Western Washington s Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program

Transcription

1 Western Washington s Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program Brandi Lubliner, SAM Coordinator Washington State Department of Ecology MuniCon May 2017

2 ABOUT. Stormwater Action Monitoring (SAM) is Collaborative Regional Funded by 90+ Western Washington MS4 permittees, including WSDOT In-kind from Ecology, WSDA, USGS, Redmond, Penn Cove Shellfish, Cedar Grove, and hundreds of mussel monitoring volunteers. SAM s goal to improve stormwater management, reduce pollution, improve water quality, and reduce flooding by measuring stormwater impacts on the environment and evaluating the effectiveness of stormwater management actions.

3 Why is SAM important? Stormwater pollution is a threat to WA receiving waters MS4 permittees spend $250M/yr managing stormwater, is it working? Outfall monitoring is hard and $; permittees wanted a new path Pooling funds to form stand alone program allows jurisdictions large and small to benefit from SAM projects designed to produce transferable findings. any jurisdiction with science staff, expertise, and interest can participate in SAM studies.

4 Collaborating to give meaningful feedback Permittees spend about $250 million per year managing stormwater SAM represents 1% for monitoring effectiveness of these actions Stormwater Work Group (SWG) started 9 years ago SWG makes formal recommendations to Ecology, Puget Sound Partnership, and other key agencies under the new paradigm for monitoring launched with the MS4 permits SWG has many subgroups and formal structure

5 Ecology MS4 Permits Puget Sound Partnership Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) Steering Committee Pooled Resources Oversight Committee (PRO-C) Oversees SAM projects scopes, schedules and budget and provides direction for SAM program management Stormwater Work Group (SWG) Recommendations Stormwater Action Monitoring (Program managed by Ecology) Other Workgroups and Subgroups SWG s recommendations are informed by recommendations of other workgroups and subgroups. The SWG s recommendations may be directed to any agency or stakeholder group with a monitoring implementation or oversight role. Formal stakeholder group Agency

6 Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) Steering Committee SWG Staff (Ecology) PSEMP Staff (PSP) Stormwater Work Group (SWG) Toxics Work Group Fresh Water Work Group Nearshore Work Group Marine Waters Work Group Other Work Groups Pooled Resources Oversight Committee (PRO-C) Effectiveness Subgroup Source Identification Information Repository (SIDIR) Subgroup SAM Coordinator Roads & Highways Subgroup Agricultural Runoff Subgroup Other Subgroups Structured membership Open membership Hired staff

7 SAM s Three Focus Areas How well are required or innovative stormwater management practices working? Our effectiveness studies answer why or why not, and under what conditions. What are the most common types of pollution in stormwater? Our source identification projects identify the most common problems and propose regional actions. How do we know if water quality is getting better or worse? Our receiving waters projects evaluate conditions in the water bodies that we are trying to protect. No other monitoring in the state gives feedback on permitted areas.

8 Effectiveness studies SWG determined topics & questions for studies Source Control Temporary erosion control Businesses inspections O&M Pollution Prevention Low Impact Development Benefits to receiving waters Long term performance BMP Retrofits 8

9 Effectiveness studies Operation and maintenance King County catch basin study Compile existing records on inspection and maintenance Identify transferable costefficiencies Recommend standard data collection fields Recommended and alternative schedules

10 Effectiveness studies Business inspections Lakewood business inspection source control survey. Learn about permittee s source control programs structural and operational BMPs barriers to better source control Identify optimum inspection frequency Recommend technical assistance needs

11 Effectiveness studies Bioretention facilities Bellingham project monitoring hydrologic performance Compare actual vs modeled hydrologic performance Puyallup project assessing bioretention and raingarden health and maintenance Develop protocol to assess health for regional use

12 Effectiveness studies Bioretention soil mix Completed study: Filtering highway runoff through the 60/40 mix removes toxicity to Coho salmon adults and embryos Is pollutant or toxicity treatment improved by adding fungi to the mix? How does the mix treat/sequester PCBs? filtered unfiltered

