Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Forested Tributary Stream Temperature Monitoring in the Skagit Watershed: 2008-2018 Results and Interpretation
Nora Kammer, Mike Olis, Curt Veldhuisen Skagit River System Cooperative
and Scott Morris, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe
February 2020
ii
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the hard work of former Forest & Fish Program Scientist Anna
Mostovetsky and former Watershed Scientist Jeff Phillips for the great work they did developing
and sustaining this long-term temperature monitoring program; this report builds upon the
foundations they established. We would like to thank the reviewers, Teizeen Mohamedali
(Washington State Department of Ecology), Mike LeMoine (Skagit River System Cooperative),
and Gus Seixas (Skagit River System Cooperative) for their thoughtful comments and
suggestions for this paper. We would like to express our appreciation to the Sauk-Suiattle Indian
Tribe and the Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group for providing some of the data included in
this report.
We also thank the following landowners for providing access to monitoring sites: Goodyear
Nelson Hardwood and Lumber Company; Grandy Lakes Forest Associates; Weyerhaeuser
Company; and Sierra Pacific Industries.
For further information, contact:
Nora Kammer, Forest & Fish Program Scientist
Skagit River System Cooperative
PO Box 368
La Conner, WA 98257
(360) 391-8472
This report is available online at: http://skagitcoop.org/documents/
iii
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... v
1. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Influences and Dynamics of Stream Temperatures .......................................................... 2
1.1.1. Climate Change and Stream Temperatures in the Skagit Basin ............................... 3
1.2. Previous Work on Stream Temperatures in Skagit Tributaries........................................ 3
1.3. Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 4
2. Study Area and Sampling Methods ........................................................................................ 4
2.1. Sampling Locations .......................................................................................................... 6
2.2. Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 6
2.3. Data Quality and Duration ............................................................................................... 8
2.4. Temperature Metrics and Analysis .................................................................................. 8
2.5. Weather and Climate Analysis ......................................................................................... 9
3. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................... 9
3.1. Differences between sites ................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1. Diurnal Fluctuations................................................................................................ 10
3.2. Comparison with State Water Quality Standards ........................................................... 11
3.3. Inter-Annual Differences and Trends ............................................................................. 15
3.3.1. Timing of Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature .............................................. 17
3.3.2. Inter-Annual Range ................................................................................................. 19
3.3.3. Effects of Weather Variability ................................................................................ 20
3.4. Year-Round Monitoring Results .................................................................................... 25
4. Management Implications ..................................................................................................... 26
5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 28
6. References ............................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix A. Summary of Sites, Locations, and Years of Available Data ................................... 34
Appendix B. Summary of SMHT Temperatures and Dates ......................................................... 35
Appendix C. Summary of 7-DADM Temperatures and Ranges .................................................. 37
Appendix D. Summary of Exceedances of State Temperature Standards .................................... 39
Appendix E. Stream temperatures (7-day moving averages) at Year-Round Monitoring Sites ... 41
iv
List of Figures Figure 1. Skagit watershed study area map showing major tributary rivers and the location of
stream temperature monitoring sites. .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Study area map of eleven-year 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperature
averages......................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3. The average diurnal range of 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum ..................... 11 Figure 4. The percent of years that any given site exceeded the 16°C core summer salmonid
habitat standard once or more (site names in Table 2). ................................................................ 12
Figure 5. Percent of sites that exceeded core summer salmonid habitat standard of 16°C ......... 13 Figure 6. 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperature values for each site compared to
the Core and Supplemental Standards .......................................................................................... 15 Figure 7. Box plots showing inter-annual 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperature
differences for 22 sites. ................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 8. Box plots showing inter-annual Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature differences
for 22 sites. .................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 9. Distribution of dates when the summer Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature was
observed, 2008-2018. .................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10. Minimum, maximum, and mean Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature date, by
year. ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 11. Snowpack conditions on April 1 ................................................................................ 19 Figure 12. The inter-annual range of 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperatures
plotted against the average 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum. ........................................ 20
Figure 13. Index values (bars) for air temperature (upper) and drought (lower) during summers
(June-August) ................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 14. Average peak Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature date versus the Air
Temperature Index for each year. ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 15. Comparison of air temperatures and precipitation at Concrete during two hot
summers, 2009 and 2015. ............................................................................................................. 25 Figure 16. Preliminary results from year-round monitoring sites showing mean monthly
temperatures from July 2017 through June 2018 .......................................................................... 26
List of Tables Table 1. Temperature ranges for modes of thermally-induced mortality of cold-water fish species
......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Summary of stream temperature monitoring site characteristics..................................... 7 Table 3. Sites with supplemental spawning and incubation protection ....................................... 14 Table 4. Summer monthly and annual air temperature and precipitation normals at Sedro
Woolley, Concrete, and Darrington. ............................................................................................. 21 Table 5. Statistical results of trends analysis ............................................................................... 23
v
Abstract
Suitable stream temperatures are essential to aquatic ecosystems, including the Skagit River
basin in northwest Washington State, where salmon are the subject of recovery efforts in forest
lands. We report here on summertime stream temperatures monitored between 2008 and 2018 at
38 locations representing a range of salmon-bearing tributary streams in the Skagit River basin.
The maximum 7-Day Average Daily Maximum (7-DADM) stream temperatures at individual
monitoring locations ranged from 10.5°C to 29.0°C across all years of monitoring, representing a
wide range of thermal regimes. No statistical inter-annual trend in stream temperatures was
evident, perhaps due to the relatively short study duration. A strong correlation was found
between both the seasonal peak and 7-DADM maxima and the Air Temperature Index, reflecting
fluctuation in summertime averages among the years. In addition, the warmest stream
temperatures often corresponded (though not statistically) with low spring snowpack and drier
summers. While alteration of natural thermal regimes in streams has historically been attributed
to anthropogenic effects on streamflow and riparian shade, climate change may also play a role
in the future. In addition to tracking emerging trends, these data can help with the identification
of warmer and colder streams to help prioritize riparian protection and restoration efforts.
1
1. Overview
Salmon and trout face limitations in Skagit River tributaries during mid-summer, when habitat
availability is reduced by low flows and high stream temperatures. Previous research,
summarized in several comprehensive reviews, indicates that stream temperature is a significant
factor that affects distribution and health of salmonids (Bjornn and Reisner 1991; McCullough
1999; Hicks 2000). The direct effect of high temperatures on physiological functions of salmon
is well understood and has been documented in laboratory settings. Water temperature is also
important for regulating biological and physiological processes in other parts of the aquatic
system that may indirectly affect salmon through loss of food supply, spread of disease and other
factors. High temperatures may alter migration rates for spawning and rearing and promote
growth of competing species (Beschta et al. 1987).
Stream temperature-related limitations including reduced metabolic energy, reduced food supply,
and competition from warm water species, which act as environmental stressors and can
indirectly lead to fish mortality (Pollock et al. 2009). In general, the preferred temperature range
for salmon is 12˚ C to 14˚ C. Mortality is most prevalent when temperatures exceed a stress limit
of 20˚ C, although the exact lethal limit temperature depends on species, life-stage of
development and the temperature to which the fish is acclimated (Hicks 2000). Table 1 contains
the approximate temperature ranges for modes of thermally-induced mortality.
Table 1. Temperature ranges for modes of thermally-induced mortality of cold-water fish species (adapted
from WDOE 2004)
Modes of thermally-induced mortality for cold-water fish species
Temperature
range (˚ C)
Time to mortality
Instantaneous Lethal Limit - leads to direct mortality
> 32
Instantaneous
Incipient Lethal Limit - breakdown of physiological regulation of
vital bodily processes including respiration and circulation
21 - 25
hours to days
Sub-Lethal Limit - conditions that: 1) cause decreased metabolic
energy for growth, feeding, or reproduction; and 2) encourage
increased exposure to pathogens, decrease food supply and
increase competition from warm-water species.
20 - 23
weeks to months
Daily thermal variation can influence instream organisms as much as thermal maxima. Diurnal
fluctuations can affect fish growth, metabolic rate and survival and large amplitudes can impact
fish communities (McCullough 1999). Some studies suggest that a fluctuating thermal regime of
several degrees has beneficial effects on certain juvenile salmon species, such as an increased
metabolic rate (Beauregard et al. 2013). However, the effects of fluctuating temperatures also
depend on the rate of heating, rate of acclimation to temperature variation, species, life history
stage, and other factors (McCullough 1999). Higher temperature differences can be the result of
disturbances such as channel widening or canopy removal and it has been shown that sites in
clearcuts have significantly higher ranges than those in forested or buffered streams (Johnson
and Jones 2000; Veldhuisen and Couvelier 2006). Sites with low diurnal fluctuations may be
thermally buffered by greater shade and/or groundwater inputs that moderate stream temperature
extremes (Moore et al. 2005).
2
1.1. Influences and Dynamics of Stream Temperatures
Summer maximum stream temperatures vary widely based on many site-specific factors
including air temperature; shade; groundwater influx; hyporheic exchange; flow volume; channel
depth and gradient; elevation; and other factors (Adams and Sullivan 1989). Land-use history
and mass wasting events may influence temperatures when they alter these drivers (Beschta and
Taylor 1988; Johnson and Jones 2000).
As water travels from headwaters downstream, its temperature will change due to several factors
that comprise the heat balance between the water and its surrounding landscape. Radiant energy,
particularly in the form of solar radiation, is the primary factor in heating streams (Brown 1969;
Beschta et al. 1987; Luce et al. 2014). Solar radiation reaching streams is reduced by canopy
cover but can change daily from variation in channel surface area due to flow, day length, solar
angle, and cloud cover (Beschta et al. 1987). Warmer water entering streams from shallow lakes
may raise stream temperatures (Schuett-Hames et al. 1999).
Solar radiation is at its maximum in late June in the northern hemisphere, when the solar angle is
the highest (Beschta et al. 1987). Throughout the summer, solar radiation is much greater than in
winter conditions due to higher solar angle, longer days, and clearer skies (Beschta et al. 1987).
Direct warming of stream temperature through convective heat transfer from the air is small
compared to radiative transfers (Johnson 2004). However, air temperature is frequently used as a
predictor of stream temperature due to the strong correlation with incoming radiation (Luce et al.
2014) and the weather patterns that simultaneously bring high air temperatures and strong solar
radiation. Warm air and water temperatures coincide because both air and stream temperatures
are responding to the same temporal multi-day fluctuations (Johnson 2004).
Another factor affecting stream temperature is the type of substrate through which a stream
flows. Interactions with groundwater can have a strong moderating impact on stream temperature
(Johnson 2004). Streams fed by springs or large groundwater sources can demonstrate nearly
uniform temperatures year-round, being cooler than other streams in summer and warmer in
winter (Beschta et al. 1987). Stream gradient and velocity can also influence stream
temperatures.
The timing of any given stream’s temperature regime can be important for biota that are reliant
on the stream. This can be especially true for salmonids who depend on small-scale temperature
refuges during times of thermal distress. The timing of smolt outmigration is keyed to suitable
water temperatures (Holtby et al. 1989). The late spring/early summer is a time of rapid air and
stream temperature increase. Historically, stream temperatures stay cool until the end of the melt
of winter snowpack, when solar radiation becomes a dominant mechanism affecting stream
temperature (Luce et al. 2014). If spring snowmelt occurs early, declining flows align temporally
with the highest solar angle, which peaks in late June. Temperatures become elevated earlier and
remain high for the duration of the dry summer season.
In recent years our stream temperature monitoring has expanded to include some year-round
monitoring stations. Thermal demands of fish species vary throughout the year with different
species and life history stages. Populations spawn, incubate, emerge, rear, and migrate; many of
3
these life history events take place outside of the summer months and require very specific
thermal ranges that species have evolved to rely upon. Any changes to thermal regime in a
system have the potential to alter the life history in aquatic species. Thermal variation during egg
incubation can affect both the emergence timing and development at emergence (Steel et al.
2012). Changes to the annual thermal regime can affect the timing of migratory patterns in
salmon (Quinn and Adams 1996).
1.1.1. Climate Change and Stream Temperatures in the Skagit Basin
Climate change in the Skagit basin is expected to affect both streamflow and stream temperatures
(Rybczyk et al. 2016). Projected decreases of snowpack are expected to increase winter flows
and decrease summer flows, with outcomes affecting aquatic ecosystems and the human
environment (Lee and Hamlet 2011; Bandaragoda et al. 2019). Changes to hydrologic extremes
(both floods and low flows) in the Skagit basin and associated water temperature are strongly
affected by climate via changes in air temperature, precipitation, snow cover, and the loss of
glaciers (Lee and Hamlet 2011; Rybczyk et al. 2016; Bandaragoda et al. 2019). In glaciated high
elevation basins, glacier ice coverage is projected to decrease to less than half the current area by
2050 (Bandaragoda et al. 2019). Summer stream flows are predicted to decrease by 5-30% and
low-flow conditions are forecasted to persist a week longer into the fall (Stumbaugh and Hamlet
2016; Bandaragoda et al. 2019).
While climate shields and cold water refugia in the uppermost basin are expected to persist
(Isaak et al. 2015, Seixas et al. 2018), the highest daily summer maximum temperature recorded
is projected to increase by 2-3°C above recorded temperatures in the Sauk River basin by 2050
(Bandaragoda et al. 2019). In the adjacent Stillaguamish basin, modelling results indicate rising
temperatures in every stream segment by the end of the 21st century (Freeman 2019).
