annual state-of-the-river report (2006-2007)...7. summary/conclusion 12 . 8. recommendations 12 ....
TRANSCRIPT
1
ANNUAL STATE-OF-THE-RIVER REPORT (2006-2007)
FOR
THE CHEHALIS BASIN
Prepared By:
Randy Lehr, Ph.D.
Grays Harbor College 1620 Edward P. Smith Drive
Aberdeen, WA 98520 360-538-4177
Contributors:
Chehalis Basin Partnership, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and Washington State Department of Ecology
Funded by:
Washington State Department of Ecology, Grays Harbor College and the Confederated Tribes of
the Chehalis Reservation
7/22/2007
2
Table of Contents Section Page 1. Cover Page 1 2. Table of Contents 2 3. Executive Summary 3 4. Introduction 4 5. Methods 5 6. Results/Discussion 6 7. Summary/Conclusion 12 8. Recommendations 12 List of Figures
Figure 1 - Chehalis Basin Map 13 Figure 2 – Chehalis Basin Water Quality (Site Location and Ranking) 14 Figure 3 – Monthly Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 15 Figure 4 – Site-specific Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 16 Figure 5 – Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations 17 Figure 6 – Site-specific Fecal Coliform Concentrations 18 Figure 7 – Monthly Turbidity Profiles 19 Figure 8 – Site-specific Turbidity Profiles 20 Figure 9 – Monthly Temperature Profiles 21 Figure 10 – Site-specific Temperature Profiles 22 Figure 11 – Monthly pH Profiles 23 Figure 12 – Site-specific pH Profiles 24 Figure 13 – Monthly Conductivity Profiles 25 Figure 14 – Site-specific Conductivity Profiles 26 Figure 15 – Site-specific Relative Ranks (Most Restrictive Standards) 27 Figure 16 – Frequency of Water Quality Violations (Monthly Ranks) 28 Figure 17 – Site-specific Relative Ranks (Least Restrictive Standards) 29 Figure 18 – Relative Frequency of Water Quality Violations 30
List of Tables
Table 1 – Summary of Technical Studies and Management Plans 31 Table 2 – Summary of Washington State Water Quality Standards 32
3
Executive Summary To better manage the Chehalis Basin, it is important to understand water quality in the Chehalis River and it tributaries. Previous studies throughout the Chehalis Basin have suggested that ambient water quality conditions range widely, and the primary water quality parameters of concern are temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, pH and sediment runoff. To better understand water quality in the Chehalis Basin, we conducted a study to collect and analyze water samples from 83 sites on a monthly basis for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, turbidity, fecal coliform, and conductivity. During this study, between 14% and 21% of samples (across all parameters) violated Washington State water quality standards. Results from this study suggest that pH (followed by dissolved oxygen and temperature) account for the majority of water quality violations; however this was highly variable depending on location and season. In general, November had the most water quality violations (across all parameters) and March had the fewest. The frequency and magnitude of water quality violations was greater in the upper Basin (WRIA 23); however, within any given system (including the mainstem of the Chehalis), water quality was generally higher in headwater reaches and decreased downstream. These results support the findings of previous studies, further suggesting that, although there are general trends in water quality throughout the Chehalis Basin, specific needs for restoration and preservation of water quality are likely to be site-specific.
4
Introduction Understanding water quality in the Chehalis Basin is an important component of the watershed management process. The Chehalis River Basin is a 2,660 square mile watershed (3,300 river-miles) located in Western Washington State (Figure 1). The Chehalis River, the second largest in the state (the Columbia River is the largest), originates from surface runoff in the Willapa Hills region near the city of Pe Ell and flows downstream to the Grays Harbor Estuary and its confluence with the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). Within the Chehalis Basin, there are eight counties (Thurston, Lewis, Pacific, Cowlitz, Mason, Jefferson, Grays Harbor and Wahkiakum) and one tribal reservation (The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation). Given its size, the Chehalis Basin is divided into the Upper and Lower Basin. Although, the Upper and Lower Basins are separated to clarify management objectives, the watershed processes in each Basin are intimately linked. Throughout both the Upper and Lower Chehalis Basin, forestlands dominate the landscape, representing 85% of the total land coverage. Forestlands are primarily owned by private timber corporations, but a significant portion of the land is private or government owned. Although forestlands are the dominant land-use type, they are generally contained within the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order drainages and absent from the floodplain of the mainstem of the river. The remainder of the land within the basin is comprised of agricultural (~9%), range (~2%) and urban (~2%). Values and uses of water resources in the Chehalis Basin are widely varied. Surface and groundwater (not glacial melt) are the primary water sources for drinking, irrigation and municipal/industrial effluent treatment and dilution in the Basin. In addition to these consumptive uses, waters in the Chehalis River Basin and Grays Harbor estuary support a variety of valuable shellfish and finfish resources. The Chehalis River supports 31 stocks of salmonid species (eight of which are currently Depressed) and 900 acres (of 9000 total acres) of the Grays Harbor estuary are farmed for shellfish. Waters of the Chehalis River Basin ecosystem also support eight species (both terrestrial and aquatic) listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Water resources of the Chehalis Basin are collectively managed by the Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP). “The CBP is a voluntary, consensus-based organization of cities, tribes, counties, and other local organizations working to protect water resources in the Chehalis watershed. The CBP was created by an intergovernmental agreement (dated August 31, 1998) to develop a watershed management plan for the Chehalis River Basin. The agreement designates the CBP (through Grays Harbor County) as lead in pursuing strategies addressing flood reduction, fish habitat, recreation, water quality and water quantity in the Chehalis River Basin and to examine their relationships to economic health and sustainability” (CBP, 2004). Although not a formal member of the CBP, the Quinault Indian Nation is also actively involved in the management of the water resources in the Chehalis Basin. To more effectively manage water resources in the Basin, the CBP and Grays Harbor County have formed three work groups, the Water Quality Committee, the Steering and Technical Advisory Committee and the Habitat Work Group. Members (representing diverse stakeholder groups) collaborate to solve technical issues related to water quality and provide recommendations and technical support to the CBP related to water resources management. Collective work of the CBP and individual efforts of
5
various stakeholder groups have resulted in a number of technical studies and management plans that guide the management of water resources in the Basin (Table 1). The aforementioned studies suggest that ambient water quality conditions in the Chehalis Basin range from relatively undisturbed to severely impacted. These studies suggest that the primary water quality parameters of concern in the Chehalis Basin are temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, pH and sediment runoff. The TMDL studies listed above have identified 114 impaired stream segments throughout the Basin. These studies also suggest that the primary sources of water quality impairment are non-point sources, specifically runoff from urban, agricultural and commercial forestlands. To further understand the ambient water quality throughout the Chehalis Basin and determine seasonal and temporal trends, we implemented a monitoring program that collected and analyzed samples on a monthly basis from 83 sites. The details of this study are described within. Methods Methods for site selection, sample collection and analysis are described in detail in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for The Comprehensive Chehalis Basin Monitoring Program (CBMP). The CBMP QAPP was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) in March of 2007. All chemical measurements were performed by an accredited laboratory in the natural resource department of The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (CTCR). Briefly, water samples were collected and analyzed on a monthly basis (i.e., one sample collected ~ every 4 weeks) from 83 sites throughout the Chehalis Basin (Figure 2). Samples sites were chosen based on: (1) their alignment with identified goals and objectives for the Chehalis Basin; (2) the availability of ongoing data sets and concurrent monitoring programs; (3) accessibility of the sampling site; (4) a need for representative coverage throughout the Basin; and (5) location upstream and downstream of major river confluences and suspected pollutant sources. Samples were collected from November 2006 to June 2007 (for comparison, data from an additional study conducted by the CTCR was included for the month of October). Samples were analyzed for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, temperature, turbidity and fecal coliform. Dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, and temperature were all measured in the field using field deployable, in situ water quality probes. Turbidity and fecal coliform were measured in the laboratory, using standard techniques. Data quality was assessed using a series of positive/negative controls, replicate samples and trend analysis; this process is also described in detail in the QAPP. Data Analysis All data was analyzed to determine compliance with Washington State water quality standards. Water quality throughout the Chehalis Basin was initially assessed by comparing monthly and site-specific averages to State standards. Water quality was also assessed using a relative ranking index (described below). All graphs/maps are color coded to highlight compliance with State water quality standards described in Table 2 (except conductivity which lacks a State standard). All spreadsheet and data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) and SAS Institute JMP statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Data is presented using Sigmaplot 10.0 (Systat Inc. San Jose, CA) and ArcGIS (ESRI, Redlands, CA).
