Executive Action Plan September 2017 v5 Final. Central Orange County Watershed Management Area. Executive Action Plan

Transcription

1 Executive Action Plan September 2017 v5 Final Central Orange County Watershed Management Area Executive Action Plan Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee September 20,

2 Page intentionally left blank 2

3 The 2017 Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee Peer Swan, Chair Irvine Ranch Water District Andrew Do, Vice Chair County of Orange Dr. Allan Bernstein City of Tustin Marshall Duffy Duffield City of Newport Beach Alan Mansoor City of Costa Mesa Dean Kirk The Irvine Company Melissa Fox City of Irvine William von Blasingame Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Fred Mousavipour City of Santa Ana Andrew Hamilton City of Lake Forest Carla Navarro California Department of Fish and Wildlife Committee Executive Officer Amanda Carr, Deputy Director, OC Environmental Resources, OC Public Works (714) Prepared by the County of Orange, OC Public Works, OC Environmental Resources staff and the Newport Bay Watershed Management Committee For more information about the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee including past agendas, meeting minutes and presentations, please visit the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee s website: 3

4 Page intentionally left blank 4

5 Table of Contents 1. Plan Overview Background of the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee History and Background Executive Committee Mission, Goals, and Objectives Mission Goals Objectives Relationship with TMDL Cost-Share Partners Changes to Executive Committee Membership Structure and Governance Organizational Structure Newport Bay Management Committee Newport Bay Stakeholders Program Areas for the Central Orange County Watershed Management Area Regulatory Driven Programs Sediment Fecal Coliform TMDL Nutrients Toxics Organochlorines Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Metals TMDL Selenium TMDL Trash Management Planning Programs Central Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Intra-County Coordination Inter-County Coordination Research Programs Costs and Funding Financial Implications

6 5.2 Total Projected Costs TMDLs Executive Committee Support Cost Sharing Funding Opportunities Public Advocacy Advocacy within the Central Orange County Watershed Management Area Advocacy with other Watershed Management Areas Action Plan Schedule 38 Appendix A Newport Bay Watershed Accomplishments A-1 Appendix B - Agreement D Third and Fourth Amendments... B-1 Appendix C - Agreement D C-1 Appendix D - Agreement D and First Amendment... D-1 6

7 List of Acronyms ASBS Areas of Special Biological Significance Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8) BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act BMP Best Management Practice BU Beneficial Use CFS Cubic Feet per Second County County of Orange CCA Critical Coastal Area CWA Clean Water Act DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane UCI University of California, Irvine IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plans Lb Pound OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District MPN/100 ml Most Probable Number/ 100 Milliliters NIWA Newport Irvine Waste Management Planning Agency NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSMP Nitrogen and Selenium Management Program OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OWOW One Water One Watershed PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl Plan Executive Action Plan REC-1 Recreational Contact Beneficial Use RMP Regional Monitoring Program SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project SHEL Shellfish Harvesting Beneficial Use SSO Site-Specific Objective TAC Technical Advisory Committee TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements WMA Watershed Management Area ug/l Micrograms per Liter 7

8 Page intentionally left blank 8

9 1. Plan Overview The Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (formerly called the Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Executive Committee, hereinafter referred to as the Executive Committee) was established in 1983 to oversee the implementation of sediment control measures in the Newport Bay Watershed (Watershed) with a focus on San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. The Executive Committee subsequently decided to address other water quality, water resources, and habitat issues in the Watershed. The Executive Action Plan (Plan) was first prepared in 2010 with the support of the Newport Bay Management Committee (hereinafter Management Committee, which provides support to the Executive Committee). It includes the following elements: (1) The water resource, water quality, and habitat issues facing the Watershed (2) The goals and roles of the Executive Committee (3) The associated costs and financial implications of the watershed issues and their impact on each Executive Committee organization and other Watershed stakeholders The Plan also serves as an educational document for new members of the Executive Committee. For that reason, the Plan has appendices that include past accomplishments of the Executive Committee from , the cooperative agreement that established the Executive Committee, and the funding agreements (see Appendices A, B, C and D). The updated Plan is intended to provide a framework for activities to be undertaken over the next five years from

10 2. Background of the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee 2.1 History and Background Pursuant to Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act, which encouraged and facilitated the preparation of regional plans for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) adopted a resolution in February 1975 designating the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed as a candidate planning area for funding by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Newport Irvine Waste Management Planning Agency (NIWA) was subsequently established in March 1975 as a joint powers agency comprised of representatives from the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Orange and Santa Ana, County of Orange (County), Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), Orange County Water District (OCWD), Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and California Department of Fish and Game (now California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Supervisor Thomas Riley, 5th District, was designated as the chair of the NIWA Board of Directors. In 1976 the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted a resolution designating the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 208 planning agency for the wider Southern California region, and approved a workplan for development of a management plan. The USEPA subsequently awarded SCAG $2.8 million to implement the workplan. In June 1978, SCAG requested NIWA to prepare the San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan (Sediment Control Plan) pursuant to Section 208 requirements to address sedimentation issues impacting Newport Bay. NIWA established a technical advisory committee (TAC) consisting of representatives of each member agency and chaired by the County. The TAC recommended the construction of the in-bay sediment control basins, in-channel sediment control basins in San Diego Creek, and the foothill basins upstream of Interstate 5. SCAG finalized the 208 Plan, including the Newport Bay element, in The wider 208 Plan was certified by the State Water Board but the Newport Bay element was rejected due to issues raised by the Regional Board and the State Water Board. A workplan developed by SCAG to address these issues was approved by the State Water Board in After NIWA s dissolution in the early 1980s due to internal disagreements, Supervisor Thomas Riley formed the Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Executive Committee through a Cooperative Agreement, supported by a TAC to complete the Sediment Control Plan. The Executive Committee at the time included the County of Orange, the Cities of Irvine, Newport Beach, and Tustin, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Irvine Company (Lake Forest was added soon after incorporation in 1991). In 1983, the San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan (208 Plan) was completed by Boyle Engineering and has been implemented since then in conjunction with the Flood Control Master Plan. In 1984, as required by its 208 grant, SCAG submitted a 208 Plan amendment to the State Water Board based on the Boyle Engineering work. The State Water Board adopted a 10

11 resolution certifying the amendment but noted the 208 Plan was inadequate with regard to analysis of channel erosion as a sediment source. Plan elements included: 208 Plan - Early Action Plan Early actions were initiated in 1982: Construction of two sedimentation basins in San Diego Creek, completed in December 1982 Construction of a shallow basin in Upper Newport Bay, completed in December 1982 Land management practices for agricultural land and construction sites 208 Plan Comprehensive Long-Term Plan Land management practices to reduce sediment at its source Structural controls to localize sediment deposition and facilitate its management Foothill basins Channel stabilization Sediment monitoring Additional in-channel and in-bay basins Numerous studies and projects were undertaken in the Newport Bay watershed in the late 1990s to improve water quality in Newport Bay and its tributaries. Due to limited funding and the desire to continue the closely coordinated development of solutions to problems, the Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Executive Committee expanded its interests to include other issues that could affect Newport Bay. In 1999 the Executive Committee was restructured as part of Cooperative Agreement D The Sediment Control Executive Committee Cooperative Agreement was replaced and Agreement D added other pollutants that impaired the Newport Bay such as nutrients, toxics, and pathogens, in addition to sediment. The Committee was renamed at the same time as the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee. Membership was also expanded to include OCFCD, IRWD, and the Regional Board. These agencies were added because of their interest in the water quality of Newport Bay and because they had resources available to support enhancement initiatives. The role of the Executive Committee was further expanded in 2008 through Cooperative Agreement D to include addressing water quality issues of the Central Orange County Watershed Management Area (WMA), including the Newport Coast, in response to requirements for Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs) to receive State grant funding. The Cooperative Agreement was amended again in 2010 to add the Cities of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana as members of the Executive Committee. Current Executive Committee members are: California Department of Fish and Wildlife City of Costa Mesa City of Irvine City of Lake Forest City of Newport Beach City of Santa Ana City of Tustin County of Orange 11

