A COOPERATIVE PROJECT OF THE CITIES OF ALISO VIEJO, LAGUNA BEACH, LAGUNA HILLS, LAGUNA NIGUEL, LAGUNA WOODS, LAKE FOREST, MISSION VIEJO, COUNTY OF

Transcription

1 Exhiibiit 13 WATERSHED ACTIION PLAN ANNUAL REPORT Alliiso Creek Watershed Reporrtti ing Perri iod Novemberr 15,, 2007 A COOPERATIVE PROJECT OF THE CITIES OF ALISO VIEJO, LAGUNA BEACH, LAGUNA HILLS, LAGUNA NIGUEL, LAGUNA WOODS, LAKE FOREST, MISSION VIEJO, COUNTY OF ORANGE, AND THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Section D-1.0 Introduction D-1.1 Objectives D D-1.3 Background D-1.4 Program Approach D-1.5 Governance Section D-2.0 Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment D-2.1 Monitoring D-2.2 Water Quality Assessment Section D-3.0 BMP Implementation D-3.1 High Priority Drains/BMP Evaluation Sites D-3.2 Baseline BMP and Enhanced BMP Implementation D-3.3 Retrofitting and Restoration Section D-4.0 Effectiveness Assessment D-4.1 Review of Management Program Section D-5.0 Conclusion D-5.1 Watershed Management Process D-5.2 Water Quality Assessment D-5.3 Project Implementation D-5.4 Effectiveness Assessment TABLES D-1.1 Designated Beneficial Uses Aliso Creek D (d) List and TMDL Priority Schedule Aliso Creek D-1.3 Water Quality/Watershed Management Processes D-2.1 Dry Weather Monitoring Sites D-2.2a Proportion of All Samples Exceeding AB411 Standards Near Coastal Stormdrains D-2.2b Proportion of All Samples Exceeding AB411 Standards Near Coastal Stormdrains When Drain Flows to the Ocean D-2.3a Coastal Stormdrain Sites Ranked in Terms of Significance of Regression Slopes for All Bacterial Indicators, Based on Data from Entire Year D-2.3b Coastal Stormdrain Sites Ranked in Terms of Significance of Regression Slopes for All Bacterial Indicators, Based on Data from AB411 Season D-2.3c Coastal Stormdrain Sites Ranked in Terms of Significance of Regression Slopes for All Bacterial Indicators, Based on Data from the Entire Year for Drains Flowing to the Ocean i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS D-2.3d Coastal Stormdrain Sites Ranked in Terms of Significance of Regression Slopes for All Bacterial Indicators, Based on Data from the AB411 Season for Drains Flowing to the Ocean D-2.4 Conditions at Drains of Highest Concern D-3.1 Aliso Creek School Education Outreach Program FIGURES D-1.1 Water Quality Planning Processes D-2.1 Location of the Revised Monitoring Locations D-2.2 Status and Trend Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots D-2.3 BMP Evaluation Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots D-2.4 Status and Trends Sites, Seasonal Geomeans D-2.5 Status and Trends Sites, Seasonal Geomeans D-2.6 BMP Evaluation Sites, Seasonal Geomeans D-2.7 Status and Trends Sites, Running Geomean D-2.8a Relative Level of AB411 Exceedences Over the Entire Year Using All Data D-2.8b Relative Level of AB411 Exceedences Over the Entire Year When Drains Flow to Ocean D-2.9a Relative Level of AB411 Exceedences During the AB411 Season Using All Data D-2.9b Relative Level of AB411 Exceedences During the AB411 Season When Drains Flow to Ocean D-4.1 General Classification of Outcome Types ATTACHMENTS D-1 Bacteria Test Results for Aliso Creek Directive Monitoring D-2 Action Plan Strategy Tables D-3 Aliso Creek High Priority Drains Monitoring Efforts & Effectiveness Assessment ii

4 EXHIBIT 13, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Annual Report considers the efforts of the cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, and Mission Viejo, and the County of Orange (the Permittees) during the reporting period to implement a watershed based water quality planning initiative in accordance with the requirements of NPDES Permit No. CAS , the Aliso Creek Directive, and the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Watershed Action Plan (WAP) -. This reporting period considers the fourth year of implementation of this initiative. The WAP represents one of the three separate, but nonetheless highly interrelated, water quality planning processes supported by the Permittees which are aimed at improving water quality in the watershed. The three planning processes are DAMP/Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and DAMP/WAP with their focus on urban runoff, and a third process focused on watershed system integrity. The distinction is made between Baseline Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Enhanced BMPs. These BMPs are considered to be characteristic of the DAMP/LIP and DAMP/WAP planning processes respectively. The focus in this report is on Directive compliance and the development and implementation of Enhanced BMPs. However, the significant progress of the Permittees being made with respect to water quality protection and enhancement needs to be viewed in the context of all three planning processes. Program Highlights WAP Committee: A WAP Committee has been established and the Committee met quarterly during the reporting period. In addition, the Watershed Permittees are actively involved in the bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) and have collaborated on the Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan (IRWMP), the Aliso Creek Stabilization, Utility Protection, Environmental Restoration (SUPER) Project, and the Development of a TMDL Strategic Assessment and Watershed Implementation Framework for the Aliso Creek and San Juan Creek watersheds. Public Education: The Permittees organized watershed cleanup events at six sites in the watershed and provided classroom education at nine schools to 748 fifth and sixth graders in which watershed concepts were highlighted. Public Participation: The Tier II / Public Stakeholders group includes any individual with a vested interest in the watershed. The Tier II Group met two times in All program documentation, including the WAP, is available for review and comment on the widely publicized website with contact information encouraging submittal of questions and comments to Principal Permittee staff. The number of hits on the page was 3,073 in the reporting period, a 3.5% decrease in hits over the previous year. Exhibit 13-i

5 EXHIBIT 13, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fecal indicator bacteria data for coastal waters is now directly available to the public at Water Quality Assessment: This report presents conclusions from the Directive and NPDES Stormwater Program monitoring programs. Project Implementation: The specific efforts of the Watershed Permittees related to the implementation of pollution prevention, source control, and treatment control Best Management Practices are detailed in Attachment D-2, WAP Strategy Tables. The strategy tables list the efforts of the Watershed Permittees to address the priority water quality issues of concern. These efforts range from general program activities such as outreach to the public through hosted events and distribution of education materials to treatment controls for fecal coliform, the primary constituent of concern for the Aliso Watershed. Current activities to improve water quality undertaken by the Permittees include a pilot sand filter project, an urban landscape renewal initiative, urban runoff reduction and water use efficiency initiatives, and urban stream channel restoration. Additionally, the Permittees are testing catch basin or in-line pipe filters that will assist in lowering bacteria concentrations in Aliso Creek as well as evaluating a bio-retention structural BMP. Test results from other sources suggest that bio-retention based structural BMPs may mimic constructed wetlands in the removal efficiencies of bacteria. At the forefront of various efforts to fund BMP projects is the Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan (IRWMP). The IRWMP, which was accepted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in May 2005, focuses primarily on the projects and plans of the member agencies, with an emphasis on water supply and water quality. The Plan outlines specific objectives related to water quality/pollution reduction, which will provide Regional Action Projects that are supported and implemented by multiple cities and the County for urban runoff pollution treatment, in addition to water quality benefits to areas of special biological significance and protection of critical coastal areas. This Plan establishes a priority ranking to help further regional efforts to investigate the feasibility of, and identify funding for, these projects. Individual projects however, will go through the appropriate environmental review and permitting process during the funding process. In January 2007, the IRWMP was one of seven statewide proposals recommended for funding (Prop 50 Chapter 8 grant award). As a result, South Orange County will receive $25 million in Prop 50 funds to enhance water supply, water quality and natural habitat. Exhibit 13-ii

6 EXHIBIT 13, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Report Organization The WAP Annual Report comprises five sections: Section 1.0 Introduction provides a summary of the program background, description of the watershed, program objectives, water quality planning processes, governance, and public participation; Section 2.0 Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment provides a description of the Directive and NPDES Stormwater Program monitoring programs; Section 3.0 Project Implementation discusses the distinction made between Baseline BMPs and Enhanced BMPs and reports on the status of these programs; Section 4.0 Effectiveness Assessment reviews the progress of the WAP water quality planning process with respect to general program objectives and specific objectives addressing fecal indicator bacteria, the constituent of concern in the ; and Section 5.0 Conclusion reviews the status of the watershed based planning effort after four years of implementation. The WAP and this Annual Report are integral components of the Permittees comprehensive efforts, using multiple planning processes across different scales of planning area, to manage surface water quality in highly urbanized watersheds. The Permittees recognize that an iterative approach, involving systematic improvement and refinement across all program areas, is a necessary and defining characteristic of these efforts. It is expected that the WAP will continue to be developed commensurate with the Permittees understanding of the issues affecting the watershed. Exhibit 13-iii

7 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION D-1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the fourth Annual Progress Report for the Drainage Area Management Plan Aliso Creek WAP, a regulatory compliance and creek and coastal water quality planning and protection initiative focused on the management of urban runoff within the. It summarizes the progress that has been made in by the cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, and Mission Viejo, the County of Orange, and the Orange County Flood Control District (the Watershed Permittees) and identifies a schedule of management activities for targeting the reduction of fecal indicator bacteria. Previous publications relating to this watershed-based planning initiative contain additional detail and this progress report, termed WAP Annual Report, should be reviewed in conjunction with these publications, which are: Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) DAMP/Aliso Creek WAP (previously titled Watershed Chapter ) DAMP/Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) Unified Annual Progress Report Aliso Creek Water Code Directive Quarterly Progress Reports These documents, except the city LIPs, are available at The report contains descriptions of: All activities conducted by the Watershed Permittees; Common activities conducted collectively by the Permittees; Public participation mechanisms; Watershed-based land use planning; Proposed WAP revisions; Monitoring activities not discussed in the Unified Annual Progress Report; and Water quality improvements or degradation. Each year in November, the activities of the Watershed Permittees are reviewed in three reports, specifically, the Unified Annual Progress Report, jurisdictional Program Effectiveness Assessments, and the WAP Annual Report. A template format is used in each instance to facilitate comparison and to emphasize the common focus of all the reports, which is on the status and effectiveness of initiatives to control pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff. D-1.1 Objectives The purpose of the DAMP/WAPs is to create a watershed-based water quality planning process focused on pathogen indicator bacteria in urban runoff. The program objectives of the DAMP/Aliso Creek WAP are: Exhibit