6
Water Quality Standards Washington State water quality standards (generated by the Washington DOE) are described in detail in the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington Chapter 173-201A WAC (Publication number – 06-10-09; 2006). The specific standards used to determine water quality in this study are described in more detail in Table 2. To assess water quality in the Chehalis River, data was compared to two standards representing uses of water that require high (e.g., salmon summer habitat) and/or extraordinary water quality (e.g., oyster culture). Compliance with State standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and fecal coliform were based directly on the aforementioned DOE standards. State standards for conductivity have not been generated and thus compliance was not calculated. To estimate compliance with turbidity several assumptions were made (described below). Washington State standards for turbidity are based on an increase in NTU (of 5 or 10, depending on watershed characteristics and beneficial uses) over background levels. Generally, background levels are established by collecting and analyzing samples upstream and downstream of a potential point source. For this study, a watershed-wide background level was operationally defined as the average 25th percentile for turbidity across all sites. To calculate the watershed-wide background turbidity level, the 25th percentile (i.e., the value below which 25% of the data fall) was calculated for each site. The 25th percentile values for all sites were then averaged to define the background level (1.99 NTU). Compliance with the State turbidity standards was then based on an increase of a 5 and/or 10 NTU over the background level of 1.99 NTU. This technique of estimating compliance with State turbidity standards does not account for natural site and/or season-specific variability. However, to establish a more realistic site and/or season-specific background level, a larger and more inclusive data set would be necessary. Relative Ranks Relative ranks were determined by identifying the percentage of samples collected at a given site (across all parameters) that violated Washington State Standards (described in Table 1). Relative ranks are presented graphically and geographically. Graphic representation depicts sites according to their respective relative rank. Geographic data presentation was conducted by Dr. Narendran Kodandapani and Don Loft (Evergreen State College Student) as part of the Chehalis Basin GIS Clearinghouse project at Grays Harbor College. Briefly, each site (based on site number) was assigned a data point feature that corresponded with it latitude-longitude coordinates. Points were plotted on a Chehalis Basin hydrology GIS layer (WDOE 100K). Individual data points were then color-coded based on relative rank values using a color ramping program. Points were coded such that sites that violated State standards most frequently were marked as bright red and those that violated standards least frequently were marked as blue/purple; intermediates sites were shaded in transition. Rank data were also analyzed to determine the frequency of non-compliance for individual parameters with State water quality standards. Results and Discussion A total of 4152 samples were collected from 83 sites throughout the Chehalis Basin from October 2006 through June of 2007. Over this sampling period, between 21% and 14% (depending on the water quality standard) of samples violated Washington State water quality
7
standards. Water quality throughout the Chehalis Basin varied widely depending on site, parameter and time of year. Site-specific, temporal and geographic trends are described below as they correspond to specific parameters. Results from the QA/QC yearly audit are also described below. Quality Assurance/Quality Control The level of data quality varied widely depending on the parameter being analyzed. QA/QC is described below as it correlates to: calibration; replicate and control samples analysis; data transfer errors; and trend analysis. Calibration All calibrations for laboratory and field analyses were performed as described in the QAPP. In the event of instrument malfunction (e.g., inability to effectively calibrate), samples were not collected. Two-hundred and thirty-one samples were not collected because of instrument malfunction. Frequency of field instrument calibration varied depending on the parameter measured and ranged from once each week to once every two weeks. Replicate and Control Sample Analysis Not all replicate and blank samples described in the QAPP were consistently collected and analyzed, thus making the assessment of the QA/QC goals for precision, bias and sensitivity described in the QAPP difficult. For fecal coliform, results from replicate and control sample analysis were consistent with quality goals described in the QAPP, suggesting limited potential for laboratory contamination. However, field blanks were not consistently collected and analyzed and thus, potential for field contamination cannot be effectively calculated. Similarly, replicates and/or positive and negative controls were not consistently analyzed using in situ monitoring instruments and thus, precision, bias and sensitivity cannot be effectively calculated. Field measurements were not independently verified using a second analytical method. Outlier data points (i.e., data outside of the 20% long-term average) were not independently re-analyzed. Transfer Errors During the final data audit, ~10% of sample entries were rechecked to eliminated transfer errors during data processing/transfer; no transfer errors were detected. Trend Analysis Temporal trend analysis also highlighted a QA/QC problem with the pH data. When compared using linear regression, pH data collected after March 16th exhibited a distinct correlation with sample collection date and DO. The strength and pattern of this correlation suggests that it resulted from instrument malfunction. pH data collected after March 16th 2007 were excluded from all analysis and presentation. To address the QA/QC problems that arose throughout sampling and analysis, we are switching to a monthly data reporting process that will implement a new data reporting form. These modifications will facilitate a more timely identification of potential data problems and minimize the number of samples that are excluded from analysis for QA/QC purposes.
8
Dissolved Oxygen The average dissolved oxygen concentration observed throughout all months of sampling was 10.12 mg/L. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from below detection limit (1 mg/L) to 18.16 mg/L. Maximum DO concentrations were present during January and minimum concentrations were present during November (Figure 3). Sites where dissolved oxygen concentrations were most commonly in compliance with Washington State Standards (i.e., “healthy” sites) were the E. Fork of the Wishkah and Wynoochee (at reservoir) Rivers. Sites that were most frequently in violation of water quality standards were the Black River (at 110th Ave) and Winter Creek (Figure 4). *Although the Skookumchuck River (at the mouth) appears to have the lowest DO level, this site is highly influenced by a single outlier. Compliance with Washington State standards for dissolved oxygen varied considerably depending on the specific standard used to evaluate water quality. When using 9.5 mg/L as the standard, ~27% of the samples did not meet State standards (Figure 4). When using 8 mg/L as the standard, ~15% of the samples did not meet State standards. For the data reported in this study, the standard of 9.5 mg/L is most appropriate to evaluate data for summer months (June 15 – September 15); this standard is intended to protect salmon during core summer months. The 8 mg/L standard is most appropriate for dates outside of summer months (September 16 – June 14); this standard is intended to protect salmon spawning, rearing and migration. Fecal Coliform The average fecal coliform concentration observed throughout all months of sampling was 24 colonies/100mL. Fecal coliform concentrations ranged from the below detection limit (4 colonies) to >2000 (maximum of numerable colonies) colonies/100mL. Maximum fecal coliform concentrations were present during November and minimum concentrations were present during June (Figure 5). Sites where fecal coliform concentrations were most commonly in compliance with Washington State standards (i.e., “healthy” sites) were the Chehalis (at Prather), Wynoochee (at reservoir) and John’s Rivers. Sites that were most frequently in violation of water quality standards were Garrard (at Brooklyn Rd.) and Stearns (at Pleasant Valley) Creeks and the Newaukum River (Figure 6). Compliance with Washington State standards for fecal coliform varied slightly depending on the specific standard used to evaluate water quality. When using 50 colonies/100 mL as the standard, ~7% of the samples did not meet State standards (Figure 6). When using 100 colonies/100 mL as the standard, ~4% of the samples did not meet State standards (Figure 6). For data reported in this study, the 100 mg/L standard is the most appropriate to directly evaluate water quality for the majority of the Chehalis Basin; this standard is intended to project primary human contact. The 50 colonies/100mL is most appropriate to evaluate the health of the estuary and its direct tributaries; the goal of this standard is to protect waters that require extraordinary quality (e.g., water supporting shellfish culture). However, given the potential for downstream transport of pollutants, it is important to consider the cumulative downstream effects of fecal coliform pollution that may occur in upstream reaches. Turbidity The average turbidity observed throughout all months of sampling was 4.14 NTU. Turbidity ranged from 0.3 to 413 NTU. Turbidity was highest in November and lowest during June
9
