NEWPORT BAY FECAL COLIFORM TMDL

Transcription

1 NEWPORT BAY FECAL COLIFORM TMDL 2016 ANNUAL DATA REPORT SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 Prepared for: Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to fulfill requirements of the TMDL for Fecal Coliform in Newport Bay (Resolution 99-10), and the January California Water Code Section letter Prepared and submitted by: County of Orange OC Public Works / OC Environmental Resources/Water Quality Compliance 2301 North Glassell Street Orange, CA Submitted on behalf of the: County of Orange Orange County Flood Control District City of Costa Mesa City of Irvine City of Lake Forest City of Newport Beach City of Orange City of Santa Ana City of Tustin

2 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: Chris Crompton, Manager, Water Quality Compliance By: Water Quality Planning Jian Peng, Chief Suzan Given, Environmental Resources Specialist Stuart Goong, Environmental Resources Specialist Data support by: Justin Grewal, Environmental Resources Specialist Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Photo credits: Stuart Goong and Dennis Tebo, OC Public Works

3 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES...ii LIST OF TABLES... iii 1.0 Introduction Numeric Targets Routine Monitoring Program Analysis of Water Contact Recreation (REC 1) and Shellfish Harvesting (SHEL) Numeric Targets Impairment Analysis Long Term Trends Summary... 8 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Monitoring data... A-1 APPENDIX B. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data... B-1 APPENDIX C. Addenda to 2015 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL Annual Data Report... C-1 APPENDIX D. Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL 2016 Summary of Management Actions... D-1 i

4 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Bacteriological Water Sampling Stations in Newport Bay Figure 2. Rainfall totals by monitoring year at the Costa Mesa (OCPW #165) and Corona del Mar (OCPW #169) gauges Figure 3. Number of months the fecal coliform geomean is greater than 200 CFU/100 ml (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) by station (for management purposes only) Figure 4. Percentage of fecal coliform samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ml (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) by station (for management purposes only) Figure 5. Number of months the Enterococci geomean is greater than 35 CFU/100 ml (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) by station (for management purposes only) Figure 6. Percentage of Enterococci samples greater than 104 CFU/100 ml (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) by station (for management purposes only) Figure 7. Upper and Lower Newport Bay annual geomean fecal coliform trend data for dry weather data only Figure 8. Upper and Lower Newport Bay annual geomean fecal coliform trend data for dry and wet weather data combined ii

5 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 LIST OF TABLES Table 1a. REC-1 fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay Table 1b. REC-1 fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Table 2a. REC-1 Enterococci numeric targets (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay Table 2b. REC-1 Enterococci numeric targets (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Table 3a. SHEL fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay Table 3b. SHEL fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Table 4. Impairment assessment (REC-1 fecal coliform numeric targets) for Newport Bay (April 1, 2010 March 31, 2016) assessment by month Table 5. Impairment assessment (REC-1 Enterococci numeric criteria) for Newport Bay (April 1, 2010 March 31, 2016) assessment by month iii

6 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 iv

7 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, Introduction The Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Newport Bay was established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) on April 9, The TMDL and the January 7, 2000 Water Code Section letter from the Regional Board require the County of Orange (County) and the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana and Tustin (watershed cities) to develop a routine monitoring program for Newport Bay and to submit an annual report by September 1 of each year that summarizes annual (April 1 through March 31) bacteriological data collected in Newport Bay and evaluates the TMDL numeric targets, which are based on the bacterial water quality objectives (WQOs) in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). This report fulfills the requirement and summarizes monitoring data from April 1, 2015 through March 31, The report format has been significantly revised in response to input received from the Regional Board staff with respect to the prior years reports and the interpretation of data. The intent is to more clearly assess the conditions in Upper and Lower Newport Bay with respect to the TMDL requirements. The following reflects the report organization by section and highlights the key changes from prior years: TMDL targets are assessed in Section 2.0 (previously in Section 1.1). The SHEL target has been added and the Enterococci target is more appropriately presented consistent with the 2000 BEACH Act and subsequent Final Water Quality Standards Bacteria Rule for Coastal and Great Lakes Waters (EPA 2004, hereinafter termed Great Lakes Rule) 1 The Routine Monitoring Program is described in Section 3.0 (previously included as part of Section 2.0). The description, as before, gives an overview of the Program, monitoring issues encountered in the field, and data analysis considerations. With respect to the latter, more detail is provided on the treatment of non-detect values and a new methodology utilized in a Los Angeles Regional Board staff report is used for the treatment of non-detect Enterococci data. Monitoring data is analyzed in Section 4.0 with respect to water contact recreation (REC-1) and shellfish harvesting (SHEL) targets (previously in Section 2.2). Consistent with the TMDL, the analysis for the first time aggregates all dry and wet weather 2 data for the Upper and Lower Newport Bay as separate water bodies in order to assess overall conditions in the two 303(d) listed waterbodies and focuses on monthly data sets rather than rolling evaluations. Station specific data are presented to show areas that may require focus for future management actions, such as special investigations or diversions to the sanitary sewer. At the request of Regional Board staff, impairment assessments of Upper and Lower Newport Bay are included for the first time in Section 5.0 using the State Water Resources Control Board s Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California s Clean Water Act Section 1 Codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR (c)(1)) 2 Wet weather is the day of at least 0.1 inches of rainfall and the 3 days following 1

8 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, (d) List, adopted in 2004 and amended in 2015 (State Listing/Delisting Policy). The State Listing/Delisting Policy provides recommended procedures to evaluate information solicited in support of listing and delisting candidate surface waters for the development of the section 303(d) List and developing and implementing TMDLs. Water quality trends in Upper and Lower Newport Bay from are presented in Section 6.0 (previously in Section 2.3). Consistent with Section 4.0, data trends are presented for the first time for the aggregated data for Upper and Lower Newport Bay. The analysis includes an evaluation of steady state dry weather conditions consistent with the criteria 3 underpinning the Great Lakes Rule. Monitoring data are organized sequentially by station from the outlet of Lower Newport Bay to Upper Newport Bay and are presented in Appendix A, consistent with prior years. The monitoring data is also available as an electronic file 4. The rolling assessments of geomean data in the previous Appendix B and the multi-year trend assessments in the previous Appendix C are no longer included due to the monthly data assessment of data in Section 4.0. A new assessment of station trend data is presented in Appendix B. Addenda tables to the 2015 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL Annual Data Report are presented in Appendix C at the request of the Regional Board staff. The addenda tables provide updated analysis of the April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 data set consistent with the analysis provided in this 2016 report to provide two complete years of data. A report entitled Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL 2016 Summary of Management Actions is presented in Appendix D summarizing the actions taken in the watershed by the County, cities and others to reduce bacteria loading to Upper and Lower Newport Bay. The report was requested by Regional Board staff and is appended to provide a clear summary of the wide scope of activities and projects that have and are being undertaken in the watershed to address the Fecal Coliform TMDL. 3 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986 (EPAA440/ p 9) 4 HCA weekly monitoring data is on-line at 2

9 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, Numeric Targets Fecal Coliform TMDL Targets The TMDL established a prioritized, phased approach to the control of bacterial water quality in the Newport Bay and set the following numeric targets for fecal coliform: For REC-1, the TMDL target is: Fecal coliform concentration: log mean ( geomean ) less than 200 organisms/100 ml 5, based on five or more samples/30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 ml for any 30-day period. The Regional Board has provided clarification that any 30-day period refers to 12 discrete monthly averages and should not be construed as a running mean that overlaps more than one calendar month 6. The analyses in Section 4.0 of this report are therefore based on monthly averages rather than a running mean. For SHEL, the TMDL target is: Fecal coliform concentration: monthly median concentration not more than 14 MPN (most probable number)/100 ml and not more than 10% of samples exceed 43 MPN/100 ml. Enterococci criteria Enterococci were included in the TMDL monitoring requirements, but no Enterococci targets were established in the TMDL. The Great Lakes Rule added a geomean Enterococci criteria of 35 CFU/100 ml for REC-1 for coastal water in states including California. The single sample maximum of 104 CFU/100 ml was developed to allow informed decisions to open or close beaches, not as never-to-be surpassed value for all implementation applications under the Clean Water Act, and is suggested to be used if there are not enough data to calculate a geomean (Great Lakes Rule pages ). Since enough data have been collected to establish geomeans, this report does not evaluate data based on the single sample maximum. Subsequently, EPA in concluded that Enterococci in marine waters was a good indicator of fecal contamination and a predictor of GI illness, but fecal coliform was not. As a consequence, the Regional Board is proposing using Enterococci in place of fecal coliform and the report therefore includes assessments of Enterococci data. 5 Throughout this report, fecal coliform units are expressed as colony forming units (CFU), rather than organisms or most probable number (MPN). CFU and MPN represent units specific to analytical techniques used to quantify fecal coliform concentration, whereas organisms is a generic term used to express bacteria concentration. All unit expressions are considered equivalent measures of fecal coliform bacteria concentration (see Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs, USEPA 2001, Office of Water, EPA 841-R p 2-1). 6 Verbal and Tentative Order , Appendix C 7 Recreation Water Quality Criteria (EPA Office of Water 820-F p 18) 3

10 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, Routine Monitoring Program The TMDL requires the County and watershed cities to implement a routine monitoring program to determine attainment of TMDL targets in Newport Bay. The current monitoring program implemented by the Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA) satisfies the requirements (sampling locations shown in Figure 1). Station data from weekly monitoring for bacteria are provided in Appendix A. In conducting the monitoring program and subsequent data analysis, the following should be noted: Two stations in the Upper Bay often could not be sampled weekly due to either low tide or lack of safe access (Vaughn s Launch (23) and Ski Zone (24)). 33 rd Street could not be sampled for several weeks in August and September due to blocked access from construction. The non-detect results for fecal coliform analysis (<9 CFU/100 ml or <10 CFU/100 ml) used the detection limit. The non-detect results for Enterococci data (<9 CFU/100 ml or <10 CFU/100 ml) were replaced with a value of 3.7 CFU/100 ml based on a study by the City of Los Angeles Environmental Monitoring Division 8. Data were also collected from watershed freshwater inputs to Newport Bay (San Diego Creek, Santa Ana-Delhi Channel, Back Bay Drive Drain, and Big Canyon Wash) but these were not included in any assessments. Samples could not be collected during the summer season at Back Bay Drive Drain due to a dry weather diversion to the sanitary sewer. 4.0 Analysis of Water Contact Recreation (REC 1) and Shellfish Harvesting (SHEL) Numeric Targets Consistent with the TMDL, the analysis in this section does not distinguish between wet and dry weather. In this regard, the Newport Bay TMDL targets are written differently than more recent TMDLs throughout most of coastal Southern California, where dry and wet weather periods are typically regulated differently and a set number of allowances are provided based on data from undeveloped reference beaches. Wet weather events have a significant impact on bacterial water quality and consistently attaining standards under these conditions may not be feasible 9. Annual rainfall influencing Newport Bay is measured by two gauges located at either end of the Bay in Costa Mesa (OCPW #165) and Corona del Mar (OCPW #169). With respect to rainfall patterns, Figure 2 shows declining annual rainfall in the period since TMDL adoption and more noticeably in the recent 6-year drought-influenced period: The 56 year long term annual average from 1960 is inches 8 Jurisdictional Groups, Reconsideration Elements for Bacteria TMDLs, July pp 9 Pathogens in Urban Stormwater Systems (August 2014, Urban Water Resources Research Council, Pathogens in Wet Weather Flows Technical Committee, Environmental and Water Resources Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, p xvii) 4

11 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 The 15-year post-tmdl annual average is 9.3 inches The 6-year annual average is 8.4 inches REC-1 TMDL Fecal Coliform Monitoring Results Tables 1a and 1b show a monthly assessment of fecal coliform data for REC-1: Lower Newport Bay met the geomean target (200 CFU/100 ml) every month in the current reporting year. The overall numeric target was met eleven out of twelve months. In September, 2015 more than 10% of samples were above 400 CFU/100mL due to sampling in wet weather on September 16, Upper Newport Bay met the geomean target (200 CFU/100 ml) every month in the current reporting year. The overall numeric target was met nine out of twelve months. In July, September and March more than 10% of samples were above 400 CFU/100mL due to sampling in wet weather on July 21 and September 16, 2015, and on March 8, REC-1 Enterococci Monitoring Results Tables 2a and 2b show a monthly assessment of Enterococci data for REC-1: Lower Newport Bay met the numeric geomean target (35 CFU/100 ml) every month in the current reporting year. Upper Newport Bay met the numeric geomean target (35 CFU/100 ml) every month in the current reporting year. SHEL TMDL Fecal Coliform Numeric Target Tables 3a and 3b show a monthly assessment of fecal coliform data for SHEL: Lower Newport Bay met the median target (14 MPN/100 ml) every month. The overall numeric target was met seven out of twelve months. In July, September, October and March more than 10% of samples were above 43 CFU/100mL due to wet weather samples (see table footnotes for station information). Upper Newport Bay met the numeric target four out of twelve months. In May, July, September, December, January, February, and March more than 10% of samples were above 43 CFU/100mL due to wet weather samples (see table footnotes for station information). SHEL targets are strongly influenced by rainfall. The median target in the Upper Bay was not achieved in July, September, and December 2015, and March 2016, which all had over half an inch of total monthly rainfall. Trace rainfall events, particularly in Upper Newport Bay, generally caused more than 10% of samples to be above 43 CFU/100mL In August 2015, the cause of more than 10% of samples being above 43 CFU/100 ml was not due to wet weather and no other cause has been identified. 5

