Santa Margarita River WQIP. Consultation Committee Meeting September 7, 2016

Transcription

1 Santa Margarita River WQIP Consultation Committee Meeting September 7,

2 Welcome and Introductions Responsible Agencies Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Counties Riverside San Diego Cities Menifee Murrieta Temecula Wildomar 2

3 Welcome and Introductions Consultation Committee Members Required Members Erica Ryan, San Diego RWQCB Terri Biancardi, Environmental Community Dr. Mark Grey, Development Community At Large Members Ben Drake, Temecula Winegrowers Association Andy Domenigoni, Riverside County Farm Bureau Kyle Cook, Camp Pendleton Marine Base Pablo Bryant, Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Laurie Correa, Regional Conservation Authority Rick Neugebauer, Temecula, Elsinore, Anza, Murrieta (TEAM-RCD) 3

4 Purpose & Structure Dave Ceppos, CSUS Associate Director 4

5 Meeting Purpose Provide transparency Receive recommendations Answer questions Build working relationships 5

6 Consultation Committee Review draft submittals of WQIP Written recommendations and comments Represent service area category & expertise All recommendations will be considered 6

7 Public Participation Process Calls for Data Workshops Consultation Committee Regional Board Comment Period 7

8 Meeting Ground Rules Listen to understand Everyone s perspective is valued Everyone has an equal opportunity to participate Keep the conversation focused 8

9 Meeting Objectives WQIP Overview Prioritization Process Water Quality Conditions Preliminary Priorities Potential Potential Strategies 9

10 Stormwater Permit Background Subject Expert, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 10

11 Regulatory Background 1987, the Clean Water Act shifted focus to stormwater from urban land uses. The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit is born. MS4s are conveyances owned by a public entity for transporting stormwater (e.g. curbs, gutters, storm drains). Any government entity that owns, operates or maintains an MS4 must have Permit. 11

12 San Diego Region MS4 Permit Adopted May 2013 Amended April 2015 to include Orange County & November 2015 to include Riverside County Paradigm shift Prescriptive requirements to outcome based results Watershed focus Requires Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIPs) 12

13 Santa Margarita Watershed Management Area Riverside County San Diego County 13

14 WQIPs Focus planning & future implementation on watershed priority conditions Establish numeric goals, strategies & schedules Incorporate monitoring, assessment & adaptive management programs 14

15 Watershed Planning - Overview 2 year development process Public participation requirement Collaborative process Consultation Committee Mandated interim deliverables Phased approach 15

16 Watershed Planning Phase I Assess Receiving Water Conditions Assess Impacts from MS4 Discharges Identify Priority Water Quality Conditions Identify MS4 Sources/Stressors Develop Potential Water Quality Improvement Strategies and Check In 16

17 Watershed Planning Phase II Develop Numeric Goals & Schedules Develop Water Quality Improvement Strategies & Schedules Jurisdictional and Watershed Identify MS4 Sources/Stressors Optional Watershed Management Area Analysis (WMAA) and Check In 17

18 Watershed Planning Phase III Prepare Monitoring & Assessment Program Develop Iterative Approach & Adaptive Management Process Re-evaluation of Priority Conditions Adaptation of Goals, Strategies & Schedules Adaptation of Monitoring & Assessment Program Submit Draft Plans 18

19 WQIP Overview of Elements Water Quality Improvement Plans include: Priority conditions Potential strategies Today s focus Goals Strategies and schedules Monitoring Assessment 19

20 Preliminary Prioritization Process and Results Ashli Desai, Larry Walker Associates Jo Ann Weber, County of San Diego 20

21 Prioritization Process Priority water quality conditions: pollutants, stressors and/or receiving water conditions that are highest threat to receiving water quality or that most adversely affect the quality of receiving waters Goal was to develop a process that: Utilized available data and information of all types Considered known impacts to beneficial uses Incorporate local knowledge and information about watercourse function, environmental values, community goals, habitat preservation, etc. 21

