Whatcom County Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform Quality Assurance Project Plan

Whatcom County Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform Quality Assurance Project Plan Prepared by Erika Douglas Whatcom County Public Works Natural Resources 322 N. Commercial, Suite 110 Bellingham, WA 98225

Purpose and Acknowledgements for Unified QAPP: This QAPP was developed using the template created for the Whatcom County Unified Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The Unified QAPP was visioned at a January 19, 2011 ad hoc meeting of local government and non government organization representatives who sample and/or report on fecal coliform. The group s aim is to help alleviate confusion about the meaning of fecal coliform data, where different interpretations can be given to data which appear similar. These different interpretations stem from differences in sampling techniques, quality control procedures, reporting, and water quality standards. The group decided that its first task was to start at the beginning of the process: the sampling, analysis, and quality assurance/ quality control procedures for fecal coliform. This decision led to a series of meetings and this Unified QAPP, whose purpose is to guide individual QAPPs and to provide for consistency in sampling, analyzing, and quality control. Co leads of the Unified QAPP work group: Erika Douglas, Senior Planner Marine Resources, Whatcom County Public Works Wendy Steffensen, Lead Scientist, North Sound Baykeeper, RE Sources Work Group Members: Sue Blake, Washington State University Whatcom County Extension Charlotte Clausing, Northwest Indian College Nichole Embertson, Whatcom County Conservation District Ingrid Enschede, Whatcom County Public Works Annitra Ferderer, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Oliver Grah, Nooksack Tribe Julie Hirsch, Hirsch Consulting Steve Hood, Washington State Department of Ecology Michael Isensee, Washington State Department of Agriculture Mak Kaufmann, Washington State Department of Ecology Tom Kunesh, Whatcom County Department of Health Wendy LaRoque, City of Ferndale Cara McKinnon, Washington State Department of Agriculture Melissa Roberts, Whatcom County Public Works Jean Snyder, Nooksack Tribe Eleanor Hines, Surfrider Assistance provided by RE Sources North Sound Baykeeper Interns, Ashley Westling and Keturah Witter.

Quality Assurance Project Plan Whatcom County Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform Approved by: This section includes key personnel involved in oversight of the project (e.g. project lead, organization manager, lab manager, etc.) Erika Douglas, WCPW Senior Planner, Project Manager Date: Chris Brueske, P.E., WCPW Assistant Director Date: Danielle Love, Laboratory Manager, Edge Analytical Date: Charlotte Clausing, Lead Field Staff & Lab Manager, NWIC Date: WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 3

Table of Contents Purpose and Acknowledgements... 2 Title and Approvals... 3 1.0 Abstract... 6 2.0 Project Management... 7 2.1 Distribution List... 7 2.2 Project Organization... 8 2.3 Project Schedule... 9 3.0 Problem Definition/ Background... 9 3.1 Background... 9 3.2 Study Area Characteristics... 11 3.3 Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Standards... 12 3.4 Potential Pollution Sources... 14 3.5 Existing Water Quality Monitoring Data... 15 4.0 Project Description... 21 4.1 Overview... 21 4.2 Objectives and Goals... 22 4.3 Study Design... 23 4.3.1 Drayton Harbor Routine Sampling... 23 4.3.2 Birch Bay Routine Sampling... 24 4.3.3 Nooksack River Routine Sampling... 25 4.3.4 Coastal Drainage Routine Sampling... 26 4.3.5 Sampling Coordination... 27 5.0 Procedures... 27 5.1 Field Procedures... 27 5.1.1 Grab Samples for Fecal Coliform... 28 5.1.2 Field Measurements... 30 5.2 Sample Custody and Documentation... 30 5.3 Laboratory Procedures... 30 6.0 Data Quality Objectives... 31 6.1 Bias and Precision... 31 6.2 Reporting Limits... 31 WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 4

6.3 Measurement Quality Objectives... 32 7.0 Quality Control... 32 7.1 Field Notes... 32 7.2 Sample Identification... 32 7.3 Representative Sampling... 32 7.4 Field and Laboratory Replicates... 33 7.5 Comparability... 33 7.6 Completeness... 33 8.0 Data Management Procedures... 33 9.0 Audits and Reports... 34 10.0 Data Review, Verification, and Validation... 34 11.0 Data Quality Assessment... 35 12.0 References... 35 Appendix A: Definitions... 37 Appendix B: Water Quality Review by Monitoring Station... 40 Appendix C: Whatcom County 2012 Fecal Coliform Levels & Shellfish Growing Area Status Map... 43 WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 5

1.0 Abstract Whatcom County uses water quality monitoring, priority area ranking, pollution source identification, community education, technical and financial assistance programs, and if needed, regulatory enforcement to protect public health and prevent pollution of surface waters. This QAPP creates a comprehensive and coordinated plan for a variety of monitoring projects that have been implemented under separate monitoring plans in past years. It outlines the County s routine fecal coliform monitoring program for watersheds that discharge to marine waters. The goal of this study is to characterize fecal coliform levels throughout Whatcom County coastal watersheds and to identify sources of pollutants to guide water quality improvement projects, attain water quality standards, and protect beneficial uses (including primary contact recreation and shellfish harvesting). The objectives of this study are: 1) To identify fecal coliform concentrations for the major drainages in Whatcom County coastal watersheds under various seasonal or hydrological conditions. This characterization may be used as a baseline to help evaluate the effectiveness of water quality improvement projects as they are implemented in the watershed. 2) To compare results with applicable water quality standards and identify public health concerns. 3) To determine priority drainages for water quality improvement projects based upon fecal coliform concentrations in comparison to water quality standards. 4) To determine locations of fecal coliform sources in priority drainages. 5) To provide water quality data to the public and other interested parties. The routine sampling component of Whatcom County s fecal coliform monitoring program will use a fixed network of sites samples one or two times per month in each area. The geographic areas, watershed characteristics, sampling design and sampling methods are described. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 6

2.0 Project Management This section describes project organization, individual roles, and timelines. 2.1 Distribution List Name: Kyle Dodd Organization: Environmental Health Supervisor, Whatcom County Health Department Telephone: 360.676.6724 E mail: kdodd@co.whatcom.wa.us Name: Tyler Schroeder Organization: Current Planning Division Manager, Whatcom County PDS Telephone: 360.676.6907 E mail: tschroed@co.whatcom.wa.us Name: George Boggs Organization: Executive Director, Whatcom Conservation District Telephone: 360.354.2035 E mail: GBoggs@whatcomcd.org Name: Steve Hood Organization: Water Quality Engineer, Washington State Department of Ecology Telephone: 360.715.5211 E mail: shoo461@ecy.wa.gov Name: Michael Isensee Organization: Dairy Nutrient Management Inspector, Washington State Dept. Agriculture Telephone: 360.354.7421 E mail: misensee@agr.wa.gov Name: Mary Knackstedt Organization: EPA Grant Coordinator, Washington State Dept. of Health/ Dept. of Ecology Telephone: 360.236.3319 E mail: mary.knackstedt@doh.wa.gov Name: Jule Schultz Organization: Shellfish Growing Area Restoration, Washington State Department of Health Telephone: 360.236.3349 E mail: jule.schultz@doh.wa.gov Name: Jeremy Freimund Organization: Water Resources Manager, Lummi Natural Resources Department Telephone: 360.384.2212 E mail: JeremyF@lummi nsn.gov Name: Oliver Grah Organization: Water Resources Program Manager, Nooksack Tribe Natural Resources Dept. Telephone: 360.592.5176 E mail: ograh@nooksack nsn.gov WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 7

Name: Charlotte Clausing Organization: Northwest Indian College Telephone: 360.392.4319 E mail: cclausing@nwic.edu Name: Danielle Love Organization: Laboratory Manager, Edge Analytical Labs Telephone: 360.715.1212 E mail: micro@edgeanalytical.com Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee Members 2.2 Project Organization The following individuals are responsible for design and implementation of this project, and/or will be the primary data users and decision makers: Chris Brueske, (360) 676 6692, WCPW, Assistant Director. Oversight of project management and implementation. Erika Douglas, (360) 676 6876, WCPW, Senior Planner. Project lead responsible for development and implementation of monitoring program, sample collection, and data entry, analysis and reporting. Responsibilities include annual water quality review. WCPW Field Staff, (360) 676 6876. Field staff responsible for assisting with implementation of monitoring program, sample collection, and coordination of sampling schedule with volunteers and project partners. Ingrid Enschede, (360) 715 7450, WCPW, Program Specialist. Birch Bay field staff responsible for assisting with implementation of monitoring program, sample collection, community outreach, and coordination of sampling schedule with project partners. Charlotte Clausing, (360) 392 4319, NWIC lead lab and field staff. Responsible for collecting and analyzing samples for Nooksack and subset of California and Dakota Creek sites one time per month. Edge Analytical Labs, (360) 715 1212. Local DOE certified lab responsible for laboratory analysis of routine water samples. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 8

