). All Streams Total loading from all four streams appeared to have decreased (Figure 15). Based on the regression, about 79 billion fecal coliforms (on the average) entered the Bay each day in 1986 -89 compared to 33 billion in 1992 -93. Rainfall Rainfall data for 1992 -93 is presented in Table 1. Little or no rainfall preceded the November, December, and February sampling dates. Four - day rainfall preceding each of the January, March, and April sampling dates was about 1.2 inches. Four -day rainfall decreased from 1986 to 1993 (Figure 16). The correlation coefficient ( -0.37) for this regression was statistically significant (p = .0002). Correlations Spearman correlation coefficients calculated from the 1986 - 1993 data are presented in Table A2. Correlations (p <_ .20) between marine fecal coliform concentrations and other factors (from Table A2) are shown in Table 3. In general, marine concentrations and stream loadings were positively correlated ( +0.4 to +0.7) at all sites except site 5, which is farthest from the stream mouths. Marine concentrations were positively correlated ( +0.4 to +0.6) with rainfall at all sites except site 5. Marine concentrations at all five sites were generally negatively correlated ( -0.4 to -0.9) to salinity measurements at sites 1 and 5. In general, marine concentrations at one site were positively correlated ( +0.3 to +0.8) to concentrations at the other sites. 29 FIGURE 16. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF 4-DAY RAINFALL (PRECEDING SAMPLING DATES) VERSUS TIME. ............ ........................ ..................................................... .......................... ............................................................ - .......................... I .......................... ................... ....... ...... ............. ............. .......................... ................................................................... ........ ..................... ..... .................................................... .......................... .......................... ...................................................................................... . .............................. . .................................................... ......... . . ........... ..................................................... ............................................................ .............. .................................. ................... .......................... ............. .................................................................................................. .............. . . ............ .......................... ...................... ......................... . .......................... ..................... ............................ 1986 19817 1988 1989 1999 1991 1992 1993 DATE (Dotted lines are 95% confidence limits) 30 DISCUSSION Effects of Remedial Actions on Freshwater Quality Have remedial actions (i.e., septic repairs and farm BMPs) improved water quality in the tributary streams of Quilcene Bay? Fecal coliform concentrations and loadings measured in 1992 -93 were not significantly different (p > .05) from those made in 1986 -89. However, this is not surprising due to the high variability of fecal coliform and to the small number of dates (6) sampled. The variability inherent in measuring fecal coliform can be appreciated by reviewing measurements taken at the same site 30 minutes or less apart. The following are some examples from Table Al: Stream Date Time FC concentration (MPN /100ml-) Log (10) M P N / 100mL Cemetery Drain 2/3/93 1010 240 2.38 if 2/3/93 1040 1600 3.20 Donovan Creek 1/19/93 1035 920 2.96 " 1/19/93 1048 540 2.73 Little Quilcene River 1/19/93 1115 111 2.05 it 1/19/93 1145 23 1.36 Big Quilcene River 1/19/93 1209 8 0.90 " 1/19/93 1216 49 1.69 Loadings from all four streams tended to show downward trends (Figures 8, 10, 12, and 14). Concentrations showed downward trends in Donovan Creek (Figure 11) and Cemetery Drain (Figure 13). Concentration trends in the Big Quilcene River (Figure 7) and Little Quilcene River (Figure 9) were upward, but as discussed previously (Results section), these upward trends would be lessened if a consistent detection limit were used for all dates. Although the results, especially fecal coliform loadings are encouraging, one needs to realize that statistical confidence is lacking, and that the small number of samples may not be truly representative of the situation. Optimism must also be tempered