Bacteria Results for Nearshore Marine Areas in Puget Sound ... · Bacteria Results for Nearshore Marine Areas in Puget Sound, 2010-2015 . Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program

Bacteria Results for Nearshore Marine Areas in Puget Sound, 2010-2015

Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program

March 2017 Publication No. 17-03-004

Publication information This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1703004.html The Activity Tracker Code for this study is 02-502.

Contact information For more information contact: Publications Coordinator Environmental Assessment Program P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: (360) 407-6764 Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov o Headquarters, Olympia (360) 407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue (425) 649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia (360) 407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Yakima (509) 575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane (509) 329-3400 Cover photo: Puget Sound (photo credit: Brandi Lubliner, Department of Ecology)

Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the author or the Department of Ecology.

Accommodation Requests: To request ADA accommodation including materials in a format

for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6764. Persons with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. Persons with speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-6341.

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1703004.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/

Page 1

Bacteria Results for Nearshore Marine Areas

in Puget Sound, 2010-2015

Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program

by

Debby Sargeant and Julianne Ruffner

Environmental Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology

Olympia, Washington 98504-7710

Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) and 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) numbers for the study area: WRIAs • 1 Whatcom • 3 Lower Skagit/Samish • 5 Stillaguamish • 6 Island • 7 Snohomish • 8 Cedar\Sammamish • 9 Duwamish/Green • 10 Puyallup/White • 11 Nisqually • 12 Chambers/Clover • 13 Deschutes • 18 Elwha/Dungeness HUC numbers • 17110002 • 17110019 • 17110020

Page 2

This page is purposely left blank

Page 3

Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................4

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................6

Abstract ................................................................................................................................7

Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................8

Background ..........................................................................................................................9

Methods..............................................................................................................................10 Data Collection ............................................................................................................10 Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................10

Results ................................................................................................................................13 Data Sources ................................................................................................................13 Summary Statistics Results by Sub-Region .................................................................18

South Puget Sound .................................................................................................18 East Central Puget Sound.......................................................................................22 West Central Puget Sound .....................................................................................26 North Puget Sound .................................................................................................30 Strait of Georgia .....................................................................................................34 Strait of Juan de Fuca .............................................................................................39

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................43 Data Coverage and Gaps ..............................................................................................43

Sub-region data gaps, 2010-2015 ..........................................................................45 Summary Statistics.......................................................................................................46

Recommendations ..............................................................................................................48 Additional Analysis for this Data Set ..........................................................................48 Design Options for a Status and Trends Bacteria Study ..............................................48

Appendices .........................................................................................................................49 Appendix A. Nearshore Marine Bacteria Data Availability for 2010-2015 ...............50 Appendix B. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations ...............................................54

Page 4

List of Figures Page

Figure 1. Key to box plot of summary statistics presented in this report. ........................11

Figure 2. Distribution of sampling locations for fecal coliform bacteria. ........................15

Figure 3. Distribution of sampling locations for enterococci bacteria..............................16

Figure 4. Distribution of sampling locations for E-coli bacteria. .....................................17

Figure 5. South Puget Sound nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015. ....................19

Figure 6. South Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015. ............................................................................20

Figure 7. South Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for fecal coliform data, 2010-2015. ................................................................................................20

Figure 8. South Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for enterococci data, 2010-2015. ................................................................................................21

Figure 9. South Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015. ..............................................21

Figure 10. East Central Puget Sound nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015. .......23

Figure 11. East Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics for all data and data separated by entity for fecal coliform and enterococci, 2010-2015. ........24

Figure 12. East Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all fecal coliform data, 2010-2015. .......................................................................24

Figure 13. East Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all enterococci data, 2010-2015. ...........................................................................25

Figure 14. East Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015. ...........................25

Figure 15. West Central Puget Sound nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015. ......27

Figure 16. West Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics for all fecal coliform, fecal coliform data by entity, as well as all enterococci data, 2010-2015. .......................................................................................................28

Figure 17. West Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all fecal coliform data, 2010-2015. .......................................................................28

Figure 18. West Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all enterococci data, 2010-2015. ...........................................................................29

Figure 19. West Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015. ...........................29

Figure 20. North Puget Sound nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015. ..................31

Page 5

Figure 21. North Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics for all fecal coliform data, fecal coliform data by entity, as well as all enterococci data and enterococci data by entity, 2010-2015. ............................................................32

Figure 22. North Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine fecal coliform data, 2010-2015. ...........................................................32

Figure 23. North Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine enterococci data, 2010-2015. ...............................................................33

Figure 24. North Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015. .......................................33

Figure 25. Strait of Georgia nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015. .....................35

Figure 26. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics for all fecal coliform data and fecal coliform data by entity, 2010-2015. .................................................36

Figure 27. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics for all enterococci data and enterococci data by entity, 2010-2015. ............................................................36

Figure 28. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics for all E-coli data and E-coli data by entity, 2010-2015. ....................................................................37

Figure 29. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine fecal coliform data, 2010-2015. ...........................................................37

Figure 30. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine enterococci data, 2010-2015. ...............................................................38

Figure 31. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine E-coli data, 2010-2015. .......................................................................38

Figure 32. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform, enterococci, and E-coli data, 2010-2015. ................................39

Figure 33. Strait of Juan de Fuca nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015. .............40

Figure 34. Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles) summary statistics for nearshore marine enterococci data and enterococci data by entity, 2010-2015. ................................................................................................................41

Figure 35. Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles) summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine enterococci data, 2010-2015. ............................41

Figure 36. Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles) summary statistics by wet and dry season for enterococci data, 2010-2015. ......................................42

Figure 37. Department of Health (DOH) Shellfish Program Safety Map, November 2016. ................................................................................................................47

Page 6

List of Tables Page

Table 1. Bacteria criteria used for summary statistics box plots. .....................................12

Table 2. Percentage of nearshore bacteria data collected by entity and bacteria indicator type, 2010-2015. .................................................................................13

Table 3. Percentage of nearshore bacteria data collected by sub-region and fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) type. .............................................................................14

Table 4. South Puget Sound sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type. ......................................................................................................18

Table 5. East Central Puget Sound sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type. ................................................................................................22

Table 6. West Central Puget Sound sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type. ................................................................................................26

Table 7. North Puget Sound sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type. ......................................................................................................30

Table 8. Strait of Georgia sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type. ......................................................................................................34

Table 9. Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles) bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type. ................................................................................39

Table 10. Marine nearshore monitoring entities, sample period, FIB, and sampling objective. ............................................................................................................44

Page 7

Abstract The Status and Trends in Receiving Waters element of the Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSMP) contains nearshore marine monitoring focused on urban growth areas (UGAs) along the Puget Sound shoreline. The goal of this element is to measure changes in the Puget Lowland streams and Puget Sound urban shoreline areas as a result of stormwater management. The RSMP Stormwater Work Group decided that the RSMP pooled-funds monitoring would not be used to collect bacteria samples but instead to conduct a data and gap analysis based on existing marine bacteria monitoring programs for Puget Sound. An assessment was conducted on recent nearshore marine bacteria data available for Puget Sound. This assessment included: • Requesting nearshore data collected during 2010-2015. • Determining locations of sample sites. • Determining entities that collected data. • Summarizing data by sub-region. • Identifying data gaps. Recommendations for developing a status and trends monitoring program for bacteria include:

• When designing a stormwater-related nearshore bacteria monitoring program, the goals and objectives of the program need to be well thought out.

