tmdl status review report - caltrans · caltrans to submit a total maximum daily load (tmdl) status...

Total Maximum Daily Load Status Review Report California Department of Transportation

Division of Environmental Analysis 1120 N Street

Sacramento, CA 95814 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis

CTSW-RT-19-379.01.1

October 1, 2019

This page was intentionally left blank.

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is accessible and was prepared in compliance with California Government Code section 7405, which requires that all state agencies comply with Section 508 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

For more information, please call or write to:

Stormwater Liaison, Caltrans Division of Environmental Analysis, MS-27 P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274 0001 (916) 653 8896 Voice or dial 711 to use a relay service.

Certification

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. [40 CFR § 122.22(d)]

Shaila Chowdhury, Chief Environment Division of Environmental Analysis California Department of Transportation

Se tember 27, 2019 Date

Table of Contents | Page i

Caltrans TMDL Status Review Report | October 2019

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

2. Reach Prioritization for Pollutant Categories ........................................................ 5

3. Structural BMP Effectiveness ................................................................................. 7

4. TMDL Monitoring Activities .................................................................................... 9 Overview .................................................................................................................... 9

TMDL Monitoring .................................................................................................. 9 Cooperative Monitoring ...................................................................................... 11 Other Water Quality Monitoring .......................................................................... 12

Pilot Projects and Other Studies Completed Within TMDL Watersheds .................. 12 Chollas Creek BMP Retrofit Monitoring .............................................................. 12 State Route 73 Bioretention Study ..................................................................... 13 Lake Tahoe Sand Vault Retrofit Pilot Study ....................................................... 13 District 3 Linear Filtration Pilot Study .................................................................. 13 District 7 Linear Filtration Pilot Study .................................................................. 14 District 4 Trash Net Pilot Study ........................................................................... 14 Tahoe Road-RAM Verification and Implementation ............................................ 15

5. TMDL Compliance Measures ................................................................................ 17 Overview .................................................................................................................. 17 TMDL Implementation Activities .............................................................................. 17 Compliance Unit Estimation Methodology ............................................................... 17

Treatment BMPs ................................................................................................. 17 Municipal Coordination ....................................................................................... 18 Design Pollution Prevention Activities ................................................................ 19 Fish Passage ...................................................................................................... 19 Cooperative Implementation Agreement ............................................................ 20 Open/Gap Graded Asphalt Pavements .............................................................. 21

6. TMDLs with Specific Implementation Requirements .......................................... 23 Klamath River Nutrients TMDL ................................................................................ 23 Napa River Sediment TMDL .................................................................................... 23 Sonoma Creek Sediment TMDL .............................................................................. 24 Ballona Creek Trash TMDL ..................................................................................... 25 Los Angeles River Trash TMDL ............................................................................... 25 Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrients TMDL .................................................... 26 Lake Tahoe Clarity TMDL ........................................................................................ 27

7. San Francisco Bay Region Reporting .................................................................. 29

8. Statewide Trash Provisions .................................................................................. 31

9. Clear Lake Nutrient TMDL Program Status ......................................................... 33

10. Summary of Adopted TMDLs not within NPDES Permit Attachment IV ........... 35 Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Sediment TMDL ............................................................... 35

Table of Contents | Page ii


San Gabriel River, Estuary and Tributaries Indicator Bacteria TMDL ...................... 35

11. Overall TMDL Compliance Units Reallocated...................................................... 37

12. Overall TMDL Compliance Achieved .................................................................... 47

13. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 55

14. References ............................................................................................................. 57

Tables Table 2-1: Summary of Priority Reaches ......................................................................... 6 Table 5-1: Summary of Compliance Unit Credit Equivalence ........................................ 17 Table 5-2: Compliance Unit Summary per District from SHOPP and Above and Beyond

Projects ......................................................................................................... 18 Table 5-3: Municipal Coordination Benefits and Examples ........................................... 19 Table 5-4: Cooperative Implementation Agreements between Caltrans and Local

Municipalities ................................................................................................. 21 Table 5-5: OGFC Compliance Unit Summary per District ............................................. 22 Table 11-1: Summary of Reallocated CUs1 ................................................................... 37 Table 11-2: Reallocated/Revoked Compliance Units .................................................... 39 Table 12-1: Compliance Unit Credits Summary ............................................................ 49 Table 13-1: Compliance Units Summary for FY 2018-2019 .......................................... 55

Appendices Appendix A: Compliance Units for Completed and Proposed Projects within

TMDL Watersheds

Section 1. Introduction | Page 1


1. Introduction The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide Storm Water Permit for State of California Department of Transportation (Order WQ 2014-0077-DWQ) (NPDES Permit), published September 19, 2012, effective July 1, 2013, and revised on May 20, 2014. The NPDES Permit was further amended by the SWRCB through Order WQ 2017-0026-EXEC on November 27, 2017 (Conformed NPDES Permit). The Conformed NPDES Permit describes the primary modifications to several sampling locations at Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) and incorporation of water quality crediting via compliance units (CUs), defined below. The CU crediting is in response to the SWRCB’s adoption of the Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) to Control Trash and Part I Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (ISWEBE Plan) (collectively referred to as the Trash Amendments) on April 7, 2015 (effective on December 3, 2015).

NPDES Permit Attachment IV (TMDL Requirements), Section III.A.3.b, requires Caltrans to submit a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Status Review Report to the SWRCB annually. This report describes the ongoing control measures Caltrans has implemented to achieve TMDL CUs and comply with the NPDES Permit requirements within the prioritized reaches during the reporting period (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019).

The Conformed NPDES permit is currently undergoing a renewal process. Caltrans is coordinating with the SWRCB on TMDL requirements within the new permit.

This report complies with Provision E.4.b. Status Review Report in the NPDES Permit, which states,

“The Department shall prepare a TMDL STATUS REVIEW REPORT to be submitted with each Annual Report. The TMDL Status Review Report shall include all information required in Attachment IV [of the Permit].

“Attachment IV of the Permit requires that the Department include the following information regarding implementation of control measures in the selected reaches for the upcoming reporting period in the TMDL STATUS REVIEW REPORT:

• Name of the waterbody, • Associated TMDL(s), • Proposed control measures, • Proposed number of CUs per control measure, and • Projected schedule for installation of control measures with anticipated

beginning and ending dates.”

The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), SWRCB, and the United States



Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) have assigned Caltrans as a stakeholder in 84 TMDLs. Each year, Caltrans is required to achieve a minimum of 1,650 CUs. A CU is defined as either 1. One acre of stormwater runoff (including run-on) that is retained, treated or

otherwise controlled before discharge to the relevant reach; or 2. $88,000 in funding contributed to a cooperative implementation effort to control

polluted runoff.

For treatment of one acre, the CU credit may be claimed once the project has achieved the Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) milestone. Additionally, CU credit may be claimed for a BMP installed to monitor its effectiveness within a TMDL watershed. For funding contribution to a cooperative implementation effort, the CU is credited as early as when funding is transferred to the implementing agency.

To achieve compliance, Caltrans will implement the following:

• Standalone best management practice (BMP) retrofits; • Fish passage remediation; • Stakeholder cooperative implementation, • Design pollution prevention BMPs; • Erosion control; • Open-Graded Friction Course; • Monitoring program-related retrofits; • Post-construction treatment beyond permit requirements; and • Other pollution reduction practices.

Attachment IV of the NPDES Permit also requires a discussion of previous years’ activities in the TMDL Status Review Report, including: 1. The status of implementation activities; 2. The location of the control measures; 3. The size and type of BMPs that were installed; 4. The effectiveness of the BMPs installed, including any pertinent monitoring data

(e.g., influent vs. effluent data); 5. A summary update of any cooperative implementation agreements (see NPDES

Permit Attachment IV, section II.B.1), including those that are solely for each TMDL; 6. A summary update of activities and/or actions that have been completed for any

cooperative implementation agreement for each TMDL; 7. A summary update of projects initiated under the cooperative implementation grant

program (see NPDES Permit Attachment IV, section II.B.2); 8. A summary update of activities and/or actions that have been completed for any

projects under the cooperative implementation grant program; 9. A summary of institutional control measures implemented to comply with Attachment

IV; 10. A summary of TMDLs adopted during the past year where the Caltrans is assigned a

waste load allocation (WLA) or Caltrans is identified as a responsible party in the



implementation plan; and 11. A discussion, supported by data and analysis, of whether Caltrans considers work in

the reach complete because it has met WLAs and other TMDL performance criteria.

Section 2. Reach Prioritization for Pollutant Categories | Page 5


2. Reach Prioritization for Pollutant Categories NPDES Permit Attachment IV, Section I, Part A, required Caltrans to prioritize impaired reaches included in the 84 listed TMDLs for which Caltrans has been named a stakeholder. Caltrans conducted the reach prioritization study in 2014 for each pollutant category (metals, pathogens, sediment, trash, etc.) identified in Attachment IV. Furthermore, individual reach prioritization was completed by evaluating the applicable receiving waters within the watershed. The initial analysis of the watersheds was based on the following rating factors identified within NPDES Permit Attachment IV, Table IV.1:

• Impairment status; • Caltrans’ drainage area contributing to reach; • Proximity to receiving waters; and • Community environmental health impact.

After completion of the initial reach prioritization, the list was submitted to the SWRCB. The SWRCB coordinated efforts between Caltrans and the RWQCBs to finalize the reach priority list. The SWRCB Executive Director approved the revised reach prioritization list on August 15, 2015. Some of the factors that were considered to refine the reach prioritization list included:

• Cooperative efforts with other dischargers or projects within ASBS; • Multiple TMDLs addressed through a single BMP; • TMDL deadlines specified in a basin plan; • RWQCB and SWRCB priorities; • Safety considerations; and • Multi-benefit projects that contribute to water quality improvement.

The prioritized list of reaches includes 298 reaches within the 84 TMDLs. The reach prioritization list finalized by the SWRCB was used to determine the number of high, medium, or low priority reaches within each RWQCB as shown in Table 2-1. The high priority reaches comprise the top-third of the ranked reaches, while the medium priority reaches are the middle- third ranked reaches, and the low priority reaches are the bottom- third of the ranked reaches. The prioritized list of reaches does not include the San Gabriel River Bacteria TMDL and the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Sediment TMDL. These TMDLs will be incorporated within the revised reach priority list after their incorporation in the revised NPDES Permit.

Section 2. Reach Prioritization for Pollutant Categories | Page 6


Table 2-1: Summary of Priority Reaches

RWQCB High Priority Reaches

Medium Priority Reaches

Low Priority Reaches

1. North Coast 0 44 67 2. San Francisco Bay 13 14 8 3. Central Coast 0 7 1 4. Los Angeles 63 12 13 5. Central Valley 13 2 1 6. Lahontan 0 5 0 7. Colorado River 0 1 0 8. Santa Ana 9 7 1 9. San Diego 2 8 7 Total 100 100 98

As shown in Table 2-1, Region 1 (North Coast) and Region 4 (Los Angeles) have the maximum number of TMDLs and thus have the highest number of reaches. Since Region 4 (Los Angeles) has the maximum number of high-priority reaches, Caltrans will continue to consider implementing and prioritizing projects within this Region to address the highly impaired waterbodies. Additionally, the implementation efforts will focus primarily on addressing the higher priority reaches (i.e., the top third reaches); however, Caltrans capital improvement projects are scoped and programmed five to ten years in advance. Appendix A identifies the CUs for a combination of completed and proposed projects within TMDL watersheds, Regions, and Districts.

Section 3. Structural BMP Effectiveness | Page 7


3. Structural BMP Effectiveness Table 3.1 lists pollutants and the types of treatment BMPs that can be used to reduce their discharge. The list covers all TMDL or 303(d) listed pollutants that Caltrans typically encounters. Caltrans used this effectiveness list to estimate CUs from projects based on the pollutants that are treated by the BMPs. Table 3.1 - Structural BMP Effectiveness

303(d) Listed Pollutants

Design Pollution Prevention Infiltration Areas

Biofiltration Systems

Infiltration Devices

Detention Devices

Dry Weather Flow Diversions1

Gross Solids Removal Devices

Multi- Chambered Treatment Train

Media Filters9

Wet Basins

Traction Sand Traps

Bioretention Open-Graded Friction Course

Total Suspended Solids

-

Total Dissolved Solids7

- - - - - - - - -

Nutrients 4 4 - 2 - - 2 Pesticides5 4,5 5 - 5 5 - 5 5 Particulate Metals - - Dissolved Metals 4 3 4 - - - 3

- - -

Pathogens and Bacteria

- - - - -

Litter/Trash10 - - 6 - Biochemical Oxygen Demand8

- - - - - -

Turbidity - - Temperature 5 5 5 5 - - - 5 - 5 5 Mercury 5 5 - - - - - 5 5

1 Dry weather flow diversions address non-stormwater flows only. 2 Phosphorus and nitrogen for the Austin sand filter; phosphorus only for the Delaware sand filter and open-graded friction course. 3 Dissolved metals vary. 4 Soil must have adequate infiltration capacity for some pollutants of concern. 5 Treatment BMPs are listed based on their effectiveness at removing sediment. 6 Trenches excluded. 7 Total dissolved solids may include chlorides and selenium. 8 Biochemical oxygen demand is typically used to assess water quality and determine how it will affect dissolved oxygen levels. 9 Media filters can use alternative media, which may vary based on the type of pollutant removal (e.g., sand, compost, activated alumina, or others); see guidance document. 10 Trash effectiveness requires the addition of screens for many treatment BMPs.

Section 3. Structural BMP Effectiveness | Page 8



Section 4. TMDL Monitoring Activities | Page 9


4. TMDL Monitoring Activities Overview

As part of the NPDES Permit requirements, Caltrans is required to conduct stormwater monitoring at a minimum of 100 Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites. The Conformed NPDES Permit defines Tier 1 sites as either ASBS or TMDL sites. Tier 2 sites are located outside of both ASBS and TMDL watersheds, where further characterization monitoring may be of interest. Selection and monitoring of Tier 2 sites is only required when the number of Tier 1 sites being monitored is less than 100.