by another factor - rainfall. There was a significant (p = .0002) decline in 4 -day rainfall (prior to sampling) from 1986 to 1993 (Figure 16). Thus, the lower loadings in 1992 -93 may be due to less rainfall during this period. Spearman correlation coefficients support this postulation (Table Al). Rainfall can affect the situation in two ways. First, rainfall can create saturated soils and cause surface runoff, conditions which tend to flush fecal coliform into streams. Second, rainfall can have a diluting effect. Usually, rainfall results in increased fecal coliform loading. If rainfall saturates the ground to the point that surface runoff occurs, dramatic increases in fecal coliform concentration and loading can occur. This happened on January 19, 1993 when 1.2 inches of rain fell on frozen ground one day prior to sampling. On this date fecal coliform concentrations and loadings were 1 -2 orders of magnitude greater than at other times. Under an "ambient" sampling strategy, such as in this study, sampling dates are chosen in advance and may turn out to be "dry" or "wet" days. The more dates that are sampled, the better they will represent the sample period, and the greater the likelihood some dates will coincide with rain events, when worst conditions - occur. When few dates are sampled, as is the case thus far in this study, they may 31 not be representative. Similarly, rainfall during an entire year may not be typical of a "normal" year. In general, the more data one has, the more confidence one can have in drawing conclusions. "Which of the streams has more potential for improvement ? ", is a question which can be more easily answered. From the data in Table 2, especially the months of January and April, when concentrations and loadings were highest, Cemetery Drain appears to offer the most potential for improvement. Following in decreasing order of str'eams having the most potential for improvement are Donovan Creek, Little Quilcene River, and Big Quilcene River. Effects of Seals and Freshwater Loadings on Marine Water Quality "Has Quilcene Bay's water quality improved ?" Data collected at 4 of the 5 marine sites (including all sites in the closed area) indicated downward trends in fecal coliform concentrations (Figures 2 -6). However, correlation coefficients were not significant (p > .05). Thus, one cannot say with confidence that the regression lines represent the actual situation. Again, high variability and small sample size make it difficult to demonstrate statistical significance. Assuming, for the sake of the following discussion, that the declining trends are real, the next question is, "Are the declines due to changes in freshwater loadings or changes in the seal population ?" That marine concentrations were correlated to freshwater loadings was demonstrated by Spearman correlation analyses (Table 3). At all sites except site 5, farthest from the tributary streams, marine concentrations were positively correlated ( +0.4 to +0.7; p _< .20) to stream loadings. The relationship between marine concentrations and seals is not as clear. Certainly, the number of seals frequenting the closed area has been drastically reduced since the 1990 removal of the log booms (Tables 1 and 4). Therefore one can reasonably conclude that the quantity of fecal coliform bacteria from seal waste has also been reduced. What is unknown is the degree that reduced seal waste has affected marine fecal coliform concentrations compared to reduced freshwater loadings. Hopefully, these questions will be better answered as more data are gathered. 32 CONCLUSIONS 1) It is encouraging that recent (November 1992 -April 1993) fecal coliform levels in freshwater and marine samples were generally lower than levels in-.1986 -89 samples. However, optimism must be guarded for two reasons: 1) The samples may not represent actual conditions; GMVs for the two periods were not significantly different (p > .05); and 2) the reason for the lower levels in 1992 -93 may be due primarily to less rainfall preceeding the 1992 -93 sample dates. 