2.3 Project Schedule This study will be conducted between January 2013 and December 2014 and reporting will occur in 2015. Table 1 describes the schedule for conducting project tasks. It is a guideline only as unforeseen circumstances and conditions may require adjustment to some or all of the following proposed dates. Table 1. Timeline for the Whatcom County Fecal Coliform Water Quality Study. Task 2013 2014 2015 Quarter 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 Monitoring Plan X Water Quality Sampling X X X X X X X X Lab Analysis X X X X X X X X Progress Reports X X X X Annual Water Quality Review X X X Draft and Final Report X X Outreach X X X X X X X X X X 3.0 Problem Definition/Background This section provides project background, definition of the study area, beneficial uses, potential pollution sources, historic water quality data, and project goals and objectives. 3.1 Background Whatcom County uses water quality monitoring, priority area ranking, pollution source identification, community education, technical and financial assistance programs, and if needed, regulatory enforcement to protect public health and prevent pollution of surface waters. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 1 is located in the northwest corner of Washington State and encompasses over 60 percent of Whatcom County which is the most populated portion (Blake and Peterson 2005). WRIA 1 also includes small portions of Skagit County and British Columbia. Since 1998 a variety of water resource management stakeholders, local and state agencies, and tribal governments have worked together under the Watershed Management Act to characterize issues related to water quantity, water quality, fish habitat, and instream flows as well as to identify potential management solutions. The characterization completed in 2005 found fecal coliform to be the predominant water quality issue in Whatcom County based upon 303(d) listings. Of the 274 individual 303(d) listings for WRIA 1 in 1998, 82 were for fecal coliform, while the next most frequent, dissolved oxygen, had 48 listings. In 2008, there were 253 individual Category 5 303(d) listings for water in WRIA 1. Sixty six of these Category 5 listings were for fecal coliform and listings for dissolved oxygen increased to 106. Continuation of this widespread problem of elevated fecal coliform in Whatcom County waters is illustrated through the WCPW routine monitoring program data, recurring shellfish harvest closures, and recent public health advisories. Of the 84 freshwater stations with at least three WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 9

years of data, only 16 (less than 20%) meet water quality standards for fecal coliform (Appendix B). Elevated bacteria levels in marine waters have led to the establishment of three shellfish protection districts in Whatcom County: Drayton Harbor, established in 1995, Portage Bay, established in 1998, and Birch Bay, established in 2009. Drayton Harbor Watershed Drayton Harbor historically supported non tribal commercial, tribal commercial, ceremonial, and subsistence harvests, and recreational shellfish harvesting. Shellfish growing areas in Drayton Harbor were downgraded to Prohibited by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) in 1995 and 1999 due to degraded water quality. The harbor has been at the top of the DOH Fecal Pollution Index (FPI) statewide list for over ten years. Although water quality improvements led to upgrades in portions of the harbor to Conditional Approval in 2004 and 2010, the community is now tackling the harder non point sources in an effort to regain full Approved status for the entire area. Birch Bay Watershed Birch Bay is a large draw for recreational shellfish harvesters, including both locals and tourists. Birch Bay State Park has consistently been one of the top two recreational shellfish areas of the state. The shellfish growing area within an area around the mouth of Terrell Creek was downgraded to Prohibited in 2008 due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the creek. Current fecal coliform levels in Terrell Creek are not as high as have been historically documented; however, several tributaries and the majority of coastal drainages discharging to the bay exceed both parts of the water quality standard for fecal coliform. Nooksack River Watershed Portage Bay supports commercial, ceremonial, and subsistence shellfish harvest for members of the Lummi Nation. Shellfish growing areas in Portage Bay were downgraded to Prohibited and Restricted in 1998 due to degraded water quality. Portions of the shellfish growing area were re opened in 2003 and the remaining closed areas were reopened in 2006; however, starting in 2004 fecal coliform levels in the mainstem of the Nooksack River began increasing again. Between 2009 and 2012, the geometric mean of the mainstem site located at Marine Drive (M1) doubled from 16 to 34 FC/100mL. While the levels are still meeting water quality standards, this substantial increase creates concern for the potential impact on the shellfish growing area status. Due to elevated bacteria levels, 5 of 12 marine monitoring stations in Portage Bay were described as Threatened and 2 of 12 were described as sites Of Concern in DOH s 2012 Annual Growing Area Review. Other Coastal Watersheds Northern Chuckanut Bay (Mud Bay) has been closed for recreational shellfish harvest since 1994 due to elevated bacteria levels and poorly functioning and failing on site sewage systems (OSS). Beginning in 2011, Wildcat Cove in Larrabee State Park was posted with a swimming advisory due to elevated bacteria levels. These advisories and closures are included in the Whatcom County Fecal Coliform Levels and Shellfish Growing Area Status map (Appendix C). WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 10

Whatcom County Public Works will conduct an annual review of water quality data from all routine monitoring stations. An annual report will summarize Whatcom County s bacterial water quality concerns, outline the routine monitoring program, characterize the current status of water quality at each monitoring station, prioritize areas for water quality improvement projects, and describe the areas where Whatcom County will be focusing efforts in the next year. 3.2 Study Area Characteristics Drayton Harbor Watershed The Drayton Harbor watershed is located in the northwest corner of Whatcom County and straddles the international border with Canada (Figure 1). The watershed is approximately 57 square miles and includes the City of Blaine. California and Dakota Creeks are the primarily freshwater discharges into the harbor, draining over 90 percent of the watershed (Peterson 1995). Many other small drainages discharge directly into Drayton Harbor. The harbor itself covers 1,600 acres, and is quite shallow, with 60% of the bottom exposed during low tides. Agricultural is the primary land use (approximately 54 percent) in the Drayton Harbor watershed with forestry and other open space characterizing about 20 percent (Parametrix and Adolfson Associates 2006). The City of Blaine skirts the perimeter of the harbor with urban residential and commercial land uses. Much of the remaining portions of the watershed can be described as rural residential. Birch Bay Watershed The Birch Bay watershed is approximately 27 square miles and discharges into Birch Bay, a shallow, crescent shaped bay with an extensive tideflat system (Figure 1). Terrell Creek is nearly nine miles long and is the primary freshwater input to Birch Bay. The upper portion of the Terrell Creek watershed has a lake with a dam and wetland system that covers approximately 738 acres, much of which is owned and managed by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Downstream of the lake, Terrell Creek travels for approximately seven miles through a rural residential area with a mix of open space, agriculture, and industry prior to entering Birch Bay State Park and another large wetland system. The lower portion of Terrell Creek runs parallel to the marine shoreline through an urban residential area for approximately two miles. (CH2MHill 2006) Nooksack River Watershed The Nooksack River watershed is approximately 826 square miles, straddles the border with Canada, and discharges into Bellingham Bay (Figure 1). The watershed includes a diverse landscape ranging from the Cascade Mountain Range, the foothills, and into the lowlands. The lower basin, beginning at river mile 36.6, has been the focus of fecal coliform bacteria reduction efforts. Land uses in the upper basin are predominately timber management and recreational uses on federal, state, and private lands. In the upper basin there is some agriculture, commercial and residential use along the valley floors. In contract, in the lower basin there is a mix of agriculture, rural residential, and urban land uses. Whatcom County is a top dairy and berry producer in Washington State, with the majority of agricultural production occurring in WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 11

the Nooksack basin. The wastewater treatment plants for the cities of Everson, Lynden, and Ferndale discharge into the Nooksack River (Hood and Joy 2000). Figure 1. Map of Whatcom County monitoring regions depicting the Drayton Harbor (pink), Birch Bay (red), and Nooksack River (orange) watersheds. Other Coastal Watersheds Northern Chuckanut Bay, often referred to as Mud Bay, is a small embayment in south Bellingham with a railroad trestle crossing the mouth and restricting tidal circulation. The primary freshwater discharge to this bay is Chuckanut Creek with a seven square mile watershed. There are also smaller drainages from the residential area on the northwest side of the bay and a seasonal creek that runs through the City of Bellingham Woodstock Farm. Land uses in the Chuckanut Creek watershed include a residential area (Chuckanut Village), a forested park with hiking and biking trails (Arroyo Park), and rural residential and forested areas in the upper watershed. Lummi Island has many small drainages that discharge directly to marine waters. The focus areas for this study are two drainages that discharge to recreational shellfish areas adjacent to the ferry landing. Land uses in these drainages include rural residential areas, open pastures, and a ferry parking lot. 3.3 Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Standards Bacteria criteria are set to protect public health. DOE water quality standards use fecal coliform as an indicator bacteria. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria indicates the presence of fecal WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 12

material from human or other warm blooded animals in the waterbody (Mathieu and Sargaent 2008). DOE water quality standards for each watershed are based upon beneficial uses, waterbody classifications, and water quality criteria. Overall, beneficial uses in Whatcom County coastal watersheds include: Water supply (domestic, industrial, agriculture, and stock watering) Fish, shellfish, and wildlife habitat (including salmonids) Recreation including primary contact, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic According to DOE water quality standards (WAC 173 201A) for aquatic life uses, marine waters in Drayton Harbor, Portage Bay, Lummi Island, and Chuckanut Bay are identified as Excellent Quality and criteria are set to protect 1) salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; 2) clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; and 3) crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, and scallops) rearing and spawning. Marine waters in Semiahmoo Bay and Birch Bay are identified as Extraordinary Quality and criteria are set to protect 1) salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; 2) clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; and 3) crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, and scallops) rearing and spawning. While these aquatic life uses do not directly correlate to bacteria water quality standards, they do determine which bacteria standards apply to each watershed discharging to the above listed marine waters (Mathieu and Sargaent 2008). Birch Bay and Cain Creek watersheds are classified as Extraordinary Primary Contact Recreation for bacteria criteria by the Washington State Department of Ecology. In freshwater, the Extraordinary Primary Contact Recreation standards for fecal coliform are 1) a geometric mean of less than 50 FC/100mL and 2) not more than 10% of the samples may exceed 100 FC/100mL. The remaining watersheds monitored through this program are classified as Primary Contact Recreation for bacteria criteria by the Washington State Department of Ecology. In freshwater, the Primary Contact Recreation standards for fecal coliform are 1) a geometric mean of less than 100 FC/100mL and 2) not more than 10% of the samples may exceed 200 FC/100mL. In all marine waters, the standards for fecal coliform are 1) a geometric mean of 14 FC/100mL and 2) an estimated 90 th percentile of less than 43 FC/100mL. Table 2 lists water quality standards for marine and freshwater in Whatcom County watersheds. Table 2. Department of Ecology Water Quality Standards for Whatcom County watersheds. Marine Water Standards Freshwater Standards (Birch Bay, Terrell Creek, and Freshwater Standards (Other Watersheds) Cain Creek watersheds) Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform Bacteria Geometric Mean 14 FC/ 100mL 90th Percentile 43 FC/100mL Geometric Mean 50FC/ 100mL Not more than 10% exceed 100 FC/100mL Geometric Mean 100FC/ 100mL Not more than 10% exceed 200 FC/100mL WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 13