Temperature increases across the Stillaguamish basin are predicted to range between 2.6°C to
6.2°C, with a basin-wide average of 4.8°C by 2075 (Freeman 2019). The greatest increase in
monthly median temperatures is in June, likely due to the reduction in snowpack which can
buffer stream temperatures in late spring when solar radiation is the greatest (Freeman 2019).
Projected changes in flow and stream temperatures will have consequences for aquatic
ecosystems, especially cold-water species like salmon (Mantua et al. 2010). The effects of
climate change will not affect all salmonid species equally and may more strongly affect specific
runs of salmonids depending upon their metabolic scope, life history expression and timing. The
diminished streamflows and higher stream temperatures in summer will be most stressful for
stream-rearing salmon populations that have freshwater rearing periods in the summer (Mantua
et al. 2010).
1.2. Previous Work on Stream Temperatures in Skagit Tributaries
Stream temperature monitoring in the Skagit River basin has been conducted since at least 2001
by the Skagit County Monitoring Program and the Skagit County Baseline Monitoring Project.
These monitoring data indicate that some streams in the lower Skagit River Basin, located in
mostly non-forested environments, experienced maximum summer temperatures high enough to
stress or kill salmonids while others did not (Skagit County 2019). The Washington State
4
Department of Ecology (WDOE) includes several lower Skagit tributaries on the 303(d) list (the
state list of impaired waters) for not meeting state water quality standards for temperature in
summer low flow periods (WDOE, 2008).
The previous report from the Skagit River System Cooperative (SRSC) temperature monitoring
program (Mostovetsky et al. 2015) reported on data from 2008 through 2013. Critically warm
temperatures were generally limited to the largest streams (Finney and Day Creeks) and sites
shortly downstream of lakes, both scenarios with maximum solar exposure. Temperature regimes
in smaller streams were variable but mostly within a more favorable range for salmonids. No
clear trend was identified in stream temperatures during the five-year monitoring period. The
effects of site-specific parameters (stream gradient, bankfull width, elevation, basin size, and
canopy closure) on stream temperature were examined (Mostovetsky et al. 2015) All temperature
data from Mostovetsky et al. (2015) are included in this report to provide a longer record.
1.3. Objectives
The primary objectives of the SRSC stream temperature monitoring program are to: 1) Improve
knowledge of the extent of potentially harmful maximum summer temperatures in Skagit River
tributaries in basins actively managed for timber; 2) Identify tributary channels that may be
important for providing thermal refuges during periods of high stream temperature; 3) Describe
observations of stream temperature patterns and discuss possible relevant factors. This report
focuses specifically on streams used by anadromous fish potentially harvested by tribes and
others.
This report presents stream temperature monitoring data collected by SRSC between 2008 and
2018, as well as other unpublished data collected at comparable sites and dates by non-profit and
other tribal organizations. The availability of data from eleven summers allows greater
consideration of temporal patterns than the previous progress reports (e.g. Phillips et al. 2011,
Mostovetsky et al. 2015).
Although this report compares temperatures to water quality standards, such comparisons are
insufficient to indicate which streams are “impaired” by land use or other impacts. We recognize
that stream temperatures are naturally variable, and maxima can exceed standards even in natural
conditions. Therefore, a standard temperature requirement isn’t necessarily applicable to all
stream systems. Still, Washington temperature standards are based on salmonid use, so are
relevant to salmon recovery, which is an underlying motivation for this project.
2. Study Area and Sampling Methods
The Skagit River is in the northwestern Cascade Mountains of Washington state and is the
second largest river (after Fraser River) draining to the Salish Sea. The climate is temperate with
mild, dry summers and cool, wet winters and abundant precipitation, the majority of which falls
as rain at lower elevations. For western Washington and the Skagit basin, high stream
temperatures typically occur in late July and August when extended periods of hot, sunny days
coincide with low summer flows.
5
Figure 1. Skagit watershed study area map showing major tributary rivers and the location of stream
temperature monitoring sites. Sites with nine or more years of seasonal data and are included in the inter-
annual analyses described in this report.
The Skagit River basin (Figure 1) includes the mainstem Skagit (including tributaries, sloughs
and estuaries) and numerous secondary basins, the largest being the Sauk River basin. These
rivers provide essential habitat for anadromous salmonids, including several species that are
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (WDOE 2008). Five species of salmon
(Chinook, coho, pink, chum and sockeye), two char species (Dolly Varden and bull trout) as well
as steelhead and cutthroat trout exist in the basin (SRSC and WDFW 2005). The Skagit has the
largest run of Chinook and the second largest wild run of coho in the Puget Sound (WDOE
2008).
The uplands of the Skagit basin (aside from high elevation federal lands) have been managed for
over a century for timber harvest. Historically, harvest has resulted in clear-cuts; however,
beginning in the 1970’s and increasing in the 1990’s, many riparian areas and unstable slopes
have been left un-harvested as buffers to protect fish habitat and maintain healthy stream
temperatures. The lowlands of the basin, where most of the anadromous habitat is located, are
dominated by small farms and rural residential development. The land use is a mix of
agriculture, urban, suburban, rural and forestry. Many of the water bodies in the lowlands have
6
been modified by draining, diking or channelization and have significantly less riparian buffer
than upland stream reaches.
Lower elevation forests, where monitoring sites are located, are in the Western Hemlock Climax
Zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Western hemlock, Douglas-fir, and western red cedar are the
dominant conifer species and red alder, black cottonwood, and bigleaf maple are the most
common deciduous species. Riparian stands are almost entirely less than 100 years old due to
logging and/or channel disturbance.
2.1. Sampling Locations
Stream temperature data were collected over the course of eleven years (2008-2018) at thirty-
eight monitoring sites located throughout the central and lower Skagit and Sauk River basins in
Water Resource Inventory Areas 3 and 4 (Figure 1, Table 2). The tributary basin areas for
monitored locations range from 0.2 to 116 km2. The hydrology of the basins is primarily rain-
dominated, although all basins receive significant snow during winter months in most years;
none of the sites receive any glacial meltwater inputs. To compliment the ongoing temperature
monitoring being conducted by Skagit County in agricultural and suburban areas in the lower
Skagit basin (Skagit County 2019), our data collection efforts focus on forestry areas not
monitored by other organizations.
This report focuses data collected by SRSC as well as data collected by others (Sauk-Suiattle
Indian Tribe, Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group) that has not yet been reported on as a
collaborative presentation of temperature conditions in the basin.
2.2. Data Collection
We collected temperature data using submersible Onset HOBO data loggers that documented
hourly stream temperatures throughout the summer season (approximately June 1 through
September 20). All the organizations involved indicated that data collection followed protocols
and procedures developed in the Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Stream temperature Survey
Manual (Schuett-Hames et al. 1999) and Department of Ecology standards (WDOE 2003).
Monitoring protocols specify that sites are to be located in areas where there is a relatively
homogeneous reach upstream in terms of stream and riparian conditions so that stream
temperature is at equilibrium. The length of stream necessary to reach thermal equilibrium varies
but 600 meters is a conventional target (Schuett-Hames et al. 1999). Two monitoring sites where
this may not be the case are Finney Mid (located 76 meters downstream from the confluence
with Quartz Creek) and Day Mid (located 45 meters downstream from a confluence with Rocky
Creek). Sites should also to be located in areas of sufficient mixing within the main channel
(Schuett-Hames et al. 1999).
Several monitoring locations shifted a short distance between years because of morphological
channel changes (i.e. new channel debris, altered pools, small bank failures) that did not justify
7
Table 2. Summary of stream temperature monitoring site characteristics.
Site ID Stream Name
Station
Operator
Mainstem
Distance
(km)
Gradient
(%)
Canopy
Closure
(%)
Bankfull
Width
(m)
Elev.
(m)
Basin
Area
(km2)
ALDR Alder Creek SRSC 1.3 3 55 8 42 30.8
ANDR Anderson Creek SRSC 2.9 5 65 5 36 5.7
BOBL Bob Lewis Creek SSIT 1.5 8 85 3 155 0.8
CARP Carpenter Creek SRSC 12.1 2 n/a 3 86 3.7
COAL Coal Creek SRSC 6.5 2 n/a 13 45 5.4
CONN Conn Creek SSIT 17.8 10 85 6 839 4.1
CUMB Cumberland Creek SRSC 1.3 2 n/a 17 36 18.0
DANC Dan Creek SSIT 1.6 3 0 30 147 42.5
DALO Day Creek - low SFEG, SRSC 1.8 0.3 n/a 40 22 90.6
DAMD Day Creek - mid SRSC 10.2 5 75 23 206 67.3
DECL Decline Creek SSIT 11.0 15 85 26 691 8.3
FNMD Finney Creek - mid SRSC 6.5 1 30 79 70 116.5
FNUP Finney - upper SRSC 10.7 0.5 n/a 30 87 103.1
GRCK Grandy Creek SRSC 7.8 5 55 17 223 25.6
GRLK Grandy Creek - lake outlet SRSC 8.6 3 75 23 241 13.7
GRAV Gravel Creek - upper SSIT 2.8 12 85 7 289 5.4
HATC Hatchery Creek SRSC 7.3 4 70 8 76 4.7
HOBB Hobbit Creek SRSC 0.4 3 65 20 94 2.3
HOOP Hooper Creek SRSC 0.4 3 80 24 74 1.3
JACK Jackman Creek SRSC 0.8 4 35 52 71 62.2
JNCK Jones Creek SRSC 2.4 0.9 n/a 14 34 20.5
JNUP Jones Creek - upper SRSC 3.0 6 n/a 12 47 20.2
MORG Morgan Creek SRSC 4.6 4 70 2 33 6.5
MOUS Mouse Creek SSIT 1.9 7 95 3 157 1.3
MUDD Muddy Creek SRSC 2.0 3 n/a 8 56 5.8
OSTR Osterman Creek SRSC 0.9 6 75 4 126 2.8
PRES Pressentin Creek SRSC 0.8 3 n/a 22 52 32.0
QUAR Quartz Creek SRSC 6.8 2 70 16 74 10.6
RDCB Red Cabin Creek SRSC 6.9 4 n/a 9 87 12.2
ROCK Rocky Creek SRSC 10.3 8 60 24 212 21.2
RUXL Ruxall Creek SRSC 9.4 10 70 9 116 4.7
SAVG Savage Creek SRSC 1.8 2 80 8 66 4.7
TPTH TP Thin (Finney trib) SRSC 5.2 2 n/a 2 62 0.2
DCLO Decline Creek - lower trib SSIT 12.6 4 66 3 1010 1.8
DCUP Decline Creek - upper trib SSIT 13.8 19 43 7 828 0.8
SMFI Small Finney trib SRSC 10.7 11 n/a 1 96 0.2
WINT Winters Creek SRSC 7.2 15 90 2 78 0.8
WISE Wiseman Creek SRSC 5.5 5 n/a 7 111 6.6
From Mostovetsky et al. 2015. Measurements are approximate. Site IDs in bold have 9 or more years of seasonal data, so
were included in collective analysis.
Some data are not available (n/a) indicating the metric was not recorded for the monitoring site.
Channel distance to the mainstem of either Skagit or Sauk Rivers.
Station Operator organization: Skagit River System Cooperative (SRSC); Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (SSIT); Skagit Fisheries
Enhancement Group (SFEG).
defining it as a new monitoring site. Efforts were made to ensure that similar shade conditions,
proximity to upstream tributaries, and other site parameters at shifted sites remained constant. In
addition to the summer monitoring, four year-round monitoring sites were established between
8
2015 and 2017 at new or existing locations (upper Finney, Grandy Lake outlet, upper Jones, and
mid Day).
Between 2015 and 2017 four year-round monitoring sites were established. The year-round sites
use Onset Tidbit data loggers. Installations, calibration, and logging intervals are the same at
year-round monitoring sites as they are for the seasonal sites. Loggers are swapped in the spring
and fall when seasonal loggers are being deployed and retrieved. Maintaining stable installations
during wintertime high flows has proven challenging and there are several data gaps due to
probes being dislodged or out of water.
2.3. Data Quality and Duration
Data logger calibration was conducted in accordance with the procedures developed in the TFW
Stream Temperature Survey Manual (Schuett-Hames et al. 1999). To meet the protocol, the
accuracy of each probe was verified with two-point (ice bath, room temperature bath) pre-
deployment calibration checks which require that the mean absolute value difference between the
calibration bath and the probe is less than 0.2 C˚ (Schuett-Hames et al. 1999). All SRSC and
SSIT instruments were checked at the beginning of each monitoring season.
Although the total span for monitoring is from 2008 through 2018, several sites have been added
in recent years and have less than eleven summers of data. Furthermore, some data collection
was affected by periods where the data logger was out of the water, either due to flow or
installation conditions, and thus discarded for the affected summer. Other sites were affected by
equipment failure or loss due to natural burial in the streambed or vandalism. A summary of all
sites and available data years is included in Appendix A. Reasons for missing or excluding any
year of data are also summarized in that table.