TMDL Monitoring

Caltrans is a named stakeholder in 84 TMDLs per NPDES Permit Attachment IV (TMDL Requirements). Caltrans conducts characterization monitoring and BMP effectiveness monitoring in TMDL watersheds.

For the 2018–2019 season, 106 Tier 1 sites were monitored to address Conformed NPDES Permit Section E.2.c requirements. The total number of Tier 1 sites exceeded the minimum requirement of 100; therefore, no Tier 2 sites were required to be monitored for the 2018-2019 wet season. These sites consisted of:

• 48 ASBS monitoring sites • 41 TMDL monitoring sites • 10 cooperative agreements in TMDL watersheds • 7 BMP Pilot monitoring sites in 4 TMDL watersheds

Caltrans conducted stormwater monitoring at sites within the following Tier 1 TMDL watersheds:

• Ballona Creek Wetlands Sediment and Invasive Exotic Vegetation TMDL • Ballona Creek Estuary Toxic Pollutants (Silver, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Zinc,

Chlordane, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and Total Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons [PAHs]) TMDL

• Chollas Creek Diazinon TMDL • Chollas Creek Dissolved Copper, Lead, and Zinc TMDL • Colorado Lagoon Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBs, Sediment Toxicity, PAHs, and

Metals (Lead and Zinc) TMDL • Los Angeles Area Echo Park Lake Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Chlordane, Dieldrin,

PCBs, and Trash TMDLs • Los Angeles Area Peck Road Park Lake Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Chlordane, DDT,

Dieldrin, PCBs, and Trash TMDL • Los Angeles Area North, Center, and Legg Lake Nitrogen and Phosphorus TMDLs • Los Angeles Area Puddingstone Reservoir Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Chlordane, DDT,

PCBs, Mercury, and Dieldrin TMDLs • Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL



• Lost River Nitrogen, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, and pH TMDLs • Lower Eel River Temperature and Sediment TMDL • Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrients) TMDL • Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL • Mad River Sediment and Turbidity TMDL • Malibu Creek and Lagoon Sedimentation and Nutrients to address Benthic

Community Impairments TMDL • Marina del Rey Harbor Toxic Pollutants (Copper, Lead, Zinc, Chlordane, and Total

PCBs) TMDL • Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Estuary Methylmercury TMDL • San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, including Rhine Channel Metals (Copper, Lead,

and Zinc) TMDL • San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay Cadmium TMDL • San Diego Creek Watershed Organochlorine Compounds (DDT or PCBs and

Toxaphene) TMDL • San Francisco Bay Mercury TMDL • San Francisco Bay PCB TMDL • San Gabriel River Metals (Copper, Lead, Zinc) and Selenium TMDL • San Lorenzo River (includes Carbonera, Lompico, and Shingle Mill

Creeks) Sediment TMDL • Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 Coliform TMDL • Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL • South Fork Eel River Temperature and Sediment TMDL

Caltrans has no stormwater monitoring efforts planned in the following TMDL sites (listed in NPDES Permit Attachment IV), because it has met the monitoring obligations described in the Conformed NPDES Permit:

• Rhine Channel Area of Lower Newport Bay (Chromium and Mercury): Caltrans has no tributary area in the TMDL.

• Rainbow Creek TMDL Monitoring Project: In February 2017, after four years of monitoring, Caltrans submitted to the San Diego RWQCB a letter with a document that summarized the monitoring activities. The document concluded that its runoff did not meet the 2013 and 2017 Nitrogen WLAs and is slightly more than the 2021 Nitrogen WLA. Caltrans runoff did not meet the 2013 Phosphorus WLA, but Caltrans runoff is well below the 2017 and 2021 Phosphorus WLAs. The differences between the Caltrans results and the WLAs are within normal limits of data variability, and there is no consistent trend in the data. A comparison of Caltrans runoff concentrations with the upstream and downstream receiving water locations indicate that it is unlikely Caltrans discharges are providing significant nutrient contributions to Rainbow Creek. The Caltrans drainage area contains no known sources of nutrients, constitutes approximately 2 percent of the total watershed, and is bordered by commercial growers, nurseries and orchards—operations that make up 21 percent of the watershed. Soil tests have shown that the installation of an infiltration-type BMP is not practical within the Rainbow Creek watershed in the



Caltrans right-of-way. Caltrans requested that the San Diego Basin RWQCB adjust the permit language based on the monitoring report conclusions. The San Diego Basin RWQCB responded to Caltrans, indicating that it supports a reduction in monitoring frequency to once per permit term. The next reporting period for Caltrans will be October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021.

• District 8 Coachella Valley TMDL Monitoring Project: After two years of monitoring that concluded at the start of the 2015-2016 wet season, Caltrans submitted its required monitoring report to the Colorado River Basin RWQCB in November 2015. The monitoring report concludes that it is highly unlikely that Caltrans facilities represented by the monitoring sites have been responsible for contribution of bacteria to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel due to not enough Caltrans runoff reaching the channel. At the time the monitoring report was submitted, Caltrans contacted the Colorado River Basin RWQCB and asked to be removed from the TMDL due to lack of hydrologic connectivity. The Colorado River Basin RWQCB responded on January 6, 2016 indicating that it was too early to determine exclusion of any groups/individuals from the responsible party list. No further work is anticipated at this time until the Colorado River Basin RWQCB makes a determination of exclusion. The Phase I monitoring effort is complete. Caltrans is waiting for direction from the Colorado River Basin RWQCB on the next phase of the TMDL.

Specific details and results of monitoring activities can be found in the Caltrans Monitoring Results Report Fiscal Year 2018-2019.

Cooperative Monitoring

Caltrans also entered, and continues to enter, into TMDL cooperative agreements throughout the state. For the 2018-2019 wet season, Caltrans participated in 10 cooperative agreements covering activities in the below listed TMDL watersheds. Some of these cooperative agreements include provisions to perform monitoring activities related to adopted TMDLs. Cooperative monitoring agreements that Caltrans has entered include:

• San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program (Aquatic Science Center) • Ventura River Estuary Trash TMDL • Santa Monica Bay Dry and Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL Coordinated Shoreline

Water Quality Monitoring Program • Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Contaminated Sediment Management Plan

for the Dominguez Channel • MOA for Receiving Water Monitoring for Ventura River Algae TMDL • Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (LESJWA) • Chollas Creek Diazinon and Dissolved Metals TMDL and Chollas Creek TMDL

Monitoring for Indicator Bacteria at Twenty Beaches and Creeks in the San Diego Region

• MOA for Calleguas Creek Watershed Nitrogen, Organochlorine, PCBs, Toxicity, Metals, and Selenium TMDL Monitoring



• Delta Regional Monitoring Program • Ventura River Estuary Trash Monitoring and Reporting Plan

Other Water Quality Monitoring

Caltrans also conducts other water quality monitoring efforts, including independently funded projects, as well as collaborative efforts with other stakeholders, such as municipalities, the SWRCB and RWQCBs, and stormwater quality researchers. For the 2018-2019 season, Caltrans entered into cooperative monitoring agreements for the TMDL watersheds listed in Section 3.

Caltrans is pursuing cooperative monitoring agreements for the following TMDL watersheds:

• Lake Tahoe Regional Monitoring Program • Klamath Basin Monitoring Program – North Coast RWQCB • Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7, Coliform TMDL

Pilot Projects and Other Studies Completed Within TMDL Watersheds

During fiscal year (FY) 2018-2019, the treatment technology studies that were underway (i.e., in the planning, construction, monitoring, or reporting phase) or completed included:

• Chollas Creek BMP Retrofit Project • State Route (SR) 73 Bioretention Study • Lake Tahoe Sand Vault Retrofit Pilot Study • District 3 Linear Filtration Pilot Study • District 7 Linear Filtration Pilot Study • District 4 Trash Net Pilot Study • Tahoe Road-Rapid Assessment Methodology (Road-RAM) Verification and

Implementation Study For some studies, monitoring was temporarily discontinued for one or more FYs but later resumed. The description of each study includes a summary of the type of treatment technology being studied and how its performance will be evaluated (i.e., whether in terms of concentration, volume, or load reductions).

Chollas Creek BMP Retrofit Monitoring As part of the BMP retrofit project in the Chollas Creek watershed, Caltrans installed four subsurface modular infiltration basins and two biofiltration swales. An existing Austin sand filter and one biofiltration swale was also monitored. These BMPs treat runoff from 25 acres of impervious highway surfaces. It is estimated that runoff from 89 acres of the Chollas Creek watershed area is treated by these BMPs. During the 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 monitoring seasons, monitoring data indicate that the BMPs successfully reduced dissolved metals TMDL constituents when



comparing results between influent samples to those from effluent samples. Results from this study will be developed in upcoming FYs, and the effectiveness assessment will be determined after the final study report is completed.

State Route 73 Bioretention Study

This study is located within the San Diego Creek TMDL watershed. Monitoring was conducted during the 2006 through 2008 storm seasons and again during 2015-2016. Monitoring continued during the 2013 through 2017 storm seasons to evaluate the pollutant removal effectiveness of the bioretention basin on SR 73. Effective treatment of total suspended solids (TSS), total and dissolved metals, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and PAHs were observed. PCBs were not sampled. The results did not show effective treatment of total phosphorus, orthophosphate, and nitrate. However, the design tested did not include a raised underdrain, which is known to improve nitrate treatment, and studies have suggested that orthophosphate export only occurs during the first few years of media use. In the 2017-2018 storm season, an inverted riser was added to the underdrain. This modification allows stormwater runoff to pond in the gravel layer between storm events, from which nitrate treatment is expected to improve. Orthophosphate, which in the earlier years of the study was shown to be exported, is expected to reduce (not necessarily due to the inverted underdrain). Initial monitoring did not show a statistical difference with the installation of the inverted drain and monitoring was halted. Media conditioning is being investigated to improve treatment, if media conditioning proves viable, monitoring may be planned for the 2020-21 wet season.

Lake Tahoe Sand Vault Retrofit Pilot Study

Operational testing of retrofitted double chamber sand vaults in Lake Tahoe watershed evaluated the constructability, functionality, and maintainability of two different configurations. The retrofits incorporated features to increase residence time and allow infiltration through weep holes in the base of the vaults. Both vertical and horizontal flow retrofits operated as designed by providing sedimentation, filtration, and flow bypass during large runoff events. Infiltration monitoring at six locations for the 2014-2015 wet season indicated high infiltration rates at all sites. Water quality monitoring commenced at two locations during the 2015-2016 wet season but was limited by operational issues at both sites. Monitoring continued during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 wet seasons. Caltrans compiled five years of data from the Lake Tahoe Sand Vaults Retrofit Study and issued a final report in December 2018. According to the results from the study, the sand filters effectively reduce loads of Lake Tahoe pollutants of concern and have the potential to provide important TMDL compliance contributions.

District 3 Linear Filtration Pilot Study

This study is located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Estuary Methylmercury TMDL. Five low impact development (LID) principles based linear filters were installed to evaluate performance in terms of volume and load reduction. These



included 1) a linear filtration trench, 2) a linear infiltration trench, 3) a media filter drain, 4) a bioretention trench, and 5) a linear sand filter. Caltrans conducted water quality monitoring at all five linear filters for two storms during the 2014-2015 wet season and five to six storms during the 2015-2016 wet season. The bioretention trench experienced operational issues during the 2015-2016 wet season, and monitoring data for this filter is not considered representative. Preliminary evaluation of monitoring data from the remaining four linear filters for seven to eight storm events shows TSS) load reduction of 77% to 93% and methylmercury load reduction of 50% to 67%. Although preliminary, the data indicate that a few of these BMPs are effective in reducing methylmercury loads. Additional monitoring data were collected during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 monitoring seasons to confirm this finding. At present, the data collected for 17 storms to date is under evaluation, and an assessment will be presented within the report anticipated to be completed in 2018-2019 that will include monitoring data (from the 2018-2019 season) for the bioretention trench, whose operational issues have been fixed. Results from this study will be developed in FY 2019-2020, and the effectiveness assessment will be determined after the final study report is completed.

District 7 Linear Filtration Pilot Study

This study is located within the Los Angeles River Metals and Bacteria TMDLs. Four LID principles based linear filters were installed to evaluate performance in terms of concentration, volume and load reduction. These included: 1) a linear filtration trench, 2) a media filter drain, 3) a linear sand filter, and 4) a linear sand filter with alternative sand.

Caltrans conducted water quality monitoring at all four linear filters for five storms during the 2015-2016 wet season. Monitoring continued during the 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 monitoring seasons, and data were collected for thirteen storm events to date. Further, additional monitoring is proposed for the upcoming (2019-2020) monitoring season, and the data collected to date is under evaluation. A preliminary effectiveness assessment will be presented within the report, anticipated to be developed in 2019-2020.

District 4 Trash Net Pilot Study

The purpose of this study is to evaluate performance of two types of end-of-pipe trash net devices at four locations in the San Francisco Bay area. Monitoring began in FY 2018-2019, and the results will be determined after the final study report is completed in the upcoming FYs.

One source control study was underway during FY 2018-2019:

• Road-Rapid Assessment Methodology (Road-RAM) Verification and Traction Sand Monitoring Study



Tahoe Road-RAM Verification and Implementation In the 2018-2019 wet season, implementation activities for compliance with the Lake Tahoe TMDL included stormwater treatment BMP and roadway operations and maintenance. Rapid Assessment Methodology (RAM) monitoring was conducted to assess the performance of these pollutant load reduction measures, and results were reported through the Lake Tahoe Information System (LT Info) per the requirements of the Lake Clarity Crediting Program (LCCP). Additionally, Caltrans participated in a series of meetings and coordinated with regulatory and local agencies to improve the TMDL implementation program and associated tools. Implementation activities for the 2020 water year are anticipated to be similar with continued RAM monitoring and adaptive management participation. Caltrans is actively working to achieve the increased load reduction requirements that will take effect at the next TMDL implementation milestone in 2021.

