Santa Margarita River WQIP

Consultation Committee Meeting September 7, 2016

1

Welcome and Introductions Responsible Agencies Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Counties • Riverside • San Diego

Cities • Menifee • Murrieta • Temecula • Wildomar

2

Welcome and Introductions Consultation Committee Members Required Members • Erica Ryan, San Diego RWQCB • Terri Biancardi, Environmental Community • Dr. Mark Grey, Development Community

At Large Members • Ben Drake, Temecula Winegrowers Association • Andy Domenigoni, Riverside County Farm Bureau • Kyle Cook, Camp Pendleton Marine Base • Pablo Bryant, Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve • Laurie Correa, Regional Conservation Authority • Rick Neugebauer, Temecula, Elsinore, Anza, Murrieta (TEAM-RCD)

3

Purpose & Structure Dave Ceppos, CSUS Associate Director

4

Meeting Purpose Provide transparency Receive recommendations Answer questions Build working relationships

5

Consultation Committee Review draft submittals of WQIP Written recommendations and comments Represent service area category & expertise All recommendations will be considered

6

Public Participation Process Calls for Data Workshops Consultation Committee Regional Board Comment Period

7

Meeting Ground Rules ♥ Listen to understand ♥ Everyone’s perspective is valued ♥ Everyone has an equal opportunity to participate ♥ Keep the conversation focused

8

Meeting Objectives WQIP Overview Prioritization Process – Water Quality Conditions Preliminary Priorities – Potential Potential Strategies

9

Stormwater Permit Background

Subject Expert, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

10

Regulatory Background 1987, the Clean Water Act shifted focus to stormwater from urban land uses.

The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit is born.

MS4s are conveyances owned by a public entity for transporting stormwater (e.g. curbs, gutters, storm drains).

Any government entity that owns, operates or maintains an MS4 must have Permit.

11

San Diego Region MS4 Permit Adopted May 2013 Amended April 2015 to include Orange County &

November 2015 to include Riverside County Paradigm shift – Prescriptive requirements to

outcome based results Watershed focus Requires Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIPs)

12

Santa Margarita Watershed Management Area

San Diego County

Riverside County

13

WQIPs Focus planning & future implementation

on watershed priority conditions Establish numeric goals, strategies &

schedules Incorporate monitoring, assessment &

adaptive management programs

14

Watershed Planning - Overview 2 year development process Public participation requirement Collaborative process Consultation Committee

Mandated interim deliverables Phased approach

15

Watershed Planning – Phase I Assess Receiving Water Conditions Assess Impacts from MS4 Discharges Identify Priority Water Quality Conditions Identify MS4 Sources/Stressors Develop Potential Water Quality

Improvement Strategies and Check In

16

Watershed Planning – Phase II Develop Numeric Goals & Schedules Develop Water Quality Improvement

Strategies & Schedules Jurisdictional and Watershed

Identify MS4 Sources/Stressors Optional Watershed Management Area

Analysis (WMAA) and Check In

17

Watershed Planning – Phase III Prepare Monitoring & Assessment Program Develop Iterative Approach &

Adaptive Management Process Re-evaluation of Priority Conditions Adaptation of Goals, Strategies & Schedules Adaptation of Monitoring & Assessment Program

Submit Draft Plans

18

WQIP – Overview of Elements Water Quality Improvement Plans include: Priority conditions Potential strategies Today’s focus Goals Strategies and schedules Monitoring Assessment

19

Preliminary Prioritization Process and Results

Ashli Desai, Larry Walker Associates Jo Ann Weber, County of San Diego

20

Prioritization Process Priority water quality conditions: “pollutants, stressors and/or receiving water conditions that are

highest threat to receiving water quality or that most adversely affect the quality of receiving waters”

Goal was to develop a process that: Utilized available data and information of all types Considered known impacts to beneficial uses Incorporate local knowledge and information about watercourse

function, environmental values, community goals, habitat preservation, etc.

21

Is MS4 Contributing to Reach?

Conduct evaluation to determine if beneficial uses

impacted

Potential impact based on beneficial use specific

evaluations*

Calculate WQI for each Tier 1 reach, condition, and beneficial use; T2/T3 go to

functional uplift evaluation

Rank Tier 1 reaches by WQI scores (lower score = higher priority)

Evaluate functional uplift and stakeholder priorities to determine highest priority water quality condition(s)

No Yes

Is the Reach/Beneficial Use Combination

subject to a Significant Regulatory Action?

