ALISO CREEK WATERSHED RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN WATER QUALITY DATA ASSESSMENT 2014 ANNUAL REPORT ORANGE COUNTY STORMWATER PROGRAM

Transcription

1

2

3 ALISO CREEK WATERSHED RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN WATER QUALITY DATA ASSESSMENT 2014 ANNUAL REPORT ORANGE COUNTY STORMWATER PROGRAM

4

5 1.0 Introduction This 2014 Annual Report includes the status of ongoing corrective actions, monitoring (Figure 1), assessment, and environmental research efforts for fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in the Aliso Creek Watershed (Watershed) and downstream at Aliso Beach (Figure 1). Findings are based upon over a decade of study including current efforts by the Orange County Stormwater Program s Watershed Permittees (County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, and Mission Viejo) to implement provisions in Orange County municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit R (Directive G, Aliso Creek Watershed Runoff Management Plan), including a Comprehensive Load Reduction Plan (CLRP) for Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads (Bacteria TMDLs). Figure 1. Aliso Creek water sample being collected for FIB analysis as part of monitoring efforts by the Orange County Stormwater Program watershed partners. In an effort to better clarify findings and present a complete picture of the state of the watershed and the factors affecting its bacterial water quality, this year s Report is divided into the following sections: Watershed Setting and BMPs - A discussion of the watershed and water quality improvement efforts; BMP Monitoring - An assessment of the performance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on FIB load reduction; Aliso Creek Monitoring - Monitoring activities and observed improvements in Aliso Creek bacterial water quality; Aliso Beach Monitoring - How FIB levels at the beach may be different than upstream and what the source could be; Drought Impact - The current drought and what that has meant for FIB loading in Aliso Creek; and Bacteria TMDLs Future Direction - Efforts to identify sources of FIB contamination and define site-specific water quality objectives protective of beneficial uses. A description of data analysis methods and a detailed stationby-station analysis of monitoring program data collected as part of the current Revised Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program (December, 2004) is provided in. Appendix B includes an overview of California water quality objectives (WQOs) established for recreational water bodies and designated beneficial uses of water bodies within the Watershed Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 1

6 2.0 Watershed Setting and BMPs The Watershed is located in southern Orange County approximately 50 miles south of Los Angeles and 65 miles north of San Diego. Aliso Creek (Creek) drains a long, narrow coastal canyon with headwaters in the Cleveland National Forest that ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean at Aliso Beach in the City of Laguna Beach. In the late 1800s the agricultural community of El Toro was one of the earliest modern settlements in the Watershed. Land uses included livestock grazing and orange and avocado groves. In the 1960s agricultural and ranch activities began to be replaced with residential and commercial development (Figure 2). Today the Watershed is largely developed with mixed residential and commercial land uses (Figure 3). National Forest and County wilderness park areas comprise the largest remaining undeveloped land area in the upper and lower portion of the watershed. Figure 2: Historical agricultural land uses (1938) and current developed conditions at Aliso Creek and 5 Freeway (2014). Figure 3: Current developed (orange) and undeveloped (green) areas within the Aliso Creek Watershed. Approximately 67% of the watershed is now developed. Remaining undeveloped areas include primarily protected National Forest and regional park land in the upper and lower portion of the watershed. Watershed urbanization has been accompanied by an increase in pollutant loads to Aliso Creek. Water quality, particularly FIB contamination, has been a priority issue for the watershed dating back to the late 1990s. Since that time numerous efforts have been made to understand and reduce sources of FIB to Aliso Creek and improve water quality (Figure 4). Since 2000, total expenditures on the Watershed monitoring program and improvement efforts have exceeded $23 million (Figure 5) Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 2

7 What are fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and are they harmful? Identifying disease-causing organisms (pathogens) in surface water is difficult, time-consuming and costly. Therefore, FIB are used as indicators to determine the likelihood that harmful viruses and other pathogens may be present in water bodies. These indicator bacteria normally occur in the intestines of all warm-blooded animals Fecal Coliform Colonies and are excreted in high numbers in feces but can also be found naturally in soils and decaying vegetation. There is no ideal indicator group of FIB, so testing is done for several groups including fecal coliforms and enterococci. Most strains of bacteria within these groups are not pathogenic themselves, but a strain of E. coli, a fecal coliform bacteria, is a pathogen. How do FIB and pathogens get into creeks and other water bodies? FIB can come from a variety of sources throughout the watershed including pet waste, trash, sewage spills, septic tanks (very few remaining in Orange County), animal manure fertilizers, natural sources such as bird and wildlife feces and decaying plant material. These bacteria can also re-grow and multiply in the environment unassociated with pathogen levels, making the use as indicators of water quality problematic. During wet weather, storm runoff picks up the bacteria and associated pathogens off of the land and carries them into creeks and other recreational waters. During dry weather, groundwater seepage and nuisance flows from urban land use activities such as car washing or lawn irrigation can transport these bacteria to receiving waters. Figure 4. Timeline of Key Aliso Creek Water Quality Efforts County receives Clean Water Act Section 205(j) grant to conduct Aliso Creek water quality studies. County initiates focused Aliso Creek water quality monitoring investigations on FIB contamination. Aliso Creek 205(j) Water Quality Planning Study Report completed laying out framework for water quality improvement. San Diego Water Board issues Directive to the County and watershed cities to continue to investigate and refine plan to address FIB contamination within Aliso Creek. Monitoring program expanded to weekly bacterialogical testing at all major stormdrain outfalls to Aliso Creek (over 100 monitoring stations throughout the watershed). Laguna Niguel source investigation finds non-human origin of FIB in J03P02 stormdrain. Constructed wetlands completed in J05 channel as mitigation for Laguna Hills Community Center project. J01P28 Media Filter and UV Light Disinfection Treatment System constructed to treat drainage from Aliso Viejo Town Center area. Wetland Capture and Treatment project (Wet CAT) completed to clean runoff from Laguna Niguel J03P02 stormdrain. South Orange County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) developed with focus on water quality and restoring watershed biological diversity. J01P08 subwatershed irrigation controller pilot study in Lake Forest shows meaningful reductions in stormdrain flow. Aliso FIB monitoring program revised to focus on the summer when concentrations in the watershed are at their highest. Watershed wide SmarTimer Edgescape Evaluation Project (SEEP) study on benefits of enhanced irrigation controllers and landscape retrofits to reduce irrigation runoff and pollutant loads. Channel restoration project completed in segment of J04 (Narco) channel in Laguna Niguel achieves significant FIB reductions. San Diego Water Board adopts FIB Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for south Orange County including Aliso Creek, its tributaries and Aliso Beach. Aliso Creek Watershed Comprehensive Load Reduction Plan (CLRP) developed identifying watershed BMPs needed to meet FIB TMDLs. (updated in 2014) 2014 Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 3