8 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION To meet the requirements for a Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plan (WURMP) contained in municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit (Order No. R , NPDES NO. CAS ; To meet the requirements of the California Water Code Directive for Aliso Creek; To establish a WAP Committee and encourage actions arising from its deliberations; Enhance the extent of public participation in watershed issues, through Permittee and public interaction at watershed events, annual/semi-annual Clean Up Days, and other activities; Educate the public regarding water quality issues; Modify jurisdictional plans and policies to reflect potential impacts to water quality at a watershed-scale; To identify the most significant water quality issues and constituents of concern on a watershed scale and relate these to urban sources; To focus the pollution prevention and source controls implemented at a individual jurisdiction level on the identified constituents of concern and to identify any jurisdiction-specific treatment control opportunities; To identify the water quality issues that are most appropriately addressed through a multi-jurisdictional watershed-scale approach; To incorporate information obtained from prior planning studies; To develop an integrated plan of action that results in meaningful water quality improvement in the at a watershed scale that balances economic, social and environmental constraints; and To identify indicators to track progress. D-1.2 Aliso Creek drains a long, narrow coastal canyon with headwaters in the Cleveland National Forest. The creek ultimately discharges into the Pacific Ocean at Aliso Beach. The approximately 36-square-mile watershed includes portions of the cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, and Mission Viejo. Major transportation arteries through the watershed include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Interstate 5. The is largely developed, with the exception of the Cleveland National Forest in the upper Exhibit

9 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION watershed and the Aliso Wood Canyon Regional Park in the lower watershed. The designated beneficial uses in the Aliso Creek watershed are shown in Table D-1.1 and Table D-1.2 is the portion of the 303(d) list pertaining to the watershed. It should be noted that, as a consequence of this listing, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for bacteria is being developed by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego Regional Board). D-1.3 Background D Water Quality Protection and Planning In California, regulatory protection and administration of water quality is primarily the responsibility of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Each of the RWQCBs is required to adopt a water quality control plan, or Basin Plan. Basin Plans establish or designate beneficial uses (the uses of water necessary for the survival and well being of humanity, plants and wildlife) for inland and coastal waters, set narrative and numerical water quality objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses, and describes implementation programs to protect beneficial uses. Under state law (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act), water quality standards are beneficial uses to be made of a water body, the established water quality objectives (both narrative and numeric), and the State s nondegradation policy. CWA section 303(d) requires states to list waters not meeting applicable water quality standards and to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for the pollutants impairing those waters. A TMDL is a numerical calculation of the amount of a pollutant that a water body can assimilate and still meet standards. A TMDL includes one or more numerical targets that represent attainment of the applicable standards and an allocation of the load among the various sources of the pollutant. The RWQCB s principal means of achieving water quality objectives and the protecting beneficial uses designated in Basin Plans is through the adoption and administration of waste discharge requirements, including NPDES permits, to control the discharge of wastes, which may impact surface and groundwater quality. NPDES permits are issued under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), Title IV Permits and Licenses Section 402. Section 402 was amended in 1987 to create NPDES permitting requirements for municipal operators of storm drain systems. The environmental rationale for creating waste discharge requirements for municipal discharges of stormwater was recognition of the adverse impacts of watershed urbanization on streams including increased loadings to surface water of sediment, nutrients, oxygen demanding material, bacteria, metals, pesticides, and other constituents. With the addition to the CWA of Section 402(p), this diffuse pollution associated with the urban landscape, was brought into a permitting regime that had previously been focused on industrial process wastewater and treatment plant effluent. Exhibit

10 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION The Program is concerned with the imprint of urban development on the landscape. Urbanization creates rooftops, driveways, roads and parking lots (Schueler and Holland, , use the term Imperviousness as the unifying theme for understanding the adverse hydrologic impacts of urbanization) which (1) increase the timing and volume of rainfall runoff (compared to pre-development conditions) and (2) provide a source of pollutants that are flushed or leached by rainfall runoff into aquatic systems. The environmental consequences of these impacts are loss or impairment of aquatic beneficial uses due to: Water quality degradation due to increased loadings of sediment nutrients, metals hydrocarbons, pesticides and bacteria; Stream channel instability and habitat loss due to the increased severity and frequency of floods; Increased water temperatures due to solar energy absorption by urban surfaces and elimination of riparian shading, and Loss of groundwater recharge. D The Orange County Stormwater Program Orange County received its first Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS 4 ) permits (referred to as First Term Permits) in Municipal Stormwater Permit Order No. R (NPDES No. CAS ) is the Third Term NPDES permit issued collectively to the 13 municipal entities within the area of Orange County under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The permit implements the federal CWA mandate and requires the Permittees to (1) reduce the discharge of pollutants discharged from municipal storm drain systems to the maximum extent practicable and (2) to eliminate most types of non-stormwater discharges. With the adoption of the Third Term Permit, the Permittees were required to develop and implement a watershed-based management process to complement the established countywide stormwater program. The purpose of this separate watershed based effort is primarily to provide a local focus on the highest priority water quality issues/pollutants in each watershed. In addition, the Third Term Permit requires the Permittees to use this separate planning process to foster local public education and participation and encourage land use planning at the watershed scale. D California Water Code Directive for Aliso Creek On March 2, 2001 the Regional Board issued a written directive pursuant to California Water Code Section to the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Aliso Creek watershed cities (Watershed Permittees). The directive 1 / The Practice of Watershed Protection, 2000, T.R. Schuler and H.K. Holland, The Center for Watershed Protection Exhibit

11 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION found that the Watershed Permittees may be discharging waste with high bacteria levels from municipal storm drain outfalls into Aliso Creek and its tributaries. As a result the Watershed Permittees were directed to conduct an evaluation of the relative contribution of the urban stormwater discharges to the impairment of beneficial uses or the exceedances of water quality objectives and, where necessary, take appropriate measures to eliminate the sources of pollution. The Directive required the Watershed Permittees to submit quarterly progress reports until the Regional Board determines that the nuisance discharges have been prevented to the Maximum Extent Possible (MEP). The County on behalf of the Watershed Permittees submitted the initial report on April 30, 2001, and submitted progress reports quarterly from 2001 through September Detailed information on the Permittees efforts to identify, evaluate, and reduce or eliminate sources of bacterial contamination, may be found in the quarterly progress reports which are available on the Watershed and Coastal Resources Division website at On October 12, 2005, the Regional Board considered a request by the Watershed Permittees for changes to the bacteria monitoring program in effect since the spring of The Regional Board accepted the proposed modifications described in the December 2004 technical report Aliso Creek Directive, Revised Monitoring Program Design - Integration with NPDES Program. The annual reporting requirements of the revised monitoring program are included in this report, which supersedes the requirements prescribed in Regional Board letters dated March 2, 2001 and May 15, D Watershed Management Watershed management is the term used for the approach to water quality planning that places an emphasis on the watershed (the area draining into a river system, ocean or other body of water through a single outlet) as the planning area and solutions to problems that cut across programs and jurisdictions. Watershed management seeks to build upon existing management programs and resources, but has as its goal watershed system integrity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) advocates this approach, particularly with respect to addressing the more intractable issues of habitat degradation and non-point source (or diffuse) pollution and suggests that it is beneficial because it can: Provide a context for integration, by o o o using practical, tangible management units that people understand focusing and coordinating efforts finding common ground and meeting multiple needs Provide a better understanding and appreciation of nature, by o understanding nature's interrelated processes Exhibit

12 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION o o o o helping answer the question, "What are we trying to protect?" linking human activities to nature's response appreciating how nature's processes can benefit people identifying ways we can work with watershed processes Yield better management, by o o o generating ecologically-based, innovative, cost-effective solutions forging stronger working relationships supporting consistent, continuous management D-1.4 Program Approach The approach taken to develop the DAMP/Aliso Creek WAP recognizes that the jurisdictional DAMP/LIPs and the DAMP/WAPs represent the principal policy and program documents for two separate, but nonetheless similar and highly interdependent, water quality planning processes targeting the control of pollutants in urban runoff. With respect to project implementation, the distinction is made between Jurisdictional and Watershed Cooperative projects. Where water quality issues that are determined to be specific to a jurisdiction, they would be referred to that jurisdiction and thereafter be addressed as a jurisdictional program initiative through the DAMP/LIP. Alternatively, the issue may originate from multiple jurisdictions within the watershed. In this instance, the problem would be most effectively addressed on a partnership basis as a watershed cooperative effort. The following elements of the DAMP are then incorporated on the watershed and jurisdictional levels to: Establish a baseline set of BMPs that are applicable to all areas and that are proven and cost-effective; Monitor water quality to assess progress and identify urban impacts on receiving water; Prioritize waterbodies for corrective action, with those listed as impaired having a higher priority; and Focus on enhanced BMPs for constituents of concern at a watershed or jurisdictional level, as appropriate. These elements become the basis of an iterative planning process, which support the progressive evolution attainment of water quality standards, as required by the NPDES Permits. A defining feature of the iterative planning process is the continual analysis, Exhibit

13 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION measurement and improvement through the quality loop which is illustrated in a simplified form in Figure D-1.1. Assessing: Assessing environmental conditions and programmatic performance, establishing the goals and targets to be achieved, and determining the route to be taken and the measurements to track success; Planning: Designing activities to achieve the goal, identifying the needed skills and expertise, and designating responsibility for achieving desired outcomes; Implementing: Bringing the process into effect in an efficient and effective manner, and Monitoring: Evaluating the effectiveness of the Implementing stage. There is also recognition that these efforts are, in many watersheds in Orange County, supportive of a third planning process that is focused on watershed system integrity rather than water quality outcomes. The different characteristics of these processes are compared in Table D-1.3. D-1.5 Governance D Tier I/Cost Share Partners Stakeholder Group The Tier I/Cost Share Partners Stakeholder Group includes representatives of the seven cities located within the watershed, representatives from the County of Orange, as well as representatives of interested agencies in the watershed. This group generally meets quarterly. D Stakeholder Group The Tier II/Public Stakeholders group provides for wider public participation and is comprised of representatives from the County, cities in the watershed, water districts, wastewater authorities, major landowners, and representatives of several environmental NGOs. The Tier II Group met two times in D WAP Committee The WAP Committee includes representatives of the Watershed Permittees. This group generally meets quarterly to discuss Directive and Third Term Permit compliance. D Other Groups Several Non-Government Organizations (NGO s) are active in the watershed, including: Orange County Coastkeeper Laguna Beach Chapter of Surfrider Foundation Permaculture Institute South Laguna Beach Civic Association Exhibit

14 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION Sierra Club Audubon Society Clean Water Now! Exhibit

15 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION Table D-1.1: Designated Beneficial Uses Aliso Creek Inland Surface Water AGR REC-1 REC-2 WARM WILD Aliso Creek English Canyon Sulphur Creek Wood Canyon Aliso Creek Mouth Existing - Potential - Agricultural Supply (AGR) Includes uses of water for farming, horticulture or ranching. Contact Water Recreation (REC-1) Includes uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2) Includes uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water. Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) Includes uses of water that support warm water ecosystems. Wildlife Habitat (WILD) Includes uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems. Source: Exhibit

