Developing a Stormwater Monitoring Program for the Future: Volume 1 Scientific Framework - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 38
About This Presentation
Title:

Developing a Stormwater Monitoring Program for the Future: Volume 1 Scientific Framework

Description:

Overview of the Scientific Framework and Issues Remaining to be Resolved ... Rich Horner, University of Washington. Bob Pitt, University of Alabama ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:35
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 39
Provided by: jsi82
Learn more at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Developing a Stormwater Monitoring Program for the Future: Volume 1 Scientific Framework


1
Developing a Stormwater Monitoring Programfor
the FutureVolume 1Scientific Framework
The Stormwater Work Group
  • November 10, 2009
  • Jim Simmonds

2
What is the Right Title of this Talk?
  • A Monitoring Program for the Future
  • Cant We All Just Get Along
  • Stormwater Work Group Status Update
  • Change You Can Believe In
  • Overview of the Scientific Framework and Issues
    Remaining to be Resolved
  • This is Not Your Grandparents Monitoring Program

3
Overview
  • What/Who is the Stormwater Work Group
  • Why do we exist?
  • What have we done this last year?
  • What is in the Scientific Framework and what is
    not?
  • Next Steps

4
Stormwater Work Group
  • One of 3-5 initial topical work groups likely to
    be included in the new regional program
  • Test-driving a decision-making process
  • All work groups to be coordinated by Puget Sound
    Partnership
  • A caucus-based committee with broad representation

5
Our Charge
  • By summer 2010 develop a regional coordinated
    stormwater monitoring and assessment strategy
    including
  • A scientific framework for monitoring stormwater
    impacts and management effectiveness
  • An implementation plan describing roles and
    responsibilities, including possible NPDES permit
    requirements

6
Stormwater Work Group Caucuses
  • Local governments
  • Private businesses
  • Environmental groups
  • State agencies
  • Federal agencies
  • Tribes
  • Agriculture
  • Ports

7
Work Group Schedule
  • June-Sept 08 Launch committee
  • Oct 08 to April 09 Scope problem
  • May 09 1st public workshop
  • June-Oct 09 Design scientific framework
  • Nov 09 2nd public workshop (we are here)
  • Nov 09 to April 10 Develop implementation
    plan
  • May 10 3rd public workshop
  • June 10 Deliver strategy to Puget Sound
    Partnership and Department of Ecology

8
Stormwater Work Group Schedule
2008 - 2010 Work Plan
June - Oct
2009 May
2008 Oct
2010 Dec - April
May June
Nov
First Regional Workshop Early Ideas
Second Regional Workshop Scientific Framework
Implementation
Work Group Develops Draft Scientific Framework
Convene Work Group
Final Strategy Delivered to Puget Sound
Partnership and Department of Ecology
Third Regional Workshop Implementa-tion Plan
Work Group Completes Scientific Framework and
Develops Draft Implementation Plan
We are here
9
The Current Situation
  • Disparate stormwater
  • monitoring programs
  • Poor coordination
  • Not extensible to locations
  • without monitoring
  • Very expensive
  • Monitoring decisions made in a closed process
  • Not designed to provide most needed information

10
A New Approach is Needed
  • Should we keep doing more of same kind of
    monitoring even if were not getting the
    information we need or if new solutions are
    obvious?

11
The Science We Want
  • Holistic monitoring strategy
  • Focused on priority information needs
  • Monitoring programs are well designed
  • Integrated with other monitoring efforts
  • Consistent protocols and data management
  • Analyzed information is credible

12
The Governance We Want
  • Coordinated among all entities
  • Stakeholders are engaged, on board
  • Transparent and open governance
  • Leverages capacity and uses limited resources
    more wisely
  • Results in better decisions and management actions

13
Who Will Use the Strategy?
  • Ecology, for next round NPDES stormwater permits
  • Puget Sound Partnership, monitoring for ecosystem
    recovery
  • State and federal agencies
  • Local governments
  • Others

14
Winter/Spring 2009Key Information Needs
  • What do we need to know to inform our decision
    making, and to verify things are getting better?
  • Brainstorming and prioritization by committee
  • Technical expert work sessions
  • Public workshop in May
  • Technical expert 2-day sprint workshop

15
Three Summary Questions
  • What are the long-term status and trends of
    beneficial uses that are impacted by stormwater?
  • How effective are various stormwater management
    actions at reducing stormwater impacts?
  • Where are the sources of stormwater causing the
    impacts to beneficial uses?