2) Although the population of seals which frequent Quilcene Bay is high (over 300 seals on some dates) relatively few seals apparently frequent the closed area at this time. Even though the seals' fecal coliform contribution is unknown, this apparent reduction (from over 200 seals to near zero) has to be beneficial to marine water quality. From a pollution perspective, it is better to have the seals concentrate at the deeper, better flushed south end of the Bay than at the shallower, more poorly flushed north end. 3) If the log facility is reactivated, as planned, and log booms installed as before, the log booms will probably once again be used as seal haul -outs. Thus, some thought should be put into the facility's design and management to minimize its use as a seal haul -out. Possibly a modified electric fence would work. 4) - Efforts in reducing fecal coliform pollution (and potential disease - causing pathogens) need to continue in the Quilcene Watershed. Such efforts include conservation plans, BMPs, septic repairs, and continuing public education. 5) Streams offering the most potential for improvement in descending order of potential appear to be: Cemetery Drain, Donovan Creek, Little Quilcene River, and Big Quilcene River. 6) Only with long term monitoring can efforts for improvement be assessed. 7) It is not intended that this report answer the question of whether or not water quality has improved sufficiently for the closed area to be reopened. It is hoped, however, that this report will aid those in making this decision. 33 REFERENCES APHA. 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. Anon. 1992. State and local funding of nonpoint source control programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA 841 -R -92 -003, pages 51 -59, Washington, D.C. Banks, B., J. Welch, and M.D. Purser. 1987. Quilcene /Dabob water quality project. Technical report to the Washington State Department of Ecology, 34 pp. Calambokidis, J., and B. McLaughlin. 1987. Harbor seal populations and their contributions to fecal coliform pollution in Quilcene Bay, Washington. Final report to Jefferson County and the Washington Department of Ecology, 29 pp. Calambokidis, J., B.D. McLaughlin, and G.H. Steiger. 1989. Bacterial contamination related to harbor seals in Puget Sound, Washington. Final report to Jefferson County and Washington Department of Ecology in cooperation with Washington Department of Social and Health Services, 74 pp. Cook, K.V. 1984. Water quality study of Quilcene Bay, Jefferson County, Washington, June 4 -7, 1984, October 22 -31, 1984. Shellfish Program, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia, Wa. Cook, K.V. 1985. Sanitary survey of Quilcene Bay, Jefferson County, Washington, November 1984 - December 1985. Shellfish Program, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia, WA. Evenson, J.R. and J. Calambokidis 1992. Monitoring of harbor seals at Dosewallips Delta and their reaction to slough barriers, August 1991 to July 1992. Final report for Washington State Parks and Recreation Department, 25 pp. Jefferson County. 1991. Quilcene /Dabob Watershed monitoring /stream survey plan and quality assurance management plan. Implementation grant no. TAX 90094. Jefferson County Planning Department, Port Townsend, WA. Rubida, P. and J. Calambokidis. 1990. Factors affecting nonpoint source fecal coliform levels in Quilcene and Dabob watersheds, Jefferson County, Washington. Final report for Washington State Department of Ecology, 24 pp. STSC 1991. Statgraphincs. Reference manual, version 5.STSC, Inc., Rockville, Maryland. Welch, J.L., and B. Banks. 1987. Final Report - The Quilcene /Dabob Bays water quality project. Final report to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Wa. 50 pp. 34 APPENDIX A TABLES' Table Al. Water quality data collected at downstream sites on Cemetary Drain (CD3), Donovan Creek (DV2), Little Quilcene River (LQ3), and Big Quilcene River (BQ3) from November 1992 to April 1993. Site Date Time Flow FC TSS Turb. Temp. Cond. pH D.O. cfs MPN /100mL mg/L NTU ° C umho /cm units mg/L CD3 1115192 955 0.68 18 0.6 2.4 10.7 214 6.90 5.8 " IT 1018 - 33 0.8 2.3 10.7 216 6.91 5.9 CD3u 12/3/92 945 0.74 11 0.8 1.9 8.4 188 7.15 - " " 956 - 1.8 1.2 2.0 8.5 189 7.05 7.0 " 1/19/93 930 9.1 >2400 206 290 1.5 95 6.80 10.9 " 950 - >2400 237 320 1.4 96 6.84 10.9 " 2/3/93 1010 1.1 240 0.8 2.8 - - 7.05 - " " 1040 - 1600 2.6 6.2 8 = 7.02 - CD3 3/18/93 927 1.3 162 1.7 2.7 8.2 226 6.98 7.0 " " 952 - 49 1.1 2.2 8.2 225 7.01 7.0 " 4/12/93 1121 2.6 540 15 32 8.6 177. 