• Focus on specific sites to consistently monitor. Because there is such a large area to cover (Phase I and II permittees in the Puget Sound area as well as the Strait of Georgia and Strait of Juan de Fuca), it is not possible to monitor all areas. One approach is to develop a list of core sites that are monitored consistently over time.

• Focus on monitoring nearshore sites adjacent to small stream discharges or large stormwater discharge areas. Sampling for the Washington State Department of Ecology BEACH Program has shown that these areas have higher bacteria levels during and immediately after storm events, especially in densely populated urban areas.

• Ensure consistent sampling methodology (i.e., wade-in versus from-a-boat) to ensure that the depth of the sample obtained is consistent for all sample events.

• Consider co-locating sites with Washington State Department of Health Shellfish Program sites and BEACH Program sites with large population areas.

Page 8

Acknowledgements The authors of this report thank the following people for their contributions to this study:

• Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSMP) Stormwater Work Group

• Jim Simmonds, King County

• Wendy Eash-Loucks, King County

• Kimberle Stark, King County

• Jean Snyder, Washington State Department of Health, Shellfish Program

• Cami Apfelbeck, City of Bainbridge Island, Water Resources

• Peg Wendling, City of Bellingham, Waste Water Lab

• John Franz, City of Anacortes, Public Works

• Carol Creasey, Clallam County

• Shawn Ultican, Kitsap Public Health District

• Jeremy Freimund, Lummi Natural Resources Department

• Jezra Beaulieu, Nooksack Indian Tribe

• Franchesca Perez, Stillaguamish Tribe

• Ed Chadd, Clallam County Streamkeepers

• Washington State Department of Ecology staff o Brandi Lubliner, Water Quality Program

o Susan Wood, Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

o Joan LeTourneau and Cindy Cook, Publications, Environmental Assessment Program

Page 9

Background The Status and Trends in Receiving Waters element of the Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSMP) contains nearshore marine monitoring focused on urban growth areas (UGAs) along the Puget Sound shoreline. The goal of this element is to measure changes in Puget Lowland streams and Puget Sound urban shoreline areas as a result of stormwater management. For this element: • Eighty-one of 84 eligible Western Washington Phase I and II Municipal Stormwater

Permittees chose to participate via the cost-sharing program. • The Washington State Department of Transportation chose to participate via their permit

option in 2014. • Two municipal stormwater permittees chose to conduct status and trends monitoring similar

to the RSMP in their jurisdictional areas. Information on the RSMP Status and Trends Program can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/rsmp/status.html In June 2014, the RSMP Stormwater Work Group (SWG) decided that the RSMP pooled-funds monitoring would not be used to collect bacteria samples, but instead to conduct a data-and-gap analysis based on existing marine bacteria monitoring programs in Puget Sound. This decision was recommended by the SWG Pooled Resources Oversight Committee based on (1) the number of groups collecting fecal indicator bacteria data for Puget Sound, and (2) the high cost estimates of a regional probabilistic monthly bacteria monitoring program for the RSMP. The RSMP contracted with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication, and Health (BEACH) program staff1 to conduct an assessment of recent bacteria data collected in the Puget Sound nearshore marine environment. This assessment included: • Requesting nearshore bacteria data collected during 2010-2015. • Determining locations of sample sites and assessing coverage. • Determining entities that collected data. • Summarizing data by sub-region. • Identifying data gaps. The purpose for this compilation of existing fecal indicator data report is to provide the SWG information on the prevalence of 2010-2016 nearshore bacteria data. This report summarizes bacterial concentrations, shows monitoring site locations, and provides ideas on how to move forward with a regional monitoring program. This report is not intended to evaluate compliance with criteria for the regions assessed; the various bacteria criteria are used solely for context and comparison.

1 Within Ecology’s Environmental Assessment Program.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/rsmp/status.html

Page 10

Methods

Data Collection BEACH staff contacted over 80 organizations and governmental entities that have collected recent nearshore marine bacteria data. “Recent” was defined as the period from 2010 to 2015 (six years). The following information was requested (metadata): • Fecal indicator type (fecal coliform, enterococcus, and E.coli) and analytical method. • Location of sampling (sub-regions). • Sampling period (e.g., seasons). • Sampling objectives (e.g., bacterial source tracking, storm events). • Data quality. • Data location. • Data availability for the six years. Responses from each entity were recorded and, data when available, compiled in an Excel spreadsheets (Appendix A). This report provides a summary of the metadata and analysis of the data gathered. All working files and maps were provided to Ecology’s RSMP Coordinator, Brandi Lubliner.

Data Analysis Once compiled, the bacteria data were summarized by the following sub-regions: • South Puget Sound: Puget Sound from the Tacoma Narrows bridge south. • East Central Puget Sound: From north of the Tacoma Narrows bridge to south of the city of

Everett, including Vashon Island and the west and east shoreline of Colvos Passage. • West Central Puget Sound: Kitsap County including Bainbridge Island. • North Central Puget Sound: Everett to south of Anacortes including Whidbey Island. • Strait of Georgia: Anacortes north including the San Juan Islands. • Strait of Juan de Fuca: Port Angeles area. Data were analyzed by sub-region, not by jurisdictions or sites, to limit this first glance at the region’s bacteria data. Bacteria criteria are two-part: • Calculation of the geometric mean. • Either an estimated 90th percentile2 or determining if 10% of the samples exceed a criterion.

2 To calculate the estimated 90th percentile, he following was used: X=µ+Zơ Z=1.282. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009. Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish).

Page 11

Both criterion must be met to meet the bacteria standard. The statistical analysis was limited to calculations of the geometric mean and estimated 90th percentile for each type of bacteria indicator for the following data sets. • All data and all data for each entity for 2010-2015. • All data by year for 2010-2015. • All data for the wet (October – April) and dry (May – September) periods, 2010-2015. The reporting limit value was used to analyze data below the detection limit. For graphing purposes, the minimum was set at 0 if the minimum was below detection limits. Data for summary statistics are displayed by sub-region. Figure 1 presents a key for the box plots. The box plots may include the geometric mean and 90th percentile criteria for the bacteria standard.

Figure 1. Key to box plot of summary statistics presented in this report. Maximum values are included as text at the upper end of the box plot.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Bac

teri

a Ty

pe #

/100

mL

Box Plot Key

10th %tile Minimum Geometric Mean Maximum 90th %tile

Bacteria Datan=x

90th %tile

GM criteria

Page 12

Bacteria criteria used for this report are described in Table 1. Currently, Washington State does not have criteria for E-coli. Bacteria criteria include a duration and frequency component. For example, for the Washington State Department of Health Shellfish Program (DOH Shellfish), the geometric mean and 90th percentile should meet criteria for the last 30 sample events to be Approved for shellfish harvest. For summary statistics included here, the geometric mean and 90th percentile were calculated for very large data sets and varying time periods. Therefore, criteria are shown for illustrative purposes and do not represent a compliance assessment. Table 1. Bacteria criteria used for summary statistics box plots.

