Upper Chehalis River Basin Temperature TMDL

Editor's Note:

Upper Chehalis River Basin Temperature TMDL

by

Steve Butkus
Washington State Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

DRAFT - May 1999

For additional copies of this report, contact:

Department of Ecology
Publications
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Telephone: (360) 407-7472

The Department of Ecology is an equal opportunity agency and does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran's status, Vietnam Era veteran's status, or sexual orientation.

For more information or if you have special accommodation needs, please contact Barbara Tovrea at (360) 407-6696. Ecology Headquarters telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) number is (360) 407-6006. Ecology Regional Office TDD numbers are as follows:

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

List of Tables

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Summary

The Upper Chehalis River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), is being established for solar radiation. This TMDL is designed to address impairments due to surface water temperature increases on 9 water quality-limited streams (representing 19 segments) located in the watershed and provide goals for protection of all remaining streams. Streamside shade is used as a surrogate to address these water temperature increases as allowed per federal regulations. A decrease in shade increases incoming solar radiation and the resultant heat transfer to the stream. The 5 elements of a TMDL as required by federal statute and regulation are summarized below:

Loading Capacity: The loading capacity of solar radiation is based on the shade levels in the riparian corridor needed to meet state water quality standards for temperature.

Wasteload Allocation: Thermal loads for 4 point source inputs are established at the same temperature as the receiving stream at the end of the mixing zone during critical conditions.

Load Allocations: Load allocations of riparian shade are established for 13 stream reaches.

Margin of Safety: The margin of safety is implicit by using an extreme climatic condition in the modeling analysis. Climatic conditions measured on the same day as for the 90th percentile of mean air temperature were used.

Seasonal Variation: A review of monitoring data collected in the Upper Chehalis River Basin shows that the bulk of temperature measurements over the criteria occur in June and July. Since it is not possible to change allocations of shade over a season, they were set based on this critical summer period. The modeling analysis used climatic conditions collected in the middle of this period on July 21, 1998.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Introduction

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act mandates that the State establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for surface waters that do not meet standards after application of technology-based pollution controls. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated new regulations (40 CFR 130) and developed guidance (EPA, 1991) for establishing TMDLs.

Under the Clean Water Act, every state has its own water quality standards designed to protect, restore, and preserve water quality. Water quality standards consist of designated uses, such as cold water biota and drinking water supply, and criteria, usually numeric criteria, to achieve those uses. When a lake, river or stream fails to meet water quality standards after application of required technology-based controls, the Clean Water Act requires that the state place the water body on a list of "impaired" water bodies and to prepare an analysis called a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) .

The goal of a TMDL is to ensure the impaired water will attain water quality standards. A TMDL includes a written, quantitative assessment of water quality problems and of the pollutant sources that cause the problem. The TMDL determines the amount of a given pollutant which can be discharged to the water body and still meet standards, the loading capacity, and allocates that load among the various sources. If the pollutant comes from a discrete source (referred to as a point source ) such as an industrial facility's discharge pipe, that facility's share of the loading capacity is called a wasteload allocation . If it comes from a diffuse source (referred to as a nonpoint source ) such as a farm, that facility's share is called a load allocation .

The TMDL must also consider seasonal variations and include a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge about the causes of the water quality problem or its loading capacity. The sum of the individual allocations and the margin of safety must be equal to or less than the loading capacity.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Background

SSTEMP and SSSHADE are the models used to assess the effects of solar radiation, channel morphology and instream flow on temperature in stream segments of the Upper Chehalis River watershed. The SNTEMP model is a stream temperature network model written by Theurer et al. (1984) and is currently supported by the U.S. Geological Survey. SNTEMP is a mechanistic, one dimensional, heat transport model that analyzes temperature conditions for a network of streams in steady state. The model was developed to help predict the consequences of manipulation of various factors influencing stream temperatures. SSSHADE is a stream shading model which is used to provide input variables to the SNTEMP model. SSSHADE estimates stream shading from various riparian characteristics.

SNTEMP and SSSHADE require input data for 28 parameter and state variables ranging from channel conditions to climate. Many of these were kept constant for all model runs. Several parameters were varied to assess the impact of various factors. The following are a list of the model input parameters used.

Stream Network Geometry: The stream network was divided into numerous reaches based on location of significant tributaries and hydraulic characteristics. Tributary streams that are on the 1998 Section 303(d) list for temperature were modeled as branches to the network. Other significant tributaries were treated as point source inflows. The mainstem Chehalis River was divided into 4 separate hydraulic reaches based on staff best professional judgement (Pickett, 1999). A schematic or the modeled stream network is shown in Figure 2.

Segment Lengths : Derived from the Washington Department of Fisheries River Mile Index (WDF, 1975).

Latitude: Used 0.81158 radians (46.5ø) for all segments representing the lowest latitude of the study area. The most extreme value was selected as one element of the inherent margin of safety.

Elevation: Determined for each network stream node from the 7.5 minute GIS coverage derived from USGS and Forest Service digital elevation models.

Manning's n: Initially estimated for each segment in the range of 0.035 to 0.060 using channel and flow characteristics. This parameter was adjusted within accepted ranges using knowledge of the stream characteristics during model calibration to approximate measured temperatures in the modeled segments.

Width Coefficient and Exponent: Derived from width and instream flow data collected by Pickett (1994a&b). For each hydraulic segment of the mainstem Chehalis River, measured wetted width and flow data from a representative segment not impacted by bridge crossings were regressed into a power function. Likewise, data from the tributaries (excluding the Black River) were pooled and these parameters were derived. The Black River parameters were figured separately from the other modeled tributaries to the mainstem Chehalis River.

Stream Shading: Determined from the output results of the SSSHADE model. For each modeled stream reach, the type of vegetation was determined by intersection with the Washington Department of Natural Resources GIS coverage depicting canopy in 1991 derived from Landsat/TM satellite imagery. The percentage of each canopy type was determined for each reach. The SSSHADE model was run with applicable parameters for each reach and canopy type. The overall shade for the overall reach was determined by proportion of canopy type and the modeled shade results for each. The parameters and assumptions used in SSSHADE are described further below and the results are shown in the Appendix (Table A1).

Ground Temperature: Used 9.9øC which is the mean annual air temperature from 1948 to 1998 measured at Olympia Airport, just north of the watershed.

Streambed Thermal Gradient: Used 1.65 joules/m2/sec/C which is the default value recommended by the model documentation to be used in lieu of a measured value.

Time Period: For model calibration and validation, the conditions for the month of August were modeled. The SNTEMP model was run steady state for a 30 day averaging period (Julian days 213 to 243) to bound the watershed time of travel of 20 days determined by Pickett (1994a). The SSSHADE model was run for August 15th representing the sun angle during the middle of the month.

Dust Coefficient: Used the value of 0.06 as the summer mean measured in a similar geographic region (TVA, 1972).