16 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION Table D-1.2: (d) List and TMDL Priority Schedule Type Name Calwater Watershed Pollutant/Stressor Source Priority R Aliso Creek Indicator Bacteria Nonpoint/Point Source Medium This listing applies to the Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Aliso Creek mainstem and all Unknown Point Source the major tributaries of Aliso Creek which are Sulfur Creek, Wood Canyon, Aliso Hills Canyon, Dairy Fork, and English Canyon Estimated Size Affected 19 Miles Proposed TMDL Completion 2005 Phosphorus This listing applies to the Aliso Creek mainstem and all the major tributaries of Aliso Creek which are Sulfur Creek, Wood Canyon, Aliso Hills Canyon, Dairy Fork, and English Canyon Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown Point Source Low 19 Miles 2019 E Aliso Creek (mouth) Toxicity Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Low 19 Miles 2019 Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown Point Source Indicator Bacteria Nonpoint/Point Source Medium 0.29 Acres 2005 Exhibit

17 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION Calwater Type Name Watershed Pollutant/Stressor Source Priority R English Canyon Benzo[b]fluoranthene Source Unknown Estimated Size Affected 3.6 Miles Proposed TMDL Completion 2019 Dieldrin Source Unknown 3.6 Miles 2019 C (Note: Pacific Ocean Shoreline - Aliso HSA Sediment Toxicity Bacteria Indicators Impairment located at Laguna Beach at Lagunita Place / Blue Lagoon Place, Aliso Beach. R Rivers; E Estuary; C Coastal Shoreline/Beaches) Source Unknown 3.6 Miles Nonpoint/Point Source Medium 0.65 Mile 2019 Exhibit

18 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION Table D-1.3 Water Quality/Watershed Management Processes LIP WAP Watershed Planning Geographic Area Defined by political Defined by hydrologic boundaries. Defined by hydrologic boundaries. Covered by Plan (city/county) boundaries. Planning Process Focused on reducing discharges of pollutants in urban runoff and stormwater pollution on a uniform countywide basis. In conformance with DAMP/LIP and NPDES permits requirements. Focused on improving local receiving water quality where it is adversely impacted by urban runoff and stormwater pollution. In conformance with DAMP/WAP, NPDES permit requirements and 303(d) list/tmdls. Focused on improving/restoring watershed system integrity. In conformance with local community interest and stakeholderdetermined resource management priorities. Framework Directed by Orange County Directed by watershed municipal Directed by watershed municipal Stormwater Program and public water agency and public water and resource committee structure and stakeholders. Characterized by agency stakeholders. Regional Board review. public consultation and non-policy Characterized by NGO and public Public consultation making participation. participation. principally through CEQA process/regional Board review. Exhibit

19 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION Table D-1.3 Water Quality/Watershed Management Processes (Cont.) Assessment Based on information from Based on water quality information Based on water quality information countywide municipal and from the countywide monitoring from the countywide monitoring regional cooperative program and site specific program and site specific investigations of stormwater investigations. Assessments are investigations of watershed system and receiving water quality. undertaken on an annual basis. integrity. Assessments are undertaken Assessment also includes socio- on an annual and 5 year basis. economic indices such as degree of public participation and level of funding in watershed projects. Planning Broad based approach with Pollutant specific approach with Broad based approach with emphasis on well established emphasis on treatment controls and emphasis on ecological outcomes pollution prevention and consideration of innovative including habitat and channel source control measures. regional solutions. restoration. BMP Individually by the Individually and collaboratively by Individually and collaboratively by Implementation Watershed Permittees focused Watershed Permittees and other Watershed Permittees and other on pollution prevention in agencies. Focused on pollution agencies. Focused on waterbody upland areas. Emphasis on prevention and source controls. and riparian habitat restoration. jurisdictional projects and Emphasis on enhanced BMPs. Emphasis on watershed cooperative baseline BMPs. Projects may be jurisdictional or projects. watershed cooperative. Monitoring Considers pollutant load Considers beneficial use Considers beneficial use attainment reduction. attainment. and stream system integrity and functioning of local governance group. Exhibit

20 EXHIBIT 13, INTRODUCTION Figure D-1.1: Water Quality Planning Process Geographic Area Assess Planning Process Monitor Framework Plan Implement Exhibit

21 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT D-2.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT The WAP is a management initiative aimed at contributing to the attainment of water quality in the that provides for the protection and propagation of wildlife and for recreation in and on the water. The water quality of the creek and coastal waters of the creek mouth can be defined by both a set of concentrations, speciations, and physical partitions of organic and inorganic substances; and the composition and state of aquatic biota found in a waterbody. While the various monitoring efforts address all elements of this definition, the discussion in this section focuses on fecal indicator bacteria. D-2.1 Monitoring Monitoring is a key element of any management program. Monitoring provides data that can be used to inform management decisions about the environment, its resources and the human activities affecting them. Environmental monitoring data documents existing conditions and, if collected repeatedly, provides evidence of changes in these conditions. In addition, in the absence of prior information, monitoring establishes a starting point for future comparisons (NAS, ). The principal monitoring efforts in the watershed are the Aliso Creek Directive Revised Monitoring Program, the data collection efforts of the Permittees Countywide Third Term Permit Monitoring Program, and the Orange County Health Care Agency s Coastal Pathogen Indicators Monitoring Program. D Aliso Creek Water Code Directive On October 12, 2005, the San Diego Regional Board considered a request by the Watershed Permittees for changes to the bacteria monitoring program in effect since the spring of The Regional Board accepted the proposed modifications described in the December 2004 technical report Aliso Creek Directive, Revised Monitoring Program Design - Integration with NPDES Program. The Regional Board concluded that the scope of the current bacteria monitoring in the watershed was no longer warranted and that the proposed changes would constitute an effective interim program until adoption of the pending Total Maximum Daily Load. In addition, the Regional Board recognized that as a result of reduced monitoring costs, the municipalities expect to direct additional resources toward implementation of management practices to reduce indicator bacteria and pathogens. Consequently, pursuant to California Water Code Sections 13225, 13267, and 13383, the Regional Board directed the Watershed Permittees to implement the proposed Revised Monitoring Program and submit annual technical reports beginning in 2006 for the October through September period. This report supersedes the requirements prescribed in Regional Board letters dated March 2, 2001 and May 15, / Managing Troubled Waters, National Academy of Sciences, Exhibit

22 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT The design of the revised monitoring program was based on several years of monitoring data. The program builds on improved knowledge about overall patterns of bacteria in the watershed as well as more localized responses to specific best management practices (BMPs). Monitoring efforts (Figure D-2.1) focus on a group of status and trends sites near the bottom of the watershed and a second set of BMP evaluation sites at highpriority drains throughout the watershed. Monitoring will occur at a higher frequency than that conducted from , but only during the summer period when bacteria levels are highest. Analyses of the available monitoring data show that this design will be sufficient to track compliance with the REC1 geomean standard in the area of highest recreational use in the lower watershed and to document the effectiveness of BMPs implemented at identified high-priority drains. The REC1 standard for fecal coliform in dry weather is a log mean (geomean) of 200/100ml based on five or more samples in a 30 day period and not more than 10% of the samples to exceed 400 /100ml for a 30 day period. The bacterial units for Aliso Creek Directive Monitoring are CFU/100 ml. Due to the inherent variability in bacteria data, this report only analyzes the geomean standards to evaluate if conditions are protective of beneficial uses. D Revised Monitoring Program Objectives The revised program design will: Document trends in water quality at high-priority locations (Status and Trends Monitoring). Evaluate BMPs implemented to improve water quality (BMP Evaluation Monitoring). Support source identification efforts. Monitoring at the revised sites will continue to rely on the indicators currently used, specifically: Total and fecal coliforms (all sampled sites and times). Enterococcus (all sampled sites and times). Total chlorine (drains only, once / month). ph (drains only, once / month). Temperature (drain and downstream station, all sampled times). Estimated flow (drains, all times). In addition, the sampling design will retain the original collection locations: The pipe discharge estimate at each site. Ambient bacteria concentrations 25 feet upstream of the discharge point. Ambient bacteria 25 feet downstream of the discharge point. This will maintain consistency with past data in the watershed and agrees with the recommendations developed by the Stormwater Monitoring Coalition s model stormwater monitoring program project. Exhibit

23 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT D 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 stations in the lower portion of the watershed (Figure D-2.1), which past studies indicate is the area of highest recreation use and related concern about potential human health impacts. Despite some variability among them, the stations as a group provide a picture of conditions in the lower portion of the Creek. These five stations 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 levels in the watershed. Is the time of year that body contact recreation is most likely. The monitoring frequency was selected with the goal of detecting an 80% drop in fecal coliform 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 compliance with the REC1 geomean objective in the most critical period of the year as well as to track trends over time. D BMP Evaluation Monitoring Efforts to improve water quality in order to meet the REC1 Fecal Coliform objective in the lower sections of Aliso Creek are concentrated on the 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 are intended to fulfill two purposes. The first is to document the relative effectiveness of source reduction efforts in the high-priority subwatersheds. Given that similar source reduction efforts are being implemented throughout the Aliso Creek watershed, the second purpose is to produce information to help guide decision making about source reduction efforts at other locations. 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? Exhibit

24 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT BMP evaluation monitoring occurs at six sites in the six high-priority drainage areas in the watershed (Figure D-2.1). The revised monitoring plan indicates nine sites in the six high priority watersheds but site #3, J06 pipe was combined with site #4 (J06 upstream and downstream), site #6 J01P28 Clear Creek System was non-operational during the reporting period and site #8, J01P28 pipe was inaccessible. The BMP evaluation sites are monitored during the June September period, with a total of 20 samples collected at each site each year during this period. 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 the BMP evaluation sites will also be compared to the results of the status and trends monitoring in the lower sections of Aliso Creek. This will help to assess 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. D NPDES Third Term Permit Monitoring Program The NPDES Third Term Monitoring Program developed for the San Diego Region comprises separate wet weather and dry weather monitoring programs. D Wet Weather Monitoring Program The NPDES Third Term Permit wet weather monitoring program (details on its development and implementation are included in DAMP Section Exhibit 11-I) consists of four elements: Coastal Stormdrain Outfall Monitoring - Using a suite of bacterial indicators at high priority drain outfalls, track compliance with regulatory standards and any improvements due to BMP implementation (This program element includes numerous sites along the full extent of the coastline in this region See Unified Report, Section C-11, Figure C-11.17); Urban Stream Bioassessment Monitoring -Using a triad of indicators (bioassessment, chemistry, toxicity), describe impacts on stream communities and the relationship of impacts to runoff, based on comparisons with reference locations on a year-to-year time frame (This program element includes both reference sites and urban-influenced sites throughout the region See Unified Report, Section C-11, Figure C-11.2); Long-Term Mass Emissions Monitoring - Using measurements of key pollutants, measure loads over a time frame of years to decades to compare with past and present levels (This program element includes several sites at or near the bottom of major drainages See Unified Report, Section C-11, Figure C-11.15); Exhibit