Table 3 summarizes how 2012 fecal coliform results at each routine monitoring site compare to the applicable state water quality standards for each watershed. The total number of sites, number of sites failing the standard, number of sites partially meeting the standard, and number of sites meeting the standard are summarized for each watershed. More specific details for each monitoring site are provided in Appendix B. Table 3. Summary of monitoring sites by watershed in comparison to fecal coliform standards in 2012. Watershed Number of Sites Number of Sites Exceeding Both Parts of Standards a Number of Sites Exceeding One Part of Standard b Number of Sites Meeting Both Parts of Standards c California Creek 14 4 (28.6%) 5 (35.7%) 4 (28.6%) Dakota Creek 17 3 (17.6%) 6 (35.3%) 8 (47.1%) Terrell Creek 15 7 (46.7%) 6 (40.0%) 2 (13.3%) Portage SPD 15 6 (40.0%) 5(33.3%) 4 (26.7%) Birch Bay Coastal 15 10 (66.7%) 4 (26.7%) 1 (6.7%) Drayton Coastal 5 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 (0%) Chuckanut Coastal 4 0 (0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) Lummi Island Coastal 2 0 (0%) 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) a Indicates frequent elevated fecal coliform levels. b Indicates occasional elevated fecal coliform levels (or spikes). c Indicates consistently lower fecal coliform levels. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies have been conducted for both the Lower Nooksack River and Drayton Harbor. A Detailed Implementation Plan was approved for the Lower Nooksack River in 2001 and includes target geometric means. The Drayton Harbor Water Quality Improvement Report is under development and interim targets for geometric means throughout the watershed have been established. 3.4 Potential Pollution Sources The primary cause of pollution in Whatcom County s creeks and marine waters is nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is the term used to describe pollutants that come from many smaller sources, rather than a few large sources. This accumulation of pollutants often results from common activities in both urban and rural areas. Although there are many types of water pollutants, Whatcom County focuses on fecal coliform bacteria as the primary indicator of surface water quality. Fecal coliform bacteria are found in the fecal matter of human and other warm blooded animals. While most fecal coliform strains do not cause human illness, detection in a creek or bay do indicate that human and/or animal wastes and the associated harmful pathogens are polluting the water. Examples of pathogenrelated illnesses are giardia, salmonella, viral gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and cholera. People are exposed to these pathogens through direct water contact, such as swimming, wading, or eating shellfish from waters with high bacteria levels. The key potential sources of bacteria that have been identified in Whatcom County coastal drainages are (1) animal waste from agricultural operations, domestic pets, waterfowl, and WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 14

urban wildlife, and (2) human sewage from failing on site sewage systems (OSS), leaking sewers, or cross connections. 3.5 Existing Water Quality Monitoring Data A variety of water quality monitoring projects have been conducted in Whatcom County over the years providing characterizations of fecal coliform in freshwater systems, stormwater, and marine water. This section provides a brief overview of freshwater monitoring projects. Department of Ecology Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Studies Nooksack and Drayton In 1997 and 1998, DOE conducted a TMDL study for fecal coliform in the Lower Nooksack River (Joy 2000). Samples were collected and analyzed for fecal coliform from a primary monitoring network of six mainstem, eleven tributary, and four point source locations. Some of the primary findings from this study were that bacteria levels doubled on the mainstem of the Nooksack River between Lynden and Ferndale. Tributaries discharging to this portion of the mainstem had consistently high bacteria levels. Target fecal coliform geometric means were established to help guide bacteria reduction efforts in the watershed. In 2008, DOE conducted a TMDL study for fecal coliform in the Drayton Harbor watershed. Samples were typically collected every two weeks at a fixed network of thirty four sites throughout the watershed. Some of the primary findings from this study were that fecal coliform levels exceeded water quality standards throughout the watershed, the majority of the bacterial loading originated from the upper watershed, and shoreline surveys indicated that the majority of the bacterial load to the harbor came from California and Dakota Creeks. Bacteria reductions were needed in California, Dakota, and Cain Creeks and interim TMDL targets were established to help guide water quality improvement projects while the implementation plan was being developed. Figure 2. Map of Nooksack River monitoring stations sampled by NWIC. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 15

Northwest Indian College (NWIC) Nooksack and Drayton Since 1998, the NWIC has been collecting fecal coliform samples at sites in the Nooksack River and Drayton Harbor watersheds. A portion of this sampling was completed to support the Nooksack River TMDL Detailed Implementation Plan (Hood 2002). In the Nooksack River watershed, the number of sites and frequency of sampling has varied over the years due to funding sources. Forty nine sites were identified throughout the watershed for monitoring to support the implementation of the Nooksack TMDL. In 2007 following the upgrade of the shellfish growing areas, the sites were reduced to approximately fifteen long term ambient sites to monitor water quality patterns in the major tributaries to the Nooksack (Figure 2). The typical pattern of fecal coliform levels seen in the tributaries has been a substantial decrease from 1998 to 2003 coinciding with efforts to implement the TMDL Detailed Implementation Plan and then an increase from 2004 to present (Figure 3). Figure 3. Fecal coliform 30 sample geometric mean between 1999 and 2012. Red line indicates DOE geometric mean threshold for fecal colifom standard. Since 2009, fecal coliform levels have more than doubled at the Marine Drive mainstem station (Figure 4). While the bacteria levels are still within the water quality standards, this increase has caused concerns regarding the status of the shellfish growing areas in Portage Bay. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 16

Figure 4. Fecal coliform 30 sample geometric mean at Marine Drive between 2002 and 2012. Samples have typically been collected on a monthly basis at ten sites in the Drayton Harbor watershed since 1998 (Figure 5). This data provide a long term overview of water quality status in the main drainages affecting Drayton Harbor. Figure 5. Map of Drayton Harbor watershed monitoring sites sampled by NWIC. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 17

Figure 6. Annual geometric means for Dakota Creek mainstem stations. Red line indicates DOE geometric mean threshold for fecal coliform standard. Since 2001, the five Dakota Creek stations have been meeting the geometric mean criteria (Figure 6). An exception was observed in 2011 when two sites had annual geometric means that exceeded the criteria. Bacteria levels in 2012 were more similar to those seen in previous years. Figure 7. Annual geometric means for California Creek mainstem stations. Red line indicates DOE geometric mean threshold for fecal coliform standard. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 18

Since 2001, the three California Creek stations have been meeting the geometric mean criteria (Figure 7) with exceptions observed in 2011 and 2012. Bacteria levels at site C3, in the upper portion of the watershed, are typically higher than at the two sites in the lower portion of the watershed. Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) Birch Bay NSEA monitored water quality at seven Terrell Creek sites in the Birch Bay watershed from 2004 2009 (Figure 8). Samples were collected and analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria on at least a monthly basis and are summarized for the last 30 samples collected in Table 4. Three of the sites exceeded the freshwater fecal coliform geometric mean standard and all of the sites exceed the 90 th percentile standard for this time period. As described in the Birch Bay section below, NSEA re established a monitoring program in the upper Terrell Creek watershed in coordination with WCPW in July 2012. This data is included in Appendices B and C and is not discussed in this section. Figure 8. NSEA water quality monitoring sites. Table 4. Summary of Nooksack Salmon Enhancement fecal coliform bacteria data. Sampling Period March 2006 June 2009 Site Max % Exceeding 100 Geometric Mean # of Samples Status 1 (FC/100mL) FC/100mL (FC/100mL) 1 240 16.1 21.8 31 2 860 40.6 61.8 32 3 1,900 30.0 46.1 30 4 400 15.6 23.4 32 5 1,460 43.8 56.4 32 6 238 21.9 30.9 32 7 520 21.9 29.7 32 1 Orange dots indicate station is exceeding one of the water quality standard thresholds and red dots indicate station is exceeding both of the thresholds. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 19

Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee (MRC) Coastal Drainages In 2006, the MRC began a volunteer water quality monitoring project at Drayton Harbor, Birch Bay, and Chuckanut Bay. MRC members, Whatcom County staff, and volunteers were trained to collect grab surface water samples for fecal coliform analysis and estimate stream flow by time of travel or catchment method. In 2009, collection sites were added on Lummi Island. Sample collection and flow measurement occurred monthly during a low tide at up to five sites in Drayton Harbor, eighteen in Birch Bay, four in Chuckanut Bay, and five on Lummi Island, dependent on flow conditions. Fecal coliform bacteria was analyzed at a state Department of Ecology certified lab and results were compared to water quality criteria to determine water quality status. Flow data were used to calculate fecal coliform loads. Sampling at Birch Bay coastal drainages was incorporated into the comprehensive Birch Bay monitoring project in 2009 and the data is thus reported under the section describing Whatcom County Public Works Routine Monitoring Program below. (WCPW 2011a) Table 5 provides a review of the water quality results for the period of May 2006 and December 2012. The fecal coliform water quality standards include two parts the geometric mean threshold and the 90 th percentile estimate. Geometric means and the percent of samples exceeding the 90 th percentile criteria were calculated and compared to applicable water quality standards for each watershed. A status of meets standard indicates that the site met both parts of the standard. A status of partial indicates that the one part of the standard was exceeded. A status of exceeds standards indicates that the site exceeds both parts of the standard. Table 5. Comparison of MRC Data to Bacteria Criteria for Primary Contact Recreation May 2006 December 2012 Site N Geometric % Exceeding Current Status Mean 200FC/100mL Drayton Harbor DH2 52 9.2 9.6 Meets standard DH3 53 45.7 22.6 Partial DH4 43 7.4 7.0 Meets standard DH14 31 25.5 9.7 Meets standard DH5 54 49.8 18.5 Partial Chuckanut Bay CB1 58 22.6 15.5 Partial CB2 72 25.8 5.6 Meets standard CB3 72 41.9 18.1 Partial CB4 63 42.7 14.3 Partial Lummi Island LI1 21 62.6 23.8 Partial LI3 6 8.9 0.0 Meets standard LI4 24 81.9 25.0 Partial LI7 4 9.9 25.0 Partial Whatcom County Public Works (WCPW) WCPW coordinates regular monitoring of fecal coliform levels at approximately ninety sites in county watersheds that discharge to marine waters. Monthly sampling of thirty one freshwater stations in the Drayton Harbor watershed began in 2009 to continue and expand upon the DOE TMDL study. Twice monthly sampling of seventeen stations along Terrell Creek and fifteen WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 20