Ground Reflectivity: Used the value of 0.29 as measured from late summer vegetation with leaves low in water content (TVA, 1972).

Meteorology Station Latitude: Used 0.81978 radians representing the location of Olympia Airport.

Meteorology Station Elevation: Used 58 meters representing the location of Olympia Airport.

Mean Annual Air Temperature: Used 9.9øC based on data the average of daily maximum and minimum air temperatures collected from Olympia Airport between 1948 and 1993.

Mean Air Temperature for Calibration & Validation: Used 18.5øC and 18.2øC derived from measured values at Olympia Airport from August 1991 and 1992, respectively.

Mean Wind Speed for Calibration & Validation: Used 2.6 meters/second and 2.7 metes/second derived from measured values at Olympia Airport from August 1991 and 1992, respectively.

Mean Relative Humidity for Calibration & Validation: Used 72% and 67% derived from measured values at Olympia Airport from August 1991 and 1992, respectively.

Percent Sunshine for Calibration & Validation: Used 100% assuming a cloudless day. The most extreme value was selected as one element of the inherent margin of safety.

Lateral Inflow Temperature: For many of the segments, the mean annual air temperature measured at Olympia Airport between 1948 and 1993 (explained above) was used. This value is commonly used to approximate the temperature of the groundwater (Theuer et al. 1984). However, many of the modeled segments may have a considerable percentage of surface water entering as lateral inflow through small ditches and streams. These lateral surface water inflows likely have a higher temperature than ground water. This parameter was adjusted in the calibration of the model to approximate measured temperatures in the modeled segments.

Instream Flow for Calibration & Validation: For most segments, modeled flows from Tables C3 and G1 in Pickett (1994a) were used. However, data from the USGS on 8/27 was used for the headwaters at Skookumchuck River Mile 6.5 since this location was not modeled by Pickett (1994a). Also, data from Pickett (1994b) was used for the Black River.

Instream Temperature for Calibration & Validation: For most river segments, measured temperatures from Tables D1 and F1 in Pickett (1994a) were used. Also, data from Pickett (1994b) was used for the Black River. Since temperatures of the 3 wastewater treatment plant discharges were not measured, the maximum river temperature measured at the surface near the point of each discharge was used as the effluent temperature. Temperature values for the mainstem Chehalis River model nodes were compared to the first downstream station measured. Since the model is only 1 dimensional, only surface temperatures were used where profile data were collected as one element of the inherent margin of safety. Due to a larger set of data available, the highest temperature measured in August was used for comparison to the 30-day steady state model runs. Values used for comparison to calibration and validation model runs are shown in the Appendix (Table A2).

Azimuth: For each modeled stream segment the degrees representing the general bearing between the headwaters and the mouth (or beginning and end of the segment) were used.

Stream Width: For each modeled segment, the median stream wetted width was taken from measurements collected by Pickett (1994a&b). These measured values were used for the modeled mainstem Chehalis River segments. However, the widths of the tributaries were measured at generally the widest location on the stream since they were collected near the mouth. Most of these streams likely have decreasingly smaller widths progressing upstream to near zero at the headwaters. To account for the range in width on modeled headwater segments, a value of one-half the width at the mouth was used in SSSHADE.

Topography: The topographic contribution to stream shade was assumed to be zero for all segments. This is the most extreme value and was selected as one element of the inherent margin of safety.

Vegetation Height: Estimated from the Washington Department of Natural Resources GIS tree canopy coverage along each stream reach. Conifers were assumed to be Western Hemlock, since climax stands in this region would be dominated by this species (Cassidy, 1997). Early seral stage was assumed to be 50 years and mid-seral stage at 100 years. Hardwoods were assumed to be early seral stage Red Alder at 10 years, since this is the primary species for successional starts after disturbance in mesic areas such as stream riparian corridors (Cassidy, 1997). Tree heights were derived from regional growth curves assuming a site index of 100 (Henderson, et al. 1989). Non-forested areas were assumed to be an even mix of early seral stage hardwoods and banks with no trees consisting of mostly understory species, shrub fields, or meadows.

Vegetation Crown: Derived for a particular tree species from the ratio of the measured crown to the measured height of mature trees (B.C. Conservation Data Centre, 1999)

Vegetation Offset: Assuming for typical streams will have a channel migration zone greater than the wetted perimeter, a 10 foot offset was used for all riparian vegetation when modeling shade levels.

Vegetation Density: Assumed that an 85% density was representative of a fir stand with good quality of shade from existing riparian vegetation.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Model Calibration and Validation

The model was calibrated to allow the model to represent more closely the particular sensitivities of the stream network. Model calibration was conducted by adjusting the parameters of Manning's n and lateral inflow temperature within reasonable levels so that predicted temperature more closely matched measured temperature. The period representing August 1991 was used for calibration. The model performance was validated using an independent data set of state variables with the same parameter values. Data of state variables from a different period are commonly used for model validation to assess the performance of the model process parameters adjusted during calibration. The period representing August 1992 was used for validation. The framework schematic, main parameters and state variables used in the model geometry are shown below (Figure 2 and Table 4).

Table 4. Upper Chehalis River Network Stream Temperature Model Geometry Parameters

Stream Segment Name	Elevation (m)	Azimuth (degrees bearing)	Manning's n	Width (m)	Width Coefficient	Width Exponent
Chehalis RM 123.0	483	5	0.040	26.8	27.01	0.14
Chehalis RM 100.2	85	80	0.040	22.6	22.06	0.14
Chehalis RM 88.3	59	80	0.040	22.6	22.06	0.14
Chehalis RM 75.4	49	0	0.060	23.6	19.75	0.18
Chehalis RM 74.7	48	0	0.060	23.6	19.75	0.18
Chehalis RM 69.4	47	0	0.060	23.6	19.75	0.18
Chehalis RM 67.0	46	-50	0.060	39.6	23.78	0.20
Chehalis RM 61.9	36	-50	0.060	39.6	23.78	0.20
Chehalis RM 88.8	34	-50	0.060	39.6	23.78	0.20
Chehalis RM 75.6	18	-50	0.060	39.6	23.78	0.20
South Fork Chehalis	291	0	0.040	6.3	10.67	0.21
Newaukum River	908	-70	0.060	4.4	10.67	0.21
Dillenbaugh Creek	162	-70	0.060	1.4	10.67	0.21
Salzer Creek	166	-90	0.080	1.7	10.67	0.21
Skookumchuck River	65	70	0.020	6.5	10.67	0.21
Lincoln Creek	180	90	0.080	3.1	10.67	0.21
Scatter Creek	101	85	0.025	3.5	10.67	0.21
Black River	27	55	0.060	13.1	10.67	0.21

Four statistical tests were applied to the results of the model calibration and validation. The root mean square error, median absolute deviation, scaled residuals, and relative error are the best statistical measures commonly used to test model performance (Reckhow, et al. 1986). The root mean square error presents an estimate of the variation in the same units as the measurement (e.g. øC). The relative error presents this variation as a percentage of the measurement mean. The median absolute deviation describes the central tendency of model performance. The median scaled residual provides a relative estimate whether the model is over or under predicting measured conditions. These statistics were compiled for the combined data set of 10 mainstem Chehalis River stations and 8 tributary near mouth stations (Table 5).