25 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Ambient Coastal Receiving Waters Monitoring - Using measurement of runoff plume characteristics and extent, as well as measures of a suite of physical, chemical, and biological indicators, improve understanding of the impacts of runoff plumes on near-shore ecosystems (This program element includes sites along the coast as well as in Dana Point Harbor See Unified Report, Section C- 11, Figure C-11.22). D San Diego Dry Weather Monitoring Program Details on development and implementation of the dry weather monitoring program are included in DAMP Section Exhibit 11-II. The Third Term Permit dry weather monitoring program comprises a single program element: Dry Weather Monitoring Using measurements of key pollutants, identify potential illegal discharges and illicit connections, based upon comparison with historical data and available estimates of background levels. The dry weather monitoring sites sampled during the 2006 and 2007 seasons are presented in Table D-2.1. D Orange County Health Care Agency Over the past 40 years, the Health Care Agency (also known as Environmental Health) and local sanitation agencies (Orange County Sanitation District and South Orange County Wastewater Authority) have been testing the coastal waters in Orange County for bacteria that indicate possible presence of disease-causing pathogens. Samples are collected weekly at approximately 150 ocean, bay and drainage locations throughout coastal Orange County. Fecal indicator bacteria data for coastal waters is now directly available to the public at D-2.2 Water Quality Assessment D Fecal Indicator Bacteria The cause-effect relationship between fecally-associated microbes and disease transmission has been appreciated since the late 19 th Century. Waterborne pathogens include a broad range of bacteria and viruses that are difficult to identify and isolate. Thus, certain bacteria are used as indicator organisms. Indicator organisms are easier to identify in the environment and are associated with other pathogens known to be harmful to human health. Fecal indicator bacteria include fecal coliform and Enterococci. High densities of indicator bacteria indicate the likely presence of pathogenic organisms. Thus, the number of fecal coliforms and Enterococcus present is a measure of the degree of health risk associated with the beneficial use of the water, such as swimming or shellfish harvesting. Exhibit

26 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Sources of indicator bacteria may be: Environmental - soils, decaying vegetation. Animal wastes - birds, dogs, cats or rabbits. Humans - sewage, kids with diapers, shedding from body. Storm water or urban runoff. The California Ocean Water Contact Sports Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 17 and the California Health and Safety Code, ) are: Single Sample Standards Total coliforms: 10,000 organisms/100ml Fecal coliforms: 400 organisms/100ml Enterococci: 104 organisms/100ml Fecal: Total Coliform Ratio: >1,000 total coliforms if ratio exceeds Day Geometric Log Mean Standards for five or more samples Total Coliforms: 1,000 organisms/100ml Fecal Coliforms: 200 organisms/100ml Enterococci: 35 organisms/100ml The San Diego Basin Plan is regional policy with authority over the Aliso Creek watershed and reflects these same standards as water quality objectives. D Results of Aliso Creek Water Code Directive Monitoring Program Sampling site locations are mapped on Figure D-2.1. The yellow marks correspond to Status and Trends Sites in the lower watershed at Aliso and Woods Canyon Wilderness Park and the red marks correspond to BMP Effectiveness Sites in the upper watershed. All fecal coliform data are represented as boxplots in Figures D-2.2 and D-2.3. The y- axis represents the year, and the x-axis represents the fecal coliform levels from Directive monitoring. Constructing box-plots is a useful preliminary data analysis step 2, as the center displays the median, and the box height shows the spread about the median, and the dots represent unusual values. Thus, box-plots represent a useful summary of the central tendency and variability of the data. Comparing the seasonal geomeans is an approach to evaluate if conditions in receiving waters getting better or worse over time. Figures D-2.4, D-2.5 and D-2.6 display the seasonal geometric means for all sites. (Note: last year s Annual Report plotted the monthly geometric mean). The seasonal geometric mean summarizes all twenty samples per season, faciliting annual comparison. The seasonal geometric mean for the Status and Trends Monitoring sites was computed for August and September for Helsel, D.R. and Hirsch, R.M. Statistical Methods in Water Resources U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations Book 4, Chapter A3. Exhibit

27 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT 2007 (see Figure D-2.4), and for the BMP Evaluation sites from June-September for (see Figure D-2.6). Plotting the running log mean with the log mean water quality objective (200 CFU/100 ml) for the status and trends sites has been done to evaluate if conditions in receiving waters are protective of beneficial uses (See Figure D-2.7). D Results of Status and Trend Monitoring Figure D-2.2 shows box-plots of data from monitoring at the Status and Trends sites, and the single sample water quality objective (400 CFU/100 ml). Box plots show that the median fecal coliform levels and variability have decreased in 2007 relative to 2001 and 2002 at CTPJ01, J02, and ACJ01. Outlying high fecal coliform levels occurring in September 2007 were rainfall influenced at all sites, except at CTPJ01. The highest magnitude in 2007 at all status and trends monitoring sites occurred at ACJ01 on a day with light drizzle. Figure D-2.4 plots the seasonal geomeans for August and September from 2001 through 2007 for the status and trend sites in the Aliso Creek watershed. The figures show trends in fecal coliform concentrations on a logarithmic scale. By visual inspection of the plots, seasonal geometric mean values fluctuate for the entire monitoring period for all sites. The seasonal geomean at CTPJ01 in 2007 is less than the seasonal geomean in Otherwise, a clear upward or downward trend from the beginning of the monitoring period ( ) is not apparent. Figure D-2.5 provides a comprehensive overview by year of the seasonal geometric means from all status and trends sites. The graph represents a comparative summary of all data from August and Septemer for all years. Of note, the fecal coliform seasonal geometric mean level is highest at the site downstream from J03, and the geometric mean at CTPJ01 is consistently the lowest from Figure D-2.7 shows the running log mean and the water quality objective (200/100 ml) for the REC1 geomean standard. Only CTPJ01 was consistently below the REC1 water quality objective. At the other sites, conditions appear to be remaining constant over the seven year period of record. Data from the past seven years of monitoring are included in Attachment D-1, Bacteria Test Results for Aliso Creek Directive Monitoring. D Results of BMP Monitoring All data from BMP effectiveness monitoring are presented in the box-plots in Figure D The red line represents the 10% exceedance criteria of the water quality objective (400/100 ml). At J05, FC levels remained steady, relative to previous years, in Otherwise, visual inspection of the box-plots do not signal trends. Exhibit

28 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.6 summarizes all data, plotting the seasonal (June through September, ) geometric means for the the BMP evaluation sites in the. The figures show trends in fecal coliform concentrations on a logarithmic scale for the drain, and upstream and downstream of the drain. From these plots, spatial and temporal patterns at the drains can be evaluated. Seasonal geomean values fluctuate for the entire monitoring period and visual inspection of the plots does not unveil a clear trend at any of the sites. Comparing upstream and downstream seasonal geometric mean concentrations for fecal coliforms is an approach for assessing the influence of the storm drain on downstream concentrations. Downstream and upstream fecal coliform levels would be similar if the storm drain is not contributing bacteria to the receiving water. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a statistical test which can quantitavely evaluate if there is a statistical difference between upstream and downstream fecal coliform levels. Single factor ANOVA at a 95% confidence level indicated downstream levels were higher than upstream levels (p<0.05) at J01P08, J06, J01P28, and J04. Data from the past seven years of monitoring are included in Attachment D-1, Bacteria Test Results for Aliso Creek Directive Monitoring. D Results of Comparing BMP Sites to Status and Trend Sites Downstream conditions are worse than upstream conditions at J01P08, J06, J01P28, J04, and J03 (a status and trends monitoring site). When comparing data from BMP sites to status and trend sites, it does not appear that BMPs are having an impact on the status and trend sites downstream. D Conclusions The trend lines over time at each station vary widely but do not demonstrate a visible upward or downward trend. This variability is typical of bacterial indicators. Estimates of this temporal variability were used in statistical power analyses to select stations with the greatest chance of detecting trends over time. The results of these power analyses suggested that it would take many years (in some cases as many as 15 20) to reliably detect consistent reductions in indicator levels even as large as 50%. Formal trend tests were not performed on the data presented in Figures D-2.4, D-2.5 and D-2.6 because past experience has shown that simple regression analysis would simply result in finding that the trend line is not significantly different from 0. The revised monitoring program for Aliso Creek is designed to track certain levels of change over a 10 year period of time. As this is the first year of a multi-year analysis, more information will be developed over the coming years. Based on the data, while the BMP efforts taking place in the Aliso Creek watershed to reduce bacteria loads may not yet be yielding significant improvements in receiving waters, they may be limiting further degradation of receiving waters. As the program continues and the municipalities implement additional BMPs, it is likely that we will see improvements in receiving water quality. Exhibit

29 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT D Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) All data was subjected to QA/QC analysis by County Health Care Agency (HCA) and Watershed and Coastal Resources staff. HCA QA procedures are documented at: the following web link: WCRD QA/QC procedures are described in Section C-11 (Water Quality Monitoring) of the Program Effectiveness Assessment Annual Report for the County of Orange. Before conducting data analysis for this report, County staff verified unusually high or low values in the laboratory reports from HCA. D Results of NPDES Monitoring Program The purpose of the DAMP/WAP is to focus management efforts on priority constituents of concern. Moreover, the water quality issue currently of greatest public concern is pathogen pollution of beaches and the resulting potential for human health impacts. Consequently, this discussion primarily considers, based upon the findings from analyses of the Wet Weather Monitoring Program - Coastal Storm Drain Outfall data, the impact of stormdrain outfalls on coastal waters. These analyses combined a number of approaches, applied on a regional basis, to identify the most potentially problematic outfalls that were most likely to be exerting an influence on coastal receiving water. This approach goes beyond simple comparisons to regulatory standards to include assessments of the persistence of exceedances of such standards as well as of the statistical strength of the relationship between each stormdrain and its nearby receiving water. These analyses included: 1. Comparing indicator levels at each drain to the State s Ocean Water Contact Sports Standards (also referred to as AB411 standards); 2. Ranking drains based upon the proportion of total possible exceedances of the AB411 standards over the course of the entire year and within the AB411 season; 3. Plotting indicator levels in the receiving water vs. those in the drain; 4. Ranking drains in terms of the slope of the linear regression of receiving indicator levels vs. those in the drain; and 5. Placing particular emphasis on those monitoring results collected when drains were observed to be flowing to the ocean. While the major findings are summarized below, a more complete discussion of these results can be found in Unified Report Section C-11. The value of this approach is twofold. First, the combination of analysis approaches produces a more robust set of conclusions than any single approach would, providing more confidence for targeting management actions at outfalls of most concern. Second, the regional analysis places results from individual drains into a larger context, thus supporting the prioritization effort and ensuring that follow-up efforts at source identification and control are properly targeted. Exhibit