16
Summer/Fall 2009Draft Scientific Framework
  • Hire technical experts to draft document
  • Derek Booth, monitoring objectives
  • John Lenth, experimental design
  • Leska Fore, communication and process
  • Review scientific frameworks for programs from
    elsewhere in the country
  • Develop and prioritize hypotheses
  • Develop draft experimental designs

17
Project Management
  • We kept to our schedule
  • We stayed within our budget
  • We squeezed in as much content as possible, but
    wanted more
  • We didnt do as much review as we wanted

18
Scientific Framework
  • Provide the most important
  • information to decision makers
  • Adaptive management
  • Includes multiple scales
  • Highest priority monitoring proposed first
  • Hypothesis driven approach
  • 3 main categories of monitoring
  • Status and Trends
  • Effectiveness
  • Source Identification

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Major Stormwater Impacts
Agricultural Residential Commercial Industrial
Marine toxics accumulation in food chain toxics accumulation in food chain
Nearshore shellfish growing areas contact recreation shellfish growing areas toxics accumulation in food chain contact recreation shellfish growing areas contact recreation shellfish growing areas toxics accumulation in food chain contact recreation
Small streams benthic invertebrates acute toxicity contact recreation physical habitat eutrophication benthic invertebrates acute toxicity contact recreation physical habitat eutrophication flooding benthic invertebrates acute toxicity physical habitat flooding benthic invertebrates acute toxicity physical habitat
Rivers benthic invertebrates
Lakes benthic invertebrates contact recreation eutrophication benthic invertebrates toxics accumulation in food chain contact recreation eutrophication drinking water  
Groundwater drinking water drinking water drinking water drinking water
Wetlands physical habitat physical habitat physical habitat physical habitat
22
Status and Trends
  • Focus on small streams and nearshore
  • Biologically-based
  • Long-term trends over time
  • Estimate fraction of resource not meeting
    beneficial uses
  • All of Puget Sound basin
  • Probabilistic design
  • Can be sampled at
  • higher density in
  • subareas (e.g., WRIA)

23
Example Probabilistic Sampling Design for Small
Streams
24
Proposed Experimental Design Small Streams
  • Similar to program implemented by Ecology this
    past summer
  • 20 permanent sites, 90 rotating sites (30 per
    year)
  • Continuous flow
  • Annual benthic macroinvertebrates, sediment
    chemistry, physical habitat
  • Baseflow and wet-weather water quality
  • Twice-yearly wet-weather in-situ toxicity testing

25
Proposed Experimental Design Nearshore
  • Number of sites not proposed
  • Monthly monitoring for bacteria in water
  • Annual monitoring for
  • Marine benthos
  • Tissue chemistry of mussels, herring, and English
    sole livers
  • Liver lesions in English sole
  • Sediment chemistry
  • Physical habitat

26
Proposed Experimental Design Effectiveness
  • Three basic designs
  • Upstream / downstream comparison
  • Before / after comparison
  • Test site / control site comparison
  • Hypotheses developed for
  • Low impact development techniques for future new
    development
  • Retrofit techniques for existing development
  • Non-structural operational and programmatic
    approaches
  • Focus on low impact development and industrial
    source control effectiveness