12 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Assessment by station for management purposes Figures 3 to 6 spatially assess fecal coliform and Enterococci data by station for management purposes. Since Newport Bay is a large waterbody, the visualization of data provides management direction to those areas of the Bay requiring additional attention. The visualization analysis looks at REC-1 targets as follows: The number of months greater than the geomean target of 200 CFU/100mL for fecal coliform (Figure 3) The percent of annual samples greater 400 CFU/100 ml for fecal coliform (Figure 4) The number of months greater than the geomean target of 35 CFU/100mL for Enterococci (Figure 5) The percent of annual samples greater 104 CFU/100 ml for Enterococci (Figure 6) The station-by-station assessment largely points to areas in the Bay already being targeted for diversion BMPs (see Appendix D) including the Arches Drain and tributaries to Upper Newport Bay. 5.0 Impairment Analysis An impairment analysis for REC-1 beneficial use was conducted for both fecal coliform and Enterococci using the State Listing/Delisting Policy for Upper and Lower Bay for The State Listing/Delisting Policy statistically determines the percentage of samples required to be within standards in order to assign impairment status. The State Listing/Delisting Policy recommends at least three years of data are to be used to assess impairment. The time frame represents current conditions after implementation of key projects, e.g. diversion of dry weather flow from San Diego Creek to San Joaquin Marsh (2005), and increased tidal flushing of Newport Bay due to completion of a dredging project (2010). The time period includes both dry and wet years but is slightly drier than climatic conditions over the last 15 years as discussed previously with respect to Figure 2. Table 4 presents the fecal coliform impairment consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board s approach in its Integrated Report 10 : Number of months with a geomean greater than 200 CFU/100 ml Number of samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ml These data show that the Upper and Lower Newport Bay would be suitable for delisting for fecal coliform 10 State Water Resources Control Board Final 2012 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report) 6

13 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Table 5 presents the impairment assessment using Enterococci data based on the Great Lakes Rule: Number of 30-day periods with a geomean greater than 35 CFU/100 ml These data show that the Upper and Lower Bay are not impaired for Enterococci based on the Great Lakes Rule 6.0 Long Term Trends Figure 7 shows the Bay-wide annual fecal coliform geomeans for the period of using dry weather data only. Analysis of dry weather data eliminates the influence of storm influenced samples and the potential bias caused by the recent drought. Figure 8 shows the Bay-wide annual fecal coliform geomeans for the period using dry and wet weather data combined. Statistical analysis in both cases suggests that water quality improved significantly subsequent to implementation of the San Joaquin Marsh 11 in Additional individual station trend plots for both fecal coliform and Enterococci for dry and wet weather data combined are included in Appendix B. 11 The Mann-Whitney Rank sum test indicates the median from April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2005 is significantly greater than the median for data collected April 1, 2005 to March 31,

14 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, Summary Multi-year implementation of management actions (Appendix D) has resulted in an overall downward trend in Bay-wide fecal coliform levels (Figure 7) and on a station-by-station basis (Appendix B) data show the following progress: Both the Upper and Lower Newport Bay met the fecal coliform REC-1 numeric targets nine and eleven months respectively out of twelve months in the current reporting year. Both the Upper and Lower Newport Bay met the Enterococci REC-1 numeric target every month in the current reporting year. The impairment assessment shows that both Upper and Lower Newport Bay would be suitable for delisting for fecal coliform. The impairment assessment shows that both Upper and Lower Bay are not impaired for Enterococci. Individual stations with remaining elevated bacteria levels generally correspond to areas with planned future diversions. BMPs implemented, and BMPs planned for the future are described in Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL 2016 Summary of Management Actions (See Appendix D). The data show the following challenges: Wet weather impacts continue as the most prevalent issue The current TMDL does not include any of the allowances for natural conditions and wet weather provided in other TMDLs in southern California. Weather has a particularly significant impact on the SHEL target, 43 CFU/100 ml; almost any rain will cause this target not to be met. 8

15 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 FIGURES 9

16 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1,

17 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure 1. Bacteriological Water Sampling Stations in Newport Bay 11

18 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure 2. Rainfall totals by monitoring year at the Costa Mesa (OCPW #165) and Corona del Mar (OCPW #169) gauges 12

19 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure 3. Number of months the fecal coliform geomean is greater than 200 CFU/100 ml (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) by station (for management purposes only) 13

20 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure 4. Percentage of fecal coliform samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ml (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) by station (for management purposes only) 14

21 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure 5. Number of months the Enterococci geomean is greater than 35 CFU/100 ml (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) by station (for management purposes only) 15

22 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure 6. Percentage of Enterococci samples greater than 104 CFU/100 ml (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) by station (for management purposes only) 16

23 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure 7. Upper and Lower Newport Bay annual geomean fecal coliform trend data for ,2 - dry weather data only 1 Analysis of dry weather data eliminates the potential influence of storm influenced samples and the recent drought. 2 The geometric mean water quality standard for fecal coliform is 200 CFU/100 ml. Figure 8. Upper and Lower Newport Bay annual geomean fecal coliform trend data for dry and wet weather data combined 2 The geometric mean water quality standard for fecal coliform is 200 CFU/100 ml. 17

24 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1,

25 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 TABLES 19

26 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1,

27 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Table 1a. REC-1 fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay Month Number of samples Geomean (CFU/100 ml) 1 Percentage of samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 2 Both numeric targets met 3 April Yes May Yes June Yes July Yes August Yes September No 4 October Yes November Yes December Yes January Yes February Yes March Yes Annual geomean of all samples Geomean target is 200 CFU/100 ml 2 Target for percentage of samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ML allows not more than 10 percent to be greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 3 Both geomean and percentage targets must be met to receive a Yes 4 All stations on September 16 had fecal coliform greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 5 Geomean is for entire year of data 21

28 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Table 1b. REC-1 fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Percentage Geomean samples Number of Both numeric Month (CFU/100 greater than samples targets met ml) CFU/100 3 ml 2 April Yes May Yes June Yes July No 4 August Yes September No 4 October Yes November Yes December Yes January Yes February Yes March No 4 Annual geomean of all samples Geomean target is 200 CFU/100 ml 2 Target for percentage of samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ML allows not more than 10 percent to be greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 3 Both geomean and percentage targets must be met to receive a Yes 4 All stations on July 21, September 16, and March 8 had fecal coliform greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 5 Geomean is for entire year of data 22

29 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Table 2a. REC-1 Enterococci numeric targets (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay Month Number of samples Geomean (CFU/100 ml) 1 Numeric target met 2 April 96 6 Yes May 92 6 Yes June Yes July Yes August 91 6 Yes September Yes October 95 8 Yes November 94 6 Yes December Yes January Yes February 69 8 Yes March Yes Annual geomean of all samples Geomean target is 35 CFU/100 ml 2 Geomean target must be met to receive a Yes 3 Geomean is for entire year of data 23

30 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Table 2b. REC-1 Enterococci numeric targets (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Month Number of samples Geomean (CFU/100 ml) 1 Numeric target met 2 April 26 8 Yes May 25 7 Yes June 31 5 Yes July Yes August 26 6 Yes September Yes October 27 7 Yes November 25 5 Yes December Yes January Yes February Yes March Yes Annual geomean of all samples Geomean target is 35 CFU/100 ml 2 Geomean target must be met to receive a Yes 3 Geomean is for entire year of data 24

31 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Table 3a. SHEL fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay 1 Month Number of samples Median (CFU/100 ml) 1 Percentage samples greater than 43 CFU/100 ml 2 Both numeric targets met 3 April Yes May Yes June Yes July No 4 August No 5 September No 6 October No 7 November Yes December Yes January Yes February Yes March No 8 Annual median of all samples 9 9 1Median target is 14 CFU/100 ml 2 Target for percentage of samples greater than 43 CFU/100 ML allows not more than 10 percent to be greater than 43 CFU/100 ml 3Both median and percentage targets must be met to receive a Yes 4 Ruby Avenue Beach (3), Park Avenue Beach (1), Newport Blvd Bridge (32), and Bayshore Beach (4) had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml on July 21 5 Garnet Avenue Beach (28), Lido Yacht Club (29), 15 th Street Beach (11), Newport Blvd Bridge (32) had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml on August 4, August 11, and August 18 6 All stations on September 16 had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml. 7 Ruby Avenue Beach (3), Abalone Avenue Beach (15), Garnet Avenue Beach (28), Sapphire Avenue Beach (14), 19 th Street Beach (10), 43 rd Street Beach (6), 38 th Street Beach (7), Newport Blvd Bridge (32) had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml on October 20, October 22, and October 27 8 All stations on March 8 had fecal coliform levels greater than 43 CFU/100 ml. 9 Median is for the entire year of data 25

32 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Table 3b. SHEL fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Month Number of samples Median (CFU/100 ml) 1 Percentage samples greater than 43 CFU/100 ml 2 Both numeric targets met 3 April Yes May No 4 June Yes July No 5 August No 6 September No 7 October Yes November Yes December No 8 January No 9 February No 10 March No 11 Annual median of all samples Median target is 14 CFU/100 ml 2 Target for percentage of samples greater than 43 CFU/100 ML allows not more than 10 percent to be greater than 43 CFU/100 ml 3Both median and percentage targets must be met to receive a Yes 4 Newport Dunes - North (21) had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml on May 5, May 7, and May 27 5 All stations on July 21 had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml. 6 Newport Dunes East (18), Newport Dunes - Middle (19), and Newport Dunes West (20) had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml August 4 and August All stations on September 16 had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml. 8 Newport Dunes -- East (18), Newport Dunes -- Middle (19), Newport Dunes North (21), Newport Dunes West (20), North Star Beach (25), and Vaughn s Launch (23) had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml on December 15 and December 21. Vaughn s Launch (23) had fecal coliform levels greater than 43 CFU/100 ml on January 12 and January

33 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, Newport Dunes East (18), Newport Dunes North (20), North Star Beach (25), and Vaughn s Launch had fecal coliform levels greater than 43 CFU/100 ml on February De Anza Launch (27), Newport Dunes -- East (18), Newport Dunes -- Middle (19), Newport Dunes North (21), Newport Dunes West (20), North Star Beach (25), Vaughn s Launch (23), and Ski Zone (24) had fecal coliform greater than 43 CFU/100 ml on March Median is for entire year of data 27

34 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Table 4. Impairment assessment (REC-1 fecal coliform numeric targets) for Newport Bay (April 1, 2010 March 31, 2016) assessment by month Fecal Coliform Single Sample Dataset Description Fecal Coliform monthly geometric mean Maximum Number of Number Period Number of Number Number months with Delisting Delisting Time period Site of geometric monthly geomean > 200 threshold 1 of samples > 400 threshold 1 samples mean geomeans samples CFU/100 ml CFU/100 ml Upper Bay 2, , Lower Bay 7, , ,205 1 The delisting threshold is the allowable number of exceedances to support delisting. The listing threshold is one sample more than the delisting threshold. Table 5. Impairment assessment (REC-1 Enterococci numeric targets) for Newport Bay (April 1, 2010 March 31, 2016) assessment by month Dataset Description Enterococci monthly geometric mean Enterococci Single Sample Maximum 1 Time period Site Number of samples Period geometric mean Number of monthly geomeans Number of months with geomean > 35 CFU/100 ml Number Delisting threshold 2 of samples Number samples > 104 CFU/100 ml Delisting threshold 2 Upper Bay 2, , Lower Bay 7, , ,205 1 The single sample maximum was developed according to the Great Lakes Rule to allow informed decisions to open or close beaches, not as never-to-be surpassed value for all implementation applications under the Clean Water Act (see pages of EPA 2004). 2 The delisting threshold is the allowable number of exceedances to support delisting. The listing threshold is one sample more than the delisting threshold. KEY Exceedances less than the delisting and the listing threshold (should be delisted) 28

35 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 APPENDICES

36

37 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 APPENDIX A Monitoring data A-1

38

39 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 The following tables summarize bacteriological monitoring data at Lower and Upper Newport Bay stations, and at tributaries from April 2015 through March Data by station are organized sequentially from the outlet of Lower Bay to Upper Bay. Samples were collected by County of Orange, Health Care Agency staff and analyzed at the Health Care Agency microbiology lab at Shellmaker Island in Newport Beach. These data are also available on-line at Orange County Health Care Agency, Ocean Water Protection Program: Table Key. Definition of formatting and notations in the following tables Sampling results influenced by rainfall (within 72 hours of 0.1 inch of rain) Additional sampling conducted often in response to elevated results (may not include all stations) TC = Total Coliforms FC = Fecal coliforms ENT = Enterococci NS = Not sampled A-2