12 Irvine Company Irvine Ranch Water District Orange County Flood Control District Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region 2.2 Executive Committee Mission, Goals, and Objectives Mission The mission of the Executive Committee is to provide a management framework for cooperation on sediment, water quality, and water resource issues in the Central Watershed Management Area Goals Per Cooperative Agreement D08-104, the goals of the Executive Committee are to: Integrate and improve hydrologic functioning of the watershed to optimize flood protection, water conservation and water quality protection Protect, enhance, restore and connect habitat in the watershed Integrate economic development with watershed restoration efforts Facilitate watershed stewardship to support watershed goals Build and sustain effective relationships between watershed stakeholders to achieve common goals through positive communication, collaboration, consensus and coordination Create an effective, efficient, innovative, responsive, and transparent Executive Committee operation Objectives The objectives of the Executive Committee are to: Provide a forum to assess progress toward implementing the 208 Plan Formulate project implementation agreements for and assess effectiveness of elements of the 208 Plan Review progress and provide direction on projects to address water quality impairments, including sediment, nutrients, fecal indicator bacteria, toxicity, and any emerging pollutants Review opportunities and provide direction for pollutant trading or offset programs Review opportunities and provide direction for grant funding through IRWMPs Provide oversight for the Central Orange County WMA and any updates of the Central Orange County IRWMP Formulate project implementation agreements for any cost-shared projects 2.3 Relationship with TMDL Cost-Share Partners A number of the Executive Committee member organizations comprise the total maximum daily load (TMDL) cost-share partners. For the sediment TMDL program, the Cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, and Tustin; the Irvine Company; and the County of Orange/OCFCD are funding partners under Cooperative Agreement D (Sediment Control Monitoring and In-Channel Maintenance Program). For the other TMDLs, the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin; the County of Orange; OCFCD; IRWD; and Irvine Company are 12

13 funding partners under Cooperative Agreement D (effective since July 1, 2012, amended on October 20, 2015, and ending on June 30, 2018). For both TMDL cost-share agreements, the program budgets are submitted to the governing bodies of the cost-share partners (e.g. Board of Supervisors or city councils) for approval before they are finalized. The Executive Committee is kept informed of TMDL program work and costs. However the Executive Committee is not responsible for approving the TMDL cost-share budgets because the Executive Committee does not comprise the entire membership of the cost-share partner groups and, in addition, Executive Committee members cannot commit their respective organizations. The Executive Committee members can make recommendations to their respective organizations on funding items, but the costshare partners to the two agreements are the decision-making body. Section 6 has additional costsharing information. 2.4 Changes to Executive Committee Membership Interest in Executive Committee membership has grown, especially with respect to upcoming Proposition 1 funding and the updating of the north and central Orange County WMA IRWMPs. The increased involvement of sanitation and water agencies in either the Executive or Management Committees is an ongoing consideration depending on whether north and central Orange County becomes its own funding region under Proposition 1 or remains as part of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority s (SAWPA) One Water One Watershed (OWOW) planning process. At this time, no changes in membership are planned. 13

14 3. Structure and Governance The figure below depicts how the Executive Committee works in the context of the Central Orange County WMA and its connection to the governing bodies of its member agencies, the Management Committee (formerly known as the TAC), the Watershed Stakeholders, and County staff from OC Public Works / OC Environmental Resources. 3.1 Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee The Executive Committee serves in a leadership role to oversee policy issues and budget implications related to water quality regulatory issues, funding and governance of the Central Orange County WMA. Members of the Executive Committee are elected or appointed officials or are executive-level managers, with one member from each of the signatories to the agreement. The Executive Committee meets at least twice a year and operates in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. OC Environmental Resources staff convenes informational meetings for discussion among the Management Committee, whose members in turn inform their respective Executive Committee members. These members make recommendations to their respective governing bodies regarding agreements and projects. All stakeholders are informed of the process at every step. The following graphic summarizes the relationships between Newport Bay Watershed Committees, member agencies, County staff, and stakeholders 14

15 3.2 Newport Bay Management Committee The Management Committee is an invitation only committee comprised of senior staff members of the participating organizations, which include all signatories to the agreement along with an Environmental Representative selected by the Executive Committee (currently Orange County Coastkeeper). The Management Committee develops and provides recommendations to the Executive Committee on matters of decision-making importance as well as carrying out work requested by the Executive Committee. This committee meets at least four times per year. 3.3 Newport Bay Watershed Stakeholders The broader Watershed stakeholders provide input to the Executive and Management Committees on issues, solutions, and priorities. This is principally through public input at the regular meetings of the Executive Committee, or through ad hoc meetings and tours. Information is also disseminated to the public through the web site 15

16 4. Program Areas for the Central Orange County Watershed Management Area 4.1 Regulatory Driven Programs Water quality standards are set in California either directly by the USEPA (for example the California Toxics Rule), or by the State Water Board through statewide plans or policies (for example the Ocean Plan and the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan), or by Regional Water Quality Control Boards through their respective Water Quality Control Plans (commonly called Basin Plans). If water quality standards are not met in a waterbody, it is considered impaired and, subject to the State s listing policy (Resolution ), will be put on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Listing prompts further regulatory actions including TMDLs or alternative plans. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that can enter a waterbody that will still allow the waterbody to meet water quality standards. For the Newport Bay Watershed, TMDLs have been promulgated for sediment, fecal coliform, nutrients, and toxics (including selenium). The following sections discuss each of these TMDLs in more detail and the ongoing watershed scale planning efforts Sediment TMDL Sediment management within the Newport Bay watershed has been occurring for over 30 years, beginning with the 208 Plan. The 208 Plan consists of land management practices to reduce sediment at its source (agricultural and construction BMPs), in-channel sediment trapping basins in San Diego Creek, in-bay sediment trapping basins in Upper Newport Bay, foothill basins, channel stabilization, and monitoring. In March 1999, a sediment TMDL established requirements to reduce sediment loading to San Diego Creek and Newport Bay by 50% over a ten year period and set a number of quantifiable targets for maintaining habitat and reducing the frequency of dredging the Bay. The adoption of the sediment TMDL in 1999 built upon the elements of the 208 Plan and required additional studies to monitor progress. Cost share partners include the County/OCFCD, The Irvine Company, and the Cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, and Tustin. The cost sharing percentages are based on the land area, population, sources of sediment, and benefit accrued by each of the participants. The percentages are revised once every five years. An annual report verifying that the basins have at least 50% design capacity available for the upcoming storm season is submitted to the Regional Board by November 15 of each year. Subsequently, a TMDL Annual Report, representing a compilation of sediment monitoring data and TMDL compliance analysis, is submitted to the Regional Water Board by February 27 of each year. The purpose of the sediment management program is to enact controls and reduce the amount of sediment entering Newport Bay and to meet numeric targets, allocations, and requirements as described in the sediment TMDL. TMDL Targets and Requirements: 1. Ensure that sediment discharges into Newport Bay will not significantly change the existing acreages of aquatic, wildlife, and rare and endangered species habitat, and to maintain the navigational and non-contact recreational beneficial uses of the Bay. 2. A minimum depth of 7 feet below mean sea level shall be maintained in the Unit I and 2 In-Bay basins in Upper Newport Bay in order to maintain the marine aquatic habitat 16