Section 5. TMDL Compliance Measures | Page 17


5. TMDL Compliance Measures Overview

Caltrans is continuing its efforts to reduce pollutant discharges to receiving waters through ongoing compliance activities and by implementing a consistent statewide approach to address NPDES Permit Attachment IV requirements for the named pollutants. To meet the TMDL and special requirements identified within Attachment IV, Caltrans has implemented a combination of strategies, including capital construction, improvement of current institutional practices, and participation in regional control efforts. In addition, Caltrans has maximized opportunities to incorporate treatment control devices as part of capital roadway improvement projects or standalone retrofit projects. Caltrans will continue its efforts to comply with the NPDES Permit requirements to address stormwater quality based on feasibility and the availability of funds. This section provides the various measures Caltrans has implemented to address the requirements of Attachment IV.

TMDL Implementation Activities

Each year, Caltrans implements activities to improve water quality, comply with NPDES Permit requirements, and achieve 1,650 CUs. Table 5-1 provides a summary of CU credit equivalence for all implemented measures.

Table 5-1: Summary of Compliance Unit Credit Equivalence

Post Construction Treatment BMPs* 1 acre treated = 1 CU Municipal Coordination 1 acre treated = 1 CU, or $88,000 = 1 CU Fish Passage Projects 1 acre treated = 1 CU, or $88,000 = 1 CU Open/Gap-Graded Asphalt Pavements 1 acre treated = 1 CU Slope Stabilization 1 acre treated = 1 CU Homeless Encampment Removal 1 acre treated = 1 CU

CU = Compliance Unit * Treatment beyond the minimum post-construction requirement

Additional information for each of the compliance credit methods and equivalencies are identified below.

Compliance Unit Estimation Methodology

Treatment BMPs

Caltrans receives one CU for treating one acre of tributary drainage area for BMPs installed within Caltrans’ right of way (ROW) that were implemented within TMDL watersheds to improve stormwater quality. This may be either retrofit construction or BMP treatment beyond the minimum post-construction requirement.



Table 5-2 summarizes the CUs that Caltrans is claiming through treatment BMPs for this reporting period (2018-2019) along with the accumulation of total units claimed in each District. Appendix A provides additional information about the TMDLs and reach based CUs for all listed TMDL watersheds.

Table 5-2: Compliance Unit Summary per District from SHOPP and Above and Beyond Projects

District Compliance Units (FY 2018-2019)

1 33.1

2 1.3

3 28.9

4 117.8

5 0.87

6 0

7 174.9

8 30.2

9 0

10 2

11 234.9

12 6.8

Total 631

Caltrans has initiated the process to program projects within the Stormwater Mitigation Element of the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) for implementation upon approval of the prioritized list of reaches within the TMDL watersheds. There are many projects programmed in SHOPP as of June 2018, some of which are in the early planning stages of implementation; therefore, no compliance specific information is available at this time. As projects approach the design and construction phase, where more accurate treatment information is available, they will be added to the CU estimates in the upcoming FYs. The programming of these projects will focus on the highest priority reaches. Additionally, the planned projects will be implemented based on feasibility and the availability of funds.

Municipal Coordination

The objective of municipal coordination is to enhance or establish communication, cooperation, and collaboration with other municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater management agencies and their programs. This includes establishing agreements with municipalities, agencies, and flood control departments or districts as necessary or appropriate. Municipal coordination offers potential benefits to Caltrans in the form of cost-savings, economies of scale, or valuable trade-offs to achieve the same level of compliance for the receiving waterbody. Table 5-3 shows an example for each benefit.



Table 5-3: Municipal Coordination Benefits and Examples

Benefit Example

Cost savings The overall cost of a constructed BMP is shared. Economies of scale

Treating a larger volume from both Caltrans and MS4 has a smaller per unit cost.

Trade-offs Caltrans agrees to contribute funds, and a partner is responsible for maintenance.

The implementation efforts must be geared towards benefiting the water quality of the impaired waterbody through treatment BMPs or other control measures.

NPDES Permit Attachment IV requires Caltrans to cooperate with local stakeholders to implement initiatives within the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL to address water quality issues. Caltrans joined and continues to participate in the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force group to comply with these TMDL requirements.

Design Pollution Prevention Activities

For the road segments located in Category B (Sediment/Nutrient/Mercury/Siltation/Turbidity TMDL) watersheds and areas where there is a potential threat to water quality, slope stabilization activities will be prioritized for implementing appropriate controls to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) based on available resources. Several slope stabilization projects have been implemented and programmed (plans, specifications, and estimates [PS&E]) within TMDL watersheds, and Caltrans has claimed CU credits for each acre treated. Appendix A provides the CU list of stabilization area projects within TMDL watersheds.

Fish Passage

Caltrans plans to continue its efforts to locate, assess, and remediate barriers to fish passage. According to the 2017 Fish Passage Report to the Legislature, Caltrans accomplished remediation for six fish passage barriers in 2017, improving access for salmon and steelhead to an estimated 21.12 miles of habitat. Additionally, Caltrans completed 116 fish passage assessment locations, programmed 36 active fish passage remediation locations, and identified 70 priority fish passage barrier locations (future program). The remediated locations provide partial or full treatment for fish at each specific location. Partial treatment was allocated for locations where the barrier has been improved for adult or juvenile fish, but the location remains a partial barrier to fish during some life stage or time of year/flow. Full treatment was allocated for locations where the natural channel width is fully spanned, and post-project monitoring needs to occur to ensure that sediments in the channel do not impact passage for fish after the first few winter seasons. CUs for fish passage were allocated based on the CU credit equivalence identified in Table 5-1, which allows Caltrans to receive one CU credit per $88,000 spent on such projects. For FY 2018-2019, Caltrans is claiming 55 fish



passage CU credits. In upcoming FYs, Caltrans will continue to remediate locations and claim CU credits as they are earned.

For FY 2018-2019, Caltrans is claiming CUs for one fish passage remediation project. The project is located 0.2 miles south of Lost Man Creek Bridge and is within the Redwood Creek Sediment TMDL. The project included removing a fish passage barrier by replacing the existing double box culvert with a new single span bridge. This project will also restore the stream channel and banks on both sides of the new bridge and improve the curve radius of the roadway. The programmed capital construction cost for this project is $4.84 million, resulting in approximately 55 CUs claimed for this project.

Cooperative Implementation Agreement

Caltrans is coordinating with the local MS4s on regional BMP implementation. Table 5-4 lists the cooperative agreements that Caltrans has funded as of June 30, 2019. The listed projects implement storm water treatment structures within the TMDL watersheds listed in Attachment IV, and therefore achieve CU credits. For this FY, CUs were achieved based on the CU credit equivalence listed within Table 5-1, which determines one compliance credit for each $88,000 funded on cooperative agreements with the cities.

For future cooperative implementation agreements, the credit will be claimed when Caltrans transfers the funds to the implementing agency. Caltrans will continue collaborating with local municipalities for opportunities that will enhance water quality within TMDL watersheds.



Table 5-4: Cooperative Implementation Agreements between Caltrans and Local Municipalities

City Project Description Associated TMDLs Total Project Cost

Cooperative Implementation Agreement CUs (FY 2018-2019)

City of Lakewood

Lakewood (Bolivar Park) Water Capture Project

Los Cerritos Metals TMDL

$11,000,000 12

City of Signal Hill

Los Cerritos Channel Sub-basin 4 Water Capture Project


$11,000,000 11

City of Long Beach

Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (MUST) Project

Los Angeles River Metals TMDL; Los Angeles River Trash TMDL; Los Angeles River Bacteria TMDL; and Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary (Indicator Bacteria)

$28,000,000 63

City of Bellflower

Bellflower Water Capture Facility Project (Caruthers Park)


$13,000,000 36

City of Carson

Carriage Crest Water Capture Facility Project (Carriage Crest Park)

Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters (Metals (Copper, Lead, Zinc), DDT, PAHs, and PCBs); Machado Lake (Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrients)); Machado Lake (Pesticides and PCBs), Machado Lake (Trash)

$13,000,000 56

City of Lakewood

Mayfair Park Water Capture Facility Project


$15,000,000 52

Total 230

Open/Gap Graded Asphalt Pavements

Porous pavement is an effective treatment control BMP widely used by municipalities for water quality. Caltrans conducted a study during 2007-2011 to evaluate the quality of stormwater runoff and water quality benefits from implementing porous pavement. The



Project’s investigation focused on three types of porous asphalt overlays including Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt-Open-Graded (RHMA-O), Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt-Gap-Graded (RHMA-G), and Open-Graded Friction Course (OGFC). The project analyses determined that porous overlay can improve water quality, consistent with other effective end-of-pipe treatment BMPs. Porous overlay is most effective on roads and highways with a speed limit of 50 miles per hour or greater. Additionally, the study determined other benefits of implementing porous pavement:

• Re-configuration or modification of existing drainage facilities is not required. • Porous pavement does not have any space or additional ROW constraints. • Porous pavement improves visibility during heavy rains due to the reduction of

splash or spray and reduces the probability of hydroplaning. • Porous pavement helps in reducing traffic noise.

In summary, the implementation of porous asphalt leads to two benefits (water quality and roadway improvements) with one investment.

Caltrans has implemented open graded pavement within its ROW to improve roadway safety and stormwater quality. OGFC is a type of a pavement with a considerable number of voids. Caltrans has implemented projects within District 4 for which they will be receiving compliance credits. The total amount of OGFC implemented within these projects for FY 2018-2019 is approximately 285 acres, which includes lane areas only and highways with a speed limit of 50 miles per hour or greater. Table 5-5 provides a summary of the OGFC CUs claimed by each district.

Table 5-5: OGFC Compliance Unit Summary per District

District OGFC Compliance Units (FY 2018-2019)

1 0

2 57

3 0

4 227.8

5 0.5

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 0

11 0

12 0

Total 285

Section 6. TMDLs with Specific Implementation Requirements | Page 23


6. TMDLs with Specific Implementation Requirements NPDES Permit Attachment IV contains seven TMDLs:

• Klamath River Nutrients TMDL • Napa River Sediment TMDL • Sonoma Creek Sediment TMDL • Ballona Creek Trash TMDL • Los Angeles River Trash TMDL • Lake Tahoe Sediment and Nutrients TMDL • Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrients TMDL

Caltrans will use several methods to address these TMDLs, which require implementation that is site-specific and based on pollutant category.

Klamath River Nutrients TMDL Caltrans continues to find opportunities to locate, assess, and remediate barriers to fish passage. The 2017 Fish Passage Report to the Legislature attached with the Annual Report for FY 2018-2019 summarizes these fish passage locations. Six fish passage barriers were remediated in 2017, improving access for salmon and steelhead to an estimated 21.12 miles of habitat. Additionally, Caltrans completed 116 fish passage assessment locations, programmed 36 active fish passage remediation locations, and identified 70 priority fish passage barrier locations (future program).

Napa River Sediment TMDL

Caltrans is required to comply with Attachment IV, Section 2 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide Storm Water Permit for State of California Department of Transportation (Order WQ 2014-0077-DWQ) (Caltrans NPDES Permit) (published September 19, 2012, effective July 1, 2013, and revised on May 20, 2014) for the Napa River and Sonoma Creek Sediment TMDLs. Caltrans maintains 61 perennial and non-perennial culverts and bridges (collectively referred to as “stream crossings”) within the Napa River watershed. In compliance with the permit, field surveys of these stream crossings were conducted to investigate potential impacts from discharges to these water bodies and to rate and prioritize stream crossings for possible improvements.

Stream crossings were rated on a variety of parameters, taking into consideration the stream, surrounding land use, and crossing type (structure, i.e., bridge or culvert). Crossings were first categorized as low, medium, or high priority depending on the surrounding stream characteristics, such as channel alignment, bank erosion, bed scour, and sediment deposition. The crossings were further ranked based on the overall condition of the structure itself. Using this prioritization methodology and ranking criteria, it was determined that the Napa River watershed has five high priority crossings, 18 medium priority crossings, and 36 low priority crossings.



In coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the six statewide Fish Passage Advisory Committees (FishPAC), the Caltrans Office of Biology and Office of Stormwater identified fish passage locations that are equal in priority for funding and implementation. As of 2017, 70 priority fish passage locations were identified, including one within Napa River. ) Additionally, Caltrans has implemented biofiltration swales, biofiltration strips, and design pollution prevention infiltration areas within this watershed. Caltrans also has identified several slopes prone to erosion which will be addressed in the coming FYs. Caltrans also continues to implement source control measures required by the Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP) on active construction sites to prevent the discharge of sediment.

Sonoma Creek Sediment TMDL

Caltrans is required to comply with Attachment IV, Section 2 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide Storm Water Permit for State of California Department of Transportation (Order WQ 2014-0077-DWQ) (Caltrans NPDES Permit) (published September 19, 2012, effective July 1, 2013, and revised on May 20, 2014) for the Napa River and Sonoma Creek Sediment TMDLs. Caltrans maintains 23 perennial and non-perennial stream crossings within the Sonoma River watershed. In compliance with the permit, field surveys of roadways, culverts and bridges (collectively referred to as “stream crossings”) were conducted to investigate potential impacts from discharges to these water bodies and to rate and prioritize stream crossings for possible improvements.