(Figure 7). Sites where turbidity was most commonly in compliance with Washington State standards (i.e., “healthy” sites) were China and Cloquallum Creeks. Sites that were most frequently in violation of water quality standards were the Black (at 110th Ave.) and the M. Fork of the Satsop Rivers (Figure 8). Compliance with Washington State standards for turbidity varied slightly depending on the specific standard used to evaluate water quality. When using a 5 NTU increase as the standard, ~18% of the samples did not meet State standards (Figure 8). When using a 10 NTU increase as the standard, ~8% of the samples did not meet State standards (Figure 8). For the data reported in this study, the standard of a 5 NTU increase is likely most appropriate in reaches that support salmon spawning and oyster rearing; this standard is intended to protect spawning substrate. The 10 NTU standard is likely most appropriate for all other stream reaches throughout the Chehalis; this standard is intended to protect salmon migration and rearing habitat. Temperature The average temperature observed throughout all months of sampling was 8.04 oC. Temperature ranged from 0.85 to 16.28 oC. Temperatures were highest in June 2007 and lowest during January 2007 (Figure 9). Sites where temperature was most commonly in compliance with Washington State standards (i.e., “healthy” sites) were the Black (at 110th Ave.) and the S. Fork of the Newaukum Rivers. Sites that were most frequently in violation of water quality standards were the Skookumchuck (at mouth) and Elk Rivers (Figure 10). *Note that Hannaford Creek appears to have the lowest average temperatures, but this site is highly influenced by two outlier values. Compliance with Washington State standards for temperature varied considerably depending on the specific standard used to evaluate water quality. When using 9 oC, ~30% of the samples did not meet State standards (Figure 10). When using 13 oC, ~6% of the samples did not meet State standards. For the data reported in this study, the 13 oC standard is most appropriate to evaluate the health of the majority of the waters in the Chehalis Basin (particularly the upper Basin) during winter months; this standard is intended to protect salmon spawning, rearing and migration (Figure 10). The 9 oC standard is more appropriate to evaluate the health of direct tributaries to the Grays Harbor estuary; this standard is intended to protect char spawning (e.g., bull trout). However, since use of the Grays Harbor estuary by bull trout is thought to be for purposes of foraging and migration, a standard of 12 oC may be more appropriate. There are also several additional less restrictive standards described by the WDOE (2006) to protect different salmonid life-stage (e.g., 16 oC to protect salmonid core summer habitat). pH The average pH observed throughout all months of sampling was 6.59. pH throughout the Chehalis Basin ranged from 4.16 to 12.05. pH was highest in November 2006 and lowest during January 2007 (Figure 11). Sites where pH was most commonly in compliance with Washington State standards (i.e., “healthy” sites) were Beaver Creek and the M. Fork of the Satsop River. Sites that were most frequently in violation of water quality standards were the Chehalis River at Hwy 107 and Borst Park (Figure 12).
10
Because the State water quality standard for pH does not change across water bodies, there is only one set of standards for comparison. Using the 6.5 to 8.5 standard, ~72% of the samples did not meet this benchmark (Figure 12). The majority of these violations occurred when pH dropped below the 6.5 value (i.e., became more acidic). However, two events in November and February caused a non-compliance that exceeded the 8.5 upper limit. The only variation for compliance to the 6.5 to 8.5 standard is the acceptable size of a human-induced change (0.2 for water supporting Char and 0.5 for water supporting salmon). However, a more inclusive data set would be necessary to effectively assess these relative, human-induced changes. Specific Conductivity The average specific conductivity observed throughout all months of sampling was 88.5 υS/cm. Specific conductivity throughout the Chehalis Basin ranged from 2.2 to 8.55 υS/cm. Specific conductivity was highest in October 2006 and lowest during January 2007 (Figure 13). Throughout the study, sites that had the highest conductivity were Hannaford Creek and the Skookumchuck River (Figure 14). Sites that exhibited the lowest specific conductivity were the Newaukum, E. Fork of the Wishkah and Hoquiam Rivers. Washington State standards for conductivity do not exist and thus, were not analyzed for compliance. *Note that all tidally influenced sites (Elk River, Johns River, Winter Creek, Hoquiam River and Humptulips River) were excluded from analysis given the variable influence of the salt water. Relative Rankings Descriptions of the relative site rankings are broken up based on the standards used to assess compliance (most restrictive and least restrictive) and the relative contribution of individual parameters to cumulative water quality violations. Most Restrictive Standards Throughout the Chehalis Basin, the percentage of time that samples did not comply with Washington State standards (using the standards characterized as most restrictive in Table 2) ranged from 19 % to 56 % (Figure 15). In general, sites were most commonly in violation of State standards during November and least commonly in violation of standards during March (Figure 16). Based on a relative rank, sites that were most commonly in compliance with Washington State standards (i.e., “healthy” sites) were Waddell Creek and the Skookumchuck River. Sites that were most frequently in violation of water quality standards were Salzar Creek (at Salzar Cr. Rd.) and Hannaford Creek (at Schaefer Rd.). Least Restrictive Standards Throughout the Chehalis Basin, the percentage of time that samples indicated that a given site was in violation of Washington State standards (using the standards characterized as least restrictive in Table 2) ranged from 12 % to 34 % (Figure 17). In general, sites were most commonly in violation of State standards during November and least commonly in violation of standards during October (Figure 16). Based on a relative rank, sites that were most commonly in compliance with Washington State standards (i.e., “healthy” sites) were the Skookumchuck (at hatchery) and Chehalis River (at SR 6) and Deep Creek. Sites that were most frequently in violation of water quality standards were Winter Creek and the Black River (at 110th Ave.).
11
Relative Contribution of Individual Parameters Throughout the Chehalis Basin, the relative importance of the individual parameters as a source of pollution varied widely (Figure 18). pH was the parameter that accounted for the highest percentage of water quality violations and fecal coliform accounted for the lowest. The relative importance of each parameter as a source of water quality violations was relatively consistent regardless of which level of standard was used (except for temperature, which varied by over 16% between standard sets). Site Location Throughout the Basin, several broad geographic trends in water quality appear to exist (Figure 2). In general, larger and more frequent deviations from State standards occurred in the upper Chehalis Basin (WRIA 23). However, in any given tributary (and in the mainstem of the Chehalis), water quality was generally higher further upstream. Water quality was generally lower in downstream reaches of primary tributaries and the mainstem of the Chehalis. Potential for Invertebrate Monitoring To date, relatively little invertebrate-based water quality/ecosystem monitoring has been conducted in the Chehalis Basin. Two studies were conducted in the Chehalis Basin by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW; 2002) and WDOE (1999). These two studies utilized invertebrate community monitoring to assess ecosystem health/productivity at specific sites. Results from these studies support the conclusions from ongoing water quality monitoring using physical-chemical parameters (described in the Introduction). Given the breadth of the Chehalis Basin and it biogeographic diversity, routine monitoring at all 83 sites would likely be cost prohibitive (given the time/labor intensity and taxonomic expertise necessary to conduct detailed invertebrate-community monitoring). That being said, invertebrate-community monitoring could provide valuable insight about water quality on a site-specific basis. In particular, invertebrate-community monitoring, would be useful to confirm the presence of healthy and/or degraded waters and to provide additional information regarding TMDL (or general mitigation project) effectiveness. One experimental design that has been effective for determining site-specific changes in biological community structure is the upstream-downstream, before-after, control, treatment (UDBACT) technique. To utilize the UDBACT technique, invertebrate communities are measured upstream and downstream of a specific treatment site (e.g., a TMDL site) and compared to an appropriate control site (or sites) at some point before and after site manipulation (e.g., buffer planting). However, for this technique to be successful, it is necessary to identify (1) site-specific baseline conditions and (2) appropriate reference sites. Data collected in the aforementioned studies, could provide potential baseline and/or reference data in future studies, however, this data is likely to be very site-specific and may not directly correlate to all sites of interest within the Chehalis Basin. To effectively utilize invertebrate monitoring in the Chehalis Basin, it will be necessary to identify select priority sites (and the appropriate controls) where invertebrate monitoring would have the largest potential impact. Based on the current water quality goals for the Basin (described in detail in the corresponding QAPP), potential priority sites may include current TMDL sites, potential high quality waters and potential future restoration sites.
