The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001 Discovery Bay Watershed Water Quality AssessmentDISCOVERY BAY WATERSHED WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT April 2001 DISCOVERY BAY WATERSHED WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT Prepared by Glenn Gately Jefferson County Conservation District 205 W. Patison St. Port Hadlock, WA 98339 for Discovery Bay Watershed Management Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS 11� LISTOF TABLES .............................................................. .............................iv LISTOF FIGURES ............................................................ .............................vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................... .............................ix EXECUTIVESUMMARY .................................................... ..............................x RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... ............................xii INTRODUCTION.............................................................. ..............................1 STUDYAREA .................................................................. ..............................2 METHODS.................................................................... ............................... 3 TributaryStreams ....................................................... ..............................3 StreamSelection .................................................. ..............................3 StationSelection ................................................. ..............................3 SampleFrequency ............................................... ..............................3 SamplingStrategy ................................................ ..............................3 Rainfall.............................................................. ..............................5 Parameters.. ........................................... ..............................5 FecalColiform Loading ......................................... ..............................5 Total Suspended Solids Loading ............................. ..............................8 Concentration vs. Loading Comparisons ................... ..............................8 ' Statistical Comparisons ......................................... ..............................8 Comparison to Standards ...................................... ..............................9 CapeGeorge Ditches .................................................. ..............................9 DitchSelection .................................................... ..............................9 StationLocations............ .................................. .............................12 SampleFrequency ............................................... .............................12 SamplingStrategy ................................................ .............................12 Parameters......................................................... Fecal Coliform Loading ......................................... .............................12 .............................12 Comparison to Standards ...................................... .............................12 Beckett Point Interstitial Water ..................................... SiteSelection ..................................................... .............................12 .............................12 SamplingStrategy ............................................... .............................12 i StationLocations ................................................ SampleComposites .............................12 ............................................. .............................12 Parameters........................................................ .............................12 Comparison to Standards ..................................... .............................12 Beckett Point Lagoon ............................................... ............................... 15 , ClamSampling .......................................................... .............................15 SamplingStrategy ................................................ SiteSelection ...................................................... .............................15 .............................15 StationLocations ................................................. .............................15 SamplingFrequency ............................................ Parameters........................................................ .............................15 .............................15 Field and Laboratory Sampling Methods .................. .............................15 I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Comparisons................................................................................... Quality Assurance / Quality Control ............................... .............................16 16 RESULTS................................................................................................... 18 Quality Assurance / Quality Control.. . 18 Fecal Coliform Concentration .................................................................... 18 TributaryStreams ............................................................................. 18 CapeGeorge Ditches ...... ................................................................. 20 Beckett Point Interstitial Water ............................................................ 20 BeckettPoint Lagoon ........................................................................ 20 Littleneck and Butter Clams ................................................................ 25 FecalColiform Loading ............................................................................ 25 Tributary Streams ............................................................................. 25 CapeGeorge Ditches ......................................................... .............. 25 Total Suspended Solids Concentration ....................................................... 25 Total Suspended Solids Loading ............................................................... 31 Turbidity............................................................................................... 31 Temperature......................................................................................... 34 DissolvedOxygen .................................................................................. 34 pH...................................................................................................... 34 Conductivity........................................................................................... 34 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 40 Standards.......... .................................................. ............... .............. 40 Fecal Coliform Pathogenic Indicator ........................................................ 41 Fecal Coliform More Than an Indicator .................................................... 42 SnowCreek .......................................................................................... 43 FecalColiform ................................................................................. 43 TotalSuspended Solids ..................................................................... 46 Temperature................................................................................... 49 DissolvedOxygen .............................................................. .............. 49 pH................................................................................................. 50 Conductivity.................................................................................... 50 SalmonCreek ....................................................................................... 51 FecalColiform.. ............................................................................... 51 TotalSuspended Solids ..................................................................... 51 Temperature................................................................................... 52 Dissolved Oxygen.. .............. 52 pH................................................................................................. 52 Conductivity.................................................................................... 52 I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) I AndrewsCreek ...................................................................................... 52 FecalColiform .................................................................................. 52 TotalSuspended Solids ..................................................................... 53 Temperature................................................................................... 54 DissolvedOxygen ............................................................................. 54 pH.. ........................................................... ............................. 55 HouckCreek ......................................................................................... 55 FecalColiform ................................................................................. 55 TotalSuspended Solids ..................................................................... 55 Temperature................................................................................... 56 DissolvedOxygen .............................................................. .............. 56 pH.. .................................................... ............................. 56 ContractorsCreek .................................................................................. 56 FecalColiform ................................................................................. 56 Total Suspended Solids ..................................................................... 56 Temperature................................................................................... 57 DissolvedOxygen .............................................................. .............. 57 pH.. ............................................................... ............................. 57 ZerrDrain........ ..................................................... ............................. 57 FecalColiform ................................................................................. 57 Total Suspended Solids ..................................................................... 58 Temperature................................................................................... 58 DissolvedOxygen .............................................................. .............. 58 pH................................................................................................. 58 Conductivity.................................................................................... 58 CapeGeorge ........................................................................................ 58 BeckettPoint ......................................................................................... 59 DiamondPoint ...................................................................................... 59 AdelmaBeach ........................................................................ .............. 59 Other Discovery Bay Studies .................................................................... 59 REFERENCES.. ..................................................... ............................. 62 APPENDIX A: Sample Station Locations ............................................. ............ A-1 APPENDIX B: Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................... ............................B -1 APPENDIX C: Quality Assurance / Quality Control ................. ............................0 -1 APPENDIX D: Monitoring Data ...................................................................... D-1 11 I iii I C 1 s LIST OF TABLES Table 1. One -day and three -day rainfall preceding sampling date for various kinds of monitoring conducted in the Discovery Bay Watershed in 1994. Rainfall was measured in Port Townsend at 1600 hours and in Center at 0900 hours ..........................7 Table 2. Washington State Water Quality Standards for freshwater (WAC 173 -201A, 1997). All surface waters in the Discovery Bay Watershed are designated Class AA ( extraordinary) ....................10 Table 3. Washington State Water Quality Standards for marine surface waters (WAC 173 -201A, 1997). All surface waters in the Discovery Bay Watershed are designated Class AA (extraordinary) ............................................... .............................14 Table A -1. Sample station locations on Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1988 -89 (Rubida 1989) and in 1994 ... ............................A -1 Table A -2. Sample station locations on ditches in the Cape George Community monitored in 1994 .......................... ............................A -3 Table B -1. List of acronyms and abbreviations .................... ............................B -1 Table C -1. Quality control field replicates results for parameters reported in this study; "Dif." is the absolute difference between replicate values and "RSD" is the relative standard deviation in percent .................................... ............................... C -1 Table C -2. Quality control field replicate results for fecal coliform samples collected at Cape George. "DIF." is the absolute difference between replicate values and "RSD" is the relative standard deviation in percent ........................... ............................0 -3 Table C -3. Quality control check standard and blank results for total suspendedsolids .......................................... ............................0 -4 Table D -1. Fecal coliform concentrations, loadings, and flows for stations on Cape George ditches sampled in 1994 ...........................D -1 mi I LIST OF TABLES (Continued) I Table D -2. Fecal coliform concentration and conductivity for interstitial water samples and one lagoon water sample collected at Beckett Point on December 12,1994. Station 1 is directly off the point; Station 20 is farthest east (in front of the last house). Composites (50 mL each) were made from two adjacent samples (e.g., 1 &2) for fecal coliform analysis .....................D -2 Table D -3. Fecal and total coliform concentrations in replicate shellfish composite samples collected from Discovery Bay beaches in 1994 ........................................................... ............................D -3 Table D -4. Sample size (n) and size (length) statistics for shellfish collected from Discovery Bay beaches in 1994 .... ............................D -4 Table D -5. Parameters sampled at stations on Discovery Bay tributary streamsin 1994 ......................................... ............................... D -5 t LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Discovery Bay Watershed showing stream, clam, and interstitial water sample stations monitored in 1994 .......................4 Figure 1 a. Monthly and total rainfall measured in 1994 at Port Townsend, Center, and Discovery Bay (River Mile 0.8 on SnowCreek) ........................................ ............................... ....1 a Figure 2. Map of Cape George Community showing stations sampled for fecal coliform in 1994 .................................. .............................11 Figure 3. Average fecal coliform concentrations (FC /100 mL) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Part 1 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the geometric average not exceed 50 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 1 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk; 95% confidence limits are denoted by dashes ............. .............................19 Figure 4. Figure 4. Percentages of fecal coliform samples exceeding 100 FC /100 mL for samples collected monthly in 1994 at stations on Discovery Bay tributary streams. Part 2 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that not more than 10% of the samples exceed 100 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 2 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk .................. .............................21 Figure 5. Monthly fecal coliform concentrations (FC /100 mL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994 . .............................22 Figure 6. Average fecal coliform concentrations (FC /100 mL) for Cape George ditches sampled monthly in 1994. Part 1 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the geometric average not exceed 50 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 1 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk; 95% confidence limits are denoted bydashes ..................................................... .............................23 Figure 7. Percentages of fecal coliform samples exceeding 100 FC /100 mL for samples collected monthly in 1994 at stations on Cape George ditches. Part 2 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that not more than 10% of the samples exceed 100 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 2 of the standard are denoted by anasterisk .................................................... .............................24 Vi LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure 8. Fecal coliform concentrations (MPN /100 gm) in replicate clam samples collected from Discovery Bay beaches in 1994. Generally, shellfish are considered to be uncontaminated when geometric means are less than 30 MPN /100 gm and most contaminated when geometric means are greater than 230 MPN /100 gm ........... .............................26 Figure 9. Average fecal coliform loadings (billion FC /day) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95% confidence limits ................. .............................27 �■r Figure 10. Average fecal coliform loadings (billion FC /day) from Cape George ditches sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95% confidence limits ..................................... .............................28 Figure 11. Average total suspended solids (mg /L) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95% confidence limits ............................ .............................29 Figure 12. Monthly total suspended solids concentrations (mg /L) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994 . .............................30 Figure 13. Average total suspended solids loadings (pounds /day) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95 %confidence limits ......... .............................32 Figure 14. Monthly total turbidity levels (NTU) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU over background turbidity when the background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or have more than a 10% increase in turbidity when the background i turbidity is more than 50 NTU ............................ .............................33 Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ('C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 ° C ................ .............................35 Figure 16. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mg /L) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg/ L ............. .............................36 Vii I u I LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure 17. Monthly total pH readings for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8. 5 ............................ .............................37 Figure 18. Monthly conductivity levels (µmho /cm) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994 ..................... .............................38 Figure 19. Fecal coliform geometric mean values (GMVs) at stations monitored monthly during the dry season (June- October) in 1988, 1996, 1998 in the Discovery Bay Watershed ............................44 �! Figure 20. Average fecal coliform loading (billions FC /day) at stations �+ monitored monthly during the dry season (June- October) in 1988, 1996, and 1998 in the Discovery Bay Watershed .......................45 Figure 21. Eroded logging road and slope failure occurring in the upper Snow Creek Watershed (Sec 10, T28N, R2W) between stations SN4 (Snow Creek Ranch) and SN5 (Snow Creek Road). Photographs taken in January 1995 ......... .............................48 Figure 22. Map showing average fecal coliform concentrations (GMVs) at 21 stations in Discovery Bay sampled from 1989 to 1994. Samples were collected on 28 -31 dates at each of the stations over the 6 -year period .......................... .............................60 r 1 1 I viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the man y people who contributed their time and energy to this water quality assessment. The following people assisted with collecting water and clam samples: Gunnar Bersos, Lisa Bottomley, Wally Bowman (Discovery Bay Watershed Management Committee (DBWMC)), Mel Breitsprecher (DBWMC), David Dewey, Reed Gunstone, Stephen Habersetzer, K. Bob and Penny Henderson, Norm Houck (DBWMC), Doug Humes, Ian Jablonski, Julie Jaman, John Kafton, Darla Lacy (DBWMC), Al Latham (Jefferson County Conservation District (JCCD)), Rosie Taylor (JCCD and DBWMC), Tom Madsen (DBWMC), Chuck Monson, Dave Phinizy (DBWMC), Jim Pickrell, Cliff Rajala, Don Rehn, David Stroud, and Phil Zerr. Eileen Barron, Reed Gunstone, Julie Jaman, Cliff Rajala, and Margie Weissbach helped measure stream flows. Eileen Barron, Jerry Chawes, and Dave Phinizy (DBWMC) transported samples to the lab. Randy Cooper (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)) and Thom Johnson (WDFW) provided stream flow data for Snow Creek. Dr. Ken Brooks (Aquatic Environmental Sciences) analyzed clam samples and Craig Hanson (Central Kitsap Plant Laboratory) and O. J. Simpson (Central Kitsap Plant Laboratory) analyzed water samples. William Michel (Jobs for the Environment) supplied photographs of the upper Snow Creek Watershed and helped with the erosion control work there. Herb Herrington, George Huntingford, and Thom Johnson (WDFW) provided rainfall data. Bob Woolrich (Washington Department of Health) assisted with the clam sampling protocol. Linda Atkins (Jefferson County Environmental Health Department) assisted with the monitoring plan for the Cape George Community. The following people reviewed the first draft of this report: Mel Breitsprecher (DBWMC), Tim Determan (Washington Department of Ecology), Mary Lou Pivirotto (Washington Department of Ecology), Darla Lacy (DBWMC), Cecelia Larson, Don Melvin (Washington Department of Health), Dave Phinizy (DBWMC), Steve Ricketts (U.S. Forest Service), and Dan Taylor (DBWMC). The following people reviewed the final draft of this report: Dave Christensen (Jefferson County Environmental Health Department), Ginna Correa (WDFW), Thom Johnson (WDFW), and Rosie Taylor (JCCD and DBWMC). Rosie Taylor (JCCD) and Megan Titus (JCCD and Washington Conservation Corps) assisted with the typing. Funding for this project was provided by Jefferson County and by Washington Department of Ecology through a Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant. G ix f 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is an assessment of water quality in the Discovery Bay Watershed. Primarily, it is based on monitoring data collected by the Jefferson County Conservation District in 1994 and on data collected previously by other investigators. With a few exceptions, data and events occurring after 1995, when the first draft was written, are not included in this final report. During 1994, the major streams entering Discovery Bay were monitored monthly and "rain events" were targeted. "Rain event" monitoring is expected to produce higher fecal coliform and sediment measurements than would be obtained under "ambient" monitoring. The advantage of "rain event" monitoring is that, with a limited sample size, one can gain a better picture of the pollutants which are washed off the land into