Crossing conditions were rated on a variety of parameters, taking into consideration the stream, surrounding land use, and crossing type (structures, namely, bridges or culverts). Crossings were first categorized as High Priority, Medium Priority, or Low Priority depending on the surrounding stream characteristics, such as channel alignment, bank erosion, bed scour, and sediment deposition. The crossings were further ranked based on the overall condition of the crossing. Using the prioritization methodology and ranking criteria described above, it was determined that the Napa River watershed has 5 high priority crossings, 18 medium priority crossings, and 36 low priority crossings. The Sonoma Creek watershed has 3 high priority crossings, 11 medium priority crossings, and 9 low priority crossings. The goal of this survey was to evaluate Caltrans stream crossings and prioritize crossings for repair or replacement.

In coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the six California Fish Passage Advisory Committee (FishPAC), the Caltrans Office of Biology and Office of Stormwater identified fish passage locations that are equal in priority for funding and implementation. As of 2017, 70 priority fish passage locations were identified, none of which were located within Sonoma Creek. Additionally, Caltrans has implemented biofiltration swales, biofiltration strips, and OGFC within the watershed. Caltrans also continues to implement source control measures with the CGP on active construction sites to prevent the discharge of sediment.



Ballona Creek Trash TMDL

Caltrans has approximately 53 centerline miles of highway and 1,176 acres of ROW within the Ballona Creek watershed. Caltrans continues to implement measures to address the trash impairment in this watershed. Caltrans has employed several types of trash removal devices, including gross solids removal devices (GSRDs), media filters, Infiltration basins/trenches, and biofiltration swales within the Ballona Creek watershed. All the listed structural BMPs (besides biofiltration swales) are certified full capture devices with a 100% trash removal efficiency. Caltrans has additional BMPs that are planned or in construction, which will reduce the amount of trash discharging into Ballona Creek.

Caltrans also employs non-structural BMPs in the Ballona Creek Watershed, including sweeping, drain inlet cleaning, trash collection, storm drain stenciling, covered trash bins, public education, and public participation. Caltrans has also increased the frequency of the Adopt-A-Highway program to treat beyond the minimum permit requirements. Caltrans will continue its efforts to implement public education campaigns in the watershed. Caltrans has engaged in municipal coordination by collaborating with the RWQCBs and California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) on the “Protect Every Drop” stormwater public education campaign.

According to the SWRCB’s water quality report card for Ballona Creek, water quality conditions within the watershed are improving, and trash abatement continues to increase. Additionally, significant trash reductions have been noticed since the adoption of this TMDL. Caltrans will continue its implementation efforts to address the WLAs of this TMDL.

Los Angeles River Trash TMDL

Caltrans has approximately 280 centerline miles of highway and 6,091 acres of ROW within the Los Angeles River watershed. Caltrans continues to implement control measures to address the trash impairment within the watershed. Caltrans has employed several types of trash removal devices for structural control, including GSRDs, media filters, infiltration basins/trench, detention basins, biofiltration swales/strips, design pollution prevention infiltration areas, and multi-chambered treatment trains (MCTTs) within the Los Angeles River watershed. Caltrans has several additional BMPs in construction that, once in operation, will significantly reduce the amount of trash discharging from the Caltrans drainage area.

Caltrans also employs non-structural BMPs in the Los Angeles River Watershed, including sweeping, drain inlet cleaning, trash collection, storm drain stenciling, covered trash bins, public education and public participation. Caltrans has increased the frequency of trash/litter cleanups associated with contractor litter pickup and the Adopt-A-Highway program, which has reduced the amount of trash discharging from its drainage area. Caltrans will continue its efforts to implement public education campaigns in the watershed. Caltrans has engaged in municipal coordination by

http://www.protecteverydrop.com/




collaborating with the California Water Boards and California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) on the “Protect Every Drop” Stormwater Public Education Campaign.

According to the SWRCB’s water quality report card for Los Angeles River, water quality conditions within the watershed are improving, and trash abatement continues to increase. Additionally, qualitative trash reductions have been noticed since the adoption of this TMDL. Caltrans will continue its implementation efforts to address the WLAs of this TMDL.

Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrients TMDL

Caltrans continues to implement control measures to address the nutrient impairment within the watershed. Caltrans has employed biofiltration swales, biofiltration strips, detention basins, design pollution prevention infiltration areas, and infiltration basins. Caltrans has additional control measures implemented throughout the watershed including street sweeping and inlet cleaning, which reduce sediment containing nutrients from the watershed.

Additionally, as part of the implementation requirements, Caltrans is required to coordinate with other stakeholders for this TMDL in achieving compliance. Caltrans is an active member of the Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force and works with other stakeholders on implementation actions, monitoring activities and special studies. As part of the TMDL Task Force efforts, there have been several activities implemented to reduce nutrients in Lake Elsinore including aeration systems, alum application (semi-annually), dredging, carp removal, and nuisance vegetation removal. Caltrans will continue to actively participate in the Task Force under the Task Force Agreement.

Based on recent data, it was determined that through the cooperative implementation measures within Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore, significant improvement is being made toward achieving assigned targets and meeting compliance. However, throughout the redevelopment of this TMDL, it was determined that the numeric targets identified in the 2004 TMDL are unattainable, even with implementation measures to treat all runoff prior to entering the lake. The original TMDL targets are deemed unachievable for total phosphorus, total nitrogen and chlorophyll-a. Lake Elsinore does not have an outlet for all incoming loads from the stormwater runoff, which has led to loads historically accumulating within the lake. Therefore, the targets are deemed unattainable.

The TMDL Task Force group has submitted the revised TMDL to the Regional Water Board for approval. It is anticipated that the approval of the TMDL by the Regional Water Board will take place by February 2020. Caltrans will continue its efforts to participate in the Task Force group for this TMDL.




Lake Tahoe Clarity TMDL

The NPDES Permit required Caltrans to prepare a Pollutant Load Reduction Plan (PLRP) detailing the Caltrans approach for meeting the first pollutant load reduction milestone specified by the Lake Tahoe TMDL. The primary purpose of the PLRP is to provide a framework for pollutant load reduction analyses. The original PLRP was submitted on July 15, 2014 by Caltrans for the Lahontan RWQCB and the SWRCB. An update to the PLRP was completed on March 2017 which identifies the approach to achieve compliance for the second 10-year implementation milestone. The second 10-year milestone consists of reducing baseline fine sediment particles by 21%, and total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads by 14% each, before September 30, 2021.

Caltrans has installed Austin sand filters, biofiltration swales, detention basins, infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, and traction sand traps in the Lake Tahoe watershed. Caltrans is also incorporating several pilot study projects within this watershed which have been identified in Section 3 (TMDL Monitoring Requirements) of this report.

Section 7. San Francisco Bay Region Reporting | Page 29


7. San Francisco Bay Region Reporting Caltrans continues to implement control measures to achieve compliance with NPDES Permit Attachment V (Region Specific Requirements) and Cease and Desist Order (CDO) No. R2-2019-0007 requirements.

Trash reduction efforts within the San Francisco Bay Region include implementation of structural trash controls, non-structural trash control actions, and partnerships with local MS4 agencies including the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). A summary and map of CDO-mandated trash control areas, and trash control actions, including the installation and maintenance of full trash capture devices, enhanced maintenance measures, and local partnership projects, are reported in the Trash Reduction Annual Report in Attachment. The Caltrans Trash Control Implementation Workplan will be submitted to the RWQCB on December 31, 2019. The workplan will describe the prioritization strategy to meet trash reduction benchmarks. The workplan will also include a schedule and list of planned structural and non-structural trash control projects and actions, coordination efforts with municipalities or local agencies, maintenance actions taken to ensure full trash capture operation of structural controls, funding mechanisms in place for trash reduction efforts, and identification of resources needed to meet trash reduction benchmarks and compliance dates. Caltrans and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB are participating in regularly-scheduled meetings to discuss effective implementation strategies and to develop an acceptable workplan for controlling trash in the San Francisco Bay Region.

Section 7. San Francisco Bay Region Reporting | Page 30



Section 8. Statewide Trash Provisions | Page 31


8. Statewide Trash Provisions The Trash Amendments require Caltrans to comply with Track 2, which requires the implementation of any combination of controls that achieves the equivalent level of trash removal as full trash capture devices. On June 1, 2017, the SWRCB issued a Water Code Section 13383 Order to Caltrans that required the submittal of an Implementation Plan (Plan) by December 2018 describing how Caltrans will comply with the Trash Amendments. The Plan submitted to the SWRCB in November 2018, summarized the methodology to reduce or prevent trash discharges from Caltrans ROW to storm drain systems and receiving waters no later than December 3, 2030. Caltrans revised the Plan and submitted the updated Plan in April 2019 to the SWRCB. Caltrans has begun efforts for implementing the Plan.

Section 8. Statewide Trash Provisions | Page 32



Section 9. Clear Lake Nutrient TMDL Program Status | Page 33


9. Clear Lake Nutrient TMDL Program Status In 1986, Clear Lake was added to the federal (CWA) Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies due to the nuisance of algal blooms. On June 23, 2006, the Central Valley RWQCB amended the Basin Plan, which included the elements of a TMDL for Clear Lake that established numeric allocations to reduce the amount of phosphorus. Caltrans was given a WLA of 100 kg per year. The goal of the pollutant control program is to reduce phosphorus loads from entering Clear Lake.

In 2008, Central Valley RWQCB staff approved an implementation plan to install monitoring stations at Caltrans facilities near the lake. Based on monitoring results and the implemented management measures, Caltrans concluded the annual rate of phosphorus/sediment discharged from its ROW to Clear Lake fulfills the TMDL WLA. The Central Valley RWQCB agreed to Caltrans’ determination of its compliance.

Other dischargers whose efforts in reducing nutrients are ongoing include Lake County, agricultural sources, United States Forest Service (USFS), and United States Bureau of Land Management (USBLM). Lake County implements nutrient control measures such as sediment source control and riparian/wetland protection and restoration. USFS has also adopted a nutrient control program and has implemented projects to reduce sediment from off-highway vehicle activities. Agricultural sources have noticed a 50% reduction in phosphorus loads through their management practices. USBLM has implemented a wet weather closure policy to temporarily close all off-highway vehicle areas during specific conditions to reduce erosion.

Caltrans conducted stormwater monitoring activities at Clear Lake from May 2011 through March 2013 (CTSW-RT-14-288.03-2). At a meeting with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2015, it was agreed that the data collection phase to estimate baseline phosphorus loading is sufficiently complete and no additional monitoring of storm water is required.

It was agreed that Caltrans efforts should now focus on reducing sediment discharges to Clear Lake and its tributaries. The Clear Lake Nutrient TMDL requires a 40% reduction of phosphorus loading from baseline. While accounting for volumes of sediment discharged to Clear Lake may be approximate at best, it is possible to identify active erosion sites and other areas where BMPs will be effective at controlling sedimentation. The next phase of compliance will be implemented in accordance with Caltrans NPDES Permit Order 2012-0011-DWQ. Active erosion sites will be identified, as well as other areas where BMPs can be implemented, to prevent or minimize erosion and sediment discharges while obtaining Compliance Unit Crediting. The District 1 NPDES Coordinators continue to work with the Regional Board and staff to identify projects that will have the greatest potential for success.

Section 9. Clear Lake Nutrient TMDL Program Status | Page 34



Section 10. Summary of Adopted TMDLs not within NPDES Permit Attachment IV | Page 35


10. Summary of Adopted TMDLs not within NPDES Permit Attachment IV

This section discusses the TMDLs that were approved by the RWQCBs, SWRCB, and U.S. EPA after the final adoption of NPDES Permit Attachment IV on May 20, 2014 which assigns WLAs for Caltrans. The revised reach prioritization list will be updated and submitted to the SWRCB after the ongoing revisions to NPDES Permit are adopted. In addition, the CUs achieved within these TMDL watersheds from treatment devices will be claimed in FY 2018-2019 as well as upcoming FYs.

Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Sediment TMDL

Los Peñasquitos Lagoon was first listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list in 2010. The applicable 303(d) listed impairment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon is sedimentation/siltation. This impairment required the development of a TMDL by the RWQCB. San Diego RWQCB initiated the development of a sediment TMDL by a third-party stakeholder group. A technical report (released on December 14, 2010) was developed on behalf of the City of San Diego and U.S. EPA. Caltrans is listed as a responsible party in this TMDL and is assigned a WLA. The San Diego RWQCB approved the TMDL on June 13, 2011. The SWRCB further approved the TMDL on January 21, 2014, and the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved it on July 14, 2014, which is also the effective date of the TMDL. U.S. EPA approved the TMDL on October 30, 2014. Stakeholders are required to attain all targets within 20 years of the approved TMDL date; therefore, this TMDL is expected to be in compliance by 2034.

San Gabriel River, Estuary and Tributaries Indicator Bacteria TMDL

San Gabriel River, Estuary and its Tributaries was first listed for impairment of indicator bacteria in the CWA Section 303(d) list in 2010. The Los Angeles RWQCB initiated the development of this TMDL and first released the TMDL draft staff report on April 3, 2015 for public review and comments. Furthermore, the TMDL report was revised and released on June 1, 2015, after which the Los Angeles RWQCB adopted it on June 10, 2015. Caltrans is listed as a responsible stakeholder for this TMDL and is assigned a WLA. The SWRCB approved this TMDL on November 17, 2015, the OAL approved it on April 14, 2016, and U.S. EPA approved it on June 14, 2016. This TMDL requires achievement of the bacteria objectives to meet the recreational water quality use within the waterbodies. The implementation schedule indicates that the TMDL should achieve full compliance with the wet weather allowable exceedances and numeric targets within 20 years of the effective date of the TMDL. The effective date of the TMDL is June 14, 2016; therefore, full compliance for the impaired waterbodies should be achieved no later than June 14, 2036.