Bacteria Beneficial Use Geometric Mean

Estimated 90th percentile

Fecal Coliform Shellfish Harvest (Ecology, 2006) 14 43 Enterococci Recreational Water Contact (1986 criteria) 35 276 Escherichia Coli n/a n/a n/a

Ecology 2006: WAC 173-201A-210: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/criteria-marine/wac173201a_210-bacteria.html EPA 1986: Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0808-0001

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/criteria-marine/wac173201a_210-bacteria.html

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0808-0001

Page 13

Results

Data Sources Ecology’s BEACH staff contacted the entities listed in Appendix A to determine (1) if nearshore marine bacteria data were available for 2010-2015 and (2) the purpose for their monitoring efforts. Table 2 describes the entities, bacteria type, and percentage of data points from each entity from 2010-2015. During this period, over 42,000 bacteria data points were collected in the nearshore marine environment including 27,050 for fecal coliform, 14,750 for enterococci, and 848 for E-coli. Maps of all the nearshore monitoring sites can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/rsmp/rsmpdocs/deliverables/BacteriaTask2Maps.pdf

Table 2. Percentage of nearshore bacteria data collected by entity and bacteria indicator type, 2010-2015.

Entity Monitoring Purpose

Fecal Coliform Enterococci E-coli

WA State Department of Health – Shellfish Programs 1 73.6% 0.0% 0.0% WA State Department of Ecology – BEACH Program 1 0.6% 84.5% 0.0% Counties 1, 2 21.6% 8.7% 0.0% Tribes 1, 3.5% 6.8% 100.0% Cities 2, 3, 4 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Marine Resource Committees 5 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Wastewater Treatment Plants 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Conservation Districts No data available 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1: Ambient monitoring 2: Determining bacteria levels after a sanitary overflow 3: Storm event sampling 4: Baseline monitoring 5: Trend monitoring

Most of the fecal coliform data were collected by the DOH Shellfish Program. Most of the enterococci data were collected by Ecology’s BEACH Program. All of the E-coli data were collected by the following tribes: Nooksack, Lummi Nation, and Samish in the Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish County areas. After the state agencies, Puget Sound counties collected most of the fecal coliform and enterococci data. Volunteer organizations collected data under other programs such as the BEACH Program; these data were included in the BEACH data set. Data from some volunteer organizations did not meet quality control limits (i.e., no monitoring plan, samples not analyzed by an accredited laboratory); these data were not included in this analysis.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/rsmp/rsmpdocs/deliverables/BacteriaTask2Maps.pdf

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/rsmp/rsmpdocs/deliverables/BacteriaTask2Maps.pdf

Page 14

The percentage of nearshore bacteria data by sub-region, as well as bacterial indicator type, are presented in Table 3. Figures 2 through 4 present maps showing the distribution of sampling locations for each fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) type. Table 3. Percentage of nearshore bacteria data collected by sub-region and fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) type.

Sub-region Fecal Coliform Enterococci E-coli

South Puget Sound 11.6 % 7.5% 0.0 % East Central Puget Sound 10.1 % 31.4% 0.0 % West Central Puget Sound 42.0 % 24.3 % 0.0 % North Puget Sound 18.8 % 17.2 % 0.0 % Strait of Georgia 17.5 % 17.0 % 100% Strait of Juan de Fuca 0.0 % 2.6 % 0.0 %

Data collection for this project was focused on marine nearshore areas adjacent to urban growth areas and also Phase I and Phase II permittees. Thus the sub-regions have varying amounts of data included in the data set, potentially due to recreational beaches, shellfish beds, or how many permittees are located there. For example, the Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region has one Phase II stormwater permittee, the city of Port Angeles; while the West Central Sound sub-region includes two Phase II permittees, Bainbridge Island and Kitsap County. Most of the fecal coliform data were obtained for the West Central Puget Sound sub-region (Kitsap County and Bainbridge Island). The majority of the enterococci data were from the East Central Puget Sound sub-region (Tacoma Narrows bridge to south of Everett, including Vashon Island and Colvos Passage).

Page 15

Figure 2. Distribution of sampling locations for fecal coliform bacteria.

Page 16

Figure 3. Distribution of sampling locations for enterococci bacteria.

Page 17

Figure 4. Distribution of sampling locations for E-coli bacteria.

Page 18

Summary Statistics Results by Sub-Region South Puget Sound The South Puget Sound sub-region includes Puget Sound south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Sample sites are presented in Figure 5. Available data sources and number of data point for each source are included in Table 4. Phase I and II permittees in this sub-region include Thurston County, portions of Pierce and Kitsap Counties, and the Cities of Olympia, Lacey, DuPont, Steilacoom, and University Place. Data Summary

Table 4. South Puget Sound sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type.

Lead Entity Collecting Data

Number of Individual Samples

Period Sampled

Type of Bacteria

WA State Department of Health 3751 2010-2015 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 1110 2010-2015 Enterococci

Figures 6 through 9 present box plots summarizing data analysis for the South Puget Sound sub-region. Summary statistics are well below criteria for both fecal coliform and enterococci for all periods examined. No definitive patterns are seen in the data.

Page 19

Figure 5. South Puget Sound nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015.

Page 20

Figure 6. South Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015.

Figure 7. South Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for fecal coliform data, 2010-2015.

0

10

20

30

40

50Fe

cal C

olifo

rm (F

C) #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Nearshore Bacteria Data for South Puget Sound


BEACH Enterococci Datan=1,110

Ent

eroc

occi

#/1

00m

L

DOH FC Datan=3,751

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

GM criteria

Max>2400 Max>2900

0

10

20

30

40

50

Feca

l Col

iform

(FC

) #/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Fecal Coliform Data by Year for South Puget Sound


2010n=616

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

2011n=637

2012n=684

2013n=618

2014n=672

2015n=524

Max>2400 Max=170 Max=350 Max=540 Max=130 Max=350

Page 21

Figure 8. South Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for enterococci data, 2010-2015.

Figure 9. South Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100E

nter

ococ

ci #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Enterococci Data by Year for South Puget Sound


2010n=146

GM criteria

2011n=263

2012n=146

2013n=180

2014n=210

2015n=165

90th %tile criteria for BEACH 276/100 mLMax=410 Max=2900 Max=2200 Max=1000 Max=930Max=480

0

10

20

30

40

50

Feca

l Col

iform

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Wet and Dry Season Bacteria Data for South Puget Sound


DOH FC Data May-Sept (dry period)

n=1595

DOH FC Data Oct - April (wet period)

n=2156

BEACH Program Enterococci Data (dry period)

May-Sept n=1110

90th %tile

GM criteria

GM criteria

Ent

eroc

occi

#/10

0 m

L

Max>2400 Max=2900Max=540

Page 22

East Central Puget Sound The East Central Puget Sound sub-region includes sample sites on the eastern shore of Puget Sound from north of the Tacoma Narrows bridge to south of Everett, including Vashon Island and the east side of Colvos Passage. Sample sites are presented in Figure 10. Available data sources and the number of data points for each source are included in Table 5. Phase I and II permittees with Puget Sound shorelines in this sub-region include King County, portions of Pierce and Snohomish Counties, and the Cities of Tacoma, Seattle, Burien, Federal Way, Des Moines, Normandy Park, and Shoreline.

Table 5. East Central Puget Sound sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type.



Period Sampled

Type of Bacteria

WA State Department of Health 3751 2010-2015 Fecal Coliform King County 1282 2010-2015 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 12 2010-2012 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 3386 2010-2015 Enterococci King County 1243 2010-2015 Enterococci

Data Summary Figures 11 through 14 present box plots summarizing data for the East Central Puget Sound sub-region. Fecal coliform data from King County had a higher geometric mean and 90th percentile (above the 90th percentile criterion) than other data sources. Fecal coliform data from other entities met criteria. The enterococci levels for 2010-2015 were within (met) Recreational Water Contact criteria. Fecal coliform levels increased from 2011-2014 and decreased in 2015. Enterococci levels varied by year with the highest levels in 2013. There was no notable difference between wet and dry season levels of fecal coliform, but enterococci levels were higher during the wet season.