17 3. Reduce the load of sediment in the Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed by 50% within 10 years of TMDL approval 4. Comply with the following load allocations for discharges of sediment to Newport Bay (implemented as 10-year running annual averages): No more than 28,000 tons per year of sediment shall be discharged from open space areas within the watershed No more than 19,000 tons per year shall be from agricultural land No more than 13,000 tons per year from construction sites No more than 2,500 tons per year discharged from urban areas 5. Comply with the following load allocations for discharges of sediment to tributaries of Newport Bay (implemented as 10-year running annual averages): No more than 28,000 tons per year of sediment shall be discharged to San Diego Creek and its tributaries from open space areas within the watershed No more than 19,000 tons per year shall be discharged to San Diego Creek from agricultural land No more than 13,000 tons per year discharged to San Diego Creek from construction sites No more than 2,500 tons per year discharged to San Diego Creek from urban areas 6. Reduce the dredging frequency of Upper Newport Bay to no more than once every 10 years; with a long-term goal of reducing the dredging frequency to once every 20 to 30 years 7. Conduct annual scour surveys of the In-channel Basins; and surveys of the foothill retarding basins and San Diego Creek Reach 1 and 2 once every five years or in years with 150% mean basin rainfall (Jeffrey Road is the physical divide between Reach 1 and 2 of San Diego Creek) 8. Conduct topographic/bathymetric and vegetation surveys of Upper Newport Bay at least once every five years, and following any year in which the annual total suspended sediment load for San Diego Creek at Campus Drive is more than 250,000 tons 9. Submit an annual report by February 27 of each year providing the monitoring data and additional information required by the TMDL 10. Submit a report by November 15 of each year certifying whether the sediment basins in the watershed each have at least 50% capacity The figure below shows a summary of the sediment reduction progress since 1983: 17

18 The following table details the sediment TMDL tasks forecasted for completion over the next five years and associated costs: Funding Forecast for Sediment TMDL Anticipated tasks to meet TMDL requirements over Totals the next five years Monitoring $273,000 $285,100 $242,200 $224,400 $221,600 $1,246,300 TMDL Revision $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $100,000 TMDL-related $35,000 $25,000 $60,000 Studies Implementation $218,350 $218,350 $218,350 $218,350 $215,000 $1,088,400 Total $576,350 $528,450 $485,550 $467,750 $436,600 $2,494,700 In addition to the tasks in the table above, other foreseeable necessary actions that will be taken over the next five years include developing a long-term financial solution for the maintenance costs of Upper Newport Bay dredging, which is anticipated to be needed after 2030 and reconsideration of the TMDL by the Regional Board to establish revised requirements. Sediment TMDL Accomplishments to date: 1. Construction of early action projects 2. Construction of Unit I In-Bay Sediment Basin Project 3. Construction of Unit II In-Bay Sediment Basin Project 4. Completion of Unit III - Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Enhancement Project 5. Construction of In-channel Basin 3 6. Construction of seven foothill basins 18

19 7. Channel stabilization projects throughout watershed, including toe of slope protection in a section of Serrano Creek and a high flow box culvert diversion in Borrego Wash, two of the more highly eroding channels 8. Completion of a Project Design Report for Serrano Creek 9. Reduction of inventory of significantly eroding channels 10. Completion of Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project 11. Compilation of over 30 years of monitoring data 12. Completion of assessments of TMDL compliance 13. Completion of open space sediment yield studies 14. Ongoing channel erosion studies of watershed conditions 15. Attainment of sediment load reduction targets 16. Modification of the Monitoring and Reporting Program Sediment TMDL Planned Activities : 1. Continue routine monitoring and compliance assessment 2. Conduct special studies as needed to further understand sediment sources, transport, fate, and impacts 3. Support University of California Irvine efforts to understand and mitigate sea level rise and storm surge impacts on changing coastal landscapes, including those for Newport Bay. The project, including the modeling tools to be developed, will provide insight on a scientifically defensible sediment load target for Newport Bay 4. Reevaluate the Sediment TMDL based on new data and latest science including the ongoing role and need for the in-channel basins and the potential impacts of sea level rise. 5. Assess long term funding needs for the dredging of the In-Bay basing Fecal Coliform TMDL The fecal coliform TMDL is intended to achieve bacteria water quality standards in Newport Bay for primary contact recreation (REC-1) and shellfish harvesting (SHEL) beneficial uses. It establishes a longterm, prioritized, phased approach to meeting these standards. The implementation plan for the TMDL includes ten tasks to complete specific monitoring, investigations and analyses: Task 1 Routine monitoring Task 2 Water quality model for bacterial indicators Tasks 3 & 4 Beneficial use assessment Tasks 5 & 6 Source identification and characterization Task 7 Evaluation of vessel waste control program Task 8 TMDL, Waste Load Allocation and Load Allocation evaluation and source monitoring program Task 9 Updated TMDL reports Task 10 Adjust TMDL and adopt interim Waste Load Allocations, Load Allocations and compliance dates Subsequent phases of TMDL implementation were intended to take into account the results of the monitoring and assessment efforts and any other relevant studies. 19

20 Before the Fecal Coliform TMDL was implemented, USEPA published REC-1 guidance in 1986, establishing criteria for E.coli (fresh water) and Enterococcus (marine waters). As of 2000, many states had not adopted USEPA s recommended criteria or an as protective alternative into their standards for coastal recreational waters. In 2000, Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH) Act, giving states until 2004 to adopt the 1986 criteria into their state standards. USEPA promulgated the Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters Rule in 2004 to establish the 1986 criteria as water quality standards for states that had not yet adopted standards in accordance with the BEACH Act (including California with the exception of the Los Angeles Regional Board area). Subsequently, USEPA issued new science-based guidance in In each case, USEPA made it increasingly clear that Enterococcus is the appropriate indicator for marine waters in place of fecal coliform for contact recreation. The State Water Board is in the process of adopting new recreational standards statewide consistent with the USEPA 2012 guidance. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the impairment of Newport Bay by fecal coliform and a stakeholder process has been initiated to assess current conditions, replacement standards, and the need for a new TMDL. TMDL Targets and Requirements: 1. Conduct weekly monitoring at 35 stations (23 in the Lower Bay, 8 in the Upper Bay, and 4 freshwater watershed inputs) as part of the Routine Monitoring Program 2. Submit monthly and annual reports (reporting period: April 1 March 31) by September 1 of each year 3. By December 31, 2014, comply with the following fecal coliform load allocations and wasteload allocations in Newport Bay to protect REC-1 beneficial uses: 5-sample/30-days geometric mean less than 200 organisms/100 ml, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 ml for any 30-day period No discharge allowed for vessel wastes 4. By December 31, 2022 (revised date from 2019), comply with the following fecal coliform load allocations and wasteload allocations in Newport Bay to protect the SHEL beneficial uses: Monthly median less than 14 MPN/100 ml, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 43 MPN/100 ml No discharge allowed for vessel waste 5. Conduct additional monitoring and assessment to address areas of uncertainty 6. Implement source monitoring program 7. Use monitoring data and studies completed in Tasks 2 8 (see below) for future revision and refinement of the TMDL (to be completed through the stakeholder process) The figure below shows a summary of the annual data geomeans in Upper and Lower Bay since