30 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT D Patterns of AB411 Exceedances Table D-2.2 (a-b) shows the proportion of all samples exceeding AB411 standards in the receiving water upstream and downstream of coastal drains for the entire year and for the AB411 season. Table D-2.2a presents results based on all available samples and Table D-2.2b for only that subset of sampling events during which the outfall flows was observed to actually flow to the ocean. The ranking of drains was the same as in previous years for the entire year, but changed somewhat during the AB411 season. Doheny State Beach drains DSB4 and DSB5 dropped out of the highest ranking during the AB411 season, reflecting the fact that DSB4 does not now flow during the dry season (it is a storm-only drain) and DSB5 is diverted during the summer months. Thus, targeted management actions have resolved two of the most problematic drains during the season of highest risk to human health. Figures D-2.8 (a-b) and D-2.9 (a-b) summarize these data and show the regional pattern of exceedances for the entire year and for the AB411 season. The exceedances were predominantly for Enterococcus and less so for fecal and total coliforms. Exceedances for Enterococcus were also clustered in the wet season, with 70 of the total of 238 Enterococcus exceedances occurring during the AB411 season. Finally, only a small number of exceedances occurred during the AB411 season when drains were flowing to the ocean (27 for Enterococus, 15 for fecal coliform, and 17 for total coliform). D Influence of Outfall on Receiving Water The concentration of each indicator in each outfall discharge at each sampling event was compared to the concentration of each indicator in receiving water samples with linear regression. The purpose of this analysis was to identify those outfalls that had the most consistent relationship, both for the entire year and during the AB411 season, between the outfall discharge and the receiving water. The assumption underlying this analysis was that the strength of the regression reflected the strength of each drain s influence on its nearby receiving water. Table D-2.3 (a-d) ranks the drains in terms of the strength of this relationship, as measured by the significance, or p value, of the regression slope for four conditions: the entire year and for the AB411 season, and the entire year and the AB411 season for only those sampling events when the drain was flowing to the ocean. It is important to remember that a highly significant regression is not, by itself, indicative of a potentially problem drain. A statistically significant regression must be combined with a relatively high proportion of exceedances, particularly in the AB411 season and when the drain is flowing to the ocean. D Conclusions Taken together, these analyses identified several overall patterns, including: Unlike in , the proportion of exceedances is relatively equivalent in the entire year and in the AB411 season, both for all data collected and subset of samples when Exhibit

31 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT drains were flowing to the ocean. This reflects the lower total rainfall and the lower frequency of large storms in Focusing on conditions when drains flow to the ocean shifts the relative ranking of stations, both in terms of proportion of exceedances and the significance of regressions between indicator concentrations in the drain and in the surfzone. Regressions are somewhat less strongly significant in the AB411 season than in the entire year (Table D-2.3), implying that the relationship between drains and nearby receiving waters is tighter in the rainy season. Data from all analyses were combined to identify a set of sites of particular interest. Sites were selected based on a relatively high proportion of exceedances combined with highly significant regressions across all three indicators. Additional subjective weight was given to those drains that ranked highly on these criteria at times when the drain was flowing to the ocean, on the assumption that this condition best represents the times when the drain is impacting the surfzone. Finally, each drain s discharge rate was considered in assessing its potential to affect the surfzone. These drains are: PEARL ACM1 (Aliso Creek mouth) SCM1 (Salt Creek mouth) SJC1 (San Juan Creek mouth) POCHE (Prima Deshecha Channel mouth). This set of sites is the same as the set identified last year with the exception that DSB5 at Doheny Beach dropped off the list and PEARL was put on the list. DSB5 is now diverted during the summer season. The PEARL drain has a very low discharge rate but exceeds standards 6.2% of the time during the AB411 season when it flows to the ocean, and has consistently significant regression for fecal coliform and total coliform in all conditions. It is thus somewhat anomalous and deserves further follow-up work. The exceedance rate for SCM1 decreases during the AB411 season, but this drain has highly significant regressions for all indicators in all conditions. Table D-2.4 summarizes conditions at these five drains. All except Aliso Creek mouth typically have stagnant sections or scour ponds at or very near their mouth that drain to the surfzone. Two (Salt Creek mouth and San Juan Creek mouth) also have large concentrations of birds that are almost always present. All except San Juan Creek mouth had highly significant regressions for at least some indicators for the entire year, suggesting a potentially strong effect of these drains on the nearby receiving water. However, only Doheny Beach and Poche Beach (for total coliforms) had statistically significant regressions during the AB411 season, suggesting that effects on the receiving water are more visible and persistent during the rainy season. It is puzzling that the regression analysis showed a significant relationship during the AB411 season at Doheny Beach, despite the fact that the drain is diverted during the summer months. This suggests that other processes may be occurring in this vicinity. These drains, with the exception of PEARL, have higher flow rates than all but one other site (CLEO). These sites all drain watersheds that are predominantly urbanized within Exhibit

32 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT the few miles of the coast where bacterial loads are most likely derived from. However, several of them (e.g., San Juan Creek and Aliso Creek) also contain substantial open area in their upper reaches. These results show that a high exceedance rate in the receiving water is not necessarily associated with a strong statistical relationship with values in the drain. For example, the PICO site had strongly significant regressions but relatively low exceedance rates, while site SJC1 displayed the opposite pattern. SCCWRP s study of bacterial indicator levels at reference beaches (SCCWRP Tech. Rpt. #448) showed that exceedance levels at reference beaches were very low during dry weather but reached levels as high as 33% during wet weather. The exceedance levels documented in Table D-2.2 are in some instances higher than this. The SCCWRP study will thus provide a basis in subsequent analyses for estimating the degree of anthropogenic contribution to these exceedance levels. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that bacterial contamination within Dana Point Harbor, and particularly at Baby Beach, might extend beyond the harbor to affect receiving waters along the coast. The Orange County Health Care Agency has 11 sampling locations within Dana Point Harbor that are monitored regularly. These data demonstrate that bacterial contamination is restricted to ankle-depth water at Baby Beach, with samples at deeper locations within the Harbor rarely exceeding the AB411 ocean standards. In addition, special studies conducted by the Agency to determine whether the larger number of boats moored in the Harbor during holiday periods might be a source of contamination found no exceedances in the deeper waters of the Harbor around the moorings. Exhibit

33 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Table D-2.1: Dry Weather Monitoring Sites SITE NAME LOCATION LAT LONG STATUS AVJ01P26 N W Random AVJ01P33 N W Random AVJ02P05 N W Random LBJ00P02 N W Random LFJ01P08 N W Random LNJ03P01 N W Random MVJ07P02 N W Random AVJ01P27 N W Targeted AVJ01P28 N W Targeted LFJ01P01 N W Targeted LFJ01P05 N W Targeted LHJ04P04 N W Targeted LNJ04@J03 N W Targeted LWJ01ASVM N W Targeted MVJ01P03 N W Targeted LHJ05P01 N/A N/A New Site '06 LNJ03P04 N W New Site '06 LNJ03P13 N W New Site '06 MVL02P14 N/A N/A New Site '06 LFJ01P02 N W Eliminated '05 LWJ01@LAB N W Eliminated '05 LNJ03TBNGL N W Eliminated '06 MVJ01P04 N W Eliminated '06 Exhibit

34 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Table D-2.2a: Proportion of All Samples Exceeding AB411 Standards Near Coastal Stormdrains (Annual Report Table C-11.15a) Entire Year AB411 Season Rank Station Avg Hits 1 Rank Station Avg Hits 1 1 BLUBRD BLUBRD BLULGN BLULGN DUMOND CSBMP ELMORO DSB WEST DUMOND HEISLR ELMORO LADERA HEISLR TRFCYN LADERA EMRLD SCCS RIVERA TRFCYN VICTRA WEST LINDAL DSB MAINBC LINDAL CLEO CLEO SCCS CSBBR MARIPO DSB PEARL EMRLD PIER MAINBC SCCS MARIPO ACM RIVERA CSBBR VICTRA CSBMP PEARL PICO SCCS DSB PIER DSB ACM SCM PICO POCHE SJC DSB POCHE SJC SCM Note: Shaded cells indicate stations within the. 1 Hits refers to number of exceedances. Exhibit

35 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Table D-2.2b: Proportion of Samples Exceeding AB411 Standards Near Coastal Stormdrains When Drain Flows to the Ocean (Annual Report Table C b) Entire Year AB411 Season Rank Station Avg Hits 1 Rank Station Avg Hits 1 1 BLUBRD BLUBRD BLULGN BLULGN DUMOND CLEO ELMORO DUMOND HEISLR ELMORO LADERA LINDAL PIER MAINBC CLEO MARIPO MAINBC PIER TRFCYN TRFCYN ACM SCM LINDAL PEARL DSB ACM MARIPO PICO SCM DSB PEARL POCHE PICO SJC POCHE SCCS CSBMP SCCS SCCS SJC Note: Shaded cells indicate stations within the. 1 Hits refers to number of exceedances. Exhibit

36 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Table D-2.3a: Coastal Stormdrain Sites Ranked in Terms of Significance of Regression Slopes for All Bacterial Indicators, Based on Data from the Entire Year (Annual Report Table C-11.18a) Enterococcus Fecal Coliform Total Coliform Rank Station P-Value Rank Station P-Value Rank Station P-Value 1 ACM1 < ACM1 < ACM1 < BLULGN < BLULGN < PEARL < SCM1 < SCM1 < SCM1 < SJC1 < POCHE POCHE MAINBC PEARL SJC DSB SJC DSB MARIPO MARIPO DUMOND POCHE MAINBC EMRLD LADERA LINDAL BLUBRD VICTRA RIVERA ELMORO LINDAL VICTRA BLULGN HEISLR ELMORO MAINBC EMRLD DUMOND MARIPO PICO DSB PICO ELMORO PICO CLEO 1 13 BLUBRD WEST CSBBR CSBMP BLUBRD 1 13 CSBMP TRFCYN CLEO 1 13 DSB CLEO 1 15 CSBBR HEISLR 1 16 CSBBR CSBMP LADERA 1 16 DSB DSB LINDAL 1 16 DUMOND 1 15 EMRLD 1 13 PIER 1 16 PEARL 1 15 HEISLR 1 13 RIVERA 1 16 PIER 1 15 LADERA 1 13 SCCS RIVERA 1 15 PIER 1 13 SCCS SCCS SCCS TRFCYN 1 16 SCCS SCCS VICTRA 1 16 WEST 1 15 TRFCYN 1 13 WEST 1 Note: Shaded cells indicate stations within the. Exhibit