In order to examine a long-term record of stream temperatures in the basin, any site that was
missing more than two years of the eleven-year record was excluded from any inter-annual
analysis, which is summarized in Section 3.3. Of the 38 sites with ongoing temperature
monitoring, 22 had a sufficient record of nine or more years to be included in the inter-annual
analysis. Summary data for all sites are included in the Appendices. All sites with available data
are included in results which compare the differences between sites and in the comparison to
state standards, in order to allow recognition of the thermal character of streams and initial
identification of high temperature streams.
2.4. Temperature Metrics and Analysis
We applied two widely used metrics to represent peak summer temperatures:
1. Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature (SMHT) – this indicates the single
highest summer temperature measurement, thus the maximum that fish and biota
must withstand.
2. 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum (7-DADM) – this temperature is the
maximum seven-day mean of daily maximum temperatures. This metric reduces the
effect of short periods of abnormally warm temperatures and may be more relevant
9
when evaluating biological effects. The 7-DADM values are used for comparison to
state temperature standards.
We also evaluated two indices of thermal variability. Diurnal ranges were calculated for each
station/year by averaging the daily ranges (daily maximum temperature minus daily minimum
temperature) over the 7-day period for which the 7-DADM was recorded. Inter-annual
temperature range was calculated as the range of 7-DADM temperature values at a site across
available data years.
We anticipated that the 11-year record might be sufficient for a preliminary evaluation of
temporal trends and weather influences. We used ordinary least squares regression to evaluate
time series of mean 7-DADM and SMHT values across stations aggregated by year. We
excluded all stations missing three or more years from regression analysis. For the few sites
missing one or two station/years, we extrapolated peak values based on nearby stations that show
the closest temperature values when both stations are operational. We filled each gap by
adjusting the observed peak value from the neighboring station based on the mean difference.
Model significance was judged by the p-value associated with the F statistic; values less than
0.10 were judged as significant. Given the limited record, p-values between 0.10 and 0.20 were
noted as ‘marginally insignificant’ because they could not be dismissed entirely.
2.5. Weather and Climate Analysis
We explored the role of inter-annual weather differences on stream temperatures during our
monitoring period. Although a wider range of factors may play contributing roles, we focused on
summer air temperature and summer precipitation, which are available for several key locations
within the Skagit basin during our study period.
We compared monthly average air temperatures for Sedro Woolley, Concrete, and Darrington
weather stations during our study period with long-term averages to determine which summers
were warmer or cooler, and wetter or drier, than average. The Air Temperature Index (ATI) is
the annual departure of the average monthly temperature for that year from the long-term
average monthly temperature for summer months (June through August). The Drought Index
(DI) is the annual departure for the average monthly precipitation for that year from the long-
term average monthly precipitation for summer months (June through August). Put simply, DI is
the inverse of the ‘relative rainy-ness’ of each summer, based on total rainfall and regardless of
the span of days between rains. Finally, we evaluated the role of spring snowpack (via April 1
‘snow water equivalent’) prior to each monitoring season.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Differences between sites
The sites that have the highest 7-DADM temperatures on average (above 20°C) are located on
Lower Day Creek, Finney Creek, and below Grandy Lake. Figure 2 shows basic spatial patterns.
Sites with low average 7-DADM temperatures (below 16°C) are dispersed throughout the basin
10
and don’t display a discernible spatial pattern. These include Winters, Alder, Savage, Grandy,
Hooper, Decline and its tributaries, and Conn Creeks.
Figure 2. Study area map of eleven-year 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperature averages. Site
IDs in bold (see Table 2 for names) have nine or more years of temperature monitoring data.
3.1.1. Diurnal Fluctuations
Finney Mid exhibited the widest diurnal ranges during all years, ranging from 3.6°C in 2013 to
6.6°C in 2018. Upper Finney Creek and lower Day Creek site exhibited wide diurnal ranges of
4.3°C and 5.0°C, respectively. The outlet below Grandy Lake also exhibited a high diurnal range
(4.1°C). Dan Creek and Quartz Creek were two other sites with a high diurnal range, both
averaging 3.6°C.
The lowest diurnal range observed in the data set was 0.6°C on Winters Creek in 2014. Hobbit,
Winters, Savage, Red Cabin and Small Fin all exhibited low diurnal ranges, averaging 1.5°C or
less across all years; the relatively stable temperature time series of these sites indicates a
groundwater influence.
Approximately 47% of all sites had an average diurnal range that was less than 2°C (Appendix
C). The average diurnal range for all sites across all years is 2.4°C, and the median is 2.1°C.
11
Figure 3. The average diurnal range of 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperatures plotted against
the average 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum.
Many of the sites with narrow ranges have high canopy cover, which is consistent with studies
elsewhere (Johnson 2004). The 7-DADM temperature at each site corresponded positively with
7-DADM diurnal ranges (Figure 3), indicating cooler streams are less sensitive to daily weather
and solar fluctuations.
3.2. Comparison with State Water Quality Standards
In 2006, Washington adopted 16°C as the 7-DADM standard for waters designated as “Core
Summer Salmonid Habitat” (DOE 2008), which applies to all our monitoring sites. The key
identifying characteristics of this use are summer (June 15 – September 15) salmonid spawning
or emergence, or adult holding; use as important summer rearing habitat by one or more
salmonids; or foraging by adult and subadult native char (DOE 2011). This criterion was lowered
from a previous value of 18°C and is identical to the criterion that Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) recommended in its temperature guidance for salmon and trout core juvenile
rearing. Washington State water quality standards are defined in Chapter 173-201A of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC)1. All the streams monitored are subject to the core
water quality standards for temperature (Chapter 173-201A Washington Administrative Code).
Ten sites out of 38 exceeded the 16°C core summer salmonid habitat standard at least once
during each year of monitoring (Figure 4). These sites include Grandy Lake outlet, mid Finney
Creek, mid Day Creek, Dan Creek, Pressentin Creek, upper Finney Creek, Coal Creek,
Cumberland Creek, and Carpenter Creek. In contrast, six sites did not exceed the 16°C core
standard in any year (Figure 4). The sites include the upper Decline tributary, Savage Creek,
1 Chapter 173-201A of the WAC may be found at: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-201a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10 15 20 25 30
7-Day Average Daily Maximum Temperature (°C)
Ave
rage
Diu
rnal
Tem
per
atu
re R
ange
(°C
)
12
Figure 4. The percent of years that any given site exceeded the 16°C core summer salmonid habitat standard
once or more (site names in Table 2). Six sites did not exceed the standard in any year. Ten sites exceeded the
standard for some period in every year.
Hobbit Creek, Red Cabin Creek, Muddy Creek, and upper Jones Creek. Nearly half of the
monitored sites usually exceed (in >75% of years) the 16°C core standard. Of the 38 sites
being monitored, 84% recorded temperatures that exceeded core summer salmonid habitat
standards in one or more years (Figure 5). In any one year, the number of sites exceeding the
core summer standard ranged from 15% to 80%. In most years around 50% of sites exceeded
0 25 50 75 100
JNUP
MUDD
RDCB
HOBB
SAVG
DCUP
ALDR
CONN
HOOP
DECL
GRAV
JNCK
GRCK
DCLO
TPTH
WINT
BOBL
ANDR
SMFI
JACK
OSTR
WISE
MOUS
MORG
HATC
ROCK
QUAR
RUXL
CARP
CUMB
COAL
FNUP
PRES
DANC
DALO
DAMD
FNMD
GRLK
Percent of Years 16°C Core Standard Exceeded
13
Figure 5. Percent of sites that exceeded core summer salmonid habitat standard of 16°C during
the summer months in any given year.
core summer standards. Sites that are especially warm and exceeded state standards in over 50%
of the monitored years are located on Day Creek and Finney Creek, as well as below the outlet of
Grandy Lake.
Looking closely at sites that have been added to the monitoring program since the last progress
report in 2015, Carpenter, Cumberland, Coal, Upper Finney, and Pressentin exceeded the core
standard in 100% of the years of monitoring. In contrast, Upper Jones, Muddy, and Red Cabin
did not exceed the standard for any days in any year. Wiseman exceeded the core standard in
75% of the years of monitoring and TP Thin exceeded in 25%.
In addition to the core summer salmonid habitat standard, some locations have an additional
requirement of 13°C during specific time periods based on supplemental spawning and
incubation criteria to ensure protection of salmon, trout, and char2. Monitoring sites and dates
that are subject to the 13°C requirement are summarized in Table 3.
Where designated, the period of supplemental protection (Table 3) is generally during the winter
and spring. Our summer stream temperature monitoring program only overlaps partially with
these designated protection dates and our data does not allow a comprehensive examination of
stream temperatures during the period of supplemental spawning and incubation protection.
Therefore, limited quantification of exceedances of the 13°C criterion is presented here.
2 A map (DOE, 2011) of the supplemental spawning and incubation criteria for the Lower Skagit (WRIA 3) and the
Upper Skagit (WRIA 4) at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0610038.pdf
0 25 50 75 100
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Percent of Sites that 16°C Core Standard Exceeded
14
Table 3. Sites with supplemental spawning and incubation protection
and dates of application.
Site Name Dates of 13°C Protection
Alder Feb 15 - June 15
Cumberland Feb 15 - June 15
Jones – Upper Feb 15 - June 15
Day – Lower Sept 1 - May 15
Jones Sept 1 - May 15
Dan Sept 1 - July 15
Finney – Mid Sept 1 - June 15
Finney - Upper Sept 1 - June 15
Hatchery Sept 1 - June 15
Jackman Sept 1 - June 15
Pressentin Sept 1 - June 15
Quartz Sept 1 - June 15
In 2009 and 2015, both warm years, all monitored sites with a supplemental protection window
specified exceeded the 13°C standard on at least some days. Alder Creek exhibited days
exceeding 13°C in just two of the years during the monitoring period; Upper Jones Creek
exceeded it in just one year; and Cumberland did not exceed the standard in any of the three
years of monitoring. On the other hand, Pressentin, Finney Mid, Lower Day Creek, Dan Creek,
Quartz Creek, Hatchery Creek, and Jackman Creek exceeded the supplemental standard in all
years that data were collected. These sites will be examined more closely for the year-round
monitoring sites in Section 3.4.
In addition to the 13°C and 16°C regulatory standards, 20°C is recognized as a sub-lethal
temperature limit and temperatures between 21°C and 25°C are recognized as the incipient lethal
limit (DOE, 2004). In all years, one to four sites exhibited temperatures above the sub-lethal
limit (Figure 6). In years 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2018 there were three or more sites
that exhibited temperatures in the incipient lethal range above 21°C. Sites that consistently
exhibit these high temperatures are Grandy Lake outlet, Finney Mid, and Lower Day Creek;
Quartz and Dan Creeks occasionally exhibit temperatures above the sub-lethal limit.
15
Figure 6. 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperature values for each site compared to the Core and
Supplemental Standards and the 20°C stress limit.
3.3. Inter-Annual Differences and Trends
The long-term record of stream temperatures included in this report provides an opportunity to
explore inter-annual trends which may be indicative of climate change and/or the effectiveness
of buffers located upstream from the study sites.
Inter-annual differences and trends were evaluated for sites that had nine or more years of data
from the eleven-year record (maximum of 2 missing seasons). Twenty-two sites met these
requirements for inclusion in the inter-annual analysis of 7-DADM and SMHT. Inter-annual
variability was evaluated relative to air temperature, precipitation and other site-specific factors.
10
15
20
25
30
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
7-D
ayA
vera
ge D
aily
Max
imu
m T
em
per
atu
re (
°C)
20°C Stress Limit
16°C Standard
13°C Standard
16
An exception to limiting the analysis to nine or more years of data is our examination of inter-
annual temperature range of temperatures in Section 3.3.2. This analysis included all sites (not
just those with a long record) to allow us to identify some of the more sensitive tributaries in the
basin.
The mean 7-DADM temperature values by year range from 14.9°C for 2011 to 18.7°C in 2009.
SMHT values were slightly warmer (15.5°C in 2011 to 19.3°C in 2009), but followed a very
similar inter-annual pattern (Figure 7, Figure 8). Data for all sites and years are listed in
Appendices B and C. Median values for 7-DADM and SMHT are slightly cooler than averages
(Figure 7, Figure 8).
Figure 7. Box plots showing inter-annual 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperature differences
for 22 sites. Outer whisker tips represent the minimum and maximum temperatures among sites. The box is
the 25% - 75% range of temperatures and the middle line of each box is the median.
No significant visual trend in the increasing or decreasing direction was evident for the median,
quartiles, or extrema values of average 7-DADM and average SMHT values amongst the twenty-
two sites (Figure 7, Figure 8). The years 2009 and 2015 exhibited the highest 7-DADM and
SMHT values. The years 2009, 2014, 2015, and 2016 had the widest range in both 7-DADM and
SMHT values among sites; the years 2008 and 2012 had the smallest range in both metrics.
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
7-D
AD
M A
cro
ss S
ite
s (°
C)
17
Figure 8. Box plots showing inter-annual Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature differences for 22 sites.
Outer whisker tips represent the minimum and maximum temperatures among sites. The box is the 25% -
75% range of temperatures and the middle divider is the median.
The shape of 7-DADM and SMHT box plots are strongly skewed by the few sites where very
warm temperatures are consistently observed (Grandy Lake outlet, Lower Day, Finney Mid).