27
Proposed Experimental Design LID Effectiveness
  • Six small-scale residential low-impact
    development projects
  • Outfall stations, background stations,
    downstream stations
  • 3 years
  • Continuous weather, flow, and groundwater
    elevation
  • Monthly water quality
  • Six per year groundwater quality
  • Storm event water quality
  • Annual benthic macroinvertebrate and sediment
    quality
  • Twice-yearly wet-weather in-situ toxicity testing

28
Proposed Experimental Design Industrial Source
Control Effectiveness
  • Two outfalls per facility
  • One test basin, one control basin
  • Water quality monitoring during baseflow and
    storm events
  • 3 years

29
Proposed Experimental Design Source
Identification
  • Local scale
  • Track sources of chemical or volume that is
    impacting beneficial uses
  • Detailed monitoring upstream of impacts to
    identify sources
  • Mapping of connected impervious area
  • On-site septic system inspections
  • Business inspections
  • Illicit discharge programs
  • Other programs

30
Summary of Proposed Monitoring
Status and Trends Effectiveness Source ID
Marine
Nearshore Probabilistic survey design (resident fish, forage fish, shellfish, bacteria, sediment, toxics) Fecal coliform bacteria Industrial (toxics)
Small streams Probabilistic survey design (salmon, invertebrates, toxics) Low impact development (hydrology, biota, water quality) Urban retrofits (pollutants, toxics, water quantity) Industrial source control (pollutants) Public education (pollutants) Street sweeping (pollutants) Altered flows Impervious surface (hydrology) Industrial (toxics) Vehicle miles as surrogate (pollutants)
Rivers
Lakes
Groundwater
Wetlands
31
Additional Science Needs
  • Data management
  • Standard operating procedures
  • Land use/land cover data
  • Climate data
  • Modeling

32
Caveat
  • We are not done!
  • We are looking for feedback!
  • Specific questions highlighted in Dear Reader
    text boxes
  • Is the approach scientifically defensible?
  • Are the three monitoring categories appropriate?
  • Are the hypotheses addressing the highest
    priority information needs?
  • Have we captured the major stormwater impacts?
  • Will the experimental designs provide the
    information needed?
  • Are additional experimental designs needed?

33
Scientific Peer Review
  • Rich Horner, University of Washington
  • Bob Pitt, University of Alabama
  • Jean Spooner, North Carolina State University
  • Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Network
  • Steve Weisberg, Southern California Coastal Water
    Research Project

34
Finishing the Scientific Framework
  • Comments due by November 30
  • Submit initial comments today
  • Submit comments to Karen Dinicola, project
    manager, at karen.dinicola_at_ecy.wa.gov
  • Scientific peer review completed by November 30
  • Final scientific framework in early 2010

35
Schedule for Volume 2 Implementation Plan
  • Start work on this TODAY
  • Draft report planned for April, 2010
  • Workshop 3 in May, 2010
  • Final implementation plan report by June 30, 2010

36
Ideas to Explore/Include
  • Management structure for monitoring
  • Relationship between monitoring and policy
  • Roles and responsibilities for monitoring
  • Relationship to and role of NPDES permits
  • Cost estimates
  • Funding approach
  • Integration and synthesis of results
  • Methods for selecting, funding, and overseeing
    effectiveness and source identification studies
  • Additional science needs

37
Key Issues to Ponder
  • Economic conditions
  • Leveraging existing capabilities
  • Public and political support
  • Relationship between municipal and industrial
    permits, and need for watershed approach
  • Overcoming fear of data due to possible future
    requirements
  • Maintaining and expanding cooperation

38
Stormwater Work Group Schedule
2008 - 2010 Work Plan
June - Oct
2009 May
2008 Oct
2010 Dec - April
May June
Nov
First Regional Workshop Early Ideas
Second Regional Workshop Scientific Framework
Implementation
Work Group Develops Draft Scientific Framework
Convene Work Group
Final Strategy Delivered to Puget Sound
Partnership and Department of Ecology
Third Regional Workshop Implementa-tion Plan
Work Group Completes Scientific Framework and
Develops Draft Implementation Plan
We are here
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com