7.00 8.2 A A 1135 - 567 12 31 8.7 178 6.99 8.4 DV2 11/5/92 753 0.61 13 2.2 6.8 8.3 2100 7.07 8.5 " 825 - 23 11 18 - - - - DV2u 1213/92 1105 0.31 17 2.4 7.3 1.9 199 7.33 11.8 " " 1115 - 33 2.4 7.4 1.9 200 7.35 11.6 Jr 1/19/93 1035 9.6 920 96 115 0.2 121 6.94 10.8 " " 1048 - 540 101 125 0.1 120 6.96 10.6 IF 2/3/93 905 3.2 9.3 2.4 14 3.3 - 7.05 - " N 915 - 6.8 1.8 13 - - 7.07 - DV2 3/18/93 845 4.2 6.8 4.5 20 7.1 1040 7.04 8.9 " " 858 - 22 6.7 21 - - - - " 4/12/93 1023 15 130 13 30 8.1 298 7.08 11.1 " JV 1037 - 240 13 30 8.1 300 7.12 10.8 LQ3 11/5/92 850 8.9 7.8 1.0 1.7 8.3 251 7.62 10.2 " 913 - 49 1.0 1.0 - - - - " 12/3/92 1143 16 2.8 0.9 1.6 3.4 214 7.78 12.2 " " 1205 - 4.5 0.6 1.7 3.5 214 7.80 12.6 or 1/19/93 1115 21 111 2.5 5.2 2.1 199 7.64 12.0 A A 1145 - 23 3.2 6.4 2.1 198 7.65 12.1 " 2/3/93 1200 48 2.0 0.8 3.9 - - 7.69 - " 1226 - 7.0 0.5 3.8 4 - 7.68 - " 3/18/93 1019 34 4.5 1.7 2.8 6.2 166 7.73 11.1 if 1040 - 4.5 2.1 2.8 6.2 167 7.78 11.1 " 4/12/93 940 103 23 19 20 6.6 111 7.58 10.6 " if 953 - 17 19 22 6.6 113 7.61 10.5 Table Al (cont'd.). Water quality data collected at downstream sites on Cemetary Drain (CD3), Donovan Creek (DV2), Little Quilcene River (1-03), and Big Quilcene River (BQ3) from November 1992 to April 1993. M Site Date Time Flow FC TSS Turb. Temp. Cond. pH D.O. cfs MPN /100mL mg/L NTU °C ymho /cm units mg/L BQ3 1115/92 1055 33 2.0 1.0 1.1 8.3 150 7.74 10.7 1130 - 2.0 0.8 0.8 - - - - " 12/ 3/92 1235 43 <1.8 0.2 1.0 3.5 131 7.78 12.8 " 1255. - 2.0 0.6 1.4 3.5 132 7.80 12.9 " 1/19/93 1209 53 7.8 3.2 3.0 2.9 161 7.82 12.0 " 1216 - 49 3.2 3.8 2.7 162 7.84 12.6 " 2/3/93 1110 164 4.5 0.4 2.1 - - 7.73 - " 1130 - <1.8 0.0 2.1 5 _ 7.74 - " 3/18/93 1055 122 <1.8 1.1 0.9 5.2 109 7.79 11.3 " 1115 - 4.5 0.5 0.9 - - - - " 4/12/93 855 213 2.0 1.6 1.8 5.4 9& 7.64 10.8 " 918 - 4.5 2.0 1.8 5.4 94 7.70 10.8 P O 00 6-0 Tor M00 o T !U) o -n to o - -n cn o m v om w o ' � � �< 0) °Cx m m m Lp c �p � � �v � ' � 7N O7 � nn n n ° � ° �o 1+0 w cc m ° 5 > r; O at O a° � = �O. � N n 0 o ' o ca m Co :3 (a CD 03 0 3 n3 M3 �3 C cn Gu -A y. a Oy 00 O Cr HNW O O W O 01 w J O M H b O W H N 01 H O 01. A N O M - b O O A O O wNJ WNA 01NN JNJ NNJ 'WNO bNb MNOI ONW NNO ONO HNJ H.NW ONW OtNW ONO b J.M W AW OAH H.P. 01 MAW HAH W AA OAOt MAN toAw 0 WM W AO W AO1 NA W W AH NAH OAO Date g W H -' W U-0 M -•- A W -� M w—.% , H --' 01 W -- b b -•- J -I -- O 00 �-' 0 W b J M W_ A b N N A O 01 i ' C y W A H N W W b O• b O b O' A N W- N• O A H U. O OI M H O W N N O O% H W O O O A.) Salinity 19 W n bHN MHH NH W NHN AHM WHA, JH01 V HM OHO0 lOH W OHH OHJ OH00 -4 HA. OHO 0.NO1 NO1W NTW M01W JO10 M01 W WOtM W Ch -4 00101 H0%N W (A W WO1M H01H HO1N 000,0 0% at W 0010 NAH •1 I.- -- W W -- A M -- J U-4. W-- H V -+ W W_ O J -- J J -- b N_ 00 W -- b J -� H A-- P A -- W W -- W O --- O W_ &.1 O O •Cyh n 2. 0 0 ►• 0 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 W 0 0 :, 0 O O w t, Fecal coliform 0H0% NH W NH W HHN UIHJ MHA 0% -4 a WHO OH -I 0 " Awb 0H-4 W H W OHO JHA ON W Q N Hotu HOtM bO1W JOtH WOO watA M01M 0010 w010 W to w010 001b N0101 001b 0010 0%OtW WAH concentration 19 'H --- O W -- M O1 �+ H V `••� M W -- A W N UI M P -- N W `-' H M -•- W M `-� 01 W_ w J -- O A -- O O O• W -- W W_ N o in 01 f• vI i+ N u i1 w 0 o m o in r +► r 0 . 0 0 0 .I of 0 0 0 :I o $ 0t 0 in1 Salinity 3 �, N N w H U1 OHM M A H W M H M b w 0 M H w to W H H M J H J W w b A H A 0 H w b w b ONO w r 00 H W H N W Jb W AbW O1bH 010 W MtoN NbM W bH bbN 0W O (A ^ AbO1 HbA owu Ob0 0 M WOO NA W Y W -- O H `-- 4I M -- W N -- 01 W_ N W -- b O -- J 0-0 A `-- H b -- M J --' N W -- 01 W_ b 0-0 A -- O &—U M -- 0. � ? Ot n'F O CD �^ W 0 a u, 0 u, 0 0 O O Fecal coliform' H 03 MNN W NJ NN01 W NH p NNM NNW ONO1 ON0% HNOt NN W to N0% ONO Owb 0wJ bHV HNJ -•h MNW ONW WNA WNOt WNr JNN WNJ bNA WNM JNO ANH ONO OWU WOO HORN WAOt concentration 3. �_ O H -' N H — H 01-- M N — H W_ -I t0 t0 W -- W 01 b J -- M -I --- W -I -- W 01--- A 0-0 N A -- A J -- M 1 CO y � O Ot N b O b O N W W N A N W N N N 01 N O A Ot H O O J O O J A' H O W O Ot' I w J N O N N W VIN H H N t0 AI N J A N N O N A A N J 0.N N M N Ot NNH O N O t0 N 01 p H W A H b O H w ONO' Sailnit 18 t 4.5-4 A O W W O J o 0 0Y WOO 0 0'N A 0 N M O W O'O W OOH b 0 0 0 0 6 ANH w b A 0 01 b H Ot 1•+ W A OI Y W M 01-- M J --- M H -- A W-- 01 W— 00 A -- H 11—M y `-- 01 O_ O W— J 0-0 Ot -•- A W_ 01 W -- W J �-•' H W `-' t0 ^ i ^ .. -. .-, • .. .. - .,, it ' .. �. I H .. H .. t .. I .•, ... I .. 1 � 'w (Y 0 w O 0 01 i-t 0 Fecal coliform MNA HNM bNJ UINN bNA 0 W w HNA oNOt ANA W W ONO NNH,• NN W W O O W M H Ot H b W W W W V Ot W W 01 W J W W V -I W O, N W M O W W N W W W U.C. O w 0 WOO -I N O H A. ,0, OHt•O W H I A. M O A M J `- W I O O - W 0- H b - W W_ N A M W-' O W - O b - W U— J J - W N W_ b W concentration 18 �- M ^ H W O J O M' O M W N' O J W N' O' V O M• ONO O W' O P O to • • • • Salinity. 