37 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Table D-2.3b: Coastal Stormdrain Sites Ranked in Terms of Significance of Regression Slopes for All Bacterial Indicators, Based on Data from the AB411 Season (Annual Report Table C-11.18b) Enterococcus Fecal Coliform Total Coliform Rank Station P-Value Rank Station P-Value Rank Station P-Value 1 BLULGN < ACM1 < ACM1 < ACM BLULGN < PEARL < MAINBC EMRLD < SCM1 < POCHE PEARL < SJC SCM SCM1 < POCHE CSBMP MAINBC DUMOND VICTRA POCHE EMRLD TRFCYN LINDAL ELMORO MARIPO MARIPO DSB LINDAL SJC BLUBRD DSB VICTRA MAINBC SJC RIVERA CSBBR EMRLD DUMOND BLULGN LADERA BLUBRD CSBMP ELMORO CLEO HEISLR BLUBRD PICO CLEO 1 17 CLEO ELMORO DSB CSBBR CSBBR LADERA 1 18 DSB CSBMP LINDAL 1 18 DUMOND 1 14 DSB MARIPO 1 18 HEISLR 1 14 DSB PICO 1 18 PEARL 1 14 HEISLR 1 14 PIER 1 18 PICO 1 14 LADERA 1 14 RIVERA 1 18 PIER 1 14 PIER 1 14 SCCS RIVERA 1 14 SCCS SCCS SCCS SCCS TRFCYN 1 18 SCCS TRFCYN 1 14 VICTRA 1 18 WEST 1 14 WEST 1 14 WEST 1 Note: Shaded cells indicate stations within the. Exhibit

38 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Table D-2.3c: Coastal Stormdrain Sites Ranked in Terms of Significance of Regression Slopes for All Bacterial Indicators, Based on Data From the Entire Year for Drains Flowing to the Ocean (Annual Report Table C-11.18c) Enterococcus Fecal Coliform Total Coliform Rank Station P-Value Rank Station P-Value Rank Station P-Value 1 ACM1 < ACM1 < ACM1 < DUMOND < DUMOND < SCM1 < SCM1 < POCHE < MAINBC SJC1 < SCM1 < PEARL MAINBC SJC1 < POCHE POCHE PEARL SJC MARIPO LINDAL BLUBRD PICO ELMORO LINDAL HEISLR PICO BLULGN BLUBRD HEISLR DSB DSB MAINBC MARIPO LINDAL MARIPO PICO ELMORO BLUBRD TRFCYN BLULGN 1 10 BLULGN 1 12 ELMORO CLEO 1 10 CLEO 1 13 HEISLR PEARL 1 10 DSB CLEO 1 11 PIER 1 10 PIER 1 14 DUMOND 1 11 SCCS SCCS PIER 1 11 SCCS SCCS SCCS TRFCYN 1 10 TRFCYN 1 14 SCCS52 1 Note: Shaded cells indicate stations within the. Exhibit

39 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Table D-2.3d: Coastal Stormdrain Sites Ranked in Terms of Significance of Regression Slopes for All Bacterial Indicators, Based on Data From the AB411 Season for Drains Flowing to the Ocean (Annual Report Table C-11.18d) Enterococcus Fecal Coliform Total Coliform Rank Station P-Value Rank Station P-Value Rank Station P-Value 1 BLULGN < BLULGN < ACM1 < POCHE < CLEO < SCM1 < SCM1 < LINDAL < PEARL SJC PEARL < LINDAL ACM SCM1 < POCHE LINDAL POCHE SJC BLUBRD SJC BLUBRD MAINBC ACM BLULGN DSB MAINBC DSB PICO PICO MAINBC ELMORO BLUBRD CLEO 1 10 CLEO DSB ELMORO 1 11 MARIPO ELMORO 1 10 MARIPO 1 12 PEARL 1 8 MARIPO 1 10 PICO 1 12 SCCS SCCS SCCS17 1 Note: Shaded cells indicate stations within the. Exhibit

40 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Table D-2.4: Conditions at Drains of Highest Concern 1 (Annual Report Table C-11.19) Exceedances (proportion) Regression (p value) Flow & Mouth Watershed Description All Data Drain Yea r AB41 1 PEARL E.0005 F.0001 T Flows to Ocean All Data Flows to Ocean Year AB411 Year AB411 Year AB411 1 E.0001 F.0001 T 1 E.0018 F.0001 T 1 E.0001 F.0001 T Flows only in wet weather; very low flow Drains to sand below outlet Outlet can be inundated by high tides Diverted during dry season Residential area Aliso Crk ACM1 Salt Crk SCM All All.0001 A.001 E.0001 F.0001 T.0001 A.0001 A.0625 E.0034 F.0001 T.0001 E.0001 F.0001 T Flows ~90% of time; 2 nd highest flow Occasionally barricaded by berm Flows ~90% of time; 3 rd highest flow Large stagnant scour pond always present on beach, with many birds Flows from pond to surfzone Ozone treatment plant just upstream of scour pond Partly rural, wilderness park Underground last yds Aboveground through golf course and residential area San Juan Crk SJC E.0055 F.0021 T.0679 E.0319 F.0008 T.0001 E.0001 F.001 T.0421 E.0017 F.0217 T Flows about 75% of time; highest flow Occasionally barricaded by berm in summer Stagnant lagoon that drains to surfzone under sand Residential area Bird refuge at bottom with birds Large wilderness area upstream of San Juan Capistrano Exhibit

41 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Exceedances (proportion) Regression (p value) Flow & Mouth Watershed Description Drain All Data Yea r AB41 1 Flows to Ocean All Data Flows to Ocean Year AB411 Year AB411 Year AB411 Poche Bch POCHE E.0001 F.0001 T.0006 E.0038 F.0084 T.0026 E.0001 F.0009 T.0001 E.0004 F.0132 T Flows ~80% of time; 4 th highest flow Large stagnant scour pond that regularly flows to surfzone Entirely residential 1 Flow ranks are relative and refer only to this group of five drains. E, F, and T in the Regression column refer, respectively, to Enterococcus, fecal coliforms, and total coliforms. Exhibit

42 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.1: Location of the Revised Monitoring Locations, Including Five Status and Trends Sites and Nine BMP Evaluation Sites at Six High Priority Drainages Exhibit

43 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.2: Status and Trend Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

44 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.2: Status and Trend Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

45 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.2: Status and Trend Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

46 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.3: BMP Evaluation Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

47 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.3: BMP Evaluation Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

48 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.3: BMP Evaluation Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

49 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.3: BMP Evaluation Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

50 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.3: BMP Evaluation Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

51 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.3: BMP Evaluation Sites, Fecal Coliform Levels as Box Plots Exhibit

52 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.4: Status and Trend Sites, Seasonal Geomeans Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations - ARJ Geomean(FC) (CFU/100 ml) Instream seasonal geomean Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations - ACJ Geomean(FC) (CFU/100 ml) Instream Seasonal Geomean Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations - CTPJ Geomean(FC) (CFU/100 ml) Instream Seasonal Geomean Exhibit

53 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.4: Status and Trend Sites, Seasonal Geomeans Running 30-Day Fecal Coliform Log Mean - J01@J03 10,000 Running 30-Day FCLog Mean (CFU/100 ml) Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug Day Log Mean Downstream 30-Day Log Mean Upstream Rec 1 30-Day Log Mean WQO 100,000 Running 30-Day Fecal Coliform Log Mean - J01@J02 10, day Running Log Mean (CFU/100 ml) 1, Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug Day Log Mean - Upstream 30-Day Log mean - Downstream Rec 1 30-Day Log Mean WQO Exhibit

54 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.5: Status and Trend Sites, Seasonal Geomean Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations - Status and Trends Sites 10,000 1,000 Geomean(FC) (CFU/100 ml) 100 ARJ01 U/S of J03J01 D/S of J03J01 ACJ01 U/S of J01J02 D/S of J01J02 CTPJ Exhibit

55 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.6: BMP Site Seasonal Geomean Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations J01P08 Geomean/season (CFU/100 ml) Upstream Storm Drain Downstream Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations J07P02 Geomean/season (CFU/100 ml) Storm Drain Downstream Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations J06 Geomean/season (CFU/100 ml) Upstream Storm Drain Down stream Exhibit

56 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.6: BMP Site Seasonal Geomean Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations J05 Geomean/season (CFU/100 ml) Upstream Storm Drain Downstream Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations J01P28 Geomean/season (CFU/100 ml) Upstream Storm Drain Downstream Seasonal Geomean Fecal Coliform Concentrations J04 Geomean/season (CFU/100 ml) Upstream Storm Drain Downstream Exhibit

57 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.7: Status and Trend Sites, Running Geomean Running 30-Day Fecal Coliform Geomean - ARJ01 100,000 Running 30-Day FCGeomean (CFU/100 ml) 10,000 1, Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug day Log Mean Rec 1 30-Day Log Mean WQO Running 30-Day Fecal Coliform Geomean - ACJ01 100,000 Running 30-Day FCGeomean (CFU/100 ml) 10,000 1, Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug day Log Mean Rec 1 30-Day Log Mean WQO Running 30-Day Fecal Coliform Geomean - CTPJ01 10,000 Running 30-Day FCGeomean (CFU/100 ml) 1, Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug day Log Mean Rec 1 30-Day Log Mean WQO Exhibit

58 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.7: Status and Trend Sites, Running Geomean Running 30-Day Fecal Coliform Log Mean - J01@J03 10,000 Running 30-Day FCLog Mean (CFU/100 ml) Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug Day Log Mean Downstream 30-Day Log Mean Upstream Rec 1 30-Day Log Mean WQO 100,000 Running 30-Day Fecal Coliform Log Mean - J01@J02 10, day Running Log Mean (CFU/100 ml) 1, Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug Day Log Mean - Upstream 30-Day Log mean - Downstream Rec 1 30-Day Log Mean WQO Exhibit

59 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.8a: Relative Level of AB411 Exceedances (Hits) Over the Entire Year Using All Data (Annual Report Figure C-11.18a) Exhibit

60 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.8b: Relative Level of AB411 Exceedances (Hits) Over the Entire Year When Drains Flow to Ocean (Annual Report Figure C-18b) Exhibit

61 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.9a: Relative Level of AB411 Exceedances (Hits) During the AB411 Season Using All Data (Annual Report Figure C a) Exhibit

62 EXHIBIT 13, WATER QUALITY MONITORING & ASSESSMENT Figure D-2.9b: Relative Level of AB411 Exceedances (Hits) During the AB411 Season When Drain Flows to Ocean (Annual Report Figure C-11.19b) Exhibit

63 EXHIBIT 13, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION D-3.0 BMP IMPLEMENTATION The Watershed Permittees are developing and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) (defined as programs, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, measures or devices which control, prevent, remove or reduce pollution for water quality protection and enhancement) 1 within the through the planning processes discussed in Section 1.0. The DAMP/LIP and DAMP/WAP planning processes essentially result in Baseline BMPs and Enhanced BMPs, respectively. Baseline BMPs are based upon the model programs identified in the DAMP and are implemented to contribute to the control of all pollutants. Enhanced BMPs generally target particular constituents of concern and are typically source control or treatment control BMPs. In the, Enhanced BMPs are being implemented to address pathogen indicator bacteria in dry and wet weather runoff from the urbanized areas of the watershed. The common emphasis of BMP-based management approaches is to promote the concept and practice of preventing pollution at the source. However, such an approach does not preclude runoff treatment and, indeed, the DAMP explicitly recognizes that while the emphasis is on Pollution Prevention BMPs, the Permittees approach to water quality management includes complementary Source Control BMPs and Treatment Control BMPs. These BMPs can be described as: Pollution Prevention BMPs any practice that reduces or eliminates the creation of pollutants; Source Control BMPs any practice that prevents pollution by reducing pollutants at their source; and Treatment Control BMPs any practice that removes pollutants from runoff. The Watershed Permittees BMP program is detailed in Attachment D-2, WAP Strategy Tables. These strategy tables demonstrate the collaborative efforts of the Watershed Permittees and identify the specific actions that are being undertaken to improve urban water quality within the watershed. These strategy tables are specific to the constituents of concern for the watershed and include information on past progress as well as the scheduled tasks to support this action. On an annual basis these tables will be updated to identify the progress made in that year as well as the schedule for the subsequent year. D-3.1 High-Priority Drains/BMP Evaluation Sites In conformance with the Aliso Creek Directive, efforts to improve water quality in order to meet the REC-1 Fecal Coliform objective in the lower sections of Aliso Creek 1 / Stormwater Quality Task Force. March California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks. Prepared by: Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and Associates, and Resources Planning Associates. Exhibit