Section 10. Summary of Adopted TMDLs not within NPDES Permit Attachment IV | Page 36



Section 11. Overall TMDL Compliance Units Reallocated | Page 37


11. Overall TMDL Compliance Units Reallocated During this reporting period, Caltrans is proposing to reallocate or revoke several project EA CUs previously claimed in TMDL Status Review Reports. Several projects are currently generating a different number of tentative CUs associated with the project than previously claimed. These project EAs are generating a different number of tentative CUs due to various reasons including the project phase changes, revisions to project specific BMP information, updates to the pollutant-to-BMP relationships per the revised Caltrans Project Planning Design Guidance (PPDG), and revised project information. A summary table of the surplus of CUs from adjusted EAs that are proposed to be reallocated in FY 2018-2019 is shown in Table 11-1. Furthermore, the specific details of the adjusted project EAs and their reallocated CUs is listed in Table 11-2 below.

Table 11-1: Summary of Reallocated CUs1

FY Goal CUs per FY Submitted CUs in TMDL Status Review Report

CUs Approved by State Board2

Surplus of CUs by FY to be Reallocated3

2014-2015 1,650 - - 399 2015-2016 1,650 3,3044 2,3594,5 116 2016-2017 1,650 1,122 1,080 187 2017-2018 1,650 1,174 1,174 80 Totals 6,600 5,600 4,613 782

1 The numbers in this table were rounded and exact numbers might not be displayed in this table due to rounding estimates for each FY. 2 For FY 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, this number excludes Public Education. The approval for these CUs has not been fully verified by the SWRCB. 3 As projects move from PID to PA/ED to PS&E to construction phases, there are variations to the acres treated. Therefore, adjustments to project CUs need to be accounted. 4 Adjustments with submitted CUs were made for FY 2014-2015 and 2015-2016—for simplicity, the summation of CUs for both FYs are shown under FY 2015-2016. This number includes 615 CUs from the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrients TMDL. 5 This number excludes the 615 CUs from the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrients TMDL that were revoked by SWRCB.



This page has been intentionally left blank.



Table 11-2: Reallocated/Revoked Compliance Units

Project EA

FY Reported to SWRCB

CUs Reported to SWRCB

CUs Currently Available to Claim

Reallocated/Revoked CUs to Claim

Justification for Reallocating/Revoking

CUs Reallocated to FY

07-12030 2014-2015 0 328.3 328.3 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-20212 2014-2015 1 0 -1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-20211 2014-2015 4 40.7 36.7 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-12184 2015-2016 53.5 45.4 -8.1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-1219U 2015-2016 9 11.3 2.3 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-25902 2015-2016 187.2 121.8 -65.4 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-25901 2015-2016 55.7 107.3 51.6 Updated BMP information.

Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

07-25893 2015-2016 81.2 98.7 17.5 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-3X710 2017-2018 3.4 6.7 3.4 Updated pollutant to BMP

relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

07-27860 2014-2015 0 2.9 2.9 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-25510 2017-2018 2.2 4.4 2.2 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

07-21592 2014-2015 0 13.8 13.8 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-21591 2017-2018 10.6 13.4 2.8 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-21595 2016-2017 20.9 41.7 20.9 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

07-21594 2017-2018 2.8 5.6 2.8 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019



Project EA







07-28730 2017-2018 0.7 1.3 0.7 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG. Updated TMDL multiplier applicability.

2018-2019

07-4H900 2017-2018 0.9 1.7 0.9 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG. Updated TMDL multiplier applicability.

2018-2019

07-28690 2017-2018 2.5 5 2.5 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG. Updated TMDL multiplier applicability.

2018-2019

07-26060 2014-2015 0 7.2 7.2 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-28740 2015-2016 7.3 2.1 -5.2 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-25810 2014-2015 0 9.2 9.2 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 11-28240 2015-2016 65.9 63.7 -2.1 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

11-28250 2015-2016 62.7 269.5 206.7 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-30290 2015-2016 1.3 8.4 7.1 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

07-28820 2015-2016 1.6 1.2 -0.4 Updated BMP information. Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

07-28920 2015-2016 6.4 1.2 -5.2 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-28510 2015-2016 1.4 3.1 1.8 Updated BMP information.


2018-2019



Project EA







07-30310 2017-2018 3 6 3 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG. Updated TMDL multiplier applicability.

2018-2019

07-30040 2016-2017 219.5 217.1 -2.4 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-28150 2017-2018 305.3 314.6 9.3 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-25120 2015-2016 1.6 0 -1.6 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-22410 2017-2018 8 16 8 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

07-24230 2016-2017 12.9 11.4 -1.5 Updated BMP information. Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

07-22830 2015-2016 29.4 35.3 5.9 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-29210 2015-2016 10.6 8.2 -2.4 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-28802 2016-2017 17.2 38.4 21.2 Updated BMP information.


2018-2019

07-29000 2015-2016 8.4 9.1 0.7 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-31240 2016-2017 15 41 26.1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-31230 2017-2018 61.2 67.6 6.3 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-3X711 2016-2017 3.4 6.7 3.4 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

07-27600 2015-2016 87 90.1 3.1 Updated BMP information. Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019



Project EA







07-1193U 2015-2016 23.3 8.3 -15 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019


2018-2019

07-2750U 2016-2017 32.8 86.1 53.3 Updated BMP information. Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019


2018-2019

07-25840 2015-2016 33.9 25.3 -8.6 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-29370 2015-2016 14.1 0 -14.1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 05-0Q600 2014-2015 2.5 3.7 1.2 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 05-1F920 2016-2017 7.9 6.3 -1.6 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 05-0Q590 2014-2015 0.1 0 -0.1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 04-0A185 2017-2018 2.8 7.4 4.7 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

04-26407 2015-2016 0.9 60 59.1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 04-2908V 2017-2018 5.8 16.4 10.5 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

08-0A440 2014-2015 22.8 0 -22.8 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 08-0J440 2014-2015 8 0 -8 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019



Project EA







12-0C570 2015-2016 1.2 2.3 1.2 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG. Updated TMDL multiplier applicability.

2018-2019

12-0F96C 2015-2016 2.6 4.5 1.9 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 12-0F032 2015-2016 13.4 26.7 13.4 Updated pollutant to BMP

relationships per revised PPDG. Updated TMDL multiplier applicability.

2018-2019

12-0F96A 2015-2016 1 14 13.1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 12-0F96E 2015-2016 5.6 1.2 -4.4 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 01-0A320 2014-2015 22.2 23.4 1.2 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 01-48860 2014-2015 0 2.7 2.6 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-2X920 2015-2016 39.3 0 -39.3 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 12-0H045 2016-2017 24.5 31.7 7.2 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

12-0H027 2015-2016 15 11.3 -3.7 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

12-0H440 2015-2016 153.8 151.1 -2.7 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

12-07163 2017-2018 22.3 44.7 22.3 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG. Updated TMDL multiplier applicability.

2018-2019

11-0223U 2015-2016 4.3 10.2 5.9 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG. Updated TMDL multiplier applicability.

2018-2019



Project EA







07-33200 2016-2017 38.5 41.5 2.9 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 03-1A844 2015-2016 6.4 5.8 -0.6 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 05-1C650 2017-2018 5.5 0 -5.5 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 02-4G250 2016-2017 0 64.7 64.7 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 04-4H580 2016-2017 0 0.8 0.8 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

04-4H000 2016-2017 1 3 2 Updated BMP information. Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

04-4g115 2016-2017 1.3 3.9 2.6 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

01-0A990 2016-2017 17.1 0 -17.1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 01-0A520 2014-2015 0.6 1 0.4 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-2332E 2015-2016 0 18 18 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-29630 2017-2018 9.1 10.9 1.8 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

07-2770U 2015-2016 36.4 0 -36.4 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-1952U 2014-2015 51.5 60.9 9.4 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 04-3G920 2016-2017 4.2 8.5 4.2 Updated pollutant to BMP


2018-2019

04-2640N 2017-2018 1.8 5.3 3.5 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019

12-0C890 2017-2018 1.6 2.3 0.8 Updated pollutant to BMP relationships per revised PPDG.

2018-2019



Project EA







12-0Q340 2017-2018 18.9 7.9 -11 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 12-0N100 2017-2018 17.1 22 4.9 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 11-2T218 2017-2018 2.5 4.5 2 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-27911 2017-2018 6.9 12.9 6 Updated BMP information.


2018-2019

04-4A810 2014-2015 2.1 26.7 24.6 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 03-1A73U 2017-2018 17.3 16.0 -1 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 03-1A73U 2014-2015 1.5 0 -1.5 Project EA reclaimed in

2017-2018 with revised CUs.

2018-2019

07-12038 2015-2016 11.3 0 -11.3 Project EA reclaimed in 2015-2016 with revised CUs.

2018-2019

03-1A842 2014-2015 4.4 0.0 -4.4 Project EA reclaimed in 2015-2016 with revised CUs.

2018-2019

07-23280 2014-2015 1.0 0.0 -1 Project EA reclaimed in 2015-2016 with revised CUs.

2018-2019

07-23280 2015-2016 51.6 51.3 -0.3 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 07-25920 2015-2016 19.3 0 -19.3 Project EA reclaimed in

2015-2016 with revised CUs.

2018-2019

07-2777U 2015-2016 23.6 0 -23.6 Updated BMP information. 2018-2019 04-2E070 2015-2016 25.6 0 -25.6 OGFC project with a

speed limit of less than 50 miles per hour.

2018-2019



Project EA







- - - Total CUs Reclaimed in FY 2018-2019:

782 - -

Section 12. Overall TMDL Compliance Achieved | Page 47


12. Overall TMDL Compliance Achieved During this reporting period, Caltrans is claiming CUs towards the listed TMDLs when acres treated were beyond the post construction requirements or if BMPs were implemented to address stormwater quality. Several waterbodies have multiple pollutant impairments. For such cases, multiple CU credits are claimed for each BMP capable of treating more than one of the listed pollutants. Table 12-1 summarizes the number of CUs for 2018-2019 within a TMDL watershed.



Table 12-1: Compliance Unit Credits Summary

Regional Board

Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s) Total Compliance Units Claimed in FY 2018-2019*

1. North Coast Albion River Sediment 0 1. North Coast Big River Sediment 1.2 1. North Coast Lower Eel River Temperature and Sediment 0 1. North Coast Middle Fork Eel River Temperature and Sediment 0.2 1. North Coast South Fork Eel River Temperature and Sediment 0.1 1. North Coast Upper Main Eel River and

Tributaries (including Tomki Creek, Outlet Creek and Lake Pillsbury)

Temperature and Sediment 0

1. North Coast Garcia River Sediment 0 1. North Coast Gualala River Sediment 0 1. North Coast Klamath River in California Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients, and Microcystin 30.1 1. North Coast Lost River Nitrogen, Biochemical Oxygen Demand to address Dissolved Oxygen

and pH Impairments 0

1. North Coast Mad River Sediment and Turbidity 14.3 1. North Coast Navarro River Sediment and Temperature 0.7 1. North Coast Noyo River Sediment 0 1. North Coast Redwood Creek Sediment 70.6 1. North Coast Scott River Sediment and Temperature 0 1. North Coast Shasta River Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature 0 1. North Coast Ten Mile River Sediment 0 1. North Coast Trinity River Sediment 29.1 1. North Coast South Fork Trinity River and

Hayfork Creek Sediment 0

1. North Coast Van Duzen River and Yager Creek

Sediment 0



Regional Board


2. San Francisco Bay

Napa River Sediment 0


Richardson Bay Pathogens 1.7


San Francisco Bay PCBs 38


San Francisco Bay Mercury 271


San Pedro and Pacifica State Beach

Bacteria 0


Sonoma Creek Sediment 0


San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks

Diazinon and Pesticide-Related Toxicity 31.9

3. Central Coast

San Lorenzo River (includes Carbonera Lompico, and Shingle Mill Creeks)

Sediment 1.3

3. Central Coast

Morro Bay (includes Chorro Creek, Los Osos Creek, and the Morro Bay Estuary)

Sediment 0

4. Los Angeles Ballona Creek Metals (Silver, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, and Zinc) and Selenium 8.2 4. Los Angeles Ballona Creek, Ballona

Estuary, and Sepulveda Channel

Bacteria 7.9



Regional Board


4. Los Angeles Ballona Creek Trash 3 4. Los Angeles Ballona Creek Estuary Toxic Pollutants (Silver, Cadmium, Lead, Zinc, Chlordane, DDTs, Total

PCBs, and Total PAHs) 8.2

4. Los Angeles Ballona Creek Wetlands Sediment and Invasive Exotic Vegetation 8.2 4. Los Angeles Calleguas Creeks and its

Tributaries and Mugu Lagoon

Metals and Selenium 5.4

4. Los Angeles Calleguas Creeks and its Tributaries and Mugu Lagoon

Organochlorine Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and Siltation 5.4

4. Los Angeles Colorado Lagoon OC Pesticides, PCBs, Sediment Toxicity, PAHs, and Metals (Lead and Zinc)

0

4. Los Angeles Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters

Toxic Pollutants: Metals (Copper, Lead, Zinc), DDT, PAHs, and PCBs 71.9

4. Los Angeles Los Angeles Area (Lake Sherwood)

Mercury 0

4. Los Angeles Legg Lake Trash 0 4. Los Angeles Los Angeles Area (North,

Center, and Legg Lakes) Nitrogen and Phosphorus 0

4. Los Angeles Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary

Indicator Bacteria 0

4. Los Angeles Los Angeles Area (Echo Park Lake)

Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Chlordane, Dieldrin, PCBs, and Trash 0

4. Los Angeles Los Angeles Area (Peck Road Park Lake)

Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, PCBs, and Trash 0

4. Los Angeles Los Angeles River and Tributaries

Metals 78

4. Los Angeles Los Angeles River Trash 13.9



Regional Board


4. Los Angeles Los Angeles River Watershed

Bacteria 13.5

4. Los Angeles Los Cerritos Metals 111.2 4. Los Angeles Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs 16.2 4. Los Angeles Machado Lake Trash 1.1 4. Los Angeles Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrients) 16.2 4. Los Angeles Malibu Creek Trash 0 4. Los Angeles Malibu Creek Watershed Bacteria 0 4. Los Angeles Malibu Creek and Lagoon Sedimentation and Nutrients to address Benthic Community