Page 23

Figure 10. East Central Puget Sound nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015.

Page 24

Figure 11. East Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics for all data and data separated by entity for fecal coliform and enterococci, 2010-2015.

Figure 12. East Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all fecal coliform data, 2010-2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100B

acte

ria

#/1

00 m

L2010-2015 Nearshore Bacteria Data for East Central Puget Sound

10th %tile Minimum Geometric mean Maximum 90th %tile

All FC Data

DOH FC Data

n=1373

King Co.FC Datan=1282

BEACH FC Data

n=12

All Enterococci Data n=4629

90th %tile

BEACH Enterococci Data n=3386

King Co. Enterococci Data n=1243

GM criteria

Max=2500

GM criteria

Max=2500Max=1600 Max=8700 Max=8700 Max=690

0

20

40

60

80

100

Feca

l Col

iform

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Fecal Coliform Data by Year for East Central Puget Sound


2010n=423

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

2011n=437

2012n=457

2013n=436

2014n=480

2015n=434

Max=920 Max=230 Max=810 Max=660 Max=2500 Max=1200

Page 25

Figure 13. East Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all enterococci data, 2010-2015.

Figure 14. East Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100E

nter

ococ

ci #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Enterococci Data by Year for East Central Puget Sound


2010n=647

GM criteria

2011n=898

2012n=719

2013n=786

2014n=675

2015n=904

90th %tile criteria for BEACH 276/100 mL


0

20

40

60

80

100

Feca

l Col

iform

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Seasonal Bacteria Data for East Central Puget Sound


FC Data May-Sept

n=1130

FC DataOct-Apr n=1537

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

Enterococci Data May-Sept

n=3817

GM criteria

Enterococci Data Oct-Apr

n=812

Ent

eroc

occi

#/1

00 m

L

Max=2500 Max>1600 Max=8700 Max=690

Page 26

West Central Puget Sound The West Central Puget Sound sub-region includes sample sites on the western shore of Puget Sound including Kitsap County and Bainbridge Island. Sample sites are presented in Figure 15. Available data sources and the number of data points for each source are included in Table 6. Phase I and II permittees in this sub-region include Kitsap County, Bainbridge Island, and the Cities of Bremerton, Port Orchard, Gig Harbor, and Poulsbo.

Table 6. West Central Puget Sound sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type.



Period Sampled

Type of Bacteria

WA State Department of Health 6565 2010-2015 Fecal Coliform Kitsap County 4421 2010-2015 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 135 2011-2013 Fecal Coliform City of Bainbridge Island 14 2014 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 3588 2010-2015 Enterococci

Data Summary Figures 16 through 19 summarize data for the West Central Puget Sound sub-region. For 2010-2015, data from the City of Bainbridge Island had the highest fecal coliform levels, with both the geometric mean and 90th percentile above the criteria. The BEACH fecal coliform data set also had high bacteria levels with the 90th percentile exceeding the criterion. Both of these data sets are smaller than the DOH Shellfish Program and Kitsap County data sets that had more than 3,500 samples. The enterococci BEACH data were well within (met) the Recreational Water Contact criteria. Fecal coliform levels by year were consistently low, meeting fecal coliform criteria. Bainbridge Island fecal coliform data were high, but the sampling objective was to capture storm events as opposed to ambient monitoring (Figure 16). Enterococci levels by year varied with higher levels in 2010 and 2011; all years met Recreational Water Contact criteria. There was no notable difference between wet and dry season levels of fecal coliform. Enterococci bacteria sampling occurred only during the dry period.

Page 27

Figure 15. West Central Puget Sound nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015.

Page 28

Figure 16. West Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics for all fecal coliform, fecal coliform data by entity, as well as all enterococci data, 2010-2015. Note y axis is in log scale.

Figure 17. West Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all fecal coliform data, 2010-2015.

0

1

10

100

1000

10000Fe

cal C

olifo

rm #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Nearshore Bacteria Data for West Central Puget Sound


Kitsap Co. FC Datan=4421

Bainbridge Is. FC Data

n=14

BEACH FC Data

n=66

DOH FC Data

n=6565

90th %tile criteria

BEACH Enterococci Data

n=3588

Ent

eroc

occi

#/1

00m

L

All FC Data

n=11,066

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

GM criteria

Max=3000 Max=817 Max=3000 Max=135 Max>2400 Max=24200

0

10

20

30

40

50

Feca

l Col

iform

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Fecal Coliform Data by Year for West Central Puget Sound


2010n=1854

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

2011n=1881

2012n=1743

2013n=1890

2014n=1937

2015n=1761


Page 29

Figure 18. West Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all enterococci data, 2010-2015.

Figure 19. West Central Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100E

nter

ococ

ci #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Enterococci Data by Year for West Central Puget Sound


2010n=426

GM criteria

2011n=766

2012n=507

2013n=705

2014n=563

2015n=621

90th %tile criteria for BEACH 276/100 mLMax=2235 Max=9140 Max=2420 Max=13000 Max=24200 Max=24200

0

10

20

30

40

50

Feca

l Col

iform

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Wet and Dry Season Bacteria Data for West Central Sound


Fecal Coliform Data May-Sept (dry period)

n=4862

Fecal Coliform Data(wet period) Oct-April

n=6204

Enterococci Data (dry period) May-Sept

n=3588

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

GM criteria

Ent

eroc

occi

#/1

00 m

L

Max>2400 Max=3000 Max>24000

Page 30

North Puget Sound The North Puget Sound sub-region includes Everett north to south of Anacortes including Whidbey Island in Island County. Sample sites are presented in Figure 20. Available data sources and the number of data points for each source are included in Table 7. Phase I and II permittees in this sub-region include portions of Snohomish and Skagit Counties and the Cities of Everett and Oak Harbor.

Table 7. North Puget Sound sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type.



Period Sampled

Type of Bacteria

WA State Department of Health 4922 2010-2015 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 25 2010 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 2378 2010-2015 Enterococci Tulalip Tribe 156 2010-2013 Enterococci

Data Summary Figures 21 through 24 present box plots summarizing data for the North Puget Sound sub-region. For fecal coliform data sources (2010-2015), the BEACH Program had the highest geometric mean and 90th percentile values above (not meeting) the criteria. The enterococci levels for 2010-2015 were within (met) Recreational Water Contact criteria for the BEACH data but did not meet the 90th percentile criterion for the Tulalip Tribe data set. In looking at bacteria levels by year, fecal coliform were well below criteria each year. Enterococci levels varied by year with the highest levels in 2010; all years were within Recreational Water Contact criteria. There was no notable difference between wet and dry season fecal coliform levels, but higher levels of enterococci were seen in the wet season.

Page 31

Figure 20. North Puget Sound nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015.

Page 32

Figure 21. North Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics for all fecal coliform data, fecal coliform data by entity, as well as all enterococci data and enterococci data by entity, 2010-2015.