21 The following table details the Fecal Coliform TMDL tasks forecasted for completion over the next five years and associated costs. Costs do not include any individual project costs, such as the diversion of storm drains to the sanitary sewer. Funding Forecast for Fecal Coliform TMDL Anticipated tasks to meet TMDL requirements over Total the next five years: Monitoring $70,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $370,000 TMDL Revision $200,000 $20,000 $220,000 Stakeholder Process $130,000 $35,000 $165,000 SHEL Studies and Evaluation $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $150,000 Total $450,000 $180,000 $125,000 $75,000 $75,000 $905,000 Fecal Coliform TMDL Accomplishments to date: All submittals for the task accomplishments below were provided to the Regional Board and approvals noted were provided by the executive officer. Task 1 Routine Monitoring The Routine Monitoring Plan was approved Monthly and annual monitoring data reports have been submitted Task 2 Water Quality Model for Bacterial Indicators A plan for developing a water quality model for bacteria indicators was completed and approved Calibrated model and model documentation was submitted Tasks 3 & 4 Beneficial Use Assessment Plans for beneficial use (BU) assessments to identify and quantify water contact recreation were submitted and approved 21

22 Recreational activities (REC-1) and shellfish harvesting (SHEL) assessment plans were submitted and approved and subsequently completed Tasks 5 & 6 Source Identification and Characterization Plans for fecal coliform source identification and characterization for the Dunes Report and agricultural runoff were submitted and approved A Proposition 13 Grant was awarded for the urban runoff and natural sources evaluation plan. The field investigation activities were completed and a final report submitted in November 2009 A report entitled Swimmer Shedding Study in Newport Dunes, California was prepared for the City of Newport Beach and the Regional Board A final report on the agricultural sources evaluation was completed in September 2003 by the University of California, Cooperative Extension Task 7 Evaluation of Vessel Waste Control Program The vessel waste control program evaluation plan was submitted and approved A report entitled Public Health Risk Assessment for the Newport Bay Watershed: Recreational Contact and Microbiological Risk was submitted and a related journal article published in 2006 A report entitled The Contribution of Marinas to Fecal Indicator Bacteria Impairment in Lower Newport Bay, Southern California was prepared by University of California, Irvine (UCI) researchers - a journal article was published Task 8 TMDL, Waste Load Allocation and Load Allocation Evaluation and Source Monitoring Program The source monitoring program was completed Task 9 Updated TMDL Reports A draft report Recommended Revisions to the Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL has been developed and elements of the report will be integrated into the stakeholder process Task 10 Adjust TMDL and Adopt Interim Waste Load Allocations, Load Allocations and Compliance Dates Adjustment of the TMDL is anticipated through a stakeholder process over the next two years (as discussed above) Fecal Coliform TMDL Planned Activities : 1. Continue routine monitoring and compliance assessments 2. Complete stakeholder process to re-evaluate the role of fecal coliform in the Basin Plan and TMDL 3. Construction of Santa Ana Delhi Diversion project (multi-benefit project) and other diversion projects 22

23 4.1.3 Nutrient TMDL The goals of the Nutrient TMDL were to reduce annual loads of nitrogen and phosphorus to Newport Bay by 50 percent and to meet the numeric and narrative water quality objectives for nitrogen and phosphorous by To achieve these targets, the TMDL established a number of interim targets requiring a 30 percent and 50 percent reduction in nutrients in summer flows by 2002 and 2007, respectively, and a 50 percent reduction in nutrients in non-storm winter flows by In addition to routine monitoring, special investigations are also required into unanswered questions about nutrient sources and dynamics in the watershed. Annual monitoring reports have been submitted to the Regional Board since December 2015 to replace the previous quarterly reporting that was in effect since This was authorized by Order R that replaced prior Order R TMDL Targets and Requirements: 1. Regional Board to revise Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for nursery operations 2. Develop a watershed-wide nutrient management program for agricultural activities 3. Submit an analysis of appropriate BMPs for urban stormwater that will be implemented through the Drainage Area Management Plan to achieve the short term (5-year) interim targets and final nutrient load reduction targets for the Newport Bay Watershed 4. Incorporate limits on phosphorous discharges into WDRs as necessary 5. Establish and implement a regional monitoring program (RMP) for the Newport Bay Watershed 6. Initiate nutrient source investigations, including occurrence of rising shallow groundwater 7. Meet load reduction targets to reduce total nitrogen and total phosphorus to Newport Bay to 50% of loads: Total Nitrogen Summer (April 1 September 30) Load: 153,861 lbs. by December 31, 2007 Total Nitrogen Winter (October 1 March 31) Load: 144,364 lbs. (does not apply to storm flow above 50 CFS) by December 31, 2012 Total Phosphorus Annual (sum of summer and winter) Load: 62,080 lbs. by December 31, 2007 The figure below shows a summary of the progress in total nitrogen reduction during the summer season since the 1990s: 23

24 The following table details the Nutrient TMDL tasks forecasted for completion over the next five years and associated costs: Funding Forecast for Nutrient TMDL Anticipated tasks to meet TMDL requirements over the next five years Total Nutrient RMP Analytical $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $165,000 Costs Nutrient TMDL Time Schedule Order (if needed) $20,000 $20,000 Total $50,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $185,000 Nutrient TMDL Accomplishments to date: 1. The RMP has been implemented and was revised in 2014 to decrease monitoring and reporting frequencies 2. Influence of the infiltration of shallow groundwater on urban runoff quality was studied and estimated (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 2013) 3. Relationships between water quality parameters and macroalgal distribution and abundance were analyzed 4. Algal studies were conducted 5. Increased diversion of flows through the San Joaquin Marsh since 2005 has reduced nutrient loading to Newport Bay. The Marsh is part of the Natural Treatment System which has resulted in nutrient reductions on a watershed scale 6. The targets for 2002, 2007 and 2012 have been met for the majority of seasons 7. Recommended revisions to the TMDL have been provided to the Regional Board 8. Completion of the Peters Canyon Wash Channel Water Capture and Reuse Pipeline Project which diverts high selenium concentration groundwater to the Orange County Sanitation District Nutrient TMDL Planned Activities : 1. Continue routine monitoring and compliance assessments 2. Continue nutrient source investigations, including rising shallow groundwater sources contributing to the loading of nutrients to drainage channels that are tributary to Newport Bay. 3. Construction of the Santa Ana-Delhi Channel Diversion Project (multi-benefit project) and other diversion projects Toxics TMDL The USEPA promulgated the Toxics TMDLs for San Diego Creek/Newport Bay on June 14, The TMDL covers 14 different constituents diazinon and chlorpyrifos (organophosphate pesticides); chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, PCBs, and toxaphene (organochlorine compounds); cadmium, copper, lead and zinc (metals for Newport Bay); selenium; chromium and mercury (metals, specific to Rhine Channel only). 24