12
Summary/Conclusions In general, results from this study suggest that there is wide range of water quality in the Chehalis Basin (during this specific sampling season), ranging from relatively undisturbed to severely degraded. This conclusion is consistent with previous water quality studies within the Basin. However, unlike previous studies, this study also suggests that the determination of water quality health is highly dependent on the specific standard used (particularly for DO and temperature). Among the parameters measured, pH (followed by DO and temperature) accounted for the majority of the water quality standard violations and as such, restoration efforts that address these issues may be more appropriate across a wider range of sites. However, there is likely a need to develop site-specific restoration and preservation goals for water quality throughout the Basin. Throughout the course of the year, major flooding events appeared to have a significant impact on all parameters; however, this impact was not consistent across parameters. For DO, turbidity and fecal coliform, November and February (the months with the largest flooding events of the sampling season) had the highest occurrences of water quality violations. However, water quality violations for temperature and pH during November and February were relatively few (most pH and temperature violations occurred in months with lower instream flows). These results also suggest that water quality violations are more frequent and larger in the upper Basin than in the lower Basin, and within a given stream system, water quality decreased downstream. Although this sampling season covered a wide range of instream conditions, it did not capture water quality during the months with the historically lowest flows (and potentially lowest water quality). To accurately gauge water quality in the Chehalis, it will be important to continue this work into the drier summer months. Recommendations Observations throughout this study have led to a series of recommendations to improved water quality and water quality monitoring in the Chehalis Basin:
1) Develop community-based water quality goals that relate the frequency and magnitude of water quality violations with a desired state of the river.
2) Continue sampling throughout the summer low-flow months. 3) Expand the coverage of the monitoring site locations to obtain a more representative
profile of the Basin. New potential monitoring sites could include: upper Humptulips River; upper Satsop River; and Grays Harbor estuary.
4) Potentially utilize the Enterococcus endpoint instead of fecal coliform for tidally influenced sites (including potential new sites in the estuary).
5) Identify the presence and magnitude of variations in water quality between monthly sampling events. This variation could be assessed using long-term deployment monitoring probes.
6) Identify quantitative relationships between land use, stream order and water quality. 7) Add instream flows as a criteria used to rank water quality at a given site. 8) Develop a reach-specific ranking protocol that accounts for site/season-specific
application of specific water quality standards. 9) Develop reach-specific restoration and preservation priorities that account for the
differential contribution of different parameters to water quality. 10) Investigate the relationship between flood events and ambient pH.
13
Figure 1. Location of the Chehalis Basin (WRIA 22 and 23) and select long-term flow monitoring sites. (USGS, 2006)
Chehalis Basin WRIA 22 and 23
14
Figure 2. Represents the location of all sample sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Each site is color coded based on the frequency (as a percentage) of water quality violations (most impacted sites in red, least impacted in blue).
15
Figure 3 Represents monthly dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent 25th and 75 percentiles. “Whiskers” represent 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values.
Monthly Dissolved Oxygen ConcentrationsChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sample Collection Date (Month)
Octobe
r '06
Novem
ber '0
6
Decem
ber '0
6
Janu
ary '0
6
Februa
ry '07
March '
07
April '0
7
May '0
7
June
'07
Dis
solv
ed O
xyge
n (m
g/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
16
Figure 4 Represents dissolved oxygen concentrations at all sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent the 25th and 75th percentiles. “Whiskers” represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values. Frequency of water quality violation (as a percentage) is calculated for the most restrictive and (least restrictive) standards.
Average Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at all Sampling Sites
Chehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Mou
thBL
ACK
R. @
110
th A
ve.
WIN
TER
CR.
HANA
FORD
CR.
@ S
chae
fer
SALZ
ER C
R. @
Sal
zer C
r. Rd
.SC
ATTE
R CR
. @ C
ase
Rd.
STEA
RNS
CR. @
Twi
n O
aks
Rd.
BEAV
ER C
R. @
Ree
der R
d.BL
ACK
R. @
Mou
thCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
ull H
ole
GAR
RARD
CR.
@ M
outh
LINC
OLN
CR.
@ L
.C. R
d.SC
ATTE
R CR
. @ T
enin
oIN
DEPE
NDEN
CE C
R. @
Mou
thBL
ACK
R. @
Litt
lero
ckCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
orst
Pk.
SALZ
ER C
R. @
Cen
trail.
Rd.
STEA
RNS
CR. @
Ple
asan
t Val
ley
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Sick
man
-For
dCH
INA
CR.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Mel
len
St.
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Jam
es R
d.DE
EP C
R.CO
AL C
R.EL
K R.
GAR
RARD
CR.
@ B
rook
lyn R
d.BU
NKER
CR.
@ B
unk.
Cr.
Rd.
BLAC
K R.
@ B
elm
ore
Rd.
BEAV
ER C
R. @
Por
ter C
r. Rd
.HO
QUI
AM R
.IN
DEPE
NDEN
CE C
R.W
ISHK
AH R
. @ H
wy 1
2S.
HAN
AFO
RD C
R.CL
OQ
UALL
UM C
R. @
Clo
Rd.
E. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
rath
erCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ W
akef
ield
Rd.
S. F
ORK
CHE
HALI
S R.
@ B
FCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ H
wy 6
03CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ A
dna
HUM
PTUL
IPS
R. @
Hum
p. H
at.
HUM
PTUL
IPS
R. @
New
som
HUM
PTUL
IPS
R. @
Bur
rows
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
SR
6JO
HNS
R.NE
WAU
KUM
R.
M. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.M
. FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
N. F
ORK
NEW
AUKU
M R
.BU
NKER
CR.
@ In
galls
Rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Key
s Rd
.W
. FO
RK H
OQ
UIAM
R.
E. F
ORK
HO
QUI
AM R
.S.
FO
RK C
HEHA
LIS
R. @
LV
W. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.SA
TSO
P R.
WYN
OO
CHEE
R. @
Gei
lser R
d.PO
RTER
CR.
@ H
wy 1
2CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ H
wy 1
07CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
orte
rDI
LLEN
BAUG
H CR
.G
IBSO
N CR
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ D
oty
CLO
QUA
LLUM
CR.
@ H
wy 1
2M
. FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
LINC
OLN
CR.
@ In
galls
Rd.
S. F
ORK
NEW
AUKU
M R
.HA
NAFO
RD C
R. @
Rd.
End
PORT
ER C
R. @
Cam
pgrd
.SK
OO
KUM
CHUC
K R.
@ T
ono
CEDA
R CR
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ G
alvin
Rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Pe
Ell
WIS
HKAH
R. @
W. W
ish. R
d.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ R
BF S
t. Pk
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ In
d. R
d.S.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
WYN
OO
CHEE
R. @
Dev
on. R
d.SK
OO
KUM
CHUC
K R.
@ H
atch
WAD
DELL
CR.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R.W
YNO
OCH
EE R
. @ W
yn. L
k.E.
FO
RK W
ISHK
AH R
.
Diss
olve
d O
xyge
n Co
ncen
tratio
n (m
g/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Dissolved O2 concentrations did not meet State standards in ~27% (or 15%) of all samples
17
Figure 5 Represents monthly fecal coliform concentrations throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent 25th and 75 percentiles. “Whiskers” represent 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values.
Monthly Fecal Coliform ConcentrationsChehalis Basin2006-2007
Sample Collection Date (Month)
Octobe
r '06
Novem
ber '0
6
Decem
ber '0
6
Janu
ary '0
6
Februa
ry '07
March '
07
April '0
7
May '0
7
June
'07
Col
onie
s pe
r 100
mL
0
50
100
150
500100015002000
18
Figure 6 Represents fecal coliform concentrations at all sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent the 25th and 75th percentiles. “Whiskers” represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values. Frequency of water quality violation (as a percentage) is calculated for the most restrictive and (least restrictive) standards.
Average Fecal Coliform Concentrations at all Sampling SitesChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Pra
ther
WYN
OO
CHEE
R. @
Wyn
. Lk.
JOHN
S R.
WIS
HKAH
R. @
W. W
ish. R
d.W
ADDE
LL C
R.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ G
alvin
Rd.
BLAC
K R.
@ 1
10th
Ave
.BL
ACK
R. @
Bel
mor
e Rd
.E.
FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Ind.
Rd.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R.E.
FO
RK W
ISHK
AH R
.E.
FO
RK H
OQ
UIAM
R.
LINC
OLN
CR.
@ In
galls
Rd.
PORT
ER C
R. @
Cam
pgrd
.BL
ACK
R. @
Mou
thW
INTE
R CR
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ W
akef
ield
Rd.