Birch Bay coastal drainages began in 2009. The Birch Bay coastal drainages were initiated in 2006 by the MRC. NSEA began sampling seven of the Terrell Creek sites in 2012. Monthly sampling of about fifteen sites in the Nooksack River watershed began in 2012 in coordination with the long term ambient monitoring conducted under contract by the NWIC. Additionally, the MRC coastal drainage sites were incorporated in to the County s monitoring program in 2012. The results for these sites are described in the MRC section. In 2011, Whatcom County Public Works began completing an annual review of all water quality data for all of these sites (WCPW 2011b). The summary of data for the 2012 annual review is included in Appendix B. This QAPP formalizes the integration of these separate monitoring programs into one comprehensive effort to collect routine water quality samples throughout the county. Other Studies A number of other monitoring projects have been or are being conducted by other groups to characterize fecal coliform levels in Whatcom County watersheds which are not further detailed in this QAPP. Each of these studies can be helpful in identifying priority areas and changes in water quality patterns. Lummi Nation Natural Resources conducts fecal coliform monitoring at numerous freshwater and marine sites on the Lummi Reservation. The Nooksack Tribe monitors a number of sites in the Drayton Harbor watershed where routine monitoring data has indicated consistent elevated fecal coliform levels. The non profit organization Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF) has conducted storm event monitoring at outfalls discharging to Drayton Harbor, wet season marine sampling, and routine monitoring at Cain Creek. Other local organizations are also establishing programs to monitor fecal coliform levels in Whatcom County. 4.0 Project Description This QAPP provides the background information used in developing the plan for collection and analysis of water samples from Whatcom County coastal watersheds. The basic field and analytical tasks required to achieve the objectives of this project are 1) collect grab samples of water from designated sites within this watershed and 2) analyze grab samples for the presence/enumeration of fecal coliform. The quality assurance (QA) requirements described in this document are critical to the success of this project and are derived from EPA QA/R 5 EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA 2001) and Washington State Department of Ecology Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies (DOE 2001). 4.1 Overview This QAPP creates a comprehensive and coordinated plan for a variety of monitoring projects that have been implemented under separate monitoring plans in past years. WCPW coordinates regular monitoring of fecal coliform levels at approximately 90 sites in county watersheds that discharge to marine waters. Water samples are collected by WCPW staff, Northwest Indian College (NWIC) staff, Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) crew members, and trained Marine Resources Committee (MRC) volunteers. Field teams are trained in sampling, storage, and lab delivery protocols. All samples are analyzed at DOE certified WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 21

laboratories using standard methods for fecal coliform analysis as described in Section 6.3. Quality control steps are used to measure variability due to sampling methods and conditions. Results are compared against data quality objectives to measure precision of results. Sampling events are pre scheduled, typically at least a month in advance, and provide data from a broad spectrum of environmental conditions throughout the year. Water quality data are used to prioritize drainages for pollution identification and control projects and to characterize general patterns in declining and improving water quality. The WCPW staff coordinates with County Health, County Planning and Development Services, Whatcom Conservation District, and State departments of Agriculture and Ecology to respond to drainages where elevated bacteria levels are consistently observed. The routine sampling component of Whatcom County s fecal coliform monitoring program will use a fixed network of sites samples one or two times per month in each area. The specific number of sites and frequency of sampling runs are described below for each geographic area. Practical constraints, such as staff or consultant availability, weather conditions, stream flow, and safety concerns may limit the ability to collect the number of samples or at the sampling frequency described in the QAPP. The number of anticipated sampling events per quarter is listed in Table 6. Table 6. Proposed number of sampling events per quarter for each study component. 2013 2014 Quarters 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Drayton Harbor 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Birch Bay 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Nooksack River 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Other Coastal 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4.2 Objectives and Goals The goal of this study is to characterize fecal coliform levels throughout Whatcom County coastal watersheds and to identify sources of pollutants to guide water quality improvement projects, attain water quality standards, and protect beneficial uses (including primary contact recreation and shellfish harvesting). The objectives of this study are: 1) To identify fecal coliform concentrations for the major drainages in Whatcom County coastal watersheds under various seasonal or hydrological conditions. This characterization may be used as a baseline to help evaluate the effectiveness of water quality improvement projects as they are implemented in the watershed. 2) To compare results with applicable water quality standards and identify public health concerns. 3) To determine priority drainages for water quality improvement projects based upon fecal coliform concentrations in comparison to water quality standards. 4) To determine locations of fecal coliform sources in priority drainages. 5) To provide water quality data to the public and other interested parties. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 22

4.3 Study Design 4.3.1 Drayton Harbor Routine Sampling The Drayton Harbor routine component of this study will include monthly sampling of fourteen sites in the California Creek subwatershed and seventeen sites in the Dakota Creek subwatershed from January 2013 through December 2014. A subset of three California Creek and five Dakota Creek sites will be sampled monthly on off weeks by NWIC resulting in two samples per month. Additionally, two sites at Cain Creek will be sampled monthly by NWIC. The locations of the fixed network sites are identified in Table 7. Sites were identified through review of historical monitoring programs, drainage areas, and land use types. Table 7. Drayton Harbor Watershed Sampling Stations. Watershed Site ID Site Location California Creek Cal 0.1 (C1) Mouth of California Creek at Drayton Harbor Road Bridge California Creek Cal 0.8 (C2) California Creek at Blaine Road Bridge California Creek Cal 1.9 California Creek at Kickerville Bridge California Creek CA1 (TribCal 2) Downstream side of culvert at Kickerville, west of Cal Creek California Creek CA3 (TribCal 3) Downstream side of cross culvert at Arnie, east of Ham California Creek Cal 5.0 (C3) California Creek at Valley View, downstream bridge California Creek CA6 Upstream side of cross culvert at Arnie Road, west of Bruce California Creek CA16 (TribCal 5) Main Street Custer at dead end California Creek Cal 6.2 California Creek at Bruce Road California Creek CA8 (TribCal 4) Upstream side of culvert at Bay Road, west of Bruce Road California Creek CA9 Upstream side of cross culvert at Fox and Vista California Creek Cal 7.5 California Creek at Fox Road, east of Vista California Creek CA15 Upstream side of cross culvert at Portal, south of Farris California Creek CA14c Cross culvert at Brown Road, west of railroad Dakota Creek Dak 0.1 (D1) Dakota Creek at Blaine Road Bridge Dakota Creek Dak 0.6 Dakota Creek at I 5 Bridge Dakota Creek TribDak1 Downstream end of culvert at Sweet Road, east of Odell Dakota Creek TribDak2 Upstream of cross culvert at Sweet Road, west of Harvey Dakota Creek TribDak4 Upstream of cross culvert at Hoier Road, east of Harvey Dakota Creek TribDak3 Downstream end of culvert at Rogers Road, south of Hoier Dakota Creek Dak3.1 (DG) Dakota Creek at Giles Road Dakota Creek TribDak5 Bridge at Valley View, south of McGee Dakota Creek Dak6.8 (D2) Dakota Creek at Valley View and Behme Roads Dakota Creek NFDak0.1 (D3) NF Dakota at Custer School Road (upstream of bridge) Dakota Creek SFDak0.2 (D4) SF Dakota at Custer School Road (downstream of bridge) Dakota Creek TribDakN1 Downstream end of culvert at Haynie Road, east of Stein Dakota Creek NFDak2.5 NF Dakota Creek at Delta Line Road, south of Haynie Dakota Creek TribDakN2 Upstream side of culvert at Delta Line, north of Badger Dakota Creek TribDakS1 Downstream 2nd culvert at Delta Line, south of Loomis Trail Dakota Creek SFDak2.2 Upstream side of bridge for SF Dakota at Sunrise Road Dakota Creek TribDakS2 Downstream side of bridge at Sunrise Rd, north of SFDakota Semiahmoo Bay CC Mouth of Cain Creek Semiahmoo Bay CCO Cain Creek Outfall at Mouth WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 23

Grab samples will be collected and analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria. This monitoring plan focuses on sampling freshwater water quality, thus samples will be collected from the lower California and Dakota Creek sites during low tide to minimize tidal influence. Salinity will be measured to determine tidal influence. Data from the routine sampling will provide data sets to meet the following needs: Provide an estimate of annual and seasonal geometric mean and 90th percentile for fecal coliform. The schedule should provide at least 10 samples per site during the dry season (May through September) and 14 samples per site during the wet season (October through April) each year. Provide drainage specific fecal coliform concentration comparisons to identify areas with elevated fecal coliform loads to assist with drainage prioritization for water quality improvement projects. 4.3.2 Birch Bay Routine Sampling The Birch Bay routine component of this study will include twice monthly sampling of ten sites in the Lower Terrell Creek subwatershed and monthly sampling of fifteen coastal drainage sites discharging directly into Birch Bay. The Terrell Creek sites will be sampled by WCPW staff and the coastal drainage sites will be sampled by WCC crew members and trained MRC volunteers. An additional seven sites in the upper half of Terrell Creek will be sampled twice per month for fecal coliform by Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA 2012). WCPW will coordinate with NSEA to conduct sampling runs on the same day and share data. This data is included in the annual water quality review. The locations of the fixed network sites are identified in Table 8. Sites were identified through review of historical monitoring programs, drainage areas, and land use types. Grab samples will be collected and analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria. This monitoring plan focuses on sampling freshwater water quality, thus samples will be collected from the lower Terrell Creek and coastal drainage sites during low tide to minimize tidal influence. Salinity will be measured to determine tidal influence. Data from the routine sampling will provide data sets to meet the following needs: Provide an estimate of annual and seasonal geometric mean and 90th percentile for fecal coliform. The schedule should provide at least 10 samples per site during the dry season (May through September) and 14 samples per site during the wet season (October through April) each year. Provide drainage specific fecal coliform concentration comparisons to identify areas with elevated fecal coliform loads to assist with drainage prioritization for water quality improvement projects. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 24