40

41 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Rocky Point Beach (17) N Street Beach (16) Bayside Dr Beach (30) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/7/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 4/14/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= /16/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS /21/2015 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 < 9 < /28/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 5/5/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < /12/ < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < /19/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < /27/ < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 20 < 9 9 6/2/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 6/9/ < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 6/12/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= /14/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 40 < 9 9 6/16/2015 >= 40 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= /23/2015 >= 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 6/30/ < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= /2/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= /7/ < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 >= 20 < 9 < 9 7/14/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 80 < 9 9 7/21/2015 >= < 9 >= < 9 7/28/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 70 < 9 9 8/4/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < /11/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 >= /18/2015 < 9 < 9 < < 9 >= /25/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 >= /1/ < 9 < < 9 >= < 9 9/8/ < 9 < 9 >= 50 9 < 9 9/16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 5,000 1,480 >= 20,000 >= 20, >= 20,000 >= 20,000 2,700 9/22/ < 9 9 < 9 < 9 >= /29/2015 < < 9 9 < 9 >= 40 < /7/ < 9 >= 40 < /14/ < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 >= A-3

42 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Rocky Point Beach (17) N Street Beach (16) Bayside Dr Beach (30) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= /27/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 40 < /3/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 11/9/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 >= 40 < 9 < 9 11/17/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 11/23/2015 >= < < 9 12/1/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 12/7/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 12/15/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 >= 230 < 9 < 9 12/21/ < < < 9 < 9 12/28/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 1/12/ < < < 9 9 1/20/ < < 9 < /26/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 9 2/1/ < 9 < 9 < /9/ < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 9 2/22/ < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 9 3/1/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < /8/ < < 9 3/15/ < 9 < 9 9 < < /22/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 3/29/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < A-4

43 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Ruby Avenue Beach (3) Promontory Point Channel (26) Onyx Avenue Beach (2) Park Avenue Beach (1) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/7/ < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 60 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 4/14/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 30 < /21/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 4/28/ < 9 40 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < /5/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 5/12/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < < 9 < 9 5/19/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 9 5/27/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < < 9 6/2/ < 9 20 < 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 6/9/2015 >= < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < /16/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < < < 9 < 9 6/23/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 >= /30/ < 9 >= 9 < 9 9 >= 30 < < 9 7/7/2015 >= < 9 < 9 >= 20 < 9 < 9 >= /14/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 9 < 9 < 9 7/21/2015 >= < 9 60 < 9 < 9 >= < 9 >= 1, < 9 7/28/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < < < 9 8/4/2015 < 9 < < 9 < 9 >= < 9 8/11/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < /18/ < 9 < 10 < 10 < < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 8/25/ < 9 < < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 9 9/1/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9/8/ < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < < 9 9/16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 1,000 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 1,160 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 2,200 >= 20,000 >= 20, /22/ < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 40 < 9 < 9 9/29/2015 < 9 20 < 9 20 < 9 < < 9 20 < 9 < 9 10/7/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < < /14/2015 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 < < 9 9 A-5

44 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Ruby Avenue Beach (3) Promontory Point Channel (26) Onyx Avenue Beach (2) Park Avenue Beach (1) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/ < 9 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 10/27/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 11/3/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 2,100 < 9 5,900 < 9 < 9 < 9 11/5/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 40 < 9 9 NS NS NS 11/9/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 9 < 9 11/17/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 11/23/ < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 9 < /1/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 12/7/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 12/15/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 12/21/ < 9 < 9 9 < < < 9 < 9 12/28/2015 < 9 < < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 1/12/ < < 9 < 9 91 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 9 1/20/ < < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 1/21/2016 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 1/26/ < < < 9 9 < 9 < 9 2/1/ < < < 9 2/9/2016 < < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < < 9 2/22/ < 9 60 < 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 9 3/1/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 9 < 9 < /8/2016 3, >= 1, , < 9 3/15/ < < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < /22/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 3/29/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 90 < 9 < 9 A-6

45 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Garnet Avenue Beach (28) Sapphire Avenue Beach (14) Abalone Avenue Beach (15) Grand Canal (31) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/7/2015 < 9 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 4/14/ < 9 20 < 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 9 < 9 4/21/ < < 9 < < 9 4/23/ < 9 < 9 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 4/28/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 5/5/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < < 9 5/12/ < < < 9 5/19/2015 >= >= < 9 9 < 9 9 5/27/ < 9 < 9 >= < 9 < 9 9 6/2/2015 < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 50 < /9/ NS NS NS >= < 9 6/11/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= < 9 NS NS NS 6/12/2015 NS NS NS >= 20 < 9 20 NS NS NS NS NS NS 6/16/ >= < 9 >= < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 6/23/2015 >= 9 < 9 < 9 >= < 9 >= < 9 >= < 9 6/30/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 20 9 < 9 >= >= 40 9 < 9 7/7/2015 >= 20 < 9 < 9 >= 20 < 9 9 >= >= 9 < 9 < 9 7/9/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 7/14/2015 >= < 9 < < 9 7/21/2015 >= 4, < 9 >= 1, < 9 2, >= /28/2015 >= < < < 9 8/4/2015 >= >= 9 < 9 < < < 9 8/6/2015 >= NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 8/11/ < 9 9 < 9 20 < 9 < < 9 8/18/2015 < 9 < 9 70 >= 80 9 < < /25/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 9 >= < /1/2015 < >= 9 < 9 < 9 >= < 9 9 < 9 9/8/ < < 9 70 < /16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20, >= 20,000 >= 20,000 1,900 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 1,200 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 1,350 9/22/2015 >= 20 < < 9 >= < 9 9/24/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= NS NS NS 9/29/ < 9 < < < 9 10/7/2015 >= 9 < < 9 60 < 9 < 9 60 < 9 < 9 10/14/2015 4,300 < 9 < < 9 >= A-7

46 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Garnet Avenue Beach (28) Sapphire Avenue Beach (14) Abalone Avenue Beach (15) Grand Canal (31) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/ < 9 9 >= 20 < 9 < >= < 9 10/27/2015 >= >= < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 10/29/ NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 11/3/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 40 < /9/ < /17/ < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 11/23/ /1/ < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 12/7/2015 < 9 9 < < < 9 12/15/ < 9 < 9 70 < 9 < 9 1, < /21/ < < < < /28/ < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 1/12/ < < 9 1/14/2016 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 1/20/ < < 9 < /26/ < < < 9 2/1/ < < < 9 2/9/ < 9 < 9 >= ,800 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 2/10/2016 NS NS NS < NS NS NS NS NS NS 2/22/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 3/1/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 3/8/2016 >= 11, < 9 >= < 9 >= 1, < 9 3/15/ < 9 < 9 >= /22/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 3/29/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 20 A-8

47 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Lido Yacht Club (29) 10th St Beach (12) Alvarado/ Bay Isle Beach (13) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/7/2015 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 40 < 9 < 9 4/14/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 >= 970 = 740 = 150 4/16/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS = 9 < 9 < 9 4/21/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 20 = 20 < 9 4/28/2015 = 20 = 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 5/5/2015 = 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 30 < 9 < 9 5/12/2015 = 40 = 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 30 < 9 < 9 5/19/2015 = 30 < 9 < 9 = 9 = 9 < 9 = 280 = 30 < 9 5/27/2015 = 9 < 9 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 6/2/2015 = 9 < 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 6/9/2015 >= 50 = 40 = 80 = 30 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 240 6/11/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS = 9 < 9 = 20 6/16/2015 = 9 = 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 40 = 9 = 9 6/23/2015 >= 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 6/30/2015 = 40 < 9 < 9 = 40 < 9 = 20 = 9 < 9 = 130 7/2/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS = 20 < 9 < 9 7/7/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 9 = 9 = 9 = 40 = 9 < 9 7/14/2015 < 9 < 9 = 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 7/21/2015 >= 590 = 20 < 9 >= 1,240 = 140 < 9 >= 740 = 100 < 9 7/28/2015 = 9 = 9 < 9 = 30 < 9 < 9 = 40 < 9 = 9 8/4/2015 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 40 < 9 < 9 8/11/2015 = 100 = 50 < 9 = 20 = 20 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 8/18/2015 >= 1,120 < 9 < 9 = 20 = 9 < 9 = 40 < 9 < 9 8/25/2015 >= 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 < 9 9/1/2015 = 20 = 9 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 = 9 = 9 < 9 9/8/2015 = 100 = 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 9 < 9 9/16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 = 730 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 = 3,400 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 = 3,000 9/22/2015 = 40 = 9 = 9 = 40 < 9 < 9 >= 30 = 9 < 9 9/29/2015 >= 60 = 80 = 20 = 40 = 9 = 100 < 9 < 9 < 9 10/7/2015 >= 40 = 9 < 9 >= 40 = 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 = 60 10/14/2015 >= 20 = 20 < 9 = 30 = 20 = 290 < 9 < 9 < 9 A-9

48 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Lido Yacht Club (29) 10th St Beach (12) Alvarado/ Bay Isle Beach (13) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/16/2015 NS NS NS = 20 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 10/20/2015 < 9 = 9 < 9 = 40 < 9 < 9 >= 20 = 9 = 9 10/27/2015 >= 180 = 9 = 50 = 80 = 30 = 20 = 90 = 30 < 9 11/3/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 11/9/2015 = 9 < 9 = 9 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 40 < 9 = 9 11/17/2015 = 30 = 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 11/23/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 140 = 50 = 9 12/1/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 = 9 12/7/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 20 < 9 12/15/2015 >= 780 < 9 < 9 = 590 = 9 < 9 = 570 = 9 < 9 12/21/2015 = 280 < 9 < 9 = 270 = 60 < 9 = 2,100 = 150 = 1,090 12/28/2015 = 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 20 = 9 < 9 1/12/2016 = 40 = 20 = 20 = 40 < 9 < 9 = 40 < 9 < 9 1/20/2016 = 982 = 870 = 9 = 20 < 9 = 9 = 100 = 9 = 9 1/21/2016 = 40 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS NS NS NS 1/26/2016 = 80 = 50 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 2/1/2016 = 30 < 9 < 9 = 120 = 20 < 9 = 70 < 9 < 9 2/9/2016 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 30 = 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 = 20 2/22/2016 < 9 = 20 < 9 = 9 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 = 40 3/1/2016 = 60 = 20 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 3/8/2016 >= 9,300 = 660 < 9 >= 20,000 = 1,170 = 30 >= 12,100 = 280 = 9 3/15/2016 = 60 = 30 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 = 40 = 9 < 9 3/22/2016 = 20 < 9 < 9 = 9 < 9 < 9 = 230 = 220 = 9 3/29/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 A-10

49 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Rhine Channel (9) 19th Street Beach (10) 15th Street Beach (11) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/7/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 4/14/2015 < 9 9 < 9 40 < 9 < < 9 4/21/ < < < 9 < 9 4/28/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 5/5/2015 < 9 < 9 < < < 9 5/12/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 80 < 9 < 9 5/19/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 5/27/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 90 < 9 < 9 >= /2/ < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 6/9/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < < 9 6/16/ < 9 < < 9 20 < 9 < 9 6/23/ < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 6/30/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 7/7/ < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 >= 60 < /14/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 7/21/2015 >= 50 < 9 < 9 >= 30 < 9 < < 9 < 9 7/28/2015 >= < 9 >= 1, < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 8/4/ < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 8/11/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 30 < < 9 8/18/ < 9 >= 20 < 9 50 < 9 < 9 < 9 8/25/2015 >= 80 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 9 < /1/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 9/8/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 9/16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 1,050 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 1,430 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 1,800 9/22/2015 >= < 9 >= 750 < 9 < < 9 9/29/2015 >= < 9 >= < < 9 < 9 10/7/2015 >= 30 < 9 < 9 >= 9 < < 9 10/14/2015 < 9 < 9 < A-11

50 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Rhine Channel (9) 19th Street Beach (10) 15th Street Beach (11) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/ < 9 < < < 9 10/27/ < 9 < < 9 11/3/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 11/9/2015 < 9 < 9 < < < 9 11/17/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 11/23/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 12/1/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 12/7/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 50 < 9 < 9 12/15/ < 9 < < < 9 < 9 12/21/2015 >= 1,550 < 9 < >= 430 < 9 < 9 12/28/ < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 9 1/12/ < 9 < 9 91 < < 9 9 1/20/ < 9 < /26/ < 9 9 < < 9 < 9 2/1/ < 9 < 9 >= 20, , /9/2016 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 2/22/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 3/1/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 3/8/2016 8, < 9 >= 13, , /15/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 3/22/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 3/29/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 A-12