WYN
OO
CHEE
R. @
Gei
lser R
d.BU
NKER
CR.
@ In
galls
Rd.
SALZ
ER C
R. @
Cen
trail.
Rd.
INDE
PEND
ENCE
CR.
@ M
outh
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Pe
Ell
INDE
PEND
ENCE
CR.
W. F
ORK
HO
QUI
AM R
.HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ H
ump.
Hat
.BE
AVER
CR.
@ P
orte
r Cr.
Rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Bul
l Hol
eM
. FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Key
s Rd
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ R
BF S
t. Pk
.SA
TSO
P R.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Mou
thCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ H
wy 1
07HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ B
urro
wsCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ S
R 6
W. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ N
ewso
mW
YNO
OCH
EE R
. @ D
evon
. Rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Dot
yBE
AVER
CR.
@ R
eede
r Rd.
HANA
FORD
CR.
@ R
d. E
ndS.
HAN
AFO
RD C
R.W
ISHK
AH R
. @ H
wy 1
2CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ S
ickm
an-F
ord
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Bor
st P
k.SC
ATTE
R CR
. @ C
ase
Rd.
M. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.BL
ACK
R. @
Litt
lero
ckCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ M
elle
n St
.EL
K R.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Hat
chCL
OQ
UALL
UM C
R. @
Clo
Rd.
LINC
OLN
CR.
@ L
.C. R
d.SC
ATTE
R CR
. @ T
enin
oCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
orte
rG
IBSO
N CR
.HO
QUI
AM R
.BU
NKER
CR.
@ B
unk.
Cr.
Rd.
S. F
ORK
CHE
HALI
S R.
@ L
VPO
RTER
CR.
@ H
wy 1
2CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ H
wy 6
03G
ARRA
RD C
R. @
Mou
thDE
EP C
R.S.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
S. F
ORK
CHE
HALI
S R.
@ B
FCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ A
dna
CLO
QUA
LLUM
CR.
@ H
wy 1
2N.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
CEDA
R CR
.S.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
COAL
CR.
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Jam
es R
d.SA
LZER
CR.
@ S
alze
r Cr.
Rd.
STEA
RNS
CR. @
Twi
n O
aks
Rd.
CHIN
A CR
.M
. FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Ton
oDI
LLEN
BAUG
H CR
.HA
NAFO
RD C
R. @
Sch
aefe
rST
EARN
S CR
. @ P
leas
ant V
alle
yNE
WAU
KUM
R.
GAR
RARD
CR.
@ B
rook
lyn R
d.
Feca
l Col
iform
Con
cent
ratio
n (C
olon
ies/
100
mL)
0
25
50
75
100
200
300 Fecal Col. concentrations did not meet State standards in ~7% (or 4%) of all samples
19
Figure 7 Represents monthly turbidity readings at all sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent 25th and 75 percentiles. “Whiskers” represent 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values.
Monthly Turbidity ProfilesChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sample Collection Date (Month)Octo
ber '0
6
Novem
ber '0
6
Decem
ber '0
6
Janu
ary '0
6
Februa
ry '07
March '
07
April '0
7
May '0
7
June
'07
Turb
idity
(NTU
)
0
5
10
15
20
200400
Background Level ~2.99 NTU
20
Figure 8 Represents the average turbidity (NTU) measured at all sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent the 25th and 75th percentiles. “Whiskers” represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values. Frequency of water quality violation (as a percentage) is calculated for the most restrictive and (least restrictive) standards.
Average Turbidity at all Sampling SitesChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
CHIN
A CR
.CL
OQ
UALL
UM C
R. @
Hwy
12
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
SR
6G
ARRA
RD C
R. @
Mou
thCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ S
ickm
an-F
ord
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Key
s Rd
.W
ISHK
AH R
. @ W
. Wish
. Rd.
W. F
ORK
HO
QUI
AM R
.BL
ACK
R. @
Mou
thN.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Mou
thBE
AVER
CR.
@ R
eede
r Rd.
LINC
OLN
CR.
@ In
galls
Rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Mel
len
St.
BUNK
ER C
R. @
Inga
lls R
d.BE
AVER
CR.
@ P
orte
r Cr.
Rd.
ELK
R.HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ H
ump.
Hat
.HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ N
ewso
mSK
OO
KUM
CHUC
K R.
@ H
atch
LINC
OLN
CR.
@ L
.C. R
d.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
rath
erM
. FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
SATS
OP
R.ST
EARN
S CR
. @ P
leas
ant V
alle
yCE
DAR
CR.
JOHN
S R.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Por
ter
DILL
ENBA
UGH
CR.
E. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.PO
RTER
CR.
@ H
wy 1
2CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
orst
Pk.
E. F
ORK
WIS
HKAH
R.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Wak
efie
ld R
d.ST
EARN
S CR
. @ T
win
Oak
s Rd
.M
. FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
1W
. FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Ton
oCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
ull H
ole
S. H
ANAF
ORD
CR.
WYN
OO
CHEE
R. @
Dev
on. R
d.HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ B
urro
wsCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ In
d. R
d.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ G
alvin
Rd.
NEW
AUKU
M R
.S.
FO
RK C
HEHA
LIS
R. @
BF
S. F
ORK
CHE
HALI
S R.
@ L
VS.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R. 1
WAD
DELL
CR.
SALZ
ER C
R. @
Cen
trail.
Rd.
INDE
PEND
ENCE
CR.
@ M
outh
GIB
SON
CR.
BLAC
K R.
@ B
elm
ore
Rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Hwy
603
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Dot
yHO
QUI
AM R
.W
YNO
OCH
EE R
. @ G
eilse
r Rd.
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Jam
es R
d.W
YNO
OCH
EE R
. @ W
yn. L
k.DE
EP C
R.CL
OQ
UALL
UM C
R. @
Clo
Rd.
BLAC
K R.
@ L
ittle
rock
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Adn
aCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ R
BF S
t. Pk
.HA
NAFO
RD C
R. @
Rd.
End
COAL
CR.
WIN
TER
CR.
GAR
RARD
CR.
@ B
rook
lyn R
d.HA
NAFO
RD C
R. @
Sch
aefe
rBU
NKER
CR.
@ B
unk.
Cr.
Rd.
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Cas
e Rd
.SC
ATTE
R CR
. @ T
enin
oCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
e El
lS.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R. 2
SALZ
ER C
R. @
Sal
zer C
r. Rd
.PO
RTER
CR.
@ C
ampg
rd.
WIS
HKAH
R. @
Hwy
12
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R.E.
FO
RK H
OQ
UIAM
R.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Hwy
107
INDE
PEND
ENCE
CR.
BLAC
K R.
@ 1
10th
Ave
.M
. FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
2
Trub
idity
(NTU
)
0
5
10
15
100150200
Background Level ~2.99 NTU
Turbidity did not meet State standards in ~18% (or 8 %) of all samples
21
Figure 9 Represents monthly temperatures throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent 25th and 75 percentiles. “Whiskers” represent 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values.
Average Monthly Water TemperaturesChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sample Collection Date (Month)Octo
ber '0
6
Novem
ber '0
6
Decem
ber '0
6
Janu
ary '0
6
Februa
ry '07
March '
07
April '0
7
May '0
7
June
'07
Tem
pera
ture
Deg
rees
C
0
5
10
15
20
25
Core summer salmonid habitat
22
Figure 10 Represents temperatures at all sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent the 25th and 75th percentiles. “Whiskers” represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values. Frequency of water quality violation (as a percentage) is calculated for the most restrictive and (least restrictive) standards.
Average Water Temperatures at all Sampling SitesChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
HANA
FORD
CR.
@ R
d. E
ndBL
ACK
R. @
110
th A
ve.
S. F
ORK
NEW
AUKU
M R
.M
. FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
BUNK
ER C
R. @
Inga
lls R
d.IN
DEPE
NDEN
CE C
R. @
Mou
thLI
NCO
LN C
R. @
Inga
lls R
d.BL
ACK
R. @
Litt
lero
ckDE
EP C
R.BE
AVER
CR.
@ P
orte
r Cr.
Rd.
BUNK
ER C
R. @
Bun
k. C
r. Rd
.S.
HAN
AFO
RD C
R.BE
AVER
CR.