8 An Aliso Creek Watershed Comprehensive Load Reduction Plan (CLRP) was developed in 2012 and updated in 2014 ( =712) focusing on four structural BMP categories to reduce bacteria and other watershed pollutant loads: Treatment Systems - Examples include sand filters, cartridge media filters and disinfection treatment, such as ozone or ultraviolet (UV) light. Dry weather diversions are also included in this category where stormdrain flow is diverted to the sanitary sewer for treatment. Wetlands/Channel Restoration - Wetland treatment systems have shown proven reductions in bacteria, metals and other pollutants. Channel restoration enhances a stream s natural capacity to absorb/remove pollutants and restores riparian habitat. Landscape Retrofits - Examples include weather-based irrigation controllers (e.g. SmarTimers), edgescaping where existing irrigated lawn area along the edge of a sidewalk, street curb, driveway, etc. is replaced with lower impact landscaping and permeable ground covering, and other irrigation improvements to improve water efficiency and reduce runoff. Catch Basin Retrofits - Examples include debris gates and in line baskets or filters. Debris gates are designed to keep trash out of stormdrains and within reach of street sweepers. In-line baskets capture and retain trash pollutants for later removal while catch basin filters screen out finer pollutants such as metals, silt, and hydrocarbons. Figure 5: Map of current Aliso Creek Watershed BMP projects. A complete list of current and proposed watershed BMPs can be found in the Aliso Creek Watershed Comprehensive Load Reduction Plan (CLRP) 2014 Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 4

9 3.0 BMP Monitoring The current bacteria monitoring program in the Watershed focuses on six high-priority drains/bmp evaluation sites and a series of status and trends sites in Creek receiving waters (see for a detailed description of the current monitoring program and data results). The six drains were selected to document the bacteria load reduction from BMPs being implemented in the specific drainage area. How Wetlands Remove Bacteria Bacteria attached to soil particles in the water settle by gravity and sink to the bottom where they are trapped by plant matter and sediment Wetland plants release compounds into the soil that have an anti-biotic effect, slowing bacteria growth Exposure to ultraviolet rays in sunlight kills bacteria Predatory microscopic animals called protozoans feed on bacteria in the water Acidic water chemistry in a wetland is detrimental to bacterial growth Figure 6. Dry weather bacteria load reductions at high-priority drains. Reductions are based upon comparison of summer (baseline, 2007 for J04) and 2014 stormdrain data. Drain Key Watershed BMP Effort Concentration Reduction Load Reduction J05 Constructed Wetland 97.69% 97.28% J04 Channel Restoration 97.46% 99.57% J07P02 Landscape Irrigation 71.91% 93.71% Controllers J01P08 Landscape Irrigation Controllers/ 36.64% 88.99% SmarTimer J06 Catch Basin Screens 78.41% 62.29% J01P28 UV and Media Filter Treatment System 99.50%* 99.50%* *Reduction for J01P28 based upon 2014 treatment system performance data for FIB, not representing the load reduction comparing to The J01P28 facility has been in continuous operation during summer 2014 with the exception of 11 days of shutdown due to a faulty alarm and pump shaft seal repair resulting in a 0% reduction at the drain during this period. Of the BMPs being implemented, wetlands, channel restoration projects and the UV and Media Filter Treatment System have resulted in the highest consistent bacteria load reductions (Figures 6). Drains with source control BMPs such as landscape irrigation controllers and catch basin screens/filters have also been observed to have notable improvements even though it is hard to quantify the effect of this type of BMPs. Graphic courtesy of the City of Laguna Niguel 2014 Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 5