Table 5. Performance of the Upper Chehalis River Network Stream Temperature Model

Location	Calibration - August 1991			Validation - August 1992
	Measured (øC)	Predicted (øC)	Delta (øC)	Measured (øC)	Predicted (øC)	Delta (øC)
Chehalis River Mile 106.3	15.3	21.5	6.2	18.1	21.2	3.1
Chehalis River Mile 88.3	18.1	23.5	5.4	18.1	23.0	4.9
Chehalis River Mile 75.4	23.4	22.3	-1.1	23.4	21.9	-1.5
Chehalis River Mile 74.7	23.9	21.7	-2.2	21.5	21.4	-0.1
Chehalis River Mile 69.4	20.2	21.9	1.7	24.4	21.1	-3.4
Chehalis River Mile 67.0	22.7	21.6	-1.1	22.5	20.8	-1.7
Chehalis River Mile 61.9	23.2	22.7	-0.5	22.9	22.4	-0.5
Chehalis River Mile 55.2	21.3	20.9	-0.4	20.8	21.6	0.8
Chehalis River Mile 47.0	22.5	21.9	-0.6	19.5	21.9	2.4
Chehalis River Mile 33.8	19.8	21.7	1.9	21.2	21.6	0.4
South Fork Chehalis Mouth	21.2	21.2	0.0	20.0	20.1	0.1
Newaukum River Mouth	17.7	19.8	2.1	20.5	19.4	-1.1
Dillenbaugh Creek Mouth	18.8	20.7	1.9	18.6	20.1	1.5
Salzer Creek Mouth	19.2	19.3	0.1	18.2	20.1	1.9
Skookumchuck River Mouth	20.4	18.7	-1.7	18.7	18.9	0.2
Lincoln Creek Mouth	19.0	21.7	2.7	16.2	21.4	5.2
Scatter Creek Mouth	20.9	20.8	-0.1	21.1	20.2	-0.9
Black River Mouth	21.0	20.5	-0.5	18.7	20.9	2.2
Statistics
Median Absolute Deviation	1.4øC			1.5øC
Median Scaled Residual	-0.4%			1.6%
Root Mean Square Error	3.2øC			3.2øC
Relative Error	16%			16%

The results of these statistical tests show little difference between model performance of the model calibration and validation runs. The median absolute deviations for both time periods are similar at 1.4øC and 1.5øC. The median scaled residuals show a low percentage, with the calibration run slightly under predicting and the validation run slightly over predicting measured stream temperatures overall. Also, the model root mean square error for predicting daily maximum stream temperature for both time periods is 3.2øC, which provides a relative error of 16%. These error measures are reasonable based on the difficulty of predicting maximum daily temperatures (Bartholow, 1989).

Reviewing model performance at specific sites provides some insight on important factors. Near the headwaters of the mainstem the maximum temperature is over predicted. This is likely due to the model not representing the effects of water moving from the surface into the groundwater in this reach as it moves from bedrock into alluvium. The model also under predicted maximum temperature in the pooled reach of the mainstem Chehalis River between the confluence's of the Newaukum and Skookumchuck Rivers.. This is likely due to modeling only surface temperatures in a thermally stratified water. Overall, the model performance is adequate to test the effect of different management strategies on the temperature of the stream network as a whole.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Critical Conditions Used for Model Application

Using the water quality model to determine the loading capacity and evaluate alternative management strategies requires defining the critical conditions when pollutant loading has the greatest impact on attaining water quality standards. For this analysis, three factors were used to define critical conditions: flow, climatic, and solar apex. For flow, critical conditions are defined in the state's water quality standards as the statistical 7-day low flow event that occurs every 10 years (7Q10). For climate variables, the 90th percentile maximum air temperature measured at Olympia Airport in the summer (June-August) over the past 50 years was used (31.1øC). The other concurrent climatic variables (wind speed and relative humidity) were used from the latest date that this maximum temperature was measured (July 21, 1998). For solar apex, the day with the maximum day light was used (June 21). All of these critical conditions occur during the same period that standards are not being met in the watershed (Table 2)

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Loading Capacity Analysis

Identification of the loading capacity is an important step in developing TMDLs. The loading capacity provides a reference for calculating the amount of pollutant reduction needed to bring a water into compliance with water quality standards. By definition, a TMDL is the sum of the allocations. An allocation is defined as the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is assigned to a particular source. EPA defines the loading capacity as "the greatest amount of loading that a water can receive without violating water quality standards."

In order to determine the loading capacity, the water quality criteria for each listed segment must be determined. The high temperatures involved suggest that the water quality standard may actually be above the general criterion of 18øC due to natural conditions. The calibrated stream network model was used to estimate probable maximum daily temperatures with a riparian shade condition that had not been disturbed.

The assumption used for undisturbed riparian shade was that all the streams in the basin would have a late seral stage Western Hemlock forest stand of 200 years old (Cassidy, 1997). This assumption was used as the benchmark for estimating the natural maximum temperature probable under critical conditions. The segment specific water quality criteria were then determined from these estimates. Most listed segments did indeed naturally exceed the 18øC general criterion. For these the site specific criterion is 0.3øC above the natural condition temperature. Only the listed segments on Dillenbaugh Creek were below the 18øC numeric criterion. For these segments, the numeric criterion of 18øC applies (Table 6)

Table 6. Predicted Temperature with Late Seral Hemlock Shade under Critical Conditions

Section 303(d) Listed Segment Name	Listed River Mile	Segment Township- Range- Section	Maximum Daily Temperature (øC)	Water Quality Standard (øC)
Chehalis River	101.7	13N-05W-12	20.3	20.6
Chehalis River	74.6	14N-03W-24	20.0	20.3
Chehalis River	73.6	14N-03W-25	20.1	20.4
Chehalis River	70.7	14N-02W-24	20.1	20.4
Chehalis River	69.1	14N-02W-18	20.4	20.7
Chehalis River	67.5	14N-02W-07	20.5	20.8
Chehalis River	66.3	14N-03W-12	20.9	21.2
Chehalis River	59.9	15N-03W-22	21.0	21.3
Chehalis River	44.0	16N-05W-36	21.2	21.5
Chehalis River	33.8	17N-05W-28	21.2	21.5
South Fork Chehalis	0.5	13N-04W-24	19.2	19.5
Newaukum River	0.1	14N-02W-31	18.1	18.4
Dillenbaugh Creek	0.1	14N-02W-31	17.7	18.0
Dillenbaugh Creek	1.7	13N-02W-05	17.8	18.0
Salzer Creek	0.2	14N-02W-19	20.5	20.8
Skookumchuck River	0.1	14N-02W-07	18.4	18.7
Lincoln Creek	4.2	15N-03W-29	20.8	21.1
Scatter	1.3	15N-03W-08	20.4	20.7
Black River	1.2	15N-04W-05	19.3	19.6

Since the loading capacity will be presented in units of shade, the next step is to determine the amount of shade required to meet the site specific criterion. For comparison to present conditions, the stream network model was used to estimate the maximum temperature under critical conditions using the current estimated riparian shade levels. These estimates of the current condition were then compared to the site specific water quality criteria determined above. Only the listed segments on Dillenbaugh Creek show that standards are currently being met. All other listed segments were shown to be out of compliance with water quality standards (Table 7).