receiving streams. Because rain event measurements are expected to be higher than ambient measurements, this understanding needs to be taken into account when comparisons are made to the Standards and to data collected in the 1988 -89 ambient monitoring study. Water quality monitoring was also conducted in roadside ditches in the Cape George Community and on clams from beaches near populated areas of Discovery Bay. Flows were monitored by the use of staff gages and rating curves. Fecal coliform and total suspended solids loadings were obtained by combining flow and concentration data. The Washington Department of Ecology approved the monitoring plan. Generally speaking, in comparison to other areas of the country, water quality in the Discovery Bay watershed is good. If it does not appear to be that way in this executive summary, it is because the water quality problems are emphasized here. Fecal Coliform Fecal coliform bacteria originate in the gut of warm - blooded animals and are released into the environment by excretion. They serve as an indicator of disease - causing organisms released with them. The rationale is that an increase in the bacteria's concentration indicates an increased chance that pathogens are also present. The higher the concentration of fecal coliform, the greater the chance for disease. Of the streams monitored in 1994, 80% of the fecal coliform loading came from Snow Creek and 19% from Salmon Creek. Zerr drain and the Cape George ditches contributed about 1 %. Fecal coliform concentrations in Snow and Salmon Creeks increased in a downstream manner with the downstream station on both creeks exceeding the state standard. Data collected on Snow Creek in 1998 during the dry- month period (June- October) showed that fecal coliform loading had apparently decreased to one half of the 1994 level. This decrease could be the result of 3500 feet of livestock exclusion fencing installed on Snow Creek between 1994 and 1998. Of the clam samples collected from Adelma, Beckett Point, Cape George, and Diamond Point beaches, only those from Adelma beach showed high levels of fecal coliform. When clams from Adelma beach were sampled again, 7 weeks later, fecal coliform levels were only moderately high. Marine fecal coliform data collected by Washington Department of Health from 1989 to 1994 showed good water quality throughout Discovery Bay with slightly elevated levels at the south end of the bay near the mouths of Salmon and Snow creeks. Total Suspended Solids / Turbidity Total suspended solids and turbidity are two kinds of measurements of ! suspended sediment in the water column. Elevated amounts of fine sediment in the streambed are detrimental to the incubation of salmon eggs, to the successful emergence of salmon alevins, and to the existence of benthic (bottom - dwelling) invertebrates, which are a food source for salmon and other species. Of the streams monitored on 12 dates in 1994, Snow Creek accounted for over 99% of the suspended solids entering Discovery Bay. Over 99% of this loading occurred on two dates. On the November and December dates, Snow Creek's loadings were 475,000 and 376,000 pounds /day, respectively. Samples collected in December, including an additional upstream site (SN5 at RM 7.0), indicated that much sediment was entering Snow Creek between Snow Creek Ranch (SN4 at RM 4.4) and Snow Creek Road (SN5 at RM 7.0). On the December date, turbidity increased from 22 NTU at SN5 to 150 NTU at SN4. This increase greatly exceeded the maximum 5 NTU increase allowed under the state turbidity standard. Snow Creek flows through a steep, forested valley between Stations SN4 and SN5. Natural slides and erosion related to timber harvesting were reported to be sediment sources in upper Snow Creek. In lower Snow Creek, bank erosion caused by unfenced livestock was reported to be a sediment source. Since 1991 and 1992 when these sediment sources were reported, corrective actions have been taken both in the upper and lower watershed. In the upper watershed, eroded side slopes were revegetated, unused logging roads were maintained or decommissioned, culverts were removed, water bars were installed, and trees and grass were planted. In the lower watershed, 3500 feet of stream bank were fenced from livestock. Houck Creek, a tributary to Salmon Creek, was rerouted in the early 1960's so that it now flows into Salmon Creek about one -half mile farther upstream than it originally did. Since the time Houck Creek was rerouted, its channel has cut back into the hillside, creating a waterfall, before emptying into Salmon Creek. Over the years a large amount of sediment has eroded from the hillside and has been transported downstream. Presently, Houck Creek continues to be a source of fine sediment to Salmon Creek. A project is now (2001) underway to address the erosion problem. In 1997 a major washout of Old Gardiner Road (caused by a blocked culvert) resulted in the deposition of large amounts of sediment in the lower half mile of Contractors Creek. Sediment deposition also occurred on about 1000 linear feet of commercial shellfish tidelands near the mouth of the creek. Furthermore, streambed aggradation upstream of Old Gardiner Road resulted in the accumulation of sediment in the Highway 101 culvert. On January 17, 2001 only 5 inches of vertical space remained between the streambed and the top of the culvert. This narrow restriction has created the potential for a blockage in the culvert and the possibility of the washout of Highway 101 during a period of heavy rain. The condition of Contractors Creek is not only unfavorable to fish habitat but also threatens public safety. r Xi I Dissolved Oxygen Low DO concentrations in Andrews Creek occurred during the summer of 1994 at its confluence with Snow Creek and at the Highway 101 monitoring station, upstream of Crocker Lake. Decaying canary grass and minimal aeration due to the low gradient of the streambed were attributed to be major causes. Two restoration projects, occurring in 1995 and 1996, boosted summer DO levels above the EPA "no impairment" level (8.0 mg /L), but levels were still below the state standard (9.5 mg /L). Temperature The state temperature standard (160 C) was exceeded in 1994 in Snow Creek (17.10 C), Salmon Creek (18.50 C), Andrews Creek (18.50 C), and Houck Creek (19.50 C). Two recently completed restoration projects (including tree planting) on Andrews Creek should lower stream temperatures in the future. A restoration project (including tree planting) on lower Salmon Creek is expected to begin in 2001. Temperature data loggers, which recorded temperatures every hour, were installed in Snow Creek, Salmon Creek, and Andrews Creek during the summers of 1999 and 2000. The Conservation District will be reporting the results in July 2001. pH pH measurements in Andrews Creek were below the minimum state standard (6.5) on a few occasions. However, the lowest reading was 5.8, not an excessively low value. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Keep livestock out of the streams and off the stream banks as far as °practical (drinking access may be required). 2. Minimize erosion and sediment input wherever possible. 3. Encourage streamside trees and shrubs. 4. Maintain septic systems and upgrade any failing ones. 5. Correct the dangerous condition at Contractors Creek's Highway 101 culvert. 6. Implement stream restoration projects wherever feasible. 7. Continue water quality monitoring to evaluate implemented stream improvement projects, to uncover any existing problems, and to track long term trends. I xii INTRODUCTION fI Clean water, once taken for granted, is now recognized as one of our most precious resources. Water supplies our drinking needs and the needs of domestic animals, wildlife, and fish. We also use it for swimming, boating and fishing; to turn the turbines in our hydroelectric plants; to produce paper, aluminum, and many other products. Indeed, water is essential for our existence. Unfortunately, much of our nation's water is no longer "clean." We cannot safely drink from many of our nation's waterbodies. And from many of them, we cannot safely eat their fish because contaminants have become concentrated in their flesh (Horn and Skinner 1985). Many states now list in their fishing syllabus bodies of water from which fish should not be eaten or at least consumption limited. Furthermore, many marine waterbodies have been closed to the harvesting of shellfish due to pollution. We may say, well, that's "over there," that's not here in rural Jefferson County. But we need to remember that once these "other places" were rural too. Besides, rural communities are by no means exempt from pollution. In 1985, the north end of Quilcene Bay was closed to shellfish harvesting due to excessive levels of fecal coliform in the water. (it was declassified in 2000). Additionally, several Quilcene residents could not drink the water from their wells in 1994 due to benzene contamination from an unknown source. That old maxim, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," is especially true regarding pollution. It is much more economical, and healthier, to prevent pollution than it is to clean it up. Millions of dollars spent on Superfund Cleanup Sites give evidence to this. On a smaller scale, regularly checking one's septic tank and having it pumped when needed is much less costly than repairing a clogged drainfield. The cost of preventing pollution is relatively small compared to the value of a shellfish industry downstream. Prevention of nonpoint- source pollution is the major thrust of Action Plans being written for watersheds within the Puget Sound Drainage. Nonpoint- source pollutants are those not coming from a single source, but from diffuse sources. Some examples of nonpoint pollution are: 1) oil and associated heavy metals running off road surfaces; 2) sediment eroding from a road's shoulder; 3) fertilizer and pesticide runoff from a forest, golf course, or from many individual homes; and 4) manure runoff from a pasture. . Nonpoint source pollution accounts for a large portion of the pollutants which end up in Puget Sound. This report is an assessment of water quality in the Discovery Bay Watershed. Primarily, it is based on data collected by the Jefferson County Conservation District in 1994 and by other investigators prior to 1995, when the first draft was written. With a few pertinent exceptions, data and events occurring after 1995 are not included in this final report. �l STUDY AREA The Discovery Bay Watershed is located in the northeastern portion of the Olympic Peninsula in Jefferson (73 %) and Clallam counties (27 %), Washington. The watershed covers about 50,000 acres, and Discovery Bay covers about 9200 acres (Nelson et al. 1992). The topography of the watershed varies from being relatively flat in the Snow Creek valley to hilly and mountainous in the Olympic Foothills and Mountains. The climate is generally mild. Typical summer high temperatures in the lowlands range from 60 ° to 70° F and typical winter lows range from 28 ° to 35° F. Precipitation varies considerably, from 18 inches in the north to nearly 40 inches in the higher elevations of the south. Forests, with some scattered residential areas and farmland, typify Discovery Bay's mostly rural nature. Forestland constitutes 87 % of the watershed and agricultural land comprises 4 %. Most of the agricultural land occurs in the lower Snow Creek valley through which Snow and Salmon creeks flow. Residential land comprises about 3 %, and includes the communities of Cape George, Beckett Point, Adelma Beach, Diamond Point, and Gardiner. The remaining 6% of the watershed is made up of miscellaneous cover types /land uses including grass /shrub areas and waterbodies. Soil in the watershed is comprised of four major types, having permeability ratings ranging from slow to rapid. For varying reasons, 99% of the soil from the four types is categorized as presenting severe limitations to on -site sewage disposal (Nelson et al. 1992). r Discovery Bay supports a variety of finfish and shellfish. These include: chinook salmon yelloweye rockfish Pacific true cod cockles coon shrimp coho salmon yellowtail rockfish ling cod littleneck clams Istripe shrimp chum salmon copper rockfish surf perch Manila clams Is of shrimp steelhead uillback rockfish striped perch butter clams ink shrimp cutthrout trout rock sole pile perch horse clams sea cucumbers — white sturgeon En ish sole herring softshell clams Dungeness crab starry flounder sand lance mud clams red rock crab smelt I geoduck clams Shellfish alone bring about one -half million dollars a year to Discovery Bay growers and harvesters. Discovery Bay tributaries support populations of resident and anadromous salmonids including coho and chum salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and brook trout. For a more detailed description of the watershed, the reader is referred to the in- depth characterization report, The Discovery Bay Watershed, prepared by the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team (PSCRBT; Nelson et al. 1992). METHODS Tributary Streams I Stream Selection The streams selected for sampling in this study were the same ones chosen in 1988 -89 by Rubida (1989): Snow Creek, Salmon Creek, Contractors Creek, and Zerr Drain (Figure 1). Numerous other small streams enter Discovery Bay. Many of these, including Eagle Creek and Chevy Chase Golf Course Creek, were not chosen because of their intermittent nature and because of funding and time constraints. Station Locations Station locations were generally identical to, or near, the locations chosen in 1988 -89 ( Rubida 1989; Figure 1; Appendix Table A -1). The only change made from the 1988 -89 locations that is expected to alter water quality measurements was made on Zerr Drain. In 1988 -89 the upstream station (ZE2) was located at the wellhouse, the drain's source. In 1994, the upstream control station (ZE2a) was relocated to the downstream side of SR20, which is the upstream boundary of a small hobby farm. Stations were selected so as to bracket potential sources of pollution. In this report, the words "downstream" and "upstream" are often used with station numbers to help orient the reader. A "downstream" station is usually close to the mouth. An "upstream" station refers to the farthest upstream station sampled, even though the stream may extend upstream considerably farther. Sample Frequency Sampling was conducted monthly in 1994 and "rain events" were targeted. "Rain event" sampling would be expected to produce higher fecal coliform and sediment loadings compared to "ambient" sampling. The advantage of "rain event" sampling is that, with a limited sample size, one can gain a better picture of how much and which pollutants are being washed off the land into receiving streams. Because of laboratory constraints, sampling was required to be conducted on a Monday or Wednesday. If it was not possible to sample a rain event, a "dry" day was sampled near the end of the month. Because rain events were targeted in this study, fecal coliform concentrations and loadings may be higher than they would be under an ambient monitoring plan. This needs to be taken into account when making comparisons to the Standards and to data collected in the 1988 -89 study, which followed an ambient sampling plan. Sampling Strategy Volunteers assisted the JCCD Resource Technician in the monitoring effort. Volunteers were trained to collect water samples, read stream gages, measure stream velocities, and calculate flows using a computer program. Five groups of 2 or 3 volunteers collected water samples, read stream gages, and transported the iced samples to Snow Creek Ranch, where they were refrigerated. Within 3 hours, a volunteer transported the fecal coliform samples to Kitsap County's laboratory near Brownsville and the Resource Technician transported the turbidity and TSS samples to 3 1 1 1 1 �J Strait of Juan de Fuca' Cape George 1 Diamond Point Beckett Point j 0 Highway 101 1-- --- - - - - -- /�� Adelma Beach teed' a4�o0 CT2 �` 0O� 1 t / G �r t f a 1 j SA1 ' � / ZE1 �-� SA3 S'°`2 ZE2a CYeeK HOV I J — Snow Cr.. A SN5 HO2 SN2 t � t Zo�� r LEGEND SN3 ANDI� Watershed SN4 i — – — boundary t / / / / /// Waterbody Stream AND4 AND2 1 j Stream station AND3 Clam station Interstitial Creek J 0 water station Figurel. Map of Discovery Bay Watershed showing stream, clam, and interstitial water sample stations monitored in 1994. WE F, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (now U.S. Geological Survey) laboratory in Nordland. The Resource Technician ascertained that Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures were followed. Replicate samples were taken at 2 of the 16 sample sites. Rainfall -" Daily and monthly rainfall data were obtained from National Weather Service stations located in Port Townsend and Center. Monthly rainfall data were also obtained for Discovery Bay from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Station located at River Mile 0.8 on Snow Creek (Figure 1a; Table 1). Parameters Temperature, conductivity, pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO) were measured on- site. Fecal coliform, turbidity, and total suspended solids (TSS) samples were analyzed in the laboratories. Coliform samples were analyzed by membrane filtration (SM 9222D, APHA 1989) at the Central Kitsap Plant laboratory. Turbidity and TSS samples were analyzed at the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service laboratory. Both laboratories are accredited by the Washington Department of Ecology. Sampling procedures are described in the Discovery Bay Watershed Monitoring and Quality Assurance Plan (Gately 1994). Flows were obtained through the use of stream gages from which the water levels could be read to the nearest hundredth of a foot. Rating curves were developed by obtaining stream flows at varying gage heights and plotting the relationship between gage height and flow. Stream velocity was measured with Marsh - McBirney current meter Model 201 D. Flow was calculated by taking numerous velocity measurements across the stream, calculating flows for the individual subsections, and summing them. The formula used was: Q= sum (AxV) where Q is the total flow (cubic feet per second or cfs); A is the area of an individual subsection; and V is the corresponding mean velocity (feet per second) of that subsection. Flows for Andrews Creek, Contractors Creek, and Houck Creek were obtained from stream gages installed in the vicinity of their downstream stations. Flows for Salmon Creek were obtained at Station SA2 from a stream gage previously installed by the U. S. Geological Survey. Flows for Snow Creek were provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife from their gaging station located at River Mile 0.8 between Stations SN1 and SN2. Attempts to obtain flows for Zerr Drain by the use of a stream gage failed because of dense aquatic growth. Flows taken on two occasions with the use of a current meter were both 0.1 cfs. Rubida (1989) reported this same value for all months sampled in 1988 -89. To calculate loadings for Zerr Drain in this study, the value 0.1 cfs was used for each of the months sampled. Fecal Coliform Loading Fecal coliform loading is a measure of fecal coliform bacteria flowing past a point in a given period of time. Loading was calculated by the formula: -5- Figure la. Monthly and total rainfall measured in 1994 at Port Townsend, Center, and Discovery Bay (River Mile 0.8 on Snow Creek). 11 -6- Table 1. One -day and 3 -day rainfall preceding sampling dates for various kinds of monitoring conducted in the Discovery Bay watershed in 1994. Rainfall was measured in Port Townsend at 1600 hours and in Center at 0900 hours. RAINFALL.WPS 4/28/95 -7- 1 t t 1 t Port Townsend Center Sampling Rainfall (inches) Rainfall (inches) date 1 -day 3 -day 1-day 3-day TrIbutwy Streams 1/31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2/16 0.10 0.15 1.23 1.89 3/23 Tr. 0:58 0.00 0.32 4125 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.13 5/16 0.00 0.24 0.03 0.82 6/1 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.23 7/27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 8/29 0.08 0.18 0.00 0.00 9/28 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 10/26 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.32 11/30 0.18 0.23 0.00 0.13 12/21 Tr. 0.67 0.00 1.37 Ca a George Ditches 2/16 0.10 0.15 1.23 1.89 2/28 0.00 0.00 0.01 4120 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 5/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6/15 Tr. 0.38 0.00 0.17 7/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 8/24 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 9/26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/31 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.17 11/16 0.52 0.60 0.02 0.08 12/7 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.04 Clams 11 /1 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.16 12/18 0.05 0.30 0.87 1.36 Beckett Point Interstitial Water 12/12 Tr. 0.02 0.00 0.31 RAINFALL.WPS 4/28/95 -7- 1 t t 1 t 1 P t F] FC loading (billions per day) = FC x Q x 0.0246 where FC is the fecal coliform count per 100 mL of water; Q is the stream flow (cfs); and 0.0246 is a constant. Total Suspended Solids Loading Total suspended solids (TSS) loading is a term describing the amount of material (usually less than 0.1 mm in size) suspended in the water column flowing past a point in a given period of time. TSS loading was calculated by the formula: TSS loading (pounds per day) = TSS x Q x 5.39 where TSS is the concentration of total suspended solids expressed as mg /L; Q is the stream flow (cfs); and 5.39 is a constant. Concentration vs. Loading Comparisons Fecal coliform comparisons 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 (ml-) of water (i.e., FC /100 mQ. The State Standard is based on this parameter (see Comparison to Standards, page 9). 