10 4.0 Bacteria Trend Since 2003 there has been a dramatic reduction in FIB concentrations in the watershed (Figure 7). The most notable improvements have occurred in the lower portion of the watershed. (Figure 8). Figure 8. Monitoring station CTPJ01 in the lower Aliso Creek watershed. Swimming, kayaking, and other water contact activities are not allowed. In 2014, greater than 95% of the samples at Aliso Creek monitoring site CTPJ01, located 1-mile inland from Aliso Beach, met water contact recreation WQOs for fecal coliform bacteria. (see Appendix B for a discussion on Aliso Creek Watershed beneficial uses and bacteria WQOs for recreation). Although there were still some exceedances for both FIBs, seasonal geometric means continued to remain at a historical low (Figure 9). Figure 9. FIB seasonal geometric means at Aliso Creek monitoring site CTPJ01 have significantly declined and now partially meet recreational WQOs for fecal coliform. Figure 7. Lower Aliso Creek Watershed summer bacteria concentrations. (Summer 2014 seasonal geometric mean and geometric mean WQOs) 2014 Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 6

11 5.0 Aliso Beach Monitoring Reductions in FIB concentrations in the Watershed should result in water quality improvements at the mouth of the Creek and in the surfzone. However, since 2003, water quality at the Creek mouth and in beach waters appears disconnected from the improving conditions in Aliso Creek (Figure 10). In fact, summer surfzone FIB concentrations have remained consistently low despite fluctuations in Aliso Creek. Some of this disconnect may be explained by the closing of the Creek mouth to the ocean during the summer dry season. In addition, although there are no major stormdrain inputs between the creek mouth (ACM1) and one mile upstream in the watershed (CTPJ01), data shows increasing bacteria downstream indicating another source, such as natural regrowth (Figure 11). In order to investigate the issue, additional data is being collected to investigate FIB sources along the lower 1-mile of Aliso Creek including new microbial source tracking (MST) data to identify bacteria strains unique to humans and other animal species. In 2014, 46 samples Figure 10. Despite reductions upstream in the watershed (CTPJ01) bacteria concentrations at the Aliso Creek mouth (ACM1) and in the surfzone (ACM1d) have remained unchanged. Figure 11. Monitoring stations along the lower 1-mile of Aliso Creek and recent geomeans of station enterococci concentrations. 161 CFU/100ml 14 CFU/100ml 90 CFU/100ml collected at ACM1 and ACM1d that exceeded bacteria WQOs were tested for human and canine bacteria markers. Canine markers were detected in three samples while human markers were not identified in any of the samples. Additional monitoring is needed to confirm these results. A more likely source of WQO exceedances at the ACM1 may be natural FIB sources such as bacteria regrowth and droppings from birds that congregate at the Creek mouth (Figure 12). 38 CFU/100ml Figure 12. A single bird dropping can contain billions of FIB Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 7

12 6.0 Drought Impact (July-June) marked the third straight year of historic drought in Orange County and the Watershed. Excluding the rainy season of where a 10-inch storm event comprised the majority of the rain received, there has been below average rainfall in the watershed for eight straight years (Figure 13). After a record dry year in a Californiawide drought was declared in June 2008 and recently again in January Figure 13. Rainfall received at the Sulphur Creek dam in Laguna Niguel Regional Park (July 1975 June 2014). Figure 14. Aliso Creek flow rate and bacteria loads at CTPJ01 monitoring station in the lower Aliso Creek Watershed. Figure 15. Estimated dry weather flow reductions at high-priority stormdrains based upon 2007 and 2014 summer monitoring data. Coinciding with these drought conditions has been a reduction in flows in Aliso Creek and also bacteria loads (Figure 14). The observed declines are likely attributable to several factors. One factor is the reductions in flows at stormdrains. Since 2007 there has been 62-72% reduction in flow at measured drains (Figure 15). This reduction is likely due to a decrease in groundwater input resulting from the drought and water conservation efforts. Recent BMP efforts have focused on stormdrain flow reduction including retrofitting landscaped areas to prevent over irrigation (see and longer term efforts are seeking to enhance infiltration through the application of low impact development technologies. Local water districts have implemented other water conservation efforts including restricted watering days during drought periods and tiered water rate structures. These measures have contributed to a reduction in runoff to the stormdrain system and the conveyance of bacteria and other pollutants Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 8

13 7.0 Aliso Creek and Bacteria TMDLs Future Direction The Aliso Creek Watershed Bacteria Monitoring Program has focused on collecting data to determine the effect of BMPs at stormdrains during dry weather and to evaluate improvements in downstream receiving waters. Data shows there has been a considerable decrease in both bacteria loads from stormdrains (Figure 16) and concentrations in the receiving waters (Figure 9). Future monitoring efforts as described in the Aliso Creek Watershed CLRP will be expanded to include wet weather monitoring and series of special studies. These efforts will also fill data gaps and guide future implementation activities for compliance with watershed Bacteria TMDLs. Figure 16. Summer bacteria loads at Aliso Creek high-priority stormdrain monitoring sites. Figure 17. Aliso Creek single sample maximum (SSM) and geomean (GM) water quality objective exceedance rate vs. TMDL allowable exceedances rates and exceedance rates in reference creek systems. WQOs Exceedance Rate Monitoring Station Aliso Creek (CTPJ01) Water Summer Summer Aliso Quality Objective (Fecal Coliform) (Enterococci) Dry Weather TMDLs OC & SD Reference Creeks SSM 5% 15% 0% 34.10% GM 0% 40% 0% 71% Creek Mouth SSM 89% 81% (ACM1) Aliso Beach (ACM1d) GM 50% 100% SSM 0% 0% GM 0% 0% In 2010 the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Bacteria TMDLs for Aliso Creek, its tributaries, and Aliso Beach seeking to restore and protect recreational beneficial uses of these water bodies. The Bacteria TMDLs define needed bacteria load reductions from the stormdrain system and receiving water bacteria concentration numeric targets based upon recreational WQOs. To account for natural sources of a bacteria (i.e. decaying vegetation, fecal matter from birds and other wildlife, etc.) the Bacteria TMDLs allow for an exceedance frequency of bacteria numeric targets. A 22% allowable exceedance frequency is currently used for Aliso Creek Watershed samples collected during wet weather conditions. This is based upon Los Angeles County bacteria TMDLs which used data from a natural reference watershed beach (Leo Carrillo) to establish a permissible exceedance rate. No allowable exceedance frequency is currently in place for 2014 Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 9