51 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, rd Street Beach (6) 38th Street Beach (7) 33rd Street Channel (8) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/7/ < 9 < < 9 9 < 9 < 9 4/14/2015 < 9 < 9 < < 9 91 < 9 < 9 4/21/ < 9 4/28/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < /5/ < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < < 9 5/12/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 50 < /19/ < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 5/27/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 >= 8, /2/2015 >= 440 < 9 9 >= 30 < < 9 < 9 6/9/ < 9 < 9 >= 80 < 9 < 9 >= 5, /11/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= 8, ,100 6/12/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7,000 2, /14/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS /16/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 160 < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 6/18/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= /19/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS /20/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS < 9 < 9 < 9 6/21/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= 980 < /23/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 6/25/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 30 < 9 < 9 6/26/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS /30/ < 9 < 9 >= 80 < < 9 < 9 7/7/2015 >= < 9 9, >= 20,000 >= 40 3,800 7/9/2015 NS NS NS >= >= 1, /10/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 90 < /11/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= 50 < 9 9 7/12/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 20 < 9 9 7/14/ < 9 < 9 >= 30 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 7/21/2015 >= 70 < 9 20 >= >= 130 < /28/ < 9 < < 9 >= 40 9 < 9 8/4/2015 >= 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 8/11/ < 9 < 9 >= 30 < 9 < 9 >= 350 < 9 < 9 8/18/ < 9 < < 9 NS NS NS 8/25/2015 >= 9 < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 9/1/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 9/8/ < 9 < < 9 NS NS NS 9/16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20, >= 20,000 >= 20, NS NS NS 9/22/2015 >= 40 < 9 < 9 >= 20 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 9/29/ >= 60 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 10/7/2015 >= >= 9 < 9 < 9 >= 30 < 9 < 9 10/14/ < 9 < 9 >= < 9 NS NS NS A-13

52 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, rd Street Beach (6) 38th Street Beach (7) 33rd Street Channel (8) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20, >= 20, >= 120 < 9 < 9 10/22/2015 >= >= NS NS NS 10/27/ < 9 < < /3/ < 9 < < 9 80 < 9 < 9 11/9/2015 >= < 9 9 < < /17/ < 9 < 9 70 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 11/23/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 >= 40 < /1/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 60 < 9 < 9 12/7/2015 >= 20,000 1, < 9 < 9 >= 9, /8/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS NS NS NS 12/15/2015 >= < 9 >= 150 < 9 < 9 >= 3,600 >= /21/2015 NS NS NS 40 < 9 20 >= 1, /28/ < < 9 < /12/ < < < /20/2016 >= 20,000 2,100 1,080 >= 1, >= 20,000 1,900 4,000 1/21/ < 9 60 < 9 < 9 50 < 9 9 1/26/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 2/1/2016 >= < 9 9 NS NS NS 2/9/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 2/22/ < < 9 >= /1/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 3/8/2016 >= 6, , >= 1, < 9 3/15/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= 500 < 9 9 3/22/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 >= /29/ < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 A-14

53 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Newport Blvd. Bridge (32) Via Genoa Beach (5) Bayshore Beach (4) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC 4/7/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 4/14/2015 >= 4, < 9 30 < 9 < 9 4/21/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 4/28/2015 >= 6, < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 < 9 5/5/2015 >= 1, < 9 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 5/12/2015 >= 14, < 9 < 9 < < 9 5/19/ < 9 < 9 40 < < 9 9 5/27/2015 4, < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 6/2/ < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 6/9/ < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 6/16/ < 9 < 9 30 < < 9 < 9 6/23/2015 6, < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 6/30/2015 >= 8,100 >= < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 7/7/2015 >= 20,000 < /14/ < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 7/21/2015 >= 1, < 9 5, /28/2015 >= 1, < 9 40 < 9 < 9 < /4/2015 >= 20,000 >= 1,160 < < < 9 8/11/2015 >= < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 8/18/ < 9 < 9 < 9 50 < 9 < 9 8/25/2015 8,000 1, >= 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 < 9 9/1/ < < 9 < 9 < 9 9/8/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 9/16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20, >= 20,000 >= 20, >= 20,000 >= 20,000 4,600 9/22/2015 1, < 9 < 9 >= < 9 9/29/ < 9 1, < 9 10/1/2015 NS NS NS >= 200 = 140 = 40 NS NS NS 10/7/2015 >= 40 9 < 9 >= 9 9 < < 9 10/14/ < < 9 9 < 9 < 9 ENT A-15

54 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Newport Blvd. Bridge (32) Via Genoa Beach (5) Bayshore Beach (4) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/2015 >= 7, < < 9 >= < 9 10/27/ < 9 20 < 9 < < 9 11/3/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 30 < /9/ < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 11/17/ < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 11/23/ < 9 < 9 30 < < /1/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 12/7/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 12/15/ < < /21/2015 >= 20,000 5, >= >= 1, /28/2015 1, < 9 9 < < 9 < 9 1/12/ < < 9 70 < 9 < 9 1/20/2016 >= 1, /26/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 2/1/ < /9/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 2/22/2016 >= < 9 40 < 9 9 3/1/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 3/8/2016 4, < 9 6, < 9 >= 11, /15/2016 NS NS NS < 9 < 9 9 >= 190 < /22/2016 >= 10, < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 3/29/ < 9 < < A-16

55 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 De Anza Launch (27) Newport Dunes - East (18) Newport Dunes - Middle (19) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/1/2015 NS NS NS >= NS NS NS 4/7/ < 9 < < 9 9 4/13/ < 9 < 9 NS NS NS NS NS NS 4/14/ < 9 < 9 >= < 9 4/21/ < /28/ < 9 < 9 >= < 9 < 9 < 9 5/5/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 5/12/ < >= 1, < 9 5/19/ < 9 >= >= /27/ < 9 < < < 9 6/2/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 6/9/ < 9 < 9 NS NS NS < 9 < 9 < 9 6/12/2015 NS NS NS 9 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 6/16/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 6/23/2015 >= 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 6/30/ < 9 >= < 9 20 < 9 < 9 7/7/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 15, < 9 6, < 9 7/14/ < 9 30 >= < 9 40 < 9 < 9 7/21/2015 >= 13,800 >= 1, >= 20,000 3, >= 20,000 4, /28/ < >= /4/ < 9 < < < 9 8/11/ < >= /18/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 8/25/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9/1/2015 < 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9/8/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 50 < 9 < 9 >= 18,500 3, /12/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 2, < 9 9/16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 3,600 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 14,100 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 12,800 9/18/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS >= < 9 9/22/2015 >= 160 < 9 20 >= >= /29/ < 9 9 >= < 9 < 9 10/7/ < 9 20 >= >= /14/2015 < 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 A-17

56 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 De Anza Launch (27) Newport Dunes - East (18) Newport Dunes - Middle (19) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/2015 < 9 9 < 9 9 < < 9 10/27/ < < 9 20 < 9 < 9 11/3/ < 9 < 9 9 < < 9 11/9/ < 9 < < < 9 11/17/ < 9 < 9 30 < 9 < 9 9 < /23/ < 9 < < 9 >= 9 20 < 9 12/1/2015 < 9 < 9 < < /7/2015 < 9 9 < < 9 < /15/2015 >= 840 < 9 9 >= 20, < 9 >= 20, /21/2015 >= 1,000 < 9 20 >= 8, >= 7, /28/ < < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < 9 1/12/ < 9 40 < 9 9 >= 110 < 9 < 9 1/20/ < 9 < 9 1/26/2016 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < < 9 < 9 2/1/ , /9/ < 9 < < /22/ < 9 < < /1/2016 NS NS NS 20 < < 9 < 9 3/2/2016 < 9 < 9 9 NS NS NS NS NS NS 3/8/2016 >= 11, >= 20,000 5,100 1,410 >= 20,000 5,300 1,380 3/15/2016 >= < 9 >= >= < 9 3/22/ < 9 < 9 >= , < 9 3/24/2016 NS NS NS >= 100 < 9 9 NS NS NS 3/29/ < 9 >= >= 30 < 9 < 9 A-18

57 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Newport Dunes - North (21) Newport Dunes - West (20) North Star Beach (25) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/7/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 4/14/2015 >= < 9 < 9 20 >= 9 < 9 < 9 4/21/ < 9 < 9 9 < < 9 < 9 4/28/2015 < 9 < 9 < < /5/2015 >= 19, < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 9 5/7/2015 9,100 6,100 < 9 NS NS NS NS NS NS 5/12/2015 >= 400 < 9 < 9 2,600 9 < 9 >= /19/2015 >= >= 60 < 9 9 >= 91 < 9 9 5/27/2015 >= < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 6/2/2015 < 9 < < 9 < 9 9 < 9 9 6/9/2015 >= < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 6/12/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 20 < 9 < 9 6/16/ < < 9 < 9 6/23/2015 < 9 < < 9 < 9 >= 9 < 9 < 9 6/30/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 7/7/2015 5, < 9 6, < 9 < 9 7/14/2015 < 9 9 < 9 >= 9 < < 9 7/21/2015 >= 20,000 2, >= 20,000 4, >= 20,000 2, /28/ < 9 >= 2, >= 20 < 9 < 9 7/30/2015 NS NS NS 80 9 < 9 NS NS NS 8/4/2015 >= < 9 >= < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 8/11/ >= 100 >= < 9 < 9 8/13/2015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8/18/2015 >= 440 < 9 < < 9 < 9 9 < 9 8/25/ < 9 < 9 9 < 9 < < 9 9/1/ < 9 < 9 < < 9 < 9 9/8/ < 9 < 9 >= < 9 9 < 9 < 9 9/16/2015 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 10,700 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 13,900 >= 20,000 >= 20,000 11,600 9/22/2015 >= >= >= /29/ < 9 20 < < 9 < 9 10/7/2015 >= >= >= /14/ < < A-19

58 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Newport Dunes - North (21) Newport Dunes - West (20) North Star Beach (25) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/2015 < 9 < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 10/27/ < 9 < 9 20 < 9 < < 9 11/3/ < 9 < < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 11/9/ < 9 < < 9 >= 20 < 9 < 9 11/17/ < 9 < < 9 30 < 9 < 9 11/23/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < /1/ < 9 < 9 >= 1, < 9 < 9 < 9 12/7/ >= 9 < 9 40 < 9 < 9 < 9 12/15/2015 >= 13, >= 20, < 9 >= 20, /21/2015 >= 4, >= 8, >= 20, /28/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < 9 < < 9 1/12/2016 >= 290 < 9 9 >= < /26/ < < 9 < 9 < 9 < /1/2016 >= 20, >= 20, /9/ < < 9 9 < 9 < 9 2/22/ < 9 < /24/2016 NS NS NS NS NS NS < 9 < 9 < 9 3/1/ < 9 9 < 9 < 9 3/8/2016 >= 20,000 4,500 1,500 >= 20,000 4,600 1,900 >= 20, /15/2016 >= >= 1, >= < 9 3/22/ < < 9 < 9 3/29/2016 >= 60 < 9 9 >= 2, ,600 < 9 < 9 A-20

59 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Vaughn's Launch (23) Ski Zone (24) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 6/9/2015 >= 1, NS NS NS 7/14/2015 >= 9 < 9 30 NS NS NS 7/28/2015 >= 40 < 9 40 NS NS NS 8/11/2015 >= 20 < 9 20 NS NS NS 9/8/ < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 9/29/2015 >= NS NS NS 10/7/ < 9 < 9 NS NS NS 10/27/ < 9 < 9 < 9 < /23/2015 2, NS NS NS 12/7/ NS NS NS 12/15/2015 >= 16, NS NS NS 12/21/2015 >= 7, NS NS NS 12/28/ < 9 NS NS NS 1/12/2016 >= NS NS NS 1/26/2016 >= NS NS NS 2/1/2016 >= 9, NS NS NS 2/9/ < 9 9 NS NS NS 2/22/ < < 9 < 9 3/8/2016 >= 20,000 1, >= 20,000 2, /22/2016 >= 50 < 9 < 9 >= 20 < 9 60 A-21

60

61 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 San Diego Ck-Campus Dr.(35) Santa Ana Delhi Channel (34) Big Canyon Wash (33) Back Bay Dr. Drain (22) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 4/7/2015 >= 2, >= 1, >= ,700 1,110 1,000 4/14/2015 >= 4, , >= 2, >= 3, ,000 4/21/2015 >= >= 3,500 >= >= >= 3, /28/2015 >= 1, >= 10,400 1, >= 2, >= 9, /5/2015 >= 1, >= 1, , NS NS NS 5/12/2015 >= 4,800 >= ,000 >= 1, >= NS NS NS 5/19/2015 >= 1,800 >= >= 8, >= NS NS NS 5/27/2015 >= 1, >= 7, >= NS NS NS 6/2/2015 >= >= 2, >= 3, NS NS NS 6/9/2015 >= 1, >= 2, >= 1, NS NS NS 6/16/2015 >= 1, >= >= 4, NS NS NS 6/23/2015 >= 1, >= >= 2, NS NS NS 6/30/2015 >= 1, , ,500 >= 2,000,000 15,400 1,040 NS NS NS 7/7/2015 >= 100 >= >= >= 20,000 >= NS NS NS 7/14/2015 >= 7,800 3,300 1,070 >= 8,800 3, >= 7, NS NS NS 7/21/2015 >= 10,700 6,500 3,300 >= 200,000 >= 20,000 13,200 >= 8, NS NS NS 7/28/2015 >= 3, >= 4, >= 3, NS NS NS 8/4/2015 >= 2,600 >= >= 2, >= 6,500 >= NS NS NS 8/11/2015 >= 5,000 >= >= 1,000 >= >= 3, NS NS NS 8/18/2015 >= 5, >= >= 1,070 >= 1, NS NS NS 8/25/2015 >= 7,300 1,070 1,480 >= 1, >= NS NS NS 9/1/ , ,700 >= >= 5, NS NS NS 9/8/2015 >= 16,000 1, >= 2, ,500 >= 5,900 1, NS NS NS 9/16/2015 >= 400,000 >= 20,000 17,300 >= 200,000 >= 20,000 4,700 >= 60,000 >= 5,000 6,800 NS NS NS 9/22/ , >= 3, ,700 >= 15,400 2, NS NS NS 9/29/ , >= 2,500 >= >= 5, NS NS NS 10/7/2015 >= 25,000 2, >= 79,000 3,100 1,800 3, >= 20,000 8,400 16,300 10/14/2015 >= 1,600 >= >= 2, NS NS NS NS NS NS A-22