1. W NA ANH MN01 W NN ONb HNA 01 W,o 0 ONb ONO bN W Ln HNO1 WHb OHJ OHW ON W W O W N00% NOO wOA A001 W O W to 0tn HO W b0N 000 W W A OOH WNM ,nbA co 0110 0001N 0hi A -••- M J -•- V N --- A b -•- M 0 -- -I H `-' W (h �-- W b -� W b -•- w O --- O b -- W W --' O J -••- W b -- M M -- W N -- W J -- O w n, N in u nr N it in �• o v i� N r it 0 O 0 in o +. 01 r 0 0 N 0 A F, a A HI Fecal coliform 0 N A, NNA ONb NNOt AN O% ONtn -INb HNM ONO 0 ANA 0NN 0 N01 ANb MNN HNW ONb WNW bNr ANOt bNJ ONO LOON NWW OOw bNA -IH-1 WwM -H0 tnN01 concentration 1 W-�H 0-0 W--H O--W W--Ot N--J W`�A H--0 O`--O b-+N W--O H--M -4 Ul ObO •H 01O H01N MAN H W_ H J -- b W— -I ^ 1 � 1 ^ 1 -•- 1 ^ 1 1 � ••- 1 w ^ H ^ 1 ^ ^ 1 •- ^ 1 --� ^ I ••- � I , O M O O1 O M H A O M O Ch H W O O H W O J O V N N O (h A N H WNW N N Ot N N Ot M N M N N t0 N N M O N O H N M O N w O N at A N J O N Ch NHN °o.w Fbt ' J w OA1 L N tHO; Salinity 5 MO0% HOB HOA HOOt N010 OO W MOH 000' 10 V HOW O W W tn0 W W NJ M -•- A H v M W -+ W W -+ M 01 -•- Ot M -- A N `-- W 0-0 H -•- M to— W W-0 J -- Ot 01-- b b b N O Ot O O M at O A M O-- O A.••- N -I-- J W— b: r.. 01 H J H W O M H M H b. N .O .O w - W H N W N H W W 'N H w • Fecal coliform A N H UI N O . W N 01 0 W U) W N J M N H 0 N 0 N W w -4 M to Ot W 0 H N'i. 0 N A N N W W I,,, 0 01 w J W H A W N 0: ONW WNW ANo ANO1 03 01NA ONO UIOH AN.Ot to 0M NW01 AON .INN t,bH MOtM 0) M-4 WAA; COnCentratlOn 5 01 `-' N O ^� b W -- A W -- O W -� J b_ W P-0 N -- W W—& O1-•- W A --- M &—H W -- W + o J M -- M W -- O H_ of � ^H I 0 J O W O Ot O b O 01 O O A N 0. O1 O J p J O "M A N O Ot W 0, 0, Big Quilcene O H A H H A N H M OHO NNH OHO M N H N N b •O N M H N A M N N A N N NNW M H M M H A A w M Yl N J M'MO wMN bMJ O1M W O1MJ OMO NNA 0000• b'NH WOW J W Ot 0a" U. NbM wp1A W Ot tX w'AH 01. 03 to --A N-+W J-•-0 Q`•�01 0- 0 to`•• -W Ut-• -A t11vJ H- U W--'N W_ 03 1Q`• -t0 W-+10 W--N J-hW N--P� River loading 0 01 r H w H H W N w b OHO O 01 M H O M M Ht W N O A W N P N N w O M b O J O Little Quilcene OMt0 NOtO W OtH HOW OMO TNJ W NO NOt0 WNW A 001 W W J t000 - W Nat bH0 Mw'J NHN JNJ M--W J---W us �u J--w 0-0 O•`• -01 U— -4 0—a% W---Ot 0--J W-•-W N---Ot WSJ N10N Wd10 N01W VIA W, River loading N--N M--A WvH W-•-M t I ^ ^ ^ O M - O b O J• O O O ch . O b 4A H H• A N W• O to N A7 N W O tn - $-A OH C1 wH Ot OHO NwtO OHO ONM NNOt NNOt W NN MNN HNb W NH W W J W W W O Wt0 O W O HOtN 01MW ANOt H00% ONto P 4A 01 W V 0001 WNA H `•' W W -� Ot J -- N O -- O. J --- W -t -- O W -+ O W `•- M O -+ W b -•- M Ol -+ H H `•' A. N -•- H H ^w :I WHO W N 01 N N M O N b W M-I AN0 HOA H W N -•- W W -- A W -•- W W -- H 0 m .I r 0 0, ►+ to HHL. MNO MN W NNA "MM WNW HOW to NN 0—& O --- W 1 -- M O --- M I O J 01 H O M W N O H A A N H A N H O N A MMO ONW MO0% Aw 01-- W 01 -- N 0 --• A W -•- w I 001-ttiWoo a' ONO b N J M N H N N 01 N O O 01 W W W O J O N W N -•- A O W. J --- M 01 -- M 1 � o v H to to 0' 0 01 A N H H N M " N W M N J WOO 0w11 ,POW MNW J -- J H -- O M_ M H -•- H H W O A Ot H H W W N A M N A V N O H N W W O W b W W J O J H N N A -- M J -- W N `•- M • w `-' N N W H Or t0 O pwwrn M H 01 0ww off W owo 0 W w H1-t OWO W AW APED 0 OWb W 0%H N -- J W --- A O `•- O J -- N W `•- W t,i (a w^ w 0 0 03 A H W O 01 0 0 0 W 0 W 0 07 A w W OHO O w w o" M N H W O O N 0 0 0 A A W W W W m.5 O M -- t0 O -- O W -- A W -- M V �•- W w ^H ^ ^ ^ ^ O O O O1 O J O M O O1 O N O A H W O H W .J N H H H M 000 OON 03.t W W W J 001 to O -'- O M ••-- b N J H --' W 01 `-' W :I WHO W N 01 N N M O N b W M-I AN0 HOA H W N -•- W W -- A W -•- W W -- H 0 m .I r 0 0, ►+ to HHL. MNO MN W NNA "MM WNW HOW to NN 0—& O --- W 1 -- M O --- M I O J 01 H O M W N O H A A N H A N H O N A MMO ONW MO0% Aw 01-- W 01 -- N 0 --• A W -•- w I 001-ttiWoo a' ONO b N J M N H N N 01 N O O 01 W W W O J O N W N -•- A O W. J --- M 01 -- M 1 � o v H to to 0' 0 01 A N H H N M " N W M N J WOO 0w11 ,POW MNW J -- J H -- O M_ M H -•- H H W O A Ot H H W W N A M N A V N O H N W W O W b W W J O J H N N A -- M J -- W N `•- M • w `-' N N W H Or t0 O at H M H 01 H H N. N w u 01 N N 0 W w JO, F•• -4 at t- .1, I N -•- O1 J --- to W -••- A M --- A .i w— A w -- W t,i (a 0 01 0 0 03 A H W NHW 01 w N W N A O1 to to W to at OAH M -- W M— " M --- J W -- W I ^:l Cemetery Drain loading Donovan Creek loading ' oi w H M 'w W W of Total loading O H W N H W b w N H N J A b W POW NOW U A W ;; I W -- M w— A w -- W II 4 -day A W w M M H 01 N N H N W J b M HOW N Ot W b A. M rainfall APPENDIX B SEPTIC REPAIRS ATTACHMENT JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REPAIR AND UPGRADE OF ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS k Jefferson County has taken a slightly different approach to the repair and upgrade of failing