This skew is also observed as individual site 7-DADM values in Figure 6. If these three
consistently warm sites are removed from the analysis, the upper whisker shortens, mean 7-
DADM and SMHT values are reduced by about 1°C, and the median 7-DADM and SMHT
values are reduced by about 0.2°C. Despite their strong influence, these sites were retained
because they represent conditions in important fish habitat.
3.3.1. Timing of Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature
In monitored streams, SMHT was recorded at most sites sometime between mid-July and late
August, though every year there were a few unusual sites that had peak dates as early as June or
as late as September (Figure 9). Figure 9 shows histogram of occurrence of summer Seasonal
Maximum Hourly Temperature dates. August 1 was the average peak date for all sites in all
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
20
08
20
09
20
10
201
1
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
Seas
on
al M
axim
um
Ho
url
y Te
mp
erat
ure
(°C
)
18
Figure 9. Distribution of dates when the summer Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature was observed,
2008-2018. Among all stations and years, 95% of Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature were recorded in
July or August.
years. The distribution of SMHT dates in Figure 9 suggests our normal timing of installation and
removal at monitoring sites is sufficiently capturing the peak summer stream temperatures.
The year 2015 was unusual in that all streams peaked earlier in the summer than average with a
mean SMHT date of July 4, 2015; even the latest peak date in 2015 (July 19 for Hooper and
Jackman Creeks) was earlier than the average peak date for all sites and years (Figure 10). The
year 2011 exhibited the latest peak date of all years, with all sites averaging a peak date of
August 23 that year. Years 2013 and 2017 saw high variability, as some streams peaked early
and some late in the summer. Specific peak dates are summarized in Appendix B.
A brief investigation into differences in the seasonal snowpack at the Elbow Lake3 SNOTEL
station (Figure 1) suggests that unusually low snowpack in 2015 may have contributed to the
early timing of summer peak temperatures that summer (Figure 11). We suspect that there was
little to no snow melt to maintain cool temperatures in the late spring and early summer. In
recent years, high summer temperatures in the Sauk River have occurred following lower spring
snowpacks (Jaeger et al. 2017).
3 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2017). SNOwpack TELemetry Network (SNOTEL). Elbow Lake,
WA. NRCS. https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/snowpack-telemetry-network-snotel
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
n=62 n=58
n=64
n=5
n=32
n=7
19
Figure 10. Minimum, maximum, and mean Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature date, by year.
Figure 11. Snowpack conditions on April 1 (Elbow Lake, WA, elev. 924 m). Bars represent snow water
equivalent prior to spring melt and summer stream temperature monitoring. There was no snow on April 1
2015.
Aside from 2015, there was little indication that snowpack influenced SMHT dates in other years
(p = 0.54 for linear regression) with more normal snowpacks. Spring snowpack was weakly
correlated with lower 7-DADM values (p = 0.17) overall (see Section 3.3.3).
3.3.2. Inter-Annual Range
Inter-annual temperature range was calculated as the difference between the maximum and
minimum 7-DADM values over the years of data collection at a given site. Looking at sites with
nine or more years of data, the sites with the greatest range (>4°C) were Finney Mid, Grandy
Lake outlet, Jackman, Quartz, Rocky, Conn, Bob Lewis, and the Decline tributaries. Alder and
Savage Creeks stand out on Figure 12 as the sites with relatively low inter-annual temperature
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Mean SMHT Date
June 1
June 16
July 1
July 16
Aug 1
Aug 16
Sept 1
Sept 15
MAXMEAN
MIN
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Ap
ril 1
Sno
w W
ater
Eq
uiv
alen
t (i
n.)
20
ranges of 2°C or less. Sites that have a higher sensitivity to seasonal conditions have higher
stream temperatures; cooler streams are most variable in sensitivity, consistent with previous
research (Luce et al. 2014) (Figure 12).
Figure 12. The inter-annual range of 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum temperatures plotted against
the average 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum. Warmest streams (over 20°C on the x-axis) are most
responsive to variation in external conditions affecting stream temperature.
If sites with a shorter record are analyzed, the ranges are smaller, as fewer climate conditions
have been recorded. However, the metric can still provide an early identification of temperature
sensitivity in streams if they exhibited a large range in a few years. Sites with very low inter-
annual range (<1°C) were Carpenter, Upper Jones, Red Cabin, Muddy, Coal, and Cumberland.
Sites with a higher inter-annual range include mid Day, Hatchery, Gravel, upper Finney, and
Hobbit Creeks.
Examining temperature sensitivity allows the identification of sites that are more responsive to
above average heating conditions, both daily and seasonally. Streams with higher average stream
temperatures are likely to exhibit even warmer temperatures on above-average years. This
information can help prioritize which streams would benefit from more shade through protection
and restoration of forest buffers.
3.3.3. Effects of Weather Variability
We examined the role air temperature and precipitation have on stream temperatures through the
development of air temperature and precipitation indices (Section 2.4). Weather conditions vary
within the Skagit watershed with proximity to the coast, elevation, and other factors. Low
elevation areas in the western portion of the watershed (represented by the Sedro Woolley station
in Table 4. ) tend to be cooler in summer and warmer in winter than eastern portions of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
7-Day Average Daily Maximum Temperature (°C)
Inte
r-A
nn
ual
Te
mp
erat
ure
Ran
ge (
°C)
21
watershed (e.g. Darrington). The tributary basins in the westernmost portion of the watershed
tend to be rain dominant, with basins in the middle and eastern portions being transient and snow
dominated, respectively. Temperatures vary with elevation and has been described as a gradient
(3.9-5.2 °C km-1) along elevations which varies seasonally, diurnally, and spatially (Minder et al.
2010). Precipitation generally increases with elevation.
These weather patterns affect streamflow and stream temperature differently for our monitored
tributary sites, as they are spatially dispersed across the watershed. Table 4. shows typical July,
August, and annual air temperature and precipitation for Skagit basin weather stations.
Table 4. Summer monthly and annual air temperature and precipitation normals at Sedro Woolley,
Concrete, and Darrington. All are low elevation stations with multi-decade records near stream monitoring
sites. Seatac Airport, though outside the study area, is shown as a regional reference.
July August Annual
Mean
Normal
(°C)
Max
Normal
(°C)
Normal
Precip.
(in.)
Mean
Normal
(°C)
Max
Normal
(°C)
Normal
Precip.
(in.)
Annual
Mean
(°C)
Normal
Precip.
(in.)
Sedro Woolley 17.5 23.3 1.5 17.7 23.9 1.7 10.8 46.5
Concrete 17.7 23.9 1.6 18.2 24.4 1.7 10.3 70.4
Darrington 19.1 26.6 1.6 19.2 27.0 1.7 10.6 81.3
Seatac 18.7 24.3 0.7 18.9 24.6 0.9 11.4 37.5
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 1981-2010 Monthly Normals4
Peak temperatures of individual streams are known to vary between years due to differing
weather and flow conditions (Jackson et al. 2001). We explored inter-annual weather differences
during the period of stream temperature monitoring (n=22). Although a wide range of factors
likely play contributing roles, this section focuses on seasonal summer air temperature and
precipitation, which are available for several key locations during the study period5,6.
Monthly average air temperatures for Sedro Woolley, Concrete, and Darrington weather stations
during our study period were compared with long-term averages to determine which summers
were warmer or cooler than average (Figure 13).
4 NCDC Climate Normals website: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-
datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data 5 Western Region Climate Center website: https://wrcc.dri.edu/wraws/waF.html
6 Iowa Environmental Mesonet with NWS COOP Network observations:
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/coop/fe.phtml?network=WACLIMATE
22
Figure 13. Index values (bars) for air temperature (upper) and drought (lower) during summers (June-
August) of stream temperature monitoring. Index values (bars and left-hand Y-axis) are average departures
of monthly means from long-term averages; positive values indicate generally warmer/drier than average
conditions (e.g. 2009, 2015); negative values indicate relatively cooler/wetter than average conditions (e.g.
2012). Mean 7-Day Moving Average Daily Maximum values (triangles and dotted lines) are averages from
stream temperature sites (right-hand Y-axis).
The Air Temperature Index (ATI) is a strong predictor of stream temperature. Regression
analysis (Table 5) indicates that ATI is a significant positive covariate of both 7-DADM (p =
0.001) and SMHT (p = 0.007). When comparing the ATI to mean stream temperatures for each
year (Figure 13), air temperature indices generally agreed, with warm years having higher stream
temperatures and cooler years having lower stream temperatures. We noted a weak (p = 0.15)
upward trend in the Air Temperature Index.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4A
ir T
emp
erat
ure
Ind
ex7
-DA
DM
Tem
peratu
re (°C)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Sedro Woolley Concrete Darrington 7-DADM
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Dro
ugh
tIn
dex
7-D
AD
M Te
mp
erature (°C
)
23
Table 5. Statistical results of trends analysis
Response
Variable Predictor R2
F significance
(p) Interpretation
SMHT Trend <0.10 >0.50 Insignificant
SMHT ATI 0.58 0.007 Significant
SMHT DI 0.17 0.21 Insignificant
SMHT SWE 0.13 0.28 Insignificant
7-DADM Trend <0.10 >0.50 Insignificant
7-DADM ATI 0.71 0.001 Significant
7-DADM DI 0.23 0.14 Marginally insignificant
7-DADM SWE 0.20 0.17 Marginally insignificant
ATI Trend 0.22 0.15 Marginally insignificant
DI Trend 0.15 0.24 Insignificant
SWE Trend 0.08 0.40 Insignificant
Variables:
7-DADM and SMHT defined in Section 2.4; ATI – Air Temperature Index; DI – Drought Index
SWE – Snow Water Equivalent on preceding April 1
Trend is year of study where 2008 = 1 and 2018 = 11
Aside from SWE, all statistical correlations are ‘positive’ in that an increase in the predictor variable
corresponds to an increase in the response variable.
Air Temperature Index is not a perfect predictor of stream temperature rankings. For example, of
the two warmest years, 2009 had slightly lower mean ATI than 2015, but the 7-DADM was
slightly higher in 2009 than in 2015 (Figure 13). This was likely due to a single record-breaking
week in 2009. Similarly, 2010 was a slightly cooler year than 2013, but the mean 7-DADM was
higher in 2010 than in 2013.
Results also indicate that the warmer the summer, the earlier stream temperatures peak in the
summer (Figure 14). This suggests that under a climate change scenario where summers are
hotter, peak stream temperatures may occur earlier in the summer. High stream temperatures
earlier in the summer may be further aggravated due to decreased snowpack (and resulting
earlier and/or smaller snow melt contributing to flow) under climate change. In addition, aligning
peak stream temperature timing with peak solar radiation may further intensify high stream
temperatures. For example, in 2015, a hot summer after an extremely low snowpack, stream
temperatures peaked on an average date of July 4, just two weeks after the timing of maximum
solar radiation and day length.
Overall, summer Drought Index (DI) is a weak predictor of peak stream temperatures.
Regression analysis (Table 5) indicates that DI is a marginally insignificant covariate of 7-
DADM (p = 0.14) and SMHT (p = 0.21), though it was insignificant in models where ATI was
included. While precipitation certainly has a short-term effect on stream temperatures on the
scale of days to weeks (Figure 15), it appears that the influence of typically-sporadic summer
precipitation gets lost in the seasonally averaged index values.
24
Figure 14. Average peak Seasonal Maximum Hourly Temperature date versus the Air Temperature Index
for each year.
To consider more closely how temperature patterns on the daily, weekly, seasonal, and annual
scale can affect stream temperatures, precipitation and air temperature (7-DADM) data for the
Concrete weather station in 2009 and 2015, the two hottest summers, are presented in Figure 15.
The year 2015 was hotter (higher ATI) and slightly wetter (lower DI) than 2009. The average 7-
DADM for stream temperature was slightly lower in 2015 than in 2009. And 2015 had a
remarkably low snowpack (Figure 11) that had a presumed effect on spring snow melt and early
summer flows.
To consider how intermittent precipitation inputs to streamflow may have helped to moderate
stream temperatures in the summer of 2015, we consider the timescales of precipitation events.
On a seasonal scale (June-August), precipitation in 2015 was not very different than 2009
(similar DI values). However, on a weekly or even daily basis, 2015 was much more favorable
than 2009 (Figure 15), due to a greater distribution of rain throughout the summer.
The year 2009 was dominated by two distinct heat waves (5/31, 8/2) and a hot September,
whereas 2015 was generally hot for several consecutive weeks (5/31 until 7/12; 8/2 until 8/30)
and also had a heat wave in May. Regarding precipitation, 2009 exhibited a wet May and June,
then nearly completely dry July through September with two rain events in those three months.
In general, 2009 was characterized by long periods with no precipitation. Substantial June rains
may have lowered the Drought Index in 2009, even though the summer was very dry.
R² = 0.81
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-1 0 1 2 3
Ave
rage
Pe
ak S
MH
T D
ate
Air Temperature Index
July 11
July 21
July 31
Aug. 10
Aug. 20
25
Figure 15. Comparison of air temperatures and precipitation at Concrete during two hot summers, 2009 and
2015. Bars represent daily precipitation totals (right-hand Y-axis), while the lines represent the 7-Day
Moving Average Daily Maximum air temperature average (left-hand Y-axis).