62 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 San Diego Ck-Campus Dr.(35) Santa Ana Delhi Channel (34) Big Canyon Wash (33) Back Bay Dr. Drain (22) TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT TC FC ENT 10/20/2015 >= 4,200 2, >= 155,000 2, NS NS NS >= 20,000 11,600 >= 20,000 10/27/2015 >= 2,900 >= >= 3, >= 7,000 >= >= 20,000 >= 20,000 2,200 11/3/2015 >= 4,300 1, >= 48,000 >= 1, >= 5, >= 20,000 6,200 3,800 11/9/2015 >= 2,600 >= >= 7,100 >= >= >= 7,300 3,700 2,800 11/17/2015 >= 560 >= >= 39,000 2, >= 5, >= 8,400 8,500 7,200 11/23/2015 >= 1, ,000 1, , >= 9,800 3,500 2,000 12/1/2015 >= ,400 1, >= >= 9,000 8,400 1,590 12/7/2015 >= 2, >= 6, >= >= 20,000 >= 20,000 5,200 12/15/2015 >= 167,000 5,300 1,600 >= 200,000 >= 20,000 6,000 >= 1, >= 11,200 5,200 5,200 12/21/2015 >= 60,000 4,300 3,800 >= 200,000 5,800 3,200 1, >= 5, ,600 12/28/2015 >= 2, >= 3, >= 1, >= 1, /12/ , >= 6, >= 1, >= 5,500 1,700 2,000 1/20/2016 >= 1, >= 42, ,400 NS NS NS >= 4, ,000 1/26/2016 >= 1, >= 3, ,200 >= >= /1/2016 >= 200,000 >= 11,900 9,800 >= 200,000 >= 20,000 >= 12,300 2,100 1, >= 20,000 6,900 7,800 2/9/2016 >= 4, >= 3, >= , ,000 2/22/2016 >= 19, , >= >= /1/2016 >= 1, >= 2,200 >= >= 1, >= /8/2016 >= 200,000 >= 2,400 3,800 >= 200,000 11,500 2,400 >= 4, >= 19,300 4,300 3,500 3/15/ , , >= >= /22/2016 >= 2, >= 1, >= >= 6,400 4, /29/2016 >= 2, , NS NS NS >= 1, A-23

63 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 APPENDIX B Annual Fecal Coliform and Enterococci Geomean Trend Data B-1

64

65 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1a. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 17 Rocky Point Beach Figure B-1b. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 16 N St Beach B-2

66 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1c. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 30 Bayside Dr Beach Figure B-1d. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 3 Ruby Avenue Beach B-3

67 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1e. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 26 Promontory Point Channel Figure B-1f. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 2 Onyx Avenue Beach B-4

68 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1g. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 1 Park Avenue Beach Figure B-1h. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 28 Garnet Avenue Beach B-5

69 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1i. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 14 Sapphire Avenue Beach Figure B-1j. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 15 Abalone Avenue Beach B-6

70 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1k. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 31 Grand Canal Figure B-1l. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 29 Lido Yacht Club B-7

71 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1m. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station th St Beach Figure B-1n. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 13 Alvarado/Bay Isle Beach B-8

72 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1o. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 9 Rhine Channel Figure B-1p. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station th St Beach B-9

73 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1q. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station th St Beach Figure B-1r. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 6 43 rd St Beach B-10

74 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1s. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 7 38 th St Beach Figure B-1t. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 8 33 rd St Beach B-11

75 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1u. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 32 Newport Blvd Bridge Figure B-1v. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 5 Via Genoa Beach B-12

76 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-1w. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Lower Newport Bay Station 4 Bayshore Beach Figure B-2a. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Upper Newport Bay Station 27 DeAnza Launch B-13

77 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-2b. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Upper Newport Bay Station 18 Newport Dunes East Figure B-2c. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Upper Newport Bay Station 19 Newport Dunes Middle B-14

78 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-2d. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Upper Newport Bay Station 21 Newport Dunes North Figure B-2e. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Upper Newport Bay Station 20 Newport Dunes West B-15

79 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-2f. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Upper Newport Bay Station 25 North Star Beach Figure B-2g. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Upper Newport Bay Station 23 Vaughn s Launch 1 1 Station could not be sampled weekly due to low tide and or unsafe access. B-16

80 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Figure B-2h. Annual fecal coliform and Enterococci geomean trend data (dry and wet weather data) Upper Newport Bay Station 24 Ski Zone 1 1 Station could not be sampled weekly due to low tide and or unsafe access. B-17

81 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 APPENDIX C Addenda Tables to 2015 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL Annual Data Report C-1

82

83 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 The addenda tables below assess fecal coliform and Enterococci data from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 for REC 1 and SHEL in Upper and Lower Bay, similar to summaries for the current reporting year (Tables 1a, 1b, 2a. 2b, 3a, and 3b). More than 10% of samples were above 400 CFU/100mL in Addenda Tables 1a. and 1b. due to rain influenced samples on April 28, 2014, November 3, 2014, December 15, 2014, January 2, 2015, January 12, 2015, February 24-25, 2015, March 2, 2015, and March 6, Addenda Table 1a. REC-1 fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2014-March 31, 2015) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay Month Number of samples Geomean (CFU/100 ml) 1 Percentage samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 2 Both numeric targets met 3 April Yes May Yes June Yes July Yes August Yes September Yes October Yes November No December No January No February No March Yes Annual geomean of all samples Geomean target is 200 CFU/100 ml 2 Target for percentage of samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ML allows not more than 10 percent to be greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 3 Both geomean and percentage targets must be met to receive a Yes 4 Geomean is for entire year of data C-2

84 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Addenda Table 1b. REC-1 fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2014-March 31, 2015) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Month Number of samples Geomean (CFU/100 ml) 1 Percentage samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 2 Both numeric targets met 3 April No May Yes June Yes July Yes August Yes September Yes October Yes November No December No January No February No March Yes Annual geomean of all samples Geomean target is 200 CFU/100 ml 2 Target for percentage of samples greater than 400 CFU/100 ML allows not more than 10 percent to be greater than 400 CFU/100 ml 3 Both geomean and percentage targets must be met to receive a Yes 4 Geomean is for entire year of data C-3

85 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Addenda Table 2a. REC-1 Enterococci numeric targets (April 1, 2014-March 31, 2015) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay Month Number of samples Geomean (CFU/100 ml) 1 Numeric target met 2 April 95 5 Yes May Yes June Yes July 94 5 Yes August 95 4 Yes September Yes October 95 5 Yes November 99 9 Yes December Yes January Yes February 96 7 Yes March Yes Annual geomean of all samples Geomean target is 35 CFU/100 ml 2 Geomean target must be met to receive a Yes 3 Geomean is for entire year of data C-4

86 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Addenda Table 2b. REC-1 Enterococci numeric targets (April 1, 2014-March 31, 2015) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Month Number of samples Geomean (CFU/100 ml) 1 Numeric target met 2 April 27 7 Yes May 27 5 Yes June 32 4 Yes July 26 4 Yes August 26 4 Yes September 31 4 Yes October 32 5 Yes November Yes December No January No February Yes March Yes Annual geomean of all samples Geomean target is 35 CFU/100 ml 2 Geomean target must be met to receive a Yes 3 Geomean is for entire year of data C-5

87 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Addenda Table 3a. SHEL fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2014-March 31, 2015) assessment by calendar month for Lower Newport Bay Month Number of samples Median (CFU/100 ml) 1 Percentage samples greater than 43 CFU/100 ml Both numeric targets met 3 April Yes May Yes June Yes July No August No September No October No November No December No January No February No March No Annual median of all samples Median target is 14 CFU/100 ml 2 Target for percentage of samples greater than 43 CFU/100 ML allows not more than 10 percent to be greater than 43 CFU/100 ml 3Both median and percentage targets must be met to receive a Yes 4 Median is for entire year of data C-6

88 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 Addenda Table 3b. SHEL fecal coliform TMDL numeric targets (April 1, 2014-March 31, 2015) assessment by calendar month for Upper Newport Bay Month Number of samples Median (CFU/100 ml) 1 Percentage samples greater than 43 CFU/100 ml 2 Both numeric targets met 3 April No May Yes June No July Yes August Yes September Yes October No November No December No January No February No March No Annual median of all samples Median target is 14 CFU/100 ml 2 Target for percentage of samples greater than 43 CFU/100 ML allows not more than 10 percent to be greater than 43 CFU/100 ml 3Both median and percentage targets must be met to receive a Yes 4 Median is for entire year of data C-7

89 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL September 1, 2016 APPENDIX D Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL 2016 Summary of Management Actions D-1

90

91 2016 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL 2016 Summary of Management Activities County of Orange OC Environmental Resources 2301 North Glassell Street Orange, CA 92865

92

93 Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL Summary of Management Activities May 18, 2016 County of Orange OC Environmental Resources 2301 North Glassell Street Orange, CA Prepared by: Stuart Goong, Ph.D. Water Quality Planning Section Justin Grewal Data Management Section Suzan Given Water Quality Planning Section

94

95 Contents Executive Summary... i I. Introduction... 1 II. Newport Watershed Bacterial Water Quality Improvement Activities... 3 A. Monitoring Activities... 3 B. Scientific Research and Investigation Activities... 4 C. Watershed implementation activities Water treatment BMPs... 6 a. Irvine Ranch Water District Natural Treatment System and detention basins... 7 b. Constructed wetlands and other biological treatment BMPs... 9 c. Sanitary sewer diversions d. Sediment basins and drop structures e. Media filters f. Debris and trash-related physical BMPs Volume reduction BMPs a. Infiltration basins, trenches, galleries b. Permeable landscape (softscape) c. Permeable landscape (hardscape) d. Rainwater harvesting Source control BMPs a. Public education b. Municipal trash and debris management measures c. Municipal housekeeping activities Low Impact Development measures Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration/Dredging III. Water quality data summary References Cited... 32

96

97 Executive Summary In recognition of fecal indicator bacterial (FIB) data indicating that Newport Bay was impaired for water contact recreation uses (REC-1), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) adopted the Newport Bay Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) on April 9, The TMDL established numeric water quality objectives and required a series of actions, including source identification studies and implementation of water treatment and source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to restore the REC-1 use in Newport Bay by decreasing FIB concentrations until they complied with water quality objectives. A routine monitoring program was also required to measure progress in achieving water quality objectives. While these measures have been separately documented elsewhere, this report is the first effort to comprehensively document the totality of measures that have been taken by watershed stakeholders that have likely helped reduce FIB concentrations to current levels. More BMPs will be planned and implemented in the watershed and this report will be updated periodically to incorporate the new information. Since TMDL adoption, FIB concentrations have decreased substantially in nearly all parts of the bay. Twenty-six of 31 monitoring sites now meet water quality objectives in dry weather 100% of the time. This is a vast improvement over the initial TMDL period, when none of the sites met water quality objectives in dry weather. During storm flows, only one site met water quality objectives in the reporting year. Most BMPs implemented by stakeholders are more effective or only effective during low, dry weather flows. A vast amount of effort has been expended to improve bacterial water quality in Newport Bay. In routine monitoring alone, about 2,000 FIB water quality samples are collected annually, with the total number of samples collected in the last couple decades exceeding 90,000. There have also been numerous scientific studies of bacteria conducted in Newport Bay, the majority of which evaluated sources of FIB in the bay. Most of these studies concluded that San Diego Creek was the largest source, since it is also the largest source of freshwater flow in the bay, that most FIB were not of human origin, and that most exceedances of bacterial water quality objectives were due to loading during wet weather and were therefore outside of the control of local municipalities. While few BMPs have been implemented that specifically target bacteria, a vast number of BMPs have been implemented throughout the watershed that accrue multiple water quality benefits, including decreased FIB. These BMPs can be grouped into three broad categories. Source control BMPs are typically programmatic and promote practices that reduce the initial introduction of bacterial sources into the environment. Water treatment BMPs are physical structures with some feature that removes FIB or removes