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. Thus, fecal coliform loadings were high during the wet months, when fecal densities were low, because of the greater flows during the wet months. Of the two parameters, loading is a better indicator of a stream's effect upon the marine environment. Similarly, both concentration and loading comparisons were made for TSS. Statistical Comparisons To test for statistically significant differences between average concentrations or loadings, 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A 95% confidence interval represents a range about the sample mean or average (represented by dashes in the figures) in which we can be 95% sure the true value falls. When comparing the average for one station to that of another, if the intervals do not overlap, we can be 95% sure that the true averages are really different. For example, in Figure 3, we can say that in the dry months the average fecal coliform concentration for Station SN1 is significantly different from that of Station SN2. In the results section, this is expressed by the parenthetical notation (P < 0.05) where P stands for probability. Whereas, if the bars do overlap as is the case with Stations SN2 and SN3 (Figure 3, dry months), we say that the two averages are not significantly different, denoted by P > 0.05. The smaller the number of samples and /or the greater the variation among values, the wider the confidence interval will be, and the more difficult it will be to detect a significant difference. Fecal coliform concentrations are usually not, in statistical terms, "normally distributed." Thus, when confidence intervals were calculated for fecal coliform concentrations and loadings, log transformations were used. Geometric mean values (GMV) were obtained by retransforming the means of the log transformed values. When a concentration was less than the detectable limit (e.g., <2), a value half way between the detectable limit and zero was used in the computations. Comparison to Standards In "Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (173 - 201 WAC)," Discovery Bay and all streams draining into it are listed as Class AA (Extraordinary). This is the highest level of protection given by the state. Table 2 summarizes the standards for the parameters monitored in this study. There are no Standards for conductivity and TSS. There are two parts to the fecal coliform standard and waters must meet both I parts in order to comply with the Standard. For freshwater, they are: Part 1: Fecal coliforms are not to exceed a geometric mean of 50 FC /100 mL; Part 2: Not more than 10% of the samples are to exceed 100 FC /100 mL. No minimum sample size is given in the Standards. The Washington Department of Health (DOH) has a policy of taking at least 30 marine samples when making a decision affecting the status of a shellfish growing area. Their decision is also based on a survey of pollution sources as well as meteorological and hydrographic factors that may influence the presence and distribution of contaminants (e.g., precipitation and currents). Sample size for fecal coliform in this study is 11 months when all months are combined. When wet and dry months are considered separately, sample sizes are reduced to 6 and 5 months, respectively. Because rain events were targeted in this study, fecal coliform concentrations and loadings may be higher than they would be under an ambient monitoring plan. This needs to be taken into account when making comparisons to the Standards and to data collected in the 1988 -89 study, which followed an ambient sampling plan. Cape George Ditches Ditch Selection Before ditches were selected for monitoring, Jefferson County Health Department personnel made an initial survey in January 1994. Preference was given to "main" ditches, which were lower in elevation and received flows from tributary ditches. Another criteria was that there was some flow, at least during the wet months. It appeared that some ditches had a subsurface flow. Ditches were selected in both the Cape George Village and Cape George Colony (Figure 2). -9- � ;► L N co 3 co L U) Q r _Q O CV M r Q cu L O O X 4- a) (Cf U) cn cu 0 (tf — �U � •ai (0 N m U L C 0 CU C (ii (Q M N O N U .Q cu F � � D H O H z kz t H N to k :j p oxo N m w 44 � 00 fO4 1 (d ob�oN m VIA A N N � tr ?t i ro U N ri ri rty N \ (d r� A U N -•k-1 N N .. H I~ O P N to ld td U — W • 10 O 0 o k P V Z rn \ O 01 In +d b+ o 00 tT �D tT 9: :J N O tT N �-% ri `•' a N N d' !n o N O id O U U+ z � ra k N ul V1 4J A LD U V � � D H O H —10— Z 4-) O k 4J 41 •r; 4a 0a U ra U +] O 1~ � RS N � � N k 0 Ei N N k 41 4J P tv k ;~ N N 04 4j N v 4 t3 4 O N }kn � U k � N A A N =j N N ro 3 k ri V N d W 0 N td O N rd •r1 U N J-t N O k 4-1 •r1 O 0 4W O Z � Z N •,q ul i N d N k ro k :J rd .1w k N N C6 ri � N aki m H N E-4 CD 3 rA z kz H N to k :j p oxo N z 44 00 fO4 1 (d ob�oN o A o VIA A N N rt ?t i 0 U N r4 W \N O N O rd k r� A d O N d d N NO k � .P4 OOO k•d - -i •-4 W N O O 0 o k P V Z rn \ U EO-t +d b+ o 00 tT �D tT 9: :J U + tT ru go NO ri `•' N N H x EH x -4 O o Ei 0 N O id O U U+ z ', U 0 ra k rn N H x D x •r.1 O o ff VI eM U ro rd do tT \ to 0 E-1 U k o — 044 AOAOx r•1 d' rd .T. to M tP N to c0N N N UN N M t0 I No O 44 44 ri N a) to O 0 A c} H VI -ri VI A V1 4.1 A m W H VI •rl VI A � A to U V 1 O A N w] O W r. AN a --00) 0— rat r1 W � W U r. \ GV N CL 1; U + is rt N •ri to r-1 o (d Q) rrd0 cfd OH -U0 rl U r1 N rf \ O LL1 U N VI o \° U r ri N co co N 044 (d O -1 O v] A 1-) A to O O U VI N tD U V —10— Z 4-) O k 4J 41 •r; 4a 0a U ra U +] O 1~ � RS N � � N k 0 Ei N N k 41 4J P tv k ;~ N N 04 4j N v 4 t3 4 O N }kn � U k � N A A N =j N N ro 3 k ri V N d W 0 N td O N rd •r1 U N J-t N O k 4-1 •r1 O 0 4W O Z � Z N •,q ul i N d N k ro k :J rd .1w k N N C6 ri � N aki m H N E-4 CD 3 rA H N :j p z 44 k fO4 1 ob�oN U)U � N rt ?t i 0 U k r4 V1rdA 'd k r� A d O N d d N Cj •.i rI N !~ k to N W 111-4 14 O O id fs, EO-t N k U LL r; > k d ru go NO 44 a0 k0kUr� to \ A ~ (0 (d O id O tT 0Z 0 U+ tT ', U 0 ra k rn N H x D x •r.1 O o ff 14 to U41 \ 0 E-1 U k o — x VI A.0 rd .T. to M tP • -- to c0N N o4-4 A Aox W cn I No ri to ri N ri N a) to O 4� 4-1 0 VI 14 H VI •rl VI A VI 41 A to U V —10— Z 4-) O k 4J 41 •r; 4a 0a U ra U +] O 1~ � RS N � � N k 0 Ei N N k 41 4J P tv k ;~ N N 04 4j N v 4 t3 4 O N }kn � U k � N A A N =j N N ro 3 k ri V N d W 0 N td O N rd •r1 U N J-t N O k 4-1 •r1 O 0 4W O Z � Z N •,q ul i N d N k ro k :J rd .1w k N N C6 ri � N aki m H N E-4 CD 3 rA N 44 k N O +1 4J N U N 'd k r� k U k )~ N W xr4 fs, EO-t H O —10— Z 4-) O k 4J 41 •r; 4a 0a U ra U +] O 1~ � RS N � � N k 0 Ei N N k 41 4J P tv k ;~ N N 04 4j N v 4 t3 4 O N }kn � U k � N A A N =j N N ro 3 k ri V N d W 0 N td O N rd •r1 U N J-t N O k 4-1 •r1 O 0 4W O Z � Z N •,q ul i N d N k ro k :J rd .1w k N N C6 ri � N aki m H N E-4 CD 3 rA 9. Rhdaoa�haYa� �r H d V,4+1coerer ` ca a G�eM e e Discovery C014h34h Rd. Gele)nd,h Pt. -o 9� O e George Rj. Q Veers P1. quilGexe P1. ovh�e�ess P). \�4 e,q Bay 7c P t° E13 Rid e. Dr, Figure 2. Map of the Cape George Community showing stations sampled for fecal 4 coliform in 1994. - 11 - Station Locations Station locations are shown in Figure 2, and described in Appendix Table A -2. Stations were generally selected to be as far downstream on the "main" ditch as possible so as to include as many tributary ditches and curtain drains. When possible, stations were chosen where water fell from the end of a culvert or where there was sufficient depth to submerge a sample bottle. When there was insufficient natural depth, a "pool' was dug several days before sampling. When insufficient depth prevented the submersion of a sample bottle, a second, unused bottle was used to fill it. Sample Frequency In general, sampling was conducted monthly except that samples were collected on two dates in February, and not at all in January and March. Although some effort was made to sample the ditches during rain events, preference was given to stream sampling, and thus ditches were often sampled on "dry" days. Sampling Strategy Ditches were sampled by either one or two trained volunteers, or by the Resource Technician either alone or accompanied by a volunteer. A volunteer transported the samples to the lab on the day on which sampling occurred. Parameters 1 Fecal coliform and flow were the only parameters monitored. Fecal coliform samples were analyzed by membrane filtration at the Central Kitsap Plant Laboratory. Where possible, flows were obtained by filling a container of known volume while being timed with a stopwatch. The average of three runs was reported. However, at most stations it was not possible to obtain flows in this manner, and flows were estimated by visually comparing them to stations where flows had already been measured. Fecal Coliform Loading Loading was calculated in the same manner as for the tributary streams (see page 5). Comparison to Standards As with the tributary streams, fecal coliform concentrations were compared to the Class AA Standards and sample size for the ditches was small. Sample size varied from ditch to ditch because some ditches dried up. Unlike stream sampling, which was conducted under wetter conditions, 9 of the 11 sample dates had less than 0.2 inches of rainfall during the 3 days preceding sampling, and on 5 of these days, the 3 -day rainfall was zero. Thus little, if any, bias can be attributed to a predominance of "rain event" samples. Beckett Point Interstitial Water Site Selection Beckett Point is a densely (3 homes /acre) populated community located on a -12- sand spit on the eastern side of Discovery Bay about 1.5 miles south of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Figure 1). Most of the approximately 75 homes are located on the shoreline. Failing on -site systems are likely due to: the nearness of drainfields to the shoreline; the diminished treatment time in the excessively permeable, sandy soil; and the shallow water table, especially during high tide. Sampling Strategy Failing on -site septic systems on marine shorelines can be difficult to detect because surfacing sewage, which is typical of failing "upland" septic systems, does not usually occur at the more permeable marine shoreline sites. Additionally, failing systems are difficult to detect by measuring fecal coliform in the marine water because of tidal currents and the high dilution factor. The sampling strategy of this study was to dig holes along the beach as far upland as possible (and still get water) during a low tide (when ground water was assumed to flow seaward), and sample the interstitial water (i. e., occupying the substrate pores) that filled the holes. In addition to analyzing for fecal coliform bacteria, conductivity was also measured. The conductivity of the water in the holes, when compared to the conductivity of the offshore seawater would indicate the proportion of freshwater coming from upland, which could include drainfield water. Permission to sample was obtained from the owner of the tideland and the plan was initiated December 12 by the Resource Technician and three volunteers. A low tide of +1.1 ft. occurred at 1854 hours. Water samples were collected from 1915 to 2042. The next morning, the Resource Technician took the iced samples to the Aquatic Environmental Services laboratory where they were analyzed by the 5 -tube MPN (Most Probable Number) method for fecal coliform. Station Locations Beginning at the tip of Beckett Point (Sample no. 1), holes were dug every 100 feet (measured with a marked rope) along the south shore in an easterly direction. A total of 20 holes were dug. The last sample (no. 20) was taken in front of the most eastward dwelling along the Beckett Point shoreline. Sample Composites Samples were combined to reduce costs. A 50 -mL sample was collected in a pre- marked container from each of the holes. At the laboratory, samples from pairs of adjacent holes were combined (e.g., no.1 with no.2; no. 3 with no. 4, etc.). Parameters Only fecal coliform and conductivity were measured. Conductivity was measured on -site. Comparison to Standards Because the conductivity of the interstitial water was the same as the seawater, the fecal coliform concentrations were compared to the marine Standard (Table 3). Because this Standard is intended to be compared to a geometric mean rather than to a single sample, only a cursory comparison can be made. -13- t 91 � I � I � I (D cu U U) Q ti r Q r C) N 1 M r U u L cu cu cu -2 a) m L cu rn U c to Ri Rf EU CD U f6 cm to — c N cu -0 .+. a) U) L CU cu `= a L L 1:u 0) m cu 1:u U c 0 0 CM U C: .cn L � U N . c M L tcu 3 a w F4 3c w H U -1 r1 - v U to O N O (a O� U v 1-, 1 �a >! a) D zD rt a) I Ind z0z 3 p �1 .0 \ >~ 0 m � M o E4 En td o -� Ti trt ai \ o to ::f N U � A � . -1 to m a) to 44 U N \ .0 -rt O O A P4 U t- UV r-4 0 O +NG w H U P4 O O> O is ti Re O cC td 4J a) a) N O I N r 2T Ot G Z N N sp LO O HNU UHU � N ul p1 VI +J A tD U V VIOM o co O M\ . I U) . V• ZD H co t, O :j O Ei O E{ u • td 0 V1 A z P z A 4J A t- U V Ul o M o a) + U) U to > o ° VIA A O a) H N .-1 'u 3a 'O N � N ° o gci !-1 fa U r U rt N U U to 44 Z O P O E1 rd A 0 O (d of \o tp \ O 00 A O A 0 m 61 tp QJ rl N .-1 N U H r1 in w If ro U VI A H VI-•-1 VIA V) V A M O N <� m t011 a) U rd U U N NN N N ul 0 r0i !4 U k 4) la ° P4 a) 1n U ul 0 >~ 4.) N -� i1 •14 A r - 44 14 1 �a U U ld o z � M fd O 4J fa = Q W a) tv N (01 U a) td A N a) +� P, •u O 3 41 A N ::1> x-_ p .� ° � tp W l fl) r � IL4 r> O R to ri al to a) O to •i f; -,A N 4J .0 54 N •d � N rd a) W O -4 X U 0 z a) O W U rd 44' 4J >~ 'X N 14 .11 td N-4V 44A a) r-1 -rq _4 U) cl _ rd 0) P uis+ U •-) >a N 4J -rl !_I 44 3 a) N 4J N v N H N 3 f-4 rO •-1 N 1 �a D zD a) I N z0z p �1 U _N \ >~ 0 m � M o E4 )~ td o -� •. U >~ \ o to ::f N U � A � . -1 to m a) to O A a) ul VI 4J A O O A P4 t°n t- UV U ul 0 >~ 4.) N -� i1 •14 A r - 44 14 1 �a U U ld o z � M fd O 4J fa = Q W a) tv N (01 U a) td A N a) +� P, •u O 3 41 A N ::1> x-_ p .� ° � tp W l fl) r � IL4 r> O R to ri al to a) O to •i f; -,A N 4J .0 54 N •d � N rd a) W O -4 X U 0 z a) O W U rd 44' 4J >~ 'X N 14 .11 td N-4V 44A a) r-1 -rq _4 U) cl _ rd 0) P uis+ U •-) >a N 4J -rl !_I 44 3 a) N 4J N v N H N 3 f-4 rO •-1 N N D zD a) z0z p �1 1 0 13110 (D � O ri U U � A O A a) A P4 t°n rd w H U P4 O O> O is ti Re r 1 cC td 4J 44 1~ O S4 O A U Z d• t6 ri 2T Ot G Z U •C HNU UHU � �Rl� N oE+ VIOM o co Az QO ,z M\ . I U) . V• LO 1 U H co t, O :j O 44 w td u • td 0 V1 A H V( •.t VI A A 4J A t- U V U ul 0 >~ 4.) N -� i1 •14 A r - 44 14 1 �a U U ld o z � M fd O 4J fa = Q W a) tv N (01 U a) td A N a) +� P, •u O 3 41 A N ::1> x-_ p .� ° � tp W l fl) r � IL4 r> O R to ri al to a) O to •i f; -,A N 4J .0 54 N •d � N rd a) W O -4 X U 0 z a) O W U rd 44' 4J >~ 'X N 14 .11 td N-4V 44A a) r-1 -rq _4 U) cl _ rd 0) P uis+ U •-) >a N 4J -rl !_I 44 3 a) N 4J N v N H N 3 f-4 rO •-1 N N r. a) O � U � fd A P4 t°n w H E1 R Re U ul 0 >~ 4.) N -� i1 •14 A r - 44 14 1 �a U U ld o z � M fd O 4J fa = Q W a) tv N (01 U a) td A N a) +� P, •u O 3 41 A N ::1> x-_ p .� ° � tp W l fl) r � IL4 r> O R to ri al to a) O to •i f; -,A N 4J .0 54 N •d � N rd a) W O -4 X U 0 z a) O W U rd 44' 4J >~ 'X N 14 .11 td N-4V 44A a) r-1 -rq _4 U) cl _ rd 0) P uis+ U •-) >a N 4J -rl !_I 44 3 a) N 4J N v N H N 3 f-4 rO •-1 N Station Locations I Two stations each were selected at Adelma Beach and Cape George. One station was selected at Beckett Point, Diamond Point, and the control site (Figure 1). Clams were dug over a several- hundred -foot area in order to be more representative of the site. Sampling Frequency All of the sites were sampled on November 1, and both Adelma Beach sites and the control site were sampled again on December 18. However, because clams from the control site sampled on December 18 were not kept on ice overnight and there was not good agreement between replicates, results for the control are not reported. Parameters Clams were analyzed for fecal and total coliform. Total coliform results are reported in the appendix only (Table D -3). Clam sizes (lengths) and sample sizes are shown in Table D -4. Field and Laboratory Sampling Methods Clam samplers tried to obtain 60 littleneck clams from each site. Some butter clams from two of the sites were also kept and analyzed. Only unbroken clams at least -15- Beckett Point Lagoon In December, the Beckett Point Lagoon was sampled twice for fecal coliform and once for conductivity. Both samples were collected near the north shore, opposite the boat launch. The fecal coliform sample collected December 7 was analyzed by the membrane filtration method at the Central Kitsap Plant. The sample collected December ' 12 was analyzed by the MPN method at Aquatic Environmental Services. Conductivity was measured on -site. Clam Sampling Sampling Strategy Communities located near the marine shoreline are potential sources of pathogens from failing on -site septic systems. Fecal coliform bacteria, indicators of such pathogens, can be difficult to detect because of tidal currents and the high dilution factor. Analysis of shellfish, which filter large quantities of water and concentrate fecal coliform bacteria, provides an additional method of evaluating near -shore communities. The Resource Technician and several volunteers conducted the sampling. Permission was obtained from the appropriate beach property owners. Site Selection Four of the larger near -shore communities were selected for sampling: Adelma Beach, Beckett Point, Cape George, and Diamond Point (Figure 1). A control area, north of Adelma Beach where there were no houses, was also selected for monitoring. Station Locations I Two stations each were selected at Adelma Beach and Cape George. One station was selected at Beckett Point, Diamond Point, and the control site (Figure 1). Clams were dug over a several- hundred -foot area in order to be more representative of the site. Sampling Frequency All of the sites were sampled on November 1, and both Adelma Beach sites and the control site were sampled again on December 18. However, because clams from the control site sampled on December 18 were not kept on ice overnight and there was not good agreement between replicates, results for the control are not reported. Parameters Clams were analyzed for fecal and total coliform. Total coliform results are reported in the appendix only (Table D -3). Clam sizes (lengths) and sample sizes are shown in Table D -4. Field and Laboratory Sampling Methods Clam samplers tried to obtain 60 littleneck clams from each site. Some butter clams from two of the sites were also kept and analyzed. Only unbroken clams at least -15- fl 1 t t t t u 1 inch in size were analyzed. Clams were rinsed on -site with seawater and kept on ice. They were delivered to the Aquatic Environmental Services laboratory the next morning. At the laboratory, the Resource Technician separated each sample into three size groups of small, medium, and large. Each of the three groups was then divided in two, and clams from the small, medium, and large groups were combined. This procedure yielded two replicate groups of similar size clams. Clams from each group were measured and placed in unused, labeled zip lock bags. The bags were placed on ice and given to the laboratory technician for immediate analysis. Although the original intent was to analyze a composite of 30 clams, sample size had to be reduced because of the limited size of the blender jar. Thus depending on the size of the clams, sample size ranged from 7 to 23 for littlenecks; sample size for butter clams was always 3. Unused clams were returned to the Resource Technician, re- measured, and their sizes deleted from the data sheet. Clams were analyzed using the 5 -tube MPN method. Comparisons Fecal coliform concentrations were compared to the same levels ( <30, 31 - 230, >230 MPN /100 gm) used by the Washington Department of Health for the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (Woolrich and Garrett 1995). Generally, shellfish are considered to be uncontaminated when geometric means are less than 30 MPN /100 gm and most contaminated when geometric means are greater than 230 MPN /100 gm. This latter level is considered a signal for further testing of the shellfish's acceptability at the wholesale market level. The limited data in this study allowed only a cursory comparison. QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL The Resource Technician ascertained that the QA/QC procedures of the monitoring plan (Gately 1994) were followed. This included training volunteers in sampling techniques and stream gage reading; assuring that samples were properly maintained (refrigerated or iced) and that holding times were not exceeded (30 hours for fecal coliform, 2 days for turbidity and 7 days for TSS); calibrating the Water Analyzer according to the manufacturer's instructions; and assuring that replicate samples were taken at 10 % of the sites. Field replicate measurements of temperature, conductivity, pH, and dissolved oxygen were made on -site with the Water Analyzer within a few minutes of one another. For other parameters (fecal coliform, total suspended solids, and turbidity), replicate water samples were collected within a few minutes of one another in separate bottles. 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 concentrations exhibits a statistical 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 -16- "relative standard deviation" (RSD), which is also known as "coefficient of variation." The RSD is usually inversely proportional to the magnitude of the results. The RSD is given by: RSD ( %) = (s / x) x 100 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: RSD ( %) = ((I D 1/ 2) / x) x 100 Where I D I is the absolute difference between the two values. For total suspended solids, quality control check standards (known concentrations) and blanks (concentration = 0 mg /L) were analyzed along with samples at the time of each analysis. -17- li u 1 RESULTS Quality Assurance / Quality Control Quality control data are reported in Appendix C. Quality control was generally good for all the parameters measured. Duplicate temperature measurements agreed within ± 0.4 0 C and usually within + 0.2 0 C. RSDs were less than 1.8 %. Duplicate conductivity measurements agreed within ± 11 µmho /cm and usually within ± 6 µmho /cm. RSDs were less than 2.8 %. Duplicate dissolved oxygen measurements agreed within ± 2.1 mg /L and usually within + 0.4 mg /L. RSDs were always less than 10.2% and usually less than 3.2 %. Duplicate pH measurements agreed within ± 0.1 units. RSDs were less than 0.8 %. Duplicate fecal coliform measurements agreed within ± 333 FC /100 mL. RSDs were always less than 12.8% and usually less than 5.9 %. Duplicate turbidity measurements always agreed within ± 10 NTU and usually within + 2 NTU. RSDs were less than 12.3 %. Duplicate total suspended solids measurements always agreed within ± 81 mg /L and usually within ± 5 mg /L. RSDs were less than 39 %. For total suspended solids, measured values of the check standards were always within ± 3.9 mg /L of true values and percent recovery ranged from 92% to 108 %. Measured blank values were always within ± 1.0 mg /L of the 0.0 mg /L true value. Fecal Coliform Concentration Tributary Streams Average fecal coliform concentrations in samples collected from 16 stations on Discovery Bay tributary streams are shown in Figure 3. During the wet months (November - May), average concentrations exceeded the 50 FC /100 mL Class AA Standard at 9 of the 16 stations. Only two of these appreciably exceeded the Standard: AND3 averaged 121 FC /100 mL and ZE1 averaged 138 FC /100 mL. Salmon Creek, Snow Creek, and Zerr Drain had higher averages downstream than upstream; whereas Andrews Creek had a higher upstream average than downstream; and Contractors and Houck Creeks had similar wet -month upstream /downstream averages. None of these upstream /downstream differences were statistically significant (P >0.05). Average fecal coliform concentrations were higher during the dry months (June - October) than during the wet months at 14 of the 16 stations. Nine stations had dry month averages that exceeded the 50 FC /100 mL Standard. Of these, the most pronounced were SA1 (863 FC /100 mQ, SN1 (469), and ZE1 (424). The greatest upstream /downstream differences occurred in Salmon Creek (42 upstream vs. 863 downstream) and Snow Creek (26 upstream vs. 469 downstream). Only the upstream /downstream difference in Snow Creek was statistically significant (P <0.05). For all months combined, 9 of the 16 stations had average concentrations above the Standard. Most pronounced were the downstream stations on Zerr Drain (216 W-12 Figure 3. Average fecal coliform concentrations (FC /100 ml-) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Part 1 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the geometric average not exceed 50 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 1 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk; 95% confidence limits are denoted by dashes. -19- 1 L u n t t 1 FC /100 mQ, Salmon Creek (166), and Snow Creek (137). The greatest upstream /downstream differences occurred on Salmon Creek (25 upstream vs. 166 downstream) and Snow Creek (20 upstream vs. 137 downstream). None of these differences were statistically significant (P >0.05). The second part of the fecal coliform standard requires that not more than 10% of the samples exceed 100 FC /100 mL. Figure 4 shows the percentage of samples at each of the stations that exceeded 100 FC /100 mL. During the wet months, all stations except the two on Contractors Creek exceeded Part 2 of the Standard. During the dry months, all stations on Andrews Creek, Houck Creek, Salmon Creek, Zerr Drain, and the downstream Snow Creek station exceeded Part 2 of the Standard. When all months are combined, all stations on Andrews Creek, Houck Creek, Salmon Creek, Zerr Drain and Stations SN1 and SN2 on Snow Creek exceeded Part 2 of the Standard. Monthly comparisons of fecal coliform concentrations are shown in Figure 5. Of the comparisons made, most notable are the consistently higher levels at the downstream stations (vs. upstream stations) on Salmon and Snow Creeks