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
Model Monitoring Program
“This document serves as the starting point for negotiating a
monitoring and reporting program”
Model Monitoring Program
Written by Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition, 2004
Partially funded by SWRCB
Developed for Southern California region.
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
Five Monitoring Management Questions
1: Are conditions in receiving waters protective, or likely to be protective, of beneficial uses?
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?
What should we be asking?
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?
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?
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?
What do we know from years of monitoring?
Data Sources– Stormwater Program– Other NPDES monitoring– TMDL Development– Ag and others
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Model Monitoring Program
“This document serves as the starting point for negotiating a
monitoring and reporting program”