13 Effectiveness studies Retrofits Redmond is monitoring sites in three urban retrofit application watersheds, two references, and two controls for ten years King Co is monitoring highway retrofits along Echo Lake King Co is monitoring a redesign of a large multi-bmp stormwater facility in Federal Way

14 Source identification Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Lakewood analyzed one year (2014) IDDE records 2900 incidents of illicit discharges from 78 western WA permittees Identified common pollutants, their sources, and notification methods Response time fairly quick 1-3 days where reported Recommendations to standardize reporting and expectations

15 Receiving waters Learn about impacts on regional scale to sensitive environments from MS4 permit covered drainages Puget lowland ecoregion streams Puget Sound nearshore sediments Puget Sound nearshore mussels Puget Sound shoreline bacteria First round is Status. Informs Trends program to track MS4 effectiveness over time

16 Receiving waters big questions Receiving waters: Are things getting better or worse? Are we protecting key resources? Effectiveness studies: What is/isn t working? What works better or more costeffectively? 16

17 Receiving waters Puget lowland ecoregion streams USGS, King Co, San Juan Island CD, Snohomish Co, Ecy EAP, & 13 labs Randomized site design recommended by EPA to limit bias in site selection Puget Sound watershed Small streams EPA s lowland ecoregion Urban Growth Area (UGA) In/Out Represent 1 km

18 Receiving waters Puget lowland ecoregion streams sites monthly water quality Outside or Within UGA Nutrients & conventional Metals & PAHs sites for watershed health and fine (sieved) sediment quality Discharge Stream insects Periphyton Physical habitat

19 Receiving waters Puget Sound nearshore biota 40 randomized shoreline sites along UGAs Leverage National Mussel Watch program Safe, suitable, and permission Placed at low tide Bay mussel ideal tool Native to Puget Sound Controls feasible Filter feeders ~4 months PCBs, PBDEs, PAHs, OCPs Metals, conventionals

20 Receiving waters Puget Sound nearshore sediment 40 randomized shoreline sites along UGAs Sampled by boat using VanVeen or ponar Subtidal -1.8m MLLW Represent 800m, exclude marinas Sediment parameters Sieved (<2mm) Total organic carbon Grain size Metals PCBs, PBDEs, PAHs, phthalates

21 Receiving waters Puget Sound nearshore sites 40 randomized shoreline sites along UGAs Sediment and mussels rarely differed Unexploded ordinances Sucking mud

22 Receiving waters Puget Sound nearshore bacteria SWG decision in 2014 to compile existing data Ecology s Environmental Assessment Program Contacted 80+ entities Compiled FIB data collected between Evaluated coverage: spatial/temporal Summarized results 42,000 data points Most was BEACH data

23 How is SAM useful? SAM projects are designed for transferability to other jurisdictions Jurisdictions that are small or have limited capacity to conduct monitoring can be involved by offering sites or technical expertise Jurisdictions with monitoring capacity can propose and lead projects to answer relevant stormwater management questions. All permittees receive SAM findings together, use info to inform councils and protect lakes, rivers, local streams, and Puget Sound.

24 How to get involved with SAM? SAM s projects are developed in an open, coordinated, and shared manner that capture a regional understanding of how management actions can lead to results. Designing trends programs for receiving water studies Selecting more stormwater management effectiveness studies Identifying projects to help reduce pollution via source control We need you to be involved SWG or subgroups for communication, effectiveness studies, source ID Project advisory committee or liaison Respond to SAM surveys or requests for data

25 What s next for SAM? Designing trends programs for receiving water studies Selecting more stormwater management effectiveness studies Identifying projects to help reduce pollution via source control Communication work underway Website Listserv Newsletter June 1 st Symposium - Renton

26 More information SAM webpage or