from April to October. Cape George Ditches Average fecal coliform concentrations for samples collected from 12 stations (there is no Station 9) on drainage ditches in the Cape George Community (Figure 3) are shown in Figure 6. During the wet months, average concentrations exceeded Part 1 of the standard at 7 of the 12 stations. The highest concentrations occurred at Stations 1,2,4, and 10 (range 101 - 387 FC /100 mQ. During the dry months, Part 1 of the standard was exceeded at Stations 1,4 and 7 (range 108 - 719 FC /100 mQ. When all months are combined, Part 1 of the standard was exceeded at Stations 1,2,3,4,5,7, and 10 (range 60 - 245 FC /100 mQ. Monthly values are shown in Appendix Table D -1. Figure 7 shows the percentage of samples at each of the stations that exceeded 100 FC /100 mL (Part 2 of the Standard). During the wet months, all stations except Stations 6 and 13 exceeded Part 2 of the Standard. During the dry months Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 exceeded Part 2, and when all months are combined, all stations except 6 and 13 exceeded Part 2. Beckett Point Interstitial Water Interstitial water - sample composites collected from 20 holes dug along the south shore of Beckett Point had fecal coliform concentrations ranging from <2 to 7 MPN /100 mL (Appendix Table D -2). Thus, all were below the marine Class AA Standard of 14 MPN /100 mL. Conductivity of the water from the 20 holes ranged from 49.5 to 51.1 mmho /cm, virtually the same as the seawater (50.7 mmho /cm) off Beckett Point (Table D -2). Beckett Point Lagoon Fecal coliform concentrations in samples collected from the Beckett Point Lagoon on December 7 and December 12 were <2 FC /100 mL and 8 MPN /100 mL respectively, both below the Class AA Standard. Conductivity of the lagoon water was 58.2 mmho /cm on December 12 (Appendix Table D -2). -20- Figure 4. Percentages of fecal coliform samples exceeding 100 FC /100 mL for samples collected monthly in 1994 at stations on Discovery Bay tributary streams. Part 2 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that not more than 10% of the samples exceed 100 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 2 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk. -21- FECAL COLIFORM SALMON CREEK 1000 F C 10001 0 100 L J F M A M J J A S 0 N SAI SA2 SA3 AA STD. -22- SNOW CREEK 10000 F C 1000 0 L JFMAMJJ'A'SO'N'D SNI SN2 SN3 SN4 AA STD ANDREWS CREEK ' F C i 0 M L Figure 5. Monthly fecal coliform concentrations (FC/100 ml-) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. J F M A M J J A S 0 N ANbi AND2 AND3 AA STD. HOUCK CREEK Ic 10000 F ' I 1000 1 100 0 0 M 10 L F" M, A M J J A S 0 Hol -e- H02 — AA STDI -22- SNOW CREEK 10000 F C 1000 0 L JFMAMJJ'A'SO'N'D SNI SN2 SN3 SN4 AA STD ANDREWS CREEK ' F C i 0 M L Figure 5. Monthly fecal coliform concentrations (FC/100 ml-) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. J F M A M J J A S 0 N ANbi AND2 AND3 AA STD. SNOW CREEK 10000 F C 1000 0 L JFMAMJJ'A'SO'N'D SNI SN2 SN3 SN4 AA STD ANDREWS CREEK ' F C i 0 M L Figure 5. Monthly fecal coliform concentrations (FC/100 ml-) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. J F M A M J J A S 0 N ANbi AND2 AND3 AA STD. Figure 6. Average fecal coliform concentrations (FC /100 ml-) for Cape George ditches sampled monthly in 1994. Part 1 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the geometric average not exceed 50 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 1 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk; 95% confidence limits are denoted by dashes. -23- Fecal Coliform Samples > 100 FC1100mL Wet Months (November -May) 100 100 9 0 8 0 P 7 e r so c 50 e 40 n t 30 20 10 0 100 90 80 P 70 e r 60 c 50 e 40 n t 30 20 10 0 100 90 80 P 70 � s0 c s0 e 40 n t . 30 20 10 0 11 2 y3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 station n;O 7 X - 0 67 so 50 50a 40 40" 33 33i.- r a, Mir 0 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 station n� Fecal Coliform Samples > 100 FC /100mL Dry Months (June- October) 80 80 ' 50 M" 40 �. RA yam. Y0 3 " p k ,' �- 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 11 12 13 ation nk Fecal Coliform Samples > 100 FC /100mL All Months 63 60 40 40 z f° 40 7 9 t1�3t ` 0 Figure 7. Percentages of fecal coliform samples exceeding 100 FC /100 mL for samples collected monthly in 1994 at stations on Cape George ditches. Part 2 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that not more than 10% of the samples exceed 100 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 2 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk. -24- 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 station n� Fecal Coliform Samples > 100 FC /100mL Dry Months (June- October) 80 80 ' 50 M" 40 �. RA yam. Y0 3 " p k ,' �- 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 11 12 13 ation nk Fecal Coliform Samples > 100 FC /100mL All Months 63 60 40 40 z f° 40 7 9 t1�3t ` 0 Figure 7. Percentages of fecal coliform samples exceeding 100 FC /100 mL for samples collected monthly in 1994 at stations on Cape George ditches. Part 2 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that not more than 10% of the samples exceed 100 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 2 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk. -24- 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 11 12 13 ation nk Fecal Coliform Samples > 100 FC /100mL All Months 63 60 40 40 z f° 40 7 9 t1�3t ` 0 Figure 7. Percentages of fecal coliform samples exceeding 100 FC /100 mL for samples collected monthly in 1994 at stations on Cape George ditches. Part 2 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that not more than 10% of the samples exceed 100 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 2 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk. -24- Figure 7. Percentages of fecal coliform samples exceeding 100 FC /100 mL for samples collected monthly in 1994 at stations on Cape George ditches. Part 2 of the Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that not more than 10% of the samples exceed 100 FC /100 mL. Stations not meeting part 2 of the standard are denoted by an asterisk. -24- Littleneck and Butter Clams Fecal coliform concentrations in littleneck and butter clams sampled from several areas in Discovery Bay are shown in Figure 8. All clam samples had concentrations of 230 MPN /100 mL or less except the two replicate samples of littlenecks collected from Adelma Beach (north) on November 1. Concentrations in these two samples were 940 and 790 MPN /100 mL (Appendix Table D -3). Littlenecks collected from the same general area on December 18 had concentrations of 170 and 110 MPN /100 mL. Fecal Coliform Loading Tributary Streams Although not statistically significant (P >0.05), Snow Creek appeared to have the highest average loading rate of fecal coliform bacteria during the wet months (236 billion FC /day) and during the dry months (58 billion FC /day; Figure 9). Salmon Creek appeared to be second highest during both wet (45 billion) and dry (35 billion) periods. j When all months are combined, of the four streams entering the bay, Snow Creek appeared to contribute 80% of the fecal coliform loading, Salmon Creek 19 %, and Contractors Creek and Zerr Drain 1 %. Loading from these four streams was about 3 times greater during the wet months than during the dry months. Cape George Ditches Of the 12 stations sampled on Cape George's ditches during the wet months, Station 5 had the highest average loading rate (1.5 billion FC /day), which represented 63% of the combined loading from all 12 ditches (Figure 10). During the dry months, the highest averages occurred at Station 4 (0.14 billion FC /day) and Station 7 (0.12 billion FC /day), representing 50% and 47 %, respectively, of the combined loadings. The combined loading from the 12 ditches was 0.9% of the combined loading from the tributary streams during the wet months and 0.3% for the dry months. Monthly values are shown in Appendix Table D -1. Total Suspended Solids Concentration Although not statistically significant (P >0.05), the highest average levels of total suspended solids (TSS) for the wet months occurred at all four stations on Snow Creek (range 86 - 116 mg /L; Figure 11). Measurements were highest during November (291 - 486 mg /L) and December (207 - 284 mg /L), when flows were highest (Figure 12; Appendix Table D -5). During the summer months, average TSS levels were highest at Station AND2 (53 mg /L) on Andrews Creek and Station ZE2a (52 mg /L) on Zerr Drain. Besides the "usual" TSS data reported in Figure 11 and Appendix Table D -5, a few "extra" measurements were made on December 20 and 21,1994 during a major rain event. On December 20, Snow Creek's Station SN1 and Salmon Creek's Station SA2 yielded values of 636 and 54 mg /L respectively. These values were the highest recorded for the two streams. On December 21, an "extra" sample was taken at 1318 hours just upstream of the Snow Creek Road culvert (Station SN5); the TSS value for this sample was 34 mg /L. Station SN4, downstream from this station, was sampled the -25- Figure 8. Fecal coliform concentrations (MPN /100 gm) in replicate clam samples collected from Discovery Bay beaches in 1994. Generally, shellfish are considered to be uncontaminated when geometric means are less than 30 MPN /100 gm and most contaminated when geometric means are greater than 230 MPN /100 gm. -26- Figure 9. Average fecal coliform loadings (billion FC /day) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95% confidence limits. -27- Figure 10. Average fecal coliform loadings (billion FC /day) from Cape George ditches sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95% confidence limits. Figure 11. Average total suspended solids (mg /L) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95% confidence limits. -29- Average Total Suspended Solids Dry Months (June - October) 300 250 200 M 9 150 L _ 100 50 53 52 0 _ Z 5- — 29 1� 5 3 2 4 2 18 AND1 AND2 AND3 CT1 CT2 H01 H02 SA1 SA2 SA3 SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4 ZE1 ZE2a Station no. Figure 11. Average total suspended solids (mg /L) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95% confidence limits. -29- TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS SALMON CREEK 1000 M 100 9 L 10 1 J F M A M J J A S O N D I -*- SA1 -B- SA2 --* SA3 HOUCK CREEK 1000 M 100 0 9 / r / ' b L 10 ' \� e � b J F M A M J J A S O N D D + H01 H02 CONTRACTOR CREEK 1000 m 100 L 10 9 1 J F M A M J JASON D --*- CT1 -B- CT2 ANDREWS CREEK 1000 — m 100 9 �. L 10 1� J F M A M J J A S O N D -�- AND1 AND2 - AND3 ZERR DRAIN 1000 M 100 9 m � L 10 0 1 J F M A M J J A S O N D -0- ZE1 -$- ZE2a Figure 12. Monthly total suspended solids concentrations (mg /L) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. -30- SNOW CREEK 10D0 M 100 9 L 10 ' 4� . 1 J F M A M J J A S O N D t SN1 -E SN2 - SN3 SN4 ANDREWS CREEK 1000 — m 100 9 �. L 10 1� J F M A M J J A S O N D -�- AND1 AND2 - AND3 ZERR DRAIN 1000 M 100 9 m � L 10 0 1 J F M A M J J A S O N D -0- ZE1 -$- ZE2a Figure 12. Monthly total suspended solids concentrations (mg /L) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. -30- 0 same day at 0910 hours and had a value of 207 mg /L. On the same day, an "extra" sample was also taken on Andrews Creek on the upstream side of the Snow Creek Road culvert (Station AND 4; Figure 1). This sample, collected at 1330 hours, had a value of 12 mg /L. Station AND3, downstream from this station, was sampled at 0940 ' hours and had a TSS level of 53 mg /L. Total Suspended Solids Loading Of the streams sampled, Snow Creek appears responsible for over 99% of the suspended solids which entered Discovery Bay on the 12 dates monitored (Figure 13). Snow Creek's average loading rate during the wet months was 122,000 pounds /day. When all months are combined, Snow Creek averaged 71,000 pounds /day. Its loading rate during the wet months was 1000 times greater than during the dry months. High flows in November (181 cfs) and December (245 cfs) combined with high TSS concentrations during these months accounted for Snow Creek's high wet -month loading rate. Snow Creek's loading rate was 475,000 pounds /day on November 30 and 376,000 pounds /day on December 21. This is a relative comparison of TSS loading from the larger streams entering Discovery Bay. Undoubtedly, there are other sources, including shore erosion, which contribute sediment to the bay. Turbidity The class AA standard for turbidity states that turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) over background turbidity when the background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or have more than a 10 % increase when background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. Based on comparisons to the station upstream, the turbidity standard was exceeded at AND3 and AND1 in December and AND2 from July through October; CT1 in May; SA1 in September and SA2 in December; H01 in July and December; SN1 in May, November, and December and SN4 in December. The highest turbidity levels occurred at the four stations on Snow Creek. Turbidity at these stations ranged from 320 to 460 NTU in November and from 150 to 280 NTU in December (Figure 14). During the other months, turbidity levels at these stations were always less than 40 NTU and usually less than 10 NTU. Upstream stations on Houck Creek and Andrews Creek were both about 100 NTU in November, and Station AND2 on Andrews Creek had values about 100 NTU during July, August and September. Zerr Drain's upstream Station ZE2a had high values in August (230 NTU) and November (140 NTU). The following "extra" turbidity samples were taken: December 20 at Station SN1 (395 NTU) and Station SA2 (50 NTU); and December 21 at Station SN5 on Snow Creek Road (22 NTU) and Station AND4 on Snow Creek Road (7.5 NTU). Turbidity levels (Figure 14) generally followed a pattern similar to TSS levels (Figures 11 and 12). t f. -31 - I■ Figure 13. Average total suspended solids loadings (poundslda Y) for Discovery Bay tributary stream stations sampled monthly in 1994. Dashes denote 95% confidence limits. -32- TURBIDITY SALMON CREEK 1000 N 100 T U 10 J F M A M J J A S O N D -i- SA1 -B SA2 -- SA3 HOUCK CREEK 1000 N 1 ©0 T U 10 1 J F M A M J J A S p N D -1-- H01 -B H02 CONTRACTOR CREEK 100 N 10C T U 10 J F M A M J J A S O N D -�- CT1 CT2 SNOW CREEK 1000 N 100 !1 1 T U 1p 1J F M A M J JAS'0N6 -*- SN1 -H- SN2 SN3 -♦- SN4 ANDREWS CREEK 1t' ^^ T 1 U J F M A M J J A S O N D -*- AND1 -B AND2 --*- AND3 ZERR DRAIN loon 00 ' N 1 � T �. U 10 1 J F M A M J J A S O N d --•- ZE1 -9-- ZE2a Figure 14. Monthly total turbidity levels (NTU) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU over background turbidity when the background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or have more than a 10 % increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. -33- r 1 u I i� u P C' Temperature Temperature measurements are shown in Figure 15. The Class AA temperature standard is 16.0° C. This standard was exceeded at the following stations and times: ZE1 from May through September; H01 from July through September; SA1 in July and August; SN2, SN3, and SN4 in July; and AND1 and AND2 in July. The highest temperatures measured in each of the streams were as follows: Zerr Drain, 21.9° C at ZE1 in July; Houck Creek, 19.5° C at H01 in August; Snow Creek, 17.1° C at SN3 and SN4 in July; Salmon Creek, 18.5° C at SA1 in July; Andrews Creek, 18.5° C at AND1 in July; and Contractors Creek, 12.9° C at CT2 in August. However, these values are not strictly comparable because measurements at the various stations were made at different times of the day, and water temperature generally increases from morning to afternoon. This probably helps account for the lower high temperatures measured in Contractors Creek, which was usually the first stream sampled. Taking sample time into account, it appears that Zerr Drain, Houck Creek, Andrews Creek, and Salmon Creek had higher temperatures at their downstream stations as compared to their upstream ones. Dissolved Oxygen The Class AA Standard for dissolved oxygen (DO) is 9.5 mg /L. All stations had DO levels below the standard, primarily during the summer months (Figure 16). The lowest levels were observed at Zerr Drain's Station ZE2a where DO levels were less than 1.5 mg /L from July to November. The next lowest levels were observed on Andrews Creek at Stations AND1 and AND2 from July to September when DO ranged from 3.7 to 6.1 mg /L. pH The Class AA Standard for pH is 6.5 to 8.5. Measurements taken at Stations AND1 and AND2 on Andrews Creek were below the lower limit of 6.5 in April and May and Station AND1 was also below this limit in December (Figure 17). The lowest measurement (5.8) occurred at Station AND1 in May. Zerr Drain's Station ZE2a had a pH value slightly below the Standard in May (6.3), and Station ZE1 slightly exceeded the upper Standard in June (8.7). Measurements of pH taken at Andrews Creek's upstream Station AND3 were consistently higher than those taken at the two downstream stations during all months monitored. Likewise, Houck Creek had higher pH values at its upstream station from June to September. Snow Creek also had higher values at its two most upstream stations from July to October. Whereas, on Zerr Drain, pH values were consistently higher at the downstream station. Conductivity Conductivity measurements are shown in Figure 18. Zerr Drain's Station ZE1 had the highest conductivity values (range 392 - 6940 µmho /cm). However, this station was -34- TEMPERATURE HOUCK CREEK 22 0 SALMON CREEK 71.6 22.0 0 C 4 F e 71.6 20,0 n h t 2 68.0 c 18.0 64.4 9 1 e 16.0 Ks tandar r a n a _ 50.8 h t 14.0 e 57.2 r 12.0 1 53.6 e 9 10.0 � 50.0 n r 8.0 h d 46.4 e 6.0 N42.8 i 4.0 e h 39.2 t 2.0 ' 35.6 0.01 J F _4 M A M J J A S O N D2A SA1 $ SA2 SA3 - AA STD. HOUCK CREEK 22 0 71.6 0 C 4 F e 8 a n h t 2 1 r i 6 e 9 1 0 n r 4 h a e d 1 e t 32.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -f H01 --� H02 - AA STD. 20.0 68. 18A 64, 16.0 Class AA Standar 60. 14.0 ' � - _� 57. 2A � 53. 0.0 S0. 8.0 46. 6.fl - 42.8 4.0 , 39.2 2.0 � 35.6 0.0 CONTRACTOR CREEK 22.0 71.6 20.0 168.0 C 18.0 Class AA Standard 64.4 F e 16.0 gp -g a n 14.0 57.2 h t r 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 50.0 n r $.0 h a 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0. 32.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -e- CT2 - AA STD. i SNOW CREEK 22 0 71.6 C F e a n h t r i 12.0 9 10.0 r h a e d i e t 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D32.0 --� SN1 -�- SN2 -� SN3 - AA STD. -� SN4 2o.D ss.o 18.0 64.4 16 0 Class AA Standard- 60.8 14.0 a� 57.2 2.0 � 53.6 0.0 �� 50.0 8.0 , �\ 46.4 6.0 � 42.8 4.0 Z.0 35.6 ANDREWS CREEK 22.0 71.6 .0 C ,4 F e -8 a n h { -2 r 1 .s e 9 0 n r 4 h a e d 8 i e 2 # 6 0.0 =.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D ♦- AND1 -� AND2 �- AND3 - AA STD. 20.0 68 16.0 Class AA Standar 6 14.D 57 12.0 � � 53 10.0 50. ::00 � 46. 42. 4.0 39. 2.G , 35. ZERR DRAIN 22.0 - -71.6 20.0 -sa.o C 18.0 64.4 F e 16.0 60.8 a t 14.0 57.2 h 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 U150,0 n a 8.0 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0, 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2.0 -+- ZE1 -H- ZE2 - AA STD. a r Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ( °C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C. -35- C 18.0 Class AA Standard 64.4 F e 16.0 gp -g a n 14.0 57.2 h t r 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 50.0 n r $.0 h a 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0. 32.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -e- CT2 - AA STD. i SNOW CREEK 22 0 71.6 C F e a n h t r i 12.0 9 10.0 r h a e d i e t 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D32.0 --� SN1 -�- SN2 -� SN3 - AA STD. -� SN4 2o.D ss.o 18.0 64.4 16 0 Class AA Standard- 60.8 14.0 a� 57.2 2.0 � 53.6 0.0 �� 50.0 8.0 , �\ 46.4 6.0 � 42.8 4.0 Z.0 35.6 ANDREWS CREEK 22.0 71.6 .0 C ,4 F e -8 a n h { -2 r 1 .s e 9 0 n r 4 h a e d 8 i e 2 # 6 0.0 =.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D ♦- AND1 -� AND2 �- AND3 - AA STD. 20.0 68 16.0 Class AA Standar 6 14.D 57 12.0 � � 53 10.0 50. ::00 � 46. 42. 4.0 39. 2.G , 35. ZERR DRAIN 22.0 - -71.6 20.0 -sa.o C 18.0 64.4 F e 16.0 60.8 a t 14.0 57.2 h 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 U150,0 n a 8.0 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0, 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2.0 -+- ZE1 -H- ZE2 - AA STD. a r Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ( °C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C. -35- i SNOW CREEK 22 0 71.6 C F e a n h t r i 12.0 9 10.0 r h a e d i e t 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D32.0 --� SN1 -�- SN2 -� SN3 - AA STD. -� SN4 2o.D ss.o 18.0 64.4 16 0 Class AA Standard- 60.8 14.0 a� 57.2 2.0 � 53.6 0.0 �� 50.0 8.0 , �\ 46.4 6.0 � 42.8 4.0 Z.0 35.6 ANDREWS CREEK 22.0 71.6 .0 C ,4 F e -8 a n h { -2 r 1 .s e 9 0 n r 4 h a e d 8 i e 2 # 6 0.0 =.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D ♦- AND1 -� AND2 �- AND3 - AA STD. 20.0 68 16.0 Class AA Standar 6 14.D 57 12.0 � � 53 10.0 50. ::00 � 46. 42. 4.0 39. 2.G , 35. ZERR DRAIN 22.0 - -71.6 20.0 -sa.o C 18.0 64.4 F e 16.0 60.8 a t 14.0 57.2 h 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 U150,0 n a 8.0 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0, 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2.0 -+- ZE1 -H- ZE2 - AA STD. a r Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ( °C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C. -35- 2o.D ss.o 18.0 64.4 16 0 Class AA Standard- 60.8 14.0 a� 57.2 2.0 � 53.6 0.0 �� 50.0 8.0 , �\ 46.4 6.0 � 42.8 4.0 Z.0 35.6 ANDREWS CREEK 22.0 71.6 .0 C ,4 F e -8 a n h { -2 r 1 .s e 9 0 n r 4 h a e d 8 i e 2 # 6 0.0 =.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D ♦- AND1 -� AND2 �- AND3 - AA STD. 20.0 68 16.0 Class AA Standar 6 14.D 57 12.0 � � 53 10.0 50. ::00 � 46. 42. 4.0 39. 2.G , 35. ZERR DRAIN 22.0 - -71.6 20.0 -sa.o C 18.0 64.4 F e 16.0 60.8 a t 14.0 57.2 h 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 U150,0 n a 8.0 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0, 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2.0 -+- ZE1 -H- ZE2 - AA STD. a r Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ( °C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C. -35- ANDREWS CREEK 22.0 71.6 .0 C ,4 F e -8 a n h { -2 r 1 .s e 9 0 n r 4 h a e d 8 i e 2 # 6 0.0 =.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D ♦- AND1 -� AND2 �- AND3 - AA STD. 20.0 68 16.0 Class AA Standar 6 14.D 57 12.0 � � 53 10.0 50. ::00 � 46. 42. 4.0 39. 2.G , 35. ZERR DRAIN 22.0 - -71.6 20.0 -sa.o C 18.0 64.4 F e 16.0 60.8 a t 14.0 57.2 h 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 U150,0 n a 8.0 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0, 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2.0 -+- ZE1 -H- ZE2 - AA STD. a r Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ( °C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C. -35- 20.0 68 16.0 Class AA Standar 6 14.D 57 12.0 � � 53 10.0 50. ::00 � 46. 42. 4.0 39. 2.G , 35. ZERR DRAIN 22.0 - -71.6 20.0 -sa.o C 18.0 64.4 F e 16.0 60.8 a t 14.0 57.2 h 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 U150,0 n a 8.0 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0, 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2.0 -+- ZE1 -H- ZE2 - AA STD. a r Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ( °C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C. -35- ZERR DRAIN 22.0 - -71.6 20.0 -sa.o C 18.0 64.4 F e 16.0 60.8 a t 14.0 57.2 h 1 12.0 53.6 e 9 10.0 U150,0 n a 8.0 46.4 e d 6.0 42.8 i e 4.0, 39.2 t 2.0 35.6 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2.0 -+- ZE1 -H- ZE2 - AA STD. a r Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ( °C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C. -35- a r Figure 15. Monthly temperature readings ( °C) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that the temperature shall not exceed 16.0 °C. -35- SALMON CREEK 20.0 18.0 _ 16.0 14.0 M 9 J L DISSOLVED OXYGEN 12.0 10.0 8.0 -- 6.0 4.0 2.0 n_n J F M A M J J -A S O N D -0- SA1 SA2 -*- SA3 - AA STD. HOUCK CREEK 210.0 M 8 10.0 L J F M A M J J A S O N D -0- H01 -e- H02 - 14.0 ----• - � "" • `� 0.0 CONTRACTOR CREEK 20.0 M 9 L J F M A M J J A S O N D �- CT2 - AA STD. M 12. 