Table 8. Birch Bay Watershed Sampling Stations. Watershed Site ID Site Location Terrell Creek Ter 0.1 Mouth of Terrell Creek Terrell Creek Ter 0.1* Mouth of Terrell Creek, upstream of confluence with Leisure Park Terrell Creek TribTer LP1 Leisure Park Tributary, East of Birch Bay Drive Terrell Creek TribTer BC2 Birch Creek @Leeside Terrell Creek TribTer BC1 Birch Creek @Morrison/Wooldridge Terrell Creek Ter 0.7 Lower Terrell Creek @ Jackson Road Terrell Creek Ter 1.6 Terrell Creek @Birch Bay State Park Bridge Terrell Creek Ter 1.9 Terrell Creek @ Helwig Bridge (State Park) Terrell Creek Trib Ter J1 Culvert@Grandview, West of Jackson Terrell Creek Ter 3.3 Terrell Creek @ Jackson Road, North of Grandview Birch Bay Coastal BB3 Birch Bay Golf Club, 7900 BB. Dr. Birch Bay Coastal BB4 8036 BB Dr., Mariners Cove 24" concrete pipe on shoreline Birch Bay Coastal BB5 24"concrete pipe on shoreline across BB Dr. from Century Realty Birch Bay Coastal BB6 Outfall across from old Thai Steakhouse. Concrete culvert. Birch Bay Coastal BB7 8178 BB Dr. & Beach Way Birch Bay Coastal BB8 Shoreline outfall @ 8208 Birch Bay Dr. (Cedar) Birch Bay Coastal BB11 Deer Trail, Birch Point Rd., 1/2 submerged, 12" metal pipe. Birch Bay Coastal BB12 5216 Birch Point Rd. & Shintaffer, shoreline pipe. Birch Bay Coastal BB15 BB Village, drain from "Big Lake" detention pond to marina Birch Bay Coastal BB16 BB Village, Beaver Pond drain to marina at Comox & Chehalis Birch Bay Coastal BB18 BB Village, ditch east of 5550 Salish Road on north side of road Birch Bay Coastal BB19 BB Village, rock lined ditch running cross to Salish @ Cowichan Birch Bay Coastal BB20 BB Village, inlet to Roger's Slough, located near the old BBV gate Birch Bay Coastal BB21 BB Village, NE corner of Skeena Way & Quinault Rd. intersection Birch Bay Coastal BB22 Culvert passing under Birch Point Rd. into BB Village (speed sign) 4.3.3 Nooksack River Routine Sampling The Nooksack River routine component of this study will include twice monthly sampling at fifteen fixed network sites in the Nooksack River watershed (Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District). One sample run will be conducted by WCPW staff and one will be conducted by NWIC staff. On a quarterly basis, samples will be collected at two additional historic sites to ensure these drainages continue to be well within water quality standards. The locations of the fixednetwork sites are identified in Table 9. Sites were identified through review of historical monitoring programs, drainage areas, and land use types. Grab samples will be collected and analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria. This monitoring plan focuses on sampling freshwater water quality. Previous evaluations have shown little tidal influence at the most downstream site of this sampling component (M1). Data from the routine sampling will provide data sets to meet the following needs: Provide an estimate of annual and seasonal geometric mean and 90th percentile for fecal coliform. The schedule should provide at least 10 samples per site during the dry WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 25

season (May through September) and 14 samples per site during the wet season (October through April) each year. Provide drainage specific fecal coliform concentration comparisons to identify areas with elevated fecal coliform loads to assist with drainage prioritization for water quality improvement projects. Table 9. Nooksack River Watershed Sampling Stations. Watershed Site ID Site Location Nooksack River M5 Mainstem Nooksack River at Everson @ E.Pole Rd Nooksack River M4 Mainstem Nooksack River at Lynden @ Hannegan Rd Nooksack River M2 Mainstem Nooksack River at Ferndale @ Axton Rd Nooksack River M1 Mainstem Nooksack River at Marietta @ Marine Dr Nooksack River DRC Deer Creek @ Judy Lane Nooksack River AND Anderson Creek @ Roberts Nooksack River S1 Scott @ Blysma Rd Nooksack River S3 Scott @ Thiel Rd Nooksack River K1 Kamm @ Hampton Rd Nooksack River K1a Side tributary to Kamm upstream of bridge at Hampton Road Nooksack River B1 Bertrand Creek @ Rathbone Rd Nooksack River B3 Bertrand Creek@Birch Bay Lynden Rd Nooksack River T1 Tenmile Creek @ Barrett Rd Nooksack River F1 Fishtrap Creek @ River Rd Nooksack River F4 Fishtrap Creek @ E. Main (7th) Nooksack River WIS* Wiser Lake outlet @ Wiser Nooksack River SMI* Smith Creek @ Lind Road *Sites that will be sampled on a quarterly basis. 4.3.4 Coastal Drainage Routine Sampling The coastal drainage routine component of this study will include monthly sampling at four sites in the Mud Bay drainage (northern Chuckanut Bay), five sites in the Drayton Harbor watershed (in addition to Drayton Harbor watershed routine sites), and four sites at Lummi Island. These sample runs will be completed by WCC crew members and MRC trained volunteers. The locations of the fixed network sites are identified in Table 10. Sites were identified through review of historical monitoring programs, drainage areas, and land use types. Grab samples will be collected and analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria. This monitoring plan focuses on sampling freshwater water quality, thus sampling times are coordinated around low tides to reduce tidal influence. Data from the routine sampling will provide data sets to meet the following needs: Provide an estimate of annual and seasonal geometric mean and 90th percentile for fecal coliform. The schedule should provide at least 5 samples per site during the dry season (May through September) and 7 samples per site during the wet season (October through April) each year. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 26

Provide drainage specific fecal coliform concentration comparisons to identify areas with elevated fecal coliform loads to assist with drainage prioritization for water quality improvement projects. Table 10. Coastal Drainage Sampling Stations. Watershed Site ID Site Location Chuckanut Coastal CB1 Small Woodstock Farm creek at culvert below dam structure Chuckanut Coastal CB2 Chuckanut Creek at Arroyo Park near stream gage station Chuckanut Coastal CB3 Chuckanut Creek 18 th Street Alley Bridge Chuckanut Coastal CB4 Mouth of Chuckanut Creek @ the end of the footpath from Woodstock Drayton Coastal DH2 Outfall at shoreline at junction of Harborview and Drayton Harbor Rds Drayton Coastal DH3 24" cement pipe 10 m west of DH2 outfall Drayton Coastal DH4 24" cement pipe 20 m west of DH3 near 4985 DH Rd. Drayton Coastal DH5 Harbor Hillside Phase 1, 8" PVC pipe via public trail below bioswale Drayton Coastal DH14 1565 DH Rd., ditch @ property corner between driveway and DH Rd. Lummi Island Coastal LI1 Unnamed seasonal creek north of ferry landing Lummi Island Coastal LI4 Unnamed seasonal creek south of ferry landing 4.3.5 Sampling Coordination Field measurement and sampling responsibilities will be shared by Whatcom County Public Works staff, NWIC staff, the NSEA WCC crew, and trained MRC volunteers. Prior to each sampling run, Whatcom County will prepare standard field data sheets, Chain of Custody forms, sample containers, coolers, and sampling equipment as necessary for the sampling groups. All samplers will be trained in the Whatcom County Fecal Coliform Bacteria Sampling Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). All samples will be analyzed by a DOE certified laboratory in Bellingham, Washington. The quality control comparability section describes the steps that will be taken to ensure consistency between the sampling groups. 5.0 Procedures This section describes field and laboratory procedures, and sample storage and delivery. 5.1 Field Procedures Field sampling and measurements will follow SOPs developed for the ad hoc Whatcom County Fecal Coliform Monitoring Group (WCFCMG) or the Washington State Department of Ecology. All SOPs developed for the WCFCMG adhere to Standard Methods (APHA et al. 2005). Grab samples will be collected directly into sterile bottles supplied by the laboratory. Sample parameters, methods, containers, volumes, preservation requirements, and holding times are listed in Table 11. One field duplicate will be collected in a side by side manner, per every set of samples to assess field sampling variability. A set equals 10 or fewer samples; thus 8 samples would be considered 1 set and 1 field duplicate would be collected, whereas 11 samples would be considered 2 sets and 2 field duplicates would be collected. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 27

Water samples for laboratory analysis will be delivered to a DOE certified lab within 6 hours of collection, and will be run for analysis within 8 hours of collection. Prior to grab sample collection, bottles will be labeled with the site identification, date, and time of sample. Site identification, sampling time, field/lab replicates, and other field observation comments will be recorded on the field data sheet. Site numbers, date, and time sampled will be transcribed for each sample to the Chain of Custody form prior to submitting samples to the laboratory. 5.1.1 Grab Samples for Fecal Coliform Sample collection for fecal coliform analysis will follow the WCFCMG SOP for Direct Grab Sample Collection with Sample Bottle for Fecal Coliform (2012). Water samples for fecal coliform analysis should always be collected prior to other field measurements to minimize opportunities for sample contamination. Sampling methods may vary slightly due to different conditions encountered in the field. Samples should not be collected from stagnant water or eddies. If a sample is collected under low flow conditions (e.g. surface sample) the conditions should be noted. The following is general guidance for sample collection. Hand Dip Method: This method is typically used to collect samples within reach of the water surface (when standing in or near the stream or from a small boat). 1. Label the bottle with sample site ID, date, and time of sample collection prior to collecting the sample. 2. Move to a well mixed location, such as the deepest part of the active channel or another location where a representative sample may be collected. Do not contaminate the sample location by wading upstream of it or by collecting a sample from an area that had been waded. Note: Use the Extension Pole Method if sampling from a lake or wide stream or river. 3. Hold the base of the sample bottle with one hand and remove the bottle cap. Invert the bottle, reach upstream, submerge the bottle into the water about 6 inches or mid way between the surface and the bottom if the stream reach is shallow, and then tip the bottle mouth upstream and toward the water surface. Allow the bottle to fill to approximately the shoulder and take it out of the water. If the bottle is overfilled, immediately dump some water from the bottle. Note: In shallow surface water, ensure that the sample bottle does not touch or disturb the stream bed, potentially contaminating the sample. Submerge the sample bottle to approximately the midpoint of the water column and tip upwards toward the direction of the flow. Samples should be collected far enough below the surface to avoid contamination from surface film and detritus. If a surface sample is unavoidable, note this on the field data sheet. 4. Replace the cap securely, avoiding contamination to the inside of the bottle or cap. Extension Pole Method: This method is typically used to reach a more representative or undisturbed sample location from the stream bank, or when sampling a lake or slow moving WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 28

