1. SMR Nutrient Initiative Group Investigative Order Workplan
June 26, 2019
Matt Yeager, D.Env
Senior Flood Control Planner
Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District

2. Tentative IO R9-2019-0007 Purpose of the IO
…to assess the condition of the Estuary and to evaluate the linkage between nutrient loading trends resulting from implementation actions by…(the MS4 Permittees)
Estimated Costs $450K / year; for 4 yrs
More on costs in SAG meeting
Requires a Monitoring and Assessment Workplan
Monitoring and Assessment Workplan Questions
Monitoring Requirements
Estuary
SMR (River and Watershed)
Workplan Submittals

3. Tentative IO R9-2019-0007 Compliance Dates
Workplan due within 6 months
Submit to SD Water Board by November 9 (11thMon)
Begin Monitoring within 60 days of Workplan approval
Regional Board review (30 days?)
4 “water years” of monitoring (Oct 1 – Sep 30)
Start date = October 1, 2010?
3 Annual Reports required starting January 31, 2021
Final Report due March 31, 2024
Monitoring and Assessment Workplan Questions

4. Monitoring and Assessment Workplan Questions
Is watershed mass loading of total nitrogen and total phosphorous to the River and Estuary reduced to levels that do not exceed the calculated assimilative capacity of the Estuary?
Do monitoring results confirm the assumption that the implementation and enforcement of existing NPDES permits and WDRs is sufficient to bring about the necessary nutrient load reductions to restore the Estuary in accordance with the schedule…?
Are the Estuary numeric targets in Finding 16 and the Draft Staff Report for macroalgal biomass, dissolved oxygen, and Benthic Community Condition being achieved and sustained?
If not, based on available information, what are the primary stressors causing unsatisfactory conditions?

5. TAC Review of Workplan Workplan must include:
Maps showing proposed monitoring locations and associated GIS data.
List of monitoring parameters.
Frequency of monitoring events.
Methods to be used to collect and analyze monitoring data.
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
An assessment of trends with projections for when the numeric targets would be achieved, or an explanation indicating why data is insufficient to do so.

6. TAC Review of Workplan Workplan Development Schedule
Draft Workplan by August 15, 2019
Review by TAC
Discuss at August 28 TAC meeting
Revised Draft Workplan by October 4
Review by TAC as needed
Discuss at TAC meeting or by teleconference
Revise, finalize, and submit November 11
QAPP will be prepared in Parallel
Clarify this requirement

7. TAC Review of Workplan Any Recommendations/Direction from the TAC?
Monitoring requirements
Methods/Labs
Sampling Contractors
Review/Coordination

8. (Draft Revised)Monitoring Requirements
Program Element
Parameter
Duration/ Time Frame
Depth
Sites
Frequency
Method
Resurfacing Groundwater
Monitoring
Discharge rates, and total and dissolved inorganic N and P Loading Into Estuary
As needed
N/A
Former Stuart Mesa Agricultural Fields & Santa Margarita Valley Basin
Biannual: Winter dry and summer dry monitoring
Applicable Standard Methods Monitoring efforts include a QAPP and must be led by State Certified Geologist
Estuary Monitoring
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l and percent saturation), temperature, pH, Salinity/conductivity, turbidity, water depth, and degree of tidal muting or influence
April – October and during winter period (including 3 monitoring periods)
Near surface
~ 0.5 meters
2 sites: I-5 bridge and Stuart Mesa bridge
Continuous monitoring at 15 min. intervals
Data sonde with optical sensor. In accordance with applicable SCCWRP Southern California Bight Regional Monitoring Protocols
Estuary surface water chlorophyll a, total and dissolved inorganic N and P concentrations.
April – October (monthly?) and 3 times during winter dry weather
Applicable SWAMP and Standard Methods
Macroalgal Biomass
April – October
Intertidal and or subtidal as appropriate within the three regions of Estuary - below I-5 bridge, above Stuart Mesa bridge until vegetation changes, and between the two bridges.
Macroalgal biomass samples harvested representatively from each of three regions.
Monthly
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Macroalgal Collection in Estuarine Environments.
SCCWRP Technical Report #872
Estuary Monitoring (Cont.)
Estuary Benthic Community Condition, Sediment %OC, sediment %N and %P, and sediment grain size.
At depths that align with the Macroalgal sampling (so that relationships between Benthic Community Condition and other parameters may be logically inferred).
Three randomly distributed sites for each of three regions in estuary.
Once per year in the late summer
Standard methods
(Sediment Quality Assessment Technical Support Manual, SCCWRP Tech Report 582, 2009). Additional accepted methods that may be developed.

9. (Draft Revised)Monitoring Requirements
Program Element
Parameter
Duration/ Time Frame
Depth
Sites
Frequency
Method
Santa Margarita River
Monitoring
River water flow, temperature, conductivity, ambient total and dissolved inorganic N and P.
Monthly (May – October) and Bi-monthly (November – March)
N/A
A minimum of one site for San Diego County, Riverside County, and USMC Base Camp Pendleton.
Continuous flow
Monthly May to October and Bi-monthly thereafter
 (including November, January and March)
Standard Operating
Procedures for the
collection of field data
for bioassessments
of California wadable
streams: benthic
macroinvertebrates,
algae, and physical
habitat
(Bioassessment
SOP).
Deleted Footnotes
[1] Evaluate the use of depth, berm height, or other data as indicators of the condition at the mouth of the estuary (end member condition = fully open or fully closed).
[2] Water quality parameters will be measured from November – April at intervals as determined during development of the Work Plan.
[3] Sampling frequency will be evaluated following completion of one year of sampling; frequencies for subsequent years will be determined in coordination with the SMRNIG TAC and SAG.
[4] Macroalgal sampling protocol will be developed by Camp Pendleton in coordination with the Regional Board and the SMRNIG TAC as part of the Work Plan.