9 10.0 J L 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -� AND1 -E3- 1s.o 16.0 14A 12.0 ` 10.0 b,� ' $.0 o- -s - -e' 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 M ANDREWS CREEK 20.0 1e. AND2 -�`- AND3 - AA STD. 0 16.0 14. 0 ZERR DRAIN 20.0 18. 0 16. 12. 9 10. L 8. 6. 0 4. 0 2. 0 0. F M A M J J A S O N D -•- ZE1 -B- 2E2a - AA STD. 0 14.0 ti 0 0 0 0 � � J Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- J F M A M J J -A S O N D -0- SA1 SA2 -*- SA3 - AA STD. HOUCK CREEK 210.0 M 8 10.0 L J F M A M J J A S O N D -0- H01 -e- H02 - 14.0 ----• - � "" • `� 0.0 CONTRACTOR CREEK 20.0 M 9 L J F M A M J J A S O N D �- CT2 - AA STD. M 12. 9 10.0 J L 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -� AND1 -E3- 1s.o 16.0 14A 12.0 ` 10.0 b,� ' $.0 o- -s - -e' 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 M ANDREWS CREEK 20.0 1e. AND2 -�`- AND3 - AA STD. 0 16.0 14. 0 ZERR DRAIN 20.0 18. 0 16. 12. 9 10. L 8. 6. 0 4. 0 2. 0 0. F M A M J J A S O N D -•- ZE1 -B- 2E2a - AA STD. 0 14.0 ti 0 0 0 0 � � J Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- 14.0 ----• - � "" • `� 0.0 CONTRACTOR CREEK 20.0 M 9 L J F M A M J J A S O N D �- CT2 - AA STD. M 12. 9 10.0 J L 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -� AND1 -E3- 1s.o 16.0 14A 12.0 ` 10.0 b,� ' $.0 o- -s - -e' 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 M ANDREWS CREEK 20.0 1e. AND2 -�`- AND3 - AA STD. 0 16.0 14. 0 ZERR DRAIN 20.0 18. 0 16. 12. 9 10. L 8. 6. 0 4. 0 2. 0 0. F M A M J J A S O N D -•- ZE1 -B- 2E2a - AA STD. 0 14.0 ti 0 0 0 0 � � J Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- 9 L J F M A M J J A S O N D �- CT2 - AA STD. M 12. 9 10.0 J L 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -� AND1 -E3- 1s.o 16.0 14A 12.0 ` 10.0 b,� ' $.0 o- -s - -e' 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 M ANDREWS CREEK 20.0 1e. AND2 -�`- AND3 - AA STD. 0 16.0 14. 0 ZERR DRAIN 20.0 18. 0 16. 12. 9 10. L 8. 6. 0 4. 0 2. 0 0. F M A M J J A S O N D -•- ZE1 -B- 2E2a - AA STD. 0 14.0 ti 0 0 0 0 � � J Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- 1s.o 16.0 14A 12.0 ` 10.0 b,� ' $.0 o- -s - -e' 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 M ANDREWS CREEK 20.0 1e. AND2 -�`- AND3 - AA STD. 0 16.0 14. 0 ZERR DRAIN 20.0 18. 0 16. 12. 9 10. L 8. 6. 0 4. 0 2. 0 0. F M A M J J A S O N D -•- ZE1 -B- 2E2a - AA STD. 0 14.0 ti 0 0 0 0 � � J Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- ANDREWS CREEK 20.0 1e. AND2 -�`- AND3 - AA STD. 0 16.0 14. 0 ZERR DRAIN 20.0 18. 0 16. 12. 9 10. L 8. 6. 0 4. 0 2. 0 0. F M A M J J A S O N D -•- ZE1 -B- 2E2a - AA STD. 0 14.0 ti 0 0 0 0 � � J Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- 0 16.0 14. 0 ZERR DRAIN 20.0 18. 0 16. 12. 9 10. L 8. 6. 0 4. 0 2. 0 0. F M A M J J A S O N D -•- ZE1 -B- 2E2a - AA STD. 0 14.0 ti 0 0 0 0 � � J Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- 0 14.0 ti 0 0 0 0 � � J Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- Figure 76. Monthly dissolved oxygen levels (mglL) for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 7994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg /L. -36- ME 0 5 Lower Std. � - - � -�'� -a - -�_ • _-o Figure 17. Monthly total pH readings for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5. -37- ANDREWS CREEK HOUCK CREEK U er Std. 90 _ 8A U er Std. 7.5 ` 6.0 8.5 7.0 Upper Std. 8. S 5 U 7, 6.0 n U 5.5 i 7. t 5• 5 Lower Std. s i 6.0 t 6.5 s 5.5 5.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D ♦ H07 -2- H02 60J — AA STD. — AA STD. 0 5 Lower Std. � - - � -�'� -a - -�_ • _-o Figure 17. Monthly total pH readings for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5. -37- ANDREWS CREEK 8.5 U er Std. 9.0 _ 8A U er Std. 7.5 ` 6.0 8.5 7.0 Upper Std. 8. S 5 U 7, 6.0 U 5.5 i 7. 0 5 Lower Std. � - - � -�'� -a - -�_ • _-o Figure 17. Monthly total pH readings for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5. -37- ANDREWS CREEK CONTRACTOR CREEK 9.0 9.0 _ 7.0 U er Std. Lower Std. 6.0 8.5 5.5 Upper Std. 8. U 7, U i 7. n 5• 5 i 6.0 t 6.5 s 5.5 60J F M A M J J A S O N D 5.0 -� AND2 -� AND3 J F M A M J J A S O N D -s- CT2 — AA STD. — AA STD. 0 5 Lower Std. � - - � -�'� -a - -�_ • _-o Figure 17. Monthly total pH readings for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5. -37- ANDREWS CREEK 8.0 9.0 7.5 _ 7.0 U er Std. Lower Std. 6.0 8. 5 5.5 8. 0 5 Lower Std. � - - � -�'� -a - -�_ • _-o Figure 17. Monthly total pH readings for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5. -37- ANDREWS CREEK 9.0 U er Std. 8. 5 8. U 7, n i 7. t 5• 5 s 6.0 5.5 60J F M A M J J A S O N D -*- AND4 -� AND2 -� AND3 — AA STD. — AA STD. 0 5 Lower Std. � - - � -�'� -a - -�_ • _-o Figure 17. Monthly total pH readings for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5. -37- •_ Figure 17. Monthly total pH readings for Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in 1994. The Washington State Water Quality Standard for Class AA freshwaters is that pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5. -37- CONDUCTIVITY SALMON CREEK 400 U M 30 h o 20 0 C 10 M 0 M A M J J A S O N D -*- SA1 -2 SA2 --*- SA3 0 J F HOUCK CREEK 400 U M 300 h o 200 _ C 100 M 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -0- H01 -B- H02 CONTRACTOR CREEK 400 U M 300 h'—'�� o. 200 C 100 M 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -+- CT2 SNOW CREEK 490 U M 30 0 h 0 20 / 18 c J F M A M J J A S O N D -� SN1 --� SN2 �- SN3 -�- SN4 ANDREWS CREEK 400 U m 300 h 0 200 / 100 C 0 0 0 J F M A M J A -�- AND1 -� AND2 -� AND3 ZERR DRAIN 7000 U s000 M 5000 h 4000 0 3000 C 2000 M 1000 0 J f M A M J J A S N D -+- ZE1 -9 J S O N D - ZE2a Figure 18. Monthly conductivity levels (µmho /cm) for Discovery Bay tributary streams --�- - -� --�- -ate =-� --�, O sampled in 1994. � HOUCK CREEK 400 U M 300 h o 200 _ C 100 M 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -0- H01 -B- H02 CONTRACTOR CREEK 400 U M 300 h'—'�� o. 200 C 100 M 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D -+- CT2 SNOW CREEK 490 U M 30 0 h 0 20 / 18 c J F M A M J J A S O N D -� SN1 --� SN2 �- SN3 -�- SN4 ANDREWS CREEK 400 U m 300 h 0 200 / 100 C 0 0 0 J F M A M J A -�- AND1 -� AND2 -� AND3 ZERR DRAIN 7000 U s000 M 5000 h 4000 0 3000 C 2000 M 1000 0 J f M A M J J A S N D -+- ZE1 -9 J S O N D - ZE2a Figure 18. Monthly conductivity levels (µmho /cm) for Discovery Bay tributary streams --�- - -� --�- -ate =-� --�, O sampled in 1994. 0 0 0 J F M A M J A -�- AND1 -� AND2 -� AND3 ZERR DRAIN 7000 U s000 M 5000 h 4000 0 3000 C 2000 M 1000 0 J f M A M J J A S N D -+- ZE1 -9 J S O N D - ZE2a Figure 18. Monthly conductivity levels (µmho /cm) for Discovery Bay tributary streams --�- - -� --�- -ate =-� --�, O sampled in 1994. 0 J F M A M J A -�- AND1 -� AND2 -� AND3 ZERR DRAIN 7000 U s000 M 5000 h 4000 0 3000 C 2000 M 1000 0 J f M A M J J A S N D -+- ZE1 -9 J S O N D - ZE2a Figure 18. Monthly conductivity levels (µmho /cm) for Discovery Bay tributary streams --�- - -� --�- -ate =-� --�, O sampled in 1994. J S O N D - ZE2a Figure 18. Monthly conductivity levels (µmho /cm) for Discovery Bay tributary streams --�- - -� --�- -ate =-� --�, O sampled in 1994. --�- - -� --�- -ate =-� --�, O sampled in 1994. sampled in 1994. in the estuary and was subject to tidal influence. The next highest conductivity levels occurred at Station ZE2 (range 238 - 395 µmho /cm). Conductivity ranges for the other streams were as follows: Salmon Creek, 118 - 353 µmho /cm; Contractors Creek, 202 - 280; Houck Creek, 72 - 209; Snow Creek, 48 - 188; and Andrews Creek, 38 - 175. Conductivity for these last five streams was generally highest in August and September. r D u J -39- DISCUSSION Before discussing the results it would be advantageous to first discuss "standards" in general and then the fecal coliform standard in particular. Standards The main purpose of many standards is to protect the health of people, domestic animals, fish, and wildlife. For substances such as mercury, copper, and PCBs, which at certain levels are known to be harmful to human health, we would certainly want these levels to be as low as possible. But just how low should they be? It is a reasonable assumption that the lower they are, the lower will be the risk to our health. However, sometimes other factors, such as economics, are taken into account. Remember the mercury scare in about 1970, when excessive levels of mercury were found in swordfish, tuna and other species? Why does there not seem to be as much concern today? In 1970, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "action level" (standard) for mercury in fish was 0.5 ppm. In 1979, this level was changed to 1.0 ppm. The reason for the increase as stated in the Federal Register was that fish - related industries were in jeopardy if the 0.5 ppm standard were maintained (Anonymous 1979). Did raising the standard make the fish in the 0.5 ppm to 1.0 ppm range safer to eat? Not according to Laws (1981), author of "Aquatic Pollution." He stated that if any change was made to the mercury standard, it should be in lowering it. Regarding the effects of mercury on human health, Smith and Smith (1975) stated: "Although outward �1 symptoms may not appear until a certain level (of mercury in the body) is reached, it can be assumed that damage is proportionate, to some extent, to the amount of mercury that is consumed and that is passed through the body, whether or not the body's mercury content reaches a 'dangerous' level at any given moment. If so, there is no actual 'safety level.' The greater the methyl mercury intake, the greater the cell damage. The lower the intake, the less damage to cells. On the cellular level there is no 'threshold point. "' Other countries, including Canada, have retained the 0.5 ppm mercury standard. How low should a standard be set for our protection? Not all health agencies see things the same way. For instance, let's compare copper standards set for drinking water by the following countries and organizations: Japan and Australia, 10 ppm; U. S. Public Health Service and South African Bureau of Standards, 1 ppm; the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, 0.1 ppm; and the World Health Organization, 0.05 ppm (Forstner and Wittman 1983). Thus a 200 -fold difference exists between the lowest standard and highest standard set by these countries and organizations. If given a choice, which of these standards would you prefer to have your drinking water meet? Before answering, consider this statement by Walker (1973): "...the possibility exists �? that many unusual deaths which periodically occur in our society have been caused by �j toxic chemical poisoning, but were never diagnosed as such because the doctor or coroner failed to recognize symptoms of such poisoning." Discovery Bay residents are fortunate that the waters of Discovery Bay and its tributaries are listed as Class AA (Extraordinary). This classification gives the people, animals, and fish of the Discovery Bay Watershed the highest level of protection -40- afforded by the State. Fecal Coliform -- Pathogenic Indicator Oysters, clams, and other molluscan shellfish feed by filtering phytoplankton and other particles from the surrounding water. These "other particles" can include pathogenic (disease- causing) microorganisms, including bacterial and viral pathogens associated with human and animal feces. Such pathogens can become concentrated in shellfish and passed on to shellfish consumers. Outbreaks of shellfish- associated diseases, especially typhoid fever, prompted the formation of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) about 70 years ago. Through this program, the use of coliform bacteria as indicators of water quality came into being. Initially, "total coliform bacteria," which are commonly found in the intestines and feces of both warm and cold - blooded animals, were used. More recently, this group has been replaced by "fecal coliform bacteria," which are abundant only in warm - blooded animals. The rationale is that an increase in the bacteria's concentration indicates an increased chance that pathogens are also present. The higher the concentration of fecal coliform, the greater the chance for disease. Unfortunately, the use of coliform bacteria as an indicator of potential pathogens has its limitations. The coliform indicator system was initially based on a series of assumptions about the relationships between coliform bacteria, pathogenic organisms, and human sewage. Originally intended for large, somewhat predictable discharges of human sewage, the coliform indicator system has been broadened to include nonpoint sources such as on -site septic systems, boater wastes, stormwater run -off and animal wastes (Lilja and Glasoe 1993). Some authorities believe that the coliform indicator system is poorly suited for assessing these more variable pollution sources. This is particularly true for animal wastes because research suggests that the risk of viral infection from animal wastes may be less than that associated with human sewage (Stelma and McCabe 1992; Lilja and Glasoe 1993). However, to say that the risk is less is not to say that no risk exists. Many bacterial pathogens are known to be communicated from animals to man (Acha and Szyfres 1980) and can be transmitted via shellfish (Bidwell and Kelly 1950; Stelma and McCabe 1992; Lilja and Glasoe 1993). Bacterial pathogens of greatest concern include various species in the genera Salmonella, Shigella, Escherichia, Listeria, Yersinia, Campylobacter, Vibrio, and Leptospira (Lilja and Glasoe 1993). Salmonella, one of the more common of these pathogens, occurs in a broad range of domestic and wild animals including cattle, swine, sheep, goats, horses, dogs, cats, rodents, chickens, ducks, and geese (Acha and Szyfres 1980). Two Protozoan parasites, Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium spp., also have the potential to be transmitted from animals to humans via shellfish as well as via water (Stelma and McCabe 1992). Also, some viruses common to both humans and animals are capable of crossing species barriers and producing disease (Stelma and McCabe 1992). Therefore, it is conceivable that humans could acquire viral illness from shellfish contaminated with animal viruses, especially the rotaviruses, which are environmentally stable in freshwater and seawater (Stelma and McCabe 1992). Authorities have recognized that the coliform indicator system, which cannot -41 - L L 11 r), u t c F I distinguish between human wastes and animal wastes, needs to be replaced with a better system. A long -term research program, the National Shellfish Indicator Study, is underway to do just that. Two of the objectives of this indicator study are to: 1) determine differences in public health risks between human and animal wastes; and 2) identify indicators specific to human and animal fecal contamination (Smith and Glasoe 1993). In the mean time, health agencies must do the best they can with the information and indicator system in place. Even though the risk from animal wastes appears to be less than that from human wastes, we know that animal wastes are a potential source of pathogens, and that they can be transmitted to humans via shellfish. Thus, it seems prudent to take any practical measures that would minimize whatever risk is associated with them. In 1986, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1986b) recommended replacing the pathogenic indicator, fecal coliform with either Escherichia coli or enterococci (a subgroup of fecal streptococci bacteria) for freshwater, and enterococci for marine water. Since 1986, a number of states adopted one of the recommended standards. Washington Department of Ecology is currently (2001) proposing that enterococci be used as a standard both in freshwater and marine water (Hicks 2000a). However, at least for the present, Washington Department of Health will apparently continue to monitor fecal coliform in marine water to aid in making decisions regarding shellfish harvesting. Fecal Coliform -- More Than an Indicator Until recently, fecal coliform bacteria have been considered only as indicators of potential pathogens. However, it is now recognized that Escherichia coli 0157:1-17, a fecal coliform bacterium, is itself a pathogen. E. coli 0157:H7 was first recognized as a pathogen in the early 1980s. In 1990, its contamination of a drinking water supply in Missouri resulted in over 200 illnesses (Swerdlow et al. 1992). In 1993, E. coli 0157:1-17 received nationwide attention when it caused a serious outbreak of illnesses in Washington State (Bell et al. 1994). Undercooked beef hamburgers, contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7 proved to be the cause of the deaths and illnesses. Studies have linked E. coli 0157:1-17 to cattle. In culture surveys conducted at dairy farms, a stockyard, and a packinghouse, the fecal isolation rate for E.coli 0157:1-17 was 0.15% for cows and 2.8% for heifers and calves (Wells et al. 1990 cited by Bell et al. 1994). The possibility exists that animal feces containing E. coli 0157:1-17 could contaminate a stream and eventually the marine water, where this bacterium could be concentrated in shellfish. This is essentially what researchers at the FDA Seafood Products Research Center concluded after conducting experiments on E. coli 0157:1-17 survival rates in waters of varying salinities and temperatures and in oysters injected with this bacterium (Kaysner et al. 1994). They concluded, "It appears that E. coli 0157:1-17 can survive under aquatic (freshwater) and estuarine conditions for extended periods which may lead to possible contamination of shellfish and their growing area." It should be understood that E. coli 0157:H7 is a relatively rare strain of E. coli and one should not equate this rare pathogenic strain with the much more prevalent -42- non- pathogenic ones. The reader should understand that E. coli 0157:117 has not been associated with this study or any other monitoring study conducted in Jefferson County. Snow Creek Fecal Coliform 1� Of the streams monitored in 1994 (based on 12 sample dates), Snow Creek contributed about 80% of the fecal coliform bacteria entering Discovery Bay. In the 1988 -89 ambient study, Snow Creek contributed 55% of the loading (Rubida 1989). In 1994, loading during the wet months (November -May) was 4 times greater than during the dry months (June- October), despite a dry-month average concentration 11 times greater than that for the wet months. In contrast, in 1988 -89, loading was greater during the dry months. These differences could reflect the different monitoring strategies used in the two studies. In 1994 "rain events" were targeted for sampling, whereas in 1988 -89 "ambient" sampling was conducted on pre - scheduled dates. "Rain event" sampling would be expected to produce higher loadings than "ambient " sampling. The advantage of "rain event" sampling is that, with a limited sample size, one can gain a better picture of loading when rainfall is washing pollutants off the land into receiving streams. Although the results of a "rain event" study are not directly comparable to those IPA of an "ambient" study, the patterns observed in the two studies can be compared. For instance, in both studies, fecal coliform concentrations for Snow Creek were generally higher during the dry months (June- October), and in both studies the highest average concentration was observed at downstream Station SN1. In 1988 -89, Station SN1 had a dry-month GMV (geometric mean value) of 187 FC /100 mL compared to GMVs of 54, 39, and 30 FC /100 for mL upstream Stations SN2, SN3, and SN4, respectively. In the dry months of 1994, Station SN1 averaged 469 FC /100 mL, which was 10 -18 times greater than the three upstream stations (range 26 -46 FC /100 mQ. In 1995, 1500 feet of Snow creek was fenced from livestock and an additional 2000 feet was fenced in 1998. Both sections of fencing were installed between Stations SN1 and SN2. Dry-month data collected in 1998 showed substantial decreases in fecal coliform concentration and loading at downstream Station SN1 (Figures 19 and 20; Gately 1997). In 1994, wet -month GMVs slightly exceeded the 50 FC /100 mL Standard at Stations SN1 (67 FC /100 mQ, and SN2 (53 FC /100 mQ. In the 1988 -89 ambient study, wet -month GMVs were well within the Standard at downstream Station SN1 (22 FC /100 mL) as well as Stations SN2 (16), SN3 (7), and SN4 (1). Lower wet -month (vs. dry- month) concentrations have been observed for Jefferson County streams in the Quilcene (Welch and Banks 1987) and Ludlow (Gately 1993) watersheds as well as for other small Puget Sound tributary streams (Determan et al. 1992; Entranco 1993 cited by Prescott 1995). Prescott (1995) suggested that, in streams where animals have direct access, lower wet -month concentrations may be the effect of the greater dilution which occurs during the wet months. In the case of Snow Creek, cattle are typically pastured from about mid -March to October, a period comprised of predominantly dry- months (June - October). Thus, when cattle had direct access to Snow Creek, one might reasonably have expected the cattle's fecal contribution to be higher during the dry months. When cattle are excluded from the stream, their fecal contributions would P -43- O sue.. � o o C U o � 0 U � A o 8 0 8 o S o S o 0 kn 'Itu 00U33 .. Q z z V) N z cn z a� 0 U U 0 cz a) a� bn b 0 0 ,o U � O Q U N bA � Cl 00 CN o � cC w o0 w C� 0 V a� �� o� v � o w � ON U- O p O O O O O Sup /ad suollim —45— z z a� 0 U i U C." O U � o N U U G y, o 'Cf O 0 c ct U vo O � .� .fl � bJ} � 0 0 ^" U Cl N O Ri 00 U m cU N 00 N pp bn r O U (n N Q ON N O N U co O C M O p O O O O O Sup /ad suollim —45— z z a� 0 U i U C." O U � o N U U G y, o 'Cf O 0 c ct U vo O � .