98 trash or other factors that promote FIB growth. It is more efficient and more effective to control pollutant sources rather than treat water for pollutant removal after pollutants have already been introduced. Volume reduction BMPs reduce runoff volume, usually by infiltration. Source control BMPs in the watershed include public education, water conservation measures, watershed cleanup activities, and water quality ordinances controlling litter and pet waste. Public education seeks to reinforce behaviors that promote water quality improvement and stewardship. Watershed stakeholders implement a multifaceted public education campaign at a cost of $500,000 per year that focuses on communitybased social marketing, but includes traditional print and on-air advertising, water pollution brochures, and public outreach. Watershed agencies partner with groups such as OC Coastkeeper to provide education on environmental science and stewardship to local schools, and to sponsor watershed cleanup activities. The County recently initiated an Adopt A Channel program that allows companies and other interested groups to adopt portions of channels that they agree to help keep clean. Trash and other debris may help promote FIB growth by either serving directly as a growth medium for bacteria or by attracting animals that in turn may become sources of bacteria. Watershed municipalities sweep 150,000 street miles and inspect 10,000 catch basins annually, removing about 20,000 tons of debris from the watershed in the reporting year. Water treatment BMPs in the watershed include detention basins and other structures designed to impede flowing water, biological treatment BMPs, sanitary sewer diversions, media filters, and trash-related BMPs. Biological treatment BMPs use the natural abilities of plants and associated ecosystems to treat runoff. There are over 646 biological treatment BMPs in the watershed, including constructed wetlands and vegetated swales. Detention basins and functionally similar structures impede the flow of water to create conditions that are more favorable for bacteria removal. These include basins in the Irvine Ranch Water District Natural Treatment System (NTS), sediment basins, and a number of other structures. There are about 55 such basins throughout the watershed. The large San Joaquin Marsh currently treats all of the dry weather flow of San Diego Creek, which represents 70-85% of the dry weather freshwater flow into Upper Newport Bay. Sanitary sewer diversions divert surface runoff into the sanitary sewer for treatment. Three diversions are in place, with four more planned for , including Santa Ana- Delhi Channel, which is the second largest source of freshwater flow into Upper Newport Bay. Together, these diversions could remove 25% or more of the dry weather flow of the entire watershed and its associated FIB load. Combined with the treatment of ii

99 San Diego Creek through San Joaquin Marsh, the vast majority of the freshwater flow into the Bay is already being treated. Diversions and detention basins, including the NTS, are the primary types of regional treatment BMPs in use in the watershed. Combined, their treatment area coverage includes nearly the entire Newport Bay watershed. Trash and debris-related physical BMPs are numerous and in widespread use in the watershed. These include trash and debris booms, trash skimmers, and hydrodynamic separators. The most widespread BMP in use are trash and debris screens. Only full capture trash and debris screens are enumerated in this report, which collect debris larger than 5 mm. There are at least 1309 such devices deployed throughout the watershed, including catch basin screens and inserts and pipe connector screens. In addition to the three main categories of BMPs, low impact development (LID) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) now figure prominently in the development process. WQMPs are required of significant development projects, which mitigate water quality issues on a site by site basis and extends water quality controls throughout the watershed as development and redevelopment occurs. LID seeks to restore or maintain the original hydrologic functions of the landscape to preserve ecosystem services, and is critical to water quality management planning. Finally, watershed stakeholders maintain active programs to directly mitigate bacterial pollution. Agencies that own or operate sewer systems have programs in place for regular maintenance and leak detection. A Dry Weather Monitoring Program has been active for over 10 years monitoring storm drains for illegal discharges and illicit connections. In recognition of the fact that agency staff cannot monitor all of the storm channels, a Water Pollution Hotline allows concerned citizens to report active water pollution issues. Agencies also participate in the County Area Spill Containment Program, which sometimes involve participation of municipal staff trained in responding to hazardous material spills, and usually requires owners of faulty sewage facilities to correct identified problems. Figure ES1 shows the treatment areas of regional BMPs, including sanitary sewer diversions and treatment basins, as a heat map. Parcels covered by WQMPs are also included. However, not all jurisdictions have submitted WQMP data to date. This map will be updated as new data become available. BMPs whose treatment areas cannot be determined, including many of the trash related BMPs, catch basins, and programmatic BMPs, are not included, but their impact would likely be watershed-wide. More darkly shaded areas correspond to treatment by more than one regional BMP. The Santa Ana- Delhi watershed is also included, although the diversion is not yet constructed. The entire flow from that watershed will be diverted by The area delineated by the orange border is treated through the San Joaquin Marsh (SJM). Smaller areas within the SJM treatment area are also treated through either NTS basins or the Peters Canyon pipeline diversion, and are therefore darker in color. The area delineated in purple is the Big Canyon Wash watershed, which is being treated through a detention pond at the bottom of the watershed. iii

100 Figure ES1: Heat map of regional water quality treatment activities in the Newport Bay watershed as of July More darkly shaded areas correspond to greater numbers of treatment activities. Trash and debris related BMPs were not included due to the difficulty in determining their treatment areas, but such BMPs are in place throughout the watershed. iv

101 I. Introduction In 1986, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) added Upper and Lower Newport Bay to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) of impaired water bodies due to frequent high concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and the presence of swimming and other full water contact recreational activities in the Bay. The listing initiated the first studies on FIB in the Bay, which continued for the next two decades. Because high FIB concentrations persisted through this period, the Regional Board adopted the Newport Bay Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) in April The TMDL set numeric water quality objectives (WQOs) for water contact recreation (REC-1) and shellfish harvesting (SHEL), with the shellfish WQOs the more stringent of the two. Recognizing the complexity of the FIB water quality problem, the paucity of relevant data on FIB sources, and the expected difficulties in implementing appropriate control measures, the TMDL included a prioritized, phased approach to achieving WQOs. This phased TMDL approach called for a number of studies to help fill data gaps and iterative implementation actions designed to help meet WQOs. The compliance date for the REC-1 WQOs was December 30, The compliance date for the SHEL WQOs is December 30, Among the early implementation actions were the establishment of a routine monitoring program and studies to help identify FIB sources in the Bay and to assess the level of REC-1 and SHEL uses. The routine monitoring program was established in 2000 and is ongoing. Studies were initiated in 2000 and continued in the following years. As FIB sources and pathways were identified, management activities to mitigate FIB concentrations began and are ongoing. Since TMDL adoption, water pollution mitigation activities have multiplied in the watershed. Most of these activities accrue multiple water quality improvement benefits including FIB reduction, resulting in a steady and substantial decline in bay-wide FIB concentrations. This report catalogs many of the FIB management activities undertaken by watershed stakeholders over the last several decades. A request for best management practice (BMP) implementation data was sent to watershed stakeholders in 2015 by EOA, Inc., in order to update the FC TMDL Source Management Plan. That update was stalled, and stakeholders decided to develop a separate report of TMDL implementation activities instead to document the vast amount of effort that has been undertaken to mitigate bacterial water quality issues in the watershed. A new data request was issued to watershed stakeholders in February 2016 for this purpose. The present report is the result of new data from watershed stakeholders, compiled data from the original EOA data request, internal County data, and data culled from water quality management plans (WQMPs) on file with watershed municipalities. While a substantial amount of data was submitted by watershed stakeholders, there were two main issues with the data used in this report. First, while agencies covering most of the watershed did submit data, not all submitted data. Therefore, some

102 implementation activities are not included in this report, and the numbers reported are likely conservative. Second, different agencies submitted different kinds of data, which was a challenge. For example, different agencies identified the same BMPs by different names or trade names, or were nonspecific about numbers of individual BMPs, or were nonspecific about BMP locations. An attempt was made to resolve as many of these issues as possible, but some discrepancies could not be resolved. BMPs that could not be identified by type or specific location were omitted, which again suggests the numbers reported here are conservative. As a result, the numbers and distribution of BMPs implemented in the watershed are underrepresented in the following maps and tables. Third, programmatic BMP implementation was reported by agencies on a jurisdictional basis, not by watershed. For example, cities reported the number of street miles swept or number of catch basins inspected and cleaned by jurisdiction, but for most cities, only a portion of their jurisdictional areas lie within the Newport Bay watershed. For these types of BMPs, the BMP effort expended in the Newport watershed was estimated by apportioning the effort according to the percentage of jurisdictional area lying within the watershed. For example, if 1,000 catch basins were inspected within a city, but only 25% of the area of the city lies within the watershed, an estimated 250 catch basins in the watershed were inspected by that city. 2

103 II. Newport Watershed Bacterial Water Quality Improvement Activities A. Monitoring Activities There are currently four active County monitoring programs collecting bacteria samples in the Newport Bay watershed. Collectively, about 2,000 bacteria samples are collected per year in the Newport watershed, totaling over 20,000 samples in the last decade. The total number of bacteria samples collected in the watershed over the last several decades exceeds 90,000. By far the largest monitoring program is the cooperative Newport Bay Fecal Coliform TMDL (FC TMDL)/Orange County Health Care Agency AB411 monitoring program, which collects about 1,700 samples annually. A total of 35 sites are monitored weekly, but two of these sites suffer chronic accessibility issues. Through this focused monitoring effort, a significant and sustained decline in fecal coliform concentrations has been documented throughout Newport Bay since adoption of the FC TMDL. Bay bacterial water quality will be discussed in greater detail in a later section. The Mass Emissions Program monitors discharges from major creeks and the Estuary and Wetlands Program monitors water quality in receiving waters, both as requirements of the County MS4 Permit. The Mass Emissions Program collects at least 120 samples annually from freshwater tributaries to Newport Bay. The Estuary and Wetlands Program collects at least 78 bacteria samples annually in Newport Bay. Neither of these totals includes storm samples, which vary considerably from year to year. The Dry Weather Monitoring Program is intended to detect illicit connections and illicit discharges during the summer months (dry weather) using a combination of random and targeted sampling. The Dry Weather Program collects about 100 samples annually from watershed storm drains. The number of sites in the watershed varies somewhat, but it is typically about 28 drains per dry weather season throughout the various jurisdictions of the watershed. Figure 1: County staff collecting a water sample from a storm drain in Lane Channel in Irvine as part of the Dry Weather Monitoring program. 3

104 B. Scientific Research and Investigation Activities A vast amount of investigation has been conducted in the Bay, particularly as part of FC TMDL implementation. Studies conducted by the County, watershed cities, University of California Irvine and UC Cooperative Extension, Orange County Coastkeeper, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and others have significantly improved our understanding of the dynamics of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in the watershed. A public health risk assessment was performed by Soller et al. (2001) and concluded that the risk to public health from bathing in the Bay was below the US Environmental Protection Agency s acceptable level of risk. One of the earliest efforts was the investigation of FIB sources in the Bay, a process that continues to this day. Jiang et al. (2002a) determined that storm-associated high bacteria loads were unlikely to be of human origin. They also found no correlation between FIB and human-associated viruses, indicating that FIB likely did not originate from human sewage. Pednekar et al. (2005) and Pednekar et al. (2007) found that the largest loading of bacteria to the Bay was from storms, and also concluded the high loading rate could not reasonably be attributed to human sewage. They reasoned that since high bacteria loads were associated with storms, wet weather water quality was dominated by factors outside of local management control. Finally, they concluded FIB concentrations decreased along an inland to ocean gradient, indicating San Diego Creek was a primary source. Jiang et al. (2002b) were unable to distinguish a relationship between FIB concentrations and number of recreational bathers in the Newport Dunes area. Similarly, Grant et al. (2004) found marinas were not a significant source of FIB to the Bay relative to watershed inputs. Despite potentially large inputs of FIB from the watershed, a significant portion of the load may come from natural sources, including vegetation and birds. Kabashima & Haver (2003) found agricultural runoff contained high concentrations of FIB despite the absence of sources of fecal contamination from animals and birds. Indeed, they suggested that many naturally occurring bacteria on the surfaces of vegetation may be detected as fecal coliforms. A large, comprehensive Newport Bay FIB source identification effort was conducted by Grant et al. (2009) and resulted in several significant conclusions. FIB concentrations declined along an inland to ocean gradient, which supported a previous study that concluded watershed inputs, and particularly San Diego Creek, were a main source of FIB in the Bay. Though they found that most Bay FIB appeared to be free-living, they also found that dry weather Escherichia coli (EC) tended to be particle-associated in upper Bay, suggesting perhaps that treatments to remove sediment could help decrease EC loads from the watershed. An important element of the work by Grant et al. (2009) used microbial source tracking (MST) methods to identify sources of Enterococcus (ENT) and EC. For ENT, they found at 4