@ R
eede
r Rd.
WAD
DELL
CR.
N. F
ORK
NEW
AUKU
M R
.E.
FO
RK H
OQ
UIAM
R.
INDE
PEND
ENCE
CR.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Hat
chS.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R.SA
LZER
CR.
@ S
alze
r Cr.
Rd.
WIS
HKAH
R. @
W. W
ish. R
d.LI
NCO
LN C
R. @
L.C
. Rd.
WYN
OO
CHEE
R. @
Wyn
. Lk.
E. F
ORK
WIS
HKAH
R.
DILL
ENBA
UGH
CR.
S. F
ORK
CHE
HALI
S R.
@ B
FCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ D
oty
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Ten
ino
GAR
RARD
CR.
@ B
rook
lyn R
d.W
. FO
RK H
OQ
UIAM
R.
HUM
PTUL
IPS
R. @
Hum
p. H
at.
COAL
CR.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Pe
Ell
SATS
OP
R.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ In
d. R
d.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ G
alvin
Rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Pra
ther
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
RBF
St.
Pk.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Bul
l Hol
eCH
INA
CR.
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Jam
es R
d.SK
OO
KUM
CHUC
K R.
@ T
ono
M. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ A
dna
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Hwy
603
CLO
QUA
LLUM
CR.
@ C
lo R
d.ST
EARN
S CR
. @ T
win
Oak
s Rd
.G
ARRA
RD C
R. @
Mou
thHU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ N
ewso
mW
YNO
OCH
EE R
. @ G
eilse
r Rd.
NEW
AUKU
M R
.PO
RTER
CR.
@ C
ampg
rd.
PORT
ER C
R. @
Hwy
12
STEA
RNS
CR. @
Ple
asan
t Val
ley
BLAC
K R.
@ B
elm
ore
Rd.
CLO
QUA
LLUM
CR.
@ H
wy 1
2HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ B
urro
wsCE
DAR
CR.
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Cas
e Rd
.G
IBSO
N CR
.BL
ACK
R. @
Mou
thE.
FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
W. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ S
ickm
an-F
ord
M. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.S.
FO
RK C
HEHA
LIS
R. @
LV
WYN
OO
CHEE
R. @
Dev
on. R
d.SA
LZER
CR.
@ C
entra
il. Rd
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
orst
Pk.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
SR
6CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ M
elle
n St
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ H
wy 1
07CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ W
akef
ield
Rd.
HANA
FORD
CR.
@ S
chae
fer
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Key
s Rd
.JO
HNS
R.W
ISHK
AH R
. @ H
wy 1
2W
INTE
R CR
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
orte
rHO
QUI
AM R
.EL
K R.
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Mou
th
Tem
pera
ture
(Deg
rees
C)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18Temperatures did not meet State standards in ~30% (or 6%) of all samplesCore summer salmonid habitat
Salmon and trout spawning
23
Monthly pH Profiles Chehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sample Collection Date (Month)
Octobe
r '06
Novem
ber '0
6
Decem
ber '0
6
Janu
ary '0
6
Februa
ry '07
March '
07
April '0
7
May '0
7
June
'07
pH
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure 11 Represents monthly pH readings throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent 25th and 75 percentiles. “Whiskers” represent 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values. * represent data that was collected but excluded from analysis for quality assurance purposes.
* * *
24
Figure 12 Represents the pH at all sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent the 25th and 75th percentiles. “Whiskers” represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values. Note: data was collected for the months of April, May and June, but excluded from analysis for quality assurance purposes. Frequency of water quality violation (as a percentage) is calculated for the most restrictive and (least restrictive) standards.
Average pH at all Sampling SitesChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Hwy
107
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Bor
st P
k.BL
ACK
R. @
Mou
thG
ARRA
RD C
R. @
Mou
thCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ M
elle
n St
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ S
R 6
INDE
PEND
ENCE
CR.
@ M
outh
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Bul
l Hol
eCH
INA
CR.
E. F
ORK
HO
QUI
AM R
.IN
DEPE
NDEN
CE C
R.SK
OO
KUM
CHUC
K R.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Key
s Rd
.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ S
ickm
an-F
ord
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Hat
chBL
ACK
R. @
Bel
mor
e Rd
.BU
NKER
CR.
@ In
galls
Rd.
E. F
ORK
WIS
HKAH
R.
W. F
ORK
HO
QUI
AM R
.BL
ACK
R. @
110
th A
ve.
HUM
PTUL
IPS
R. @
New
som
NEW
AUKU
M R
.W
ISHK
AH R
. @ W
. Wis
h. R
d.ST
EARN
S CR
. @ T
win
Oak
s Rd
.HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ B
urro
wsW
ISHK
AH R
. @ H
wy 1
2W
YNO
OCH
EE R
. @ D
evon
. Rd.
WYN
OO
CHEE
R. @
Gei
lser
Rd.
LINC
OLN
CR.
@ In
galls
Rd.
COAL
CR.
LINC
OLN
CR.
@ L
.C. R
d.HU
MPT
ULIP
S R.
@ H
ump.
Hat
.SK
OO
KUM
CHUC
K R.
@ M
outh
STEA
RNS
CR. @
Ple
asan
t Val
ley
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Wak
efie
ld R
d.W
ADDE
LL C
R.BE
AVER
CR.
@ R
eede
r Rd.
DILL
ENBA
UGH
CR.
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Ten
ino
M. F
ORK
NEW
AUKU
M R
.SA
LZER
CR.
@ C
entra
il. R
d.M
. FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
1CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
orte
rHO
QUI
AM R
.BU
NKER
CR.
@ B
unk.
Cr.
Rd.
S. F
ORK
CHE
HALI
S R.
@ L
VPO
RTER
CR.
@ H
wy 1
2DE
EP C
R.W
YNO
OCH
EE R
. @ W
yn. L
k.PO
RTER
CR.
@ C
ampg
rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Gal
vin
Rd.
GAR
RARD
CR.
@ B
rook
lyn R
d.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ D
oty
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Pra
ther
GIB
SON
CR.
JOHN
S R.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Adn
aSC
ATTE
R CR
. @ C
ase
Rd.
CHEH
ALIS
R. @
Hwy
603
SKO
OKU
MCH
UCK
R. @
Ton
oCH
EHAL
IS R
. @ In
d. R
d.N.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R.
S. F
ORK
NEW
AUKU
M R
. 1S.
FO
RK C
HEHA
LIS
R. @
BF
CLO
QUA
LLUM
CR.
@ H
wy 1
2CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ R
BF S
t. Pk
.S.
FO
RK N
EWAU
KUM
R. 2
HANA
FORD
CR.
@ S
chae
fer
SALZ
ER C
R. @
Sal
zer C
r. Rd
.S.
HAN
AFO
RD C
R.CE
DAR
CR.
SCAT
TER
CR. @
Jam
es R
d.CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
e El
lBL
ACK
R. @
Litt
lero
ckW
INTE
R CR
.SA
TSO
P R.
BEAV
ER C
R. @
Por
ter C
r. Rd
.W
. FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
CLO
QUA
LLUM
CR.
@ C
lo R
d.HA
NAFO
RD C
R. @
Rd.
End
E. F
ORK
SAT
SOP
R.M
. FO
RK S
ATSO
P R.
2EL
K R.
pH
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
pH did not meet State standards in ~72% of all samples
25
Figure 13 Represents the monthly range of conductivity readings at all sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent 25th and 75 percentiles. “Whiskers” represent 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values.
Monthly Conductivity ProfilesChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sample Collection Date (Month)
Octobe
r '06
Novem
ber 0
6
Decem
ber '0
6
Janu
ary '0
6
Februa
ry '07
March '
07
April '0
7
May '0
7
June
'07
Spec
ific C
ondu
ctivi
ty (u
S/cm
)
0
100
200
300
400
50040000
60000
26
Figure 14 Represents the range of conductivity readings at all sites throughout the Chehalis Basin. Grays bars represent 25th and 75 percentiles. “Whiskers” represent 10th and 90th percentiles. Dark horizontal lines (within the vertical gray bars) represent mean concentrations and light lines represent media values.
Specific Conductivity at all Sampling SitesChehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
M. F
OR
K N
EW
AU
KU
M R
.E
. FO
RK
WIS
HK
AH
R.