14 samples collected during dry weather. Initial data collected from an ongoing Orange and San Diego County reference watershed study suggests that the dry weather exceedance rate for natural creeks is not 0% as reference creeks systems have exceeded the enterococci geometric mean water quality objective by 71% (Figure 17). Based upon the initial study findings it is expected that adjustments to the Bacteria TMDLs numeric target will be needed when the study is complete. In addition, the 2012 EPA Recreational Water Quality Criteria Recommendations indicate that E.coli, instead of fecal coliform and enterococci, is the most reliable indicator organism in freshwater. Studies have also found that enterococci can exist and multiply in freshwater and create false positives in samples. Thus, a modification of the FIB indicator is also needed to better assess freshwater quality. Future watershed special studies are also being planned to isolate bacteria sources using a toolbox of source tracking techniques. These include sewer infrastructure dye testing to ensure no leaks to the stormdrain system and receiving waters, additional microbial source tracking to determine whether bacteria in the Creek and at the Aliso Beach are from a human fecal origin to define a more accurate assessment of health risk to recreation users marked another year of progress for the Aliso Creek Watershed as the state of Creek is significantly healthier than when monitoring and BMP efforts began in the 1990s. Continued work is, however, needed to identify and control bacteria sources, evaluate WQOs, and find solutions to meet TMDL targets Annual Report Aliso Creek WRMP February 27, 2015 Water Quality Data Assessment 10

15 APPENDIX A Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program 2014 Bacteria Test Results and Data Analysis Methods

16 Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program 2014 Bacteria Test Results and Data Analysis Methods TABLE OF CONTENTS A.1 Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program, December A1 A.1.1 A.1.2 A.1.3 Status and Trends Monitoring... A1 BMP Evaluation Monitoring... A3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)... A4 A.2 Data Analysis... A4 A.2.1 A.2.2 Water Quality Objectives (WQOs)... A4 Data Analysis Methods... A4 A.3 Monitoring Results... A5 A.3.1 A.3.2 Status and Trends... A5 BMP Evaluation Monitoring Results... A7 A.4 Conclusion... A8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A.1 Aliso Creek Watershed Revised Monitoring Program Sampling Locations... A2 Fig. A.2(a-g) Status and Trends Sites, FC Levels as Box-Plots... A10-A12 Fig. A.3(a-e) Status and Trends Sites, Seasonal Geomean FC... A13 A14 Fig. A.4(a-e) Status and Trends Sites, FC Running 30-Day Geomean... A15-A16 Fig. A.5(a-e) Status and Trends Sites, 30-Day Periods and FC 10% objective... A17-A18 Fig. A.6(a-g) Status and Trends Sites, ENT Levels and Box-Plots... A19-A21 Fig. A.7(a-e) Status and Trends Sites, Seasonal Geomean ENT Concentrations... A22-A23 Fig. A.8(a-e) Status and Trends Sites, ENT Running 30-Day Geomean... A24-A25 Fig. A.9(a-q) BMP Evaluation Sites, FC Levels as Box-Plots... A26-A31 Fig. A.10(a-f) BMP Evaluation Sites, Seasonal Geomean FC... A32-A33 Fig. A.11(a-q) BMP Evaluation Sites, ENT Levels as Box-Plots... A34-A39 Fig. A.12(a-f) BMP Evaluation Sites, Seasonal Geomean ENT... A40-A41 Figure A.13 BMP Evaluation Sites Fecal Coliform Bacteria Load... A42 Figure A.14 BMP Evaluation Sites Enterococci Bacteria Load... A42 Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program i February 27, 2015

17 Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program 2014 Bacteria Test Results and Data Analysis Methods LIST OF TABLES Table A Bacteria Test Results for Directive Revised Monitoring Program... A43 Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program ii February 27, 2015