105 least half of ENT concentrations were from non-fecal sources, including decaying plant material, and that regrowth may contribute to ENT concentrations. For EC, they found that wet weather EC was not particle-associated as it was in dry weather, suggesting that there may be two different primary sources of EC in dry and wet weather. Grant et al. (2009) also conducted microcosm studies in which they showed bird feces harbored high concentrations of FIB and required several days to achieve 90% attenuation even in the presence of sunlight. Thus, bird populations in the Bay contribute to sustained elevated concentrations of FIB in the Bay. They also suggested sediments may promote FIB concentrations by providing shade from sunlight and nutrients, which again suggested sediment control could help reduce FIB concentrations. Finally, they found FIB from runoff did not rapidly die off in the saline water of the Bay. Recently, Skinner et al. (2010) examined street gutter biofilms in Newport Beach and concluded that FIB multiplied in street gutter biofilms, consistent with results from unpublished work performed in 2006 by Donna Ferguson and others at the Orange County Health Care Agency Public Health Laboratory (Ferguson et al. 2006). FIB in street gutters apparently survived periods of desiccation as well. These results suggested that controlling FIB concentrations in storms would be nearly impossible, since storm runoff would re-suspend FIB in high numbers from street gutter biofilms. Since 2013, the County has participated in a special study of the Bight 13 Regional Monitoring Program to study bacterial indicators in southern California coastal creeks in dry and wet weather conditions. In addition to bacteria, the Bight 13 Micro Study also seeks to determine the distribution of HF183 in coastal drainages. HF183 is a DNA marker found in a species of the bacterium Bacteroides that is thought to be specific to the human gut and therefore indicative of sewage, although recent work by Whitma et al. (2014) has shown Bacteroides can replicate in the environment under the right conditions. In the Newport watershed, Costa Mesa Channel and Santa Ana-Delhi Channel are part of the study. Since 2013, nearly 400 bacteria and DNA marker samples have been collected from these two channels. The field component of this study is expected to conclude in spring Source identification efforts are ongoing. OCFCD only has four facilities draining into Upper Newport Bay: San Diego Creek, Santa Ana-Delhi Channel, Costa Mesa Channel, and Santa Isabel Channel. San Diego Creek is already treated by a host of BMPs throughout the watershed and all of the flow is again treated through San Joaquin Marsh. Santa Ana-Delhi Channel will be diverted by early The only remaining OCFCD channel inputs are Costa Mesa Channel and Santa Isabel Channel. Surveillance is underway at both channels to assess their potential FIB contributions, but since flows at these channels are small, they are not likely to be significant sources of FIB. The remaining facilities draining into Upper Newport Bay are in the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach, including Big Canyon Wash. 5

106 C. Watershed implementation activities Much of the information gathered in the studies and monitoring efforts mentioned previously have been compiled to inform development of a comprehensive Source Management Plan (EOA 2009), which summarizes much of what is known about FIB in the Newport watershed, including sources and environmental fates, and describes the many of the best management practices (BMPs) in place or planned for implementation in the watershed. The County, watershed cities, Irvine Ranch Water District, and the development community in the watershed have collectively implemented numerous BMPs throughout the watershed in the last several decades. These can be broadly categorized into three types (Goong 2009). Water treatment BMPs are usually a physical structure with some feature that removes FIB or removes trash or sediment or other factors that may promote FIB growth. Volume reduction BMPs primarily reduce the volume of runoff, thereby reducing FIB loads. Source control BMPs are typically programmatic in nature, encouraging practices that reduce initial introduction of bacterial sources into the environment. In addition, significant development and redevelopment projects require water quality management plans (WQMPs) that show how BMPs will be implemented to mitigate water quality impacts from the project. Thus, as time passes, development and redevelopment in the watershed will result in an increasing number of small urban runoff treatment facilities distributed throughout the watershed to help reduce FIB in receiving waters. 1. Water treatment BMPs Water treatment BMPs include wet or dry detention basins, constructed wetlands, media filters, diversions to sanitary sewers, vegetated swales, and disinfection. All of these except disinfection are used to some extent in the Newport watershed. The maps on the following pages show that these BMPs are spread throughout the watershed. Table 1 shows the numbers of water treatment BMPs implemented or planned for implementation in the watershed. Table 1: Water treatment BMP implementation in the Newport Bay watershed as of May BMP Type Subtype Number Implemented Number Planned Detention/retention basin Natural Treatment System 24 Other 5 1 Retractable screen 286 Connector pipe screen 474 Trash and debris BMPs Insert/filter 553 Hydrodynamic separator 65 Trash and debris boom 5 Trash skimmer 6 Sanitary sewer diversions 3 4 Drain plugs 1 Sediment/drop structure basins Biotreatment BMPs Sediment basins Constructed wetland Drop structure ponds Vegetated swale/strip Media filters 160 6

107 a. Irvine Ranch Water District Natural Treatment System and detention basins The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Natural Treatment System (NTS) is one of the major water treatment BMPs in the watershed. It consists of 24 constructed ponds and wetlands distributed throughout the watershed, as shown in Figure 2. The largest such component is the San Joaquin Marsh located adjacent to the IRWD water treatment plant in Irvine. San Joaquin Marsh (Figure 3) is a series of five large treatment ponds that were primarily designed to promote nitrogen removal. Dry weather flow from San Diego Creek is pumped into the San Joaquin Marsh ponds upstream of a weir. After treatment in the ponds, water is discharged back into San Diego Creek downstream of the weir. The weir effectively separates untreated flows from treated flows, since there is no dry weather flow over the weir. All of the dry weather flow of the San Diego Creek watershed, which represents about 65% of the dry weather freshwater flow to Newport Bay, is treated through San Joaquin Marsh. While much of the NTS was not designed specifically for bacteria treatment, most NTS sites have proven effective at decreasing FIB concentrations. Only 10 NTS sites have bacterial monitoring data. Two of these were not effective at removing EC, but the remaining sites remove an average of 85% of EC (unpublished data, IRWD). All sites appear to help remove ENT, with an average reduction of 78%. Most NTS sites are detention or retention basins. These BMPs frequently go by many other names, including extended detention basins, wet ponds, dry ponds, stormwater ponds, and others. These are large basins used to impound dry or wet weather runoff to create lentic conditions. In some cases, they permanently impound water and allow water to infiltrate or evaporate, and in others water is returned to creeks after being detained in the pond for treatment. Ponds that permanently impound runoff effectively prevent all pollutant loads from discharging to receiving waters. All of the NTS sites are essentially flow-through ponds. NTS sites are maintained by IRWD. Detention or retention basins, separate from the NTS, are also in operation in several locations in the watershed. Basins in Irvine will eventually become part of the NTS pending approval by IRWD and the Regional Board. These are also shown in Figure 2. 7

108 Figure 2: Irvine Ranch Water District Natural Treatment System sites and detention or retention basins in the Newport Bay watershed. The light green shaded area is the portion of the watershed being treated through San Joaquin Marsh. Figure 3: County staff sampling from one of the ponds at San Joaquin Marsh. 8

109 Reduction in flow plays a substantial role in the FIB treatment capacity of these wetlands. Reduced flow through these systems helps settle particle-associated FIB, removing them from the water column. It also increases contact time with sunlight. Ultraviolet radiation from sunlight causes lethal DNA damage in FIB. Finally, lentic waters promote zooplanktonic communities, which increase predation pressure on FIB. b. Constructed wetlands and other biological treatment BMPs Biotreatment is used in numerous smaller scale BMPs throughout the region (Figure 4). Constructed or modular wetlands (Figure 5), bioretention, and vegetated swales (Figure 6) or strips are especially in wide use. These BMPs often use the physical properties of vegetation to slow the flow of storm runoff, allow particulates to settle, help retain water, allow infiltration, and allow runoff to filter through soil or media. The normal biological functions of vegetation also directly remove some runoff constituents through uptake, and help reduce flows by consumption of water to support plant growth and by evapotranspiration to support normal metabolic functions. Figure 4: Map of constructed wetlands/biological treatment BMPs and vegetated swales and strips in use in the Newport Bay watershed. 9

110 Figure 5: Modular wetlands in a parking lot in Orange. Figure 6: Vegetated swale along Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach. Most of these BMPs are smaller in scale and designed to treat runoff from a single property or development project. However, they are very widely distributed throughout the watershed (Figure 4) and collectively help retain runoff and associated pollutants onsite, thereby reducing or preventing their discharge into waterways. Since not all agencies provided data for this report, there are likely many more such BMPs that are not represented. Further, as LID practices become increasingly incorporated into the watershed development process, such BMPs will grow in number over time. 10

111 c. Sanitary sewer diversions Sanitary sewer diversion projects divert dry weather flows into the sanitary sewer for treatment. These are generally designed only for dry weather runoff, since storm flows are prohibited by the sanitation agencies and would overwhelm wastewater treatment plants. These are also generally reserved for areas with chronic, intractable water quality problems because construction and operation and maintenance costs may be high and because diversion of surface flows reduces or eliminates downstream aquatic habitat. Diversions are currently in operation at Newport Dunes and Big Canyon Golf Course in Newport Beach, and at Lions Park in Costa Mesa. Additional diversions in Newport Beach are planned for Hoag Hospital (fall 2017) and Arches Drain (fall 2017). Large regional diversions are also planned for Santa Ana-Delhi Channel at Irvine Avenue (fall 2016) and lower Peters Canyon Wash (summer 2016). The Santa Ana-Delhi diversion is a cooperative project among the County, Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), Orange County Water District, IRWD, and the cities of Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. The Peters Canyon Wash diversion is a cooperative project being funded by the County, OCFCD, IRWD, CalTrans, and the cities of Irvine and Tustin, mainly intended to treat excess selenium loads in the region. However, it will also reduce loads of other dissolved contaminants and FIB loads by reducing flow and removing nutrients for bacterial growth. In recent years, the Santa Ana-Delhi Channel supplied about 15% of the total freshwater flow into Upper Newport Bay, and an average of about 25% of dry weather flows. Since about 65% of the freshwater flow into Upper Newport Bay is supplied by San Diego Creek, most of which in turn is treated by passage through San Joaquin Marsh, the addition of the Santa Ana-Delhi diversion will result in nearly 90% of the freshwater flow into Upper Newport Bay being treated for bacteria. In addition to the diversion at Newport Dunes, drain plugs are used in dry weather at targeted drains on the parcel. These plugs prevent drainage from these areas, instead allowing the typically small amount of dry weather runoff to evaporate. The plugs are removed during storms to prevent flooding. Sanitary sewer diversions and drain plugs are mapped in Figure 7. 11

112 Figure 7: Sanitary sewer diversions in place or planned for implementation in the Newport Bay watershed. Planned projects are expected to be in place by fall d. Sediment basins and drop structures The primary function of sediment basins and drop structures is to retard flow. Sediment basins reduce flow and increase residence time, promoting settling of sediment and other particulates. Drop structures primarily function to reduce flow to restrain the destructive power of storm flows. But since they reduce flow rates in storms, and their impact basins often function like detention basins in dry weather, they too will likely reduce FIB, especially particulate-associated FIB. Sediment basins and drop structure impact basins in the Newport watershed are shown in Figure 8. There are thirteen sediment basins in the Newport Bay watershed. These increase residence time and settling, increase exposure to sunlight, and increases predation pressure on FIB by promoting growth of zooplanktonic communities in basins with permanent pools. Eight of these are retarding basins in the foothills of the upper watershed. Three in-channel basins are in lower San Diego Creek, formed by a series of weirs to create lentic conditions in the lower creek. Most of the finer suspended particulates are captured by sediment basins in Upper Newport Bay (Figure 9). Fine particulates often stay suspended because their surface charges tend to repel other particulates. The marine waters of upper Bay help neutralize these charges, allowing fine particulates to flocculate and settle. 12

113 Figure 8: Sediment basins and drop structure impact ponds in Newport Bay watershed. Figure 9: Unit I-III sediment basin in Upper Newport Bay. 13

114 Figure 10: Drop structure impact basin at the end of San Joaquin Channel, just before entering lower San Diego Creek. Because the primary function of flood control channels is to move stormwater rapidly out to the ocean, drop structures are necessary to help restrain stream currents and reduce their destructive potential. But in dry weather flows, permanent ponds often form in their impact basins, allowing them to support some water quality improvement functions (Figure 10). Some of these ponds in the watershed support whole ecosystems, serving as refugia for fish and invertebrates during storms and in low flow conditions. Locations of drop structure impact ponds are also shown in Figure 8. e. Media filters Media filters utilize different kinds of media, which may include sand, charcoal, or gravel, to filter out pollutants. These can be effective at FIB removal if they are appropriately designed and maintained. Media filters can range in size from small, multi-chambered units designed as catch basin retrofits to large sand filters designed as regional treatment facilities. Most of the media filters in the Newport watershed are designed for use in catch basins, often using deflectors to collect large debris, a baffle chamber to retard flow, and the media filter itself. Locations of media filter BMPs are shown in Figure

115 Figure 11: Locations of media filter BMPs in the Newport Bay watershed. f. Debris and trash-related physical BMPs In recent years, increasing attention has been placed on trash in the watershed. There are now numerous devices in use to help keep trash out of receiving waters. While these BMPs do not directly treat FIB, food-related trash can itself be a source of FIB, as well as act as an attractant for foraging animals and birds, which in turn can be additional sources of FIB. Therefore, devices which help remove trash from waterways or prevent trash from entering the storm drain system in the first place can help reduce FIB loads. There are currently five major types of trash and debris-related physical BMPs in use in the watershed. These include catch basin screens, catch basin filters and inserts, hydrodynamic separators, trash and debris booms, trash skimmers, and connector pipe screens. Location coordinates were not available for connector pipe screens. However, the City of Santa Ana reported that 471 of the 982 catch basins maintained by the City within the Newport Bay watershed are fitted with connector pipe screens, which are considered a full capture trash device. Locations of trash and debris-related BMPs are shown in Figure 12. Trash and debris-related BMP location data were only available from the County and the cities of Tustin, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. Therefore the presence of these BMPs is likely highly underrepresented by the map in Figure