Table 7. Comparison of Water Quality Standards with Predicted Temperature

with Existing Shade under Critical Conditions.

Section 303(d) Listed Segment Name	Listed River Mile	Segment Township- Range- Section	Maximum Daily Temperature (øC)	Water Quality Standard (øC)	Amount out of Compliance (øC)
Chehalis River	101.7	13N-05W-12	22.8	20.6	2.2
Chehalis River	74.6	14N-03W-24	22.7	20.3	2.4
Chehalis River	73.6	14N-03W-25	22.9	20.4	2.5
Chehalis River	70.7	14N-02W-24	23.3	20.4	2.9
Chehalis River	69.1	14N-02W-18	23.8	20.7	3.1
Chehalis River	67.5	14N-02W-07	21.9	20.8	1.1
Chehalis River	66.3	14N-03W-12	23.4	21.2	2.2
Chehalis River	59.9	15N-03W-22	23.3	21.3	2.0
Chehalis River	44.0	16N-05W-36	23.5	21.5	2.0
Chehalis River	33.8	17N-05W-28	23.4	21.5	1.9
South Fork Chehalis	0.5	13N-04W-24	22.6	19.5	3.1
Newaukum River	0.1	14N-02W-31	22.5	18.4	4.1
Dillenbaugh Creek	0.1	14N-02W-31	20.4	18.0	2.40
Dillenbaugh Creek	1.7	13N-02W-05	20.3	18.0	2.3
Salzer Creek	0.2	14N-02W-19	21.7	20.8	0.9
Skookumchuck River	0.1	14N-02W-07	19.8	18.7	1.1
Lincoln Creek	4.2	15N-03W-29	23.0	21.1	1.9
Scatter Creek	1.3	15N-03W-08	21.8	20.7	1.1
Black River	1.2	15N-04W-05	22.4	19.6	2.8

The loading capacity for each of the modeled segments was determined by adjusting the shade values in the model such that the temperature standard was just met at each of the listed segment. The resulting loading capacities for streams in the Chehalis River Basin TMDL are presented in units of percent shade. The SNTEMP model does not provide results on the actual solar load, which would be of limited use for management anyway. The load allocations established are the same as the loading capacity for all segments (Table 8). The wasteload allocations are represented as effluent temperature which was used in the model calibration (Table A2). The effluent temperatures were assumed to be the same as the maximum stream temperature measured by Pickett (1994a). These data were collected during the period of critical conditions. Since the model represents far-field conditions, the wasteload allocation would apply at the edge of the mixing zone.

Table 8 . Loading Capacity and Load Allocations for

Upper Chehalis River Basin Stream Segments

Segment Description	Percent Shade					Percent Change Needed
	Loading Capacity	Load Allocation	Modeled Natural Conditions	Estimated Existing Conditions	Additional Shade Needed
Chehalis River - Headwaters to Elk Creek	69	69	71	53	16	30%
Chehalis River - Elk Creek to Newaukum River	34	34	36	18	16	89%
Chehalis River - Newaukum River to Skookumchuck R.	59	59	62	22	37	168%
Chehalis River - Skookumchuck R. to Scatter Creek	39	39	42	16	23	144%
Chehalis River - Scatter Creek to the Town of Porter	38	38	42	16	22	137%
South Fork Chehalis	75	75	77	52	23	44%
Newaukum River	75	75	77	43	32	74%
Dillenbaugh Creek	80	80	81	64	16	25%
Salzer Creek	75	75	77	68	7	10%
Skookumchuck R.	71	71	74	59	12	20%
Lincoln Creek	73	73	75	59	14	24%
Scatter Creek	76	76	78	69	7	10%
Black River	64	64	67	37	27	73%

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Margin of Safety

The statute requires that a margin of safety be identified to account for uncertainty when establishing a TMDL. The margin of safety can be explicit in the form of an allocation, or implicit in the use of conservative assumptions in the analysis. Several assumptions and critical conditions used in the modeling analysis of the Chehalis River TMDL provide an inherent margin of safety over uncertainty as required by the statute. These conservative assumptions and critical conditions are listed below:

1. Only the higher surface water temperatures were used to calibrate and validate the model. The colder water at depth where fish may find refuge from higher water temperatures was not modeled.

2. Due to a larger set of data available, the highest water temperatures recorded in August were used to calibrate and validate the model. Lower water temperatures were recorded at various times and locations. As such, the model represents the worst case condition measured in the system.

3. The topographic shade was set to zero. Several of the stream segments in the more mountainous areas have the benefit of shade caused by the steeper topography of the surrounding hills. This topography can block additional solar radiation that was not accounted for in the modeling.

4. The lowest latitude of the study area was used for all modeled segments. Some of the segments are at a slightly higher latitude and could have a smaller solar radiation load at certain times.

5. Used 100% sunshine in all model runs. Clouds that could block solar radiation were not accounted for in the model.

6. Used the 7-day low flows derived by Pickett (1994a) for application of the model for loading capacity analysis and management strategies.

7. Used climate conditions recorded on the 90th percentile maximum daily measured temperature.

8. Used the date of June 21 for the maximum annual solar radiation.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Analysis of Other Factors Affecting Temperature

Two additional factors that influence stream temperatures were assessed with the SNTEMP model: instream flow and wetted width to depth ratios of tributary stream channels. Changes on instream flow can affect the heat carrying capacity of the stream and influence the degree at which groundwater affects temperature. Changes in width to depth ration affect the amount of solar load that reaches the streambed. Excessive sediment loading can cause stream channels that are shallow and wide, increasing both solar radiation loading and stream temperature.

The Upper Chehalis River system has had base flows established for the protection of instream uses (e.g. salmonid habitat) at 14 locations by state rule (Chapter 173-522 WAC). Recent assessments of compliance with that rule show that streams are not meeting these flows between 33 to 77 days per year. (Wildrick, et al. 1995). The water rights and claims exceed the critical low flow conditions (7Q10) by 400%.

The calibrated network model was used to determine the effect on stream temperatures if the instream flows set by rule were met. Critical conditions were used except the base flow established by rule was added. The instream flow rule for baseflow on July 1 was used to correspond with the critical period with the highest stream temperatures (Table 2). Streams with no base flow rule were left at 7Q10 flows for the model simulation. Results show that 4 listed segments would meet the temperature standard if the base flows from the rule were attained (Table 9). In addition, most other listed segments are much closer to compliance with the standard. The amount of additional shade required to meet temperature standards is also much lower when the instream flows are in compliance with the rule (Table 10).