10. Monitoring and Assessment Workplan Questions
Monitoring of resurfacing groundwater discharge rates and groundwater total nitrogen and total phosphorus mass loading into the Estuary, to confirm that resurfacing groundwater is no longer a significant source of nutrient loading to the Estuary. Camp Pendleton must monitor resurfacing groundwater nutrient loading into the Estuary from the former Stuart Mesa Agricultural Fields. Data from existing monitoring and modeling efforts may be used to estimate resurfacing groundwater nutrient loading into the Estuary from the Santa Margarita Valley Groundwater Basin.
What does this mean?

11. Questions/Discussion

12. SMRNIG Document Website--Intro
The Santa Margarita Watershed Nutrient Initiative – Stakeholder Group, composed of a broad range of stakeholders with diverse interests, was formed in 2012 to address nutrient issues in the Santa Margarita River Watershed. This Stakeholder Group, with support from a Technical Advisory Committee, is working through a collaborative, inclusive, and regional process, using state of the science techniques, to develop regulatory targets and monitoring programs, and to recommend management approaches to ensure that the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the Santa Margarita River and its tributaries are protected.The Group currently is focused on the initial phase of this project, Phase 1, which targets the development of the methods that are used to prepare and implement a workplan to use a nutrient numeric endpoint (NNE) methodology to understand nutrient impacts to the SMR Lagoon.
Technical investigations were initiated in 2006 by the San Diego Lagoons Investigative Order (R ). Phases I and II of follow-up grant-funded technical work developed models to apply a nutrient numeric endpoint methodology to evaluate nutrient impacts to the SMR Lagoon, collected comparable data for nutrient loading and transport processes, and developed regulatory targets for the Lagoon. Through evaluation of the model simulations and discussions during the collaborative development of the targets, the stakeholders have achieved a greater understanding of the seasonal impact of nutrients on the beneficial uses. Phase I and II efforts were conducted from 2011 to 2018 and were supported by Proposition 84 IRWM grant funds.
In early 2019, the group initiated Phase III of the Project, which extends the work conducted for the Lagoon in Phases I and II to explore a range of biostimulatory targets that are protective of beneficial uses in the Santa Margarita River main stem under the present climate conditions and under climate change and/or extreme climate scenarios. Phase III will also identify potential restoration actions to improve biointegrity and reduce eutrophication, and will calculate load and waste load allocations required to meet the proposed biostimulatory targets. The technical work in Phase III is being funded by the San Diego Water Board.

13. SAG Workplan Discussion
MS4s required to prepare/submit Workplan
Weston under contract to start Workplan
USMC Camp Pendleton working on GW monitoring
Schedule (submit November 11, 2019)
Who conducts the monitoring? TBD
Cost sharing for estuary monitoring? TBD
Expect to prepare an Agreement

14. Cost Estimate

15. Cost Estimate
Task No.
Description
Year 1 Cost
Year 2 Cost
Year 3 Cost
Year 4 Cost
Total 1
Estuary Continuous Monitoring
$74,185
$296,740 2
Estuary Surface Water Quality & Algal Biomass Monitoring
$90,955
$363,820 3
Estuary Sediment Monitoring
$45,653
$182,612 4
Santa Margarita River Monitoring
$140,299
$123,496
$129,277
$516,568 5
Monitoring Plan and QAPP Preparation
$36,372 $0 6
Annual Report Preparation
$51,872
$65,962
$221,578 7
CEDEN Data
$6,530
$26,120 8
Project Management & Meetings
$15,480
$61,920
$461,346
$408,171
$428,042
$1,705,730

16. Total 4 Year Estimated Costs
Cost Estimate
Category
Year 1 Cost
Year 2 Cost
Year 3 Cost
Year 4 Cost
Total 4 Year Estimated Costs
Prepare Workplan and QAPP
$36,372 $0
Field Work and Program Management Effort
$259,887
$244,645
$250,165
$999,342
Laboratory Analysis, Materials, Supplies
$105,385
$105,124
$106,685
$422,317
Report Preparation and CEDEN
$58,402
$72,492
$247,698
Total
$460,046
$408,171
$429,342
$1,705,730

17. Cost Estimate Total = $1,839,828 (4 years) River Monitoring = $516,168
Estuary Monitoring = $843,172
Continuous = $296,740
Surface and algal = $363,820
Sediment = $182,612
GW Monitoring = $171,300
Monitoring = $155,300 (4 yrs)
Model runs = $16,000 (2 runs; yrs 1 and 4)
Administration = $309,188
Reporting = $247,898
Proj Management = $61,290

18. Cost Allocation Factors
Watershed area
Population
Land use
Nutrient load

19. Questions/Discussion