25 The Regional Board reviewed the Toxics TMDL and divided it into five separate constituent and geographically specific TMDLs. The five resulting TMDLs will be: Organochlorine Compounds (chlordane, DDT, PCBs, toxaphene) Organophosphate Pesticides (diazinon and chlorpyrifos) Metals (primarily copper in Newport Bay) Rhine Channel (copper, lead, selenium, zinc, chromium, and mercury chlordane, DDTs, and PCBs) Selenium Organochlorine Compounds TMDL Organochlorine compounds (chlordane, DDT, PCBs, toxaphene) were largely banned by USEPA in the 1970s. After final approval of the Regional Board s organochlorine compounds TMDL (which replaced USEPA s TMDL in 2013), a Toxicity Reduction and Investigation Program (TRIP) Work Plan was developed to address the toxicity issues in the watershed as a whole. Currently, efforts are being re-focused on organochlorine compounds themselves and a revised Work Plan is being developed with implementation steps prior to the TMDL deadline of December TMDL Targets and Requirements: 1. Conduct source control activities to reduce any active sources of OC pesticides and PCBs in the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed 2. Implement and evaluate agricultural BMPs in the watershed 3. Implement and evaluate construction BMPs in the watershed 4. Conduct special studies to evaluate sediment transport, organochlorine concentrations and areas where best management practice implementation will be most effective in meeting the TMDL goals 5. Monitor natural recovery; this task includes investigation of multiple lines of evidence to evaluate long-term ecological recovery due to natural attenuation of contaminated sediments 6. Incorporate waste load allocations into new and existing WDRs and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits 7. Develop regional program for complying with California s nonpoint source policy 8. Ensure that construction activities incorporate effective sediment and erosion control BMPs and conduct monitoring, as appropriate The summary below shows average annual DDT in the water column in San Diego Creek has been below the target for the past two years of monitoring: 25

26 The following table details the Organochlorine Compounds TMDL tasks forecasted for completion over the next five years and associated costs: Funding Forecast for Organochlorine TMDL Anticipated tasks to meet TMDL requirements over the next five years Total RMP $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 TRIP Workplan Revision $50,000 $50,000 TRIP Implementation $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 Toxicity Target Development $50,000 $50,000 Total $120,000 $220,000 $70,000 $20,000 $20,000 $450,000 Accomplishments to date: 1. An Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) assembled by the National Water Research Institute reviewed the Organochlorine Compounds TMDL and recommended approaches to verify and/or revise the TMDL. A final report by the IAP was received and distributed to the TRIP working group 2. The TRIP working group developed a work plan to comply with the Organochlorine Compounds TMDL incorporating IAP findings and it was submitted to the Regional Board in Watershed monitoring has shown that concentrations of these compounds continue to decrease, and in most cases are not detectable in either water or sediment samples. As a result, most load targets have been achieved Organochlorine TMDL Planned Activities : 1. Continue monitoring for organochlorine compounds in the water column, sediment, fish tissue, and bird eggs 2. Complete an in-depth review of organochlorine compounds data to date and compliance approaches 3. Develop a revised TRIP Work Plan approach 26

27 Organophosphates (Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos) TMDL Diazinon and chlorpyrifos were banned for residential use by USEPA, but are still available for restricted uses by commercial pesticide applicators. Since the residential ban, these compounds have only rarely been detected in the watershed. Monitoring is the main ongoing activity Metals TMDL The Regional Board is developing a proposed Basin Plan Amendment to incorporate a Copper (Metals) TMDL, which, if adopted, will replace the USEPA TMDLs for all the metals and arsenic, including those for Rhine Channel. While copper will be addressed in the TMDL in the conventional way, all other metals or elements will be addressed by non-tmdl approaches and corresponding USEPA TMDLs will be depromulgated. Due to the fact that this TMDL is still in draft form and modifications are being discussed, the requirements and accomplishments will be provided in future updates of the Plan Selenium TMDL The Nitrogen and Selenium Management Program (NSMP) was formed to comply with NPDES Short-Term Groundwater-Related Discharge, De Minimus Wastewater and General Waste Discharge Requirements of Orders No. R and R as well as the USEPA TMDL approved in The program goal is to develop watershed-wide management strategies to address selenium and nitrogen issues in the Newport Bay watershed, primarily from seepage of groundwater into surface waters. The permits provide an alternative compliance mechanism to the 5 ug/l selenium water quality objective designated by the California Toxics Rule (CTR). The NSMP is a collaborative effort of many watershed stakeholders, including the County of Orange, Regional Board, state and city agencies, water districts, and private entities. The County of Orange is responsible for administering and managing the NSMP, as well as serving as chair of the working group. The main components of the NSMP are the development of a watershed-wide Best Management Practice (BMP) Strategic Plan, an offset/trading program for both selenium and nitrogen, and the development of a revised TMDL and site-specific-objective (SSO) for selenium for the watershed. Site-specific objectives adjust water quality objectives to account for their over- and under-protectiveness by using site-specific information and applicable Federal and State of California scientific guidance. The NSMP has made significant progress but the selenium water quality objective could not be achieved during the original permit term ( ). Therefore, Time Schedule Order R was issued and extended to allow time to develop the TMDL (adopted in August 2017 by the Regional Board). A tissue-based SSO will also be developed and proposed for adoption to replace the current selenium water quality objective, which is the primary TMDL numeric target. The Regional Board adopted TMDL has two phases starting after the date of approval. Phase I is 6 years with a focus on developing the SSO, implementing key watershed projects and testing new selenium treatment methods. At the end of Phase I, the TMDL will be re-opened to adopt the SSO, among other 27

28 things. The re-opening may take up to two years. Phase II has a 30-year compliance schedule in view of the enormous challenges in reducing naturally-occurring selenium. Draft TMDL Targets and Requirements: 1. Implement volume reduction BMPs 2. Implement BMP Strategic Plan or Individual Action Plans 3. Develop and implement an Offset and Trading Program 4. Implement RMP and submit associated annual reports 5. Develop and implement a plan that describes the special studies that have been identified as needed to fill data gaps or provide additional data for implementation or revision of the TMDLs The figure below shows a summary of average annual selenium concentrations since 2004: The following table details the Selenium TMDL tasks forecasted for completion over the next five years and associated costs: Funding Forecast for Selenium TMDL Anticipated tasks to meet TMDL requirements over Total the next five years Se RMP $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $350,000 Selenium SSO Development $75,000 $50,000 $125,000 Trading/Offset Program $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 Special Studies $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000 BMP Evaluation $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 Total $191,000 $166,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $555,000 28

29 Selenium TMDL accomplishments to date: 1. Construction and initiation of operation of the Peters Canyon Wash Channel Water Capture and Reuse Pipeline Project 2. Completion of design of the Santa Ana-Delhi Channel Diversion Project and award of construction contract in December Testing of several selenium treatment technologies 4. Monitoring and assessment of selenium and nutrient sources in the watershed 5. Completion of proposed revisions to the selenium TMDL 6. Completion of dry weather diversion on the south branch of Big Canyon Creek at the east end of the Big Canyon Country Club golf course 7. Start of Phase I of the Big Canyon Nature Park restoration project which includes a plan to divert high selenium seeps at the east end of the park to the sanitary sewer Draft Selenium TMDL Planned Activities : 1. Continue monitoring for selenium in fish tissue and bird eggs 2. Continue special studies to help understand selenium fate, transport, and impacts 3. Develop tissue based SSO to replace the current water column target 4. Implement watershed projects (Santa Ana-Delhi Channel Diversion Project) and test new treatment technologies Trash Management The presence of trash in the Bay reduces the aesthetic quality and the accumulation of trash in the intertidal habitats, in particular plastics, has been documented as a threat to aquatic life through ingestion and entanglement, and suspended microscopic particles can act as intermediary for chemical uptake in wildlife through bioaccumulation processes. The County and watershed cities have implemented multiple programs to remove trash before it enters the Bay and these accomplishments and efforts are described further below. Accomplishments to date: catch basin inserts, 781 screens, 77 hydrodynamic separators, 5 trash booms, and 6 trash skimmers had been installed in the Newport Bay watershed as reported in Approximately 972 tons of trash and debris were removed from Newport Bay watershed drainage facilities annually through drainage facility maintenance activities during the period Approximately 14,189 tons of trash and debris were removed, and 147,921 miles swept, annually from Newport Bay Watershed through municipal street sweeping activities during the period Approximately 9 tons of trash have been collected through OC Public Works-led volunteer cleanup events and Help Your Harbor Newport Back Bay trash cleanups from A report entitled Newport Bay Watershed Final Trash Management Plan Framework (Trash Plan) has been completed (described further below) 29