Table 9. Comparison of Water Quality Standards with Predicted Temperature

with Existing Shade under Critical Conditions with Instream Flow Rule Compliance.

Section 303(d) Listed Segment Name	Listed River Mile	Segment Township- Range- Section	Maximum Daily Temperature (øC)	Water Quality Standard (øC)	Amount out of Compliance (øC)
Chehalis River	101.7	13N-05W-12	22.4	20.6	1.8
Chehalis River	74.6	14N-03W-24	20.7	20.3	0.4
Chehalis River	73.6	14N-03W-25	20.9	20.4	0.5
Chehalis River	70.7	14N-02W-24	21.3	20.4	0.9
Chehalis River	69.1	14N-02W-18	21.8	20.7	1.1
Chehalis River	67.5	14N-02W-07	22.0	20.8	0.2
Chehalis River	66.3	14N-03W-12	22.2	21.2	1.0
Chehalis River	59.9	15N-03W-22	22.1	21.3	0.8
Chehalis River	44.0	16N-05W-36	21.2	21.5	0
Chehalis River	33.8	17N-05W-28	19.5	21.5	0
South Fork Chehalis	0.5	13N-04W-24	19.3	19.5	0
Newaukum River	0.1	14N-02W-31	19.5	18.4	1.1
Dillenbaugh Creek	0.1	14N-02W-31	20.3	18.0	2.3
Dillenbaugh Creek	1.7	13N-02W-05	20.4	18.0	2.4
Salzer Creek	0.2	14N-02W-19	21.7	20.8	0.9
Skookumchuck River	0.1	14N-02W-07	19.6	18.7	0.9
Lincoln Creek	4.2	15N-03W-29	23.0	21.1	1.9
Scatter Creek	1.3	15N-03W-08	21.8	20.7	1.1
Black River	1.2	15N-04W-05	19.6	19.6	0

Table 10. Comparison of Riparian Shade Needed for Existing Critical Condition Flows (7Q10)

and Instream Flows Required by State Rule

Segment Description	Estimated Existing % Shade	7Q10 Flows		Instream Rule Flows
		Additional % Shade Needed	Percent Change Needed	Additional % Shade Needed	Percent Change Needed
Chehalis River - Headwaters to Elk Creek	53	16	30%	13	24%
Chehalis River - Elk Creek to Newaukum River	18	16	89%	4	18%
Chehalis River - Newaukum River to Skookumchuck R.	22	37	168%	21	95%
Chehalis River - Skookumchuck R. to Scatter Creek	16	23	144%	14	88%
Chehalis River - Scatter Creek to the Town of Porter	16	22	137%	0	0%
South Fork Chehalis	52	23	44%	0	0%
Newaukum River	43	32	74%	9	17%
Dillenbaugh Creek	64	80	25%	80	25%
Salzer Creek	68	7	10%	7	10%
Skookumchuck R.	59	12	20%	11	16%
Lincoln Creek	59	14	24%	14	19%
Scatter Creek	69	7	10%	7	9%
Black River	37	27	73%	0	0%

The calibrated network model was also used to determine the effect of channel morphology on stream temperatures. A width to depth ratio of 10 or less is commonly used as describing good anadromous fish habitat (USDA, 1995). The Ch‚zy-Manning formula (Lindsley, et al. 1982) was used with modeled parameters to determine the change in stream wetted width and model width coefficient term required in the headwater streams to meet the target width to depth ratio of 10. The channel morphology of the other modeled reaches of the mainstem Chehalis River were not altered since it is unlikely that management of sediment loads would have an effect the channel due to the existing hydromodification, such as extensive levies. Critical conditions were used for all other model parameters.

Results show that 15 listed segments would meet the temperature standard if the width to depth ratio were 10 in the modeled headwaters (Table 11). In addition, most other listed segments are much closer to compliance with the standard. The amount of additional shade required to meet temperature standards is also much lower if the width to depth ratio of 10 had existed prior to changes in stream channel morphology (Table 12).

Table 11. Comparison of Water Quality Standards with Predicted Temperature with Existing Shade under Critical Conditions with Width to Depth Ratios of 10 in Headwater Streams.

Section 303(d) Listed Segment Name	Listed River Mile	Segment Township- Range- Section	Maximum Daily Temperature (øC)	Water Quality Standard (øC)	Amount out of Compliance (øC)
Chehalis River	101.7	13N-05W-12	12.4	20.6	0
Chehalis River	74.6	14N-03W-24	18.7	20.3	0
Chehalis River	73.6	14N-03W-25	19.0	20.4	0
Chehalis River	70.7	14N-02W-24	19.7	20.4	0
Chehalis River	69.1	14N-02W-18	20.3	20.7	0
Chehalis River	67.5	14N-02W-07	20.7	20.8	0
Chehalis River	66.3	14N-03W-12	21.2	21.2	0
Chehalis River	59.9	15N-03W-22	21.4	21.3	0.1
Chehalis River	44.0	16N-05W-36	20.4	21.5	0
Chehalis River	33.8	17N-05W-28	19.2	21.5	0
South Fork Chehalis	0.5	13N-04W-24	14.3	19.5	0
Newaukum River	0.1	14N-02W-31	13.8	18.4	0
Dillenbaugh Creek	0.1	14N-02W-31	15.4	18.0	0
Dillenbaugh Creek	1.7	13N-02W-05	15.5	18.0	0
Salzer Creek	0.2	14N-02W-19	21.6	20.8	0.8
Skookumchuck River	0.1	14N-02W-07	17.4	18.7	0
Lincoln Creek	4.2	15N-03W-29	23.3	21.1	2.2
Scatter Creek	1.3	15N-03W-08	21.2	20.7	0.5
Black River	1.2	15N-04W-05	14.8	19.6	0

Table 12. Comparison of Riparian Shade Needed for Existing Critical Condition Flows (7Q10)

and Width to Depth (W:D) Ratios of 10 for Headwater Streams

Segment Description	Estimated Existing % Shade	Existing W:D Ratio		W:D Ratio = 10
		Additional % Shade Needed	Percent Change Needed	Additional % Shade Needed	Percent Change Needed
Chehalis River - Headwaters to Elk Creek	53	16	30%	0	0%
Chehalis River - Elk Creek to Newaukum River	18	16	89%	0	0%
Chehalis River - Newaukum River to Skookumchuck R.	22	37	168%	0	0%
Chehalis River - Skookumchuck R. to Scatter Creek	16	23	144%	1	6%
Chehalis River - Scatter Creek to the Town of Porter	16	22	137%	0	0%
South Fork Chehalis	52	23	44%	0	0
Newaukum River	43	32	74%	0	0
Dillenbaugh Creek	64	80	25%	0	0
Salzer Creek	68	7	10%	5	7%
Skookumchuck R.	59	12	20%	0	0
Lincoln Creek	59	14	24%	13	22%
Scatter Creek	69	7	10%	6	9%
Black River	37	27	73%	0	0

Per EPA guidance, a quantitative link must be shown to a manageable pollutant in order to use the channel morphology as a factor in a load allocation. In this case, the widening of the headwater streams has occurred because of a greater than normal input of sediment to the stream system through erosion processes. Two analysis methods were investigated to quantify stream width to depth ratios to measures of erosion.