E. F
OR
K H
OQ
UIA
M R
.IN
DE
PE
ND
EN
CE
CR
.D
ILLE
NB
AU
GH
CR
.H
UM
PTU
LIP
S R
. @ H
ump.
Hat
.S
KO
OK
UM
CH
UC
K R
.B
UN
KE
R C
R. @
Inga
lls R
d.S
. FO
RK
NE
WA
UK
UM
R. 2
WYN
OO
CH
EE
R. @
Gei
lser
Rd.
PO
RTE
R C
R. @
Cam
pgrd
.S
KO
OK
UM
CH
UC
K R
. @ T
ono
LIN
CO
LN C
R. @
Inga
lls R
d.S
TEA
RN
S C
R. @
Ple
asan
t Val
ley
WIS
HK
AH
R. @
W. W
ish.
Rd.
W. F
OR
K H
OQ
UIA
M R
.W
AD
DE
LL C
R.
HU
MP
TULI
PS
R. @
New
som
M. F
OR
K S
ATS
OP
R. 2
WYN
OO
CH
EE
R. @
Wyn
. Lk.
WYN
OO
CH
EE
R. @
Dev
on. R
d.P
OR
TER
CR
. @ H
wy
12W
. FO
RK
SA
TSO
P R
.C
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
RB
F S
t. P
k.C
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
Mel
len
St.
S. F
OR
K N
EW
AU
KU
M R
. 1S
ATS
OP
R.
GIB
SO
N C
R.
IND
EP
EN
DE
NC
E C
R. @
Mou
thS
KO
OK
UM
CH
UC
K R
. @ H
atch
E. F
OR
K S
ATS
OP
R.
CE
DA
R C
R.
CLO
QU
ALL
UM
CR
. @ C
lo R
d.C
OA
L C
R.
M. F
OR
K S
ATS
OP
R. 1
HA
NA
FOR
D C
R. @
Rd.
End
NE
WA
UK
UM
R.
BE
AV
ER
CR
. @ R
eede
r Rd.
CH
INA
CR
.C
LOQ
UA
LLU
M C
R. @
Hw
y 12
LIN
CO
LN C
R. @
L.C
. Rd.
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ A
dna
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ P
e E
llG
AR
RA
RD
CR
. @ B
rook
lyn
Rd.
SC
ATT
ER
CR
. @ T
enin
oB
UN
KE
R C
R. @
Bun
k. C
r. R
d.B
LAC
K R
. @ 1
10th
Ave
.S
TEA
RN
S C
R. @
Tw
in O
aks
Rd.
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ S
R 6
SA
LZE
R C
R. @
Cen
trail.
Rd.
N. F
OR
K N
EW
AU
KU
M R
.C
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
Dot
yC
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
Por
ter
DE
EP
CR
.S
ALZ
ER
CR
. @ S
alze
r Cr.
Rd.
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ S
ickm
an-F
ord
S. F
OR
K C
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
BF
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ B
ull H
ole
S. F
OR
K C
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
LV
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ H
wy
603
BLA
CK
R. @
Bel
mor
e R
d.G
AR
RA
RD
CR
. @ M
outh
BLA
CK
R. @
Litt
lero
ckB
EA
VE
R C
R. @
Por
ter C
r. R
d.C
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
Hw
y 10
7C
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
Wak
efie
ld R
d.B
LAC
K R
. @ M
outh
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ P
rath
erC
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
Key
s R
d.C
HE
HA
LIS
R. @
Gal
vin
Rd.
SC
ATT
ER
CR
. @ C
ase
Rd.
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ B
orst
Pk.
SC
ATT
ER
CR
. @ J
ames
Rd.
CH
EH
ALI
S R
. @ In
d. R
d.H
UM
PTU
LIP
S R
. @ B
urro
ws
SK
OO
KU
MC
HU
CK
R. @
Mou
thS
. HA
NA
FOR
D C
R.
HA
NA
FOR
D C
R. @
Sch
aefe
rW
INTE
R C
R.
ELK
R.
WIS
HK
AH
R. @
Hw
y 12
HO
QU
IAM
R.
JOH
NS
R.
Spe
cific
Con
duct
ivity
(uS
/cm
)
0
50
100
150
200
200004000060000
27
Figure 15 Depicts the relative “health” of various sites throughout the Chehalis Basin using the most restrictive water quality standards. Grays bars represent the percentage of samples (for all parameters) that exceed the Washington State water quality criteria.
Relative Comparison of Water Quality at all Sampling Sites (Most Restrictive Standards)
Chehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
WAD
DEL
L C
R.
SKO
OKU
MC
HU
CK
R.
SKO
OKU
MC
HU
CK
R. @
Hat
chC
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Key
s R
d.BE
AVER
CR
. @ P
orte
r Cr.
Rd.
S. F
OR
K C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
LV
E. F
OR
K W
ISH
KAH
R.
WYN
OO
CH
EE R
. @ W
yn. L
k.S.
FO
RK
NEW
AUKU
M R
. 2W
. FO
RK
HO
QU
IAM
R.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ G
alvi
n R
d.S.
FO
RK
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
FW
YNO
OC
HEE
R. @
Dev
on. R
d.PO
RTE
R C
R. @
Hwy
12
LIN
CO
LN C
R. @
Inga
lls R
d.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Sic
kman
-For
dN
. FO
RK
NEW
AUKU
M R
.M
. FO
RK
NEW
AUKU
M R
.D
ILLE
NBA
UG
H C
R.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ H
wy 6
03C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Adn
aW
ISH
KAH
R. @
W. W
ish.
Rd.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ D
oty
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ S
R 6
DEE
P C
R.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ In
d. R
d.W
YNO
OC
HEE
R. @
Gei
lser
Rd.
HU
MPT
ULI
PS R
. @ N
ewso
mH
UM
PTU
LIPS
R. @
Hum
p. H
at.
CED
AR C
R.
BUN
KER
CR
. @ B
unk.
Cr.
Rd.
POR
TER
CR
. @ C
ampg
rd.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
e El
lBU
NKE
R C
R. @
Inga
lls R
d.S.
FO
RK
NEW
AUKU
M R
. 1SK
OO
KUM
CH
UC
K R
. @ M
outh
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ W
akef
ield
Rd.
W. F
OR
K SA
TSO
P R
.H
UM
PTU
LIPS
R. @
Bur
rows
JOH
NS
R.
CLO
QU
ALLU
M C
R. @
Hwy
12
M. F
OR
K SA
TSO
P R
. 2C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Pra
ther
E. F
OR
K SA
TSO
P R
.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Bor
st P
k.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Hwy
107
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ R
BF S
t. Pk
.SK
OO
KUM
CH
UC
K R
. @ T
ono
SCAT
TER
CR
. @ J
ames
Rd.
HAN
AFO
RD
CR
. @ R
d. E
ndG
ARR
ARD
CR
. @ M
outh
STEA
RN
S C
R. @
Ple
asan
t Val
ley
S. H
ANAF
OR
D C
R.
CO
AL C
R.
SALZ
ER C
R. @
Cen
trail.
Rd.
E. F
OR
K H
OQ
UIA
M R
.SA
TSO
P R
.IN
DEP
END
ENC
E C
R. @
Mou
thM
. FO
RK
SATS
OP
R. 1
CH
INA
CR
.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Bul
l Hol
eBL
ACK
R. @
Mou
thG
IBSO
N C
R.
IND
EPEN
DEN
CE
CR
.G
ARR
ARD
CR
. @ B
rook
lyn R
d.C
LOQ
UAL
LUM
CR
. @ C
lo R
d.EL
K R
.SC
ATTE
R C
R. @
Ten
ino
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ M
elle
n St
.N
EWAU
KUM
R.
STEA
RN
S C
R. @
Twi
n O
aks
Rd.
BEAV
ER C
R. @
Ree
der R
d.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Por
ter
BLAC
K R
. @ B
elm
ore
Rd.
LIN
CO
LN C
R. @
L.C
. Rd.
SCAT
TER
CR
. @ C
ase
Rd.
HO
QU
IAM
R.
BLAC
K R
. @ L
ittle
rock
WIS
HKA
H R
. @ H
wy 1
2W
INTE
R C
R.
BLAC
K R
. @ 1
10th
Ave
.SA
LZER
CR
. @ S
alze
r Cr.