� .fl � bJ} � 0 0 ^" U Cl N O Ri 00 U m cU N 00 N pp bn fj have to come in surface runoff, which is not as likely during the dry months of the year. As previously mentioned, fecal coliform loading in 1994 was four times greater for the wet months than for the dry months. The highest loading values measured occurred in November (1038 billion FC /day) and December (319 billion FC /day), when Snow Creek was in flood stage. The reader should understand that the streams monitored in this study are not necessarily the only sources of fecal coliform entering Discovery Bay. Other potential sources include failing septic systems near the marine shoreline, boats, and marine birds and mammals. Total Suspended Solids Total suspended solids (TSS) are the particulate matter, usually less than 0.1 mm in size, which are transported in the water column downstream. Material greater than 1.0 mm is usually transported as bedload (not monitored) along the stream bottom. Material of intermediate size (0.1 -1.0 mm) could be transported either way, depending on stream velocity and hydraulics (MacDonald et aL 1991). The deposition of suspended sediment on the stream bottom can be detrimental for several reasons. First, it can cause the suffocation of salmonid eggs by filling in the interstitial spaces within the gravel, thereby reducing intragravel water circulation, and along with it, dissolved oxygen. Numerous studies (reviewed by Peterson et aL 1992) have demonstrated that mortality increases as the percentage of "fines" in the substrate increases. In 1994, 14 substrate samples from typical summer chum spawning areas in the lower half -mile of Snow Creek (from Highway 101 upstream) averaged 18% "fines" (WDFW and PNPTT 2000). Concurrent sampling at 14 sites on 1.1 miles of Salmon Creek (from Highway 101 upstream) yielded an average of 15.1 % "fines" (Bernthal and Rot 2001, Appendix D). Peterson et aL (1992) suggested that when "fines" exceeded 11 %, possible reasons for their presence should be thoroughly investigated. Levels of "fines" (averages) in unimpacted streams were reported as follows: Olympic National Forest Streams, 6.4% (Cederholm and Reid 1987); Hoh River tributaries, 10.9% (Hatten 1991); South Fork Hoh River, 11.4% and Main Hoh River, 14.5% (Cederholm 1991); and Southeast Alaska streams, 9.5% (Ellington 1984) and 9.7% (Sheridan et aL 1984). Second, deposition of fine sediment is detrimental to benthic (bottom) invertebrates (Chapman and McLeod 1987). Fine sediment tends to fill the spaces between coarser particles, thereby reducing invertebrate habitat. Sandy streams have the lowest species diversity and aquatic productivity (Hynes 1970). A reduction of aquatic invertebrates, a principal food source of fish, can indirectly increase salmonid mortality by causing reduced growth. Smaller fish are more susceptible to predation. Third, the deposition and accumulation of sediment in the stream channel can lessen the channel's ability to conduct water, and thereby increase the likelihood of flooding. The accumulation of sediment in the channels of the Nooksack and Skagit Rivers was believed to be part of the cause for the severe flooding which occurred in these rivers in November 1990 (Harr and Cundy 1992). Since dredging in lower Snow Creek was discontinued about 1980, local residents have observed the accumulation of several feet of sediment in the channel as well as an increase in flooding. Of the streams monitored, Snow Creek accounted for over 99% of the suspended solids entering the bay. The greatest movement of sediment, both as 1 -46- t suspended material and as bedload, occurs on a relatively few days of the year. Of the 11 days sampled in this study, 99.5% of the TSS loading occurred on two days. On these 2 days, TSS loading from Snow Creek was 1.7 -2.2 times greater than loading from the Big Quilcene River under flood conditions (545 cfs on December 14,1993) and 5.2 -6.5 times greater than loading from the Little Quilcene River (275 cfs on December 14,1993; Gately, unpublished data). The question can be asked, "Are the relatively high TSS concentrations and loadings observed for Snow Creek solely the result of natural conditions or are they affected by human influences?" Because all four stations on Snow Creek (SN1 to SN4) had similarly high TSS levels on the high -flow days of November and December, it is logical to look farther upstream for possible causes. In the upper watershed, timber harvesting practices and road building appear to be the only human related activities that could be contributing factors. Numerous studies have shown that traditional logging practices have had a major effect on water quality by increasing sediment levels (MacDonald et al. 1991; Adams and Ringer 1994). Logging practices in Western Washington can be expected to increase sediment yield over background levels by a factor of 4 (Nelson et al. 1992); much of this is due to logging roads. Other contributing factors are surface erosion from landings, skid trails, and other compacted areas; and slope failures triggered by removal of tree cover. Slope failures tend to be more persistent sediment sources (MacDonald et al. 1991). Examples of erosion from logging roads and slope failures in the Snow Creek basin are shown in Figure 21. Twelve slope failures were identified in the Snow Creek basin in 1991 (Jones and Stokes Associates 1991). Seven of these may have naturally occurred prior to 1957and were considered to be healing. Five were believed to have occurred after 1980 and were considered active. Four of these were associated with logging roads and one with a landing site. In a 1992 survey of the upper Snow Creek basin, Nelson et al. (1992) cited timber harvesting related causes of erosion including: ineffective waterbars on logging roads, slumping (mass wasting of soil), debris torrents, and debris jams and associated bank undercutting. Based on information on stand age, road density, soils, slope, and !� precipitation within the Snow Creek basin, Nelson et al. (1992) estimated average annual sediment loading to be 0.50 acre feet/square mile, about twice the estimated background level (0.22 acre feet/square mile). TSS data suggests that erosion was occurring between Station SN5 at Snow Creek Road and Station SN4 near Snow Creek Ranch. On December 21,1994, the TSS level at Station SN5 was about 6 times higher than the level at Station SN4. However, this may be because the upstream station was sampled about 4 hours after the downstream station when stream flow was declining. Some observers noted that the water at this upstream station was more turbid on the previous day. More frequent sampling at these two stations during future rain events would help determine the degree of erosion, if any, occurring between these stations. In 1994 and early 1995, Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) personnel and a Jobs for the Environment crew made some improvements to reduce erosion in the Roderick clearcut area (Sec10, T28N, R2W; Michel 1995). Eroded side slopes were revegetated and about five miles of logging spur roads were decomissioned (i.e., allowed to return to a natural, forested condition). To reduce road- a -47- .M 4 .LO N� o U (3) -0 •C O C L a) a) Cc L Oe t6 A♦ L AW' � O U O Oa C Cl) 1 L M a) O o Q a) a) a> L O) O L Vl L L v Z O C/) (D U C)- C O (6 � Y C ca (D 7 U o L O �C c C/) 0),T _O z -0 C/) a> O O L ,N wm (D a) L a) 3 Q) U- mo associated erosion, culverts were removed, water bars installed, and trees and grass were planted. Tank traps were installed to improve drainage and to prevent vehicular access onto spur roads. DNR planned to install a gate to reduce road access. Active roads have been shown to be greater sources of erosion than infrequently used roads (Adams and Ringer 1994). Livestock can also contribute to higher TSS levels. Nelson et al. (1992) reported that lower Snow Creek was impacted by animal access, and that below the Snow Creek Research Station about 50 to 75% of the stream banks were compacted and void of vegetation. Since then, the situation has been improved by fencing and some natural revegetation has occurred. Temperature Water temperature has the greatest impact on salmonids during the hot periods of summer. The optimal range for most salmonids is 12 -140 C (MacDonald et al. 1991). Lethal levels for adults are dependent on such factors as acclimation and duration, but they are generally in the range of 20 -250 C. Salmonid eggs and juveniles are much more sensitive to high temperatures. It is juvenile coho salmon and steelhead trout as well as resident rainbow and cutthroat trout, which are present during the warmer months of the year, that are most likely to be affected by elevated temperatures. Based on an extensive literature review, Ecology is currently (2001) proposing new temperature standards specific to different salmonid species and life stages (Hicks 2000b). For salmonid rearing, 7 -day averages of the daily maximum temperatures are not to exceed the following proposed standards: for resident cutthroat trout, 12 ° C; for salmon, steelhead, and anadromous cutthroat trout, 150 C; and for resident rainbow trout, 18 ° C. Also, part of the standards are single daily maximums: for resident cutthroat trout, 14.5 " C; for salmon, steelhead, and anadromous cutthroat trout, 17.5 0 C; and for resident rainbow trout, 20.5 ° C. Sublethal temperatures can reduce fish growth, and thereby indirectly increase mortality. The highest temperature recorded for Snow Creek in this study was 17° C in July. The highest average daily temperature for the period 1970 to 1990 recorded at the WDFW research station was about 170 C in August (Jones and Stokes Assoc. 1991). Most of Snow Creek is shaded with an overhead canopy of trees and shrubs. The recent fencing on lower Snow creek should result in additional riparian growth, which will provide shading and protective cover. Dissolved Oxygen As a stream cascades down a mountain slope, it is aerated with oxygen. Water holding the maximum amount of dissolved oxygen possible is said to be saturated. Warm water has a lower saturation level than cold water. For instance, the saturation level of 20° C water is 8.8 mg /L, compared to 10.9 mg /L for 10° C water. Aquatic plants add dissolved oxygen to the water by photosynthesis. However, when plants die, their decomposition removes oxygen. Fish and aquatic invertebrates need oxygen, and salmonids require higher levels than most species. The following oxygen concentrations with their corresponding effects on salmonids were reported by the EPA (1986b): -49- 1 1� Concentration (mg /L) Effect 8 No production impairment 6 Slight production impairment 5 Moderate production impairment 4 Severe production impairment 3 Limit to avoid acute mortality Although oxygen levels dipped below the Class AA Standard of 9.5 ppm during the summer months, oxygen levels always exceeded 8 mg /L. Thus, salmonid production (i.e., weight increase per unit time) was not likely adversely affected. Ecology currently (2001) proposed that in salmonid rearing waters 8 mg /L be the minimum allowable dissolved oxygen level (Hicks 2000c). For spawning waters, Ecology proposed a minimum level of 9.0 mg /L from September 15 to May 31, and 8.0 mg /L for the remainder of the year. pH pH is a measure of the water's acidity (pH <7), neutrality (pH = 7), or basicity (pH > 7). The scale of measurement is logarithmic. Thus, a 1 -unit difference represents a 10 -fold change; a 2 -unit difference represents a 100 -fold change, etc. pH can have direct and indirect effects on fish and invertebrates. Fish can generally tolerate a pH range from 5 to 9. However, salmonid reproduction (i.e., hatching success) and invertebrate emergence declines below a pH of 6.5 (MacDonald et al. 1991). EPA (1986b) has set a range of 6.5 to 9.0 to protect aquatic life. All pH measurements on Snow Creek fell within this range and also within the more restrictive Washington Class AA standard criteria of 6.5 to 8.5. The lower the pH, the greater is the potential for dissolved heavy metals, which are toxic to salmonids and aquatic invertebrates. The higher the pH, the greater is the potential for unionized ammonia, which is also toxic to aquatic organisms. Conductivity Conductivity refers to the ability of a substance (e.g., water) to conduct an electric current. The unit of measurement for conductivity is the mho, which is the reciprocal of the ohm, the unit of measurement for resistance (i.e., mho =1 /ohm). The more dissolved ions in the water, the higher the conductivity will be. Because an increase in temperature will increase conductivity, measurements are adjusted to a standard temperature (250 C). The conductivity range for potable water in the United States is 30 to 1500 µmho /cm (MacDonald et al. 1991). Most Pacific Northwest streams have conductivities near the low end of this range. Conductivity measurements in Snow Creek ranged from 48 to 188 µmho /cm. Dry-month conductivity measurements were generally about twice as high as wet -month measurements. Snow Creek values were usually about one -half those for Salmon Creek. -50- Total Suspended Solids Salmon Creek Fecal Coliform Of the streams monitored in 1994, Salmon Creek contributed about 19% of the fecal coliform bacteria entering the bay. Whereas, in the 1988 -89 ambient monitoring study, Salmon Creek contributed 42% of the bay's loading (Rubida 1989). In 1988 -89, loadings in the dry months of June, July, and August were roughly 10 times higher than loadings in the other months. Whereas, in 1994 average loadings were 1.3 times greater in the wet months than in the dry months. These differences could be due to the different monitoring strategies (i.e., "rain event" in 1994 and "ambient" in 1988 -89). Both this study and the 1988 -89 study showed a pattern of increasing concentration from upstream to downstream during both wet and dry periods. The differences were more pronounced during the dry months. In 1988 -89, the average dry- month concentration at downstream Station SA1 (188 FC /100 mL) was 4.3 times higher than for Station SA2 and 6.7 times higher than for Station SA3. In 1994, Station SA1 had an average concentration (863 FC /100 mL), about 15 times greater than Station SA2 and 21 times greater than Station SA3. Like Snow Creek, the lower reach of Salmon Creek flows through pastureland, and cattle feces probably account for much of these differences. During the summer of 1994, over 3600 feet of fencing were installed to exclude cattle from about 1800 feet of Salmon Creek. This effort should reduce fecal coliform concentration and loading considerably. In 1994, the wet -month GMV at Station SA1 (64 FC /100 mL) slightly exceeded the Standard (50 FC /100 mL). In 1988 -89, the wet -month GMV (44 FC /100 mL) at this station met the Standard. As mentioned, small Puget Sound streams show a pattern of having higher fecal coliform levels during the dry period. However, the pasturing of cattle from mid -March to October could also help account for the higher dry-month concentrations. When flooding occurs on Snow Creek, lower Salmon Creek and its adjacent pastureland can be inundated by water from Snow Creek. Thus, reducing the degree of flooding on Snow Creek would also reduce fecal coliform loading from the lower Salmon Creek drainage. Total Suspended Solids Of the streams monitored, Salmon Creek accounted for less than 1 % of the suspended solids entering the bay. Average TSS concentrations were low ( <8 mg /L) during both the wet and dry periods sampled. Even during the high flow months of November and December, TSS levels (15 and 20 mg /L) were substantially less than those for Snow Creek (486 and 284 mg /L). The highest TSS level recorded for Salmon Creek (54 mg /L at Station SA2) occurred on December, an "extra" sampling day. On this date, Snow Creek had a TSS level of 636 mg /L, about 12 times that of Salmon Creek. Based on their 1992 survey, Nelson of al. (1992) reported that, except for bank cutting in some areas, the overall condition of upper Salmon Creek where it flowed through commercial forestland was fairly good. The condition of lower Salmon Creek where livestock had access to the stream was not as good, and sedimentation was impacting chum salmon spawning habitat. A 1994 spawning gravel survey at 14 sites in -51- the lower 1.1 miles of Salmon Creek showed the average percentage of "fines" to be 15.1 % (Bernthal and Rot 2001, Appendix D). This is above the 11 % "target" level, at which Peterson et aL (1992) suggested investigating possible causes. The fencing of cattle from about 1800 feet of lower Salmon Creek should help reduce bank erosion and improve the situation. Houck Creek, which flows into Salmon Creek at about RM 1.0, has been a source of sediment to lower Salmon Creek since it was diverted from its natural course in the early 1960's (see page 55). Temperature Temperature data are too limited to draw any strong conclusions. The highest temperature measured in this study was 18.5 °C in July, which exceeded the Class AA standard. The exclusion of livestock from lower Salmon Creek should allow more riparian growth to occur, and thereby help lower summer temperatures. Tree planting could speed the revegetative process. A stream restoration project on lower Salmon Creek, which includes riparian tree plantings, is currently (2001) proposed. Dissolved Oxygen Except during the summer months, DO levels met the Class AA Standard of 9.5 mg /L. Even during summer, DO levels were always greater than the 8.0 mg /L level recommended by the EPA (1986b) for the complete protection of salmonids. pH All measurements met the Class AA Standards for pH. Salmon Creek readings were generally slightly higher than for Snow Creek. Conductivity Conductivity values for Salmon Creek were about twice the value for Snow Creek. This difference and the slightly higher pH readings probably indicate differences in the soils from the two drainages. Andrews Creek Fecal Coliform Although the differences among average fecal coliform levels for Andrews Creek's three stations were not statistically significant, it is noteworthy that during the wet period upstream Station AND3 had the highest average concentration (121 FC /100 mL). There are a few houses and small number ( <12) of livestock upstream from this station. Wildlife could also be the source of the fecal coliform. Deer were observed near Station AND3 during the study. Rubida (1989) did not observe this wet -month pattern in 1988 -89, when all three stations exhibited low fecal coliform levels (range 6 - 15 FC /100 mL). The more typical pattern of increasing concentration from upstream to downstream occurred both in the1988 -89 and 1994 dry periods, although the 1988 -89 values (range 15 - 89 FC /100 mL) were about half those observed in 1994. Andrews Creek is not a typical stream in that it flows through a lake. Crocker Lake is about 65 acres in size and is situated between Stations AND2 and AND1. The -52- lake could act as a settling basin for suspended solids, to which bacteria are adhering. This could account for the lower wet -month average below Crocker Lake at Station AND1 (24 FC /100 mL) compared to Station AND2 (58 FC /100 mL) above the lake. Davis et al. (1993) offered this explanation for a similar pattern observed for Capitol Lake in Thurston County. Although not due to a lake, a similar situation may have existed between Stations AND3 and AND2. Little gradient exists for this section of Andrews Creek, which parallels Highway 101. With the low gradient, combined with an abundance of in- stream canary grass, this section of stream acted as a settling basin. And, depending on flow, it could have functioned both as a source as well as a sink for bacteria. In 1995, a Department of Transportation (DOT) stream restoration project was completed on 0.4 miles of stream (RM 1.6 -2.0) paralleling Highway 101 immediately upstream from Station AND2. The project included planting trees, removing canary grass, lowering the streambed, and installing sediment basins, meanders, and large woody debris. Prior to this time, the stream sometimes flooded an adjacent, fenced pasture and allowed fecal contaminants to enter the stream. In 1996, another restoration project was completed on a half -mile stream section (RM 0.84 -1.29) immediately upstream from Crocker Lake. The project included channel restoration, sediment and canary grass removal, tree planting, and fencing. These improvements could have contributed to the apparent reductions in fecal coliform concentration and loading observed in 1998 (Figures 19 and 20). At that time the average concentration for the dry-month period (June- October) at Station AND1 was about one quarter of the 1994 average and the 1998 average dry-month loading was about one half of the 1994 dry-month loading. Total Suspended Solids The highest average TSS level for the wet months occurred at Station AND3. Nelson et aL (1992) reported that, between this station and Station AND4 at Snow Creek Road, Andrews Creek flows through a steep - walled, wooded ravine, which appeared to be very unstable. They observed many slides and areas of bank erosion as well as much sediment (sand and gravel) in the stream channel. Logging had occurred up to the edge of the ravine in several areas, but apparently had not occurred in the ravine itself. The team attributed the unstable slopes to the steepness of the ravine and its unconsolidated soils. Based on these conditions, Nelson et al. (1992) predicted that sediment transport from this section of stream would continue for many years. Samples collected at Station AND3 on December 21,1994 revealed a TSS level (53 mg /L) 4.4 times greater than the TSS level at upstream Station AND4 (Snow Creek Road). However, this difference could be because the upstream sample was collected about 4 hours later when the flow was declining. In future monitoring efforts, it would be beneficial to include Station AND4 in the monitoring plan. Of the 16 stations monitored in the dry months, Station AND2 had the highest average TSS level (53 mg /L). However, unlike the more typical suspended solids, which are mostly mineral in content, the suspended material at this station and also at Station AND1 appeared to be primarily decaying vegetation. Stream reaches upstream of these two stations become choked with canary grass during the summer, and it is suspected that the brownish floc observed in the stream was predominantly -53- 1 decaying vegetation. TSS levels at these stations were highest during July, August, and September. Prior to 1995, flooding was not uncommon in the low- gradient section of Andrews Creek that parallels Highway 101 upstream of Station AND2.The change in gradient from moderate to low, combined with dense in- stream canary grass, resulted in the accumulation of sediment in the stream channel. This resulted in water being forced onto adjacent pastureland and sometimes the nearby highway, creating hazardous driving conditions. From a fish's perspective, the 0.4 -mile stream section upstream of Station AND2 had several problems: 1) the accumulation of sediment was detrimental to spawning and invertebrate production; 2) DOT routinely removed bankside vegetation because it was close to the highway; 3) the removal of the woody vegetation encouraged the growth of canary grass; and 4) the channelized profile lacked the pool /riffle diversity preferred by salmonids. As was mentioned in the previous section, a stream restoration ' project in 1995 greatly alleviated these problems. Temperature Temperature measurements were too infrequent to present any strong conclusions. However, a few observations can be made. Stream temperatures in the forested area upstream of Station AND3 should be suitable to salmonids. Summer temperatures in the section downstream of Crocker Lake may not be suitable during warm periods. This section is fed by'surface water from Crocker Lake, which can be warmed considerably (18.50C on July 27,1994) during summer hot spells. Differences of up to 5.00C (April 25,1994) were observed between downstream Station AND1 and Station AND2, upstream of the lake. Some unfenced stream sections in pastureland areas could be improved by excluding livestock. This would encourage riparian growth, which would provide shade and protective cover. Tree planting in the half -mile section upstream from Crocker Lake in 1996 will eventually result in lower temperatures in this section of stream. Dissolved Oxygen Summer DO levels at the two downstream stations (AND1 and AND2) on Andrews Creek were low enough to have caused moderate to severe impairment in salmonid production. The low DO levels were probably caused by a combination of factors: 1) the warmer water at these stations holds less oxygen; 2) the flatter gradient allows for less aeration than occurs in upper Andrews Creek; and 3) the decaying canary grass results in a higher biochemical demand. Possible improvements include establishing riparian cover to provide shade and inhibit canary grass growth, and reducing nutrient input (e.g., livestock feces) to further counteract vegetative growth. DO levels improved after completion of the two restoration projects. In 1994, prior to the 1995 DOT restoration project, summer DO levels ranged from 5.0 -5.5 mg /L at Station AND2. In 1996, one year after the project, DO levels had increased to 8.2 -9.1 mg /L (Gately 1997). DO levels also improved in the half -mile section upstream of Crocker Lake (RM 0.84- 1.29). Prior to the 1996 project, DO levels exhibited a decreasing pattern from 9.7 mg /L at the upstream end of the section to 2.7 mg /L at the downstream end. 1 -54- C! Immediately after completion of the project, DO levels exceeded 8.0 mg /L throughout the entire stream section (Gately 1997). Improvements in both cases were attributed to canary grass removal. via pH pH measurements at upstream Station AND3 always met the Standard. pH measurements were consistently less at the downstream two stations than those at the upstream station and