18 A.1 Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program, December 2004 The design of the current Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program (the Program) was based on four years of intensive monitoring data. The Program builds upon improved knowledge about overall patterns of Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) in the Watershed as well as more localized responses to specific Best Management Practices (BMPs). Monitoring efforts (site locations shown in Figure A.1) focus on a group of status and trends sites near the bottom of the watershed and a second set of BMP evaluation sites at high-priority drains throughout the watershed. The objectives of the program include: Documenting trends in water quality at high-priority locations (Status and Trends Monitoring). Evaluating BMPs implemented to improve water quality (BMP Evaluation Monitoring). Supporting source identification efforts. Monitoring indicators include: Total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococci (all sampled sites). Total chlorine (drains only, once/month). Temperature, ph, and estimated flow (drains and downstream stations). A.1.1 Status and Trends Monitoring Status and Trends Monitoring focuses on answering two questions: 1. Are conditions in receiving waters protective of beneficial uses? (Status) 2. Are conditions in receiving waters getting better or worse over time? (Trends) Status and Trends Monitoring occurs at five core Aliso Creek monitoring sites in the lower portion of the watershed as shown in Figure A.1. Past studies indicate that the lower portion of the watershed is the area of highest potential recreational use and related concern about potential human health impacts. Despite some variability among them, the sites as a group provide a picture of conditions in the lower portion of the Creek. Since 2006, these five sites ARJ01, J01@J03 (J01 upstream and downstream of J03) 1, ACJ01, J01@J02 (J01 upstream and downstream of J02) 2, and CTPJ01 are monitored during August and September, at a frequency of 10 samples per month. This period represents the most conservative sampling period because it: Captures the annual peak of bacteria concentrations in the watershed. Is the time of year that body contact recreation is most likely. 1 J01 upstream of J03 and J01 downstream of J03 are also referred to as J03 Upstream and J03 Downstream. 2 J01 upstream of J02 and J01 downstream of J02 are also referred to as J02 Upstream and J02 Downstream. A1

19 Figure A.1: Aliso Creek Watershed Revised Monitoring Program Sampling Locations A2

20 The monitoring frequency was selected with the goal of detecting an 80% drop in FIB levels over a ten-year period. This sampling frequency is based on analyses of the ability to detect change for various levels of sampling effort. These analyses show this sampling frequency has the ability to both assess attainment of the water quality objectives in the most critical period of the year and to track trends over time. A.1.2 BMP Evaluation Monitoring Efforts to improve water quality to meet recreation water quality objectives in the lower sections of Aliso Creek are concentrated on specific upstream discharges to the Creek, where a range of source identification, enforcement, and pollution prevention activities are planned and/or underway. Six high-priority drains/bmp evaluation sites have been established in the upper watershed: J01P08 in Lake Forest, J07P02 in Mission Viejo, J06 in Laguna Woods, J05 in Laguna Hills, J01P28 in Aliso Viejo, and J04 in Laguna Niguel. The BMP evaluation sites were intended to document the relative effectiveness of different BMPs, which in turn will help guide BMP implementation elsewhere in the watershed. BMP Evaluation Monitoring focuses on answering three questions: 1. Have bacteria loads from the high-priority drains decreased? 2. Are BMPs having their intended effects on concentrations in the Creek and/or loads from the drains? 3. Have impacts from high-priority drains on the receiving waters decreased? Sampling site locations J01P08, J07P02, J06, J05, J01P28, and J04 are also mapped on Figure A.1. At each site, samples are collected from the stormdrain, in the creek upstream of pipe discharge, and downstream of pipe discharge. The one exception is site J07P02 where no upstream samples are collected because it is located at the top of the J07 (English Creek) watershed. The BMP Evaluation Monitoring Program specifies sampling at nine sites in the six high priority drains but three of these sites (J06 at catchbasin, J01P28 at shopping center, J01P28 treatment system outflow) have been historically difficult to access or not available throughout the entire reporting period. Therefore, as in previous years, these sites have been combined with other sites as described below: J06 at catchbasin - This site located in the Laguna Woods gated community was combined with the J06 site at Aliso Creek located further downstream. J01P28 at shopping center This monitoring site located upstream of the Clear Creek system at the Aliso Viejo Shopping Center was combined with the J01P28 outfall site. J01P28 treatment system outflow - This site was sampled only when the drain was diverted and the treatment system was active at the time of sampling. In 2014, the system operated successfully for much of the year during non-storm conditions and achieved significant reductions in bacteria concentrations. It was offline for repairs from February 20, June 2 to 9, August 25 to 29 and September 24 to October 23. During periods when the treatment system was offline, samples were collected from the J01P28 stormdrain, rather than the treatment system outflow (J01P28Ccout). A3

21 For the seventh year an additional site was sampled on J04 downstream of the Narco restoration area. Data from this site, J04Wet, measured the effect of channel restoration improvements constructed just downstream of the old J04 site in Samples were also collected at the old J04 site to better evaluate the effect of the restoration area. BMP Evaluation Monitoring sites are monitored from June September, with a total of 20 samples collected at each site per year. Analyses of historical data suggest that, with minor exceptions, this would be adequate to detect an average 50% reduction in loads and an average 30% reduction in impact on downstream receiving water at each site over a ten-year period. Data from BMP Evaluation Monitoring sites are also compared to results of Status and Trends Monitoring in the lower sections of Aliso Creek. This assesses whether a reduction in loads at the high-priority drains is associated with improving conditions in the lower Creek. As questions about BMP effectiveness at the high-priority drains are resolved over time, monitoring efforts will be shifted to the next level of priority drains. A.1.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) All data from the program was subject to QA/QC analysis by the Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA) and OC Environmental Resources. HCA QA procedures are documented on the HCA website ( OC Environmental Resources QA/QC procedures are described in the Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) for the Orange County Stormwater Program ( The QAMP meets Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Compatible Quality Assurance Project Plan guidelines. A.2 Data Analysis Water quality data for the 2014 reporting period is included at the end of this report in Table A.1, Bacteria Test Results for Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program. As noted, monitoring occurs only in summer from June- September of each year. Data from samples taken in duplicate are provided in the tables but all duplicate sample concentrations are averaged prior to data analysis. A.2.1 Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) Aliso Creek (J01) and its tributaries are currently designated as having REC-2 beneficial uses with potential REC-1 uses (See Appendix B, Aliso Creek Watershed Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives for Recreation). The analysis below focuses on tracking trends comparing to the more stringent REC-1 WQOs and bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) dry weather numeric targets (i.e., numeric WQOs and allowable exceedance frequencies), as well as documenting the effectiveness of BMPs implemented at high-priority drains. A4