64 EXHIBIT 13, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION have been concentrated on specific upstream discharges to the Creek, where a range of source identification, enforcement, and pollution prevention activities are planned and/or underway, as discussed below. 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 high-priority drains/bmp evaluation sites are intended to fulfill two purposes. The first is to document the relative effectiveness of source reduction efforts in the highpriority subwatersheds. Given that similar source reduction efforts are being implemented throughout the Aliso Creek watershed, the second purpose is to produce information to help guide decision making about source reduction efforts at other locations. As questions about BMP effectiveness at the high-priority drains are resolved over time, monitoring effort will be shifted to the next level of priority drains. Attachment D-3, Aliso Creek High Priority Drains Monitoring Efforts & Effectiveness Assessments, highlights enhanced BMPs employed upstream of these high priority drains and provides monitoring efforts and effectiveness assessments to date. D-3.2 Baseline BMP and Enhanced BMP Implementation While the intention of the DAMP/WAP is to focus on Enhanced BMP implementation, a complete account of the activities in a watershed that are contributing to the control of a constituent of concern necessarily has to consider Baseline BMPs and efforts focused on ecological outcomes (i.e. restoring a watershed s natural biological functioning) in addition to Enhanced BMPs. At the forefront of many of these BMP implementation efforts is the Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan (IRWMP). The IRWMP focuses primarily on the projects and plans of the member agencies, with an emphasis on water supply and water quality. The IRWMP outlines specific objectives related to Water Quality/Pollution Reduction, which will provide Regional Action Projects that are supported and implemented by multiple cities and the County for urban runoff pollution treatment, in addition to water quality benefits to areas of special biological significance and protection of critical coastal areas. In June 2005, the Board of Supervisors accepted the Plan and adopted a resolution that authorized the County of Orange to submit a grant application to the State under Prop 50 Chapter 8. In January 2007, the IRWMP was one of seven statewide proposals recommended for funding. As a result, South Orange County will receive $25 million in Prop 50 funds to enhance water supply, water quality and natural habitat. The top seven projects include: 1. MWDOC, Water Use Efficiency Program Expansion 2. SMWD, Canada Gobernadora Multipurpose Basin 3. City of Laguna Beach, Heisler Park Marine Habitat Protection 4. SOCWA, J.B Latham Treatment Plant AWE Project Exhibit

65 EXHIBIT 13, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 5. City of SJC, Recycled Water Transmission System Improvements 6. City of San Clemente, Recycled Water Treatment & Distribution 7. County of Orange, Aliso Creek Super Project The IRWMP will be updated on an as-needed basis, but at least every five years as it is a living document. The projects will be updated continuously, with a call for new projects done annually. D Municipal Activities The Permittees own and operate facilities and, as a consequence, perform activities over a large part of their jurisdictions. The DAMP addresses this opportunity for direct control of pollutants in urban runoff by establishing a program framework for systematically evaluating and addressing (based upon ISO14001 principles) water quality impacts arising from municipal facilities and infrastructure maintenance activities. A summary of municipal facility Baseline BMP implementation is presented in each Permittee s PEA Section C-5. Examples of Enhanced BMPs include: Provision of pet waste disposal bags in parks and on trails (AC-fib2a); Installation of catch basin debris gates (AC-fib1e); Installation of catch basin filters (AC-fib1e; AC-fib2i,k); Installation of bactericidal in-line storm drain filters (AC-fib2k); Installation of a hydro-dynamic separator unit (AC-fib1e); Street Median Projects to include the installation of drought resistance plants (AC-fib1f, AC-fib2m); and Reduction in urban runoff and water conservation (AC-gen6a,d,e,f,g; ACfib1g,h,j; AC-fib2m,n,o). (Note: AC-gen1a, AC-fib2a, etc. provide references to the attached strategy tables). D Public Education Public education is a key component of the municipal stormwater program. The goals of the program are to (1) measurably increase the knowledge of target communities; (2) measurably change behavior of target communities, and (3) reach all residents. The efforts of each of the Watershed Permittees for the reporting period are presented in the individual progress reports and reviewed from a countywide perspective in the Unified Annual Progress Report (See Sections C-6). The countywide Orange County Stormwater Program public education effort in achieved 81,669,272 impressions. Watershed-oriented public education activities include: Organization of creek clean-up events (AC-gen2a); Run educational PSAs on local television stations (AC-gen3b); Exhibit

66 EXHIBIT 13, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Establish and administer City Water Quality Committees involving public participation (AC-gen3c); Disseminate water quality information to businesses and residents through city newsletters (AC-gen3d); Distribute door hangars, direct mailings, residential-related BMPs, and one-onone education/outreach (AC-gen3,h; AC-fib2d); Provision of public education materials that address pet and horse care (ACgen3c; AC-fib2h); Providing workshops, presentations, and voluntary facility audits on proper BMP implementation (AC-gen3c); Hosting tours for the public of BMP infrastructure (AC-gen3c); and Posting of signs next to Aliso Creek (AC-fib2f). In addition to outreach to the general public, the Orange County Stormwater Program developed a School Education Outreach Program. Today s children are tomorrow s adults, and the earlier they learn about protecting the environment, the less likely they will be as adults to engage in pollution causing behaviors. Children can also share information they learn in school with their parents and other relatives. Children are excellent watchdogs when it comes to their parents activities, and they are likely to try to correct a parent s polluting behavior. In , classroom education opportunities were offered to 748 fifth and sixth graders, as detailed in Table D-3.1. School Education Outreach Program details are presented in the Unified Annual Progress Report (See Section C-6). Table D-3.1: Aliso Creek School Education Outreach Program. PROGRAM SCHOOL GRADE Ocean Institute: Watershed Program Inside the Outdoors: Sea Base Field Program Inside the Outdoors: Outdoor Science School Don Juan Avila Elementary School Top of the World Elementary School La Tierra Elementary School Aliso Viejo Christian School NUMBER OF STUDENTS or TEACHERS Foxborough Elementary Barcelona Hills Elementary Exhibit

67 EXHIBIT 13, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Table D-3.1: Aliso Creek School Education Outreach Program. PROGRAM SCHOOL GRADE NUMBER OF STUDENTS or TEACHERS Del Cerro Elementary Lomarena Elementary Portola Hills D New Development One of the most important responsibilities of local government is to provide a decision making framework for the planning and permitting of new development and redevelopment. This framework ensures that development occurs in an orderly fashion that reflects the vision and needs of the community, the environmental issues associated with any project are assessed, and that requirements for water quality protection are implemented. The New Development section of the DAMP/LIP (Section 7.0) establishes a mandatory water quality management plan (WQMP) and BMP requirements for specified types of development. The implementation of these requirements is not being tracked on a watershed basis. However, details of each Permittee s program are documented in LIP Section A-7, and progress in the reporting period compiled on a jurisdictional and Countywide basis is presented in the Unified Annual Progress Report. Examples of a New Development Enhanced BMPs include: Installation and evaluation of a bio-retention structural BMP (AC-fib2l); and Condition projects to install floor drains in trash bin enclosures and connect these to the sanitary sewer system (AC-fib2p). D Construction The Construction Program establishes Baseline BMP requirements and guidelines for pollution prevention methods that must be used by construction site owners, developers, contractors, and other responsible parties, in order to protect water quality from construction site runoff. Construction site prioritization, inspection results, and enforcement actions are presented in the individual PEAs (Section C-8). D Existing Development The Existing Development Program provides a framework and a process for the Permittees to systematically address the water quality impacts that can be associated Exhibit

68 EXHIBIT 13, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION with industrial facilities, commercial facilities, residential areas, and common interest areas/homeowner associations. Key elements of the Baseline BMP program include source identification and facility inventory, prioritization for inspection, inspection BMP implementation and, where necessary, enforcement. The details of each Permittee s program are documented at LIP Section A-9. An example of a New Development/Redevelopment Enhanced BMPs includes: Condition projects to install floor drains in trash bin enclosures and connect these to the sanitary sewer system (AC-fib2p). D Illegal Discharges/Illicit Connections Illegal discharges and illicit connections can be a significant source of pollutants from MS4s, and the DAMP includes a comprehensive program for detecting, responding to, investigating, and eliminating these types of discharges. Each Permittee's program is documented in LIP Section A-10. Examples of efforts targeting fecal indicator bacteria include: Field investigation and bacteria source identification (AC-gen5c; AC-fib1d; ACfib2b); and Creation and maintenance of a GIS with storm drain and sanitary sewer system layers (AC-gen5b). Additionally, the Permittees evaluate County water quality monitoring data and other data available from SCCWRP, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. to identify bacteria sources and new constituents of concern (AC-gen5a; AC-fib1d) and participated in a SCCWRPbased investigative analysis of wet- and dry-weather natural background occurrence rates of fecal bacteria at reference beaches (AC-fib1c). D-3.3 Retrofitting and Restoration While the Clean Water Act established an interim goal of attaining a level of water quality (which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and for recreation in and on water), its overarching objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Projects with ecological integrity outcomes necessarily have to be considered in the context of water quality management because restoring biological function enhances a stream s contaminant assimilative capacity. In addition, restoration in the context of the Watershed Chapter, also applies to projects that contribute to the restoration of a more natural watershed hydrologic regime. These efforts can lead to more stable channel morphology and the elimination of the dry weather runoff that sustains the flux of bacteria through the creek system in dry weather. Examples of retrofitting and restoration projects include: Operation of a UV disinfection water treatment system (AC-fib2e); Implement the Munger Stormdrain sand filter project (AC-fib2c); Exhibit

69 EXHIBIT 13, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Urban landscape renewal initiative (AC-fib1e,f,g; AC-fib2n); Urban runoff reduction and water use efficiency initiatives (AC-gen6d, ACgen6e, AC-fib1g); Urban stream channel restoration (AC-fib1i, AC-fib2g); Landscape irrigation control (AC-gen6e; AC-fib1g; AC-fib2m,n,o); Identification of potential drainage system retrofit opportunities within the watershed (AC-gen6b); and Pursue the implementation of the Aliso Stabilization, Utilities Protection, and Environmental Restoration (SUPER) Project (AC-fib2j). Exhibit