stream. 1. Label the bottle with sample site ID, date, and time of sample collection prior to collecting the sample. 2. Secure the sample bottle in the extension pole clamp. 3. Move to a well mixed location, such as the deepest part of the active channel or another location where a representative sample can be reached with the pole. 4. Remove the bottle cap avoiding contamination of the cap or inside of the bottle. 5. Position the bottle over the desired sampling location. 6. Ensure the bottle is on the upstream side of the sampling apparatus while sample is collected. Invert the bottle and in one quick motion submerge the mouth of the bottle into the water column to a depth of approximately six inches or mid way between the surface and the bottom if the stream reach is shallow. Slowly move the bottle upstream with the bottle mouth tipped toward the surface until the bottle fills to the bottle shoulder. For lake sampling, slowly move the tipped bottle away from the bottle entry point until it fills. If the bottle is overfilled, immediately dump some water from the bottle. Note: In shallow surface water, ensure that the sample bottle does not touch or disturb the stream bed, potentially contaminating the sample. Submerge the sample bottle to approximately the midpoint of the water column and tip upwards toward the direction of the flow. Samples should be collected far enough below the surface to avoid contamination from surface film and detritus. If a surface sample is unavoidable, note this on the field data sheet. Replace the cap securely, avoiding contamination to the inside of the bottle or cap. Hand Collection from Pipe Method: This method is typically used to collect samples within reach of the end of a stormwater pipe. A sample of stormwater discharge should be taken as a single uninterrupted event (i.e., grabbed at one time) from a single stormwater outfall. 1. Label the bottle with sample site ID, date, and time of sample collection prior to collecting the sample 2. Move to the end of a stormwater pipe where there is moderate flow with turbulence, if possible, so the stormwater discharge will be well mixed and representative. When sampling a stormwater system, samples should be sampled from the system discharge point first to ensure samples are not contaminated by upstream sampling. 3. Hold the base of the sample bottle with one hand and remove the bottle cap. Hold the bottle under the stormwater discharge with its opening positioned into the flow of water so that water enters directly into the bottle without flowing over the bottle or hands during sampling to prevent contaminating the sample. 4. Allow the bottle to fill to approximately the shoulder and take it out of the water. If the bottle is overfilled, immediately dump some water from the bottle. Note: Ensure that the sample bottle does not touch the outfall pipe, potentially contaminating the sample. 5. Replace the cap securely, avoiding contamination to the inside of the bottle or cap. Bridge Sampling Method: This method is typically used to collect samples when standing on a bridge or boat. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 29

1. Label the bottle with sample site ID, date, and time of sample collection prior to collecting the sample. 2. Secure the sample bottle in the bridge sampler and attach the sampling rope. 3. Move to a well mixed location, such as the deepest part of the active channel or another location where a representative sample can be reached with the sampler. 4. Remove the bottle cap avoiding contamination of the cap or inside of the bottle. Hold the cap with your free hand or set the cap upside down on a surface to avoid contamination of the inside of the cap (e.g. road, bridge, or clipboard). 5. Position the bottle and sampler over the desired sampling location. Lower the sampler to the water surface and allow the bottom of the sampler to touch the water surface to remove any debris from the bottom of the bottle and sampler. Raise the sampler off the water surface to allow debris to wash downstream. Note: Ensure debris is not dislodged from the bridge while lowering the sampler. This step is intended to prevent sample contamination from any debris attached to the sampler. 6. Without submerging the mouth of the bottle, lower the sampler into the water and allow the current to position the sampler so the bottle is on the upstream side. Rapidly lower the sampler so the mouth of the bottle to a depth of approximately 6 inches. The rapid motion is intended to minimize collection of the surface film. Allow the bottle to fill to approximately the shoulder and take it out of the water. If the bottle is overfilled, immediately dump some water from the bottle. Note: In shallow surface water, ensure that the sampler does not touch or disturb the stream bed, potentially contaminating the sample. If a surface sample is unavoidable, note this on the field data sheet. 7. Replace the cap securely, avoiding contamination to the inside of the bottle or cap. 5.1.2 Field Measurements Following collection of grab samples, temperature will be measured in situ using an alcohol thermometer or calibrated YSI meter. In tidally influenced areas, salinity will be measured using a refractometer or YSI meter. Results will be recorded on the field sheet along with qualitative comments regarding site conditions and adjacent land use activities. 5.2 Sample Custody and Documentation Water samples for fecal coliform will be placed on ice in a cooler immediately after collection. Samples will be delivered to a DOE certified laboratory with a Chain of Custody form within 6 hours of sample collection. Samples will be analyzed by the laboratory within 8 hours of sample collection. Samples must be below 10 o C for fecal coliform when submitted to the laboratory for samples to be accepted for analysis. 5.3 Laboratory Procedures All water samples will be submitted to a local DOE certified laboratory for analysis and will follow each laboratory s Quality Assurance Manual. Water samples will be analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria using the membrane filtration, standard method 9222D (APHA et al. 2005). The analytical methods, preservation requirements, expected range of results, and detection WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 30

limits are summarized in Table 12. Two or more dilutions should be run for the sample to acquire a countable number on the plate between 20 and 60 colonies (Standard Method 9222B6b). Colonies that are atypical should be verified (Standard Method 9020), or noted in some way by the laboratory. As part of laboratory quality control, lab blanks of sterile diluent will be analyzed at the start of every sample run, every 10 samples, and at the end of the sample run. Lab blank analysis should show no colonies after incubation. Laboratory duplicates will be analyzed for every set of ten samples. Laboratory duplicates analyze the precision of the lab analysis and help characterize the overall variability. Table 11. Summary of analytical methods. Parameter Method Lab Sample Container Fecal coliform bacteria SM9222D 1 DOE certified lab 125mL or 250mL, sterile Preservation Holding Time Precision/ Quantification Limits 10 o C, dark 8 hrs (deliver to lab within 6 hrs) 1 APHA et al. 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21 st Edition. 2 RSD Relative standard deviation, divided by the mean 20% RSD 2 1cfu/100mL 6.0 Data Quality Objectives This section describes project objectives for bias and precision, reporting limits, and measurement quality objectives. 6.1 Bias and Precision Systematic and random error in measurements due to bias and precision can be influenced by sample collection, handling and storage; contamination of equipment; natural variability in the parameters being measured; and normal variability in factors affecting measurement results (Lombard and Kirchmer 2001). Error due to bias will be minimized by following SOPs for sample collection and storage as described above and use of quality control procedures described in Sections 5 and 7. All field staff will receive training on SOPs to ensure consistent methods in sample collection, storage and handling. Bias will be evaluated in the analytical performance through use of positive and negative controls. Precision will be assessed through the relative standard deviation (RSD) or field duplicates and relative percent difference (RPD) of laboratory duplicates. One field replicate will be collected for each set of 10 samples during each sampling run (see Section 5.1). 6.2 Reporting Limits Table 12 describes the range, resolution, and accuracy of the lab analysis for the parameters being measured in this project. Each of these elements falls within the range of expected results for this project based upon historical measurements. 6.3 Measurement Quality Objectives WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 31

To ensure quality and confidence in the data collected, the measurement quality objectives (MQO) described in Table 12 have been established for this project. The MQOs include both field and laboratory objectives where appropriate. Table 12. Objectives for data quality. Analysis Method/ Equipment Field Replicate MQO Fecal Coliform SM 9222D 50% of replicate pairs <20% RSD 90% of replicated 1 RSD Relative standard deviation, divided by the mean 2 RPD Relative percent difference pairs <50% RSD Lab Duplicate Reporting Limits MQO and Resolution 40% RPD2 1cfu/100mL 7.0 Quality Control This section describes steps that will be taken to provide quality control in this project. Quality control provides confidence in sampling techniques, measurement results, and analysis of data. 7.1 Field Notes Standard field data sheets will be used for each sampling run. The field sheets will provide sampling date, sampler names, weather and tidal conditions, sampling site identification, sampling site location, field measurements, and comments regarding water conditions and adjacent activities. Field notes will be cross checked with Chain of Custody forms prior to being submitted to the laboratory. Field data sheets will be stored in Whatcom County Public Works Natural Resources project files. 7.2 Sample Identification Prior to grab sample collection, bottles will be labeled with the site identification, date, and time of sample. Site identification, sampling time, field/lab replicates, and other field observation comments will be recorded on the field data sheet. Site numbers, date, and time sampled will be transcribed for each sample to the Chain of Custody form prior to submitting samples to the laboratory. The number of samples will be cross checked with field data sheets and Chain of Custody forms prior to submitting samples to the lab. 7.3 Representative Sampling The experimental design of this project is based upon a random sampling schedule over a two year period. The site location, random schedule and frequency of samples should provide representation of a full variety of spatial, temporal, and hydrologic differences encountered in Whatcom County coastal watersheds. The experimental design is intended to capture both wet and dry season conditions, baseflow and storm events, and the most downstream location accessible for each of the major drainages. Samples will be collected at mid stream locations or where there is adequate flow and mixing. A minimum of five samples per wet season and five samples per dry season will be required to adequately compare fecal coliform results with state water quality standards. WAC 173 201A states, When averaging bacteria sample data WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 32