Figure 22. North Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine fecal coliform data, 2010-2015.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Fe

cal C

olifo

rm #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Nearshore Bacteria Data for North Puget Sound


All Enterococci Data n=2534

90th %tile criteria

All FC Data

n=4947

BEACH FC Data

n=25

BEACH Enterococci

Data n=2378

GM criteria

90th %tile criteria

DOH FC Data n=4922

Tulalip Tribe Enterococci Data n=156

Ent

eroc

occi

#/1

00 m

L

Max=540 Max=540 Max=490Max=24200 Max=24200 Max=8164

0

10

20

30

40

50

Feca

l Col

iform

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Fecal Coliform Data by Year for North Puget Sound


2010n=855

2011n=864

2012n=819

2013n=854

2014n=809

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

2015n=746


Page 33

Figure 23. North Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine enterococci data, 2010-2015.

Figure 24. North Puget Sound sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform and enterococci data, 2010-2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100E

nter

ococ

ci #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Enterococci Data by Year for North Puget Sound


2010n=443

2011n=445

2012n=426

2013n=436

2014n=370


GM criteria

2015n=414


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Feca

l Col

iform

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Wet and Dry Season Bacteria Data for North Puget Sound


Fecal Coliform Data May-Sept dry period)

n=2273

Fecal Coliform Data(wet period) Oct-April

n=2674

Enterococci Data (dry period) May-Sept

n=2433

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

90th %tile criteria

Ent

eroc

occi

#/1

00 m

L

Enterococci Data (wet period) Oct-April

n=101

Max=490 Max=540 Max=24200 Max=8164

Page 34

Strait of Georgia The Strait of Georgia sub-region includes Anacortes, the shoreline north to the US border, and the San Juan Islands. Sample sites are presented in Figure 25. Available data sources and the number of data points for each source are included in Table 8. Phase I and II permittees in this sub-region include portions of Skagit County, all of Whatcom County, and the Cities of Anacortes and Bellingham.

Table 8. Strait of Georgia sub-region bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type.

Data Summary Figures 26 through 32 present box plots summarizing data for the Strait of Georgia sub-region. Numerous entities collected nearshore bacteria during 2010-2015. The City of Anacortes data set (n=6) did not meet marine fecal coliform criteria, exceeding both the geometric mean and 90th percentile criteria. The BEACH, Lummi Nation, and Whatcom Marine Resource Committee (MRC) fecal coliform data sets did not meet the 90th percentile portion of the criterion. The enterococci data sets all were within (met) Recreational Water Contact criteria. Two tribal entities collect E-coli data, but there is no Washington State criterion for E.coli for comparison. In analyzing bacteria by year, fecal coliform levels were well below (met) criteria. Enterococci levels were higher in this sub-region than some of the other sub-regions. E-coli levels varied by year with the highest levels in 2010. There was no strong differences between wet and dry season bacteria levels, but fecal coliform and E-coli levels were slightly higher during the wet season. Enterococci levels were higher in the dry season. High enterococci levels for this sub-region, and high levels during the dry season (also the swimming season), may be due to very high bacteria levels during the swim season at Bayview State Park beach.



Period Sampled

Type of Bacteria

WA State Department of Health 3478 2010-2015 Fecal Coliform Lummi Nation 573 2010-2014 Fecal Coliform Nooksack Indian Tribe 273 2012-2015 Fecal Coliform City of Bellingham 78 2010-2013 Fecal Coliform Samish Indian Nation 78 2011-2015 Fecal Coliform Whatcom Marine Resource Committee 75 2015 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 58 2010-2011, 2013-2014 Fecal Coliform City of Anacortes 6 2015 Fecal Coliform WA State BEACH Program 1658 2010-2015 Enterococci Lummi Nation 573 2010-2014 Enterococci Nooksack Indian Tribe 273 2012-2015 Enterococci Lummi Nation 573 2010-2014 E-coli Nooksack Indian Tribe 275 2012-2015 E-coli

Page 35

Figure 25. Strait of Georgia nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015.

Page 36

Figure 26. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics for all fecal coliform data and fecal coliform data by entity, 2010-2015. Data displayed in log scale.

Figure 27. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics for all enterococci data and enterococci data by entity, 2010-2015.

0

1

10

100

1000Fe

cal C

olifo

rm #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Nearshore Fecal Coliform Data for Strait of Georgia


All FC Data

n=4620

Lummi Nation

FC Datan=573

Nooksack Tribe FC

Datan=273

BEACH FC Data

n=58

90th %tile criteria

GM Criteria

DOH FC Data

n=3478

Samish Nation FC

Datan=78

City of Bellingham

FC Datan=78

Whatcom MRC

FC Datan=75

City of AnacortesFC Data

n=6

Max>2400 Max>2400

0

50

100

150

Ent

eroc

occi

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Nearshore Enterococci Data for Strait of Georgia


All Enterococci Data

n=2504

Lummi Nation

FC Datan=573

Nooksack Tribe FC

Datan=273

BEACH Enterococci

Datan=1658


GM criteria

Max=5475 Max=5475 Max=2005 Max=4611

Page 37

Figure 28. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics for all E-coli data and E-coli data by entity, 2010-2015.

Figure 29. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine fecal coliform data, 2010-2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100E

-col

i#/1

00 m

L2010-2015 Nearshore E-coli Data for Strait of Georgia


All E-coliData

n=848

Lummi Nation E-coli Data

n=573

Nooksack Tribe E-coli Data

n=275

Max=2400 Max=2400 Max=230

0

10

20

30

40

50

Feca

l Col

iform

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Fecal Coliform Data by Year for Strait of Georgia


2010n=686

2011n=807

2012n=878

2013n=771

2014n=778

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

2015n=699


Page 38

Figure 30. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine enterococci data, 2010-2015.

Figure 31. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine E-coli data, 2010-2015.

0

50

100

150E

nter

ococ

ci #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Enterococci Data by Year for Strait of Georgia


2010n=304

2011n=464

2012n=476

2013n=456

2014n=443

GM criteria

2015n=361


Max=1725 Max>2005 Max>2005 Max>2005 Max4610 Max=5475

0

10

20

30

40

50

E-c

oli

#/10

0 m

L

2010-2015 E-coli Data by Year for Strait of Georgia


2010n=115

2011n=126

2012n=176

2013n=199

2014n=195

2015n=40

Max=660 Max=2400 Max=340 Max=480

Page 39

Figure 32. Strait of Georgia sub-region summary statistics by wet and dry season for fecal coliform, enterococci, and E-coli data, 2010-2015.

Strait of Juan de Fuca The Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region includes the Port Angeles area. Sample sites are presented in Figure 33. Available data sources and the number of data points for each source are included in Table 9. Phase I and II permittees in this sub-region include Port Angeles.

Table 9. Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles) bacteria data sources, period sampled, and bacteria type.

Data Summary Figures 34 through 36 present box plots summarizing data for the Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles). There were very few fecal coliform data for the Port Angeles area (n=3). More data were available for enterococci; however, all sites are near Hollywood Beach and nearby Peabody Creek.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120B

acte

ria

#/1

00 m

L2010-2015 Wet and Dry Season Bacteria Data for Strait of Georgia


FC May -September

n=1948

FC Oct - April

n=2672

90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

Enterococci May -September

n=1971

Enterococci Oct - April

n=533

E-coli May -September

n=350

E-coliOct - April

n=498

GM criteria




Period Sampled

Type of Bacteria

WA State BEACH Program 339 2010-2015 Enterococci Clallam County 46 2011, 2013, 2015 Enterococci

Page 40

Enterococci data from the BEACH Program met Recreational Water Contact criteria. Data from Clallam County did not meet the geometric mean or 90th percentile portion of the criteria. This is largely due to an additional sample site near the mouth of Peabody Creek which had high bacteria levels. Data by year showed the highest enterococci levels in 2015, with all years meeting Recreational Water Contact criteria. Wet season enterococci levels were much higher than dry season levels. Wet season levels did not meet Recreational Water Contact criteria.

