Draft Stormwater Monitoring and Assessment Strategy for the Puget Sound Region: Volume 1 Scientific Framework November 18, 2009 Jim Simmonds and Karen Dinicola Stormwater Work Group

2 Today’s Talk  Overview of program Purpose and scope of this effort Purpose and scope of this effort Scientific basis of the strategy Scientific basis of the strategy Initial hypotheses and monitoring designs Initial hypotheses and monitoring designs Peer review Peer review  Schedule and approach to finalize, adopt and implement the strategy

3 Stormwater Work Group  Pilot topical work group to be part of the new regional ecosystem monitoring program  Caucus-based committee with broad representation  Committed to creating a new business model for monitoring

4 What We Are Doing  Creating a monitoring and assessment strategy for the Puget Sound region that: Assesses and quantifies stormwater impacts Assesses and quantifies stormwater impacts Evaluates efficacy of management practices Evaluates efficacy of management practices Describes roles and responsibilities Describes roles and responsibilities

5 What This Effort Has Taken  Project manager: 75% FTE  Facilitator: 25% FTE  Chair: 30-50% FTE  Committee members: 20 x 5-20% FTE  Non-members on subgroups: ~8 x 5-15% FTE  Consultant assistance: ~800 hours  Meetings and workshops: $25K/year  Time

Scientific Basis  Adaptive management  Start with highest priority monitoring Provide the most important information to decision makers Provide the most important information to decision makers  Hypothesis-driven approach  “Credible, Testable, Actionable” 6

7

8 Assessment Questions  Long-term status, trends, and spatial extent of beneficial uses impacted by stormwater?  Efficacy of stormwater management actions at reducing impacts?  Sources of stormwater causing the impacts?

9 Prioritization Process  Brainstorming by committee  Technical expert work sessions  Consultant assistance  Public workshops

Approach  Review scientific frameworks for other regional programs  Develop and prioritize hypotheses  Draft initial experimental designs 10

Conceptual Model 11

12 AgriculturalResidentialCommercialIndustrial Marine  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 Wetlands  physical habitat Major Stormwater Impacts

13 Scientific Framework  Hypotheses for each of three categories of monitoring that address different scales: Status and trends Status and trends Effectiveness Effectiveness Source identification Source identification

Proposed Initial Experimental Designs  Status and trends monitoring Small streams Small streams Nearshore Nearshore  Effectiveness studies Low-impact development (LID) Low-impact development (LID) Industrial source control Industrial source control 14

15 Status and Trends  Small streams and nearshore  Focus on biota  Probabilistic design  Puget Sound wide  Can be sampled at higher density for areas/issues of concern for areas/issues of concern

16 Small Streams Status & Trends  Consistent with State’s ambient program  Permanent & rotating sites Streamflow Streamflow Benthic macroinvertebrates Benthic macroinvertebrates Sediment chemistry Sediment chemistry Physical habitat Physical habitat Water quality Water quality Toxicity testing Toxicity testing

17 Nearshore Status & Trends  Probabilistic design focused on biota  Permanent and rotating sites  Monitoring: Bacteria Bacteria Marine benthos Marine benthos Physical habitat Physical habitat Sediment chemistry Sediment chemistry Tissue chemistry Tissue chemistry mussels, herring, and English sole (also lesions)mussels, herring, and English sole (also lesions)

18 Effectiveness  Categories: Low-impact development techniques for future new development Low-impact development techniques for future new development Retrofit techniques for existing development Retrofit techniques for existing development Non-structural operational and programmatic approaches Non-structural operational and programmatic approaches  Initial studies

19 Low-impact Development  Small-scale residential LID projects  Outfall stations, background stations, downstream stations  3 years of monitoring: Weather, flow, ground- water elevation Weather, flow, ground- water elevation Benthic macroinvertebrates Benthic macroinvertebrates Water & sediment quality, toxicity Water & sediment quality, toxicity

November, Industrial Source Control  Outfalls at both test and control basins  3 years of water quality monitoring: Baseflow Baseflow Storms Storms

21 Source Identification  Local scale plus collective regional assessments  ID and track sources of chemicals or runoff volumes that are impacting beneficial uses

22 Summary of Proposed Monitoring Status and TrendsEffectivenessSource 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

23 Additional Science Needs  Data management  Standard operating procedures  Land use/land cover data  Climate data  Modeling

24 Formal Peer Review Panel  Rich Horner, Univ. of Washington  Bob Pitt, Univ. of Alabama  Jean Spooner, North Carolina State Univ.  Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Network  Steve Weisberg, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project

Completing the Scientific Framework  Public comments and peer review due COB November 30, 2009  Post on webpage: All comments All comments Responses to formal peer review comments Responses to formal peer review comments  SWG will address gaps, issues: scientific framework complete early

26 Volume 2: Implementation Plan  Necessary mechanics for a scientifically credible program SOPs, data reporting, data management, etc. SOPs, data reporting, data management, etc.  Roles and responsibilities Coordinated approach to implementation Coordinated approach to implementation

Completing the Strategy  Complete scientific framework  Implementation planning January-April 2010; another workshop in May 2010 Interact with Ecosystem Coordination Board Interact with Ecosystem Coordination Board Interact with Science Panel Interact with Science Panel  Final strategy to PSP and Ecology by June 30, 2010 Brief Leadership Council Brief Leadership Council 27