for comparison to the geometric mean criteria, it is preferable to average by season and include five or more data collection events within each period and [the period of averaging] should have sample collection dates well distributed throughout the reporting period. 7.4 Field and Laboratory Replicates Field replicates, or duplicate samples collected at the same site, provide a mechanism for evaluating variability of the individual results for each parameter. One field replicate will be collected, immediately following collection of the routine sample, for each set of 10 samples (see section 5.1). The site(s) at which the field duplicate is collected will be chosen randomly using a random number generator. All field duplicates will be submitted to the laboratory labeled as Site ID FD. For every set of ten samples, one larger sample (typically 150mL) will be collected and submitted for lab duplicate analysis. Laboratory duplicates analyze the precision of the lab analysis and help characterize the overall variability. The precision of lab duplicates will be measured against the MQOs presented in Section 6.3. Laboratory blanks will be analyzed at the start of every sample run, every ten samples, and at the end of the sample run. Lab blank analysis should show no colony growth after incubation. 7.5 Comparability Samples evaluated through this monitoring project will be collected by different sampling teams. All teams will use the 2012 WCFCMG SOP for Direct Grab Sample Collection with Sample Bottle for Fecal Coliform (see Procedures section above) for all sampling and measurements collected for the Whatcom County fecal coliform water quality monitoring project. Efforts will be made to sample all sites in each geographic area on the same day. All water samples will be analyzed by a local DOE certified laboratory. Field training of SOPs will be provided to all field crew members as needed. 7.6 Completeness The goal of the sampling strategy is to collect and analyze 100% of the scheduled samples at 100% of the sites for a complete data set. However, unforeseen circumstances can affect the ability to collect or analyze samples such as, but not limited to, low or high flow conditions, site access or other safety issues. A minimum of five samples per wet season and five samples per dry season will be required to adequately compare fecal coliform results with state water quality standards. 8.0 Data Management Procedures The field data sheets, Chain of Custody forms, and laboratory reports will be used to document and track sampling events and results. All of these forms will include sample site, sample date and time, and sampler s name. Field data sheets will also record weather conditions and notes regarding human and animal activity within the drainage. Field data sheets and copies of the Chain of Custody forms will be provided to Whatcom County Public Works within two days of a sampling event when samples are collected by the WCC crew, MRC volunteers, or the NWIC. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 33

Laboratory results and field data will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet by Whatcom County Public Works staff. Data will be uploaded to the Whatcom County database on a quarterly basis. Field sheets or field notebooks, Chain of Custody forms, QC sample records, and laboratory reports will be stored on site at Whatcom County Public Works Natural Resources in project data files for a minimum of ten years in either a hardcopy or scanned format. 9.0 Audits and Reports Preliminary laboratory results for fecal coliform will be reviewed within two working days of the sampling run and compared to the project objectives. Sample results that exceed 1000 FC/mL will be reported to Whatcom County Environmental Health. Errors or corrective actions identified in any of these reviews will be reported to field or laboratory staff. The project manager will be responsible for completing quarterly and a final report for the monitoring project. Quarterly reports will be provided to staff listed on the distribution list. Fact sheets summarizing the water quality monitoring project and results will be prepared or updated on a quarterly basis for community outreach efforts. The final report will include a quality control section which will include a description of any errors or corrective actions identified and the associated responses. 10.0 Data Review, Verification, and Validation All data for this project will be reviewed and verified against the quality objectives described in Section 6, Data Quality Objectives and Quality Control. Field data sheets will be reviewed prior to leaving each sampling sites for missing or unusual data. Field data sheets will be crosschecked with Chain of Custody forms prior to submission to the laboratory. Field staff will compare data entry with field data sheets to verify results. Data entered in Excel files will be considered and marked draft/preliminary until data review and verification has been completed. Laboratory results will be reviewed by field staff and the project manager for missing or unusual data. If needed, laboratory staff will be contacted to verify reported results and/or estimated results. Data entry into spreadsheets will be double checked with field sheets. Laboratory blanks should equal zero. For each sample, countable numbers between 20 and 60 should be used to calculate the fecal coliform concentration (Standard Method 9222B6b). Data will be flagged as estimates if these quality objectives are not met. Routine results will be compared with field replicates and lab duplicates to ensure the MQOs presented in Section 6.3 are met. Due to higher variability with low results in bacteria analysis, duplicate pairs for analysis of field precision should be separated into two groups: 1) pairs with a mean less than or equal to 20FC/100mL and 2) pairs with a mean greater than 20FC/100mL (Mathieu 2006). The pairs within the second set will be compared against the MQOs described in Section 6.3. Results exceeding objectives will be noted in the Excel dataset, quarterly, and final reports and values of individual samples or entire sets of samples will be flagged as WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 34

estimates (J), where MQOs are exceeded for field or lab duplicates, respectively. Values that are two times the objectives will be rejected and noted in the dataset and reports. Until these data quality checks have been completed, data should be reported as preliminary. For every set of ten samples, one larger sample (typically 150mL) will be collected and submitted for lab duplicate analysis. The precision of lab duplicates will be measured against the MQOs presented in Section 6.3. Lab duplicates are not always run as a standard part of lab analysis, thus the sampling organization will typically have to pay for this analysis. If quality control measures are not met, the associated results may be qualified by the laboratory or by the project manager and used with caution, or not used at all. 11.0 Data Quality Assessment The field staff and project manager will verify that data quality objectives have been met for each monitoring site. If objectives are not met, the project manager will determine results that will be estimated and qualified or rejected as described above. The data quality assessment will be included in the final report. 12.0 References APHA (American Public Health Association), AWWA (American Water Works Association) and WEF (Water Environment Federation) 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21 st edition. Blake, S. and B. Peterson. 2005. WRIA1 Watershed Management Plan Phase 1. WRIA1 Watershed Management Project. DOE (Department of Ecology) 2001. Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication # 01 03 003. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA QA/R 5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Information. Hood, S. 2002. Nooksack River Watershed Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load: Detailed Implementation Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication # 01 10 060. Hood, S. and J. Joy. 2000. Nooksack River Watershed Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load: Submittal Report. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication # 00 10 036. Joy, J. 2000. Lower Nooksack River Basin Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication # 00 03 006. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 35

Lombard, S. and C. Kirchmer 2001. Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. Mathieu, N. 2006. Replicate Precision for 12 TMDL Studies and Recommendations for Precision Measurement Quality Objectives for Water Quality Parameters. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication # 06 03 044. Mathieu, N. and D. Sargeant. 2008. Drayton Harbor Watershed Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load: Phase 1 Study. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. NSEA (Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association). 2012. Birch Bay Characterization and Watershed Planning Pilot Taking Action: Terrell Creek Fecal Coliform and Nutrient Monitoring Project Quality Assurance Project Plan. Parametrix and Adolfson Associates. 2006. Whatcom County Shoreline Master Program Update: Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services. Peterson, B. 1995. Drayton Harbor Watershed Action Plan. Whatcom County Council of Governments. WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 173 201A. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. WCFCMG (Whatcom County Fecal Coliform Monitoring Group) 2012. Standard Operating Procedures: Direct Grab Sample Collection with Sample Bottle for Fecal Coliform or Nutrient Analysis. WCPW (Whatcom County Public Works Natural Resources). 2011a. Water Quality Monitoring Project: Final Technical Report. Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee. WCPW (Whatcom County Public Works Natural Resources). 2011b. Whatcom County 2011 Water Quality Report and Priority Areas: Fecal Coliform in Coastal Drainages. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 36

Appendix A: Definitions 303(d) List 1 : Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires Washington State to periodically prepare a list of all surface waters in the state for which beneficial uses of the water such as for drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use are impaired by pollutants. These are water quality limited estuaries, lakes, and streams that fall short of state surface water quality standards, and are not expected to improve within the next two years. Clean Water Act 1 : A federal act passed in 1972 that contains provisions to restore and maintain the quality of the nation s waters. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act establishes the TMDL program. Extraordinary Primary Contact 1 : Waters providing extraordinary protection against waterborne disease or that serve as tributaries to extraordinary quality shellfish harvesting areas. Fecal Coliform 1 : The 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 mililiters of water (cfu/100ml). Field Duplicate 1 : A generic term for two (or more) field samples taken at the same time in the same location. They are intended to represent the same population and are taken through all the steps of the analytical procedure in an identical manner and provide precision information for the data collection activity. Geometric Mean: 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. Calculation: Multiply all of the data points, and take the n th root of this product. Example: Suppose you have data (Enterococci bacteria/100 ml sample) from different dates: 6 ent./100 ml, 50 ent./100 ml, 9 ent./100 ml, 1200 ent./100 ml Geometric Mean = 4th root of (6)(50)(9)(1200) = 4th root of 3,240,000 Geometric Mean = 42.4 ent./100 ml http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water In situ 2 : In place, the original location, in the natural environment. Lab Duplicate 2 : Two or more representative positions taken from one homogeneous sample by the laboratory and analyzed in the same laboratory. Laboratory duplicate samples are quality control samples that are used to assess the intralaboratory preparatory and analytical precision. Loading Capacity 1 : The greatest amount of a substance that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 37

Nonpoint Source 1 : Pollution that enters any waters of the state from any dispersed land based or waterbased activities, including but not limited to atmospheric deposition, surface water runoff from agricultural lands, urban areas, or forest lands, subsurface or underground sources, or discharges from boats or marine vessels not otherwise regulated under the NPDES program. Generally, any unconfined and diffuse source of contamination. Legally, any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of point source in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act. Point Source 1 : Sources of pollution that discharge at a specific location from pipes, outfalls, and conveyance channels to a surface water. Pollution 1 : Such contamination, or other alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties, of any water 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 create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to (1) public health, safety or welfare, (2) domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate beneficial uses, (3) livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life. Primary Contact Recreation 1 : Activities where a person would have direct contact with water to the point of complete submergence including but not limited to, skin diving, swimming and water skiing. Quality Assurance 2 : An integrated system of activities involving planning, quality control, quality assessment, reporting and quality improvement to ensure that a product or service meets defined standards of quality with a stated level of confidence. Quality Control 2 : The overall system of technical activities whose purpose is to measure and control the quality of a product or service so that it meets the needs of users. Relative Percent Difference 2 : A measure of precision in the lab used as a quantitative indicator of QA/QC for repeated measurements where the outcomes are expected to be the same. This calculation is used to compare two measurements to determine the precision of the technique used; the lower the Relative Percent Difference, the more precise the results. This calculation can also measure accuracy when one of the results is the true value (such as the quality control lab results for a split sample or the actual concentration of a known or unknown sample). RPD = [X 1 X 2 }/X ave x 100, where: X 1 = concentration observed with the first detector or equipment; X 2 = concentration observed with the second detector, equipment, or absolute value; and X ave = average concentration = ((X1 + X2) / 2) Relative Standard Deviation 2 : A measurement of precision in the field also known as the absolute value of the coefficient of variation. This calculation allows the standard deviations of different measurements to be compared more meaningfully; this measures the precision of the person/s during a set of individual tests (replicates) performed for one specific water quality parameter. The lower the RSD, the more precise the results. RSD = 100*(standard deviation/ mean ) WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 38