Impairments 5.7

4. Los Angeles Marina del Rey Harbor Toxic Pollutants (Copper, Lead, Zinc, Chlordane, and Total PCBs) 0 4. Los Angeles Marina del Rey, Harbor

Back Basins, and Mother’s Beach

Bacteria 0

4. Los Angeles Los Angeles Area (Puddingstone Reservoir)

Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Chlordane, DDT, PCBs, Mercury, and Dieldrin 0

4. Los Angeles Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash

Trash 0

4. Los Angeles San Gabriel River Metals (Copper, Lead, Zinc) and Selenium 3.2 4. Los Angeles San Gabriel River, Estuary,

and Tributaries Indicator Bacteria 3.2

4. Los Angeles Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7

Coliform 0

4. Los Angeles Santa Clara River Reach 3 Chloride 0 4. Los Angeles Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria 0 4. Los Angeles Santa Monica Bay DDTs and PCBs 12 4. Los Angeles Santa Monica Bay

Nearshore and Offshore Debris (trash and plastic pellets) 12



Regional Board


4. Los Angeles Upper Santa Clara River Chloride 0 4. Los Angeles Ventura River Estuary Trash 0 4. Los Angeles Ventura River and its

Tributaries Algae, Eutrophic Conditions, and Nutrients 0

5. Central Valley

Clear Lake Nutrients 0

5. Central Valley

Cache Creek, Bear Creek, Sulphur Creek and Harley Gulch

Mercury 6.5

5. Central Valley

Sacramento-San Joaquín River Delta Estuary

Methylmercury 22.7

6. Lahontan Lake Tahoe Sediment and Nutrients 0.1 6. Lahontan Truckee River Sediment 4.7 7. Colorado

River Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel

Bacterial Indicators -

8. Santa Ana Big Bear Lake Nutrients for Dry Hydrological Conditions 29 8. Santa Ana Lake Elsinore and Canyon

Lake Nutrients -

8. Santa Ana Rhine Channel Area of Lower Newport Bay

Chromium and Mercury -

8. Santa Ana San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, including Rhine Channel

Metals (Copper, Lead, and Zinc) 1.1

8. Santa Ana San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay

Cadmium 1.1

8. Santa Ana San Diego Creek Watershed

Organochlorine Compounds (DDT, Chlordane, PCBs, and Toxaphene) 1.1

8. Santa Ana Upper and Lower Newport Bay

Organochlorine Compounds (DDT, Chlordane, and PCBs) -



Regional Board


9. San Diego Chollas Creek Diazinon - 9. San Diego Chollas Creek Dissolved Copper, Lead and Zinc - 9. San Diego Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Sediment 171.2 9. San Diego Rainbow Creek Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 1.2 9. San Diego Project 1- Revised Twenty

Beaches and Creeks in the San Diego Region (including Tecolote Creek)

Indicator Bacteria 67.1

- All CUs Reallocated from FYs 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 to FY 2018-2019:

782

- - Total: 1,982

* Compliance Credits claimed for FY 2018-2019 includes Above and Beyond Treatment, Cooperative Implementation Agreements, Fish Passage Remediation, Open-Graded Friction Course, and Reallocated/Revoked CUs.

Section 13. Conclusion | Page 55


13. Conclusion Caltrans will continue to implement treatment projects and water pollution reduction practices, such as source control and structural BMPs, within TMDL watersheds to achieve water quality along with receiving CUs as required in Attachment IV of the NPDES Permit. Achieving the CUs is dependent on Caltrans’ budget allotted for the Stormwater Management Program and Caltrans’ ability to program projects with its limited funding while balancing other legal mandates and priorities. The annual funding will determine the number of control measures, projects, and other water pollution reduction practices that can be implemented. Caltrans will continue addressing Attachment IV requirements and allocate resources needed to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Permit. Table 13-1 provides a summary of compliance units claimed for FY 2018-2019.

Table 13-1: Compliance Units Summary for FY 2018-2019

Source of CUs CUs to Claim in FY 2018-2019

Above and Beyond Treatment, Cooperative Implementation Agreements, Fish Passage Remediation, and OGFC 1,200 Reallocated CUs From Previous FYs 782 Total: 1,982

Section 13. Conclusion | Page 56



Section 14. References | Page 57


14. References SWRCB. (2012, September 19). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Statewide Storm Water Permit Waste Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRS) for State of California Department of Transportation. Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003. Retrieved from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2012/wqo2012_0011_dwq.pdf

Caltrans. (2014, July 15). Caltrans Lake Tahoe Pollutant Load Reduction Plan.

Caltrans. (2016, June 22). Caltrans Trash Load Reduction Workplan for the San Francisco Bay Region. CTSW-RT-15-316.15.1.

Caltrans. (2018, October). 2017 Fish Passage Annual Report to the Legislature.

Caltrans. (2019, October). Caltrans Monitoring Results Report Fiscal Year 2018-19. CTSW- RT-19-350.01.02

Final Monitoring Report, 2010-2013 Storm Seasons, Clear Lake Nutrient Data Collection, August 2014, CTSW-RT-14-288.03-2

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2012/wqo2012_0011_dwq.pdf

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2012/wqo2012_0011_dwq.pdf

Section 14. References | Page 58



Appendix A: Compliance Units for Completed and Proposed Projects within TMDL Watersheds



TMDL Status Review Report Fiscal Year 2018-2019 - Appendix A

Caltrans TMDL Compliance Unit Credit Tracking System Reporting Period: 2018-2019Last Updated:September 20, 2019

Project ID Project Name

Retrofit (installing BMPs for

TMDLs only)? (Y/N)

County District Route

Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB

TMDL Pollutant Category

Total Maximum Daily Load Reach #

Final State Board Reach

Priority # By TMDL

Reach


Priority # By Pollutant

Category

BMP Beg PM

BMP End PM BMP Lat. (N) BMP Long.

(W) BMP Type BMP Status Total CUs Actual Date for PID Phase

Total Post Project Impervious Area within the Project

Limit

Hydraulically Inseparable Areas

(Yes/No)

Redeveloped Impervious Areas

(acres)

Year Credits Claimed

01-0A490 Widen Roadway No HUM 1 299 1.4 7.93 1 B Redwood Creek (Sediment) 2 132 208 R25.454 R25.317 40.92393302 -123.810877 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 7.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0A490 Widen Roadway No HUM 1 299 0.45 1 B Redwood Creek (Sediment) 2 132 208 R25.197 R25.2 40.92273086 -123.80734 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Constructed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0A490 Widen Roadway No HUM 1 299 0.39 1 B Redwood Creek (Sediment) 2 132 208 R25.399 R25.446 40.92314064 -123.810475 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Constructed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0A490 Widen Roadway No HUM 1 299 8.29 1 B Redwood Creek (Sediment) 2 132 208 R25.23 R25.22 40.92249278 -123.807855 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 7.6 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

01-0B440 Weitchpec Slipouts No HUM 1 169 0 0.51 1 B, H Klamath River in California (Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrient, and Microcystin)

1 151 227 26.42 26.48 41.25572868 -123.774193 Stabilization Area (SA) Constructed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

01-0B440 Weitchpec Slipouts No HUM 1 169 0.35 1 B, H Klamath River in California (Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrient, and Microcystin)


01-0B440 Weitchpec Slipouts No HUM 1 169 0.12 1 B, H Klamath River in California (Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrient, and Microcystin)


01-0B510 Jitney Gulch Crib Wall No MEN 1 101 0.14 0.05 1 B, H South Fork Eel River (Temperature and Sediment)

2 111 187 93.235 93.235 39.87877803 -123.7154 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

01-0B540 Dos Rios Slips No MEN 1 162 0.88 0.24 1 B, H Middle Fork Eel River (Temperature and Sediment)


01-0B560 Slide Repair (Boonville Slide) No MEN 1 253 0.2 0.71 1 B, H Navarro River (Sediment and Temperature) 4 121 197 1.527 1.8 38.99908208 -123.333162 Stabilization Area (SA) Constructed 0.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

01-0E030 Slope Repair and Drainage Improvements No HUM 1 299 0 14.33 1 B Mad River (Sediment and Turbidity) 2 138 214 R16.1 R16.1 40.94308 -123.873046 Other BMP Proposed 14.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

01-0E860 Widen Shoulders and Install MBGR No MEN 1 20 1.5 0.81 1 B Big River (Sediment) 2 141 217 16.954 16.954 39.35063 -123.5622 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0E860 Widen Shoulders and Install MBGR No MEN 1 20 0.66 1 B Big River (Sediment) 2 141 217 16.952 16.952 39.3506 -123.56222 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0E860 Widen Shoulders and Install MBGR No MEN 1 20 0.23 1 B Big River (Sediment) 2 141 217 17.141 17.141 39.352671 -123.55959 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0E860 Widen Shoulders and Install MBGR No MEN 1 20 0.28 1 B Big River (Sediment) 2 141 217 17.141 17.141 39.352671 -123.55959 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0E860 Widen Shoulders and Install MBGR No MEN 1 20 0.31 1 B Big River (Sediment) 2 141 217 17.185 17.185 39.352532 -123.55872 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0E860 Widen Shoulders and Install MBGR No MEN 1 20 0.22 1 B Big River (Sediment) 2 141 217 17.186 17.186 39.352347 -123.55868 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201901-0E860 Widen Shoulders and Install MBGR No MEN 1 20 0.16 1 B Big River (Sediment) 2 141 217 17.144 17.144 39.35267 -123.55953 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

02-4G500 Clear recovery zone improvements No TRI 2 299 0.58 0.44 1 B, H Klamath River in California (Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrient, and Microcystin)

10 257 341 2.141 2.141 40.8896 -123.5683 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

02-4G500 Clear recovery zone improvements No TRI 2 299 0.44 1 B Trinity River (Sediment) 3 115 191 2.141 2.141 40.8896 -123.5683 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

02-4G500 Clear recovery zone improvements No TRI 2 299 0.2 1 B, H Klamath River in California (Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrient, and Microcystin)


02-4G500 Clear recovery zone improvements No TRI 2 299 0.2 1 B Trinity River (Sediment) 3 115 191 2.24 2.24 40.8898 -123.5666 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

03-0C472 Safety Improvements No YOL 3 16 10.2 0.14 5 B Cache Creek, Bear Creek, Sulphur Creek, and Harley Gulch (Mercury)


03-0C472 Safety Improvements No YOL 3 16 0.37 5 B Cache Creek, Bear Creek, Sulphur Creek, and Harley Gulch (Mercury)


























03-0F030 Install Wire Mesh Drapery No PLA 3 89 0 0.8 6 B Truckee River (Sediment) 1 160 236 18.3 18.3 39.269552 -120.207919 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 0.8 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201903-0F030 Install Wire Mesh Drapery No PLA 3 89 0.4 6 B Truckee River (Sediment) 1 160 236 16.712 16.712 39.247 -120.2113 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201903-0F310 Bridge Replacement No ED 3 49 2 0.43 5 A, B Lake Tahoe (Sediment and Nutrients) 1 158 234 24.027 24.027 38.80855612 -120.901695 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

03-0H10U I-5 Corridor Improvement No SAC 3 5 28.51 17.4 5 B Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (Methylmercury)

2 75 136 13.04 13.04 38.44040556 -121.490556 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 6.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

03-0H10U I-5 Corridor Improvement No SAC 3 5 17 5 B Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (Methylmercury)






03-0H10U I-5 Corridor Improvement No SAC 3 5 0.9 5 B Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (Methylmercury)






Page 1 of 9





TMDLs only)? (Y/N)


Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB




Priority # By TMDL

Reach



Category

BMP Beg PM




Limit


(Yes/No)


(acres)




03-3F250 Slope Stabilization and Create Catchment Ditch

No NEV 3 80 0 3.5 6 B Truckee River (Sediment) 1 160 236 29.1 29.4 39.418026 -120.031085 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 3.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

03-3H460 Rock Slope Protection No YOL 3 16 0 1.33 5 B Cache Creek, Bear Creek, Sulphur Creek, and Harley Gulch (Mercury)

1 74 135 3.9 3.9 38.910132 -122.279044 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 1.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 24.41 0.87 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 5 282 193 14.12 14.23 38.22810675 -122.119127 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 0.87 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 5 189 278 14.12 14.23 38.22810675 -122.119127 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 3.64 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 5 282 193 14.24 14.53 38.22896605 -122.116764 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 3.64 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 5 189 278 14.24 14.53 38.22896605 -122.116764 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 1.18 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 5 282 193 14.235 14.54 38.23065437 -122.112643 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 1.18 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 5 189 278 14.235 14.54 38.23065437 -122.112643 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 3.62 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 5 282 193 14.58 14.86 38.23131385 -122.111297 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 3.62 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 5 189 278 14.58 14.86 38.23131385 -122.111297 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 0.34 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 5 282 193 14.56 14.64 38.23124273 -122.110834 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 0.34 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 5 189 278 14.56 14.64 38.23124273 -122.110834 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 0.28 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 4 212 305 14.64 14.7 38.2319527 -122.10979 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 0.28 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)

4 212 305 14.64 14.7 38.2319527 -122.10979 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 0.28 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 4 212 305 14.64 14.7 38.2319527 -122.10979 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 7.87 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 4 212 305 14.68 14.92 38.23259936 -122.107885 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 2.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

































04-0A535 Truck Scale Relocation No SOL 4 80 0.58 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 4 212 305 15.33 15.43 38.23663025 -122.098789 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-0J380 Slide Repair - Construct Geogrid-Reinforced Retaining Wall