Yes

Tier 1 Priority

Tier 2 Priority

Tier 3 Priority

Not a Priority

No

MS4 is a potential source? No

Yes * If beneficial use information is insufficient to assess impacts, calculate WQI. If WQI < 80, consider T2 where WQI = 0 – 50 or T3 where WQI = 51 – 79.

T1

T2/T3

22

DRAFT Ranking Process SMR Watershed

Beneficial Use Evaluation

Cat Metric Question(s) / Criteria Dry Wet

Result Tier Result Tier Data Source

Aqua

tic L

ife U

ses

(1) Biological Indices

(a) Does the CSCI (or IBI) score for the reach indicate potential impacts to aquatic life uses? YES if CSCI <0.79 or IBI ≤ 40 NO if CSCI ≥ 0.79 or IBI ≥ 41

CSCI Score = 0.77. Less than 0.79 but

greater than reference reach.

YES

CSCI Score = 0.77. Less than 0.79 but

greater than reference reach.

YES

SMC Data for 5-year

report

(b) Has the impact been fully attributed to natural causes (e.g., drought)? ND ND -

(c) Has eutrophication, toxicity, or physical habitat been identified as a stressor impacting aquatic life uses of the water body?

YES YES

(2) Eutrophication

(a) Perennial flow? YES N/A N/A

(b) Is macroalgal biomass data indicative of potential impacts to aquatic life uses?

Biomass = 84.8 mg chl-a/m2

NO

NAP N/A N/A

(3) Toxicity

(a) Is chronic toxicity observed within the reach?

3 Samples with TUc >1

YES

No samples TUc >1 NO MS4

Permit

(b) Is the chronic toxicity persistent ? NO 2 NO MS4

Permit

(4) Physical Habitat

(a) Do CRAM scores indicate that physical habitat may be causing impacts to aquatic life?

CRAM Score = 73

YES

CRAM Score = 73

YES

SMC Data for 5-year

report

(b) Is there evidence of hydromodification within the reach? ND 2 ND 2

MS4 is a potential Source?

Question Result Tier Data Source

Is MS4 contributing to the water quality condition (from monitoring data)?

Is MS4 contributing to the water quality condition (from monitoring data)?

Is MS4 contributing to the water quality condition (from monitoring data)?

Yes (Dry Only) 2

RCFCWCD MS4

Permit

Water Quality

Index (WQI) - Tier 1 only

23

Upper Watershed Preliminary Results

24

25

26

Upper SMR Preliminary Prioritization Results Summary – Dry Weather

Reach # Reach Name Trash* Recreation

Water Supply

Food Supply Biology Eutrophication Toxicity

1 Murrieta Creek I 2 Slaughterhouse Canyon 4 Murrieta Trib I 5 Murrieta Creek II 6 Murrieta Creek III 7 Murrieta Trib II 8 Warm Springs Canyon 9 French Valley

10 French Valley II 13 Tucalota Creek I 14 Tucalota Creek II 15 Santa Gertrudis Creek 16 Long Canyon 17 Murrieta Creek IV 18 Empire Canyon 19 Murrieta Creek V 20 Murrieta Creek VI 24 Temecula Creek II 25 Redhawk Channel 26 Temecula Creek III 27 Santa Margarita River 28 Pechanga Creek

27

Upper SMR Preliminary Prioritization Results Summary – Wet Weather

Reach # Reach Name Recreation Water Supply Food Supply Biology Toxicity CRAM 1 Murrieta Creek I 2 Slaughterhouse Canyon 4 Murrieta Trib I 5 Murrieta Creek II 6 Murrieta Creek III 7 Murrieta Trib II 8 Warm Springs Canyon 9 French Valley

10 French Valley II 13 Tucalota Creek I 14 Tucalota Creek II 15 Santa Gertrudis Creek 16 Long Canyon 17 Murrieta Creek IV 18 Empire Canyon 19 Murrieta Creek V 20 Murrieta Creek VI 24 Temecula Creek II 25 Redhawk Channel 26 Temecula Creek III 27 Santa Margarita River 28 Pechanga Creek