In 2015, smaller rain events occurred periodically throughout the summer (5/14, 6/1, 6/29, 7/12,
7/25 and 7/28, 8/16) and then consistent wet weather moved in for most of September. It appears
that the regular input of summer precipitation helped to maintain slightly lower stream
temperatures throughout the basin in 2015 relative to 2009.
3.4. Year-Round Monitoring Results
Although results from year-round stations (Figure 16) are too short for much analysis, they
provide some insight relative to the 13°C supplemental spawning and incubation criteria (Table
3). Temperatures at the upper Jones site tend to remain below 13°C during the supplemental
standard protection dates, except for the last 2-3 weeks when increasing spring/early summer
temperatures occasionally rise above 13°C by a couple of degrees. On Upper Finney Creek,
warming over 13°C by a couple of degrees regularly occurs for the last 4-6 weeks of the period;
temperatures are significantly higher than 13°C during the beginning of the supplemental
spawning and incubation period. In the early fall of 2016, temperatures were 5-10°C above the
13°C criteria for over a month. Year-round 7-day average values are presented in Appendix E.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
5/3 5/17 5/31 6/14 6/28 7/12 7/26 8/9 8/23 9/6 9/20
2009 Precip 2015 Precip 2009 Air Temp 2015 Air Temp
7-D
AD
M A
ir T
em
per
atu
re (
°C)
Daily P
recipitatio
n(m
m)
26
Figure 16. Preliminary results from year-round monitoring sites showing mean monthly temperatures from
July 2017 through June 2018 (Upper Jones Creek is through April 2018, when the temperature logger was
dislodged from the installation location until summer 2018). Upper Jones exhibits slightly warmer wintertime
temperatures than the other sites.
Figure 16 displays an excerpt of the year-round monitoring results, between July 2017 and June
2018. The summertime temperatures reflect what has been presented previously in this report,
that Finney Creek and Day Creek are two of the warmest streams. The year-round Grandy Creek
site is located well downstream from the east fork of Grandy Creek and not as directly influenced
by the warm outflow of Grandy Lake. Overall, the greatest differences in stream temperature
among sites appears to be in the summer season; winter stream temperatures are much more
similar across sites. Looking specifically at Upper Jones Creek, the site demonstrates relatively
cool stream temperatures in the summer months and relatively warm stream temperatures in the
winter months, suggesting a groundwater influence within that system. Year-round monitoring
will continue, allowing greater analysis in future reports.
4. Management Implications
A key to identifying impacts of climate change on water resources includes an understanding of
how aquatic conditions are changing and an identification of factors that are contributing to
change so that biological responses can be better understood and predicted (Isaak et al. 2012).
An understanding of stream and site-specific temperature dynamics can inform a variety of
riparian management approaches and actions, including assessing forest practices activities that
take place in riparian buffers, such as hardwood conversions and thinning of overstocked stands.
This information can also guide restoration priorities to mitigate temperature in consistently
warm streams.
Knowledge of baseline temperature conditions may also aid in developing further monitoring
studies and analyses that address specific drivers and temperature effects. This may include
detailed analyses of the spatial relationship and timing of harvest units relative to stream
temperatures. A study of this nature may inform us on the effectiveness of forest practices
0
5
10
15
20
Jul.
'17
Au
g. '1
7
Sep
. '1
7
Oct
. '1
7
No
v. '1
7
Dec
. '1
7
Jan
. '1
8
Feb
. '1
8
Mar
. '1
8
Ap
r. '1
8
May
'18
Jun
'18
Mea
n M
on
thly
Tem
per
atu
re (
°C)
Upper Finney Upper Jones Grandy Mid Day Mid
27
buffers. Another potential study might be the application of a Skagit basin shade model to stream
temperatures in the basin.
The WDOE has identified that meeting water quality standards will require the conservation of
existing riparian forest and implementation of vegetation restoration projects that increase shade
and improve the health of riparian forests (DOE 2008). Similar efforts on tributary channels may
be important for ameliorating temperature increases and providing important refuge areas for
fish. Throughout the study area, forested buffers are required on all fish bearing streams within
the jurisdiction of the Washington Forest Practices Rules and County Critical Areas Ordinances.
No buffer requirements apply to streams in agricultural lands, however.
Most riparian zones in Skagit timberlands are densely forested though many, including lower
Finney Creek, are now dominated by hardwood trees such as red alder and bigleaf maple as a
result of past logging and channel movement (Haight 2002). This can have long-term limitations
for restoring stream temperatures. Although deciduous species grow rapidly and produce dense
shade in summer, their canopy heights seldom exceed 120 feet (Haight 2002). In contrast, native
conifers such as western red cedar and western hemlock can exceed twice that height, resulting
in greater shade to the larger channels found to be most temperature sensitive. Furthermore,
larger riparian trees can eventually provide the important woody instream structures that produce
habitat complexity, pools, and thermal refuge areas. Various silvicultural techniques can enhance
conifer establishment, including riparian planting and preventing dominance by exotic and native
competitors. The long-term stand composition of riparian forests adjacent to SRSC’s monitored
sites would ideally include large conifers over 100 years old intermixed with various native
deciduous species. This will maximize shade and other riparian functions.
Further identification, protection, and potentially enhancement of thermal refuge areas (e.g.
cooler tributaries, areas of groundwater inputs) near and within the larger and most temperature
impaired streams (Finney, Day) should be explored. The use of thermal infrared (TIR) detection
may allow rapid assessment of large areas of the watershed, targeting locations we know that fish
use but have issues regarding high stream temperatures, such as Day and Finney Creeks. This
may allow identification of new temperature monitoring sites or recognition of important cold-
water refuge areas. More importantly, it may allow targeted protection, enhancement, and
restoration efforts in order to maximize fish use and access to thermal refuge areas.
This study is acutely focused on stream temperatures in the areas of the basin managed for
forestry activities. Skagit County and WDOE focus stream temperature monitoring efforts
elsewhere in the basin, such as in agricultural, suburban, and urban areas. A study of temperature
dynamics within a tributary system, by pairing this temperature study with the efforts of other
organizations may allow a study of stream warming within a system and further inform
management decisions across the landscape.
Continuing efforts should focus on protecting or restoring channel morphology in order to
stabilize stream banks, decrease the width-to-depth ratios, and reconnect or reestablish riparian
wetlands and side channels. Efforts should continue to reduce landslide potential on hillslopes
that can deliver massive sediment volumes to streams (Lyons and Beschta 1983; Nichols and
Ketcheson 2013; Veldhuisen 2018). In past decades, sediment from landslides has caused
28
channel widening and destroyed riparian vegetation which exacerbates temperature problems
until channels recover (Collins et al. 1994). On forest lands, mitigation efforts include buffering
of potentially unstable slopes and riparian areas and upgrading roads to current Road
Maintenance and Abandonment Plan standards.
5. Conclusions
Based on summer stream temperature monitoring results from eleven summers (2008-2018):
• The highest stream temperatures are found in wide unshaded stream channels with low
gradient and velocity (e.g. Finney and Day Creeks, and below the outlet of Grandy Lake).
• Inter-annual variability in maximum stream temperatures (7-DADM and SMHT) was
strongly correlated with summer weather conditions, in particular the local Air
Temperature Index (Figure 13).
• Summer precipitation clearly affects temperatures at the daily or monthly timescale,
though it is only weakly correlated to seasonal stream temperature maxima.
• No significant trend was evident in the inter-annual stream temperature data. This was
true despite weak upward trends in the Air Temperature Index during the monitoring
period. Continued monitoring will strengthen our ability to assess such trends.
• The warmest streams had the largest diurnal and inter-annual temperature ranges (Figure
3, Figure 12). Though more variable, the coolest streams had smaller diurnal and inter-
annual temperature ranges. This suggests that warm streams are more sensitive to heating
during especially warm summers.
• During the warmest summers, stream temperatures peaked earlier (Figure 14). This
potentially results from earlier snowmelt and associated declines in stream flows during
the period of peak solar radiation.
• Most of the 38 streams being monitored (84%) exceeded the 16°C Core Summer
Salmonid Habitat standard in at least some years (Figure 4). Ten stations exceeded the
Core standard in all years and six streams never exceeded it.
• Of the year-round monitoring sites, two are at locations where there are Supplemental
Spawning and Incubation Criteria applies. Stream temperatures exceeded the 13°C
standard in both spring and fall of some years.
• Continuation of this long-term stream temperature monitoring effort is imperative for this
important salmon-bearing basin.
29
6. References
Adams, T.N. and K. Sullivan, 1989. The physics of forest stream heating: a simple model.
Timber Fish and Wildlife Report No. TFW-WQ3-90-007. Washington State Department
of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.
Bandaragoda, C., S. Lee, E. Istanbulluoglu, and A. Hamlet. 2019. Hydrology, Stream
Temperature and Sediment Impacts of Climate Change in the Sauk River Basin. Report
prepared for Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Darrington, WA and the Skagit Climate
Consortium, Mount Vernon, WA.
https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/e5ad2935979647d6af5f1a9f6bdecdea/
Beauregard, D., E. Enders, D. Boisclair, 2013. Consequences of circadian fluctuations in water
temperature on the standard metabolic rate of Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar).
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70(7): 1072-1081.
Beschta, R.L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby and T. D. Hofstra, 1987. Stream
Temperature and Aquatic Habitat: Fisheries and Forestry Interaction. Streamside
Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington Contribution #
57. Seattle, WA.
Beschta, R.L., and R.L. Taylor, 1988. Stream temperature increase and land use in a forested
Oregon watershed. Water Resources Bulletin 24:19-25.
Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser, 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Influences
of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. pp. 83-
138. American Fisheries Society Special Publication. No. 19.
Brown, G. W. 1969. Predicting Temperatures of Small Streams. Water Resources Research
5(1):68-75.
Collins, B. D., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, P. M. Kennard, C. N. Veldhuisen, V. S. Anderson and
D. R. Berg, 1994. Watershed Assessment and Salmonid Habitat Restoration Strategy for
Deer Creek, North Cascades of Washington. Report prepared by 10,000 Years Institute
for Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Arlington, Washington. 232 p.
Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness, 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-8.
Freeman, K., 2019. Modeling the Effects of Climate Variability on Hydrology and Stream
Temperatures in the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River. WWU Graduate School
Collection. 855. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/855
Haight, R., 2002. An Inventory and Assessment of the Finney Creek Riparian Forest -
Methodology and Results. Unpublished Report, Skagit System Cooperative, La Conner
Washington.
30
Hicks, M., 2000. Evaluating standards for protecting aquatic life in Washington’s surface water
quality standards. Temperature criteria. Wash. State Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA.
Holtby, L. B., T. E. McMahon, and J. C. Scrivener, 1989. Stream Temperatures and Inter-
Annual Variability in the Emigration Timing of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Smolts and Fry and Chum Salmon (O. Keta) Fry from Carnation Creek, British
Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 46: 1396-1405.
Isaak, D. J.,S. Wollrab, D. Horan, and G. Chandler. 2012. Climate change effects on stream and
river temperatures across the northwest U.S. from 1980-2009 and implications for
salmonid fisheries. Climatic Change. 113: 499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-
0326-z
Isaak, D. J., M. K. Young, D. E. Nagel, D. L. Horan, and M. C. Groce. 2015. The cold-water
climate shield: delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes through the 21st
century. Global Change Biology, 21(7), pp.2450-2553.
Jackson, C. R., C. A. Sturm, and J. M. Ward, 2001. Timber harvest impacts on small headwater
stream channels in the coast ranges of Washington. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 37(6):1533-1549.
Jaeger, K. L., C. A. Curran, S. W. Anderson, S. T. Morris, P. W. Moran, and K. A. Reams. 2017.
Suspended Sediment, turbidity, and stream water temperature in the Sauk River Basin,
Washington, water years 2012-16. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2017-5113. http://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175113.
Johnson, S. L., 2004. Factors influencing stream temperatures in small streams; substrate effects
and a shading experiment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science Vol. 61
Johnson, S. L., and J. A. Jones, 2000. Stream temperature response to forest harvest and debris
flows in western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
57(Suppl. 2): 30–39.
Lee, S. Y., and A. F. Hamlet, 2011. Skagit River Basin Climate Science Report, a summary
report prepared for Skagit County and the Envision Skagit Project. Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering and The Climate Impacts Group, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Lyons, J. K., and R. L. Beschta, 1983. Land use, floods, and channel changes: Upper Middle
Fork Willamette River, Oregon (1936–1980). Water Resources Research, 19(2), 463–
471.
Luce, C., B. Staab, M. Kramer, S. Wenger, D. Isaak, and C. McConnell, 2014. Sensitivity of
summer stream temperatures to climate variability in the Pacific Northwest. Water
Resources Research, 50, doi:10.1002/2013WR014329.
31
Mantua, N. I. M. Tohver, and A. F. Hamlet, 2010. Climate change impacts on stream flow
extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for
freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. Climatic Change 102:187-223.
Minder, J. R., P. W. Mote, and J. D. Lundquist. 2010. Surface temperature lapse rates over
complex terrain: Lessons from the Cascade Mountains. Journal of Geophysical
Research., 115, D14122, doi:10.1029/2009JD013493.
McCullough, D., 1999. A Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the Water
Temperature Regime on Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids, with Special Reference to
Chinook Salmon. Columbia Intertribal Fisheries Commission, Portland, OR. Prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Published as EPA 910-R-99-010.