were sometimes below the Standard. One possible explanation for the low pH levels could be the leaching of organic acids from decaying vegetation. Another possibility is the addition of groundwater to the stream, especially to the section paralleling Highway 101 upstream of Station AND2. This section of stream, which runs across the bottom of the hillside and has the compacted soil of Highway 101 on its downslope side, is a natural catchment for any groundwater percolating down the hillside. The addition of groundwater could also help explain the lower DO levels and higher conductivity levels at Station AND2. Groundwater seepages, coming from the upslope side, could be seen entering the stream after the DOT restoration project was completed. These seepages were made apparent by the presence of a reddish -brown material, probably ferric hydroxide, an iron precipitate. Houck Creek Fecal Coliform During the wet months (November -May) of 1988 -89, downstream Station H01 had an average fecal coliform concentration (25 FC /100 mL) about 6 times higher than that for the upstream station (Rubida 1989). In the dry months (June- October), the downstream GMV (127 FC /100 mL), was about 12 times greater than that observed for the upstream site. In 1994 the two stations had almost identical averages (53 and 54 FC /100 mL) for the wet months. In the dry months, the upstream GMV (128 FC /100 mL) was about twice that for the downstream station. There are no houses in the Houck Creek drainage, and therefore domestic animals and /or wildlife would have to be the source of the fecal coliform. Deer are common to the area and were observed near the upstream station during the study. Cattle could also have made a contribution. Although a fence should have prevented the cattle from gaining access to the upper watershed, there was evidence that they had been there. Since the 1988 -89 study, some improvements were made to reduce the fecal coliform contribution from the cattle; the stream was fenced, except for a small area that serves as a cattle crossing. A small pond ( <1 acre), located between Stations H01 and H02, could serve as both a sink (low flow) and a source (high flow) of fecal coliform bacteria. Total Suspended Solids Houck Creek was rerouted in the early 1960's so that it now flows into Salmon Creek roughly about one -half mile farther upstream than it originally did. Since the time Houck Creek was rerouted, its channel has cut back into the hillside, creating a waterfall, before emptying into Salmon Creek (Nelson et al. 1992). Over the years a large amount of sediment has eroded from the hillside and has been transported downstream. Presently, Houck Creek continues to be a source of fine sediment to -55- 1 0 t 1 Salmon Creek. A project is now (2001) underway to address the problem. As evidenced by the green filter papers from the TSS analysis, phytoplankton from the pond contributed to the TSS levels at H01. Temperature Houck Creek is shaded except for about a 300 -foot section in the pasture. However, summer temperature differences of about 4° C were observed at stations upstream and downstream of the pond. The maximum temperature observed at downstream Station H01 was 19.5° C. Houck Creek's minimal summer flow (0.12 cfs, was about 8% of Salmon Creek's. Thus, Houck Creek's warming effect on Salmon Creek is probably minimal. The situation could be improved by establishing some riparian cover along the unshaded portion of stream and pond. Juvenile salmonids were observed in Houck Creek during the summer of 1994. Dissolved Oxygen Houck Creek dissolved oxygen levels were below the Class AA Standard during the summer months. However, DO levels appeared sufficiently high so as not to impair salmonid production. pH All pH measurements met the Class AA Standard. Contractors Creek Fecal Coliform Average fecal coliform levels were low ( <23 FC /100 mQ in both the 1988 -89 study (Rubida 1989) and this study during both the wet- and dry-month periods. Total Suspended Solids Of the streams monitored, average TSS loading from Contractors Creek o represented 0.02% of the loading entering the bay during the wet months and 2% of the loading for the dry months. Nelson et a/. (1992) reported that an old slide above Highway 101 was adding some sediment into the stream from its base. They also reported that the creek's headwaters were heavily impacted by logging and associated road construction, and that sedimentation was occurring in some areas of the stream. As has been mentioned earlier, the highest TSS loadings, which contribute most of the sedimentation to a stream channel, occur on relatively few days. This statement was born out for Contractors Creek on January 1, 1997 when a rain -on -snow event washed out Old Gardiner Road at RM 0.3. From December 29,1996 to January 1, 1997, 4.56 inches of precipitation (measured as rain) was recorded at Center, Washington. Apparently, the culvert at Old Gardiner Road (70 feet below the road surface) became obstructed and water backed up forming a 70 ft. deep "lake," which extended upstream to Highway 101 (RM 0.4) and beyond. On the night of December 31 a portion of the road washed out. The next day, while the Jefferson County road crew tried to relieve the pressure on the remaining roadbed by opening a channel, the whole lake emptied itself. 1 -56- An enormous amount of material from the roadbed and from the valley walls eroded away. Much of the material was deposited on about 1000 linear feet of commercial shellfish tidelands near the mouth of Contractors Creek. Contractors Creek's channel was drastically changed both horizontally and vertically. A waterfall about 10 feet high is now present just downstream of the newly constructed bridge on Old Gardiner Road. In some places the channel may have moved to the side as much as 300 feet and aggraded as much as 20 feet. The aggraded channel between Old Gardiner Road and Highway 101 has caused sediment to accumulate in the Highway 101 culvert. On January 17, 2001 the top of the streambed was 5 inches from the top of the culvert. Thus a dangerous situation exists in which a heavy rain could result in a plugged culvert and the washout of Highway 101. Restoration of the stream channel to alleviate this situation, dangerous to human safety, should be given immediate attention. l Temperature All temperatures taken met the Class AA Standards. ■ Dissolves! Oxygen All DO levels measured met the Standards, except those taken during the summer months. Summer month DO levels were high enough not to impair salmonid production. pH All pH levels met the Standards. Zerr Drain Fecal Coliform Despite the "rain event" sampling strategy used in 1994, which would be expected to yield higher results than the "ambient" sampling conducted in 1988 -89 (Rubida 1989), fecal coliform concentrations at downstream Station ZE1 were less in 1994 than in 1988 -89 both during the wet and dry periods sampled. In 1994, the wet - month GMV was 138 FC 1100 mL compared to 492 FC /100 mL in 1989; and the dry- month GMV was 424 FC /100 mL in 1994 compared to 827 FC /100 mL in 1988 -89. Because the same flows (0.1 cfs) were used in both studies to calculate loading, estimated reductions in loadings would be proportionate to reductions in concentration. Of the streams monitored in 1994, Zerr Drain contributed an estimated 0.01 % of the fecal coliform bacteria to the bay during the wet months and 8% during the dry months. This latter figure may be an overestimate because summer flows may actually have been less than the estimated 0.1 cfs. The observed reductions were most likely due to improvements made by the owner of the hobby farm through which Zerr Drain flows. Conditions should be even better now because there have been no animals on the hobby farm since about 1996. The presence of fecal coliform in samples from upstream Station ZE2a indicates that some bacteria may have been picked up in the wetland between SR20 and the artesian well, the source of Zerr Drain. However, this is uncertain because, although Station ZE2a is located on the upstream boundary of the hobby farm, it was subject to -57- 1 farm animal contamination. In any future studies, it would be better to relocate this station to the upstream side of SR20. A small farm pond on the hobby farm could act as either a sink (low flow) or a source (high flow) of fecal coliform. Total Suspended Solids The suspended solids measured at the two stations on Zerr Drain were not typical suspended sediments of mostly mineral content. The channel at upstream Station ZE2a was densely filled with aquatic vegetation and placing the bottle into the drain usually disturbed a reddish -brown material covering the vegetation. This material could have been ferric hydroxide and associated iron bacteria, not uncommon in water from well sources, or possibly decaying vegetation. TSS samples from downstream Station ZE1 left the filter paper a yellow -green color. Much of the suspended solids at this station are probably phytoplankton, which comes from the farm pond. i Temperature The temperature differences, as much as 10° C, between the upstream and downstream stations can be attributed to the warming of the water in the pond. Zerr Drain flows directly into the bay and the warm temperatures should not pose any problem. Dissolved Oxygen The low dissolved oxygen levels at upstream Station ZE2a are indicative of the drain's groundwater source, which characteristically is void of oxygen. The high, sometimes supersaturated, DO levels measured at Station ZE1 are most likely a result of photosynthesis taking place in the pond. MW pH All but two measurements on Zerr Drain met the Class AA Standard for pH. One measurement at ZE2a (6.3) was slightly low and one at ZE1 was slightly high (8.7). The consistently lower measurements at the upstream station (vs. downstream station) are attributed to the groundwater source, which characteristically contains higher levels of carbon dioxide than surface water and thus results in lower pHs. Conductivity Conductivity in estuaries is greater during high tides due to the mixing with saline water. The variable and often high conductivity measurements at Station ZE1 are attributed to its location in the estuary. On November 30,1994 the water level at the pond's outlet was observed to be higher than the spillway, indicating that Station ZE1 is under tidal influence. Cape George Fecal coliform levels in most of the ditches sampled in the Cape George Community were extremely variable. Furthermore, no clear pattern of higher GMVs in either the wet or dry months could be discerned. High counts of 2,000 or more FC /100 1 -58- u mL occurred at least once in half of the 12 ditches sampled, but it is unknown whether the source is a failing septic system or animal waste. Animal pets are prevalent within the community, as are deer and other wildlife. It would seem as though a failing septic system would result in more consistently high counts, but this is only speculation. The results suggest that during 1994 there was no "huge" problem associated with this densely populated community. The combined loading of the ditches was less than 1 % of that from the tributary streams. Fecal coliform levels in Cape George clam samples were low. Although one cannot draw any strong conclusions based on the results of one day's sampling, at least those results showed low levels of fecal coliform contamination. Beckett Point All the results of the interstitial water sampling, clam sampling, and lagoon sampling for fecal coliform showed minimal fecal coliform contamination. However, one must realize that limited monitoring was conducted over a short time span, and one must be careful not to over - interpret the results. Diamond Point Fecal coliform levels in clams collected along the Diamond Point tidelands in November were low. Again, caution must be exercised not to over - interpret the results. Adelma Beach The north end of Adelma Beach was the only area from which clam samples showed high fecal coliform levels. However, the high levels observed in November were not repeated in December. Winter is often associated with lower fecal coliform levels in shellfish because the colder water causes a reduction in their filtering rate. Variation in fecal coliform levels in shellfish sampled during different seasons has been observed in many areas throughout Puget Sound (Woolrich 1995). As in the other cases, one cannot draw any firm conclusions based on the limited data, but Adelma Beach certainly would be an area to include in any future studies. r Other Discovery Bay Studies Several studies on the marine water of Discovery Bay have shown that the highest fecal coliform levels have occurred near the head (southern end) of the bay. Based on 13 samples taken over a 16 -day period in March 1988, GMVs for the three stations closest to the head of the bay were 7.2, 5.9, and 3.1 MPN /100 mL (Anonymous 1988). Of 16 -17 samples collected in 1988 -89 at head -of -the -bay stations, GMVs were 3.8, 1.6, and 1.2 MPN /100 mL (Rubida 1989). In an ongoing ambient monitoring program conducted by the Department of Health from 1989 to 1994, GMVs for the two stations closest to the head of the bay (sampled 31 times each) were 3.8 and 3.5 MPN /100 mL (Figure 22, DOH unpublished data). During the same period, GMVs for stations near Adelma Beach, Beckett Point, -59- 1 C-Q,pe Ge cry e✓ 91.7 Poilit 1,8 Beckev- 1.7 1.9 D15Cove Bay 1.7 1.7 1.7 �oYS G iec 'OX ro 1 1.7 .? 1.7 1, 7 3.6 a.3 a.6 �rr�Jh�or� G YeeK o Figure 22. Map showing average fecal coliform concentrations (GMVs expressed as FC /100mL) at 21 stations in Discovery Bay sampled from 1989 to 1994. Samples were collected on 28 -31 dates at each of the stations over the 6 -year period. .m Cape George, and Diamond Point (sampled 28 -29 times each) were less than 2.0 MPN /100 mL. During this time, the maximum levels observed at these stations on any one date were: Adelma Beach, 11.0 MPN /100 mL; Beckett Point, 2.0; Cape George, 4.5; and Diamond Point, 2.0. All of these levels met the marine Class AA Standard of 14 FC /100 mL. The slightly elevated levels for those stations closest to the head of the bay were probably due to the fecal coliform loadings from Snow Creek, Salmon Creek, and Zerr Drain. Also, the poorer flushing at the head of the bay probably contributed to the higher concentrations there. t 1 t 1 I -61- 1 A REFERENCES I Acha, P. N. and B. Szyfres. 1980. Zoonoses and communicable diseases common to man and animals. Scientific publication no. 354, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D. C. Adams, P. W. and J. O. Ringer. 1994. The effects of timber harvesting & forest roads on water quantity & quality in the Pacific Northwest: summary and annotated bibliography. Forest Engineering Dept. report, Oregon State University. Anonymous. 1979. Action level for mercury n fish shellfish crustaceans and other ry , aquatic animals. Federal Register 44 (14): 3990 -3993. Anonymous. 1988. Water quality study of Discovery Bay. Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Services, Shellfish Section. APHA 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 17th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. Bell, B. P., M. Goldoft, P. M. Griffin and others. 1994. A multistate outbreak of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 associated bloody diarrhea and hemolytic uremic syndrome from hamburgers /the Washington experience. JAMA 272 (17): 1349 -1353. Bernthal, C. and B. Rot. 2001. Habitat conditions and water quality for selected watersheds of Hood Canal and eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. Technical Report 01 -1. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA. 79p. Bidwell, M. H. and C. B. Kelly, Jr. 1950. Ducks and shellfish sanitation. American Journal of Public Health 40:923 -928. Cederholm, C. J. and L. M. Reid. 1987. Impact of forest management on coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: A project summary. Pages 373 -398 in E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy, editors. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57, Seattle, WA. Cederholm, C. J. 1991. Salmonid spawning gravel composition in landslide affected and unaffected areas of the mainstem and South Fork Hoh River Report for Washington Department of Natural Resources. Chapman, D. W. and K. P. McLeod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the Northern ecoregion. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, 910/9 -87 -162, Seattle, WA. Davis, S., S. Berg, and J. Michaud. 1993. Budd Inlet /Deshutes River Watershed characterization. Part II: water quality study. Thurston County Public 1 -62- Health and Social Services Dept., Environmental Health Division, Olympia, WA. Determan, T. A., J. A. Hoyle, and M.C. McCormick. 1992 Penrose Point/Mayo Cove water quality protection report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Estuary Program. Edington, J. R. 1984. Some observations of fine sediment in gravels of five undisturbed watersheds in southeast Alaska. Pages 109 -114 in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr. and T. A. Hanley, editors. Proceedings, fish and wildlife relationships in old - growth forests symposium. American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, Asheville, NC. EPA, 1986a. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA, 1986b. Quality criteria for water: 1986. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. Entranco. 1993. Lower Skagit River basin water quality study. Prepared for Skagit County Department of Planning and Community Development and Washington State Department of Ecology. Forstner, V. and G. T. W. Wittman. 1983. Metal pollution in the aquatic environment. 2nd ed. Springer - Verlag (eds.), Berlin, Heidelber, New York, Tokyo. 486 p. Gately, G. 1993. Water quality in the Ludlow Watershed, 1991 -92. Jefferson County Planning and Building Department, Port Townsend, WA. Gately, G. 1994. Discovery Bay Watershed /monitoring and quality assurance plan. Grant no. G9200277, amendment no. 1. Jefferson County Conservation District, Port Townsend, WA. Gately, G. 1997. Water Quality Screening Report, November 1995 — June 1997. Water Quality Implementation Grant #95- 02 -IM.. Jefferson County Conservation District, Port Townsend, WA. Harr, R. D. and T. W. Cundy. 1992. The November 1990 floods in western Washington, U. S. A. Internationales Symposium INTERPRAEVENT 1992 -Bern, Tagungspublikation, Band 1, Seite 229 -239. Hatten, J. 1991. The effect of debris torrents on spawning gravel quality in tributary basins and side channels of the Hoh River, Washington. Draft report for the Hoh Indian Tribe. -63- Hicks, M. 2000a. Setting standards for the bacteriological quality of Washington's surface water, draft discussion paper and literature summary. Publication no. 00- 10 -072, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Hicks, M. 2000b. Evaluating criteria for the protection of aquatic life in Washington's surface water quality standards, dissolved oxygen, draft discussion paper and literature summary. Publication no. 00 -10 -071, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Hicks, M. 2000c. Evaluating standards for protecting aquatic life in Washington's surface water quality standards, temperature criteria, draft discussion paper and literature summary. Publication no. 00 -10 -070, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. I Horn, E. G. and L. C. Skinner. 1985. Final environmental impact statement for policy on contaminants in fish. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running water. University of Toronto Press. Jones and Stokes Assoc. 1991. Watershed characteristics and conditions inventory/Pysht River and Snow Creek Watersheds. Timber, fish and wildlife report. TFW- AM10 -91 -001, Bellevue, WA. Ka sner C. A. K. C. Jinneman P. A. Trost C. Ab Y � eyta, Jr, W. E. Hill, and M. M. Wekell. 1994. Survival of Escherichia co/i 0157:1-17 in aquatic and estuarine conditions. Abstract P83, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Las Vegas, NV. jLaws, E. A. 1981. Aquatic pollution. John Wiley and Sons (eds.), New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto. 482 p. Lilja, J. and S. Glasoe. 1993. Uses and limitations of coliform indicators in shellfish sanitation programs. Puget Sound Notes 30;4 -6. MacDonald, L. M., A. W. Smart, and R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Report EPA/910/9 -91 -001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. Michel, W. 1995. Jobs for the Environment Project Coordinator. Personnel communication (interview). Nelson, T., L. Adkins, M. Hoover, J. Heller, B. McIntosh, and T. Granger. 1992. Discovery Bay Watershed, Jefferson and Clallam Counties, Washington. Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team report, Lacey, WA. 1 -64- Peterson, N. P., A. Hendry, and T. P. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid habitat: Some suggested parameters and target conditions. Report TFW -F3 -92 -001, Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Prescott, C. 1995. 1994 Puget Sound Update. Fifth annual report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring program. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. Rubida, P. 1989. Jefferson County ambient water quality report. Jefferson County Planning and Building Department, Port Townsend, WA. Schmitt, C. J., M. A. Ribick, J. L. Ludke, an T. W. May. . National Pesticide Monitoring Program: Organochlorine residues in freshwater fish, 1976 -79. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 152. Sheridan, W. L., M. P. Pevensovich, T. Faris, and K. Koski. 1984. Sediment content of streambed gravels in some pink salmon spawning streams in Alaska. Pages 153 -165 in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr., and T. A. Hanley, editors. Proceedings, fish and wildlife relationships in old- growth forests symposium. American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, Asheville, NC. Smith, W. E. and A. M. Smith. 1975. Minamata. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Smith, T. and S. Glasoe. 1993. The National Shellfish Indicator Study. Puget Sound Notes 30:7 -8. Stelma, Jr., G. N. and L. J. McCabe. 1992. Nonpoint pollution from animal sources and shellfish sanitation. Journal of Food Protection 55 (8): 649 -656. Swerdlow, D. L., B. A. Woodruff, R. C. Brady, P. M. Griffin, S. Tippen, H. D. Donnell, E. Geldreich, B. J. Payne, A. Meyer, Jr., J. G. Wells, K. D. Greene, M. Bright, N. H. Bean, and P. A. Blake. 1992.A waterborne outbreak in Missouri of Escherichia coli 0157:1-17associated with bloody diarrhea and death. Ann. Intern. Med. 117:812 -819. Walker, W. H. 1973. Where have all the toxic chemicals gone? Groundwater 11:2. WDFW and PNPTT. 2000. Appendix 3.6, Summer chum watershed narratives. In: Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative: An implementation plan to recover summer chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca region. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and Point No Point Treaty Tribes. J. Ames, G. Graves and C. Weller, editors. 423 p., + app. -65- � I � I L U n 1 Welch, J. L. and B. Banks. 1987. The Quilcene /Dabob Bays water quality project. Final report, Jefferson County Planning and Building Department, Port Townsend, WA. Wells, J.G., L. D. Shipman, K. D. Greene, and others. 1990. Isolation of Escherichia coli serotype 0157:H7 and other Shiga -like toxin producing E. coli from dairy cattle. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 29:985 -989, Woolrich, B. 1995. Puget Sound ambient monitoring program /Shellfish monitoring tasks /Annual report 1992/93. Washington Dept. of Health, Office of Shellfish Programs, Olympia, WA. Woolrich, B. and D. Garrett. 1995. Puget Sound ambient monitoring program/ shellfish monitoring tasks / annual report 1992/93. Washington Department of Health, Olympia, WA. Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1 -66- t L I ) i] 1 1 I J 1 L� APPENDIX A SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS Table A- 1. Sample station locations on Discovery Bay tributary streams sampled in1988 -89 (Rubida 1989) and in 1994. Station River Mile 1988 -89 1994 Andrews Creek AND1 0.0 Upstream side of Rt. 101 Same culvert, below Crocker Lake AND2 1.6 Rt. 101 culvert About 50 ft. upstream above Crocker Lake of same culvert AND3 2.2 Upstream side of About 300 ft. upstream Boulton Drive culvert of same culvert AND4 3.8 Not sampled Downstream side of Snow Creek Road culvert Contractors Creek CT1 0.1 Near mouth About 500 ft. at Carr Point upstream of mouth CT2 0.4 Upstream side of . Same Rt. 101 culvert Houck Creek HO1 0.0 Vicinity of mouth About 50 ft. upstream (not pinpointed) of mouth; next to Wild Olympic Salmon egg incubation station H02 0.1 10 ft. upstream of pasture Same fence, next to concrete cistern Salmon Creek SA1 0.1 Rt. 101 bridge About 600 ft. upstream of same bridge; above tidal influence SA2 0.7 Downstream side of Upstream side of West Uncas Rd. culvert same culvert SA3 1.0 About 330 ft, upstream of Same confluence with Houck Creek C:\My DocumentAMONITOMDisco ReportUsco text\DBTABLE A- Irev.doc A -1 Table A -1. Continued. STATION 1988 -89 1994 Snow Creek SN 1 0.2 At creek mouth, near Upstream side of abandoned railway trestle same trestle SN2 1.6 Downstream side of Beneath same West Uncas Rd. bridge bridge SN3 3.5 About 15 ft. upstream of Same confluence with Andrews Creek SN4 4.4 About 3000 ft. upstream of Snow Same general Creek Ranch (not pinpointed) vicinity SN5 7.0 Not sampled About 100 ft. upstream of Snow Creek Road culvert Zerr Drain ZE1 0.2 Downstream side of Upstream side of abandoned railway trestle same trestle ZE2 0.3 At wellhouse where Not sampled drain originates ZE2a 0.3 Not sampled Downstream side of SR20, about 150 ft. downstream of ZE2 C.*\My DocumentAMONITORTisco ReportUsco text\DBTABLE A- Irev.doc A -2 Table A -2. Sample station locations on ditches in the Cape George Community monitored in 1994. Station Location 1 Dug out pool across from house at 33 Fir PI. 2 Dug out pool across from house at 430 Dennis Blvd. (telephone pole no. 640488). 3 Upstream side of driveway culvert at 451 Dennis Blvd. 4 Storm water collection box near 261 Dennis Blvd. (Near Marine View Pl.) Box has two inflow pipes; sampled only one of them, the one closest to yellow fire hydrant ( east side). 5 Culvert about 200 yards north of parking area at bottom of Marine Dr. End of culvert is on bluff about 10 feet above ground level. 6 Flow down side of bluff about 50 feet north of Station 5. 7 Culvert across from 400 Sunset Dr. 8 Twenty -four inch concrete culvert on beach near picnic / parking area off Coleman Rd. 10 Culvert to driveway at 491 Sunset Blvd. 11 Downstream side of culvert at intersection of Coleman Dr. and Coleman PI. 12 Culvert at intersection of South Palmer Dr. and Dungeness PI. 13 Culvert at intersection of South Palmer Dr. and Queets PI. A -3 t 1 1 u 1 1 t ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS t tTable B -1. List of acronyms and abbreviations. 1 t 11 1 1 1 �I cfs cubic feet per second DBWMC Discovery Bay Water Management Committee DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources DO dissolved oxygen DOH Washington Department of Health DOT Washington Department of Transportation EPA Environmental Protection Agency FC Fecal Coliform fines fine sediment (less than 0.85 mm diameter) gm gram GMV geometric mean value HUS hemolytic uremic syndrome JCCD Jefferson County Conservation District m /L milligrams per liter (equal to m) MM millimeter (one thousandth of a meter) mmho milli mho (one thousandth of a mho) MPN most probable number NSSP National Shellfish Sanitation Program NTU ne helometric turbidity unit P probability PPM arts per million (equal tom /L) PSCRBT Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team QA /QC Quality ssurance/Quality Control RM river mile RSD relative standard deviation (equal to coefficient of variation) TSS total suspended solids umhos micro mho (one millionth of a mho) WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 0 degrees Celsius (or degrees Centigrade) OF degrees Fahrenheit B -1 t t t APPENDIX C QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL Table C -1. Quality control field replicate results for parameters reported in this study; "Dif." is the absolute difference between replicate values and "RSD" is the relative standard deviation in percent. Temoerature ( °C) DATE Site Rep.1 Rep.2 Dif. RSD 1/31/94 AND1 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1/31/94 SN 1 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 2/16/94 CT2 4.7 4.6 0.1 1.1 2/16/94 ZE1 6.0 6.01 0.0 0.0 3/23/94 AND1 7.6 7.7 0.1 0.7 3/23/94 ZE1 5.8 6.0 0.2 1.7 5/16/94 SN1 12.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 5/16/94 ZE1 19.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 6/1/94 SA1 13.1 12.91 0.2 0.8 6/1/94 SN1 13.8 13.7 0.1 0.4 7/27/94 AND1 18.5 18.5 0.0 0.0 7/27/94 ZE1 21.9 22.3 0.4 0.9 8/29/94 CT2 12.9 12.7 0.2 0.8 9/28/94 SA2 13.4 13.31 0.1 0.4 10/26/94 SA1 9.3 9.3 0.0 0.0 10/26/94 SA2 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 11130/94 HO 1 6.4 6.3 0.1 0.8 11/30/94 SN3 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 12/21/94 AND2 6.0 5.9 0.1 0.8 12/21/941 H02 6.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 Conductivitv (umho) DATE Site Rep.1 Rep.2 Dif. RSD 1/31/94 AND1 83 85 2 1.2 1/31/94 SN 1 109 109 0 0.0 2/16/94 CT2 228 234 6 1.3 2/16/94 ZE1 1560 15601 0 0.0 3/23/94 AND1 73 72 1 0.7 3/23/94 ZE1 799 810 11 0.7 5/16/94 SN1 116 117 1 0.4 5/16/94 ZE1 985 982 3 0.2 6/1/94 SA1 242 2421 0 0.0 6/1/94 SN1 135 1371 2 0.7 7/27/94 AND1 100 99 1 0.5 7/27/94 ZE1 471 474 3 0.3 8/29/94 CT2 279 284 5 0.9 9/28/94 SA2 349 350 1 0.1 10/26/94 SA1 294 2891 5 0.9 10/26/94 SA2 292 299 7 1.2 11/30/94 H01 171 165 6 1.8 11/30/94 SN3 55 55 0 0.4 12/21/94 AND2 39 41 2 2.7 12/21/941 H021 721 711 1 1.0 Fecal Coliform (FC /100mL)1 DATE Site Rep.1 Rep.2 Dif. RSD 1/31/94 AND 1 1 1 0 2.1 1/31/94 SN 1 2 2 0 0.0 2/16/94 SA1 21 17 4 3.6 2/16/94 ZE1 21 15 61 5.8 4/25/94 SA1 300 83 217 12.7 4/25/94 SN1 32 30 2 0.9 5/16/94 CT1 64 60 4 0.8 5/16/94 ZE1 57 62 5 1.0 6/1/94 SA1 148 ' 162 14 0.9 6/1/94 SW 570 833 263 2.9 7/27/94 AND1 183 133 50 3.2 7/27/94 ZE1 380 423 43 0.9 8/29/94 CT1 48 32 16 5.5 8/29/94 SA1 1167 1500 333 1.7 9/28/94 AND1 147 123 24 1.8 9/28/94 H01 3 3 0 0.0 10/26/94 SA1 100 67 33 4.5 10/26/94 SN1 400 330 70 1.6 11/30/94 AND1 13 15 2 2.7 11/30/94 CT1 20 15 5 5.0 12/21/94 SA1 24 33 9 4.8 12/21/94 SN1 53 69 16 3.2 niccnIuPd Oxvnen (ma /l-) DATE Site Rep.1 Rep.21 Dif. RSD 1/31/94 AND 1 9.3 9.71 0.4 2.1 1/31/94' /31 /94 SN 1 13.5 12.51 1.0 3.8 2/16/94 CT2 10.8 10-91 0.1 0.5 2/16/94 ZE1 1 13.9 14.8 0.9 3.1 3/23/94 AND1 10.5 10.8 0.3 1.4 3/23/94 ZE1 13.4 13.7 0.3 1.1 6/1/94 SA1 12.3 12.2 0.1 0.4 6/1/94 SN1 9.3 9.21 0.1 0.5 7/27/94 AND1 3.7 3.6 0.1 1.4 7/27/94 ZE1 11.4 9.3 2.1 10.1 8/29/94 CT2 8.9 9.0 0.1 0.6 9/28/94 SA2 10.0 9.8 0.2 1.0 10/26/94 SA1 1 10.3 10.5 0.2 1.0 10/26/94 SA2 10.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 11/30/94 H01 11.4 11.5 0.1 0.4 11/30/94 SN3 12.1 12.0 0.1 0.4 12/21 /94 AND2 11.1 11.0 0.1 0.5 12/21 /94 H02 11.9 11.8 0.1 0.4 RSD is based on the log of the fecal coliform concentration. C -1 RSDs Final 216/01 Table C -1 (continued) Turbiditv (NTU) DATE Site Rep.1 Rep.21 Dif. RSD 1/31/94 AND1 12.0 12.01 0.0 0.0 1/31/94 SN 1 4.3 4.41 0.1 1.1 2/16/94 SA1 7.4 7.5 0.1 0.7 2/16/941 ZE1 22.0 21.0 1.0 2.3 3/23/94 AND1 3.6 4.0 0.4 5.3 3/23/94 ZE1 16.0 15.0 1.0 3.2 4/25/94 SA1 3.6 4.51 0.9 11.1 4/25/94 SW 4.7 4.5 0.2 2.2 5/16/94 CT1 19.0 18.0 1.0 2.7 5/16/94 ZE1 16.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 6/1/94 SA1 2.4 2.6 0.2 4.0 6/1/94 SN1 5.2 4.71 0.5 5.1 7/27/94 AND1 13.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 7/27/94 ZE1 12.0 14.0 2.0 7.7 8/29/94 CT1 6.1 6.2 0.1 0.8 8/29/94 SA1 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 9/28/941 AND1 23.0 18.01 5.0 12.2 9/28/94 HO1 5.0 4.2 0.8 8.7 10/26/94 SA1 3.0 3.2 0.2 3.2 10/26/94 SN1 6.7 7.3 0.6 4.3 11/30/94 AND1 4.6 4.7 0.1 1.1 11/30/94 CT1 7.0 6.81 0.2 1.4 12/21/94 SA1 19.0 19.01 0.0 0.0 12/21/94 SN1 280.0 270.0 10.0 1.8 nH (units) DATE Site Rep.1 Rep.21 Dif. RSD 5/16/94 SN1 6.9 7.0 0.1 0.7 5/16/94 ZE1 7.3 7.4 0.1 0.7 6/1/94 SA1 8.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 6/1/94 SN1 1 7.7 7.7 0.01 0.0 7/27/94 AND1 6.6 6.6 0.11 0.5 7/27/94 ZE1 7.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 8/29/94 CT2 7.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 9/28/94 SA2 7.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 10/26/94 SA1 1 7.6 7.71 0.1 0.4 10/26/94 SA2 7.8 7.81 0.0 0.0 11/30/94 HO1 7.4 , 7.4 0.0 0.0 11/30/94 SN3 7.3 7.2 0.0 0.1 12/21/94 AND2 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 12/21/941 H021 6.9 6.9 0.01 0.0 Total Susoended Solids (ma /L) DATE Site Rep.1 Rep.2 Dif. RSD 1/31/94 AND1 8.2 6.2 2.0 13.9 1/31/94 SN1 2.8 1.8 1.0 21.7 2/16/94 SA1 3.8 3.4 0.4 5.6 2/16/94 ZE1 20.41 19.5 0.9 2.3 3/23/94 AND1 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 3/23/94 ZE1 10.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 4/25/94 SA1 2.2 4.0 1.8 29.0 4/25/94 SN1 3.6 3.81 0.2 2.7 5/16194 CT1 18.2 18.41 0.2 0.5 5/16/94 ZE1 14.4 13.21 1.2 4.3 6/1/94 SA1 3.6 2.6 1.0 16.1 6/1/94 SN1 5.4 3.8 1.6 17.4 7/27/94 AND1 19.6 14.7 4.9 14.3 7/27/94 ZE1 15.8 17.2 1.4 4.2 8/29/94 CT1 5.4 5.01 0.4 3.8 8/29/94 SA1 2.4 2.01 0.4 9.1 9/28/94 AND1 21.6 17.0 4.6 11.9 9/28/94 HO1 5.4 2.4 3.0 38.5 10/26/94 SA1 2.4 3.6 1.2 20.0 10/26/94 SN1 6.2 7.0 0.8 6.1 11/30/94 AND1 2.4 2.01 0.4 9.1 11/30/94 CT1 6.0 4.8 1.2 11.1 12/21/94 SA1 20.4 20.0 0.4 1.0 12/21/94 SN1 284.4 364.8 80.4 12.4 ' RSD is based on the log of the fecal coliform concentration. C-2 RSDs Final 3/19/01 Table C -2. Quality control field replicate results for fecal coliform samples collected at Cape George. "Dif." is the absolute difference between replicate values and "RSD" is the relative standard deviation in percent (based on the log of the value). FPCAI Cnlifnrm tram V1—i 1 DATE Site Rep.1 Rep.2 Dif. RSD 2/28/94 CG5 61 55 6 1.3 4/20/94 CG5 13 15 2 2.7 7/25/94 CG4 577 446 131 2.1 8/24/94 CG4 667 785 118 1.2 9/26/94 CG7 2 1 1 100.0 12/7/94 CG4 93 70 23 3.2 11 f] t IC -3 RSDs Final(CG) 2/6/07 Table C -3. Quality control check standard and blank results for total suspended solids. Analysis Date Type of Check Standard True Value (m /L) Measured Value (m /L) Difference (mg /L) Recovery % 2/4/94 Lab 60.3 57.2 -3.1 95 2/4/94 Lab 1 60.3 57.8 -2.5 96 2117/94 Lab 60.3 57.4 -2.9 95 2/17/94 Lab 60.3 56.4 -3.9 94 3/24/94 Lab 60.3 58.4 -1.9 97 3/24/94 Lab 60.3 58.8 -1.5 98 4/26/94 EPA 46.2 42.4 -3.8 92 4/26/94 EPA 46.2 50.0 3.8 108 4/26/94 EPA 23.9 22.8 -1.1 95 4/26/94 EPA 23.9 25.0 1.1 1 105 4/26/94 Lab 60.3 59.8 -0.5 99 4/26/94 Lab 60.3 60.4 0.1 100 5/17/94 Lab 60.3 59.4 -0.9 99 5/17/94 Lab 60.3 62.0 1.7 103 6/2/94 Lab 60.3 58.6 -1.7 97 7/28/94 Lab 60.3 58.0 -2.3 96 7/28/94 Lab 60.3 58.2 -2.1 97 8/30/94 Lab 60.3 58.2 -2.1 97 8/30/94 Lab 60.3 58.0 -2.3 96 9/29/94 Lab 60.3 58.2 -2.1 97 9/29/94 Lab 60.3 57.0 -3.3 95 10/28/94 Lab 60.3 57.8 -2.5 96 10/28/94 Lab 60.3 58.0 -2.3 96 1211/94 Lab 60.3 56.8 -3.5 94 1211/94 Lab 60.3 59.0 -1.3 98 12/22/94 Lab 60.3 58.4 -1.9 97 12/22/941 Lab 60.3 1 60.2 -0.1 100 Analysis Date Blank (mg /L) 2/4/94 0.4 2/17/94 0.0 2/17/94 0.4 3/24/94 -0.2 3/24/94 0.0 4/26/94 -0.4 4/26/94 0.4 5/17/94 0.2 5/17/94 0.0 6/2/94 0.6 6/2/94 0.6 7/28/94 0.2 7/28/94 0.6 8/30/94 0.4 8/30/94 0.4 9/29/94 -0.6 9/29/94 0.4 10/28/94 0.8 10/28/94 0.4 12/1/94 -0.6 12/1/94 -1.0 12/22/94 -0.8 12122/94 0.0 Ci 1 t 0 t C' t 1 1 t C -4 QC checks Sheet2 2/5/01 1 t i, li 1 t 1 t �l 1] 1 1 APPENDIX D MONITORING DATA t C N a M M U N L ^O W U W CL cu U C O Cl) C O Ca U) L 3 O c O] cu O O L c U C O U E L O U (D U N L.L c- , N .Q N D -1 . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . • . • . • . • . • . • . • : • . • . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . logo........ ........... . . ....... :. loll 1111111 1 11111 111 1111111 loll Iloilo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . loll .. • • • 111101M • . • • •I • • 1111111 . . 11111 . . . . . . . . . . D -1 � o N � � r 3 N - co p N O O N c Q O E cu C co cu Z c to CL U O O tII E cu cu O O L �3 c U E N tII ch O r (6 O O C = CU N O (n 3 0 N 'j r E 00 O -0 E co U � c aa) CU U N a 0 c- c O o c �U U O c a. O E � L O � _ cu O U O (u LL N E N �O O vim- "= U cU Q- -co (u cu Co cu U �- co N A ±_+ E r+ V � tiMlC 1�- �f'Od"�- r�00MMNi�rOO1`QONI` �rooair= o�o��000000��00000 'C v to LO to to to LO 0 w w LO w u) 0 w wu-) 0 0 O E U -C U o_ 0-0 ' - (N Mlq- U)(01-00OOrNMd- Lo (Di--MOO O 4-- O � J � cu c0 N U) _ V C V A N v V r- t() U) N V 00 v Z a LL L N Nt (0 00 0 NIT(D00o r T- r- e- N O O +� 06 0060 -00000 O rCV) lnl-�c -M�Il- 0 O co r r r r r J D -2 n 1 t t t 1 u f 1 �I t I 1 'J P4 O L- 4- .a N U O O U C4 O Q cu U) 2 O CL U t N cc U ca- Cl) C O Rf O c O U O v_- 0) O C) O co a) tQ -Q U >, N CU ll- m M L � j ^O 'O cu F D -3 O C CL p o O g �a�M o 0 D cl a1 co 00 �C" Ntn WO O C ' cMM0)M O C to U mU Q CD d w Q .^ 4) o 7 O N N y O M M CD y v W d �U 0. �U w 0 a Z Y =pOpp W.YSOOpO D a O O O Q ) a M M M M to Q4) l4 E ods o o 0 M 0 £ �Ol� 'At 0) r-° rr V- CAM Nr 0 W a E �a oa U Z .c t c F cc It W J is � yrr m V) C) or �+ Z cc O £ y rn ACM cps O �M M UCD J Q U� 0 Q W = N N � O C o N r- Zr U U U J N 01 U U L L U 0 V N U o` L U U Q: ai — di CD !r \� d Qm Qi y — Cl) = W r_ N C y N (D (D O d N 4) 5 N Q M� W MM� W zz in MM5 W ~ N _ JJ JJ 4f d '- cc `ct W -0- a� � + d � "r a 0 a> � °' v °' ao rn °' v CD °' � Im co rn Q r r N � cac G T T 00 lE r r r r T r w r r r T r CV (n T r r D -3 Cn r Lu t l� N .Q a Lu Ql tll 0 U E O U _O O U a) .c O 4- Cn U cu U) C II) N Lu c ai N N iz E LU m Lis 'a c .r E OeM-N - CVMcco 2 d LO W co vs co o d a� L O = tog r0a COCOLo M chM Mr- ~N COO M ~O N� 4) '�MtO� LO co CL a R U as Ut ONr'CN'M WM NOMcOl� Lo aw v Co to U Y C W U,) C) Dco N CO U,) ~ MGo O U') co C) M r �ONO�� .0 v ttt d � mtCO�NMN r- a -�MtO� LO ��MCO� e- r Ce- r,c?)co06 e�- `OMCOr,� a) Q t V R d m �I M � �t~ ►O Cn ►O�O�M ��CrJ 0A r to N U) M l0 N O) f` tO N et M r -�MCDI- a -Nr co a) Q O p N N d0 d0 N N M N U Nt E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ,= E E E E c E E E E Z E E E E c EEE E c EEE E a�ECDCDC �Ea)a)c NE a)a)c E a)OC c,E a)�c E CD 4) +� N 4). N N N N p N N N to N p +, N to N U) N to O . N N N N N N O +. _N to N [n N N O :. N to N N N O y E E > a) — E E > w — N EE> cu — N •� EE'> cu —`�EE> N •— cu a) —rEE> N ._ cu to E cc�w C13 E Ea E ccc cc E E v E ca EEC E c: cc EEC a) E ccca) cu EEC E ccca) cc E E� to .F cc U) c Ui _ c (n in a cu cu cc w N d a 0 0) (c 0) C ) Cu O — U U C a) C. N aD ) Qa) ) _ ; U 00 a) a) Cu � C �J �_1�' rm� CN = N N co) Ca r_j rJci m r � LJ 1 [1 t t 1 1 Table D -5. Parameters sampled at stations on Discovery Bay tributary streams in 1994. Sam,olina times for temperature, dissolved ox en H and conductiv' . Date AND1 AND2 I AND3 I CT1 CT2 I H01 I H02 I SA1 1 SA2 I SA3 I SN1 I SN2 jSN3 SN4 ZE1 ZE2a 1131194 1002 936 1 945 1 1516 11118 11131 11330 11157 11253 11423 11040 11016 1857 11410 1447 2116194 1230 1220 1155 2.9 1513 11310 11320 11450 11423 11400 11545 11255 11240 1130 '1554 1540 3123194 1325 1245 1305 2.4 1000 1426 1445 1605 1540 1515 1055 1355 1343 11155 1038 1025 4125194 1305 1150 1245 9.0 1015 1505 1445 1420 140D 1530 1055 1345 11305 11325 1100 1 1105 5116194 1400 1340 1350 1 10.0 11025 1450 1445 1545 1140 1120 1520 11200 11400 1 1425 1520 1515 611194 1210 1130 1150 10.7 1000 1236 1315 1440 1500 11340 11536 11225 11215 11040 1525 1532 7127194 1508 1350 1403 15.2 1015 1159 1217 1318 1300 11130 15.4 11045 11335 11518 16.6 11425 11052 1035 8129194 1300 1227 1245 14.3 1035 1330 1355 1500 1445 11423 15.4 115.2 1007 1320 1310 1145 1015 1000 9128194 1228 1155 1205 127 1125 1510 1519 1628 1612 1550 1430 1413 1230 1345 1450 1438 10/26/94 1133 1105 1120 8.7 1235 11305 11320 11400 8.9 1253 1022 1433 1342 1137 1210 1440 1427 11/30/94 1226 1138 1157 1 1923 11255 113D6 11342 6.7 1321 1018 1410 11242 5.6 1230 1115 1418 1406 12121194 1 1353 1213 1226 1 1930 11416 1 1424 11552 6.7 1512 1100 10D0 11407 5.6 1359 1155 5.4 TEMPERATURE Idearees cenficy rade Date AND1 AND2 AND3 CT1 CT2 H01 H02 SA1 SA2 SA3 SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4 ZE1 ZE2a 1131194 OS 0.0 0.4 2.6 0.9 1.2 2.0 1.0 0.8 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 4.3 2116194 3.9 3.5 2.9 4.7 3.8 4.2 4.3 3.9 3.8 4.4 3.7 2.9 2.7 6.0 6.6 3123194 7.6 3.7 2.4 2.1 4.3 4.6 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.1 5.0 3.1 2.2 5.8 3.9 4125194 15.0 10.0 9.0 7.6 9.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 12.0 9.0 111.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 6116194 15.0 11.0 1 10.0 7.7 1 10.0 13.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 112.0 110.0 10.0 19.0 120 611194 147 10.9 10.7 1 7.8 10.2 143 12.6 13.1 11.9 11.4 13.8 111.9 110.9 10.3 21.7 12.4 7127194 18.5 16.6 15.2 7.9 123 19.4 15.5 18.5 15.4 14.3 14.8 16.6 17.1 17.1 21.9 10.7 8129194 14.9 14.8 14.3 7.8 12.9 19.5 15.5 17.3 15.4 115.2 9.2 15.0 15.5 15.0 14.5 18.7 12.4 9128194 14.2 12.3 127 8.0 11.6 16.5 13.6 15.9 13.4 1 13.2 14.1 13.8 13.0 13.5 21.0 10.5 10/26/94 10.5 9.8 8.7 7.9 9.3 9.4 8.9 9.3 9.0 9.1 9.8 9.5 8.8 8.8 10.8 9.7 11130194 5.8 6.2 5.8 79 6.9 6.4 6.7 6.2 6.0 5.7 5.6 5.2 5.0 4.8 7.5 8.7 1?J21t94 6.2 6.0 6.0 7.7 6.0 6.4 6.7 6.2 6.1 5.6 5.6 6.1 5.6 5.4 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MOIL) Date Date AND1 AND2 AND3 CT1 CT2 H01 H02 SA1 SA2 SA3 SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4 ZE1 ZE2a 1131194 9.3 10.7 12.7 13.5 12.9 13.4 14.4 13.9 13.8 13.5 13.5 14.5 14.0 19.2 5.7 2116194 9.9 9.8 10.7 10.8 11.7 10.6 11.3 11.3 11.4 10.9 11.8 12.5 11.3 13.9 7.1 3123194 10.5 10.8 12.1 11.9 12.1 11.4 11.6 11.8 12.2 12.7 12.0 12.4 12.2 13.4 7.0 4125194 6.1 6.8 7.6 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.4 6.8 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.2 6.5 5116194 $116194 6.2 6.9 7.7 1 7.1 7.1 7.5 7.2 7.3 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.3 6.3 611194 611194 7.5 9.1 1 127 1 7.8 10.3 10.6 1 11.6 112.3 13.1 1 11.3 9.3 10.6 12.6 11.0 11.2 5.5 7127194 3.7 5.5 8.3 7.9 8.8 7.5 13.4 9.2 8.6 13.5 14.1 8.1 8.8 8.6 111.4 1.3 8129194 5.5 5.0 7.8 7.8 8.9 6.7 8.6 9.9 8.8 9.2 8.9 8.5 9.4 9.0 6.3 0.1 9128194 6.1 5.4 7.4 8.0 8.8 7.0 9.4 8.8 10.0 9.8 9.2 8.6 9.5 9.3 10.0 0.9 10/26194 7.5 6.8 9.6 7.9 10.2 10.5 10.6 10.3 10.3 10.7 9.8 9.9 10.5 11.0 10.8 1.4 11/30194 9.3 10.1 11.0 79 12.0 11.4 11.2 11.8 111.8 7.9 12.5 11.4 11.8 12.1 13.1 8.8 0.6 12121/94 1 10.8 11.1 12.0 7.7 12.2 112.4 6.9 11.9 12.2 112.3 7.6 13.7 13.2 12.4 12.3 12.1 fl units Date AND1 AND2 AND3 CT1 CT2 H01 H02 SA1 SA2 SA3 S SN2 SN3 SN4 ZE7 ZE2a 1131194 2116194 3123194 4125194 6.2 6.1 6.8 7.6 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.4 6.8 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.2 6.5 5116194 5.8 6.2 6.9 7.7 1 7.1 7.1 7.5 7.2 7.3 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.3 6.3 611194 6.7 6.7 7.5 1 7.8 7.7 8.1 1 8.3 8.0 8.1 7.7 7.6 7.9 7.8 8.7 6.9 7127194 6.6 6.9 7.3 7.9 7.2 7.8 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.8 7.9 7.6 6.9 8129194 6.7 6.7 7.3 7.8 7.4 8.0 8.3 8.0 8.1 7.5 7.5 7.9 1 7.9 1 7.4 6.9 9128194 7.0 6.8 7.3 8.0 7.3 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.6 7.6 8.0 1 7.9 1 8.1 6.9 10/26/94 6.9 6.6 7.5 7.9 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.8 8.0 7.4 7.3 7.7 7.6 1 7.8 6.8 1,00/94 6.8 6.6 7.0 79 7.4 7.3 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.5 6.9 12121194 6.4 6.5 6.7 7.7 7.0 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 6.8 6.9 7.2 D -5 Table D -5 (cont'd). Parameters sampled at stations on Discovery Bay tributary streams in 1994. 1 rY Y rY CONDUCTMTY umho %m Date AND1 I AND2 I AND3 I CT1 I CT2 H01 H021 SA1 I SA2 I SA3 I SN1 I SN2 I SN3 I SN4 I ZE1 I ZE2a1 1131194 83 1 82 76 1 1 237 154 120 1 215 1 210 1 211 1 109 1 103 1 102 1 96 1 1900 1 360 2116194 81 1 80 67 1 1 228 141 106 1 196 1 194 1 195 1 98 1 93 1 94 1 90 11560 1 301 3123194 73 1 66 63 4.5 202 110 93 163 163 164 93 91 84 85 799 238 4126194 75 1 69 68 7.0 246 146 105 200 200 200 1 102 1 100 93 92 11241 1 363 6116194 80 1 87 72 19.0 258 172 123 227 229 230 116 114 101 101 1 985 1 359 611194 74 1 81 1 63 8.7 263 187 1 151 242 243 244 135 110 105 110 945 370 7127194 100 1 127 100 3.6 280 1 207 1 170 323 314 323 154 151 147 1 145 471 357 =9194 127 1 175 131 6.1 279 211 1 191 341 342 339 182 179 170 1 170 445 395 9128194-F 116 1 166 1 150 1 4.7 278 207 192 338 349 353 184 164 184 188 425 369 101261" 86 149 1 98 1 3.3 270 206 209 294 292 303 142 128 124 129 392 1 348 11/30194 83 68 1 57 1 7.0 232 171 107 272 251 255 67 59 55 55 6940 324 12/21/94 67 1 39 1 38 1 1 264 1 91 1 72 125 1 122 1 118 66 61 51 48 207.4 TURBIDITY Date AND1 I AND2 I AND3 I CT1 I CT2 I H01 I H021 SA1 SA2 I SA3 I SN1 I SN2 I SN3 I SN4 I ZE1 I ZE2a 1131194 12.0 3.7 1 3.2 1 3.3 1 3.6 1 9.8 111.0 1 3,0 1 2.5 1 2.2 4.3 1 3.7 1 3.8 1 3.5 127.0 6.4 2116194 6.0 9.7 1 9.0 7.0 1 6.2 1220 121.0 1 7.4 1 5.3 1 4.6 12.0 14.0 132.0 131.0 22.0 11.0 3123194 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.5 1 5.3 118.0 13.0 1 6.5 1 3.6 2.2 4.9 4.3 1 5.0 1 3.0 16.0 6.2 4126/94 6.8 7.3 3.8 7.0 1 4.4 12.0 10.0 1 3.6 1 2.8 2.8 4.7 4.8 1 3.8 3.8 10.0 13.0 6116194 11.0 6.3 10.0 19.0 1 9.2 110.0 16.0 1 5.0 1 6.9 7.2 14.0 7.0 8.0 20.0 16.0 1 10.0 611194 11.0 7.0 3.4 8.7 114.0 7.5 7.5 2.4 1 4.0 3.0 5.2 3.2 2.6 2.7 36.0 1 6.8 7127194 13.0 115.0 1.2 3.6 1 8.0 46.0 29.0 4.2 1 3.2 2.6 3.5 1 2.6 2.2 11.0 112.0 1 38.0 8129194 24.0 87.0 1 8.1 6.1 22-0 5.0 8.1 2.8 2.4 2.3 29 A 40 5.4 137.0 132.0 57.6 230.0 9128194 23.0 80.0 2.2 4.7 6.8 5.0 4.6 9.4 3.4 1.8 2.6 2.3 1.7 8.0 132.0 6.0 6.9 10/26/94 8.3 18.0 4.3 3.3 13.0 5.4 12.0 3.0 3.3 3.1 6.7 3.6 3.8 3.8 14.0 23.0 11/30/84 4.6 30.0 103.3 7.0 17.0 32.0 14D.0 19.0 19.0 21.0 460.0 1320.0 486.4 340.0 330.0 17.0 140.0 12121/94 33.0 25.0 39.0 12.0 120 166.0 133.0 119.0 27.7 20.0 14.0 280.0 1240.0 284.4 190.0 150.0 207.4 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION m Date AND1 AND2 ANDS CT1 CT2 I H01 H02 I SA1 I SA2 SA3 I SN1 I SN2 I SN3 SN4 ZE1 ZE2a 1131194 8.2 1.0 0.2 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.8 1.6 1 1.6 1 1.8 24.5 1 4.0 2116194 3.0 5.6 5.4 7.0 7.8 6.0 5.4 3.8 3.6 2.8 14.0 17.8 140.2 141.6 20.4 1 19.5 3123194 1.8 1.4 1.4 5.2 5.2 5.6 3.2 2.8 1.6 1.0 3.2 2.2 3.2 1.6 10.4 1 2.6 4126194 5.8 5.8 1.0 7.4 2.8 4.0 3.2 2.2 1.2 2.4 3.6 3.4 3.4 4.0 14.6 13.6 6116194 6.4 5.0 9.0 18.2 11.2 5.0 7.6 3.4 6.4 6.2 15.0 5.2 6.6 28.6 14.4 9.4 611194 6.0 4.2 2.6 7.6 13.4 7.6 4.8 3.6 3.2 1 2.6 5.4 3.0 2.6 3.6 45.5 4.8 7127194 19.6 142.5 14.7 3.4 20.4 46.7 28.7 3.0 1.8 2.0 5.0 2.2 1.4 16.4 1 15.8 37.7 8129194 31.8 429 8.0 5.4 31.6 10.0 6.6 2.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.0 6.6 57.6 27.9 195.9 9128194 21.6 59.1 3.6 4.8 6.0 5.4 2.0 15.6 2.8 1.0 1.6 0.8 0.2 6.0 39.9 5.1 10126/94 5.4 18.6 3.8 2.8 16.8 CO 8.2 2.4 3.6 3.6 6.2 3.4 4.2 4.0 14.5 16.4 11130/94 2.4 32.2 129.1 6.0 21.0 24.7 128.6 14.8 17.6 21.4 486.4 290.8 409.8 423.3 33.9 242.5 12!21194 18.8 17.4 52.5 19.6 17.2 57.1 27.7 20.4 20.6 16.8 1 284.4 281.0 239.6 207.4 M 1 1 Table D -5 (cont'd). Parameters sampled at stations on Discovery Bay tributary streams in 1994 J 1 1� r, 1 1 t Ll I t FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATION G100 mL Date IAND1 AND2 AND3 CT1 CT 2 H01 H02 SA1 SA2 SA3 SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4 ZE1 ZE2a 1131194 1 5 7 1 3 1 4 1 2 . 2 19 1 5 1 93 1 2116194 7 113 2010 1 1 83 1 19 21 27 43 1 20 25 1 17 15 21 150 3123/94 4125194 24 12 35 1 8 767 1 133 300 48 8 32 24 1 6 1 10 1 163 8 5116/94 162 52 250 64 50 1333 867 1200 300 125 646 148 100 63 57 13M 611194 320 20 100 24 14 567 30 148 60 25 570 38 47 27 380 570 7127194 183 160 37 27 20 530 70D 1600 190 185 530 32 38 17 380 8129/94 175 45D 127 48 43 15 420 1167 48 5D 320 62 93 93 638 9128194 147 70 5 3 3 3 29 2000 20 13 500 58 4 11 35D 10/26/94 87 277 1700 7 8 14 36 100 24 18 40D 75 24 38 515 t60 11/30/94 13 800 340 20 9 177 49 55 56 233 237 120 178 692 12121/94 6B 24 47 3 4 27 44 24 25 fi 1 53 38 4 6 • D -7 EMMM • D -7 D -7