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)

• Roshan.Christoph@amecfw.com 858-514-6475

• Darcy Ebentier (Project Coordinator)

• Darcy.Ebentier@amecfw.com 858-514-7706

• Theodore Von Bitner (Project QA/QC)

• Theodore.Vonbitner@amecfw.com 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