Moore, R. D., D. L. Spittlehouse, A. Story, 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature
response to forest harvesting: A review. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association (JAWRA) 41(4):813-834.
Mostovetsky, A., J. Phillips, M. Olis, C. Veldhuisen, and S. Morris, 2015. Skagit and Sauk
Tributary Stream Temperature Monitoring: 2008-2018 Results and Interpretation. Skagit
River System Cooperative, La Conner, WA. http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/
Nichols, R.A. and G. L. Ketcheson, 2013. A Two-Decade Watershed Approach to Stream
Restoration Log Jam Design and Stream Recovery Monitoring: Finney Creek,
Washington. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 1-18.
Phillips, J., M. Olis, C. Veldhuisen, S. Morris, D. Couvelier, 2011. Skagit and Sauk River Basin
Stream Temperature Monitoring: 2008-2009 Progress Report. Skagit River System
Cooperative, La Conner, WA. http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/
Pollock, M.M., T.J. Beechie, M. Liermann, and R.E. Bigley, 2009. Stream temperature
relationship to forest harvest in western Washington. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association. 45(1): 141-156
Quinn, T. P., and D. J. Adams, 1996. Environmental changes affecting the migratory timing of
American shad and sockeye salmon. Ecology 77(4):1151-1162.
Rybczyk, J. M., A. F. Hamlet, C. MacIlroy, L. Wasserman, 2016. Introduction to the Skagit
Issue—From Glaciers to Estuary: Assessing Climate Change Impacts on the Skagit River
Basin. Northwest Science 90(1), 1-4. http://doi.org/10.3955/046.090.0102
Schuett-Hames, D., A. E. Pleus, E. Rashin, and J. Mathews, 1999. TFW Monitoring Program
method Manual for the Stream Temperature Survey. Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. TFW-AM9-999005.
32
Seixas, G. B., T. J. Beechie, C. Fogel, P. M. Kiffney. 2018. Historical and future stream
temperature change predicted by a lidar-based assessment of riparian condition and
channel width. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 1-18.
https://doi.org.10.1111/1752-1688.12655
Skagit County, 2019. Skagit County Monitoring Program Annual Report, 2018 Water Year.
Skagit County Public Works, Mount Vernon, WA.
https://www.skagitcounty.net/PublicWorksSurfaceWaterManagement/Documents/2018%
20Annual%20report/2018%20Annual%20Report.pdf
Skagit River System Cooperative and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2005. Skagit
Chinook Recovery Plan. Skagit River System Cooperative, La Conner, WA. pp. 296.
http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/SkagitChinookPlan13.pdf
Steel, E. A., A. Tillotson, D. A. Larsen, A. H. Fullerton, K. P. Denton, and B. Beckman, 2012.
Beyond the mean: The role of variability in predicting ecological effects of stream
temperature on salmon. Ecosphere 3(11):104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00255.1
Stumbaugh, M., and A. F. Hamlet, 2016. Effects of Climate Change on Extreme Low-Flows in
Small Lowland Tributaries in the Skagit River Basin. Northwest Science 90(1), 44-56.
https://doi.org/10.3955/046.090.0105
Veldhuisen, C., and D. Couvelier. 2006. Summer temperatures of Skagit Basin Headwater
Streams: Results pf 2001-2003 monitoring. Skagit River System Cooperative. La Conner,
WA. http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/
Veldhuisen, C. 2018. Temporal trends and potential contributing factors to shallow landslide
rates in timberlands of the Skagit River basin, Washington. Skagit River System
Cooperative. La Conner, WA. http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/
Washington Department of Ecology, 2003. Continuous Temperature Sampling Protocols for the
Environmental Monitoring and Trends Section. Washington Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA. Publication No. 03-03-052.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2004. Lower Skagit River Tributaries Temperature Total
Maximum Daily Load Study. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Publication No. 04-03-001.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2008. Lower Skagit River Tributaries Temperature Total
Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 08-10-20.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2011. Water Quality Standards for Surface Water of the
State of Washington. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No.
06-10-091.
33
34
Appendix A. Summary of Sites, Locations, and Years of Available Data XYZ
Site
ID
Stre
am N
ame
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
Loca
tio
n
ALD
R
Ald
er C
reek
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
end
of
O'H
ara
Ro
ad
AN
DR
A
nd
erso
n C
reek
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
up
stre
am o
f So
uth
Ska
git
Hw
y
BO
BL1
Bo
b L
ewis
Cre
ek
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x u
pst
ream
of
Sau
k P
rair
ie R
oad
CA
RP
C
arp
ente
r C
reek
B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E x
x x
up
stre
am o
f Er
vin
e R
oad
CO
AL
Co
al C
reek
B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E x
x x
x u
pst
ream
of
Hw
y 2
0
CO
NN
1 C
on
n C
reek
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
up
stre
am o
f U
SFS
24
35
Ro
ad
CU
MB
C
um
ber
lan
d C
reek
B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E x
OO
W
x x
TMP
u
pst
ream
of
Sou
th S
kagi
t H
wy
DA
LO2
Day
Cre
ek -
low
B
E x
x x
x N
D
x x
x x
x R
M 0
.2 -
Lo
wer
Day
DA
MD
* D
ay C
reek
- m
id
BE
x x
x x
x x
LST
x O
OW
x
nea
r R
ock
y C
reek
co
nfl
uen
ce
DA
NC
1 D
an C
reek
x
x x
OO
W
x x
x x
BA
T x
x u
pst
ream
of
Sau
k P
rair
ie R
oad
DC
LO1
Dec
line
Cre
ek
- lo
wer
x
x x
x x
x x
x B
AT
x x
USF
S 24
35-
01
4 R
oad
DC
UP
1 D
eclin
e C
ree
k -
up
per
tri
b
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x U
SFS
243
5-0
16
Ro
ad
DEC
L1 D
eclin
e C
ree
k x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
up
stre
am o
f U
SFS
24
30
Ro
ad
FNM
D
Fin
ney
Cre
ek -
mid
x
x x
x O
OW
x
x x
OO
W
x x
nea
r Q
uar
tz C
reek
(m
id)
FNU
P*
Fin
ney
Cre
ek -
up
per
B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E B
E x
x x
x u
pst
ream
of
Smal
l Fin
GR
AV
G
rave
l Cre
ek -
up
per
x
x x
x x
x x
x B
AT
ND
N
D
USF
S 21
40
Ro
ad
GR
CK
* G
ran
dy
Cre
ek
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x d
ow
nst
ream
of
East
Fo
rk t
rib
uta
ry
GR
LK
Gra
nd
y C
reek
- la
ke
BE
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Gra
nd
y La
ke o
utl
et t
rib
uta
ry
HA
TC
Hat
cher
y C
reek
x
x x
x x
x x
OO
W
OO
W
OO
W
x d
ow
nst
ream
of
Low
er F
inn
ey R
d
HO
BB
H
ob
bit
Cre
ek
BE
x x
x x
x x
OO
W
OO
W
OO
W
OO
W
up
stre
am C
on
cret
e-Sa
uk
Val
ley
Rd
HO
OP
H
oo
per
Cre
ek
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x u
pst
ream
Co
ncr
ete-
Sau
k V
alle
y R
d
JAC
K
Jack
man
Cre
ek
x x
x x
x x
OO
W
x x
x x
up
stre
am o
f H
wy
20
JNC
K
Jon
es C
reek
B
E B
E B
E B
E x
x x
x x
x x
up
stre
am o
f B
urr
ese
Ro
ad
JNU
P*
Jon
es C
reek
- u
pp
er
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
x x
x d
ow
nst
ream
en
d o
f ca
nyo
n
MO
RG
M
org
an C
reek
x
OO
W
x x
x x
x O
OW
O
OW
O
OW
O
OW
u
pst
ream
of
Sou
th S
kagi
t H
wy
MO
US1
Mo
use
Cre
ek
x x
x x
x x
x x
BA
T x
x u
pst
ream
of
Sau
k P
rair
ie R
oad
MU
DD
M
ud
dy
Cre
ek
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
x x
x x
x u
pst
ream
of
SPI p
rop
erty
lin
e
OST
R
Ost
erm
an C
reek
B
E x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x u
pst
ream
Co
ncr
ete-
Sau
k V
alle
y R
d
PR
ES
Pre
ssen
tin
Cre
ek
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
x x
x x
x u
pst
ream
of
East
Pre
ssen
tin
Dr
QU
AR
Q
uar
tz C
reek
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
do
wn
stre
am o
f Lo
wer
Fin
ney
Rd
RD
CB
R
ed C
abin
Cre
ek
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
x x
x x
bel
ow
bri
dge
on
Cro
wn
Mai
nlin
e
RO
CK
R
ock
y C
ree
k B
E x
x x
x x
x LS
T x
x x
nea
r D
ay C
reek
co
nfl
uen
ce
RU
XL
Ru
xall
Cre
ek
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x d
ow
nst
ream
of
Low
er F
inn
ey R
oad
SAV
G
Sava
ge C
reek
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Wey
erh
ause
r 4
40
0 R
oad
SMFI
Sm
all F
inn
ey t
rib
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
smal
l tri
bu
tary
to
Fin
ne
y C
reek
TPTH
TP
Th
in
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
x x
x N
D
x at
cam
psi
tes
on
Lo
wer
Fin
ney
Rd
WIN
T W
inte
rs C
reek
B
E x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x tr
ibu
tary
to
Mo
rgan
Cre
ek
WIS
E W
isem
an
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
x x
x x
do
wn
stre
am o
f W
est
Elk
Ru
n
Bold
Sit
e ID
in
dic
ates
9+
yea
rs o
f dat
a.
1 D
ata
coll
ecte
d b
y S
SIT
; 2 D
ata
coll
ecte
d b
y S
FE
G 2
008
-201
3 a
nd b
y S
RS
C 2
014
and
lat
er.
All
oth
er s
ites
by
SR
SC
* Y
ear-
round
dat
a co
llec
tio
n s
ite
B
E:
Bef
ore
est
abli
shm
ent
of
mon
ito
rin
g s
ite.
O
OW
: per
iod o
f ti
me
du
ring
mon
ito
rin
g s
easo
n w
hen
logg
er w
as o
ut
of
wat
er
LS
T:
logg
er l
ost
or
not
retr
ieved
.
ND
: lo
gg
er w
as n
ot
dep
loy
ed.
BA
T:
bat
tery
die
d d
uri
ng
mon
ito
rin
g p
erio
d.