First, a relationship was investigated between width to depth data collected as part of the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Merritt, 1997) and the percent of bank erosion observed by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (Wampler et al. 1993) in the watershed upstream of these sample locations. There was essentially no predictive relationship between these data sets with a nonsignificant explained variance of only 6 percent. Data transformation did not improve this regression.

Second, a relationship was investigated between the width to depth data collected as part of the Dry Season TMDL study (Pickett, 1994a) and historical sediment loading data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (Glancy, 1966). Data collected since this time are not adequate to derive more reasonable, current loading estimates. Again, there was essentially no predictive relationship between these data sets with a nonsignificant explained variance of only 25 percent. Data transformation did not improve this regression.

Both of the additional factors evaluated, instream flow and channel morphology, had a important effect on stream temperatures. However, neither will be used in setting load allocations. The significant issue of over-allocation of the instream flow resources will be difficult to solve short of court adjudication. The stream morphology that is not considered good for anadromous fish habitat cannot be quantitatively linked to a manageable pollutant as required by EPA guidance for TMDLs. Even if the sediment load were reduced enough to narrow the stream channel width, riparian vegetation would have to be introduced and grown to existing heights to achieve the results obtained by the modeling analysis.

However, it has been shown that managing riparian shading alone can achieve stream temperature standards. Therefore, the load allocation and implementation strategy will be based on restoring and maintaining riparian shade. If a future assessment can show a quantifiable link between sediment load and stream channel morpohogy, the TMDL may be revised to trade allocations between the shade measure established and sediment management practices. Likewise, if water rights can be returned to the river through conservation or adjudication, the TMDL may be revised to trade allocations between the shade measure established and the higher flows.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Implementation Strategy

The modeling results and the loading capacity show that existing shade levels are not sufficient to meet stream temperature standards throughout the Upper Chehalis River Basin. First, the existing riparian vegetation must be maintained. In addition, some sort of restoration will be needed to achieve the shade levels set as load allocations. The implementation strategy of passive restoration was assessed using the calibrated stream network model.

The passive restoration strategy involves the protection of existing riparian areas as reserves combined with some silvicultural work to reach the existing vegetative potential the most rapidly. The assumption would be to allow existing species to attain old growth stage without species replacement. For existing confers at an average site index of 100, that would be a Western Hemlock dominated forest of 200 years with a height of 125 feet. For existing hardwoods at an average site index of 100, that would be a Red Alder dominated forest of 60 years with a height of 100 feet (Table A3). The results of an passive restoration approach would be that all listed segments would meet temperature standards by the time existing vegetation reached old growth stage (Table 13).

Table 13. Comparison of Water Quality Standards with Predicted Temperatures

under Critical Conditions Using a Passive Restoration Strategy.

Section 303(d) Listed Segment Name	Listed River Mile	Segment Township- Range- Section	Maximum Daily Temperature (øC)	Water Quality Standard (øC)	Amount out of Compliance (øC)
Chehalis River	101.7	13N-05W-12	19.7	20.6	0
Chehalis River	74.6	14N-03W-24	19.2	20.3	0
Chehalis River	73.6	14N-03W-25	19.4	20.4	0
Chehalis River	70.7	14N-02W-24	19.6	20.4	0
Chehalis River	69.1	14N-02W-18	19.9	20.7	0
Chehalis River	67.5	14N-02W-07	20.1	20.8	0
Chehalis River	66.3	14N-03W-12	20.4	21.2	0
Chehalis River	59.9	15N-03W-22	20.6	21.3	0
Chehalis River	44.0	16N-05W-36	20.7	21.5	0
Chehalis River	33.8	17N-05W-28	20.7	21.5	0
South Fork Chehalis	0.5	13N-04W-24	18.4	19.5	0
Newaukum River	0.1	14N-02W-31	18.0	18.4	0
Dillenbaugh Creek	0.1	14N-02W-31	17.1	20.5	0
Dillenbaugh Creek	1.7	13N-02W-05	17.1	18.0	0
Salzer Creek	0.2	14N-02W-19	19.3	18.0	0
Skookumchuck River	0.1	14N-02W-07	17.8	18.7	0
Lincoln Creek	4.2	15N-03W-29	19.4	21.1	0
Scatter Creek	1.3	15N-03W-08	19.5	20.7	0
Black River	1.2	15N-04W-05	18.3	19.6	0

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Programs for TMDL Implementation

Even though passive restoration has been shown to eventually meet standards, active tree planting must still be conducted so that all riparian corridors have riparian shade. The model assumed that non-forested land uses had a 50% density of hardwoods. The passive restoration assumed that this increased to 85% density. This means that reaches that are now devoid of trees should be planted to help achieve the higher density for these lands.

There are many parties actively restoring riparian shade in the Upper Chehalis Basin. Below is a description of the various programs underway to maintain or restore the riparian corridor.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

The Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is a joint effort between the State of Washington and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to restore fisheries habitat on private agricultural lands adjacent depressed or critical condition salmon streams. The streams in the Upper Chehalis River basin have been approved for inclusion in this program. Landowners will contract with the Farm Services Agency to take land adjacent to these streams out of agricultural production and plant it with native trees for up to 15 years. In return, the Agency will provide the landowner with an annual rental check. In addition, grant funds will be provided to the landowner that cover nearly 90% of the cost of making the land use change from agriculture to trees.

The program began in January 1999 and is being coordinated by the Washington State Conservation Commission. Local Conservation Districts market the program to landowners, assisting with the lease agreements and helping with the design of the riparian practices. The program requires establishing a buffer that is three quarters of a site potential tree height. The site potential tree is based on soil conditions and native plant communities, so will be different for different locales. In addition, other practices such as livestock fencing and vegetation watering in dry periods may also be included in the site plan.

Chehalis River Council "Shade to Chehalis" Program

The Chehalis River Council is a nonprofit organization established in 1994 by a group of citizens concerned about the environmental conditions and water quality in the Chehalis River Basin. In 1995, Ecology awarded the Council a grant to develop a tree planting program for the river basin. "Shade the Chehalis" is the name the Council has given to cover their efforts to encourage tree planting projects in the river basin. The program conducts outreach to shoreline residents and concerned citizens in developing native tree planting projects along stream banks. The council has published a tree planting guide to help these stakeholders design and direct riparian vegetation restoration projects.