No CC 4 680 0 0.54 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 12 85 149 R11.07 R11.16 37.86067551 -122.033182 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-0J380 Slide Repair - Construct Geogrid-Reinforced Retaining Wall

No CC 4 680 4.68 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 12 85 149 R11.823 R11.309 37.86914333 -122.041221 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 4.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-15161 Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI) Project

No MRN 4 101 1.6 1.77 2 E Richardson Bay (Pathogens) 11 81 144 4.609 4.628 37.88704432 -122.516373 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 101 1.77 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 11 81 143 4.609 4.628 37.88704432 -122.516373 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 101 1.77 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 1 214 307 4.609 4.628 37.88704432 -122.516373 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 131 1.49 2 E Richardson Bay (Pathogens) 1 214 307 0.014 0.023 37.90287013 -122.515451 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.8 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 131 1.49 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 11 81 144 0.014 0.023 37.90287013 -122.515451 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.8 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 131 1.49 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 11 81 143 0.014 0.023 37.90287013 -122.515451 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.8 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

Page 2 of 9





TMDLs only)? (Y/N)


Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB




Priority # By TMDL

Reach



Category

BMP Beg PM




Limit


(Yes/No)


(acres)


04-22851 Highway Widening No CC 4 4 37 2.9 5 B Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (Methylmercury)

1 191 280 26 26 38.00475272 -121.83728 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-22851 Highway Widening No CC 4 4 0.4 5 B Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (Methylmercury)













1 191 280 27.01 27.01 37.99880509 -121.820465 Detention Basin Proposed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


1 191 280 R28.903 R28.903 37.99602521 -121.78606 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


1 191 280 R29.017 R29.017 37.99621561 -121.784103 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019





04-22851 Highway Widening No CC 4 4 1 5 B Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (Methylmercury)






04-2640L Bridge Widening and NB HOV Lane Widening

No MRN 4 101 7.35 1.84 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 10 99 256 R22.501 R22.722 38.12490221 -122.565703 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 101 1.84 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)

5 213 306 R22.501 R22.722 38.12490221 -122.565703 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 101 1.84 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 10 99 170 R22.501 R22.722 38.12490221 -122.565703 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 101 0.35 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 10 99 256 24.132 24.223 38.14611252 -122.56476 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019





No MRN 4 101 0.35 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 10 99 170 24.132 24.223 38.14611252 -122.56476 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No MRN 4 101 0.27 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 10 99 256 24.223 24.29 38.14739184 -122.565233 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019





No MRN 4 101 0.27 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 10 99 170 24.223 24.29 38.14739184 -122.565233 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 7.5 0.72 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R21.305 R21.364 37.69897341 -121.933679 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.72 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)


04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.72 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R21.305 R21.364 37.69897341 -121.933679 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.75 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R21.3 R21.2 37.69916814 -121.933131 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.75 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R21.3 R21.2 37.69916814 -121.933131 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.97 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 19.929 19.995 37.70224585 -121.908688 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.6 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.97 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 19.929 19.995 37.70224585 -121.908688 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.6 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.68 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 19.9 19.9 37.70212821 -121.908246 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019
















Page 3 of 9





TMDLs only)? (Y/N)


Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB




Priority # By TMDL

Reach



Category

BMP Beg PM




Limit


(Yes/No)


(acres)




04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.52 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 18.707 18.76 37.70188259 -121.88687 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 3.18 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 18.2 18 37.70183694 -121.875786 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 2.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


8 211 304 18.2 18 37.70183694 -121.875786 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 2.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 3.18 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 18.2 18 37.70183694 -121.875786 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 2.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 1.11 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 17.815 17.872 37.70176543 -121.870528 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019









04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.34 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 16.824 16.861 37.70157061 -121.850671 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019






04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.7 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 15.081 15.197 37.70135281 -121.819073 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.7 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 15.081 15.197 37.70135281 -121.819073 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 1.89 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 14.949 15.018 37.70125676 -121.816696 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 1.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 1.89 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 14.949 15.018 37.70125676 -121.816696 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 1.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 2.44 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R21.357 R21.359 37.69904261 -121.933833 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 1.6 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 2.44 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R21.357 R21.359 37.69904261 -121.933833 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 1.6 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


8 211 304 R21.357 R21.359 37.69904261 -121.933833 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 1.6 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 1.77 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 17 20.945 20.958 37.70085231 -121.925378 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 1.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


8 211 304 20.945 20.958 37.70085231 -121.925378 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 1.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 1.77 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 20.945 20.958 37.70085231 -121.925378 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 1.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.29 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 17 18.553 18.561 37.70193762 -121.883847 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-2908E Freeway Widening No ALA 4 580 0.29 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 18.553 18.561 37.70193762 -121.883847 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 37.05 8.43 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R26.172 R26.172 37.67333241 -121.80495 Austin Sand Filter Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 8.43 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)

8 211 304 R26.172 R26.172 37.67333241 -121.80495 Austin Sand Filter Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 8.43 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R26.172 R26.172 37.67333241 -121.80495 Austin Sand Filter Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 10.36 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R24.851 R24.851 37.65423642 -121.805883 Austin Sand Filter Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


8 211 304 R24.851 R24.851 37.65423642 -121.805883 Austin Sand Filter Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 10.36 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R24.851 R24.851 37.65423642 -121.805883 Austin Sand Filter Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.61 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R24.573 R24.573 37.6501832 -121.805185 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.61 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R24.573 R24.573 37.6501832 -121.805185 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.52 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R24.495 R24.495 37.64911308 -121.8048 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.52 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R24.495 R24.495 37.64911308 -121.8048 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 1.12 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R24.38 R24.38 37.64763318 -121.804076 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 1.12 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R24.38 R24.38 37.64763318 -121.804076 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 3.52 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R24.35 R24.35 37.64724528 -121.803849 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 3.52 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R24.35 R24.35 37.64724528 -121.803849 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 2.53 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R24.324 R24.324 37.64695252 -121.803611 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 2.53 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R24.324 R24.324 37.64695252 -121.803611 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 2.95 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 M23.592 M23.592 37.63774178 -121.797507 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


8 211 304 M23.592 M23.592 37.63774178 -121.797507 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 2.95 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 M23.592 M23.592 37.63774178 -121.797507 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.59 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 M23.582 M23.582 37.63755117 -121.79777 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


8 211 304 M23.582 M23.582 37.63755117 -121.79777 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.59 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 M23.582 M23.582 37.63755117 -121.79777 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.15 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 23.537 23.537 37.63702972 -121.798415 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

Page 4 of 9





TMDLs only)? (Y/N)


Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB




Priority # By TMDL

Reach



Category

BMP Beg PM




Limit


(Yes/No)


(acres)




04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.15 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 23.537 23.537 37.63702972 -121.798415 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.86 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 23.541 23.541 37.63714575 -121.798542 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.86 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 23.541 23.541 37.63714575 -121.798542 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 2.09 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 23.117 23.117 37.63363542 -121.801695 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 2.09 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 23.117 23.117 37.63363542 -121.801695 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.27 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 23.026 23.026 37.63251193 -121.801722 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 0.27 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 23.026 23.026 37.63251193 -121.801722 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 3.1 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R24.475 R24.475 37.64875931 -121.805016 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-29760 Expressway Widening No ALA 4 84 3.1 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R24.475 R24.475 37.64875931 -121.805016 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 15.87 1.3 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 1 175 253 5.3 5.3 37.38079706 -121.904318 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 1.3 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)


04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 1.3 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 1 96 167 5.3 5.3 37.38079706 -121.904318 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 7 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 1 175 253 6.3 6.4 37.39676772 -121.908254 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 2.8 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 7 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)


04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 7 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 1 96 167 6.3 6.4 37.39676772 -121.908254 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 2.8 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 7.4 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 1 175 253 6.4 6.4 37.39732724 -121.907594 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 3.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019




04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 0.86 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 1 175 253 6.6 6.7 37.40013482 -121.908191 Detention Basin Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


1 96 166 6.6 6.7 37.40013482 -121.908191 Detention Basin Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 0.86 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 1 96 167 6.6 6.7 37.40013482 -121.908191 Detention Basin Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 0.76 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 1 175 253 6.8 6.9 37.40292106 -121.910041 Detention Basin Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


1 96 166 6.8 6.9 37.40292106 -121.910041 Detention Basin Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-29830 Freeway Widening / HOV lane addition No SCL 4 880 0.76 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 1 96 167 6.8 6.9 37.40292106 -121.910041 Detention Basin Constructed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019









04-3A776 Adaptive Ramp Metering (ARM) No ALA 4 80 0.85 0.08 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 3 194 283 4.35 4.39 37.84597788 -122.298534 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-3A776 Adaptive Ramp Metering (ARM) No ALA 4 80 0.08 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 3 192 281 4.35 4.39 37.84597788 -122.298534 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 18.3 1.42 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 14 176 254 48.941 48.941 37.41424542 -122.083575 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 1.42 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)


04-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 1.42 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 14 176 254 48.941 48.941 37.41424542 -122.083575 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 3.45 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 14 176 254 49.55 49.55 37.42020268 -122.091783 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 3.45 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 14 176 254 49.55 49.55 37.42020268 -122.091783 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 3.93 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 14 176 254 49.595 49.595 37.42106053 -122.09212 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 3.93 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 14 176 254 49.595 49.595 37.42106053 -122.09212 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 1.26 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 14 176 254 50.285 50.285 37.42812672 -122.100852 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 1.26 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 14 176 254 50.285 50.285 37.42812672 -122.100852 Biofiltration Strip Constructed 0.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

Page 5 of 9





TMDLs only)? (Y/N)


Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB




Priority # By TMDL

Reach



Category

BMP Beg PM




Limit


(Yes/No)


(acres)


04-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 6.64 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 14 176 254 50.35 50.35 37.42888448 -122.101589 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 6.64 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 14 176 254 50.35 50.35 37.42888448 -122.101589 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201904-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 2.2 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 14 176 254 51.913 51.913 37.44632703 -122.119707 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



04-4A330 Auxilary Lanes Project No SCL 4 101 2.2 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 14 176 254 51.913 51.913 37.44632703 -122.119707 Biofiltration Swale Constructed 0.1 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-4G113 Install Ramp Metering, TOS Elements , Ramp Widening

No ALA 4 680 1.47 0.34 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R12.518 R12.707 37.60165944 -121.871423 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No ALA 4 680 0.34 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 13 100 171 R12.518 R12.707 37.60165944 -121.871423 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No ALA 4 680 0.34 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)



No ALA 4 680 0.71 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)



No ALA 4 680 0.71 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 13 100 172 R15.307 R15.57 37.64063154 -121.884343 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019




No ALA 4 680 0.61 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 1 175 253 M0.167 M0.167 37.46691051 -121.905553 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


No ALA 4 680 0.61 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 1 96 167 M0.167 M0.167 37.46691051 -121.905553 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

















04-4G820 Bridge Replacement No MRN 4 101 0.43 0.17 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 7 208 301 10.71 10.74 37.96860004 -122.520035 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-4G820 Bridge Replacement No MRN 4 101 0.17 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 7 208 301 10.71 10.74 37.96860004 -122.520035 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-4G820 Bridge Replacement No MRN 4 101 0.17 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)


04-4G820 Bridge Replacement No MRN 4 101 0.28 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 7 208 301 10.766 10.794 37.96917661 -122.520655 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-4G820 Bridge Replacement No MRN 4 101 0.28 2 C San Francisco Bay (PCBs) 7 208 301 10.766 10.794 37.96917661 -122.520655 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-4G820 Bridge Replacement No MRN 4 101 0.28 2 C, F San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks (Diazinon and Pesticide Toxicity)


05-1C670 Shoulder Widening/Soil Nail Wall No SCR 5 1 0.46 0.37 3 B San Lorenzo River (includes Carbonera, Lompico, and Shingle Mill Creeks) (Sediment)

3 159 235 0.099 0.4 36.991049 -122.02088 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 0.4 4/29/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

05-1K140 Slide Repair No SCR 5 9 0.02 0.5 3 B San Lorenzo River (includes Carbonera, Lompico, and Shingle Mill Creeks) (Sediment)

4 161 237 15 15 37.14945 -122.136228 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 0.5 4/13/2018 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 0.12 1.97 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 6 29 67 13.81 13.81 33.92868099 -118.280547 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 2.0 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 0.36 4 C, G Ballona Creek (Metals (Ag, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn) and Selenium)

2 13 32 21.78 21.78 34.04333748 -118.272417 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.4 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 0.36 4 CBallona Creek Estuary (Toxic Pollutants Ag, Cd,

Cu, Pb, Zn, Chordane, DDTs, Total PCBs, and Total PAHs)


07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 0.36 4 B Ballona Creek Wetlands (Sediment and Invasive Exotic Vegetation)


07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 1.45 4 E Ballona Creek, Ballona Estuary, and Sepulveda Channel (Bacteria)









07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 1.45 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 6 46 103 22.24 22.24 34.04772323 -118.267091 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 1.45 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 6 46 104 22.24 22.24 34.04772323 -118.267091 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 0.63 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 3 25 57 23.1 23.1 34.05604673 -118.256175 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.6 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

Page 6 of 9





TMDLs only)? (Y/N)


Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB




Priority # By TMDL

Reach



Category

BMP Beg PM




Limit


(Yes/No)


(acres)


07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 0.63 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 3 25 56 23.1 23.1 34.05604673 -118.256175 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.6 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 4.5 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 6 46 103 21.53 21.53 34.03986341 -118.273632 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 4.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 4.5 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 6 46 104 21.53 21.53 34.03986341 -118.273632 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 4.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


2 13 31 21.53 21.53 34.03986341 -118.273632 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 4.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

















