Arne Anselm V.C.W.P.D. May 8, 2007

1. Ventura Countywide Draft Monitoring Program Based on Model Monitoring Program for Municipal Separate Storm Systems Arne Anselm V.C.W.P.D. May 8, 2007

2. Model Monitoring Program “This document serves as the starting point for negotiating a monitoring and reporting program”

3. Model Monitoring Program • Written by Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition, 2004 • Partially funded by SWRCB • Developed for Southern California region.

4. Model Monitoring Program • Content developed by technical committee including: • Regulated Community • Regulatory Agencies • Environmental Groups • Research Organizations • Specific contributors: • Xavier Swamikannu, LARWQCB • Michael Yang, LARWQCB • Mitzy Taggart, Health the Bay • Ken Schiff, SCCWRP

5. What should we be asking? FiveMonitoring Management Questions • 1: Are conditions in receiving waters protective, or likely to be protective, of beneficial uses?

6. What should we be asking? Monitoring Management Questions • 1: Are conditions in receiving waters protective, or likely to be protective, of beneficial uses? • 2: What is the extent and magnitude of the current or potential receiving water problems?

7. What should we be asking? Monitoring Management Questions • 1: Are conditions in receiving waters protective, or likely to be protective, of beneficial uses? • 2: What is the extent and magnitude of the current or potential receiving water problems? • 3: What is the relative urban runoff contribution to the receiving water problems?

8. What should we be asking? Monitoring Management Questions • 1: Are conditions in receiving waters protective, or likely to be protective, of beneficial uses? • 2: What is the extent and magnitude of the current or potential receiving water problems? • 3: What is the relative urban runoff contribution to the receiving water problem(s)? • 4: What are the sources to urban runoff that contribute to receiving water problems?

9. What should we be asking? Monitoring Management Questions • 1: Are conditions in receiving waters protective, or likely to be protective, of beneficial uses? • 2: What is the extent and magnitude of the current or potential receiving water problems? • 3: What is the relative urban runoff contribution to the receiving water problem(s)? • 4: What are the sources to urban runoff that contribute to receiving water problem(s)? • 5: Are conditions in receiving waters getting better or worse?

10. What do we know from years of monitoring? Data Sources • Stormwater Program • Other NPDES monitoring • TMDL Development • Ag and others

12. What do we know from years of monitoring? • Constituents that are not a problem • How much needed to verify? • Constituents that are always a problem • Are sources identified? • Other constituents • Is there a problem? • Compare to 303 (d) listing policy

13. Draft Monitoring Plan • Adaptive Triggers Approach– SMC MM 4.3.2 • Maximizes limited resources • Potential to discover hot spots • Answers request for: • Differentiation of Sources from Permittees’ MS4s • Direct Analysis of Urbanized Areas • Estimates Mass Emissions from Urbanized Areas

14. Draft Monitoring Plan • Adaptive Triggers Approach– SMC MM 4.3.2 • Identify problems in waters bodies • Determine extent and magnitude of problem • Evaluate if urban discharge significantly contributes to problem • Monitor urban discharge • Compare to MALs • Implement programs as necessary

15. 1: “Are conditions in the receiving waters protective, or likely to be protective, of beneficial uses? • Proposed Actions: • Begin pyrethroid monitoring in lower watersheds. • Compile countywide data available for analysis. • Verify or perform statistical analysis on available data. • Identify data gaps.

16. 2: “What is the extent and magnitude of the current or potential receiving water problems?” • Proposed Actions: • Intense two year watershed monitoring studies of three wet and two dry events to determine spatial extent of water quality problems. • Add monitoring points downstream of major urban areas in the Santa Clara and Ventura River watersheds. • Bioassessment coordination with watershed chemical and toxicity analysis for weight of evidence Triad approach. • Identify water quality problems likely associated with urban areas.

18. 3: “What is the relative urban runoff contribution to the receiving water problems?” • Proposed Actions: • Use modeling software and historic land use data to evaluate urban runoff proportions of receiving water problems. • Monitor urban runoff of select sites to refine and calibrate model for countywide use. • Evaluate data from intensive watershed monitoring for likeliness of urban discharge contributing to water quality problems. • Direct monitoring of urban area discharge points for pollutants in the downstream station that are higher than upstream for comparison to MALs.

20. 4: “What are the sources to urban runoff that contribute to receiving water problems?” • Proposed Actions: • Implement pollutant/water body plans for pollutants exceeding MALs • Conveyance system monitoring for hot spots. • Illicit discharge and illicit connection screening.

21. 5: “Are conditions in the receiving waters getting better or worse?” • Proposed Actions: • Statistical trends analysis after each intensive watershed monitoring study. • Development of Study Plan for areas downstream of urbanization that score Poor on an appropriate Index of Biological Integrity for bioassessments. • Identification of additional POCs. • Development of Action Plan for discernable increasing trends in POCs.

22. Model Monitoring Program “This document serves as the starting point for negotiating a monitoring and reporting program”