Figure 33. Strait of Juan de Fuca nearshore marine sampling sites, 2010-2015.

Page 41

Figure 34. Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles) summary statistics for nearshore marine enterococci data and enterococci data by entity, 2010-2015.

Figure 35. Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles) summary statistics by year for all nearshore marine enterococci data, 2010-2015.

0

100

200

300

400

500E

nter

ococ

ci #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Nearshore Enterococci Data for Strait of Juan de Fuca (Port Angeles)


90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

All Enterococci Data

n=385

Clallam County Enterococci Data

n=46

BEACH Enterococci Data

n=339

Max=3875 Max=3873 Max=1616

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Ent

eroc

occi

#/1

00 m

L

2010-2015 Enterococci Data by Year for the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Port Angeles)


90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

2011n=85

2012n=50

2013n=49

2014n=56

2015n=88

2010n=57

Max=1616 Max=528 Max=3875Max=601

Page 42

Figure 36. Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-region (Port Angeles) summary statistics by wet and dry season for enterococci data, 2010-2015.

0

100

200

300

400

500E

nter

ococ

ci #

/100

mL

2010-2015 Wet and Dry Season Enterococci Data for Strait of Juan de Fuca (Port Angeles)


90th %tile criteria

GM criteria

May - Septembern=318

Oct - Apriln=67

Max=3875 Max=1616

Page 43

Discussion

Data Coverage and Gaps To measure changes in bacterial water quality in the nearshore environment, sampling sites should be monitored consistently over a period of time. Table 10 describes the sampling objectives for 2010-2015 monitoring during by sub-region. Puget Sound wide, the most consistent ambient monitoring programs are state-led: the DOH Shellfish Program and Ecology’s BEACH Program (during the May-August period). The Shellfish Program data made up 74% of the available fecal coliform data, and the BEACH Program made up 85% of the enterococci data. While the Shellfish Program data set is part of a consistently funded monitoring program, the BEACH monitoring is funded by grants, an inconsistent funding source which leads to both spatial and temporal data gaps. Counties that collected nearshore marine bacteria data were Kitsap and King Counties. Generally cities, even Phase I and II permittees, did not collect nearshore bacteria data. In the Strait of Georgia sub-region, the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Indian Nation conducted some ambient monitoring during the periods detailed in Table 10. While the DOH Shellfish Program collects most of the marine nearshore bacteria data, their monitoring efforts are focused in shellfish areas that are usually located in non-urban areas. Figure 37 presents a portion of the DOH Shellfish area map, including areas closed due to pollution. Much of the densely populated urban areas, such as the eastern central shoreline of Puget Sound from Tacoma to Everett, and Budd Inlet, are closed to shellfish harvesting due to sewage treatment outfalls and concerns about contamination from urban stormwater runoff. While these areas are important to monitor for the stormwater program, they are not sampled by the DOH Shellfish Program.

Page 44

Table 10. Marine nearshore monitoring entities, sample period, FIB, and sampling objective. Sub-region and Entity Years Months (general) Bacteria Type Sampling Objective

South Puget Sound DOH Shellfish Program 2010-2015 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient BEACH Program 2010-2015 May-Aug Enterococci Ambient East Central Puget Sound DOH Shellfish Program 2010-2015 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient King County 2010-2015 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient BEACH Program 2010-2015 May-Aug Enterococci Ambient King County 2010-2015 Jan-Dec Enterococci Ambient West Central Puget Sound DOH Shellfish Program 2010-2015 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient Kitsap County 2010-2015 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient BEACH Program 2011-2013 May-Sept Fecal coliform Source ID

City of Bainbridge Island 2014 Jan-March Fecal coliform Storm Event/Source Identification

BEACH Program 2010-2015 May-Aug Enterococci Ambient North Puget Sound DOH Shellfish Program 2010-2015 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient BEACH Program 2010-2011 May-Aug Fecal coliform Source ID BEACH Program 2010-2015 May-Aug Enterococci Ambient BEACH Program 2015 Apr-Oct Enterococci Source ID Tulalip Tribe 2010-2013 Jan-Dec Enterococci Source ID Strait of Georgia DOH Shellfish Program 2010-2015 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient

BEACH Program 2010-11, 2013-14 Various dry season months Fecal coliform Source ID

City of Anacortes 2015 Jan, Nov Fecal coliform Sanitary Overflow City of Bellingham 2011-2014 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Baseline Lummi Nation 2010-2014 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient, some storm event Nooksack Indian Nation 2012-2015 Jan-Dec Fecal coliform Ambient Samish Indian Nation 2011-2015 Varying months Fecal coliform Ambient Whatcom MRC 2015 Feb-Nov Fecal coliform Trend Monitoring BEACH Program 2010-2015 May-Aug Enterococci Ambient BEACH Program 2010-2015 Additional months Enterococci Source Identification Lummi Nation 2010-2014 Jan-Dec Enterococci Ambient Nooksack Indian Nation 2012-2015 Jan-Dec Enterococci Ambient Lummi Nation 2010-2014 Jan-Dec E-coli Ambient Nooksack Indian Nation 2012-2015 Jan-Dec E-coli Ambient Strait of Juan de Fuca BEACH Program 2010-2015 May-Aug Enterococci Ambient Clallam Co. Streamkeepers 2011, 2013, 2015 Wet season months Enterococci CSO Monitoring

Page 45

Sub-region data gaps, 2010-2015 For the South Puget Sound sub-region, there were very few data points for the Budd Inlet marine shoreline. All data for this sub-region were from the DOH Shellfish Program or the BEACH Program. The Phase II entities in this sub-region – the cities of Olympia, Lacey, Steilacoom, DuPont, and University Place and also Thurston County – did not have nearshore marine bacteria data for this period. The East Central Puget Sound sub-region had good data coverage from Federal Way to Des Moines, but no data were available for a majority of the Tacoma Narrows shoreline or the Port of Tacoma area. From north of Des Moines to Everett, portions of the nearshore have data but coverage is sparse. Data sources in this sub-region include state programs and King County (Table 10). Phase I and II permittees in this sub-region include: King County, portions of Pierce and Snohomish counties, and the cities of Tacoma, Seattle, Burien, Federal Way, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Normandy Park, and Shoreline. For the West Central Puget Sound sub-region, there is good nearshore bacteria-data coverage for Kitsap County and Bainbridge Island. Both the DOH Shellfish Program and Kitsap County have ongoing sampling programs in this area. There are data gaps along the northern shoreline of Sinclair Inlet. No data were available from Gig Harbor, Poulsbo, or Port Orchard (Phase II cities); Kitsap County samples these areas. For the North Puget Sound sub-region, some areas such as Similk Bay and portions of Skagit Bay had good data coverage. There are few data for the City of Everett area. The northern portion of Snohomish County and Oak Harbor in Island County has good data coverage. Data were collected by the state programs and the Tulalip Tribe. No data were available from North Puget Sound Phase II cities, Everett and Oak Harbor, or from Snohomish and Island Counties. For the Strait of Georgia sub-region, there are some data available from the Phase II permittee cities, Anacortes and Bellingham. Bellingham has some minimal data coverage (n=78); most of their bacteria data are available through the BEACH Program. Many of the Skagit and Whatcom County shellfish bays have good data coverage (e.g., Samish, Lummi, and Birch Bays and Drayton Harbor). Padilla Bay has minimal data coverage. A variety of entities collected bacteria data for 2010-2015, with the state programs collecting the majority of data for this period. The Lummi Nation collected data in northern Bellingham Bay. Some data were also available from the Nooksack Tribe, Lummi Nation, City of Bellingham, City of Anacortes, and Whatcom marine resource committee. No data were available from the Phase II permittees, Skagit and Whatcom Counties. For the Strait of Juan de Fuca Data sub-region, only data for the area around the Phase II permittee, Port Angeles, was gathered. Bacteria data for Port Angeles are clustered around the Hollywood beach, Peabody Creek area. Most data were collected for the BEACH Program and are for the dry period. Some wet season data from Clallam County are available. Better coverage of the nearshore area, along with wet season data, are desirable. No data were available from the City of Port Angeles or Clallam County for the Phase II permit area.