Chehalis-Willapa Landscape Plan

The Chehalis-Willapa Landscape Plan is being developed by the Weyerhaeuser Company with the coordination of State Agencies under the new Landowner Landscape Planning process defined in the Forest Practice Rules (WAC 76.09.350). This Landscape Plan covers the areas in the southern forested part of the Upper Chehalis River Basin on lands owned and operated by Weyerhaeuser. When adopted, the Landscape Plan will substitute for standard forest practice rules and prescriptions designed through the state watershed analysis process (WAC 222.22). The Landscape Plan will be reviewed annually to determine compliance with the plan requirements.

The Aquatic Resource Objects define the elements of the draft Chehalis-Willapa Landscape Plan related to protection of the riparian corridor. The purpose of these objectives is to protect aquatic ecosystems from the potential adverse effects of forest practices. The Plan describes specific targets, prescriptions, required monitoring, and adaptive management triggers for the following objectives:

ú Establish riparian management zones that provide the following stream functions

1. Protect stream bank integrity

2. Provide adequate shade to meet or exceed targets for water quality standards

3. Produce woody debris in sufficient quantities and of appropriate sizes and species to maintain or improve habitat quality

4. Provide terrestrial habitat associated with riparian areas

5. Provide nutrient input to the aquatic system

ú Reduce the frequency of mass wasting failures resulting from roads and timber harvest.

ú Minimize the delivery of sediment from roads and timber harvest areas to streams.

ú Identify and remove road related fish blockages

ú Maintain watersheds in a condition to avoid flows at or above levels capable of causing adverse impacts on fish

Other Forest Practice Activities

Watershed analyses have been conducted in the Chehalis River headwaters, Stillman Creek, and the Skookumchuck River watersheds. These watershed analyses (conducted under WAC 222-22) focus on site specific characteristics and establish reach specific prescriptions for future forest practice activities. Factors influencing temperature that are addressed through watershed analysis include riparian function, stream channel, water quality, mass wasting, surface erosion, hydrology, and fish habitat.

In addition, there is a proposal developed among several significant stakeholders to improve the existing baseline forest practice rules. The proposal improves the management of the riparian corridor over what is currently done. The riparian strategies described in the proposal are designed to result in a mature riparian forest. These strategies meet the goals set forth in this TMDL. Part of the proposal is an agreement between EPA and Ecology to not establish TMDLs for waters managed under these riparian strategies. Since the goals of the proposal are the same goals as the TMDL, the effect of the agreement is only administrative. The result of either action will bring the waters into compliance with water quality standards for temperature.

Conservation Districts

The County Conservation district is continually developing conservation plans on agriculture property throughout the Chehalis River Basin. When a farm plan is approved by the Conservation District Board of Supervisors, it contains all resource concerns and landowners commitment to address detailed concerns. When streams or other waterbodies are addressed in these plans, livestock exclusion or limited access to the riparian corridor is always a component of the plan. When the fence is built for the livestock exclusion, the riparian corridor is sometimes replanted with native trees and shrubs. Lewis conservation District work can be used as an example. In Deep Creek watershed, nearly 14,000 feet of riparian corridor has been fenced and replanted with trees since 1995.

One concern is the survivability rates of the plantings. Past projects have shown a large range (10%-70%) of trees surviving after planting. The main problem that arises is the invasion of grasses and weeds that compete for soil nutrients. Other problems affecting survivability of planted trees include wildlife damage (mice, deer and beaver) and drying of soils during hot summer periods. These problems are being addressed by used of foil or plastic to protect basil areas of young trees and asking landowners to water and weed around the plantings.

Chehalis Basin Fisheries Restoration Program

The Chehalis Basin Fisheries Restoration Program was initiated by Congressional Legislation (Public Law 101-452) and is coordinated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The goal of the program is to optimize natural salmon and steelhead production while maintaining the existing genetic adaptation of wild spawners and allowing the highest compatible level of hatchery production. The program provides funding and guidance to improve aquatic habitats throughout the Chehalis River Basin.

Ecology has received a grant for a six- year project to evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices and fisheries habitat restoration efforts. Numerous stream sites are being monitored and evaluated under this grant A number of interim project reports have been published (Sargent, 1996a&b; Sargent 1997; Sargent, 1998a&b). In addition to monitoring effectiveness of these activities, the program provides grant funds to the various cooperators for specific restoration activities (Table 14).

Table 14. Riparian Restoration Projects funded

by the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Restoration Program .

Fiscal Year	Cooperator	Location	Project description
1993	GHCD	Confluence of Cedar Creek and Chehalis River	7300 ft of livestock exclusion fencing.
1993	GHCD	Confluence of Cedar Creek and Chehalis River	2500 ft of fencing and riparian revegetation; 228 ft of bank stabilization w/ LWD
1993	LCD	Dillenbaugh Creek near town of Chehalis	11,000feet livestock exclusion fencing; off-channel refuge alcoves; bank stabilization; and revegetation. Five landowners.
1994	GHCD	Black River	10,000 ft. livestock exclusion fencing
1994	Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force	Stearns Creek (Upper Chehalis near Adna)	3850 feet of livestock exclusion fencing; revegetation; and spawning pads.
1994	Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force	Mill Creek (Upper Chehalis near Adna)	500 feet of livestock exclusion fencing and revegetation.
1994	Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force	Allen Creek (Black River basin)	8911 feet of livestock exclusion fencing; 10 instream LWD structures; 1 spawning pad; and revegetation.
1994	Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force	Allen Creek (Black River basin)	7011 feet of livestock exclusion fencing and revegetation.
1994	Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force	Upper Dillenbaugh Creek	2400 feet of livestock exclusion fencing; off-channel refuge alcove; LWD placement; and bank stabilization.
1994	CBFTF & Chehalis Tribe	N. and S. Forks Lincoln Creek.	960 feet livestock exclusion fencing; 8 LWD structures; and revegetation.
1994	Chehalis Tribe	Garrard Creek	1000 ft. fencing; bank stabilization; LWD; revegetation
1994	Tilton River Company, & LCD	Lucas Creek (North Fork Newaukum basin)	318ft. bank stabilization using revegetation, log deflectors and rootwads. Most structures swept away the week after completion.. Bank not eroding as of 1997, additional willow planting 1997.

Table 14 Continued. Riparian Restoration Projects funded

by the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Restoration Program .