septic systems. Water quality degradation was identified by monitoring during the Quilcene /Dabob Water Shed Action Plan. The Water Shed Management Committee identified septic systems as one of the contributors to degraded water quality. During the implementation stage of the watershed plan several sanitary surveys were completed. Very few systems were identified with this traditional method and few repairs (8 to be exact). The loan program did exist at the time but was not well known and was limited to low income applicants._ The next grant took a different approach. First, a staff person was dedicated half time to the repair program. Second, education and information programs were given to community groups, existing groups such as the Lions Club and open public meetings that were announced in the paper and posted in the communities. Six such workshops were given. These workshops cover the "Nuts and Bolts" of septic systems, how substandard systems contribute to water quality problems and information on the loan program. The loan program has been extended to low and moderate income participants. Similar workshops have been given to the Board of Realtors and to two individual real estate offices. For the professional community of installers and designers of onsite sewage systems we have offered technical workshops during which the repair and upgrade program was explained. The local paper publishes articles periodically and includes a section on the water quality program in its annual building and development insert. The workshops generate between 2 and 6 inquiries each, the majority of the inquiries come from word of mouth. Referrals also come from installers, designers, realtors and neighbors. We have focused on voluntary participation, although we do have an enforcement procedure for the eventuality that a system is identified and the owner refuses to participate. To date 40 systems have been permitted for repair or upgrade. The loan program has been utilized by 23. Only about one third of the sites would have been identified with a sanitary survey technique, even one using the dye tracing method. The rest of the sites are in excessively coarse soils in river bottoms, are installed in a water table with no directly identifiable surfacing or seepage or other similar conditions that preclude direct identification. Page 2 Attachment This system has allowed us to develop a strong positive relationship in the communities and fostered a sense of trust during what frequently can turn into a debate over "see if you can make me In this vein, there is a small community that is on a sand spit and knows that they have substandard systems. Staff from this office helped them to prepare and submit a grant application for a large off site community drainfield. Staff attended a meeting of the community members to explain the process and the type of system being proposed. It was very well received and the vote was nearly unanimous to proceed. They did not make the cut for the grant, but it is my opinion that they are now focused on a solution to their problem and will continue to work toward a solution. They come to the Health Department for advice and assistance where as in the past the Health Department was the last place a person with a failing system would approach. APPENDIX C BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES O Jefferson County Conservation District Federal Building, Rm. 15 - P.O. Box 1068 - Port Townsend, WA 98368 - Phone (206) 385 -4105 REPGRT ON BMP IMPLEMENTATION IN THE QUILCENE /DABOB WATERSHEDS AUGUST, 1993 Since 1986 the Jefferson County Conservation District has had staff addressing water quality problems in the agricultural community of Jefferson County with emphasis on the Quilcene /Dabob Bay watershed. Funding for staff has come through grants from the Conservation Commission and Dept. of Ecology, with technical assistance and support from the USDA Soil Conservation Service. The BMP emphasis has been on establishing livestock exclusion fencing along streams, livestock watering facilities, and encouraging good pasture management practices. In the Quilcene /Dabob Bays watershed BMP's have been established on 15 farms. Conservation Plans have been written for a number of landowners with stream frontage in these watersheds which specify the implementation of BMP's. Additional BMP's are being implemented on properties which have already received some attention. Conservation district staff are also working with other landowners not interested