22 A.2.2 Data Analysis Methods In order to answer the five questions from the revised monitoring program, various data analysis methods have been evaluated and presented below: Box-plots: Box-plots were used to graphically summarize descriptive statistics. Each box displays the median and quartiles, while dots represent outlier values. Results for status and trends and BMP evaluation sites are shown as box plots in Figure A.2(a-g), Figure A.6(a-g), Figure A.9(a-q), and Figure A.11(a-q). Seasonal Geometric Means: Seasonal geometric means is a useful indicator to evaluate the central tendency of bacteria data while accounting for their inherently high variability. Figure A.3(a-e), Figure A.7(a-e), Figure A.10(a-f), and Figure A.12(a-f) display the seasonal geometric means for all sites. The seasonal geometric mean summarizes all samples per season, facilitating annual comparison. Seasonal geometric means for Status and Trends Monitoring sites were computed for August and September for , except for site J01@J02 that was not sampled in Seasonal geometric means for BMP Evaluation Monitoring sites were computed for June-September for , except for site J06 where no samples were collected at the stormdrain in Comparison with REC-1 WQOs: Data were evaluated against the Basin Plan's inland surface water REC-1 WQOs for fecal coliform and enterococci to determine if the Creek is in attainment of a potential REC-1 beneficial use in Figure A.4(a-e), Figure A.5(a-e), Figure A.6(a-g) and Figure A.8(a-e). Bacteria Load: Figure A.13 and Figure A.14 illustrate the bacteria loads from the six high priority drains (BMP Evaluation Monitoring stations) to provide information about any possible effects of BMPs over the whole monitoring period. Inferential statistical analysis: Statistical hypothesis testing (such as the t-test and Mann-Whitney Rank Sum tests) can be used to determine if two sets of data are significantly different from each other. For Aliso Creek bacteria data, the t-test was used to evaluate if there was significant difference between upstream and downstream bacteria levels assuming data are normal distributed. Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test were used to evaluate whether there was a significant improvement from the past seven years ( ) in comparison to the first seven years ( ) of monitoring. To minimize the influence of outlier data, concentrations were log 10 transformed prior to analysis. A.3 Monitoring Results A.3.1 Status and Trends As a group, the Status and Trends Monitoring sites depict the conditions in the lower portion of the Aliso Creek Watershed having the highest potential for recreation use and related concerns A5

23 about potential human health impacts. Monitoring results are presented relative to REC-1 WQOs, visual inspection of the plots, and descriptive statistics. Overall, bacteria concentrations at most Status and Trends Monitoring sites increased (with the exception of from last year A possible reason for the increase in concentrations could be disturbed sediments from an ongoing invasive species removal and habitat restoration project located at lower Aliso Creek. In addition, California had its warmest January-September period on record, surpassing the previous record by 1.3 F along with the continuing drought providing another possible cause for the elevated bacteria level (National Climate Data Center, September 2014). Additional data is needed to determine the impact of the ongoing invasive plant removal project and to better define the pattern of the data. A Fecal Coliform Figure A.2 (a-g) shows box-plots of fecal coliform data from the five Status and Trends Monitoring sites. ARJ01 and J01@J03 are the most upstream sites, while ACJ01, J01@J02, and CTPJ01 are sites near the bottom of the watershed. In 2014 median fecal coliform concentrations increased at all status and trends sites, except J01 downstream of J02, but remained below 400 CFU/100 ml, the REC-1 single sample fecal coliform objective (no more than 10% of total samples during any 30-day period shall exceed 400 CFU/100 ml). Figure A-3 (a-e) includes plots of seasonal geometric means of fecal coliform concentrations from 2001 through 2014 for status and trend sites. The seasonal geometric mean at most sites increased from 2013 to concentrations similar to those observed in The exception was J01 downstream of J02 where concentrations increased upstream but decreased downstream, suggesting bacteria load from J02 had declined. Figure A.4 (a-e) shows the fecal coliform running 30-day geometric means compared to the REC- 1 geometric mean water quality objective of 200 CFU/100 ml. The REC-1 geometric mean water quality objective for all 30-day periods was met at three out of five sites. The exception were sites ARJ01 and J01@J03 where summer 2014 concentrations increased to levels similar to those observed in 2012 but still below historic levels. Figure A.5 (a-e) shows Status and Trends Monitoring results relative to the REC-1 fecal coliform water quality objective of no more than 10% of the total samples during any 30-day period exceeding 400 CFU/100 ml. The percentage of exceedances increased at most sites in The exception was site J01@J02 that again met this objective for the entire summer. A Status and Trends Monitoring Results Enterococci Figure A.6 (a-g) shows box-plots of enterococci data from status and trends sites. The Basin Plan REC-1 fresh water single sample maximum objectives for enterococci are also depicted as red lines on the plots: 61 CFU/100 ml for designated beach areas, 108 CFU/100 ml for moderately or lightly used areas, and 151 CFU/100 ml for infrequently used areas. Median enterococci concentrations were below the 61 CFU/100 ml water quality objectives at J01@J02, ACJ01, and CTPJ01 in A6