Rd.
HAN
AFO
RD
CR
. @ S
chae
fer
Perc
enta
ge o
f Sam
ples
in V
iola
tion
of W
ater
Qua
lity
Stan
dard
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
28
Figure 16 Depicts the relative “health” sites throughout the Chehalis Basin on a monthly basis (for two sets standards). Bars represent the percentage samples (for all parameters) that exceed the Washington State water quality criteria for any given month. Note: April, May and June pH readings were excluded for quality assurance purposes.
Relative Comparison of Water Quality During Select Months
Chehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
Octobe
r '06
Novem
ber '0
6
Decem
ber '0
6
Janu
ary '
07
Febr
uary
'07
March
'07
April
'07
May '0
7
June
'07Pe
rcen
tage
of S
ampl
es in
Vio
latio
n of
Wat
er Q
uality
Sta
ndar
ds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60Most Restrictive Standards
Least Restrictive Standards
29
Figure 17 Depicts the relative “health” of various sites throughout the Chehalis Basin for the least restrictive standard set. Grays bars represent the percentage of samples (for all parameters) that exceed the Washington State water quality criteria.
Relative Comparison of Water Quality at all Sampling Sites (Least Restrictive Standards)
Chehalis Basin 2006-2007
Sampling Site (ID Number)
SKO
OKU
MC
HU
CK
R. @
Hat
chC
HEH
ALIS
R. @
SR
6D
EEP
CR
.W
ADD
ELL
CR
.PO
RTE
R C
R. @
Cam
pgrd
.SK
OO
KUM
CH
UC
K R
.SK
OO
KUM
CH
UC
K R
. @ M
outh
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
e El
lC
HEH
ALIS
R. @
RBF
St.
Pk.
M. F
OR
K SA
TSO
P R
. 1E.
FO
RK
WIS
HKA
H R
.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Mel
len
St.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ In
d. R
d.IN
DEP
END
ENC
E C
R. @
Mou
thS.
FO
RK
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
FPO
RTE
R C
R. @
Hwy
12
GIB
SON
CR
.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Hwy
603
N. F
OR
K N
EWAU
KUM
R.
M. F
OR
K N
EWAU
KUM
R.
BUN
KER
CR
. @ B
unk.
Cr.
Rd.
DIL
LEN
BAU
GH
CR
.W
ISH
KAH
R. @
W. W
ish.
Rd.
W. F
OR
K H
OQ
UIA
M R
.EL
K R
.JO
HN
S R
.C
LOQ
UAL
LUM
CR
. @ H
wy 1
2S.
FO
RK
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ L
VC
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Adn
aW
. FO
RK
SATS
OP
R.
WYN
OO
CH
EE R
. @ D
evon
. Rd.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
orst
Pk.
SCAT
TER
CR
. @ T
enin
oC
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Dot
yC
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Gal
vin
Rd.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ P
rath
erBL
ACK
R. @
Litt
lero
ckBE
AVER
CR
. @ P
orte
r Cr.
Rd.
CED
AR C
R.
CH
EHAL
IS R
. @ B
ull H
ole
BUN
KER
CR
. @ In
galls
Rd.
STEA
RN
S C
R. @
Twi
n O
aks
Rd.
CH
INA
CR
.LI
NC
OLN
CR
. @ In
galls
Rd.
STEA
RN
S C
R. @
Ple
asan
t Val
ley
BEAV
ER C
R. @
Ree
der R
d.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Sic
kman
-For
dS.
FO
RK
NEW
AUKU
M R
. 1C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Por
ter
S. F
OR
K N
EWAU
KUM
R. 2
SALZ
ER C
R. @
Cen
trail.
Rd.
SATS
OP
R.
HU
MPT
ULI
PS R
. @ N
ewso
mH
UM
PTU
LIPS
R. @
Hum
p. H
at.
E. F
OR
K SA
TSO
P R
.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Key
s R
d.N
EWAU
KUM
R.
SKO
OKU
MC
HU
CK
R. @
Ton
oBL
ACK
R. @
Mou
thG
ARR
ARD
CR
. @ M
outh
HAN
AFO
RD
CR
. @ S
chae
fer
S. H
ANAF
OR
D C
R.
LIN
CO
LN C
R. @
L.C
. Rd.
IND
EPEN
DEN
CE
CR
.SC
ATTE
R C
R. @
Jam
es R
d.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Wak
efie
ld R
d.C
HEH
ALIS
R. @
Hwy
107
HU
MPT
ULI
PS R
. @ B
urro
wsC
LOQ
UAL
LUM
CR
. @ C
lo R
d.C
OAL
CR
.W
YNO
OC
HEE
R. @
Wyn
. Lk.
GAR
RAR
D C
R. @
Bro
oklyn
Rd.
HAN
AFO
RD
CR
. @ R
d. E
ndBL
ACK
R. @
Bel
mor
e R
d.E.
FO
RK
HO
QU
IAM
R.
WYN
OO
CH
EE R
. @ G
eils
er R
d.SA
LZER
CR
. @ S
alze
r Cr.
Rd.
WIS
HKA
H R
. @ H
wy 1
2SC
ATTE
R C
R. @
Cas
e R
d.H
OQ
UIA
M R
.M
. FO
RK
SATS
OP
R. 2
BLAC
K R
. @ 1
10th
Ave
.W
INTE
R C
R.
Perc
enta
ge o
f Sam
ples
in V
iola
tion
of W
ater
Qua
lity
Stan
dard
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
30
Figure 18 Represents the relative frequency (as a percentage) of water quality violations that occurred for each parameter. Relative contributions are depicted when calculated using two sets of standards (described in Table 2).
Least Restrictive Standards
Relative Frequence of Water Quality Violations for Each ParamenterChehalis Basin 2006-2007
pH 33.4%
Temp. 23.9%
Turbidity 15.2%
Dissolved O2 21.8%
Feca
ls 5
.6%
pH 55.2%
Temp. 7.8%
Turbidity 11.6%
Dissolved O2 19.5%
Feca
ls 5
.7%
Most Restrictive Standards
31
Summary of Technical Studies and Management Plans for the Chehalis Basin Technical Studies 7 USEPA approved TMDL studies addressing dissolved oxygen, temperature and fecal coliform throughout the upper and lower basin
WDOE, 2000; 2000; 2000; 2001; 20001; 2002; 2002
A Biological Assessment of Streams in the Coastal Range Ecoregion and Yakima Basin, Publication # 99-302 WDOE,1999 Chehalis Basin Level I Assessment CBP, 2000 Salmon Habitat Limiting Factors in Washington State WSCC, 2005 2002 Index Watershed Salmon Recovery Monitoring Report WDFW, 2002 Chehalis Best Management Practices Evaluation Project: Final Report for Water Quality Sites WDOE, 2002 Management Plans Chehalis Basin Detailed Implementation Plan CBP, 2006 Chehalis Basin Watershed Management Plan CBP, 2002 Chehalis Watershed Monitoring Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan Framework CBP, 2003 The Chehalis/Grays Harbor Watershed Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL-Detailed Implementation (Cleanup) Plan , Publication # 04-10-065 WDOE, 2004 The Chehalis Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Work Plan for WRIAs 22/23 CBP, 2003
Table 1. Summarizes the technical studies and management plans for the Chehalis Basin referenced throughout the document. Studies are authored by Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), The Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP) and the Washington State Conservation Commission (WSCC)
32
Washington State Water Quality Standards
Parameter High Standards Description Low Standards Description
Temperature 9 degrees C 7-d average to protect
t char spawning 13 degrees C 7-d average to protect
salmon spawning
Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 mg/L
7-d average to protect core summer salmon habitat 8 mg/L
7-d average to protect salmon spawning, rearing and migration
Turbidity 5 NTU Increase To protect salmon spawning 10 NTU Increase To protect salmon
migration and rearing
pH 6.5 to 8.5 To protect salmon spawning,
rearing and migration same same
Fecal Coliform
50 colonies/100 ml
To protect extraordinary uses (e.g. oyster culture)
100 colonies/100 ml
To protect for primary contact and recreation
Table 2. Depicts a summary of Washington State standards for surface water quality. Standards are described for two levels of protection that are intended to protect waters of high or extraordinary quality. The most restrictive standards are described as “high” and the least restrictive standards as “low”.