Page 46

Summary Statistics Summary statistics were calculated for all available bacteria data for each sub-region. While this information is interesting, it is not definitive in determining nearshore marine bacteria concentrations. There may be several reasons for this:

• The amount of data varied between entities and sub-regions.

• The goal of the sampling may be different for each entity’s sampling program. For example, the DOH Shellfish Program and Ecology’s BEACH monitoring are ambient monitoring programs; bacteria levels for these programs tended to show lower levels in each sub-region. Some monitoring programs are to locate bacterial pollution sources; these programs tended to have higher bacteria levels. For example, the City of Bainbridge Island monitoring targeted storm events, and bacteria results were much higher than the ambient monitoring programs.

• The DOH Shellfish Program data set for each sub-region had the lowest bacteria levels. These lower bacteria levels could be due to the large data set, or because shellfish harvest areas are generally in rural, less populated areas. It may also be due to their sampling methodology; most of the DOH Shellfish Program sampling was done from a boat and may not be as representative of the nearshore as entities that sample using wading techniques.

Page 47

Figure 37. Department of Health (DOH) Shellfish Program Safety Map, November 2016. Brown area represents areas closed due to pollution. Key presented below.

Page 48

Recommendations

Additional Analysis for this Data Set

As a result of this analysis, the following are recommendations for Stormwater Work Group (SWG) consideration with the compiled dataset:

• Conduct additional statistical analysis on the current data set: o Classify each site as urban or rural, and conduct summary statistical analysis on those

two groups. o For sites with sufficient data, conduct individual site analysis. Determine which sites

have high bacteria levels.

• Compare the Kitsap County fecal coliform data set and the DOH Shellfish Program data set for the same areas to determine if there is a significant difference between the sampling regimes. Work with Kitsap County on this. In addition, conduct data review to determine average water depth of the DOH Shellfish Program stations.

Design Options for a Status and Trends Bacteria Study 1. When designing a status and trends nearshore bacteria monitoring program for stormwater,

the goals and objectives of the program need to be well thought out. Is this an ambient monitoring program or will it target specific stormwater sources and periods?

2. Focus on specific sites to consistently monitor. Because there is such a large area to cover (Phase I and II permittees in Puget Sound and the Straits), it is not possible to monitor all areas. One approach is to choose core monitoring sites that are monitored consistently over time.

3. Ensure consistent sampling methodology (i.e., wade-in versus from-a-boat) to ensure that the depth of the sample obtained is consistent for all sample events.

4. Focus on monitoring nearshore sites adjacent to small stream discharges or large stormwater discharge areas. In sampling for Ecology’s BEACH Program, these are the areas that have higher bacteria levels during and immediately after storm events, especially in densely populated urban areas.

5. Consider co-locating sites with DOH Shellfish Program sites and BEACH Program sites with large population areas.

Page 49

Appendices

Page 50

Appendix A. Nearshore Marine Bacteria Data Availability for 2010-2015

Agency Contacts Comments Sampling Objectives

Federal\State

USGS Tacoma Office Ken Frasl, Rick Dincola No nearshore marine data collected. n/a WA State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Blain Reeves, Abby Barnes Does not have data with the exception of data they

collect for DOH which is entered into the DOH database. n/a

WA Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Camille Speck, Jennifer Lanksbury No surface water (SW) bacteria monitoring data

collected. n/a

WA State Department of Agriculture Joel Demory, Virginia Prest No nearshore marine data collected. n/a WA State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Richard Gersib No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

WA State Department of Health (DOH), Shellfish Program Lawrence Sullivan, Jean Snyder Has fecal coliform data for shellfish areas in Puget

Sound. Ambient monitoring in shellfish bed areas

WA State Department of Ecology (Ecology) BEACH Program Julianne Ruffner Bacteria data available for recreational beaches in Puget

Sound.

Ambient monitoring for BEACH in recreational swim areas during the swim season

Ecology’s Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Susan Wood

Marine station at Bayview State Park sampled monthly or quarterly by local stream team. Data do not meet data quality objectives.

Ambient monitoring.

Counties (including departments dealing with stormwater, surface water, and public health)

Clallam County Sue Waldrip and Carol Creasey BEACH Program sampling and Streamkeeper Volunteer sampling. n/a

King County Wendy Eash-Loucks, Kimberle Stark 20 beach\nearshore stations are sampled monthly for enterococcus and fecal coliform. Ambient monitoring

Kitsap County Jim Zimney, Stuart Whitford, Eva Crim, Mindy Fohn, Shawn Ultican Collecting nearshore marine data countywide since 1996. Ambient monitoring

Pierce County Carla Vincent, Barbara Smolko, Ray Hanowell

BEACH Program sampling; some samples taken after sewage spills.

Sampling to determine bacteria levels after sanitary overflows

Skagit County Jeanne King, Karen Dubois No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Snohomish County Jeff Hutchinson Only nearshore monitoring is through BEACH Program volunteers, Beachwatchers. n/a

Thurston County Allison Osterberg, Jane Mountjoy-Venning Only nearshore monitoring is through BEACH Program. n/a

Whatcom County Austin Rose, Erika Douglas, Tom Kunesh

MRC conducts fecal coliform sampling at 12 sites; County samples 4 stations in Drayton Harbor; Health Department samples nearshore for BEACH Program.

Drayton Harbor ambient monitoring (not included outside permittee area)

Page 51

Cities

Anacortes John Franz Some sample data after sanitary overflows. Sampling to determine bacteria levels after sanitary overflows

Bainbridge Island Cami Apfelbeck, Jim Zimny City has 2014 targeted storm-event sampling data for nearshore. County collects nearshore marine data. Storm event sampling

Bellingham Sara Brooks BEACH sampling and limited sampling of pocket estuary.

Pocket estuary limited baseline sampling

Bremerton Kitsap County conducts ambient monitoring every other month. Monitoring/a

Burien Valerie Stuart No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Des Moines Loren Reinhold No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

DuPont Scott Hein No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Edmonds Mike Cawrse Nearshore sampled during sewage treatment plant or infrastructure issue.