116 Figure 12: Locations of trash and debris-related BMPs in the Newport Bay watershed. Catch basin screens are installed in catch basin openings (Figure 13). These range from pieces of rebar for screening out large debris to screens with openings of various sizes to filter out smaller pieces of debris. Catch basin filters or inserts (Figure 14) might be used in lieu of a screen or in addition to one, but they are typically placed in the catch basin itself. While exact numbers are not known, since municipalities do not inventory catch basins by watershed, there are probably over 10,000 catch basins in the Newport watershed, thousands of which have screens or inserts. Catch basin screen and filter data were only available from the County, Tustin, and Newport Beach. Connector pipe screens are typically used inside a catch basin to screen out trash and debris before storm flows storm drain pipes. These are typically regarded as full capture devices, which retains debris larger than 5 mm in size. These devices are used by several jurisdictions and are in wide use in Santa Ana. Hydrodynamic separators or continuous deflective separators use the natural force of flowing water and the physical properties of trash to sequester trash from the flow, then return the trash-free flow back to the storm drain system. The expense of these devices typically limits their use to locations where the presence of trash is chronic. There are at least 65 such devices currently used and maintained in the watershed. 16

117 Figure 13: Trash and debris screen in catch basin in Newport Beach. Figure 14: Catch basin insert with filter and trash and debris grate in Tustin. 17

118 Figure 15: Trash and debris boom deployed across Santa Ana-Delhi Channel in Newport Beach, just before cleanout. Trash and debris booms are typically used for floating debris, although some may have netting to trap underwater debris as well (Figure 15). These are deployed across lotic waters to catch debris coming from upstream and are usually cleaned out on a regular basis. There are currently five trash and debris booms in the Newport watershed. One each is deployed in upper Peters Canyon Wash, El Modena-Irvine Channel, lower San Diego Creek, and Santa Ana-Delhi Channel. Another is deployed at North Star Beach in a swift current section of Newport Bay itself. Finally, trash skimmers create a current to allow floatables to flow into the device in locations where no appreciable current exists. There are currently six of these devices in use at various locations in lower Newport Bay. Two more will be deployed soon. Trash and debris-related BMPs that are more programmatic in nature will be discussed later in the source control section. 2. Volume reduction BMPs Physical volume reduction BMPs decrease the volume of flow and usually involve infiltration. Volume reduction is especially important for two reasons. FIB load is directly related to the volume of water, since load is calculated from volume and concentration. In addition, reduced volume means reduced urban runoff, which in turn reduces the amount of activated biofilm in street gutters and storm sewers. As Skinner et 18

119 al. (2010) demonstrated, inert FIB, immobilized due to dessication, can nearly instantly become activated biofilm with the addition of water. The water then also serves as a transportation medium for FIB into storm drains and receiving waters. Infiltration BMPs function primarily by allowing flow to infiltrate into the ground, thereby reducing or eliminating surface flows and associated pollutant loads. Infiltration BMPs may not be a good option in areas with shallow groundwater if pollution is a concern, or in areas with poor natural permeability. Some infiltration systems incorporate underdrains to ease flooding during high intensity rain events. Table 2 shows the numbers of volume reduction BMPs implemented in the Newport Bay watershed. Some of the different volume reduction BMPs in use in the watershed are also mapped in Figure 16. Table 2: Infiltration and volume reduction BMP implementation in the Newport Bay watershed as of May BMP Type Number Implemented Infiltration basin/trench 24 Infiltration dry well 5 Permeable concrete/asphalt 10 Pervious pavers 4 Rainwater harvesting 3 Figure 16: Infiltration and volume reduction BMPs in the Newport Bay watershed. 19

120 a. Infiltration basins, trenches, galleries These BMPs include infiltration basins, trenches, strips, or galleries. Some of these may be constructed to detain or retain flows and allow more time for infiltration, and may be constructed with more permeable soil types (Figure 17). While some of these BMPs may also have vegetation, their primary function is infiltration of water. Figure 17: Example of an infiltration gallery at OC Coastkeeper Garden in Orange. b. Permeable landscape (softscape) Softscape elements, including vegetated strips and lawns, may also help with volume reduction, although infiltration effectiveness can vary depending on permeability of underlying soils. Many natural treatment BMPs, such as NTS sites, detention basins, or vegetated swales may also allow infiltration in addition to other treatment processes. Significant development and redevelopment projects now require incorporation of low impact development practices, which seek to recreate the pre-development hydrologic regime and restore associated ecosystem services. One such practice is to allow for infiltration of rainwater and retaining it on site. Therefore, as time passes, infiltration BMPs will be widely distributed through more of the watershed. c. Permeable landscape (hardscape) There has also been an increase in the use of permeable landscaping materials, such as permeable concrete and asphalt and permeable pavers (Figures 18 and 19). These allow for a hardscape element when needed, but also allow water to permeate into the ground. 20

121 Figure 18: Permeable concrete in a parking lot in Orange. Figure 19: Example of pervious pavers at OC Coastkeeper Garden in Orange. 21

122 Numerous developments in Orange County have included either infiltration or permeable hardscape BMP features for water quality purposes in their WQMPs in recent years. Although many of these are designed to infiltrate only runoff from one property or development project, like modular wetlands, these BMPs are widely distributed throughout the watershed and collectively help reduce the volume of flow and FIB discharging to the Bay. d. Rainwater harvesting Rainwater harvesting systems capture rainwater for use in landscaping and sometimes other non-potable uses. Until the Rainwater Recapture Act of 2012, it was not technically legal to harvest rainwater in California, despite widespread promotion of rain barrels to help alleviate ongoing drought conditions. Today, rain barrels are in wide use in private residences. It is not possible to map rain barrels in the watershed, but two rainwater harvesting systems were reported on WQMPs and are shown in Figure Source control BMPs Source control BMPs are often programmatic in nature and seek to contain pollutants before they have an opportunity to enter waterways through implementation of various municipal activities, or to prevent pollutants from being deposited in the watershed in the first place by altering behavior. a. Public education Public education and outreach is central to altering public behavior. As lead NPDES permittee and on behalf of co-permittee cities, the County implements a multi-faceted public education program at a cost in excess of $500,000 per year. The program includes television and print advertising, water pollution brochures, and public outreach events, but is focused on community-based social marketing. One of the primary metrics used to assess effectiveness of the public education campaign is total impressions, which are estimated exposures to the public education campaign message. In the reporting year, there were 291,333,449 overall impressions. The Overwatering is Out campaign to eliminate overwatering has also recently begun as part of the public education effort. Overwatering is Out is an action campaign, which promotes and tracks actions on behalf of County residents exposed to the campaign message. An initial goal of the campaign was to recruit 300 followers who voluntarily submit their addresses to obtain more information and influence 100 people to practice a BMP. Both goals were exceeded in the inaugural campaign year, as the campaign recorded 1,592 opt-ins and 244 people who said they adopted a BMP. 22

123 Mandatory overwatering prevention measures due to California s ongoing drought are also in wide use in the watershed. Overwatering is Out, coupled with other watershed water conservation measures and increased volume reduction BMPs in the watershed, has helped to reduce summer dry weather flows in San Diego Creek from a geometric mean high of cfs in 1995 to 3.25 cfs in 2015, an historic low (Figure 20). Figure 20: Geometric mean April-September dry weather flows in San Diego Creek ( ). Mean dry weather flows have been highly variable, particularly since there is so much groundwater exfiltration in the watershed. As a result, even though flows on rainy days were excluded, years in which high rainfall was observed also resulted in higher base flows. However, a declining trend in dry weather flows is evident in Figure 20. Similar decreases were observed in other subwatersheds as well, including the mostly urban El Modena-Irvine Channel (Figure 21). Flows have declined from a geometric mean high in 1998 of 1.82 cfs during summer season dry weather to 0.25 cfs in 2015, also an historic low. 23

124 Figure 21: Geometric mean April-September dry weather flows in El Modena-Irvine Channel ( ). County and city staff have partnered with other community organizations for a variety of public outreach and watershed cleanup events. For many years, the County has partnered with UC Cooperative Extension to provide educational events and seminars on drought tolerant landscaping to help homeowners and landscapers conserve water. County staff has also worked with Trails4All and student groups at local universities to plan channel cleanup events (Figure 22). The County and watershed cities have also assisted OC Coastkeeper for many years in the Watershed Heroes - Actions Linking Education to Stewardship program, providing staff to help judge high school student presentations on environmental issues. In recent years, the County has partnered with OC Coastkeeper to bring hands-on water quality science-related activities to students at Troy High School (Figure 23). The success of this program may allow it to expand to other area high schools in coming years. 24

125 Figure 22: Volunteers stand over the fruits of their labor on Inner-coastal and Watershed Cleanup Day on San Diego Creek. Figure 23: County staff teaching Troy High School students about water quality testing on a bridge over Fullerton Creek, in partnership with OC Coastkeeper. 25

126 Each municipality also has a water quality ordinance with provisions to prevent deposits of pet waste in the public right of way or spaces open to the public. These ordinances typically utilize administrative remedies or citations for enforcement. To encourage compliance, most jurisdictions also provide free pet waste bags in their municipal parks along with waste bins for ease of disposal. b. Municipal trash and debris management measures There are a number of programmatic implementation activities that, while not targeting FIB, would be expected to help reduce FIB in the watershed. These principally fall into two categories. The first are municipal activities designed to reduce or eliminate trash from entering storm drains, and the second are municipal activities that help reduce pollution in general, or housekeeping activities. Trash and debris-related activities include street sweeping, inspection and cleaning of catch basins, use of trash containment devices such as catch basin inserts or screens, and cleaning of storm drains and channels. While most municipal debris is not trash, but rather vegetative debris, the trash component often contains food wastes that attract animals and birds and promote bacterial contamination, and also provide nutrients that fuel growth of FIB in biofilms. Municipalities typically do not collect data on these activities by watershed. The numbers reported in this section and shown in Table 3 were based on data reported by each jurisdiction and prorated by its area in the watershed. Table 3: Source control BMP data from the Newport Bay watershed ( ). Programmatic BMP data were collected from watershed municipalities and prorated by jurisdictional area in the watershed. Source Control BMP Street Miles Swept 134, , , , ,226 Debris Swept (tons) 11,355 11,434 14,059 15,936 18,160 Solid Waste Collected (tons) 605, , , , ,365 Catch Basins Inspected 8,884 10,247 9,939 9,809 10,483 Catch Basins Cleaned 4,839 6,438 6,293 6,265 5,277 Channel/Pipe Miles Cleaned Facility BMP Inspections Hotline Complaints In the last reporting period ( ), over 154,000 street miles were swept in the watershed, which was the most street sweeping performed in the last five years. The amount of debris swept was over 18,000 tons in , which was also the most debris swept in the last five years. Rather than indicating increased amounts of trash in the watershed, this at least partially represents increased street sweeping effort on behalf of watershed municipalities and perhaps more focused efforts in problematic areas. Within the last five years, watershed municipalities have removed about 71,000 tons of debris by street sweeping. 26

127 Solid waste management is another important municipal housekeeping function that helps reduce FIB in the watershed. Solid waste is usually collected once per week, reducing its overall presence distribution in the watershed. Municipal solid waste programs collected over 700,000 tons of trash in the watershed in In the last five years, they have collected over 3.2 million tons of trash. Every jurisdiction also has a litter ordinance or a water quality ordinance with provisions to prevent littering in the public right of way. Similar to pet waste, littering can incur administrative remedies or citations. Fines range up to $1,000 or more per occurrence, but usually require law enforcement personnel to observe the littering. To encourage compliance, waste disposal bins can usually be found in public areas such as parks and bus stops, with regular trash management and maintenance. Regular municipal maintenance activities typically include regular catch basin maintenance. The County and watershed cities inspect over 10,000 catch basins annually and clean all of those requiring cleaning, which usually amount to 50-60%. Thousands of trash and debris capture screens and catch basin inserts have been deployed in the watershed, with more deployed every year. Maintenance activities of some jurisdictions include regular maintenance and cleaning of storm drains or channels, including drains identified as being high contributors of FIB to the Bay by source identification studies. In the reporting year, over 42 miles of storm channels and pipes in the watershed were cleaned, which represents the greatest effort ever by far. As part of this effort, the County recently initiated an Adopt A Channel program (Figure 24), whereby companies or civic groups can adopt portions of flood control channels and pledge to help keep them free of trash and graffiti. In the last year, County staff and interns identified six sites in the watershed as appropriate for adoption after evaluating them for presence of trash, safety, and accessibility. Portions of El Modena-Irvine Channel, Central Irvine Channel, and upper Peters Canyon Wash have already been adopted. Figure 24: Logo of the OC Public Works Adopt A Channel Program. 27