TM
P:
tam
per
ing o
r th
eft
of
logg
er d
isru
pte
d d
ata
coll
ecti
on
35
Appendix B. Summary of SMHT Temperatures and Dates XYZ
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
Site
ID
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
Avg. SMHT (˚
C)
Avg. SMHT Date
ALD
R
14
.0
8/1
6 1
5.1
7
/28
14
.4
7/9
1
3.1
8
/6
13
.9
8/5
1
4.4
7
/1
14
.2
7/1
6 1
4.8
7
/2
14
.4
7/2
9 1
3.8
6
/25
14
.1
7/3
0 1
4.2
7
/21
AN
DR
1
6.8
8
/16
19
.8
7/3
0 1
7.2
8
/16
15
.8
8/2
6 1
6.8
8
/17
16
.4
9/1
2 1
7.0
8
/19
17
.7
7/3
1
6.7
8
/20
16
.9
8/1
0 1
7.7
7
/30
17
.2
8/1
2
BO
BL1
17
8
/15
19
7
/29
16
.8
8/1
7 1
5.0
8
/26
16
.4
8/1
7 1
6.1
7
/1
16
.8
7/1
6 1
7.3
7
/3
16
.4
7/2
9 1
6
8/1
0 1
7.0
7
/30
16
.8
7/3
1
CA
RP
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
7.0
7
/29
16
.6
8/3
1
6.6
7
/30
16
.7
7/3
1
CO
AL
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
17
.6
7/2
1
7.0
8
/13
16
.8
8/3
1
7.6
7
/30
17
.3
7/2
7
CO
NN
1 1
5
8/1
7 1
7
7/2
8 1
4
8/1
6 1
2.5
8
/26
14
.3
8/5
1
4.3
8
/10
14
.6
7/1
4 1
5.7
6
/29
14
.1
7/2
9 1
5
8/9
1
5.1
7
/30
14
.6
8/2
CU
MB
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
7.4
8
/19
- -
17
.0
8/2
0 1
7.9
8
/10
- -
17
.4
8/1
6
DA
LO2
- -
24
.1
7/3
0 2
4
7/2
4 2
0
8/2
5 2
1.0
8
/5
- -
22
.0
7/1
6 2
3
7/1
9 2
2
7/2
9 2
2
8/1
0 2
2.6
7
/30
22
.3
7/3
1
DA
MD
* -
- 2
0.8
7
/30
17
.8
7/9
1
6.9
8
/26
18
.5
8/5
1
8.7
7
/1
19
.5
7/1
4 -
- 1
8
7/5
1
8.2
8
/10
19
.0
7/3
0 1
8.6
7
/25
DA
NC
1 2
1
8/1
6 2
1
7/2
9 1
8
8/1
7 -
- 1
7.7
8
/17
18
.0
8/1
0 1
8.9
7
/16
21
7
/3
- -
19
8
/10
19
.2
7/3
0 1
9.3
8
/2
DC
LO1
15
8
/16
17
7
/31
15
8
/5
12
.5
8/2
6 1
4.7
8
/5
14
.6
8/1
0 1
5.4
7
/16
16
.5
7/2
-
- 1
4
8/1
1 1
4.6
7
/31
14
.9
8/3
DC
UP
1 1
4
8/1
7 1
5
7/3
1 1
3
8/5
1
0.8
8
/26
12
.9
8/5
1
2.7
8
/10
13
.4
8/1
8 1
3.8
6
/29
12
.1
7/2
9 1
2
8/9
1
2.5
7
/30
12
.9
8/5
DEC
L1 1
5
8/1
7 1
7
7/3
0 -
- 1
3
8/2
6 1
4
8/5
1
5
8/1
0 1
6
7/1
4 1
6.2
7
/2
14
.5
7/2
9 1
5.0
8
/9
15
.4
7/3
1 1
5.1
8
/2
FNM
D
22
.9
8/1
6 2
5.2
7
/29
23
.0
8/1
5 2
0.4
8
/26
- -
23
.4
8/5
2
3.7
7
/16
25
.8
7/2
-
- 2
3.4
8
/10
25
.6
7/3
0 2
3.7
8
/2
FNU
P*
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
24
.7
7/2
2
2.8
7
/29
22
.2
8/1
0 2
4
7/3
0 2
3.3
7
/25
GR
AV
1
6
8/1
7 1
7
7/2
8 1
5
8/1
6 1
3.8
9
/11
15
.0
8/1
7 1
4.7
8
/10
- -
16
.3
7/2
-
- -
- -
- 1
5.5
8
/10
GR
CK
* 1
4.4
7
/12
15
.2
7/3
1
6.4
7
/9
14
.7
7/2
4 1
6.9
8
/5
18
.3
7/9
1
7.2
7
/16
15
.6
6/2
9 1
5.2
6
/27
16
6
/25
17
7
/6
16
.0
7/9
GR
LK
- -
30
.3
7/2
9 2
6.3
8
/15
24
.4
8/2
5 2
5.2
8
/5
25
.8
7/1
9 2
8.3
7
/16
29
.1
7/2
2
7.4
7
/29
26
.0
6/2
5 2
4.2
7
/30
26
.7
7/2
6
HA
TC
17
.4
8/1
6 1
9.7
7
/29
17
.6
8/1
6 1
8.3
9
/11
17
.3
8/1
7 1
6.8
7
/1
17
.7
8/3
-
- -
- -
- -
- 1
7.8
8
/9
HO
BB
-
- 1
3.7
8
/11
13
.5
9/1
9 1
2.1
8
/6
13
.1
7/1
9 1
4.8
8
/29
15
.1
8/1
3 -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
3.7
8
/16
HO
OP
1
6.1
8
/16
18
.3
7/2
9 1
6.2
8
/16
14
.7
8/2
6 1
5.8
8
/17
15
.6
9/1
1 1
5.7
8
/11
16
.3
7/1
9 1
5.8
8
/20
15
.9
8/1
0 1
6.7
8
/9
16
.1
8/1
4
JAC
K
17
.2
8/1
6 1
9.4
7
/29
17
.5
8/1
6 1
5.1
8
/26
16
.5
8/1
7 1
7.3
8
/10
- -
20
.2
7/1
9 1
7.6
7
/29
18
.0
8/1
0 1
8.7
8
/9
17
.7
8/9
JNC
K
- -
- -
- -
- -
15
.3
8/5
1
5.1
7
/9
16
.0
7/1
4 1
6.8
7
/20
15
.9
7/2
9 1
5.7
8
/10
15
.8
7/3
0 1
5.8
7
/25
JNU
P*
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
16
.0
7/2
9 1
5.7
6
/25
16
.0
7/3
0 1
5.9
7
/18
MO
RG
1
6.9
8
/17
- -
18
.2
8/1
6 1
7.1
9
/23
17
.5
8/5
1
8.2
8
/28
18
.3
8/1
9 -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
7.7
8
/23
MO
US1
17
8
/17
19
7
/29
17
8
/17
15
.3
8/2
6 1
6.7
8
/17
16
.1
8/1
0 1
7.0
7
/16
17
.9
7/3
-
- 1
8
8/1
0 1
7.3
8
/9
17
.0
8/6
MU
DD
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
4
7/1
9 1
4
6/2
7 1
3.6
6
/25
13
.3
7/3
0 1
3.7
7
/10
OST
R
- -
18
.7
7/2
9 1
6.7
8
/16
15
.3
8/2
6 1
6.2
8
/17
16
.4
7/1
1
7.0
8
/4
17
.3
7/2
1
6.4
8
/13
16
.5
9/4
1
7.6
7
/30
16
.8
8/5
PR
ES
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
17
.1
7/1
6 1
8.3
7
/2
17
.2
7/2
9 1
7.3
8
/10
17
.9
7/3
0 1
7.6
7
/23
36
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
Site
ID
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
SMHT (˚ C)
SMHT Date
Avg. SMHT
(˚ C)
Avg. SMHT Date
QU
AR
1
8.5
8
/16
21
.7
7/2
9 1
8.7
8
/15
16
.5
8/2
6 1
8.1
8
/17
18
.7
8/1
0 1
8.3
7
/16
20
.1
7/2
1
8.7
7
/29
18
.2
8/1
0 1
9.1
7
/30
18
.8
8/4
RD
CB
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
1.4
7
/3
11
.2
6/2
7 1
0.9
6
/25
10
.9
7/3
0 1
1.1
7
/6
RO
CK
-
- 2
0.6
7
/30
17
.3
8/5
1
5.6
8
/26
17
.6
8/5
1
7.2
8
/10
18
.4
7/1
6 -
- 1
7.3
7
/29
18
.0
8/1
0 1
8.6
7
/30
17
.8
8/4
RU
XL
17
.6
8/1
7 1
9.7
7
/29
17
.2
8/1
6 1
6.2
8
/26
17
.0
8/5
1
7.3
7
/1
17
.9
8/3
1
8.4
7
/2
16
.9
8/2
0 1
7.3
8
/10
17
.8
8/9
1
7.6
8
/4
SAV
G
13
.5
8/1
6 1
4.3
7
/29
13
.9
8/1
6 1
3.3
8
/26
14
.0
8/5
1
4.5
9
/7
14
.5
8/1
9 1
4.9
7
/19
14
.9
8/2
0 1
4.2
8
/9
14
.3
7/3
0 1
4.2
8
/12
SMFI
1
6.4
8
/17
19
.0
7/2
9 1
6.7
8
/16
15
.3
8/2
6 1
6.5
8
/5
16
.6
7/1
1
6.7
8
/19
17
.1
7/2
1
6.1
8
/13
16
.7
8/1
0 1
6.9
7
/30
16
.7
8/4
TPTH
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
6.4
8
/13
17
.4
7/2
1
5.6
7
/29
- -
15
.7
7/3
0 1
6.3
7
/26
WIN
T -
- 1
9.1
7
/29
16
.5
8/1
5 1
5.1
8
/26
16
.5
8/1
7 1
6.1
7
/1
16
.5
8/1
9 1
6.9
7
/3
16
.2
8/2
0 1
6.2
9
/7
17
.0
8/9
1
6.6
8
/8
WIS
E -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
7.8
7
/2
17
.9
7/2
9 1
7.0
6
/25
17
.6
7/3
0 1
7.6
7
/14
Min
1
3.5
7
/12
13
.7
7/3
1
2.8
7
/9
10
.8
7/2
4 1
2.9
7
/19
12
.7
7/1
1
3.4
7
/14
11
.4
6/2
9 1
1.2
6
/27
10
.9
6/2
5 1
0.9
7
/6
11
.1
7/6
Max
2
2.9
8
/17
30
.3
8/1
1 2
6.3
9
/19
24
.4
9/2
3 2
5.2
8
/17
25
.8
9/1
2 2
8.3
8
/13
29
.1
7/2
0 2
7.4
8
/20
26
.0
9/7
2
5.6
8
/9
26
.7
8/2
3
Me
an
16
.6
8/1
4 1
9.1
7
/28
17
.2
8/1
0 1
5.5
8
/25
16
.5
8/9
1
6.8
7
/30
17
.5
8/1
0 1
8.0
7
/5
16
.7
7/3
0 1
6.9
8
/1
17
.4
7/3
0 1
7.1
7
/31
Bold
Sit
e ID
in
dic
ates
9+
yea
rs o
f dat
a.
M
ax, M
in,
and
Mea
n s
um
mar
ize
all
site
s fo
r th
at y
ear
1 D
ata
coll
ecte
d b
y S
SIT
; 2 D
ata
coll
ecte
d b
y S
FE
G 2
008
-201
3 a
nd b
y S
RS
C 2
014
and
lat
er.
All
oth
er s
ites
by
SR
SC
* Y
ear-
round
dat
a co
llec
tio
n s
ite
37
Appendix C. Summary of 7-DADM Temperatures and Ranges XYZ
2
00
8 2
00
9 2
01
0 2
01
1 2
01
2 2
01
3 2
01
4 2
01
5 2
01
6 2
01
7 2
01
8
Site
ID
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
Avg. 7DADM (˚ C)
Avg. 7DADM Range
ALD
R
13
.3
2.6
1
4.9
3
.1
13
.7
3.0
1
2.9
2
.8
13
.2
2.7
1
3.6
2
.9
13
.9
3.1
1
4.5
3
.4
14
.0
3.1
1
3.4
3
.0
13
.9
2.9
1
3.8
3
.0
AN
DR
1
5.9
1
.7
18
.8
2.4
1
6.2
2
.2
15
.0
1.7
1
5.9
1
.9
15
.8
1.4
1
6.2
2
.1
17
.3
2.3
1
6.1
1
.9
16
.4
1.7
1
7.0
2
.0
16
.4
1.9
BO
BL1
16
.4
1.6
1
8.7
2
.3
16
.2
2.1
1
4.6
1
.4
15
.9
1.6
1
5.6
1
.3
16
.4
1.6
1
7.0
2
.1
15
.8
1.6
1
5.9
1
.0
16
.5
1.0
1
6.3
1
.6
CA
RP
-
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
- 1
6.2
2
.0
16
.0
1.9
1
6.1
1
.6
16
.1
1.8
CO
AL
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
17
.3
2.4
1
6.4
2
.0
16
.4
1.8
1
7.0
2
.0
16
.8
2.1
CO
NN
1 1
4.1
1
.5
16
.1
1.8
1
3.3
1
.5
11
.9
1.6
1
3.4
1
.5
13
.6
1.5
1
4.1
2
.6
15
.2
1.8
1
3.3
1
.5
14
.2
1.2
1
4.4
1
.5
14
.0
1.6
CU
MB
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
6.7
1
.5
- -
16
.4
1.8
1
7.3
1
.8
- -
16
.8
1.7
DA
LO2
- -
23
.6
5.0
2
3.6
6
.7
19
4
.6
19
.5
4.4
-
- 2
1.2
5
.4
22
.5
4.9
2
1.5
5
.4
20
.9
4.7
2
2.2
4
.1
21
.6
5.0
DA
MD
* -
- 2
0.0
2
.2
17
.1
2.2
1
6.3
1
.9
17
.4
2.4
1
7.4
2
.3
18
.9
1.9
-
- 1
7
2.6
1
7.7
2
.0
18
.3
2.3
1
7.8
2
.2
DA
NC
1 1
8.7
4
.2
20
.3
4.0
1
7.7
3
.6
- -
17
.2
2.8
1
7.7
3
.5
18
.1
3.3
2
0.3
4
.8
- -
18
.3
3.0
1
8.6
3
.1
18
.5
3.6
DC
LO1
13
.9
2.2
1
6.8
3
.4
13
.9
3.1
1
2.0
2
.5
13
.9
2.7
1
3.8
4
.0
14
.8
3.6
1
6.3
4
.0
- -
14
2
.1
13
.9
2.2
1
4.3
3
.0
DC
UP
1 1
2.5
1
.8
14
.6
2.4
1
2
2.1
1
0.5
2
.0
12
.0
2.0
1
2.0
3
.2
12
.9
3.5
1
3.5
2
.3
11
.4
2.1
1
2.1
1
.5
12
.0
1.5
1
2.3
2
.2
DEC
L1 1
4.2
1
.6
16
.4
2.1
-
- 1
2.5
1
.7
13
.9
1.7
1
4.2
1
.8
15
.1
2.8
1
5.9
2
.3
13
.7
1.7
1
4.6
1
.6
14
.8
1.7
1
4.5
1
.9
FNM
D
21
.2
5.1
2
4.2
5
.1
22
.2
5.6
1
9.4
4
.2
- -
23
.1
3.6
2
2.6
5
.4
25
.2
6.4
-
- 2
2.4
5
.4
24
.9
6.6
2
2.8
5
.3
FNU
P*
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
24
.0
4.7
2
1.6
5
.1
21
.2
3.6
2
2.8
3
.9
22
.4
4.3
GR
AV
1
4.9
1
.8
16
.7
2.2
1
4.3
1
.8
13
.2
1.4
1
4.1
1
.8
14
.2
1.7
-
- 1