Sampling to determine bacteria levels after sanitary overflows

Everett Mike Papa No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Federal Way Tony Doucette No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Gig Harbor Darrell Winans No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Lacey Julie Rector No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Lynnwood Jerrod Vonn No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Normandy Park Steve Pastor No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Oak Harbor Steve Bebe No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Olympia Michelle Stevie No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Port Angeles Katherine Neil No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Port Orchard Stuart Whitford No nearshore marine data collected, Kitsap County conducts nearshore monitoring. n/a

Poulsbo Anya Hart, Jim Zimny No nearshore marine data collected, Kitsap County conducts nearshore monitoring. n/a

Seattle Jonathan Frodge No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Shoreline Uki Dele No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Steilacoom Mark Burlingame No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Tacoma Lorna Mauer No nearshore marine monitoring except through BEACH Program. n/a

Page 52

University Place Gary, Public Works No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Ports

Port of Seattle Marilyn Guthrie No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Port of Tacoma Anita Fichthorn No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Tribal

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Lori Delorm No nearshore marine data collected, some data collected for DOH Shellfish Program. n/a

Lummi Nation Jeremy Freimund Sampling for fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococcus bacteria.

Ambient monitoring, some storm event sampling

Nisqually Tribe Margaret Homerding No nearshore marine monitoring, some data collected for DOH Shellfish Program. n/a

Nooksack Tribe Jezra Beaulieu Sampling for fecal coliform, enterococci, and E.coli at five nearshore sites in Birch Bay and Semiahmoo Spit. Ambient monitoring

Northwest Indian College Emma Norman, Marco Hatch No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

NW Indian Fisheries Commission Todd Bolster No information. n/a

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Paul McCollum No nearshore marine monitoring, collects some data for DOH Shellfish Program. n/a

Puyallup Tribe George No nearshore marine monitoring, collects some data for DOH Shellfish Program. n/a

Samish Indian Nation Todd Woodard Three sites in Fidalgo Bay. Ambient monitoring

Skokomish Tribe Seth Book No nearshore marine monitoring, collects some data for DOH Shellfish Program. n/a

Squaxin Island Tribe Erica Marblet No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Stillaguamish Tribe Franchesca Perez No nearshore marine monitoring, collects some data for DOH Shellfish Program. n/a

Suquamish Tribe Luke Kelly No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Swinomish Tribe Julie Barber, Todd Mitchell No nearshore marine monitoring, collects some data for DOH Shellfish Program. n/a

Tulalip Tribe Mike McHugh No nearshore marine monitoring, collects some data for DOH Shellfish Program. n/a

Conservation Districts (CDs)

Clallam CD No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Jefferson County CD Craig & Jerry No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

King CD No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Page 53

Kitsap CD No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Mason CD No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Pierce CD No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

San Juan Islands CD No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Skagit CD Christy No nearshore monitoring program, sample mouth of Samish River every other month, Skagit County has data. n/a

Snohomish CD Alex No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Thurston CD Stephanie Bishop No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Whatcom CD Anika Sweeny No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Whidbey Island CD Bruce No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

Other

Clallam County Streamkeepers Ed Chadd Sampling of CSO discharge periods. CSO monitoring project

Harbor Wildwatch Stena Troyer Some sampling with Surfriders; data do not meet data quality objectives. n/a

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Assn Annitra Peck Sampling of Terrell Creek mouth, monthly for two years. Ambient monitoring Northwest Straits Commission, Marine Resource Committees (MRC) Lucas Hart No wide range MRC surveys for bacteria; may be some

data for the Whatcom MRC. n/a

Pacific Shellfish Institute (nonprofit organization) Andy Suhrbrier No nearshore marine data collected. n/a

South Sound Estuary Association Diana Larsen-Mills No monitoring data. n/a

Surfrider Brice Boland Some chapters monitor through BEACH Program; other sampling does not meet data quality objectives. n/a

Univ. of Washington (UW) Tacoma Jim Gawel No nearshore monitoring for 2010-2015. n/a

UW Sea Grant Teri King No nearshore monitoring for 2010-2015. n/a

UW Tacoma Center for Urban Waters Joel Baker, Andy James No nearshore monitoring for 2010-2015. n/a

Western Washington Univ. (WSU) John Rybczyk, Erika McPhee-Shaw No nearshore monitoring for 2010-2015. n/a

Whatcom MRC Austin Rose Five marine sites for Chuckanut Bay Trend monitoring

WSU Beach Watchers Chrys Bertolotto Monitoring through BEACH Program. n/a

Page 54

Appendix B. Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

Glossary

Enterococcus: A genus of bacteria that inhabit the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals and remain viable (alive and capable of infecting another organism) in water for a variable period of time. The presence of Enterococcus in water indicates fecal contamination by a warm-blooded animal; harmful bacteria, viruses, or protozoa associated with fecal contamination may also be present.

Escherichia coli (E. coli): A species of bacteria that inhabit the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals and remain viable (alive and capable of infecting another organism) in water for a variable period of time. While E. coli are normally harmless and live in the intestines of healthy people and animals a few strains may cause illness. The presence of E. coli in water indicates fecal contamination by a warm-blooded animal; harmful bacteria, viruses, or protozoa associated with fecal contamination may also be present.

Fecal coliform: That portion of the coliform group of bacteria which is present in intestinal tracts and feces of warm-blooded animals as detected by the product of acid or gas from lactose in a suitable culture medium within 24 hours at 44.5 plus or minus 0.2 degrees Celsius. Fecal coliform bacteria are “indicator” organisms that suggest the possible presence of disease-causing organisms. Concentrations are measured in colony forming units per 100 milliliters of water (cfu/100 mL).

Geometric mean (GM): A mathematical expression of the central tendency (an average) of multiple sample values. A geometric mean, unlike an arithmetic mean, tends to dampen the effect of very high or low values, which might bias the mean if a straight average (arithmetic mean) were calculated. This is helpful when analyzing bacteria concentrations, because levels may vary anywhere from 10 to 10,000 fold over a given period. The calculation is performed by either: (1) taking the nth root of a product of n factors, or (2) taking the antilogarithm of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the individual values.

Pollution: Contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of any waters of the state. This includes change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, or odor of the waters. It also includes discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or other substance into any waters of the state. This definition assumes that these changes will, or are likely to, create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to (1) public health, safety, or welfare, or (2) domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or (3) livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic life.

Stormwater: The portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate but instead runs off roads, pavement, and roofs during rainfall or snow melt. Stormwater can also come from hard or saturated grass surfaces such as lawns, pastures, playfields, and from gravel roads and parking lots.

Page 55

90th percentile: A statistical number obtained from a distribution of a data set, above which 10% of the data exists and below which 90% of the data exists.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BEACH Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication, and Health CD Conservation District CSO Combined Sewer Overflow DOH Washington State Department of Health E-coli Escherichia coli bacteria Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology e.g. For example EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FC Fecal coliform bacteria FIB Fecal indicator bacteria GIS Geographic Information System software GM Geometric mean MRC Marine Resource Committee RSMP Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program SOP Standard operating procedures SWG Stormwater Work Group UGA Urban growth area USGS U.S. Geological Survey WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area

Documents

Bacteria Results for Nearshore Marine Areas in Puget Sound ... · Bacteria Results for Nearshore Marine Areas in Puget Sound, 2010-2015 . Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program