in developing a conservation plan at present but who are willing to implement BMP's to address potential nonpoint pollution problems. There has been one water quality complaint filed with DOE and referred to the conservation district in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays watershed. This resulted in the implementation of a partial solution to the problem (herd reduction, pasture rotation, stock watering facilities - no fencing) and bad feelings between many in the Quilcene community and government agencies, particularly DOE. Recently the landowners decided to put in a second bridge at a point the livestock cross the creek, at suggestion of District staff. CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT Much of,the districts efforts have been focused on re- establishing good working relationships with landowners in the area, with a fair bit of success. We feel that we know where the water quality problems attributable to agriculture are in the area and are working towards implementing soluti.ons to these problems in a manner which will also foster good. community relations. A referral system was recently established between the district and the county water quality staff that allows*the district to work on alleged water quality violations without a formal complaint to DOE to start the process. The district feels that in most cases we will have a better chance for success with landowners in this community outside the formal complaint process, but that the formal complaint process is an essential tool that can be used as a last resort when all other efforts have failed. The enclosed map indicates land used for agriculture potentially affecting water quality with an accompanying description of the current status of that property regarding Best Management Practices. AGRICULTURAL AREAS IN QUILCENE /DABOB BAYS WATERSHED Site # and Description 1. Conservation plan,"BMP's implemented. 2. Streamside fencing installed in 1992. 3. Conservation plan, additional streamside fencing installed in 1992. 4. Conservation plan, BMP's implemented. 5. Irrigation ditch fenced except for livestock watering access. 6. Conservation plan, BMP's implemented (fencing, stock watering fac.). 7. Conservation plan, BMP's implemented. 8. Conservation plan, BMP's implemented. 9. Subject of DOE Water Quality Violation. Scme BMP's implemented but landowners reluctant to fence creek. Currently installing additional livestock crossing. District staff working with landowner. 10. Conservation plan. 11. Conservation plan. Part of acreage fenced off and a water quality conservation easement developed for that acreage. Donovan Creek fenced through property; Ongoing negotiations with landowner for fencing of Jakeway Creek. 12. Conservation plan developed 1991 - includes stream fencing prior to livestock re- introduction. 13. Ongoing negotiations with landowner for creek fencing. 14. Livestock have access to portions of creeks on property. Ongoing negotiations w/ landowner for additional fencing. 15. Livestock (small number) have access to portions of creek. No recent contact with landowner. 16. Conservation plan. 17. One horse w/ access to creek. Ongoing negotiations w /landowner. 18. Conservation plan. Stream fencing can be improved w /development of alternative livestock watering site - currently working w /landowner on this. 19. Conservation plan. 20. Conservation plan for previous owner, with streams fenced. 21. Ongoing negotiations with landowner concerning stream fencing. 22. Conservation plan. 23. Conservation plan developed 1991 - includes stream fencing prior to livestock re- introduction. 24. Conservation plan - BMP;s implemented. 25. Partial access to creeks by livestock. Ongoing negotiations with landowner regarding additional fencing. 26. Conservation plan. 27. Conservation plan being developed - stream fenced and other BMP's already implemented. Li(LIA t)kidder �/� K /u.n :o/ STATe A�,lt1IIJJtTOH. ..,,,,.+� -�'/ 1 or-ker L .Ar 37.91; ' , •, Tarboo Lake t\ ca wn _._.�. --•C -- q y HO 1� � ..eet. ItaDAC4 Conv It ILIS , . •,1,9 CILOTr1 tt t.laOACM b r - _ ► a co 111C. QE - r ot, 0 17 4 3D.9i1vo E$ TALOo'r, INC• i J U SCMOOI lANO STATe - r 1Q �� 1 ,1'• )[.A.L7 o AW •LW�•feunfa 3).791 ..11' �' ~ you J 1 �'yr 1 • / 26 i t - 39.571 L Gir.'- ;1 1` 101 0 K. VINCENT z2j'IU c'I'' < T f Oa 6AiL J - ,.Sl•1• L STATE J,f'r1A0 C G- .,N •� ; yr r _ �r. v ,•r ,t 11).441 �Ju4_ T,COTT PAPER CO. < 1 `�.r.( /� •cl�orn�� STATE J � J u J r _ o (jAl.l1 r `w.r __ � • 2 COHI? N 4 _ - �Jll 1 SI I �? U L 1 f 1 ►T 3')A! 0. 