5.8
2
.3
- -
- -
- -
14
.7
1.9
GR
CK
* 1
4.0
4
.2
14
.5
1.9
1
5.2
3
.4
14
.0
3.1
1
5.5
2
.6
17
.0
3.6
1
6.9
3
.4
15
.2
2.5
1
4.6
2
.8
14
.3
4.0
1
5.1
2
.5
15
.1
3.1
GR
LK
- -
29
.0
4.8
2
5.2
4
.5
23
.7
4.3
2
3.7
2
.0
25
.3
4.3
2
7.6
4
.8
28
.4
5.6
2
6.1
5
.0
23
.5
3.8
2
3.5
1
.8
25
.6
4.1
HA
TC
15
.5
2.0
1
9.0
3
.0
16
.8
2.6
1
6.1
3
.3
16
.4
2.2
1
6.2
2
.3
17
.1
2.4
-
- -
- -
- -
2.0
1
6.7
2
.5
HO
BB
-
- 1
2.8
1
.2
12
.8
0.8
1
1.9
1
.2
12
.7
1.0
1
4.4
1
.2
13
.5
1.1
-
- -
- -
- -
- 1
3.0
1
.1
HO
OP
1
5.3
1
.7
17
.4
2.3
1
5.5
2
.1
14
.2
1.7
1
5.2
2
.0
14
.9
1.4
1
5.2
2
.0
15
.9
2.4
1
5.2
2
.1
15
.3
1.5
1
6
2.1
1
5.5
1
.9
JAC
K
15
.9
2.6
1
8.9
3
.7
16
.8
3.2
1
4.5
2
.7
15
.8
2.9
1
6.7
3
.5
- -
19
.8
4.5
1
7.1
3
.4
17
.3
3.2
1
7.8
3
.5
17
.1
3.3
JNC
K
- -
- -
- -
-
14
.7
1.6
1
4.7
2
.8
15
.7
2.2
1
6.5
2
.3
15
.4
2.1
1
5.3
1
.6
15
.2
1.5
1
5.4
2
.0
JNU
P*
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
- -
- -
15
.6
2.4
1
5.2
1
.8
15
.7
2.0
1
5.5
2
.1
MO
RG
1
6.5
0
.7
- -
17
.4
1.4
1
5.9
3
.3
16
.6
1.8
1
7.7
1
.3
17
.5
1.6
-
- -
- -
- -
- 1
7.0
1
.7
MO
US1
16
.2
1.3
1
8.4
1
.9
16
.1
1.8
1
4.8
1
.4
16
.1
1.7
1
5.9
1
.7
16
.4
1.6
1
7.7
2
.3
- -
17
.0
1.8
1
6.7
1
.2
16
.5
1.7
MU
DD
-
- -
- -
-
-
-
- -
- 1
3.9
3
.6
13
.4
3.1
1
3.1
2
.9
13
.1
2.9
1
3.4
3
.1
OST
R
- -
18
.0
1.9
1
6.0
1
.9
14
.8
1.4
1
5.6
1
.3
15
.8
1.6
1
6.5
1
.7
17
.0
1.7
1
6.0
1
.5
16
.1
1.5
1
6.9
1
.9
16
.3
1.6
PR
ES
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
16
.6
2.1
1
8.0
1
.8
16
.4
2.1
1
6.8
1
.6
17
.4
1.7
1
7.0
1
.9
38
2
00
8 2
00
9 2
01
0 2
01
1 2
01
2 2
01
3 2
01
4 2
01
5 2
01
6 2
01
7 2
01
8
Site
ID
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
7DADM (˚ C)
7DADM Range
Avg. 7DADM
(˚ C)
Avg. 7DADM Range
QU
AR
1
7.2
2
.7
20
.9
4.4
1
8.0
4
.0
15
.7
2.9
1
7.2
3
.3
18
.3
4.6
1
7.6
3
.4
19
.7
4.4
1
7.9
3
.7
17
.6
2.7
1
8.3
3
.2
18
.0
3.6
RD
CB
-
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
- 1
1.3
1
.6
10
.9
1.3
1
0.7
1
.5
10
.8
1.4
1
0.9
1
.5
RO
CK
-
- 1
9.8
2
.2
16
.5
1.8
1
5.0
1
.5
16
.5
1.9
1
6.5
1
.9
17
.7
2.4
-
- 1
6.6
2
.2
17
.6
1.7
1
8
2.0
1
7.1
2
.0
RU
XL
16
.8
2.2
1
9.0
2
.6
16
.6
2.4
1
5.6
2
.2
16
.3
2.2
1
6.3
2
.4
17
.3
2.9
1
8.1
3
.1
16
.3
1.9
1
6.7
1
.7
17
.1
1.8
1
6.9
2
.3
SAV
G
13
.2
0.8
1
4.2
1
.5
13
.6
1.4
1
3.0
1
.2
13
.7
1.3
1
4.3
1
.2
14
.5
1.3
1
4.4
1
.6
14
.7
1.7
1
3.9
1
.1
14
.1
1.1
1
4.0
1
.3
SMFI
1
5.8
1
.2
18
.2
1.8
1
6.1
1
.9
14
.8
1.4
1
5.8
1
.5
16
.0
1.5
1
6.3
0
.9
16
.8
1.9
1
5.7
1
.6
16
.1
1.6
1
6.4
1
.6
16
.2
1.5
TPTH
-
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- 1
5.5
1
.2
17
.2
2.7
1
4.9
2
.2
- -
15
.2
1.3
1
5.7
1
.9
WIN
T -
- 1
8.1
1
.7
15
.8
1.4
1
4.6
0
.9
15
.7
1.3
1
5.5
0
.8
16
.0
0.6
1
6.6
1
.2
15
.5
1.1
1
5.9
0
.9
16
.2
1.3
1
6.0
1
.1
WIS
E -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1
7.5
3
.0
17
.1
3.1
1
5.9
3
.0
17
.1
2.8
1
6.9
3
.0
Min
imu
m
12
.5
0.7
1
2.8
1
.2
12
.0
0.8
1
0.5
0
.9
12
.0
1.0
1
2.0
0
.8
12
.9
0.6
1
1.3
1
.2
10
.9
1.1
1
0.7
0
.9
10
.8
1.0
1
0.9
1
.1
Max
imu
m
21
.2
5.1
2
9.0
5
.1
25
.2
6.7
2
3.7
4
.6
23
.7
4.4
2
5.3
4
.6
27
.6
5.4
2
8.4
6
.4
26
.1
5.4
2
3.5
5
.4
24
.9
6.6
2
5.6
5
.3
Me
an
15
.6
2.2
1
8.4
2
.7
16
.5
2.6
1
4.8
2
.2
15
.7
2.1
1
6.2
2
.3
16
.9
2.5
1
7.6
3
.0
16
.1
2.5
1
6.3
2
.2
16
.8
2.2
1
6.4
2
.4
Bold
Sit
e ID
in
dic
ates
9+
yea
rs o
f dat
a.
Max
, M
in,
and
Mea
n s
um
mar
ize
all
site
s fo
r th
at y
ear
1 D
ata
coll
ecte
d b
y S
SIT
; 2 D
ata
coll
ecte
d b
y S
FE
G 2
008
-201
3 a
nd b
y S
RS
C 2
014
and
lat
er.
All
oth
er s
ites
by
SR
SC
* Y
ear-
round
dat
a co
llec
tio
n s
ite
Dar
k g
ray
sh
adin
g i
nd
icat
es 7
DA
DM
ex
ceed
s 20
°C
L
ight
gra
y s
had
ing i
ndic
ates
7D
AD
M i
s >
16
and
<20
°C
39
Appendix D. Summary of Exceedances of State Temperature Standards XYZ
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
Site
ID
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Max. Days Over 16˚ C
Avg. Days Over 16˚ C
ALD
R
- 0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AN
DR
-
0
- 1
3
- 3
-
0
- 0
-
0
6
-
29
-
3
- 1
5
- 2
3
29
8
BO
BL1
- 5
-
16
-
3
- 0
-
0
- 0
6
- 1
2
- 0
-
0
- 1
2
16
5
CA
RP
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
7
- 1
-
3
7
4
CO
AL
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 4
5
- 1
5
- 1
3
- 2
5
45
2
5
CO
NN
1 -
0
- 1
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
1
0
CU
MB
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 0
3
8
- -
0
11
0
2
6
- -
38
2
5
DA
LO2
- -
30
7
4
22
6
8
22
3
8
22
5
4
- -
30
6
4
29
9
4
28
6
9
18
7
1
18
7
8
94
6
8
DA
MD
* -
- 6
2
3
0
25
0
5
0
3
5
0
70
0
5
6
- -
0
27
0
4
8
0
47
7
0
37
DA
NC
1 1
9
15
4
2
36
2
2
30
-
- 2
4
18
3
7
39
2
6
37
6
0
43
-
- 4
0
42
3
3
38
4
3
33
DC
LO1
- 0
-
6
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
6
- -
- 0
-
0
6
1
DC
UP
1 -
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
0
0
DEC
L1 -
0
- 4
-
- -
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
4
0
FNM
D
30
3
7
43
6
3
20
5
8
28
3
7
- -
23
6
5
28
6
1
27
7
4
- -
27
6
8
20
7
2
74
5
9
FNU
P*
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
22
6
5
27
6
9
27
6
9
20
6
9
69
6
8
GR
AV
-
0
- 5
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
- -
0
- -
- -
- -
5
1
GR
CK
* -
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 1
1
- 1
5
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
15
2
GR
LK
- -
- -
- 9
2
- 1
12
- 1
12
- 9
0
- 1
03
- 1
36
- 1
02
- 1
07
- 1
04
13
6 1
06
HA
TC
7
4
30
2
2
13
6
2
3
0
19
6
1
7
6
28
3
9
- -
- -
- -
10
1
7
39
1
3
HO
BB
-
- -
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
- -
- -
- -
- 0
0
HO
OP
-
0
- 9
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
9
1
JAC
K
- 0
2
6
19
6
6
1
4
0
13
0
1
9
8
- -
26
6
6
18
1
9
16
2
9
11
3
3
66
1
8
JNC
K
- -
- -
- -
- -
0
0
19
0
1
8
0
3
9
9
0
10
0
0
0
9
1
JNU
P*
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
MO
RG
-
17
-
- -
26
-
0
- 1
5
- 5
2
- 4
9
- -
- -
- -
- -
52
2
7
MO
US1
- 3
-
13
-
2
- 0
-
5
- 0
-
14
-
42
-
- -
21
-
18
4
2
12
MU
DD
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
0
0
OST
R
- -
- 1
1
- 1
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 2
0
- 1
7
- 1
-
1
- 1
7
20
7
PR
ES
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
16
2
0
18
4
4
9
12
1
4
11
1
0
26
4
4
23
40
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
Site
ID
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Days Over 13˚ C
Days Over 16˚ C
Max. Days Over
16˚ C
Avg. Days Over 16˚
C
QU
AR
6
6
2
5
32
1
3
23
2
4
0
24
1
7
21
4
7
28
4
2
8
60
1
7
31
1
5
24
1
1
41
6
0
29
RD
CB
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
0
0
RO
CK
-
- -
21
-
10
-
0
- 1
1
- 2
2
- 3
7
- -
- 1
4
- 2
9
- 4
1
41
2
1
RU
XL
- 6
-
20
-
5
- 0
-
5
- 7
-
41
-
47
-
10
-
17
-
26
4
7
17
SAV
G
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
0
0
SMFI
-
0
- 1
2
- 2
-
0
- 0
-
1
- 7
-
12
-
0
- 2
-
9
12
4
TPTH
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
0
- 1
2
- 0
-
- -
0
12
3
WIN
T -
- -
10
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 0
-
0
- 9
-
0
- 0
-
10
1
0
3
WIS
E -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
25
-
25
-
0
- 2
5
25
1
9
Min
6
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ma
x 3
0
37
4
3
74
2
2
92
2
8
11
2 2
4
11
2 3
7
90
3
0
10
3 6
0
13
6 2
8
10
2 4
0
10
7 3
3
10
4 1
36
10
6
Mea
n
16
5
2
6
16
1
2
14
1
6
7
13
1
0
17
1
5
19
2
3
22
2
8
11
1
4
14
1
8
11
2
2
30
1
7
Bold
Sit
e ID
in
dic
ates
9+
yea
rs o
f dat
a.
Max
, M
in,
and
Mea
n s
um
mar
ize
all
site
s w
her
e th
e re
gula
tory
sta
ndar
d a
ppli
es f
or
that
yea
r
1 D
ata
coll
ecte
d b
y S
SIT
; 2 D
ata
coll
ecte
d b
y S
FE
G 2
008
-201
3 a
nd b
y S
RS
C 2
014
and
lat
er.
All
oth
er s
ites
by
SR
SC
* Y
ear-
round
dat
a co
llec
tio
n s
ite
41
Appendix E. Stream temperatures (7-day moving averages) at Year-Round Monitoring Sites XYZ
0
5
10
15
20
25
10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1
7-D
AD
M (
°C)
Upper Finney - Year-Round Site
Core Standard Supplemental Standard WY16 WY18 WY19
0
5
10
15
20
10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1
7-D
AD
M
(°C
)
Upper Jones Creek - Year-Round Site
Core Standard Supplemental Standard WY16 WY17 WY18 WY19
0
5
10
15
20
10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1
7-D
AD
M (
°C)
Mid Day Creek - Year-Round Site
Core Standard WY16 WY17 WY18 WY19