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 1 : A distribution of a substance in a waterbody designed to protect it from exceeding water quality standards. A TMDL is equal to the sum of all of the following: (1) individual wasteload allocations for point sources, (2) the load allocations for nonpoint sources, (3) the contribution of natural sources, and (4) a Margin of Safety to allow for uncertainty in the wasteload determination. A reserve for future growth is also generally provided. Watershed 1 : A drainage area or basin in which all land and water areas drain or flow toward a central collector such as a stream, river or lake at a lower elevation. 1 www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0803105.html 2 http://www.epa.gov WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 39

Appendix B: Water Quality Review by Monitoring Station 2012 2010 2012 GMV Project Area Station # GMV %>200* 2012 Meets Stnd? All Wet Dry Portage M5 24 11.6 0.0 Meets Both 14.4 11.9 18.9 Portage M4 24 13.4 4.2 Meets Both 14.6 13.6 16.2 Portage M2 24 20.3 0.0 Meets Both 25.2 30.0 19.8 Portage M1 24 16.0 0.0 Meets Both 24.4 26.0 22.4 Portage AND 24 75.0 25.0 Exceeds One 93.2 52.1 210.3 Portage S1 24 87.8 20.8 Exceeds One 128.3 132.7 122.7 Portage S3 24 44.1 20.8 Exceeds One 97.8 121.6 73.0 Portage K1 24 116.9 29.2 Exceeds Both 156.9 125.1 215.5 Portage K1a 24 290.3 62.5 Exceeds Both 308.6 258.5 388.5 Portage F1 24 111.7 20.8 Exceeds Both 139.0 121.3 165.9 Portage F4 24 128.0 41.7 Exceeds Both 145.6 106.1 226.7 Portage B1 24 94.7 29.2 Exceeds One 99.0 78.3 137.4 Portage B3 12 114.8 25.0 Exceeds Both 103.3 71.9 171.5 Portage T1 24 49.2 20.8 Exceeds One 61.9 39.2 112.0 Portage DRC 12 117.7 41.7 Exceeds Both 126.7 98.9 179.2 Terrell TribFERN1 16 84.0 43.8 Exceeds Both 82.1 52.3 243.0 Terrell TribFIN1 12 9.3 16.7 Exceeds One 9.0 4.9 47.2 Terrell Ter8.4 18 23.3 11.1 Exceeds One 22.4 14.0 49.1 Terrell Ter7.8 18 62.3 27.8 Exceeds Both 51.7 20.0 227.3 Terrell Ter5.0 19 73.3 36.8 Exceeds Both 52.0 33.1 110.2 Terrell Ter3.3 17 29.4 11.8 Exceeds One 23.8 20.0 38.7 Terrell Ter1.9 20 59.4 25.0 Exceeds Both 48.2 33.5 85.7 Terrell Ter1.6 23 62.2 39.1 Exceeds Both 41.4 31.0 63.8 Terrell Ter0.7 23 42.2 17.4 Exceeds One 50.9 42.4 67.5 Terrell Ter0.1* 23 24.3 4.3 Meets Both 26.1 28.4 23.1 Terrell Ter0.1 23 28.8 8.7 Meets Both 30.6 27.2 36.5 Terrell TribTerJ1 15 28.4 13.3 Exceeds One 25.8 15.5 144.3 Terrell TribTerLP1 23 50.0 26.1 Exceeds One 50.6 29.5 115.5 Terrell TribTerBC1 17 55.4 35.3 Exceeds Both 95.0 80.7 171.1 Terrell TribTerBC2 17 70.3 23.5 Exceeds Both 92.7 48.7 637.2 BB Coastal BB3 8 21.5 12.5 Exceeds One 39.3 34.3 41.8 BB Coastal BB4 10 235.9 80.0 Exceeds Both 125.1 103.0 137.6 BB Coastal BB5 5 99.7 60.0 Exceeds Both 41.6 27.1 98.4 BB Coastal BB6 6 124.8 50.0 Exceeds Both 104.6 71.0 514.4 BB Coastal BB7 7 169.7 57.1 Exceeds Both 127.0 57.9 1146.9 BB Coastal BB8 8 530.5 87.5 Exceeds Both 728.3 431.1 2602.7 WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 40

2012 2010 2012 GMV Project Area Station # GMV %>200* 2012 Meets Stnd? All Wet Dry BB Coastal BB11 8 138.7 50.0 Exceeds Both 120.1 71.9 609.0 BB Coastal BB12 6 27.6 16.7 Exceeds One 8.7 9.5 2.0 BB Coastal BB15 8 6.3 0.0 Meets Both 9.1 7.5 20.1 BB Coastal BB16 8 279.4 87.5 Exceeds Both 140.4 161.5 84.9 BB Coastal BB18 8 62.3 37.5 Exceeds Both 57.4 38.2 360.8 BB Coastal BB19 8 47.6 25.0 Exceeds One 16.1 11.7 99.1 BB Coastal BB20 8 47.7 37.5 Exceeds One 44.1 38.5 72.4 BB Coastal BB21 8 723.3 87.5 Exceeds Both 328.0 224.8 3168.2 BB Coastal BB22 8 37.2 12.5 Exceeds Both 64.1 46.1 149.9 California Cal 0.1 11 31.6 0.0 Meets Both 39.7 44.0 33.8 California Cal 0.8 11 54.0 0.0 Meets Both 58.1 52.6 67.0 California Cal 1.9 11 48.6 9.1 Meets Both 51.8 37.4 86.4 California Cal 5.0 11 91.2 27.3 Exceeds One 68.5 42.3 146.1 California Cal 6.2 11 116.3 36.4 Exceeds Both 83.0 51.4 180.1 California Cal 7.5 11 106.2 9.1 Exceeds One 81.3 53.4 175.4 California CA1 11 244.8 54.5 Exceeds Both 187.6 89.9 596.5 California CA3 3 23.5 0.0 Meets Both 15.1 11.6 82.9 California CA6 11 47.1 0.0 Meets Both 34.2 21.1 70.8 California CA8 8 29.4 12.5 Exceeds One 47.6 22.7 209.4 California CA9 8 88.5 12.5 Exceeds One 185.1 116.6 554.4 California CA14c 8 233.5 50.0 Exceeds Both 373.7 276.3 1023.3 California CA15 9 50.5 33.3 Exceeds One 43.3 23.5 119.7 California CA16 11 141.2 36.4 Exceeds Both 123.6 58.8 410.7 Dakota Dak 0.1 11 39.1 0.0 Meets Both 37.8 39.0 36.0 Dakota Dak 0.6 10 45.2 0.0 Meets Both 50.7 45.3 58.8 Dakota Dak 3.1 10 44.1 0.0 Meets Both 49.5 37.7 73.2 Dakota Dak 6.8 11 58.6 0.0 Meets Both 51.8 43.1 68.1 Dakota NFDak0.1 11 72.0 9.1 Meets Both 71.9 60.6 93.0 Dakota SFDak0.2 11 36.8 0.0 Meets Both 43.2 31.1 70.7 Dakota NFDak2.5 11 109.3 18.2 Exceeds One 123.1 73.6 266.4 Dakota TribDak1 8 59.7 0.0 Meets Both 80.6 76.8 92.3 Dakota TribDak2 11 187.6 36.4 Exceeds Both 257.5 153.0 562.2 Dakota TribDak3 10 287.9 60.0 Exceeds Both 357.8 270.3 534.1 Dakota TribDak4 11 149.2 27.3 Exceeds Both 212.3 114.5 536.5 Dakota TribDak5 11 56.3 27.3 Exceeds One 51.7 28.5 126.2 Dakota TribDakN1 8 44.1 12.5 Exceeds One 56.7 54.4 63.2 Dakota TribDakN2 11 63.5 27.3 Exceeds One 77.3 38.6 218.5 Dakota TribDakS1 11 62.4 9.1 Meets Both 58.4 43.6 90.6 Dakota TribDakS2 11 96.9 36.4 Exceeds One 78.5 39.5 219.8 WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 41

2012 2010 2012 GMV Project Area Station # GMV %>200* 2012 Meets Stnd? All Wet Dry Dakota SFDak2.2 11 95.5 27.3 Exceeds One 68.6 41.1 147.9 Coastal CB1 9 20.9 11.1 Exceeds One 14.9 5.3 132.9 Coastal CB2 11 27.8 9.1 Meets Both 25.4 13.8 63.5 Coastal CB3 11 37.1 18.2 Exceeds One 34.8 18.1 92.5 Coastal CB4 9 67.8 22.2 Exceeds One 39.9 24.2 73.0 Coastal DH14 7 24.4 14.3 Exceeds One 16.5 13.4 54.6 Coastal DH2 8 10.5 12.5 Exceeds One 8.4 4.9 27.0 Coastal DH3 8 127.2 50.0 Exceeds Both 37.6 27.1 109.3 Coastal DH4 8 6.3 12.5 Exceeds One 6.0 4.3 15.1 Coastal DH5 9 164.1 22.2 Exceeds Both 56.0 41.4 102.3 Coastal LI4 9 142.4 33.3 Exceeds Both 84.5 98.5 63.3 Coastal LI1 8 106.5 37.5 Exceeds Both 71.9 41.5 374.4 * Greater than 100FC/100mL in Birch Bay and Terrell Creek. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 42

Appendix C: Whatcom County 2012 Fecal Coliform Levels and Shellfish Growing Area Status Map 2012 Water Quality Status: Fecal Coliform Green dot indicates meeting both parts of standard. Yellow dot indicates exceeding one part of the standard. Red dot indicates exceeding both parts of the standard. WC Water Quality Monitoring: Fecal Coliform QAPP Page 43