30 6. The statewide ban on one-use plastic grocery bags is expected to contribute to trash control efforts in the Newport Bay watershed Trash Planning Framework: In 2011, the County received grant funding from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the Coastal Impact Assistance Program to begin development of the Trash Plan. The intent was to create the technical approaches needed for managing and monitoring trash on a watershed scale. The Trash Plan was developed in the Newport Bay watershed as a pilot project to test the management and monitoring protocols with the intention that the Plan would create a model program framework for implementation on a countywide level. In 2015, the State Water Board adopted new regulations to address trash in waters of the State, and developed a policy for statewide implementation within 18 months. State Water Board s recommendation for addressing trash from waters of the state were formalized in two regulatory amendments titled The Final Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) and the Proposed Final Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (ISWEBE Plan) together referred to as the Statewide Trash Policy. The Statewide Trash Policy establishes performance based trash reduction goals and will require the County and cities of Orange County to develop and implement a plan to achieve compliance with the policy. The Trash Plan is consistent with the statewide trash policy to ensure that watershed s intended approaches and implementation efforts align with regulatory requirements described in the new trash policy. In developing the Trash Plan since 2013 the following has been accomplished: 1. Preparation of a state of the science report on trash sources, impacts, and management approaches 2. Compilation of an inventory of trash control systems within the Newport Bay Watershed 3. Evaluation of the quality of existing trash management data resources within the watershed 4. Completion of a series of field events to calibrate a watershed scale model 5. Development of a rapid trash assessment method and completion of a pilot project to test the protocols 6. Conducting a subwatershed scale pilot program to validate the trash management approach recommendations in the Trash Plan 7. Preparing a long-term trash monitoring strategy 8. Completion of the Trash Plan Implementation of the new Statewide Trash Policy started in 2017 with the County and cities being required to select a Track 1 (full trash capture in high priority areas) or Track 2 (combination of controls 30

31 to achieve full capture equivalency). Funding will be a challenge, although significant funding has been provided to date through Measure M Planning Programs Central Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan Similar to the WMA concept, the State of California has been promoting Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs) as a more efficient and effective way to manage water quality, flooding, and natural and water resources and to achieve sustainable water use. It allows for the regional prioritization of important watershed issues and for consensus to be reached on how to address those issues. Also, IRWMPs allow for the development of holistic solutions to problems; address problems at the source; and integrate projects and programs throughout the region that have logical overlaps. Ultimately, IRWMPs promote sustainable resource management. The Central Orange County IRWMP addresses critical water resource management needs for the Newport Bay Watershed and the highly urbanized and developing Newport Coast Watershed with a population of approximately 705,000. Within this developed area are important habitats, including fragile coastal ecosystems with designated critical coastal areas (CCAs) and areas of special biological significance (ASBSs). The primary purpose of the IRWMP for the Central Orange County WMA is to bridge existing and developing watershed planning efforts, allowing for more effective collaboration and greater opportunity to leverage agency resources across jurisdictions. The Central Orange County IRWMP maximizes the quality and quantity of water available to meet the region s agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental needs by improving coordination among local agencies with responsibilities for managing water supplies, additional development of local resources, efficient utilization of existing resources and vigilant protection of our imported resources. The objectives of the Central Orange County IRWMP and the strategies to achieve objectives are based on the critical watershed management issues identified for the region, including: 1. Water quality and its impacts on the section 303(d) listed water bodies, CCAs, ASBSs 2. Flood control and loss of habitat 3. Compliance with water quality regulations 4. Enhancement of the quantity and quality of local water supplies 5. Impacts on sensitive coastal habitats due to heavy recreational use Highest priority is given to capital improvement projects which most strongly support the multipurpose objectives of the Central Orange County IRWMP. SAWPA is currently the recognized regional watershed management through its OWOW planning process. Accomplishments to date: 1. Formation of the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee and agreement for it to serve as lead for the Central Orange County WMA 31

32 2. Transition from management focus on Newport Bay to focus on the Central Orange County WMA that encompasses the Newport Bay and Newport Coastal Streams Watersheds 3. Completion and adoption of Phase I Central Orange County IRWMP 4. Completion and adoption of Phase II Central Orange County IRWMP 5. Completion and adoption of Phase III Central Orange County IRWMP in The plan includes the nine elements required by USEPA for a watershed management plan for funding under Clean Water Act Section 319 Projects 6. Submittal of projects to SAWPA for Proposition 84 funding through the OWOW process. Funded projects can be viewed at Planned Activities : 1. Update and revision of the Central Orange County IRWMP in conjunction with the North Orange County WMA 2. Continue subcommittee work with the Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District focusing on the benefits coming to Orange County 3. Work with SAWPA to adjust the project selection process for Proposition 1 grant funding 4. Coordinate Central Orange County IRWMP with Watershed Management Plans likely to be required under the municipal NPDES stormwater permit anticipated in Intra-County Coordination The Central Orange County WMA and adjacent North Orange County WMA are within the Regional Board boundary, and the South Orange County WMA which is located within the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board boundary. The North, Central, and South County WMA s are integrated through the sharing of County staff and countywide programs, including the Water Use Efficiency Task Force and the Orange County Stormwater Program, among others. In addition, integration is effectively achieved across regional boundaries by the Orange County Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, Orange County Sanitation District, and Executive Committee member agencies. Stormwater management and pollution control is effectively coordinated across watershed boundaries by the County in its role as the principal permittee for the municipal NPDES stormwater permits, TMDL program coordinator, and flood control infrastructure operator for the entire county. Environmental stewardship is integrated across adjacent regions through the Nature Reserve of Orange County, as administrator of Central/Coastal Orange County Habitat Conservation Plan, environmental coalitions such as the Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Orange County Green Vision, and the oversight and planning of regulatory agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are no gaps between the three WMAs with respect to management of any of the IRWMP elements, and any overlaps will be addressed by OC Public Works to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. 32

33 4.2.3 Inter-County Coordination The Central Orange County WMA lies at the southern edge of the broader Santa Ana River Watershed, which originates in the San Bernardino Mountains and extends westward to the Pacific Ocean encompassing portions of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. While the Central Orange County WMA shares groundwater resources and an imported water system with other areas in the Santa Ana region, its watershed management issues are distinct and integrally linked to the region s fragile coastal ecosystem. The Central Orange County WMA is currently part of SAWPA s OWOW watershed planning efforts in the Santa Ana River Watershed. SAWPA has developed and adopted previous integrated plans: one to direct Proposition 13 funds, one for Proposition 50 funds and one for Proposition 84 funds. The goals for the OWOW Plan are in many ways similar to the regional goals, objectives and strategies of the Central Orange County WMA. Since stakeholders from the Central Orange County WMA are also involved in the development of the OWOW plan, the prioritization in the Central Orange County IRWMP will help inform SAWPA s efforts. The goal of this IRWMP, with respect to OWOW, is to enable the Central Orange County WMA to clearly articulate its priorities to the OWOW Steering Committee and to speak with a unified voice when requesting the inclusion of its projects in any application SAWPA compiles for IRWMP funding from Proposition Research Programs The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration s (NOAA) National Centers for Coastal Science has awarded UC Irvine researchers, led by Dr. Brett Sanders, $1.15 million for their efforts to understand and mitigate sea level rise and storm surge impacts on changing coastal landscapes. With the four-year ( ) award, researchers will develop modeling tools to analyze how sediment management practices affect the stability of coastal communities and wetlands facing the tests of climate change. The UCI researchers are partnering with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP), led by Dr. Eric Stein. Together the researchers will use the new modeling approach to analyze flood risk, sediment instability and erosion risk, and habitat distributions under various climate change scenarios projected through the next 80 years with an estimated 1-meter rise in sea level. They will examine and compare alternatives in sediment management practices to see what might work best to protect and adapt coastal lowlands. Newport Bay and Tijuana River Estuary were selected to be two end members. 33