Lower Watershed Preliminary Results

28

29

30

31

Lower SMR Preliminary Prioritization Results Summary – Dry Weather

Reach # Reach Name Trash Recreation Water Supply

Food Supply Industry Biology Eutrophication Toxicity

1 Santa Margarita I

14 Rainbow Creek Assessment Pending TMDL Pending

16 Sandia Canyon

18 DeLuz Creek

20 Camps Creek

23 Lake O'Neill Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

24 Santa Margarita III Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

25 Wood Canyon Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

26 Santa Margarita IV Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

27 Santa Margarita V Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

29 Newton Canyon Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

30 Santa Margarita Lagoon Assessment Pending Regulatory Action Pending

32

Lower SMR Preliminary Prioritization Results Summary – Wet Weather

Reach # Reach Name Trash Recreation Water

Supply Food

Supply Industry Biology Eutrophication Toxicity CRAM

1 Santa Margarita I

14 Rainbow Creek Assessment Pending TMDL Assessment Pending

16 Sandia Canyon

18 DeLuz Creek

20 Camps Creek

23 Lake O'Neill Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

24 Santa Margarita III Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

25 Wood Canyon Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

26 Santa Margarita IV Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

27 Santa Margarita V Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

29 Newton Canyon Reach entirely located in Camp Pendleton

30 Santa Margarita Lagoon Assessment Pending Regulatory Action

Assessment Pending

HIGHEST PRIORITIES 33

34

Priority Water Quality Condition

Highest Priority Water Quality Condition

Consider Potential for Functional Uplift

Stakeholder process

Are there potential economic gains that could result from restoring the beneficial uses within the reach?

Are there feasible projects or programs that could be considered to attain the beneficial uses in the category?

If fully restored, would opportunities related to the beneficial use be realized within the reach?

Are there other potential benefits gained by restoring the beneficial uses in the category?

limiting pollutant analysis

potential control measures to be implemented and other permit

requirements

Preliminary Process to Determine Highest Priority(ies)

35

Functional Uplift Are there feasible projects or programs that could be

considered to attain the beneficial uses in the category? (Projects) If fully restored, would opportunities related to the

beneficial use be realized within the reach? (Environmental) Are there other potential benefits gained by restoring

the beneficial uses in the category? (Social) Are there potential economic gains that could result

from restoring the beneficial uses within the reach? (Economics)

Preliminary Thoughts on Highest Priorities Could be specific to a beneficial use impact Trash impacting REC-2 – 20 of 28 reaches Could be geographic – reach specific Tier 1 reach Reach with multiple priorities

36

Potential Strategies Ashli Desai, Larry Walker Associates

37

Potential Strategies Provision B.2.e Identify potential strategies that can result in

improvements to water quality in MS4 discharges and/or receiving waters Structural, non-structural, incentives, programs Retrofitting projects Stream, channel, and/or habitat rehabilitation projects

B.3 Strategies Jurisdictional Watershed Optional

38

Closing Comments Meeting Wrap Up

Dave Ceppos, CSUS Associate Director

39

Next Steps Comments and Feedback on Today’s Material Prioritization Process Preliminary Results Potential Strategies

Draft Priority Water Quality Conditions Section October 2016 Comments and Feedback

40

Opportunities for Public Input

Consultation Panel Meetings

Public Comment Period

Public Call for Data April 22, 2016 – May 23, 2016

Project Activity

Final Draft Document to Regional Water Quality Control Board, January 2017

Final Water Quality Improvement Plan, April 2018

Consultation Panel Input

Comments on Draft report due October 21, 2016

Initial Feedback on Prioritization Process and Potential Strategies; Comments due September 23, 2016

1

2

Draft Document to Consultation Committee, October 2016

APR JUN AUG OCT DEC FEB APR JUN AUG OCT DEC FEB APR 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018

Project Kickoff

Priority Water Quality Conditions and Potential Strategies Water Quality Improvement Goals, Strategies & Schedules Complete Water Quality Improvement Plan Final WQIP Revisions

1 2

41

Comments/Feedback To Darcy Kuenzi, Government Affairs Officer

Riverside County Flood Control and

Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 DarcyK@rcflood.org

42