22 DRAFT Ranking Process SMR Watershed Yes Is the Reach/Beneficial Use Combination subject to a Significant Regulatory Action? Yes Is MS4 Contributing to Reach? No No Conduct evaluation to determine if beneficial uses impacted Potential impact based on beneficial use specific evaluations* Tier 1 Priority Tier 2 Priority Tier 3 Priority Not a Priority Calculate WQI for each Tier 1 reach, condition, and beneficial use; T2/T3 go to functional uplift evaluation T1 MS4 is a potential source? Yes Rank Tier 1 reaches by WQI scores (lower score = higher priority) T2/T3 No * If beneficial use information is insufficient to assess impacts, calculate WQI. If WQI < 80, consider T2 where WQI = 0 50 or T3 where WQI = Evaluate functional uplift and stakeholder priorities to determine highest priority water quality condition(s)

23 Cat Metric Question(s) / Criteria (1) Biological Indices (a) Does the CSCI (or IBI) score for the reach indicate potential impacts to aquatic life uses? YES if CSCI <0.79 or IBI 40 Beneficial Use Evaluation Dry Wet Result Tier Result Tier CSCI Score = Less than 0.79 but greater than reference reach. YES CSCI Score = Less than 0.79 but greater than reference reach. YES Data Source SMC Data for 5-year report NO if CSCI 0.79 or IBI 41 (b) Has the impact been fully attributed to natural causes (e.g., drought)? ND ND - MS4 is a potential Source? Question Result Tier Is MS4 contributing to the water quality condition (from monitoring data)? Data Source Aquatic Life Uses (c) Has eutrophication, toxicity, or physical habitat been identified as a stressor impacting aquatic life uses of the water body? (a) Perennial flow? (2) (b) Is macroalgal Eutrophication biomass data indicative of potential impacts to aquatic life uses? YES YES YES N/A N/A Biomass = 84.8 mg chl-a/m 2 NO NAP N/A N/A Is MS4 contributing to the water quality condition (from monitoring data)? Water Quality Index (WQI) - Tier 1 only (3) Toxicity (a) Is chronic toxicity observed within the reach? 3 Samples with TUc >1 No samples TUc >1 NO YES (b) Is the chronic toxicity persistent? NO 2 NO MS4 Permit MS4 Permit Is MS4 contributing to the water quality condition (from monitoring data)? Yes (Dry Only) 2 RCFCWCD MS4 Permit (4) Physical Habitat (a) Do CRAM scores indicate that physical habitat may be causing impacts to aquatic life? (b) Is there evidence of hydromodification within the reach? CRAM Score = 73 YES CRAM Score = 73 YES ND 2 ND 2 SMC Data for 5-year report 23

24 Upper Watershed Preliminary Results 24

25 25

26 Upper SMR Preliminary Prioritization Results Summary Dry Weather Reach # Reach Name Trash* Recreation 1 Murrieta Creek I 2 Slaughterhouse Canyon 4 Murrieta Trib I 5 Murrieta Creek II 6 Murrieta Creek III 7 Murrieta Trib II 8 Warm Springs Canyon 9 French Valley 10 French Valley II 13 Tucalota Creek I 14 Tucalota Creek II 15 Santa Gertrudis Creek 16 Long Canyon 17 Murrieta Creek IV 18 Empire Canyon 19 Murrieta Creek V 20 Murrieta Creek VI 24 Temecula Creek II 25 Redhawk Channel 26 Temecula Creek III 27 Santa Margarita River 28 Pechanga Creek Water Supply Food Supply Biology Eutrophication Toxicity 26

27 Upper SMR Preliminary Prioritization Results Summary Wet Weather Reach # Reach Name Recreation Water Supply Food Supply Biology Toxicity CRAM 1 Murrieta Creek I 2 Slaughterhouse Canyon 4 Murrieta Trib I 5 Murrieta Creek II 6 Murrieta Creek III 7 Murrieta Trib II 8 Warm Springs Canyon 9 French Valley 10 French Valley II 13 Tucalota Creek I 14 Tucalota Creek II 15 Santa Gertrudis Creek 16 Long Canyon 17 Murrieta Creek IV 18 Empire Canyon 19 Murrieta Creek V 20 Murrieta Creek VI 24 Temecula Creek II 25 Redhawk Channel 26 Temecula Creek III 27 Santa Margarita River 28 Pechanga Creek 27