07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 0.44 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 6 46 103 21.66 21.66 34.04174958 -118.273223 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.4 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 0.44 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 6 46 104 21.66 21.66 34.04174958 -118.273223 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.4 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 3.87 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 6 29 67 15.94 15.94 33.95956924 -118.280499 Detention Basin Proposed 3.9 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 3.87 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 6 29 66 15.94 15.94 33.95956924 -118.280499 Detention Basin Proposed 3.9 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 3.87 4 D Los Angeles River (Trash) 6 29 65 15.94 15.94 33.95956924 -118.280499 Detention Basin Proposed 3.9 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 1.42 4 D Los Angeles River (Trash) 6 29 65 14.85 14.85 33.94383928 -118.279686 GSRD – Inclined Screen Proposed 1.4 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 3.48 4 D Los Angeles River (Trash) 6 29 65 15.08 15.08 33.94716669 -118.279749 GSRD – Inclined Screen Proposed 3.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 5.09 4 D Los Angeles River (Trash) 6 29 65 15.19 15.19 33.94878573 -118.279346 GSRD – Inclined Screen Proposed 5.1 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 1.54 4 D Ballona Creek (Trash) 2 13 30 21.813 21.813 34.04333587 -118.272419 GSRD – Linear Radial Constructed 1.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 1.43 4 D Ballona Creek (Trash) 2 13 30 22.24 22.24 34.04773162 -118.267075 GSRD – Linear Radial Proposed 1.4 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019










07-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 1.48 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 6 46 103 21.01 21.01 34.032127 -118.274423 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-23830 Storm Water Mitigation Yes LA 7 110 1.48 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 6 46 104 21.01 21.01 34.032127 -118.274423 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.5 6/9/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 0.07 2.86 4 C Machado Lake (Pesticides and PCBs) 1 17 40 4.06 4.06 33.7903084 -118.282539 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 2.9 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 2.86 4 A, CDominguez Channel & Greater Los Angeles &

Long Beach Harbor Waters (Metals, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs)


07-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 2.86 4 B Machado Lake (Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrients))




07-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 5.57 4 C Machado Lake (Pesticides and PCBs) 1 17 40 5.4 5.4 33.80802063 -118.287072 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 5.6 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019






07-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 0.6 4 C Machado Lake (Pesticides and PCBs) 1 17 40 4.11 4.11 33.7907834 -118.281686 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.6 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019




07-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 1.14 4 D Machado Lake (Trash) 1 17 39 4.66 4.66 33.79803955 -118.287649 GSRD – Inclined Screen Proposed 1.1 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 4.73 4 C Machado Lake (Pesticides and PCBs) 1 17 40 5.52 5.52 33.8098099 -118.288094 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 4.7 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019







1 17 41 4 4 33.78835292 -118.280814 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.6 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 0.6 4 C Machado Lake (Pesticides and PCBs) 1 17 40 4 4 33.78835292 -118.280814 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.6 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



1 98 169 4 4 33.78835292 -118.280814 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.6 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



07-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 1.06 4 C Machado Lake (Pesticides and PCBs) 1 17 40 5.44 5.44 33.80705958 -118.288428 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.1 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

Page 7 of 9





TMDLs only)? (Y/N)


Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB




Priority # By TMDL

Reach



Category

BMP Beg PM




Limit


(Yes/No)


(acres)







07-27610 Storm Water Mitigation No LA 7 110 0.76 4 C Machado Lake (Pesticides and PCBs) 1 17 40 3.84 3.84 33.7872157 -118.280825 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.8 6/2/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019




07-29220 Roadside Safety Improvements No LA 7 2 0.8 0.46 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 9 38 85 R18.76 R18.76 34.146396 -118.226359 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-29220 Roadside Safety Improvements No LA 7 2 0.46 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 9 38 86 R18.76 R18.76 34.146396 -118.226359 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-29920US-101 Improvements Universal Studios Blvd SB On-ramp and Regal Place SB On-

RampNo LA 7 101 0.76 0.44 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 4 21 49 9.301 9.301 34.12954675 -118.348038 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


RampNo LA 7 101 0.44 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 4 21 48 9.301 9.301 34.12954675 -118.348038 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


RampNo LA 7 101 0.63 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 4 21 49 10.299 10.299 34.13712241 -118.362283 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.6 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019




RampNo LA 7 101 0.44 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 4 21 49 9.799 9.799 34.13360306 -118.354804 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.4 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019



07-30180 Roadside Safety No LA 7 57 0.13 0.24 4 C, G San Gabriel River (Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn) and Selenium)


07-30180 Roadside Safety No LA 7 57 0.24 4 E San Gabriel River, Estuary and Tributaries (Indicator Bacteria)

3 TBD TBD 10.67 10.67 34.10604017 -117.820985 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.2 6/18/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-30180 Roadside Safety No LA 7 57 2.99 4 C, G San Gabriel River (Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn) and Selenium)


07-30180 Roadside Safety No LA 7 57 2.99 4 E San Gabriel River, Estuary and Tributaries (Indicator Bacteria)

3 TBD TBD 10.87 10.87 34.10889965 -117.823099 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 3.0 6/18/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-30360 Roadside Safety Improvements No LA 7 210 0.02 0.97 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 7 27 7 R30.725 R30.725 34.14925483 -118.051871 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 1.0 6/12/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-30360 Roadside Safety Improvements No LA 7 210 0.97 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 7 27 7 R30.725 R30.725 34.14925483 -118.051871 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 1.0 6/12/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 1 0 0.98 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 4 45 102 39.2 39.2 34.0386847 -118.553536 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 1.0 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 1 0.98 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 4 45 101 39.2 39.2 34.0386847 -118.553536 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 1.0 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 1 0.35 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 1 34 77 51.4 51.4 34.02761417 -118.75918 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.4 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 1 0.35 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 1 34 78 51.4 51.4 34.02761417 -118.75918 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.4 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 1 0.43 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 1 34 78 53.4 53.4 34.02177379 -118.792307 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.4 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 1 0.43 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 1 34 77 53.4 53.4 34.02177379 -118.792307 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.4 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 1 0.87 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 1 34 78 54.2 54.2 34.0222751 -118.806168 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.9 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 1 0.87 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 1 34 77 54.2 54.2 34.0222751 -118.806168 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.9 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 27 0.82 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 11 33 75 8.8 8.8 34.133064 -118.598989 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.8 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 27 0.82 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 11 33 76 8.8 8.8 34.133064 -118.598989 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.8 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 27 0.66 4 C Santa Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs) 11 33 75 1.2 1.2 34.053547 -118.581548 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.7 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-30490 Stormwater Mitigation No LA 7 27 0.66 4 E Santa Monica Bay Beaches (Bacteria) 11 33 76 1.2 1.2 34.053547 -118.581548 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.7 4/7/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-30710 WILDLIFE CROSSING No LA 7 101 0.03 5.65 4 BMalibu Creek and Lagoon (Sedimentation and

Nutrients to address Benthic Community Impairments)

5 3 8 32.983 32.983 34.13771043 -118.727666 Stabilization Area (SA) Proposed 5.7 4/24/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-31080 Roadside Safety No LA 7 14 0.04 0.44 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 5 24 53 R25.21 R25.21 34.33946199 -118.506409 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.4 6/5/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-31080 Roadside Safety No LA 7 14 0.44 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 5 24 54 R25.21 R25.21 34.33946199 -118.506409 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 0.4 6/5/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-31650 Safety Roadside Improvements No VEN 7 118 1.71 7.1 4 B, CCalleguas Creeks, its Tributaries and Mugu

Lagoon (Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBs, and Siltation)

5 92 158 R26.16 R26.16 34.2825923 -118.735432 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 5.4 6/11/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-31650 Safety Roadside Improvements No VEN 7 118 7.1 4 C, G Calleguas Creeks, its Tributaries and Mugu Lagoon (Metals and Selenium)

5 92 159 R26.16 R26.16 34.2825923 -118.735432 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 5.4 6/11/2015 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 0 1.02 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 11 28 64 38.54 38.54 34.2569 -118.435295 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 1.02 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 11 28 63 38.54 38.54 34.2569 -118.435295 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 0.5 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 11 28 63 38.54 38.54 34.2569 -118.435295 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 0.5 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 11 28 64 38.54 38.54 34.2569 -118.435295 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 0.69 4 C Los Angeles River and Tributaries (Metals) 11 28 64 38.46 38.46 34.256035 -118.434378 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

07-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 0.69 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 11 28 63 38.46 38.46 34.256035 -118.434378 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-201907-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 1.87 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 11 28 63 37.4 37.4 34.244469 -118.422162 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

Page 8 of 9





TMDLs only)? (Y/N)


Net Impervious

Area Increase (ac)

BMP Treatment

Area (acres)TMDL RB




Priority # By TMDL

Reach



Category

BMP Beg PM




Limit


(Yes/No)


(acres)




07-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 0.7 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 4 21 48 35.87 35.87 34.231256 -118.401929 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019


07-4U060 HIGHWAY PLANTING REHABILITATION No LA 7 5 0.86 4 E Los Angeles River Watershed (Bacteria) 7 70 69 34.26 34.26 34.225984 -118.375248 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 0.9 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

08-0R431 Implement sediment source controls No SBD 8 38 0 29 8 B Big Bear Lake (Nutrients for Dry Hydrological Conditions)


08-1F141 Replace slab, Mill & overlay ramps & shoulder

No RIV 8 15 14.11 3.76 9 B Rainbow Creek (Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus)

1 169 249 R1.147 R1.49 33.447477 -117.13602 DPP Infiltration Area (DPPIA) Proposed 1.2 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

10-0H880 Construct New Interchange No SJ 10 205 15 17 5 B Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (Methylmercury)

3 76 137 R9.301 R9.301 37.764878 -121.393619 Infiltration Basin Proposed 2.0 8/13/2013 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

11-28230 Slope Stabilization No SD 11 5 0 0.84 9 B Los Peñasquitos Lagoon (Sediment) 1 TBD TBD R31.693 R31.693 32.91759008 -117.232255 Stabilization Area (SA) Constructed 0.8 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

11-29230 Slope Erosion Repair No SD 11 805 13.3 72.5 9 E

Project I - Revised Twenty Beaches and Creeks in the San Diego Region (including Tecolote

Creek) (Indicator Bacteria) 9 184 267 27.209 27.209 32.89050346 -117.2086 Detention Basin Constructed 63.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

11-29230 Slope Erosion Repair No SD 11 805 72.5 9 B Los Peñasquitos Lagoon (Sediment) 2 TBD TBD 27.209 27.209 32.89050346 -117.2086 Detention Basin Constructed 63.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

12-0K021 Freeway Widening No ORA 12 5 8.12 4.89 9 E


Creek) (Indicator Bacteria) 2 197 287 12.865 12.865 33.546055 -117.673682 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

12-0K021 Freeway Widening No ORA 12 5 4.89 9 E


Creek) (Indicator Bacteria) 2 197 287 13.664 13.664 33.557618 -117.672561 Biofiltration Swale Proposed 1.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

12-0K021 Freeway Widening No ORA 12 5 1.77 9 E


Creek) (Indicator Bacteria) 2 197 287 14.261 14.261 33.566209 -117.672619 Biofiltration Strip Proposed 0.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

12-0Q130 Install double thrie beam Median barrier No ORA 12 261 0 1.12 8 CSan Diego Creek Watershed (Organochlorine

Compounds (DDT, Chlordane, PCBs, and Toxaphene))


12-0Q130 Install double thrie beam Median barrier No ORA 12 261 1.12 8 C San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay (Cadmium)


12-0Q130 Install double thrie beam Median barrier No ORA 12 261 1.12 8 C San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, including Rhine Channel (Metals (Cu, Pb, and Zn))


11-2E151 Deer Canyon Habitat Restoration No SD 11 56 0 106.7 9 B Los Peñasquitos Lagoon (Sediment) 1 TBD TBD 3.603 3.603 32.95541 -117.18716 Other BMP Constructed 106.7 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-0C740 Open-Graded Friction Course (speed limit > 50 mph)

No MRN 4 101 0 27.0 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 11 81 144 3.304 8.468 37.87095485 -122.507301 Open-Graded Friction Course Constructed 27.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-0C740 Open-Graded Friction Course (speed limit > 50 mph)

No MRN 4 101 0 50.6 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 11 81 144 3.304 8.468 37.87095485 -122.507301 Open-Graded Friction Course Constructed 50.6 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

04-3E430 Open-Graded Friction Course (speed limit > 50 mph)

No CC 4 680 0 150.3 2 B San Francisco Bay (Mercury) 12 85 149 R12.721 R17.512 37.88029949 -122.05005 Open-Graded Friction Course Constructed 150.3 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

02-3E771 Overlay (speed limit > 50 mph) No TRI 2 299 0 28.5 1 B, H Klamath River in California (Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrient, and Microcystin)

10 257 341 36.922 36.922 40.77033519 -123.127655 Open-Graded Friction Course Constructed 28.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

02-3E771 Overlay (speed limit > 50 mph) No TRI 2 299 0 28.5 1 B Trinity River (Sediment) 3 115 191 36.922 36.922 40.77033519 -123.127655 Open-Graded Friction Course Constructed 28.5 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

05-1C670 Shoulder Widening/Soil Nail Wall (speed limit > 50 mph)

No SCR 5 17 0 0.5 3 B San Lorenzo River (includes Carbonera, Lompico, and Shingle Mill Creeks) (Sediment)

3 159 235 0.099 0.4 36.991049 -122.02088 Open-Graded Friction Course Proposed 0.5 4/29/2014 N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

01-0F960 Little Lost Man Creek Fish Passage No HUM 1 101 0 0 1 B Redwood Creek (Sediment) 3 222 318 124.5 124.5 41.32828 -124.03019 Fish Passage Remediation Proposed 55.0 - N/A Yes N/A 2018-2019

Page 9 of 9

tmdl status review report - caltrans · caltrans to submit a total maximum daily load (tmdl) status...

Documents