Upload
vuonghanh
View
219
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SAWPA Arlington Bacteria Tier 2 Source Investigation
Agenda - September 12, 2017
1. AmecFW Project Team
2. Project Tasks and Schedule
3. Study Approach
4. Monitoring Program
1
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Team
2
SAWPA
Project QA Officer
Stuart McKibbin
Planning and Reporting
Staff Support
Claire Johnson, PE
Francesca DeLeon
Sarah Seifert
Amec Foster Wheeler
Laboratories
Chart Legend
Project Manager
Roshan Christoph, CPSWQ
Project Coordinator
Darcy Ebentier, MS
Dry Weather Flow
Field Staff
Kris Green
Tommy Arthur
Jameson Newtson
George Mcginnes
Francesca DeLeon
Laboratory
Source Molecular
E.S. Babcock
SAWPA
Project Director
Rick Whetsel
QA/QC
Ted VonBitner, PhD
SAWPA Liaisons
Chris Stransky, MS
John Rudolph, MS
Principal-in-Charge
Matt Rich, MS
Project Schedule
3
Revised Project Schedule
Task Description Project Activities Current Schedule
1
Detailed Study Plan
Kick-off Meeting (2 weeks after contract
executed)
(Contract received 7/18/17)
8/1/2017
1 GIS analysis and initial plan development 8/9/2017
2,3 Monitoring Field verification of monitoring sites 8/11/2017
1Detailed Study Plan
Draft Study Plan (electronic copy only) 8/18/2017
1 Call to discuss study refinement 8/28/2017
2,3 Monitoring Initiate monitoring activities with approval 9/6/2017
1 Detailed Study Plan Final Study Plan (electronic copy only) 9/8/2017
2 MonitoringBegin Flow study (install and conduct flow
source surveys)8/30 to 9/30/2017
3 Monitoring Begin E. coli Study (E. coli and MST markers) 9/11 to 9/30/2017
4 Project Status Report Project Status Report to SAWPA 9/12/2017
4 Project Reports Submit Draft Project Report (electronic copy) 11/17/2017
4 Project Reports Submit Final Project Report (electronic copy) 12/22/2017
Study Approach
4
What are the predominant sources of dry weather flow in the Arlington Area?
Continuous flow at 3 main inputs to Monroe Basin
Field measured flow at
predominantly Ag Sites
Confirm flow is discharging
from the Monroe Basin
What are the magnitude and sources of E. coli in the observed dry weather flow?
E.coli analysis
Field WQ
Visual Observations and Bacteria
Source Inventory
Are E. coli from human sources?
HF183 analysisVisual Observations and
Bacteria Source Inventory
Dry Weather Monitoring Program
5
MONITORING
SITE TYPE
NUMBER OF
SITES
PREDOMINANT
LAND USE
FLOW ESTIMATE
TYPE
VISUAL
OBSERVATIONS
SAMPLE
COLLECTION
Main inputs to
Monroe Basin3
Mixed Urban and
AgriculturalContinuous flow Yes Yes
Inputs from
Agricultural land
uses
8 AgriculturalInstantaneous
flow estimateYes
Yes, when
evidence of flow
Control site 1NA - Irrigation
Source WaterNA Yes Yes
Output from
Monroe Basin1
Mixed Urban and
Agricultural
Instantaneous
flow estimateYes No
T1-Anza outlet to
Santa Ana River1 Mixed
Visual presence/
absence
YesNo
Locations for Continuous Flow Monitoring
6
Continuous flow
monitoring at
T2-ARL-1,2,3
Instantaneous flow
estimates at
T2-ARL-OUT
during monitoring
activities
Retention is a wet
weather function of
this basin
Arlington Study Area and Monitoring Sites
7
Thank you!
Any Questions?