4. •iV/ 1 isr I7.lt P - K OAUeR fC •� STATE u k\`t ✓� �c /se,N ,•° vTSUIC { T V _ q L V •�` /!� CJ O , 4V � \. ¢ _`,►•,••J! R ' ell wlno- �~ ror `+ W Oil [ .�'a. - - 1- r ~ / ..�.1 Yl.t'• 1'\,' O U )�a, JON11SoN8 .� '_�. (•'' v ry ,w, i. .19.41 ,o �� 1 ,1.1 V r 1. .%,'AE V• _ = / / 4� 1 T '\ /.' Pr`)1'� L •� '/ JONN30 , f •i �()Q- J TALOUr {y- It 1 ► -�• 1 ° '• i °jf• �• ,J Y� It D. 37 fs I _ .1 •�' -n /*/i R1rJG CO S- D a \ t _" ...... " 1 (1/ {./ / U - = -- Isco r 1' r'APEI' co- 00"011" l) . tiW��•, V't 1ooAR \\,. Y r„ /• -I11 f- .10 'EP /I Z t �.••; u a �'f' ��: K/` NAMOTO 39.14 •t41' i ►' Pope TALNOr, 11 4C --- r p/• 1 J 39.1 ] I 1 u ! O �� 1 a Iryr�l i v d } ,;^ww wr1 h pAll �,,A frfl •.1 A;.S iA1N�N I � k .ou'a M.22n , CRQWIJ t, w iCR f 'w/ l Lll1 -CN 04CIi 1� I 0 V 1• / •', a b F d lh -- 4 A.IL rot I, COHr, , __ _ _ I iAiE 1 J= I Io L 1.vu1 r. rwl. \ ✓� 4 •• � _d. _... i1.__.) Syr (� a9 p!I � rr v or�� • ��r cQ6�1 Ef� �1{n• STATE T - -L., , : r PC TAX baT tAC4JtOR/ T ' ►r 4J K �J' fi),U41 o t0 nC"jt _ Y 1.,.. I + 9C0 f r r w1 LEE E M 1/ - 11/ 1' P\ j1L�."!+171 r p _- � I. -1 r j 11 Q JpI1N PARK k_ PAPER 1,.fit r -�• Q �•'�� Q STULL � .,t- '____. �• ►0i0� ,,0 ; CO. ftf o •,\tt t�/r -I �;ApO •'' b °d p/' 1( t/\ -! )s. t' /) + F.1 f1�Ty r( A� ` -S. `vli.-� -� M ' r , • \ ,i T 1 d • 0 V a• r - o .lr f�•RC u.• BLANDa P J t� PLAY '!It Il 1,7/\16 c u' \ it 1 fAr t u h A P {{{P��, .i 11 ti )I b ' �, I Lwj u uo - f 1oi A.11oeas r Y `I,/ \Ivr GO Ott; T dr ►1s3 ( `0 pl W < _ \ f 0iy w 1 GARY HAIL �..f yi o ( V _ q Jy \ \\ �,,< Q V V _••-]�r'•1, '� i $TATe i1 °d A, 'n J,t +4 r �k E''v T� li o�j : c.•E* ` ^I1If A:1 J•'tJ�, 1� 6, Af ,' , f• d.. '' ,( - ,F1. V U,wvw+ ( 0 • ♦0.E 4 J' t ) 4o.st 40.13 A 1._- - -7, -� 2 4o.it 40.15 J.3• tr o f3 Stn +0.09 �n.t �, t• jW I , 44.35 43.10 4a.w ' r,� 41. J9 40.941 10••(9 tit II R. G4.- 1:1(17'1 aD Poet 4 ALDDY, 1411 f1? 40 •� 44.41 1 4 4.4- 00 1 Dld, _ f .J dC. I NAI•.lul PF.TLI>;, , .J 111C. pr Q!n ,.1 .. F, ALDaf 1 1rIC. .dl''I� U J'J �• uI,LEY _- I 14- ,L - �_ _ V f 1 0 6 �'S•s DRY r+L PO d STAT E --- --� - -- - -- - t:�i! : - _ l - -' ' �- f s �I e�� R SIR �P 8 ,fE1N J r ` 1,11 CHO VVN a. `'r Q EL v^ Vo A 1 �1 /. i / ..1 zr-LL1 =R' I V d 1, �nl a INc - - O �-•�,. r%'- 1 L 1T A I ©ACN �t !�% TSB_ 3 CA( A l' .1 L i L �F � rrr 1 -GQK`' ! 1 17 "1'111 t ' .1 ( LEE 4' , TAT t ;`�, • '\• c ]1 G\9 MAfl Tlrl yF 'r •�I'_ ' % m h A ` cQ IoI c0 \, /p1 R A s M D r1. JJIIKt� .1r Jt�O� ID �rE <i •IQI 1 r.`' \U 10001 1 SwArl \`�• .µ.DA. C.O - ►6 7t �t STATE Lo GwA,/5�t'1 ►, ►I -- s lj' a O •w +� � "�� Pore b TALDOT J¢F - -- La 1 c1lowl/ t /LE_A IIP g\ATE J I nrm., IFLtEN� -1011 ' F scolooP vu1G1An •10,1 f1P R li.to" ��30. 1 tACN : Z •1'-3 ii 4 AP �1 �C� �` COUNTY _ .. I- � -- - .r• 4 � • .• ; � °1 ���;� � b : 1, °,� �` / 05.91_ � �.. n�io�� If►G � •' j Co. `O �' 't i ` :• I• �r -T ) 1 : rsl' Z vl z c°j y r /,t, I I'D "owN_ _ i• i "' IR ' ° 1.a �) t Q V C I i 1 43.74 i4a� 34.14 $ ; Ito 0 1 r°,.a� I loo i 6SO' = ! 1 - - -I I -1 per ab ..Jj) ♦�J� )• <. ! E lions : o N IIh STATE TALBOT" Ill-0 F.g - ice L! a Z DU vlou't u1G OR r9 1 i.F 1WELVIK pa 1• 1•r '!:. •` t..• yr i - - --- Pope q TAL130T •► �4ei�::� , i� 'F .. - -- -- C hI VaP �ifM• GFUItfE ( !SLY 0 INC. ..% h ,0 r� /C ,COP '/'� ; tl� GCIIMIE)1K i 1. %I LOi1C� of �• I.v /P ,iililA�•- •`�J1 1 )IIAiCN 11,Mir / ►d9 ' ':0'h Po 3 DKOrr11 w N Sfli -- - .5' p/sJr1' r wit _ eF} _ F •.'' /+ r' �� �T1 1- ( UC i pore t Sunni n•,rt rnu,4. 1AL DOT Or o KERM A,1 � -- C-5 -7 f i1,•/1rrr -emu 1 - C- MCI V) Sr ac U 1:1 )' 4,ti A4T _ _1''"._ t " ""°"_ i ♦ 1 d '� s1, '�`'' r °1 f i •�V 4{. U•' ,r ..•.. fO 1.1 •� 1r t rdj U loft' V_ r. l'I:EI N CC� S -- - --- -� �-� 1 -T- rl +.1w {a{ aa: wI D >t.a �! i• -� 3 `, LC: (� tL•I -tL` I�La. j, ^r i:� 'n `.7� t rdv.7ET^v1p E) t p.' 10 +,lT• ' sIAA 7rvcrG �1` ID 1 I► a a 1rp CL 3 IWI IIELEN 4ARDINER1 tY9 ►' I^ SU 1 )`1,ES w ESL LD 4# 161./7 r�lIt "T 6 C r►IGL ' MfcQf + r I' a l.-_- 4 w, • p 0 ROSE E 3 0ti I: -- tA` -7• F.NIA i �r- LEvr.RN •'�.V,y r- ---r- - 41.04 ,r `' Flo" O \' ` 51AA yy R r L - = -L(1 •- .. �.• Ituw1 / a''an 1 S e A O"C" 1 '0 Y pJ GI v _ 1 ,Lt /111ACII l -.-lJ' �1 n x 1• q j 1•TE stir i5ir -TJ Yq itl 1 (� o V L G a� ; m . r LDt, c I J 6 -.�- -- -.. -.._ Off ..�L -..� li E l 47. O SLY. 41'4.1 •lE. U I L EN.. q 121 s:. Y EE f< * ? /'�. +j• r. + �w ^„ p ,•IrCOY r� ,JO• ,I 7.011 , Y. 5 Ut`,... rNatul -_ " 7 0 .a f�', .,. 1[7.0 i1.0( 1f,1b :•It�t',I:�I• i.l• a_ f1J ' 1_1 /l ; ,f• L 1/��.- _.t 1114 5 • ', -I r �__... i