Fiscal Year	Cooperator	Location	Project description
1995	Chehalis Tribe	Garrard Creek	5,000 feet fencing, LWD placement, revegetation.
1995	TCD	Skookumchuck River/Scatter Creek	Riparian planting at 16 sites.
1995	LCD	Deep Creek	12,400 ft of fencing , revegetation, three pasture pumps and three crossings. Five landowners on creek involved.
1995	LCD	Bunker Creek	4000 ft fencing ; bank stabilization using LWD, vegetation and bank sloping; and 3,000 linear ft revegetation.
1996	TCD	Allen Creek/Black River	1,300 feet of livestock fencing, 10,000 square feet of planting, and a Conservation Plan.
1996	TCD	Dempsey Creek/Black River	11,500 feet of livestock fencing, native plantings, four pasture pumps, two livestock crossings and a Conservation Plan.
1996	TCD	Waddell Creek/Black River	700 feet of livestock fencing, revegetation, bank stabilization and instream habitat structures
1996	GHCD	Mainstem Black River	700 feet of livestock fencing, revegetation, bank stabilization and instream habitat structures
1996	LCD	Salzer Creek/China basin	4,600 feet of livestock, bioengineering and large woody debris placement for 70 feet of bank protection, and revegetation of the riparian corridor.
1997	LCD	Salzer Creek/China basin	The lower 2100 feet of Salzer Creek will be revegetated with native riparian trees and shrubs in the same
1997	LCD	Coal Creek/China basin	2000 feet of Coal Creek revegetated with native riparian trees and shrubs. Reed canary grass will be controlled by scalping, installing ground cover matting, and active maintenance until plants become established.

Table 14 Continued. Riparian Restoration Projects funded

by the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Restoration Program .

Fiscal Year	Cooperator	Location	Project description
1997	TCD &GREEN	Various CFRP project sites	Monitoring of riparian revegetation and help with maintaining existing revegetation projects. High school students, funded by the Private Industry Council, provided the data collection and labor. We provided funds for the crew leader's salary and training, and equipment. The project also included classroom activities and training for the students.
1997	WDNR	OLC1000 Road tributary to Scatter Creek	500 feet of livestock fencing, 0.6 acres of riparian planting and 10 large whole tree habitat structures
1998	GHCD	Various CFRP project sites in GH County	Monitoring, maintenance and replanting at six GHCD/CFRP riparian revegetation sites
1998	TCD	O'Connor Creek/ Skookumchuck basin	2,600 feet of revegetation on O'Conner Creek, which has been fenced by other cooperators to exclude livestock.
1998	LCD	Kearney Creek/ S. Fork Newaukum basin	1320 feet of livestock exclusion fencing and a rocked crossing.
1998	Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force	Stearns Creek (Upper Chehalis Basin)	700 feet of livestock fencing and revegetation.

Cooperator Acronyms

CBFTF - Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force.

LCD - Lewis Conservation District

TCD - Thurston Conservation District

GHCD - Grays Harbor Conservation District

GREEN - Global Rivers Environmental Education Network

WDNR - Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Monitoring Effectiveness

There are EPA 91991) guidance calls for a monitoring plan for TMDLs where implementation will be phased in over time. The monitoring is conducted to provide assurance that the control measures achieve the expected load reductions. Monitoring can be conducted in three ways. First, the actual water temperature can be measured to test for downward trends. Second, the level of factors influencing temperature (e.g. shade) can be measured. Third, implementation can be monitored to assess the progress on implementation. There are a number of monitoring activities planned that touch on all three types of monitoring:

ú Both Ecology and the Chehalis Tribe conduct routine monitoring of surface water temperatures throughout the basin.

ú The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program will monitor the amount of land taken out of agriculture for riparian restoration.

ú The Chehalis-Willapa landscape Plan requires specific monitoring of the riparian condition in the forested areas owned by Weyerhaeuser Company.

ú The Conservation Districts will monitor the amount of riparian corridor restored.

ú The effectiveness monitoring of best management practices and fisheries habitat restoration efforts is being conducted for several more years under a continuing grant from the Chehalis Fisheries Basin Restoration Program

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

References Cited

Barthowlow, J.M. 1989. Stream Temperature Investigations: Filed and Analytical Methods. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Report 89(17). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, CO.

B.C. Conservation Data Centre, 1999. Great Trees of British Columbia, British Columbia Ministry of the Environment. Data at www.env.gov.bc.ca:8000/wld/cdc/trees.htm.

Cassidy, K.M., 1997. Land Cover of Washington State: Description and Management. Volume 1 in Washington State Gap Analysis Project Final Report. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle. WA.

Glancy, P.A. 1966. Sediment Transport by Streams in the Chehalis River Basin, Washington, October 1961 to September 1965. Supply Paper 1798-H, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Henderson, J.A., Peter, D.H., Lesher, R.D. and D.C. Shaw. 1989. Forested Plan Associations of the Olympic National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, R6 ECOL Technical Paper 001-88. Portland OR.

Lindsley, R.K. Jr., Kohler.M.A. and J.L.H. Paulhus. Hydrology for Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York.

Merritt, G.D. 1997. Biological Assessment of Wadable Streams in the Upper Chehalis River Basin - Quality Assurance Project Plan. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Pickett, P.J., 1994a. Upper Chehalis River Dry Season Total Maximum Daily Load Study. Publication No. 94-126. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Pickett, P.J., 1994b. Black River Dry Season Total Maximum Daily Load Study. Publication No. 94-106. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Pickett, P.J. 1997. Pollutant Loading Capacity for the Black River, Chehalis River System, Washington. J. American Water Resources Association 33(2): 465-480.

Pickett, P.J. 1999. Personal Communication, Water Quality Engineer, Environmantal Assessment Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Reckow, K.H., Clements, J.T. and R. Dodd. 1986. Statistical Goodness-of-fit measures for wasteload allocation models. Work Assignment Number 33. U.S. EPA Contract Number 868-01-6904.

Sargeant, D. 1996a. Beaver/Allen Creek Water Quality Data Report: 1994-1995. Report No. 96-310, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Sargeant, D. 1996b. Chehalis Best Management Practices Evaluation Project -- 1995 Temperature Monitoring Data. Report No. 96-340, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Sargeant, D. 1997. Chehalis Best Management Practices Evaluation Project -- 1995-96 Water Quality Data Report for Bunker/Deep Creek Project Area. Report No. 97-306, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Sargeant, D. 1998a. Chehalis Best Management Practices Evaluation Project --1996-97 Beaver/Allen Creek Water Quality Data Report. Report No. 98-309, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Sargeant, D. 1998b. Chehalis Best Management Practices Evaluation Project --1996-97 Water Quality Data Report for Bunker Creek and Deep Creek Project Area. Report No. 98-333, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

SASSI, 1993. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. Olympia, WA.

Theuer, F.D., Voos, K.A., and W.J. Miller. 1984. Instream Water Temperature Model. Instream Flow Inf. Paper 16. FWS/OBS-84/15. Instream Flow and Aquatic System Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, CO.

TVA, 1972. Heat and Mass Transfer between a Water Surface and the Atmosphere. Water Resources Res. Lab Report 14, Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, TN.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. Washington, DC.

Wampler, P., Knudsen, E., Hudson, M. and T. Young. 1993. Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources: Salmon and Steelhead Stream Habitat Degradation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA.

WDF, 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.

Wildrick, L., Davidson, D., Sinclair, K. and B. Barker. Initial Assessment of Water Resource Inventory Are 23 - Upper Chehalis River. Open-File Report 95-03. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Back to top

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council