34 5. Costs and Funding 5.1 Financial Implications Securing adequate funding for public services and programs is a challenge, as there is increasing competition for the use of limited public funds. With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, ad-valorem property taxes are limited to one-percent of assessed value, and agencies must use other means to collect revenue for programs and services, such as user fees, property-related fees, regulatory fees, and development impact fees. Several of these require voter approval to initiate or increase, making their adoption uncertain. The costs to achieve sustained water quality improvements, protect coastal resources, and improve local water supply reliability are escalating. In most cases, there is no dedicated funding source available to implement projects and programs where there is no nexus with the provision of direct services. Unfunded mandate challenges have also been made to the State on a number of the regulatory requirements, including TMDLs. The California Supreme Court recently gave judgment on an issue in the Los Angeles County stormwater permit and other challenges will be heard by the State Unfunded Mandates Commission starting in late In the 2016 Orange County Infrastructure Report Card, surface water quality received the lowest score of D+, with a lack of funding being cited as the main reason. The Report Card showed a strong correlation between higher scores and dedicated funding (for example air travel) and low scores and lack of dedicated funding (urban stormwater quality). The agencies within the Central Orange County region are progressive in their approach to this challenge, using tiered rate structures to encourage water conservation, building capital funding needs into their rate structures, and pursuing grant funding where available. However, more funding is still necessary, especially in light of ongoing and new water quality regulations with increasingly high compliance costs. 5.2 Total Projected Costs TMDLs The following table provides the TMDL funding forecast for with a total cumulative cost of $6,880,350. These amounts include the shared TMDL-specific costs as summarized in Section 4 and those associated with staff salary, watershed studies, and monitoring, but not capital project costs, such as the Peters Canyon Wash Water Capture and Reuse Pipeline Project, Santa Ana-Delhi diversion project and Big Canyon Wash Plan, which are not shared by all parties. 34

35 Funding Forecast for All TMDLs Year Totals Sediment $576,350 $528,450 $485,550 $467,750 $436,600 $2,494,700 Fecal $450,000 $180,000 $125,000 $75,000 $75,000 $905,000 Coliform Nutrients $50,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $185,000 Organochlorines $120,000 $220,000 $70,000 $20,000 $20,000 $450,000 Selenium $191,000 $166,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $555,000 Labor and Supplies $639,300 $691,300 $721,400 $734,700 $708,950 $3,495,650 Totals $1,515,650 $1,429,750 $1,356,950 $1,312,450 $1,255,550 $6,880, Executive Committee Support During the period of when the costs for supporting the Executive Committee were tracked, the total expenditure was $417,300, including tasks such as administering Executive Committee and Management Committee meetings; IRWMP preparation (with consultant support), IRWMP grant preparation, etc. In contrast, during , when there were no IRWMP activities, the annual cost was estimated to be $38,400. Over the years, County has been bearing these costs updates to the IRWMP are being cost shared by the County, Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Water District, and Irvine Ranch Water District. 5.3 Cost Sharing The Cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, and Tustin; the Irvine Company; and the County of Orange/OCFCD are the cost-share partners for the sediment TMDL program (D Sediment Control Monitoring and In-Channel Maintenance Program). The current funding breakdown between these partners is based on resource benefit received, land area, sediment sources, and population. The resulting percentages are as follows: Partner Funding Share (%) Irvine Lake Forest 7.80 Newport Beach Tustin 7.65 Irvine Company County of Orange/OCFCD The five-year funding formula was last updated in 2014 and will be updated again in

36 The cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin; the County of Orange; OCFCD; IRWD; and Irvine Company are the cost-share partners for the other TMDLs per funding agreement D This agreement is scheduled for renewal by June 30, 2018 at which time the current cost-share percentages shown below may by revised: Partner Funding Share (%) Costa Mesa 4.29 County of Orange 7.07 Irvine Laguna Hills 0.59 Laguna Woods 0.96 Lake Forest 5.20 Newport Beach 7.56 Orange 0.94 Santa Ana Tustin 6.07 OCFCD IRWD Irvine Company Funding Opportunities To date, the TMDL cost share partners have funded most TMDL-related work out of their general or special funds. Grant funding has been pursued where it has been a viable possibility for projects. The costs of water quality programs continue to increase, and have prompted the funding partners to explore other potential sources of funding. A county-wide watershed fee or a funding mechanism similar to one being considered in Los Angeles County is a potential option. The following table includes some recent grants received in the Newport Watershed for water quality projects. Future funding opportunities include Proposition 1, OCTA Measure M2 Environmental Cleanup Program, and the Clean Water Act Section 319(h) Program, among others. 36

37 Year Grant Title Grant Program/Source Grant Purpose Received Amount 2014 Santa Ana-Delhi Channel Diversion Project OCTA Measure M2 $2,550,000 Selenium, Nutrient and Fecal Coliform TMDLs, trash capture 2014 Peters Canyon Wash Water OCTA Measure M2 $3,500,000 Selenium TMDL Capture and Reuse Pipeline Project 2014 Peters Canyon Wash Water Prop. 84 $1,000,000 Selenium TMDL Capture and Reuse Pipeline Project 2006 Borrego Canyon Wash State Water Resources $200,000 Sediment TMDL Feasibility Study Control Board funding 2005 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform Source Identification & Management Plan Prop Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program $780,000 Fecal Coliform TMDL 2005 Newport Bay Nutrient TMDL Dissolved Oxygen and Algae Distribution Study 2004 San Diego Creek Sediment Pesticide Study 2003 Urban Nutrient Characterization and Control in the Newport Bay Watershed 2003 San Diego Creek Sediment Basin #2 and Weir Construction Project Prop Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program Prop Pesticide Research and Identification of Source and Mitigation Program $250,300 Nutrient TMDL $188,254 Toxics/Organochlorines TMDL Prop. 13 $295,000 Nutrient TMDL Prop. 13 $684,665 Sediment TMDL 37