AMECFW:
• Roshan Christoph (Project Manager)
• [email protected] 858-514-6475
• Darcy Ebentier (Project Coordinator)
• [email protected] 858-514-7706
• Theodore Von Bitner (Project QA/QC)
• [email protected] 858-514-7741
8
Draft
Statewide
Bacteria
Standards 1
Significant Provisions • More stringent water quality objectives for bacteria
• Natural source exclusion (w/ restricted applicability)
• Allows high flow and seasonal suspension of REC-1 use
• Establishes “Limited REC-1” beneficial use
• Allow Regional Board to authorize Variances
2
More Stringent Bacteria Objectives for REC-1
• Rolling 6-week Geometric Mean = 100 cfu/100 mL (calc’d weekly)
• 90% of samples < 320 cfu / 100 mL (calc’d monthly)
• Simultaneous compliance with BOTH metrics: Geomean & STV
• Supersedes numeric bacteria objectives for REC-1 in Basin Plan ⁻ Voids Use Intensity Tiers adopted in 2012 (Table 5-REC1-Tiers) ⁻ Voids Single Sample Maximums (SSM) adopted in 2012 (Table 5-REC1-SSV)
• Does not make any automatic change to existing TMDLs; Regional Board “may” review and revise as necessary
3
Bacteria by the Numbers Endpoint Current SA Basin Plan Proposed Statewide
HCGI Risk Level (EPA, 1986) 8 per 1,000 Swimmers 7 per 1,000 Swimmers NGI Risk Level (EPA, 2012) 36 per 1,000 Swimmers 32 per 1,000 Swimmers E. Coli Geomean Concentration 126 cfu / 100 mL 100 cfu / 100 mL SSM/STV Concentration Variable: 235 - 410 cfu / 100 mL 320 cfu / 100 mL Allowable SSM/STV Exceed. Freq. Variable: 10-25% 10% Minimum # of Samples 5 in 30 days Not specified Secondary Contact (REC2) None None
EPA reanalyzed the 1986 E. coli data to develop the 2012 criteria; no new E. coli studies were performed. A different definition of Gastrointestinal Illness was used in 2012 (assumed to be 4.5x the 1986 illness rate).
4
Natural Source Exclusion • Geomean “strictly applied in all circumstances” (no exceptions) • Statistical Threshold Value “strictly applied in all circumstances,
except in the context of a TMDL” • Reg. Bd. may use a “reference system” or natural source exclusion
approach to implement the STV in the context of a TMDL • “Natural source exclusion approach may be utilized after all
anthropogenic sources of bacteria are identified, quantified and controlled.”
• Status of narrative provisions in Santa Ana Basin Plan uncertain.
5
Ch. 4 (Objectives) of Santa Ana Basin Plan
6
Ch. 5 (Implementation) of S.A. Basin Plan
7
High Flow Suspensions • Requires specific trigger metric (rainfall, flow velocity, etc.)
• Other uses and objectives (including REC-2) continue to apply
• Requires Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
• Requires Reg. Bd., State Bd. and EPA approval
• Already done for a large number of channels in S.A. region (identified in Appendix 8 and Appendix 9 of the Basin Plan)
8
Seasonal Suspensions • Low water flows, low water temperatures, freezing conditions
• Requires specific trigger metric (flow, temp., etc.)
• Other uses and objectives (including REC-2) remain in effect
• Requires Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
• Requires Reg. Bd, State Bd. and EPA approval
• Establishes new regulatory option, other than removing REC-1 use, to ensure proper application of standards to in ephemeral streams
9
Limited REC-1 Beneficial Use • “Limited recreational activities involving body contact with water,
where the activities are predominantly limited by physical conditions such as very shallow water depth or restricted access and, as a result, body contact with water is infrequent or insignificant”
• Key terms (underlined above) are not defined • No numeric bacteria objective specified in policy • Must develop site-specific bacteria objective (SSO) • UAA required if SSO is less stringent • Requires Reg. Bd., State Board and EPA approval
10
Variances • Allows Reg. Bd. to authorized variances from water quality standards • Must conform to federal regulations (40 CFR 131.14)
⁻ Discharger or waterbody-specific ⁻ Meets one or more UAA factors (40 CFR 131.10g) ⁻ Time-constrained ⁻ Highest Attainable Use (and standards) continue to apply ⁻ Other beneficial uses and objectives continue to apply ⁻ Greatest achievable pollutant reduction still required ⁻ Must ID and implement cost-effective and reasonable BMPs for NPS ⁻ Must demonstrate “progress toward attainment” for renewal
• Requires Reg. Bd., State Board & EPA approval 11
MSAR Task Force Comment Letter
• No numeric bacteria objectives for REC2-only waterbodies • Need procedure for developing SSO’s for bacteria • Need examples of Limited REC1-type waterbodies • Need to define “natural sources” and consider “controllability • Should not limit natural source exclusion to TMDLs or STVs • Clarify how natural sources should be considered within TMDLs • Need guidance on spatial and temporal averaging • Allow alternate compliance demonstrations • Correct deficiencies in Abt’s Economic Analysis • Consider San Diego’s “Illness Avoided” approach to CBA
12
Waterbody # Swimmers GI Avoided
Prado Lakes 1 per week ≈1/year
Chino Creek 10 per day ≈2/week
SAR-Reach 3 100 per day ≈100/month
13
Risk-based Resource Allocation
MSAR Task Force Priorities • Continue to implement Comprehensive Bacteria Reduction Plan • Actively engage on proposed statewide bacteria objectives • Implement permits consistent w/ 2012 Basin Plan amendments • Preserve CBRP-approach in the NPDES permits • Update and revise TMDL (as necessary) • Identify and quantify controllable anthropogenic sources • Specify cost-effective and reasonable BMPs for non-point sources • Evaluate new regulatory alt’s: seasonal susp., LREC-1, variance?
14