1. Developing a Stormwater Monitoring Program for the Future: Volume 1 Scientific Framework November 10, 2009 Jim Simmonds The Stormwater Work Group

2. November 10, 20092 What is the Right Title of this Talk?  A Monitoring Program for the Future  Can’t 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. November 10, 20093 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. November 10, 20094 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 Test-driving a decision-making process  All work groups to be coordinated by Puget Sound Partnership  A caucus-based committee with broad representation

5. November 10, 20095 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 A scientific framework for monitoring stormwater impacts and management effectiveness An implementation plan describing roles and responsibilities, including possible NPDES permit requirements An implementation plan describing roles and responsibilities, including possible NPDES permit requirements

6. November 10, 20096  Local governments  Private businesses  Environmental groups  State agencies  Federal agencies  Tribes  Agriculture  Ports Stormwater Work Group Caucuses

7. November 10, 20097 Work Group Schedule  June-Sept ’08 – Launch committee  Oct ’08 to April ’09 – Scope problem  May ’09 – 1 st public workshop  June-Oct ’09 – Design scientific framework  Nov ’09 – 2 nd public workshop (we are here)  Nov ‘09 to April ’10 – Develop implementation plan  May ’10 – 3 rd public workshop  June ’10 – Deliver strategy to Puget Sound Partnership and Department of Ecology

8. June - Oct 2008 - 2010 Work Plan 2009 May Nov May June We are here First Regional Workshop: Early Ideas Second Regional Workshop: Scientific Framework & Implementation Work Group Develops Draft Scientific Framework Convene Work Group 2008 Oct Stormwater Work Group Schedule 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 2010 Dec - April

9. November 10, 20099 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. November 10, 200910 A New Approach is Needed  Should we keep doing more of same kind of monitoring even if we’re not getting the information we need or if new solutions are obvious?

11. November 10, 200911 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. November 10, 200912 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. November 10, 200913 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. November 10, 200914 Winter/Spring 2009: Key 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. November 10, 200915 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. November 10, 200916 Summer/Fall 2009: Draft Scientific Framework  Hire technical experts to draft document Derek Booth, monitoring objectives Derek Booth, monitoring objectives John Lenth, experimental design John Lenth, experimental design Leska Fore, communication and process Leska Fore, communication and process  Review scientific frameworks for programs from elsewhere in the country  Develop and prioritize hypotheses  Develop draft experimental designs

17. November 10, 200917 Project Management  We kept to our schedule  We stayed within our budget  We squeezed in as much content as possible, but wanted more  We didn’t do as much review as we wanted

18. November 10, 200918 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 Status and Trends Effectiveness Effectiveness Source Identification Source Identification

19. November 10, 200919

20. November 10, 200920

21. November 10, 200921 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

22. November 10, 200922 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. November 10, 200923 Example Probabilistic Sampling Design for Small Streams

24. November 10, 200924 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 Continuous flow Annual benthic macroinvertebrates, sediment chemistry, physical habitat Annual benthic macroinvertebrates, sediment chemistry, physical habitat Baseflow and wet-weather water quality Baseflow and wet-weather water quality Twice-yearly wet-weather in-situ toxicity testing Twice-yearly wet-weather in-situ toxicity testing

25. November 10, 200925 Proposed Experimental Design: Nearshore  Number of sites not proposed  Monthly monitoring for bacteria in water  Annual monitoring for Marine benthos Marine benthos Tissue chemistry of mussels, herring, and English sole livers Tissue chemistry of mussels, herring, and English sole livers Liver lesions in English sole Liver lesions in English sole Sediment chemistry Sediment chemistry Physical habitat Physical habitat

26. November 10, 200926 Proposed Experimental Design: Effectiveness  Three basic designs Upstream / downstream comparison Upstream / downstream comparison Before / after comparison Before / after comparison Test site / control site comparison Test site / control site comparison  Hypotheses developed for 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  Focus on low impact development and industrial source control effectiveness

27. November 10, 200927 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 Continuous weather, flow, and groundwater elevation Monthly water quality Monthly water quality Six per year groundwater quality Six per year groundwater quality Storm event water quality Storm event water quality Annual benthic macroinvertebrate and sediment quality Annual benthic macroinvertebrate and sediment quality Twice-yearly wet-weather in-situ toxicity testing Twice-yearly wet-weather in-situ toxicity testing

28. November 10, 200928 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. November 10, 200929 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 Detailed monitoring upstream of impacts to identify sources Mapping of connected impervious area Mapping of connected impervious area On-site septic system inspections On-site septic system inspections Business inspections Business inspections Illicit discharge programs Illicit discharge programs Other programs Other programs

30. November 10, 200930 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

31. November 10, 200931 Additional Science Needs  Data management  Standard operating procedures  Land use/land cover data  Climate data  Modeling

32. November 10, 200932 Caveat  We are not done!  We are looking for feedback!  Specific questions highlighted in “Dear Reader” text boxes Is the approach scientifically defensible? Is the approach scientifically defensible? Are the three monitoring categories appropriate? Are the three monitoring categories appropriate? Are the hypotheses addressing the highest priority information needs? Are the hypotheses addressing the highest priority information needs? Have we captured the major stormwater impacts? Have we captured the major stormwater impacts? Will the experimental designs provide the information needed? Will the experimental designs provide the information needed? Are additional experimental designs needed? Are additional experimental designs needed?

33. November 10, 200933 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. November 10, 200934 Finishing the Scientific Framework  Comments due by November 30 Submit initial comments today Submit initial comments today Submit comments to Karen Dinicola, project manager, at karen.dinicola@ecy.wa.gov Submit comments to Karen Dinicola, project manager, at karen.dinicola@ecy.wa.gov karen.dinicola@ecy.wa.gov  Scientific peer review completed by November 30  Final scientific framework in early 2010

35. November 10, 200935 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. November 10, 200936 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. November 10, 200937 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. June - Oct 2008 - 2010 Work Plan 2009 May Nov May June We are here First Regional Workshop: Early Ideas Second Regional Workshop: Scientific Framework & Implementation Work Group Develops Draft Scientific Framework Convene Work Group 2008 Oct Stormwater Work Group Schedule 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 2010 Dec - April