38 6. Public Advocacy 6.1 Advocacy within the Central Orange County Watershed Management Area The main stakeholder group for the Central Orange County WMA is the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee. For all meetings, agendas are distributed in advance, via , to nearly 200 contacts for the Central Orange County WMA. All meetings are public and any interested parties are welcome to attend; meetings are usually held at convenient locations centrally located within the WMA. Additionally, Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee meetings are governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act. Agendas are posted at least 72 hours in advance in several locations: with the Orange County Clerk of the Board; on the OC Watersheds website; and at the actual meeting location. Meeting materials are also posted on the OC Watersheds website at least 72 hours in advance. After each meeting, the presentation slides from the meeting are posted on the OC Watersheds website. Meeting minutes are prepared and are included on the next meeting agenda for approval. Public participation is welcome at all meetings. The Stakeholders Group meetings are periodic, informal and attendees are welcome to comment throughout the meetings. However, for the more structured Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee meetings, there is always a specific time allotted for public comments. Contact information is provided on meeting agendas, on the OC Watersheds website, and with all s. OC Environmental Resources staff serves as staff to the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee and members and others can contact OC Environmental Resources staff for more information. 6.2 Advocacy with other Watershed Management Areas The Central Orange County WMA is adjacent to both the North Orange County WMA and South Orange County WMA and actively coordinates with both. The North Orange County WMA includes the entire course of the Santa Ana River from the Riverside County line to the Pacific Ocean. The northern watersheds straddle the Orange County and Los Angeles County boundary, and thus the North Orange County WMA coordinates closely with Los Angeles County on common issues. In order to better integrate water management in the Santa Ana River Watershed, the North Orange County WMA participates in the Santa Ana River Integrated Watershed Management Plan. Water supply and water quality are the priorities of the Santa Ana River Integrated Watershed Plan. The South Orange County WMA lies entirely within the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Diego Funding Area. This WMA is part of the Tri-County Funding Area Coordination Committee, and coordinates closely with the Upper Santa Margarita Watershed Planning Area and the San Diego IRWMP. Each planning region has a seat on the others advisory committees to promote understanding, communication and coordination. The priorities for the South Orange County WMA are water conservation and surface water quality. 38

39 7. Action Plan Schedule The following table shows some of the key milestones anticipated in the Newport Bay Watershed over the five year period covered by the Action Plan: Year Key Milestones Action Category Regulatory / TMDL 2017 Completion of Peters Canyon Channel Water Capture and Reuse Pipeline 2017 Regional Board adoption of selenium TMDL X Watershed Other X 2017 Initiation of fecal coliform stakeholder process to assess current conditions, replacement standards, and the need for a new TMDL 2017 Regional Board approval of 3-year extension of the fecal coliform TMDL compliance date for SHEL 2017 State Water Board consideration of adopting the 2012 USEPA Recreational Water Quality Criterion statewide 2017 Regional Board consideration of adopting a copper TMDL for Newport Bay 2017 Regional Board action to implement the Statewide Trash Policy 2018 Renewal of TMDL funding Agreement D Regional Board consideration of a new municipal stormwater permit for north Orange County 2018 Completion of Santa Ana-Delhi Channel Diversion Project 2018 Completion of update on north and central Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs) 2018 State release of round one Prop 1 funding for IRWMPs 2018 Completion of funding strategy for future dredging of Upper Newport Bay sediment basins 2019 Completion of fecal coliform stakeholder process and Regional Board consideration of replacement standards 2019 State release of round two Prop 1 funding for IRWMPs X X X X X X X X X X X X X 39

40 2019 Regional Board consideration of adoption of X selenium site-specific objectives 2020 Compliance deadline for Organochlorine X Compounds TMDLs 2020 Completion of UCI/SCCWRP NOAA sea level rise grant work 2022 Compliance deadline for SHEL TMDL X X 40

41 Appendices 41

42 Page intentionally left blank 42

43 Executive Action Plan September 2017 v4 Appendix A Accomplishment A-1

44 Executive Committee Met 3-6 times each year Newport Bay Watershed Accomplishments Conducted 4 tours of the watershed Approved adoption of Phase III Central Orange County IRWMP in 2012 Established a subcommittee to work with Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District on future Proposition 1 grant funding processes Provided a public forum for discussion of the watershed projects below Sediment TMDL Completion of Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project in 2010 Channel stabilization projects throughout watershed, including a high flow box culvert diversion in Borrego Wash in 2015 Completion of a Project Design Report for Serrano Creek in 2015 Completion of an open space sediment yield study in 2010 Modification of the Monitoring and Reporting Program in 2014 Achievement of the sediment load reduction target within 10 years (2009) and every year since Fecal Coliform TMDL Initiation of construction of Santa Ana Delhi Diversion project in 2016 and other diversion projects (applies to nutrient and selenium TMDLs too) Initiation of stakeholder process in 2017 to re-evaluate the role of fecal coliform in the Basin Plan and TMDL Extension in 2017 of date to comply with SHEL beneficial use to 2022 Nutrient TMDL Revision of the RMP in 2014 to decrease monitoring and reporting frequencies Completion of study in 2013 to determine the influence of the infiltration of shallow groundwater on urban runoff quality Increased diversion of flows through the San Joaquin Marsh since 2005 has reduced nutrient loading to Newport Bay Completion of Peters Canyon Wash Channel Water Capture and Reuse Pipeline Project in 2016 (applies to selenium TMDL too) TMDL targets for 2002, 2007 and 2012 have been met for the majority of seasons Organochlorine TMDL OC compounds continue to decrease, and in most cases are not detectable in either water or sediment samples. As a result, most load targets have been achieved A-2

45 Selenium TMDL Tested several selenium treatment technologies Completion of proposed revisions to the selenium TMDL and approval by Regional Board in 2017 Completion of dry weather diversion on the south branch of Big Canyon Creek at the east end of the Big Canyon Country Club golf course Started Phase I of the Big Canyon Nature Park restoration project including diverting high selenium seeps at the east end of the park to the sanitary sewer Trash As of 2014, 718 catch basin inserts, 781 screens, 77 hydrodynamic separators, 5 trash booms, and 6 trash skimmers had been installed in the Newport Bay watershed During the period approximately 972 tons of trash and debris were removed from Newport Bay watershed drainage facilities annually During the period an annual average of 14,189 tons of trash and debris were removed and 147,921 miles of streets were swept in the Newport Bay Watershed Completion of a report entitled Newport Bay Watershed Final Trash Management Plan Framework in 2017 to assist in complying with the Statewide Trash Policy Central Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan Completion and adoption of Phase III Central Orange County IRWMP in 2012 A-3

46 Page intentionally left blank A-4

47 Executive Action Plan September 2017 v4 Appendix B Agreement D Third and Fourth Amendments B-1

48 B-2

49 B-3

50 B-4

51 B-5

52 B-6

53 B-7

54 B-8

55 B-9

56 B-10

57 B-11

58 B-12

59 B-13

60 B-14

61 B-15

62 B-16

63 B-17

64 B-18

65 B-19

66 B-20

67 B-21

68 B-22

69 B-23

70 B-24

71 B-25

72 B-26

73 B-27

74 B-28

75 B-29

76 B-30

77 B-31

78 B-32

79 B-33

80 B-34

81 B-35

82 B-36

83 B-37

84 B-38

85 Executive Action Plan September 2017 v4 Appendix C Agreement D C-1

86 C-2

87 C-3

88 C-4

89 C-5

90 C-6

91 C-7

92 C-8

93 C-9

94 C-10

95 C-11

96 C-12

97 C-13

98 C-14

99 C-15

100 C-16

101 C-17

102 C-18

103 Executive Action Plan September 2017 v4 Appendix D Agreement D and First Amendment D-1

104 D-2

105 D-3

106 D-4

107 D-5

108 D-6

109 D-7

110 D-8

111 D-9

112 D-10

113 D-11

114 D-12

115 D-13

116 D-14

117 D-15

118 D-16

119 D-17

120 D-18

121 D-19

122 D-20

123 D-21

124 D-22

125 D-23

126 D-24

127 D-25

128 D-26

129 D-27

130 D-28

131 D-29

132 D-30

133 D-31

134 D-32

135 D-33

136 D-34

137 D-35

138 D-36

139 D-37

140 D-38

141 D-39