24 Figure A.7 (a-e) shows plots of the seasonal geometric mean of enterococci concentrations from 2001 through 2014 for status and trends sites. Over the past decade, the seasonal geometric mean has decreased by an order of magnitude at all sites. In 2014 the seasonal geometric mean fluctuated around historic lows, with a slight increase at ARJ01. Figure A.8 (a-e) shows enterococci running 30-day geometric mean concentrations compared to the REC-1 water quality objective of 33 CFU/100 ml. All sites showed exceedances of the enterococci geometric mean objective. A.3.2 BMP Evaluation Monitoring Results Each BMP Evaluation Monitoring site represents a high priority drain, corresponding receiving water condition and BMP effort. The discussion below presents results from each BMP Evaluation Monitoring site based on visual inspection of the plots and inferential statistical analysis tools to evaluate trends and downstream receiving water impacts. Bacteria concentrations and loads continue decline at most sites with the exception of J04, J01P08 and J01P07 for enterococci concentration from last year. Statistically significant changes (p=<0.001) of bacteria concentrations between and were also observed at all sites expect J01P28. In addition, the loads have dropped by an order of magnitude since 2007 at most sites, except J01P08. A Fecal Coliform J01P08: In terms of load, fecal coliform bacteria load has decreased by an order of magnitude at J01P08 (Figure A.13) since However, the drain discharge is still resulting in elevated bacteria concentrations downstream (Figure A.10a). Concentrations from have decreased since (p=<0.001 via Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test). J07P02: Both fecal coliform concentrations (Figure A.10b) and load (Figure A.13) at J07P02 and J07 downstream have decreased by an order of magnitude since 2007 and showed continued decreases in concentrations in A statistically significant (p=<0.001) decrease between and data is demonstrated by the Mann- Whitney Rank Sum test. J07P02 is located at the top of the J07 watershed so there is no upstream monitoring location. J06: Both fecal coliform concentrations (Figure A.10c) and load (Figure A.13) at J06 have decreased by an order of magnitude since 2007 and a visual inspection of the plot shows decreasing concentrations in However, the magnitude of the impact of the drain on receiving water increased in 2014 coinciding with improvements in upstream receiving waters. A statistically significant (p=<0.001) reduction in fecal coliform levels from to is demonstrated by the Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test. J05: Fecal coliform concentrations at this site are the lowest out of any site discussed in this report. A visual inspection of Figure A.9(i-k) shows median concentrations have decreased significantly since 2007 (p=<0.001 via Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test). A visual A7

25 inspection of the plot show decreases occurred for both fecal coliform concentrations (Figure A.10d) and load (Figure A.13). J01P28: Prior to summer 2014, the J01P28 UV and media filter treatment system had operated consistently during the 2010 and 2011 monitoring periods and for a portion of 2004 and In 2014, the system was in operation during all four sampling months resulting in a marked decrease in concentrations and loads from the drain. All sample results from J01P28 that flowed to the receiving water were considered in a geometric mean calculation to provide the overall picture of the input. The impact of the drain on receiving water was minor (p=<0.001) due to the small magnitude of the flow. (Figure A.10e). J04: Summer 2014 results indicate a slight increase in bacteria concentrations at J04 (Figure A.10f) but bacteria loads (Figure A.13) showed continuing decreases. And a reduction in bacteria concentrations on downstream receiving waters was observed. Although concentrations at site J04WET downstream of the Narco Channel restoration area increased slightly in 2014, the overall reduction on concentrations before and after the BMP (Narco Channel restoration) is apparent in Figure A.9p. The reduction in median concentrations ( data compared to 2008 to 2014 data) is statistically significant (p=<0.001 via Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test). A Enterococci All enterococci data from BMP evaluation sites are presented in the box-plots in Figure A.11(aq), seasonal geometric mean in Figure A.12(a-f) and load in Figure A.14. Observed patterns in enterococci bacteria concentrations are similar to fecal coliform. A statistical significant difference of bacteria concentration (p=<0.001) is evident between baseline data ( ) and recent data ( ). A.4 Conclusion For Status and Trend Monitoring sites, bacteria concentrations increased at most sites with the exception of J01@J02. One of the possible reasons for this is the presence of an ongoing invasive species removal and habitat restoration project located at lower Aliso Creek, which may have temporarily disturbed sediments resulting in a fluctuation of bacteria levels. In addition, California had its warmest January through September on record, surpassing the previous record by 1.3 F along with the continuing drought conditions (National Climate Data Center, September 2014). Additional data is needed to determine any impact of the ongoing invasive species removal and habitat restoration project. Bacteria concentrations and loads continue decline at most sites with the exception of J04, J01P08 and J01P07 for enterococci concentration from last year. Statistically significant changes (p=<0.001) of bacteria concentrations between and were also observed at all sites expect J01P28. In addition, the loads have dropped by an order of magnitude since 2007 at most sites, except J01P08. A8

