Stormwater Status & Trends Monitoring Proposal for

Freshwater Streams (wadeable) &

Marine NearshoreParticipants:

Scott Collyard, Shayne Cothern, Jay Davis, Tim Determan, Mindy Fohn, Leska Fore, Kit Paulsen (lead), Tony

Paulson, Heather Trim, Phyllis Varner

Freshwater RecommendationsKey Principles

• Consistent with State Status and Trends Methodology for wadeable streams

• Focus mainly on Watershed/WRIA scale – except for island-based watersheds

• Link with source identification efforts• Provide useful information, related to

stormwater (though not exclusive stressor)• Support and link to salmon recovery and

Puget Sound Clean-up efforts

Freshwater Hypotheses• Salmon (focusing on appropriate life stages) and other fish in

small streams show improving population health over time throughout the Puget Sound region in concert with increased and improved stormwater management efforts.

• Instream biological metrics (e.g. B-IBI) show statistically significant improving trends in Puget Sound lowland streams in concert with increased and improved stormwater management efforts.

• Bacteria levels limiting primary contact show decreasing trends over time throughout the Puget Sound region in concert with increased and improved stormwater management efforts.

NOTE: Orange text denotes suggested changes from original draft Framework

Watershed BasedExcept for Island-based counties

Probabilistic Survey Design Example, WRIA 8

N = 30 sites N = 20 urban and 10 non-urban sites

Equal weighting Unequal weighting

Probabilistic Survey Design Example, WRIA 1 (Nooksack)

N = 30 sites

N = 20 urban and 10 non-urban sites

Equal weighting

Unequal weighting

Freshwater: Parameters

Parameter Frequency Site Selection NPDES (√ )

Water Quality Index* Annual Random, UGA/rural, 2-3 order (wadeable) streams

√

Aquatic Benthic Macroinvertebrates Annual Random, UGA/rural, 2-3 order (wadeable) streams

√

Stream Physical features: channel type & shape, riparian condition, sediment, LWD,

Annual Random, UGA/rural, 2-3 order (wadeable) streams

No

Fish diversity, abundance Annual Random, UGA/rural, 2-3 order (wadeable) streams

No

* WQI will need to be calibrated for Puget Lowland streams

Freshwater: Parameters, cont.Parameter Frequency Site Selection NPDES (√ )

Sediment ToxicsMetals: antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, zinc, PAH, Pesticides, Phthalates, Dioxins/furans, PBDE, Hormone disrupting chemicals

Annual Random, UGA/rural, 2-3 order (wadeable) streams

√

Flow Continuous Non-random, GIS analysis of current distribution over next 9-12 month

√

Temperature Continuous Non-random, associated with flow gauges

√

Periphyton? Annual Random, UGA/rural, 2-3 order (wadeable) streams

?

Marine Key Principals

• Recognizes previous work• Builds on existing programs• Focuses on larger scale status and trends• Recognizes that nearshore monitoring is still in

development phase

Marine Hypotheses• Resident fish in nearshore areas show improving population

health over time throughout the Puget Sound region in concert with increased and improved stormwater management efforts.

• Forage fish in nearshore areas show improving population health over time throughout the Puget Sound region in concert with increased and improved stormwater management efforts.

• Bacteria levels in water and bacteria or toxics in shellfish limiting primary contact and harvest along the nearshore show decreasing trends over time throughout the Puget Sound region in concert with increased and improved stormwater management efforts.

Marine Nearshore ParametersParameter Frequency Site Selection NPDES (√ )

Resident Fish lesions?

no

Forage fish spawning abundance & distribution?

no

Fecal coliform Quarterly Randomly selected at Puget Sound scale

√

Sediment toxicity Annually Randomly selected at depositional areas in Puget Sound

√

Mussel WatchBioaccumulation toxicity

Eventually annual. May need iterative approach at first – scoping/feasibility, develop a “guild” of species.

Near Stormwater Outfalls – site selection design to be determined

√

Overall Issues

• Will need time to “ramp up” – Gain watershed agreements for monitoring– locate, site check, and gain property access approval for sites.– Purchase equipment and establish training– Develop databases– Mussel Watch assemblages still in development for Puget

Sound• Monitoring every year does not necessarily provide

trends earlier.• Need time to analyze data at WRIA and Puget Sound

scales

Proposed NPDES Timeline

MOU/ILAFinal site selection/Access

Equipment/Training2 years sampling

AnalysesReport

Recommendations

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Databases

Stream Macroinvertebrates: www.pugetsoundstreambenthos.org

Databases (continued)

• Annual Sampling Data: Ecology Status & Trends Database Management System

• Flow/Temp Continuous Sampling Database: USGS, Ecology – not currently set up for managing outside data, King County (in development)

• Mussel Watch – NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment

• Cannot keep changing database elements. Use modules and only change areas that must be changed.

Other Issues

• Wish to continue to use volunteer efforts (“citizen scientists”) where appropriate – collecting macroinvertebrates, mussel watch, etc.

• There is concern about regional monitoring linkage with individual jurisdiction permits. Need to develop way that does not increase liability for others, if one jurisdiction doesn’t meet requirements.

Status & Trends MonitoringProposed Design Benefits

• Summarizes the current condition of water resources with a known level of statistical precision;

• Makes regional comparisons of stream condition within and across WRIAs

• Prioritizes areas for protection and restoration in terms of physical, chemical and biological condition;

• Provides regional estimates of water quality and flow conditions that support salmon recovery endpoints, and

• Answers at a spatial scale that better matches the scale of decisions made by local governments.

Status and Trends Subcommittee Recommendations

• “Wadeable” 2-3 order streams: monitoring design will visit 30 randomly selected streams sites within each of 13 Puget Sound WRIAs. Those same sites will be revisited within one or two years. The next survey design and site selection for trend monitoring will be derived from those data.

• Indicators for overall streams monitoring include water quality, benthic macroinvertebrates, physical features, fish diversity and abundance, and sediment toxicity.

• Flow and temperature continuous measurements be monitored at existing (non-random) gauging stations – with added gauges only as needed to mesh with the random sites.

• Use the Washington Forum and Department of Ecology’s status and trend monitoring protocols and database.

Status and Trends Subcommittee Recommendations

• Nearshore areas: the monitoring strategy will partner with the Mussel Watch and Department of Health Programs to develop a probabilistic survey approach based on stormwater outfalls to Puget Sound.

• We recommend that indicators for nearshore areas include fecal coliform, sediment toxicity and Mussel Watch body burden toxicity.

Placeholders – not this cycle, but noted for future

• Prespawn mortality• Nearshore physical habitat (eelgrass, etc)• Resident and forage fish indicators – need to

talk with PSAMP, WDFW, et al• Freshwater mussel/shellfish toxicity