70 EXHIBIT 13, EFFECTIVENESS ASSESESSMENT D-4.0 EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT Effectiveness Assessment is the process of evaluating whether programs are resulting in desired outcomes. Outcomes are the results of an activity, program element, or overall program and can be characterized in terms of six levels. Figure D-4.1 shows these levels as a gradation from activity-based to water quality-based outcomes and illustrates the progression of each successive step toward the ultimate goal of environmental improvement. In general, Levels 1 to 3 can be considered Implementation Outcomes, Levels 5 and 6 Water Quality Outcomes and Level 4 a combination of the two types. Each level has value in informing management the management process and it bears emphasis that not all are necessary or possible in every instance (CASQA, 2005). 1 Progress toward the achievement of outcomes is evaluated through the use of Assessment Measures. Assessment measures may be qualitative (e.g. a judgment regarding the degree of BMP implementation at a facility) or quantitative (e.g. % reduction in a constituent level). Key attributes of assessment measures include: Measurability (statistically measurable on a frequent basis) Relevance (significant, demonstrable relation to strategy and objectives) Reliability (easily documented and reproducible) Availability (based upon data obtainable at reasonable cost) Scientific Validity (based on sound science) Replicability (capable of being regularly updated) Appropriately Focused (ideally measures outcomes, not inputs or outputs) Effectiveness Assessment involves confirmation of outcomes, an interim process of evaluation (principally through comparison) of assessment measures, and communication of progress. Objective: To establish a Watershed Committee and encourage actions arising from its deliberations. Progress in : The Permittee representatives met quarterly during the reporting period as the Tier I Cost Share Partners Committee and the Aliso Directive Committee (the de facto Watershed Chapter Committee). Issues discussed at the meetings included the review of water monitoring data, project updates and evaluations of project effectiveness. Effectiveness Assessment: The Watershed Permittees met regularly during the reporting period. In addition, the Permittees are actively involved in the bacteria TMDL Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) and have collaborated on the IRWMP, Aliso Creek 1 California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) An Introduction to Stormwater Program Effectiveness Assessment. Available at: 0Program%20Effectiveness%20Assessment4.pdf. Exhibit

71 EXHIBIT 13, EFFECTIVENESS ASSESESSMENT Stabilization, Utility Protection, Environmental Restoration (SUPER) Project, and the TMDL Strategic Assessment and Watershed Implementation Framework for the Aliso Creek and San Juan Creek watersheds. Level 1: Documenting Stormwater Program Activities Objective: Enhance the extent of public participation in watershed issues, through Permittee and public interaction at watershed events, annual/semi-annual Clean Up Days, and other activities. Progress in : The Permittees organized watershed clean-up events at six sites in the watershed as part of the statewide Coastal and Watershed Cleanup Day on September 16, The Stakeholder Tier II Committee met two times during the reporting period. All program documentation, including the Aliso Creek WAP, is maintained on the widely publicized website. The number of hits on the Aliso Creek Watershed page of this website was 3,073 in the reporting period compared to 3,185 in , 2,817 in and 2,269 in Effectiveness Assessment: The Tier II Committee will continue to meet in Level 1: Documenting Stormwater Program Activities Effectiveness Assessment: Interest in the appears to be relatively consistent, as there were only 3.5% fewer web page hits compared to the previous year. Level 1: Documenting Stormwater Program Activities Objective: Educate the public regarding water quality issues. Progress in : The Countywide education effort in achieved over 81 million impressions compared to over 100 million impressions in , over 80 million impressions in and 45 million impressions in Within the watershed, there has been the distribution of education materials on pet and horse waste management, the placement of additional signage along Aliso Creek regarding its water quality, and hosted tours of BMP infrastructure. Each Watershed Permittee also disseminates general water quality educational articles on their City newsletters, websites, PSAs on local cable stations and through direct mailings. Effectiveness Assessment: The 81,669,272 impressions achieved by the Countywide Exhibit

72 EXHIBIT 13, EFFECTIVENESS ASSESESSMENT education effort were slightly higher than that of , but less than that of the previous reporting period. The public education campaign was maintained rather than expanded during the reporting period in order for the Public Education sub-committee to review the content and effectiveness of the current materials available, and to outline a work plan for the next permit term. Level 1: Documenting Stormwater Program Activities Level 3: Changing Behavior Objective: Modify jurisdictional plans and policies to reflect potential impacts to water quality at a watershed-scale. Progress in : No issues were identified in the reporting period that would justify modification of jurisdictional plans and policies. However, two regional planning documents were updated and/or developed. The Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan (IRWMP) focuses primarily on projects and plans of the member agencies, with an emphasis on water supply and water quality. The IRWMP, which was accepted by the Board of Supervisors (the Board) in June 2005, outlines specific objectives related to Water Quality/Pollution Reduction. Furthermore, the Board adopted a resolution that authorized the County of Orange to submit a grant application (the IRWMP is support documentation) to the State under Prop 50 Chapter 8. In January 2007, the IRWMP was one of seven statewide proposals recommended for funding. As a result, South Orange County will receive $25 million in Prop 50 funds to enhance water supply, water quality and natural habitat. The top seven projects include: MWDOC, Water Use Efficiency Program Expansion SMWD, Canada Gobernadora Multipurpose Basin City of Laguna Beach, Heisler Park Marine Habitat Protection SOCWA, J.B Latham Treatment Plant AWE Project City of SJC, Recycled Water Transmission System Improvements City of San Clemente, Recycled Water Treatment & Distribution County of Orange, Aliso Creek Super Project Development of a TMDL Strategic Assessment and Watershed Implementation Framework for the Aliso Creek and San Juan Creek watersheds was also initiated. This document establishes the framework for a Comprehensive Load Reduction Plan for the Project I Beaches and Creeks in the San Diego Region. The framework acts in lieu of the Bacteria Load Reduction Plan, as stipulated in the Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria Project I Beaches and Creeks in the San Diego Region Draft Technical Report, dated June 25, Effectiveness Assessment: The watershed Permittees commitment to addressing potential water quality impacts is evidenced by their collaboration on comprehensive Exhibit

73 EXHIBIT 13, EFFECTIVENESS ASSESESSMENT planning documents. These documents address not only water quality impacts, but water supply and natural habitat enhancement. Level 1: Documenting Stormwater Program Activities Objective: To meet the requirements for a Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plan (WURMP) contained in the municipal NPDES stormwater permit. Progress in : The DAMP/Watershed Action Plan (WAP; previously titled Watershed Chapter) was approved by the San Diego Regional Board on October 7, The format of the WAP and WAP Annual Report was revised in 2005 to better integrate the WAP with the Directive. Effectiveness Assessment: There were no San Diego Regional Board actions over Watershed Permittee non-compliance during the reporting period. Level 1: Documenting Stormwater Program Activities Objective: To identify the most significant water quality issues and constituents of concern on a watershed scale and relate these to urban sources. Progress in : Efforts to relate fecal indicator bacteria to urban sources and determine the significance of the water quality impact of San Juan Creek on coastal receiving waters are reviewed in Section D-2.0 and discussed in the Unified Annual Progress Report-Chapter 11. The focus in the reporting period has been to develop comparative evaluations of water quality; direct future investigations and enable management efforts to be prioritized; enable water quality information to be communicated to a broader audience; and leverage partnerships with regional stakeholders as well as programs and plans, such as comprehensive load reduction plans and consolidated grants, to address the need for a coordinated approach to resource management and capital improvement planning. Objective: To focus the pollution prevention and source controls implemented at an individual jurisdiction level on the identified constituents of concern and to identify any jurisdiction-specific treatment control opportunities. Progress in : The WAP now represents a comprehensive program of Baseline BMPs and Enhanced BMPs targeting fecal indicator bacteria. In addition, there are complementary initiatives focused on the ecological and hydrological aspects of stream system and watershed restoration. These efforts are now tabulated by objective, highlighting the collaborative efforts of the Watershed Permittees (see Attachment). Exhibit

74 EXHIBIT 13, EFFECTIVENESS ASSESESSMENT Effectiveness Assessment: In addition to Baseline BMPs, the Watershed Permittees are implementing (as detailed in Section D-3.0) Enhanced (source control and treatment control) BMPs, jurisdictionally and on a watershed cooperative basis, focused on fecal indicator bacteria. The more detailed reporting format is in its third year of use and is continually refined to allow for better demonstration of collaborative efforts, progress and action plans for the next reporting period. Level 3: Changing Behavior Objective: To identify the water quality issues most appropriately addressed through a multi-jurisdictional watershed-based (i.e. watershed cooperative) approach. Progress in : The DAMP/WAP was integrated with the Directive thereby underscoring the focus of the Watershed Permittees on fecal indicator bacteria as the priority water quality constituent of concern in the Aliso Creek watershed. Objective: To incorporate information obtained from prior planning studies. Progress in : Collaboration in other studies and the use information from other studies to inform program development is principally the responsibility of the County of Orange as Principal Permittee (see Unified Annual Progress Report). Objective: To develop an integrated plan of action that results in meaningful water quality improvement in the group at a watershed scale that balances economic, social and environmental constraints. Progress in : The South Orange County Integrated Regional Water Management Group prepared the IRWMP, which was adopted by the County of Orange Board of Supervisors in May 2005, with updates made in May 2006, and submitted to the Board for approval in June This plan includes projects that will help protect the region from drought, protect and improve water quality, and improve local water security by reducing dependence on imported water. The watershed permittees collaborated on the development of a TMDL Strategic Assessment and Watershed Implementation Framework for the Aliso Creek and San Juan Creek watersheds (to serve as a comprehensive load reduction plan). Exhibit

75 EXHIBIT 13, EFFECTIVENESS ASSESESSMENT Objective: To identify indicators to track progress. Progress in : Outcomes, Assessment Measures, and Headline Indicators are an integral part of the Watershed Permittees process of program effectiveness assessment. Contributing to the achievement of these objectives will be information from water quality monitoring that will start to inform the program effectiveness assessment albeit toward the end of the Third Permit Term and the application for the Fourth Term Permit. This water quality-based measure information will likely include relevant findings from the monitoring initiatives and any individual investigations of BMP performance. The findings from evaluations of non-structural BMP initiatives (indirect measures i.e. non-water quality indicators of BMP performance), documented in the Watershed Permittees Annual Progress Reports, will be presented in the watershed annual report where appropriate. D-4.1 Review of Management Program The common purpose of the short-term and long-term effectiveness assessment strategies is to provide a means of verifying and validating the implementation of the watershed program. In the context of the DAMP/WAPs, it is expected that program objectives and supporting management actions will evolve based upon the findings of the annual assessments. The recommended revisions arising from this review are presented in Section D-5.0. Exhibit

76 EXHIBIT 13, EFFECTIVENESS ASSESESSMENT Figure D-4.1: General Classification of Outcome Types Exhibit