26 It has historically been difficult to correlate specific upstream BMPs to receiving water improvement downstream. One confounding factor is the challenge with using FIB to track water quality improvements when bacteria are dynamic indicators which can die off or regrow in the environment in the absence of new inputs. In addition, the 2012 EPA Recreational Water Quality Criteria Recommendations indicates that E.coli, instead of fecal coliform and enterococci, is the most reliable indicator organism in all freshwater. Studies have also found that enterococci can exist and multiply in some fresh waters and create false positives in samples. Thus, a modification of FIB indicator is needed to better assess freshwater quality marked another year of progress for the Aliso Creek Watershed as the state of Creek is significantly healthier than when monitoring and BMP efforts began in the 1990s. Continued work is, however, needed such as additional comprehensive statistical analysis to provide more conclusive statements on determining the effectiveness of BMPs on receiving water improvement. A9

27 Figure A.2(a-c): Status and Trends Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box-Plots A10

28 Figure A.2(d-f): Status and Trends Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots A11

29 Figure A.2(g): Status and Trends Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots A12

30 Figure A.3(a-e): Status and Trends Sites, Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform A13

31 A14

32 Figure A.4(a-b): Status and Trends Sites, Fecal Coliform Running 30-Day Geomean A15

33 Figure A.4(d-e): Status and Trends Sites, Fecal Coliform Running 30-Day Geomean A16

34 Figure A.5(a,b): Status and Trend Sites, 30-Day Periods and Fecal Coliform 10% Objective A17

35 Figure A.5(c-e): Status and Trend Sites, 30-Day Periods and Fecal Coliform 10% Objective A18

36 A19

37 Figure A.6(a-c): Status and Trends Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A20

38 Figure A.6(d-f): Status and Trends Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A21

39 Figure A.6(g): Status and Trends Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A22

40 Figure A.7(a-c): Status and Trends Sites, Seasonal Geomean Enterococci Concentrations A23

41 Figure A.7(d,e): Status and Trends Sites, Seasonal Geomean Enterococci Concentrations A24

42 Figure A.8(a-c): Status and Trends Sites, Enterococci Running 30-Day Geomean A25

43 Figure A.8(d,e): Status and Trends Sites, Enterococci Running 30-Day Geomean A26

44 Figure A.9(a-c): BMP Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots A27

45 Figure A.9(d,e): BMP Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots A28

46 Figure A.9(f-h): BMP Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots A29

47 Figure A.9(i-k): BMP Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots A30

48 Figure A.9(l-n): BMP Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots A31

49 Figure A.9(o-q): BMP Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots A32

50 Figure A.10(a-c): BMP Sites, Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations A33

51 Figure A.10(d-f): BMP Sites, Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations A34

52 Figure A.11(a-c): BMP Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A35

53 Figure A.11(d,e): BMP Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A36

54 Figure A.11(f-h): BMP Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A37

55 Figure A.11(i-k): BMP Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A38

56 Figure A.11(l-n): BMP Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A39

57 Figure A.11(o-q): BMP Sites, Enterococci Levels as Box Plots A40

58 Figure A.12(a-c): BMP Sites, Seasonal Geomean Enterococci Concentrations A41

59 Figure A.12(d-f): BMP Sites, Seasonal Geomean Enterococci Concentrations A42

60 Figure A.13: BMP Evaluation Sites Fecal Coliform Bacteria Load Figure A.14: BMP Evaluation Sites Enterococci Bacteria Load A43

61 Table A.1, 2014 Bacteria Test Results for Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program Total Coliform (TC), Fecal Coliform (FC), and Enterococcus (ENT) colonies/100 ml Upstream Input/Instream Downstream Date & Time Location TC FC ENT Location TC FC ENT CFS Temp deg C CL ph Location TC FC ENT Temp deg C CFS ph 6/5/14 12:57 PM J01 Upstream of J01P J01P08 > J01 Downstream of J01P08 > 6300 > /10/14 10:35 AM > > > > > /12/14 1:40 PM > > > > 7400 > /16/14 1:34 PM > > > NA 7.00 > 5300 > /25/14 12:59 PM > > > > /2/14 11:43 AM > > > > > NA NA NA 7/10/14 11:40 AM > > > > /17/14 11:49 AM > > > > /21/14 12:05 PM > > > > > /29/14 1:43 PM > > > > /6/14 1:55 PM > > > > > /14/14 12:00 PM > > > > > /19/14 1:10 PM > > > /26/14 12:37 PM > > /28/14 12:44 PM > /3/14 11:53 AM > > > > 9400 > /11/14 12:25 PM > 4400 < > > > /15/14 12:34 PM > > > > 4700 > /16/14 12:25 PM > > > > 4800 > /23/14 12:00 PM > > > E > J07P02 J07 Downstream of J07P02 6/5/14 11:52 AM > > /9/14 12:50 PM > > 5200 > /12/ :00 PM > > /16/14 1:00 PM > > > /25/14 12:13 PM > 7700 > > 4200 > /2/14 11:07 AM > > > 7200 > /10/14 10:54 AM > > > 4100 > /17/14 11:05 AM > > > 5000 > /21/14 11:27 AM > > > 3200 > /29/14 12:53 PM > > > /6/14 1:29 PM > > > 6000 >