28 Lower Watershed Preliminary Results 28

29 29

30 30

31 Lower SMR Preliminary Prioritization Results Summary Dry Weather Reach # Reach Name Trash Recreation Water Supply Food Supply Industry Biology Eutrophication Toxicity 1 Santa Margarita I 14 Rainbow Creek Assessment Pending TMDL Pending 16 Sandia Canyon 18 DeLuz Creek 20 Camps Creek 23 Lake O'Neill Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 24 Santa Margarita III Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 25 Wood Canyon Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 26 Santa Margarita IV Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 27 Santa Margarita V Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 29 Newton Canyon Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 30 Santa Margarita Lagoon Assessment Pending Regulatory Action Pending 31

32 Lower SMR Preliminary Prioritization Results Summary Wet Weather Reach # Reach Name Trash Recreation Water Supply Food Supply Industry Biology Eutrophication Toxicity CRAM 1 Santa Margarita I 14 Rainbow Creek Assessment Pending TMDL 16 Sandia Canyon Assessment Pending 18 DeLuz Creek 20 Camps Creek 23 Lake O'Neill Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 24 Santa Margarita III Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 25 Wood Canyon Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 26 Santa Margarita IV Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 27 Santa Margarita V Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 29 Newton Canyon Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton 30 Santa Margarita Lagoon Assessment Pending Regulatory Action Assessment Pending 32

33 HIGHEST PRIORITIES 33

34 Preliminary Process to Determine Highest Priority(ies) Priority Water Quality Condition Consider Potential for Functional Uplift Are there feasible projects or programs that could be considered to attain the beneficial uses in the category? If fully restored, would opportunities related to the beneficial use be realized within the reach? Are there other potential benefits gained by restoring the beneficial uses in the category? Are there potential economic gains that could result from restoring the beneficial uses within the reach? Stakeholder process potential control measures to be implemented and other permit requirements Highest Priority Water Quality Condition 34 limiting pollutant analysis

35 Functional Uplift Are there feasible projects or programs that could be considered to attain the beneficial uses in the category? (Projects) If fully restored, would opportunities related to the beneficial use be realized within the reach? (Environmental) Are there other potential benefits gained by restoring the beneficial uses in the category? (Social) Are there potential economic gains that could result from restoring the beneficial uses within the reach? (Economics) 35

36 Preliminary Thoughts on Highest Priorities Could be specific to a beneficial use impact Trash impacting REC-2 20 of 28 reaches Could be geographic reach specific Tier 1 reach Reach with multiple priorities 36

37 Potential Strategies Ashli Desai, Larry Walker Associates 37

38 Potential Strategies Provision B.2.e Identify potential strategies that can result in improvements to water quality in MS4 discharges and/or receiving waters Structural, non-structural, incentives, programs Retrofitting projects Stream, channel, and/or habitat rehabilitation projects B.3 Strategies Jurisdictional Watershed Optional 38

39 Closing Comments Meeting Wrap Up Dave Ceppos, CSUS Associate Director 39

40 Next Steps Comments and Feedback on Today s Material Prioritization Process Preliminary Results Potential Strategies Draft Priority Water Quality Conditions Section October 2016 Comments and Feedback 40

41 Project Kickoff APR JUN AUG OCT DEC FEB APR JUN AUG OCT DEC FEB APR Priority Water Quality Conditions and Potential Strategies 1 2 Water Quality Improvement Goals, Strategies & Schedules Complete Water Quality Improvement Plan Final WQIP Revisions Project Activity Draft Document to Consultation Committee, October 2016 Final Draft Document to Regional Water Quality Control Board, January 2017 Final Water Quality Improvement Plan, April 2018 Consultation Panel Input 1 Initial Feedback on Prioritization Process and Potential Strategies; Comments due September 23, 2016 Opportunities for Public Input Public Call for Data April 22, 2016 May 23, 2016 Public Comment Period 41 2 Comments on Draft report due October 21, 2016 Consultation Panel Meetings

42 Comments/Feedback To Darcy Kuenzi, Government Affairs Officer Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA