HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12e - Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ImplementationProfessional Services Agreement with CWE, Inc. and Memorandum of Agreement for
the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
January 19, 2021
Page 1 of 6
DATE: January 19, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Tait, Public Works Services Director
By: Vanessa Hevener, Environmental Services Manager
SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CWE INC. FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED
MONITORING PROGRAM (“CIMP”) FOR THE RIO HONDO/SAN
GABRIEL RIVER WATER QUALITY GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,960,675 AND MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES
OF BRADBURY, DUARTE, MONROVIA, SIERRA MADRE, THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST
SHARING OF THE AGREEMENT
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
The Public Works Services Department solicited bids for a Professional Services
Agreement (“PSA”) to implement the continuation of the Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Plan (“CIMP”) for the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group’s
Watershed Management Program (“WMP”) Plan. The Group, consisting of the Cities of
Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre, the County of Los Angeles as
well as the Los Angeles County Flood Control District have agreed to prepare a
Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) to aid in the administration, implementation, and
cost sharing of the CIMP (Exhibit “A”).
The total cost of the PSA will be divided between members based on the agreed cost
sharing formula outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement, as follows: 10% base for
participation plus 90% based on each agency’s land area that drains to the Los Angeles
and San Gabriel Rivers.
It is recommended that the City Council approve, authorize, and direct the City Manager
to execute a five-year Professional Services Agreement with CWE Inc. for the
implementation of the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (“CIMP”) for the Rio
Hondo/San Gabriel Water Quality Group in the amount of $2,960,675, and a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Cities of Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra
Professional Services Agreement with CWE, Inc. and Memorandum of Agreement for
the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
January 19, 2021
Page 2 of 6
Madre, the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
regarding the administration and cost sharing of the Agreement.
BACKGROUND
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System Permit (“MS4 Permit”, Order No. R4-2012-0175) establishes the waste discharge
requirements for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges within the watersheds of
Los Angeles County. The MS4 Permit was adopted by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (“Regional Board”), on November 8, 2012,
and became effective on December 28, 2012. The MS4 Permit includes provisions that
allow permittees the flexibility to customize their stormwater programs to achieve
compliance over time on a watershed scale utilizing customized strategies, control
measures, and Best Management Practices (“BMPs”).
In May 2013, the Arcadia City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding
(“MOU”) with the Cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre, the
County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for cost sharing
and development of both the Enhanced Watershed Management Program (“EWMP”) and
the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (“CIMP”) Plans for the Rio Hondo/San
Gabriel River watersheds. These Plans were submitted to the Regional Board on July
28, 2014. On June 29, 2015, the CIMP was approved.
In December 2014, the Arcadia City Council approved a three-year contract with two one-
year optional extensions to CWE for management of the project, which is set to expire on
December 31, 2020. The City of Azusa was a party to the original CIMP contract in 2014,
however, the City of Azusa declined to participate in this new contract.
DISCUSSION
The Oversight Committee for the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group,
comprised of City Managers and Public Works Directors, directed the technical staff to
develop and prepare a new Scope of Services, similar to the one that was used in 2014,
to continue the implementation of the Group’s approved CIMP program, and to also
develop a separate and distinct MOA for additional activities (See Attachment “A”). The
proposed Scope of Services includes:
• Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings
• CIMP Requirements - Receiving Water Monitoring, Storm Water (SW) Outfall
Monitoring, TMDL Monitoring and Non‐Storm Water (NSW) Outfall Monitoring
• Development of a Health and Safety Plan
• Data Management and Reporting Methodology
• Laboratory Analysis
• Reports
Professional Services Agreement with CWE, Inc. and Memorandum of Agreement for
the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
January 19, 2021
Page 3 of 6
• Field Logs & Site Assessment Photos
• Equipment
Unlike the previous contracts in which the City of Arcadia has been the lead agency in
administering and managing contracts at no cost to the participating agencies, it was
agreed that a Program Project Administration Fee of 5% be charged to the Group to
reimburse the City of Arcadia for contract administration and staffing costs. This
administration fee amounts to $148,034 over the five-year contract period.
On September 7, 2020, the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) was published in the City’s
adjudicated newspaper and sent directly to 16 environmental consultants. Two proposals
were received, from CWE, Inc. and Tetra Tech. The proposals were reviewed, evaluated,
and ranked according to quality and responsiveness; thoroughness of the scope of work;
familiarity of the project; background and experience; qualifications; and performance
tasks outlined in the RFP by the participating agencies listed in the MOA.
After the evaluation process, it was determined that Tetra Tech’s proposal was non-
responsive and subsequently disqualified as they did not include two required elements
of the RFP (equipment and source investigation) even after efforts were made to seek
clarification of these missing required elements.
Despite Tetra Tech’s disqualification, CWE was rated highest based on a complete
evaluation of the above criteria. The factors supporting the selection include the CWE
team’s continued support of the Group’s efforts in the implementation of the monitoring
program for the past five years, expertise with the existing MS4 Permit, expertise and
experience developing similar plans, and their existing relationships with the Regional
Board Staff, Board members, and key stakeholder groups.
The proposal was ranked below:
RANK FIRM LOCATION COST
1 CWE Fullerton $2,960,675*
*$2,960,675 is the new proposed cost after further negotiation;
$3,037,482 was the original proposed cost
Several member agencies are in the process of presenting this MOA to their respective
City Councils for consideration. Letters of Intent as well as the County’s Delegation of
Authority are attached to ensure that all agencies are committed to the implementation of
the CIMP.
The MOA specifies the financial commitment for monitoring of both the Rio Hondo and
the San Gabriel River watersheds for each agency based on a cost sharing formula. The
Los Angeles County Flood Control District agreed to pay for 5% of the total cost of the
contracted services for the implementation of the CIMP. The remaining balance will be
Professional Services Agreement with CWE, Inc. and Memorandum of Agreement for
the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
January 19, 2021
Page 4 of 6
divided among the rest of the agencies based on the following: 10% for participation, plus
90% on each agency’s land area that drains to the Rio Hondo (Los Angeles River) and
San Gabriel River.
The City of Monrovia has separately awarded a contract for the development and
preparation of Rounds 1 and 2 applications for funding under the Safe Clean Water
(Measure W) Regional Project on behalf of the Group. The Group has agreed to share
in the cost for the City of Monrovia to prepare the applications. A total of $72,980 has
been expended for these projects, and the Group has agreed to credit the City of
Monrovia for these costs.
Table 1 below shows the cost sharing formula and the cost to each of the participating
agencies over the next five years. This table shows the total cost, including the PSA
amount plus the City of Monrovia’s separate costs and the overall administration fee.
Table 1. Cost Allocation Formula for Years 2021-2025
(includes Contract amount, Administration Fee (5%) and City of Monrovia)
Agencies Acres
Percent of
Area
Base Fee
(10%)
Cost based
on Acres
(90%)
Total Cost
City of Arcadia 11 34.16% $50,437.56 $930,431.92
$980,869.47
City of Bradbury 1.9 5.90% 50,437.56 $160,710.97
$211,148.52
City of Duarte 3.6 11.18% 50,437.56 $304,504.99
$354,942.55
City of Monrovia 8 24.84% 50,437.56 $676,677.76
$727,115.31
City of Sierra Madre 2.8 8.70% 50,437.56 $236,837.22
$287,274.77
County of Los Angeles 4.9 15.22% 50,437.56 $414,465.13
$464,902.68
Los Angeles County
Flood Control District - - $155,435.44
Total 32.2 100% $302,625.33 $2,723,627.98 $3,181,689
Based on the cost sharing formula, the City of Arcadia’s contribution for the monitoring
program is approximately $980,869.47 over five years. Annual invoices for the remainder
of the costs will be due no later than January of each following year. Arcadia will receive
Professional Services Agreement with CWE, Inc. and Memorandum of Agreement for
the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
January 19, 2021
Page 5 of 6
a total of $148,034 for contract administration over the same period, resulting in a “net
contribution” of $832,835.47.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be
seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment. Thus, this matter is
exempt under CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
Annual costs would be divided among participating agencies based on the MOA’s cost
share formula. The City of Arcadia’s total cost for the monitoring program is approximately
$980,869.47 over five years (Arcadia will receive a total of $148,034 for contract
administration over the same period, resulting in a “net contribution” of $832,835.47). The
cost for the implementation of the CIMP has been budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2020-21
Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) and in subsequent fiscal years. The City of Arcadia
is expected to receive approximately $1,030,000 in local return from the Safe Clean Water
Program (Measure W) annually and these funds have been allocated in the CIP for this
contract. No General Fund monies are proposed to be utilized.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council determine that this action does not constitute a project
and is therefore exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and
approve, authorize, and direct the City Manager to execute a five-year Professional
Services Agreement with CWE, Inc. for implementation of the Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program (“CIMP”) for the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel Water Quality Group in the
amount of $2,960,675, and the Memorandum of Agreement with the Cities of Bradbury,
Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre, the County of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District regarding the administration and cost sharing of the
Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City’s LEAP grant award of $150,000 will be used to fund a major portion of the
Housing Element Update. These funds will be distributed on a reimbursement basis;
therefore, no City funds will be necessary for this portion of the contract. However, the
grant does not cover the full amount of the project, and it is requested that the additional
$58,692 be funded through the City’s General Fund. These additional funds are needed
to fund the entirety of the fee proposal and complete the required update to the City’s
Housing Element, as required by State law. This additional appropriation will be budgeted
Professional Services Agreement with CWE, Inc. and Memorandum of Agreement for
the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
January 19, 2021
Page 6 of 6
in the 2021-22 Development Services Operating budget and these expenditures will occur
next fiscal year. There are sufficient funds in the City’s unallocated reserves for this
appropriation.
Attachments: Exhibit “A” - Memorandum of Agreement
Proposed Professional Services Agreement
Letters of Intent/Delegation of Authority
33480042.1
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT AND THE CITIES OF ARCADIA, BRADBURY, DUARTE,
MONROVIA, AND SIERRA MADRE
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE RIO HONDO/SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATER QUALITY GROUP
This Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) is made and entered as of the date of the last
signature set forth below by and among the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“COUNTY”), a
political subdivision of the State of California, the LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT (“LACFCD”), a body corporate and politic, and the CITIES OF
ARCADIA, BRADBURY, DUARTE, MONROVIA, and SIERRA MADRE(“CITIES”), municipal
corporations. Collectively, these entities shall be known herein as PARTIES or individually
as PARTY.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region
(REGIONAL BOARD) adopted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit); and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit became effective on December 28, 2012, and requires that
the COUNTY, the LACFCD, and 84 of the 88 cities (excluding Avalon, Long Beach, Palmdale,
and Lancaster) within the Los Angeles County comply with the prescribed elements of the MS4
Permit; and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit identified the PARTIES as MS4 permittees that are
responsible for compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements pertaining to the Rio
Hondo/San Gabriel Water Quality Group (“GROUP”) Watershed Management Area; and
WHEREAS, the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) was submitted to
the REGIONAL BOARD on June 27, 2014 and approved by the REGIONAL BOARD on
June 19, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed to collaborate on the implementation of the
CIMP, and have agreed to a cost sharing formula set forth in Table 2 of Exhibit A, which is
attached and made part of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES collaboratively prepared a final Scope of Work and
Request for Proposal to obtain a CONSULTANT to assist the PARTIES in implementing the
CIMP as specified in the Scope of Work (the “CIMP Implementation”), a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit C; and
33480042.1
WHEREAS, the PARTIES propose for the CONSULTANT provide the CIMP
Implementation services at a total cost not to exceed $2,960,675 for five years; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed to establish an Oversight Committee
(comprised of City Managers and/or designated staff from each PARTY) to provide technical
oversight and project management; and
WHEREAS, the CITY OF ARCADIA will be the contracting PARTY, entering into
contract(s) with the CONSULTANT, as needed, to govern the CONSULTANT’s CIMP
Implementation services; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that each PARTY shall assume full and independent
responsibility for ensuring its own compliance with the MS4 Permit despite the collaborative
approach of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monrovia has entered into a separate contract in the amount
of $72,980 for the development and preparation of Round 1 and Round 2 applications for
funding under the Safe Clean Water (Measure W) Regional Program; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITIES have agreed to share the cost, and to
credit the City of Monrovia for these costs as set forth in Table 2.a of Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the
PARTIES, and of the promises contained in this MOA, the PARTIES agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The PARTIES agree that the recitals set forth above are true and
correct, and are incorporated by reference into this MOA.
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOA is to cooperatively administer and fund the
implementation of certain requirements of the CIMP, and to coordinate the payment for and
performance of such services.
Section 3. Cooperation. The PARTIES shall make a good faith effort to cooperate with
one another to achieve the purposes of this MOA by providing information about project
opportunities, reviewing deliverables in a timely manner, and informing their respective
administrators, agency heads, and/or governing bodies, as necessary. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, it shall not be a breach of this MOA for any PARTY to withhold its consent for any
decision contemplated by this MOA.
Section 4. Participation Required. The services to be provided by the CONSULTANT
pursuant to this MOA are required by the REGIONAL BOARD’s MS4 Permit.
Section 5. Term. This MOA shall become effective on the last date of execution by all of
the PARTIES, and shall remain in effect until (1) the CITY OF ARCADIA has provided the
33480042.1
PARTIES with an accounting as set forth in Section 7(f) and the PARTIES have paid all
outstanding invoices, or (2) December 31, 2025, whichever comes last.
Section 6. Cost-Sharing
a. Continuation of Monitoring. Each PARTY, by executing this MOA, expressly agrees
that all costs to be shared hereunder shall begin to accrue on January 1, 2021.
b. The PARTIES shall collectively fund the costs of the CONSULTANT’s CIMP
Implementation as shown in Table 2, of Exhibit A, which include without limitation a
five percent (5%) program project administration cost payable to the CITY OF
ARCADIA up to a maximum amount of $148,034.
c. If actual costs exceed the cost estimates contained in Table 1 of Exhibit A, the
PARTIES may elect to contribute an additional amount, not to exceed ten percent
(10%) of their respective contributions, as shown in Table 1 of Exhibit A.
Section 7. The CITY OF ARCADIA agrees:
a. CONSULTANT Services. To retain a CONSULTANT to perform the Scope of Work,
and any work arising from any subsequent changes to the CIMP as agreed upon by
unanimous decision of the PARTIES. The CITY OF ARCADIA will comply with all
procurement requirements applicable to said selection.
b. Invoice. To invoice the PARTIES in amounts not exceeding the invoice amounts
shown in Table 3 of Exhibit A. The annual payments for the period of July 1 through
June 30 (“fiscal year”) will be invoiced in July of that annual payment period, except
for the first invoice, which will be issued upon the execution of this MOA by all
PARTIES. At the end of each fiscal year, any unused funds will be rolled over and
used towards the PARTIES' contributions in future years, and the outstanding invoice
amounts set forth in Table 3 of Exhibit A for future years will be reduced accordingly.
c. Expenditure. To utilize the funds deposited by the PARTIES only for the purposes
authorized by this MOA. The CITY OF ARCADIA will provide an accounting of funds
expended and remaining at the end of each fiscal year.
d. Contingency. To notify the PARTIES if actual costs are anticipated to exceed the cost
estimates contained in Table 1 of Exhibit A and obtain written approval of such
additional costs from all PARTIES. Upon approval, the PARTIES agree to reimburse
the CITY OF ARCADIA for their proportional share of these additional costs at an
amount not to exceed 10 percent of the original cost estimate as shown in Table 1 of
Exhibit A. This contingency amount will not be invoiced, unless actual expenditures
exceed the original cost estimate.
e. Report. To submit reports to the REGIONAL BOARD as described in the CIMP and
distribute copies of the reports to the PARTIES, prior to submittal to the REGIONAL
33480042.1
BOARD or any other third-party, for review and comment. The CITY OF ARCADIA
will provide the PARTIES with an electronic copy of the completed CIMP Annual
Report within 7 business days after receipt from the CONSULTANT. In addition, the
CITY OF ARCADIA will submit to the PARTIES the data used to prepare the reports.
No report shall be submitted to the REGIONAL BOARD unless and until it has been
approved, in writing, for submittal by all PARTIES. This data will be transmitted
electronically in a format that contains the table structure and syntax agreed upon by
the PARTIES, e.g., California Environmental Data Exchange Network format.
f. Termination or Expiration. To provide an accounting within 90 days of the termination
or expiration of this MOA, and to return any unused funds deposited with the CITY
OF ARCDIA within 180 days of said termination or expiration, in accordance with the
cost allocation formulas set forth in Exhibit A Table 3. Subject to agreement by the
CITY OF ARCADIA, any funds which are to be reimbursed to a PARTY may be
reimbursed through credits towards future invoices and agreements, if requested in
writing by that PARTY.
g. Permit. To work with the CONSULTANT to obtain all necessary permits for the
installation, operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment within storm drains,
channels, catch basins, and similar properties (FACILITIES) during monitoring events
and maintenance.
Section 8. The LACFCD agrees:
a. Access. To grant permits for construction or installation of monitoring equipment in
LACFCD-owned FACILITIES and for access over LACFCD right of way to operate
and maintain the monitoring equipment. Permits for the construction or installation of
monitoring equipment will be subject to applicable permit fees; however, access
permits shall be granted at no cost to the permittee.
Section 9. The PARTIES further agree:
a. Oversight Committee & Administration.
(1) The PARTIES agree that each PARTY shall designate a representative to
act on the PARTY’s behalf. These representatives or their designee shall form
the “Oversight Committee.” Each member of the Oversight Committee, shall
have the requisite authority to participate in the day-to-day operations of the
GROUP, and shall administer the terms and conditions of this MOA on behalf
of their respective PARTY, except as limited by the PARTY’s individual
governing regulations, such as municipal codes or county codes. The Oversight
Committee shall be authorized to and be responsible for approving all contracts
with any future Contractor entered into pursuant to this Agreement. For
example, members of the Oversight Committee shall still remain subject to the
spending limits and/or authority limitations imposed on employees of
governmental agencies for any expenditures above those set forth in Exhibit A.
Any action of the Oversight Committee required or authorized by this MOA
33480042.1
(including direction to any CONSULTANT) shall be taken by unanimous
approval. However, as a limited exception to this unanimity requirement, the
scheduling of meetings and meeting locations shall be determined by a
weighted majority vote, with weights assigned to each member of the Oversight
Committee in accordance with the percentage of area assigned to that
member’s PARTY in Table 2 of Exhibit A.
(2) In addition to the day-to-day operations, the Oversight Committee shall be
authorized to approve, and be responsible for approving all reports, studies or
other submittals and materials created as a result of the CONSULTANT’s
implementation of the CIMP to be submitted to the REGIONAL BOARD and/or
to other agencies on behalf of the GROUP (“SUBMITTAL”). As such, within
thirty (30) business days of receiving a draft SUBMITTAL, members of the
Oversight Committee or their designees shall provide any revisions or
comments to the CONSULTANT, and the CONSULTANT shall incorporate
those revisions into the draft SUBMITTAL, and provide a copy of a revised
SUBMITTAL to the Oversight Committee promptly and shortly thereafter. In
the event the CONSULTANT cannot incorporate a PARTY’s revision due to a
disagreement among the PARTIES, the PARTIES shall meet and confer in
good faith to resolve the dispute, and the Oversight Committee may then direct
the CONSULTANT to modify the SUBMITTAL as agreed upon by the
PARTIES. Within 30 business days of receiving a revised SUBMITTAL,
members of the Oversight Committee or their designees shall approve in
writing, or deny the CONSULTANT’s submission of, the revised SUBMITTAL
to the REGIONAL BOARD. The CONSULTANT shall not, and the CITY OF
ARCADIA may not authorize the CONSULTANT, to, submit any SUBMITTAL
to the REGIONAL BOARD or any other public agency on behalf of the
PARTIES, unless and until such SUBMITTAL has been approved in writing by
all PARTIES hereto through the Oversight Committee pursuant to the
requirements of this Section 6(b). Under no circumstances may any
SUBMITTAL be attributed to or sent on the behalf of any PARTY, or the
GROUP in general, that has not provided its written approval as required by
this Section 6(b).
(3) In order to approve any SUBMITTAL pursuant to this Section 6(b), each
member of the Oversight Committee shall provide the following in regard to
their applicable PARTY:
(a) Written confirmation of the PARTY’s approval of the SUBMITTAL; and
(b) A written statement that the applicable authority has approved of the
SUBMITTAL. For example, if the SUBMITTAL requires City Council
approval, the member of the Oversight Committee shall confirm that the
City Council provided the requisite approval.
(4) The Oversight Committee may meet periodically, on an as-needed basis,
and as agreed by the Oversight Committee.
33480042.1
(5) The PARTIES recognize and agree that no Oversight Committee member,
or its designee may commit, bind, or in any way limit the PARTY’s individual
discretion or authority, absent such representatives being granted proper
authority pursuant to the PARTY’s own municipal codes and/or regulations.
b. Payment.
(1) The PARTIESs shall pay the CITY OF ARCADIA each PARTY'S respective
invoice amounts as shown in Table 3 of Exhibit A, within sixty (60) calendar
days of receipt of the invoice from the CITY OF ARCADIA. The cost estimates
presented in Exhibit A are subject to change based on modifications to the
CIMP pursuant to new REGIONAL BOARD requirements and/or unforeseen
conditions in the field. Any changes proposed to the PARTIES’ contribution
amounts will require written agreement of the PARTIES.
c. Documentation.
(1) The PARTIES shall make a good-faith effort to cooperate with one another
to achieve the purposes of this MOA by providing all requested information
and documentation in their possession and available for release to the CITY
OF ARCADIA and the CONSULTANT that is deemed necessary by the
GROUP to perform the Scope of Work or other activities contemplated by this
MOA.
d. Access.
(1) Each PARTY shall allow reasonable access and entry by the CITY OF
ARCADIA and the CONSULTANT, on an as needed basis during the term of
this MOA, to each PARTY’S FACILITIES as reasonably necessary to perform
the Scope of Work or other activities contemplated by this MOA; provided,
however, that prior to entering any of the applicable PARTY'S FACILITIES, the
CITY OF ARCADIA and the CONSULTANT shall obtain all necessary permits
and provide written notice as required by those permits. The PARTIES agree
that the CITY OF ARCADIA shall have the authority to obtain permits, on behalf
of all PARTIES, for the use of FACILITIES and right of way of the LACFCD as
necessary for the implementation of the Scope of Work or other activities
contemplated by this MOA.
e. Permit.
(1) Each PARTY shall work with the CITY OF ARCADIA and the
CONSULTANT to obtain all necessary permits for the construction or
installation of monitoring equipment, and for access over rights of way to
operate and maintain the monitoring equipment, within each PARTY’S
jurisdiction.
f. Additional Participants.
33480042.1
(1) The PARTIES agree that if any other entity wishes to participate and cost
share any element of the CIMP, the CITY OF ARCADIA will enter into a
separate MOA with that entity and will reduce the PARTIES’ future invoice
amount(s) based on the cost share formula contained in Table 3 of Exhibit A of
this MOA.
Section 10. Indemnification:
a. Each PARTY shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each other PARTY,
including its special districts, elected and appointed officers, employees, agents,
attorneys, and designated volunteers, from and against any and all liability including,
but not limited to, demands, claims, actions, fees, costs, and expenses (including
reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees), arising from or connected with, and in
relative proportion to, its own negligence or willful misconduct under this MOA;
provided, however, that no PARTY shall indemnify another PARTY for said other'
PARTY's own negligence or willful misconduct.
b. If any of PARTY pays in excess of its pro rata share in satisfaction of any liability
arising out of the implementation of the CIMP, such PARTY shall be entitled to
contribution from each of the other PARTIES; provided, however, that the right of
contribution is limited to the amount paid in excess of the PARTY 's pro rata share;
and further provided that no PARTY may be compelled to make contribution beyond
its own pro rata share of the entire liability; and further provided that no PARTY shall
indemnify another PARTY for that PARTY 's own negligence or willful misconduct.
c. The PARTIES agree that any liability borne by or imposed upon any PARTY or
PARTIES hereto as a result of this MOA that is not caused by or attributable to the
negligence or willful misconduct of any PARTY shall be fully borne by all the
PARTIES in accordance with their pro rata cost share, as set forth in CIMP MOA.
d. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the CITY OF ARCADIA shall require the
CONSULTANTS retained pursuant to this MOA to agree to indemnify, defend, and
hold harmless each PARTY, its special districts, elected and appointed officers,
employees, attorneys, agents, and designated volunteers, from and against any and
all liability, including, but not limited to demands, claims, actions, fees, costs, and
expenses (including attorney and expert fees), arising from or connected with the
CONSULTANT's performance of its agreement with the CITY OF ARCADIA. In
addition, the CITY OF ARCADIA shall require the CONSULTANTS to obtain,
maintain, and keep in full force and effect an insurance policy or policies, and each
PARTY, its elected and appointed officers, employees, attorneys, agents and
designated volunteers. shall be named as additional insureds on the policy(ies) with
respect to liabilities arising out of the CONSULTANT's work. These requirements will
also apply to any subcontractors hired by the CONSULTANTS.
Section 11. Termination and Withdrawal:
33480042.1
1. This MOA may be terminated upon the express written agreement of all PARTIES. If
this MOA is terminated, then all PARTIES must agree on the date of termination,
tasks to be completed prior to termination, payment of invoices due at the time of
termination, and equitable redistribution of remaining funds deposited, if there are
any. In the event of termination, each PARTY shall also be responsible for the
payment of its own fines, penalties or costs incurred as a result of the non-
performance of the CIMP. Completed work shall be owned by the PARTY or
PARTIES who fund the completion of such work. Rights to uncompleted work by the
CONSULTANT still under contract will be held by the PARTY or PARTIES who fund
the completion of such work.
2. If a PARTY fails to substantially comply with the payment requirements of this MOA,
then that PARTY shall forfeit its rights to any and all work completed through this
MOA, but no such forfeiture shall occur unless and until the defaulting PARTY has
first been given notice of its default and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged
default.
3. The CITY OF ARCADIA shall notify all PARTIES in writing of any PARTY failing to
cure an alleged default in compliance with the terms or conditions of this MOA. The
non-delinquent PARTIES will determine the next course of action. If the default
involves cost-shares and payment of invoices, the remaining cost will be distributed
based on the existing cost allocation formula in Exhibit A. If the increase is more than
the 10 percent contingency, an amendment to this MOA must be executed to reflect
the change in the PARTIES’ cost share.
4. If a PARTY wishes to withdraw from this MOA for any reason, that PARTY must give
the other PARTIES prior written notice thereof. The withdrawing PARTY shall be
responsible for its share of the costs through the end of the current monitoring year
(July 1 through June 30), including costs for reporting of data and results. The
effective date of withdrawal shall be the 6th day after the CITY OF ARCADIA
receives written notice of the PARTY'S intent to withdraw. Should any PARTY
withdraw from this MOA, the remaining PARTIES' cost share allocation shall be
adjusted in accordance with the cost allocation formula in Exhibit A.
Section 12. General Provisions
a. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this MOA, and any request,
demand, statement, or other communication required or permitted hereunder, shall
be in writing and shall be delivered to the representatives of the PARTIES at the
addresses set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. The PARTIES shall promptly notify each other of any change of contact
information, including without limitation personnel changes, as provided in Exhibit B.
Written notice shall be given by United States registered or certified mail, or shall be
delivered via e-mail or fax. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the
date of delivery, if delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed
33480042.1
facsimile or by e-mail; or (b) on the third (3rd) business day following mailing by
registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth in
Exhibit B.
b. Administration. For the purposes of this MOA, the PARTIES hereby designate as
their respective PARTY representatives the persons named in Exhibit B. The
designated PARTY representatives, or their respective designees, shall administer
the terms and conditions of this MOA on behalf of their respective PARTY. Each of
the persons signing below on behalf of a PARTY represents and warrants that he or
she is authorized to sign this MOA on behalf of such PARTY.
c. Relationship of the PARTIES. The PARTIES are, and shall at all times remain as to
each other, wholly independent entities. No PARTY to this MOA shall have power to
incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of any other PARTY unless expressly
provided to the contrary by this MOA. No employee, agent, or officer of a PARTY
shall be deemed for any purpose whatsoever to be an agent, employee, or officer of
another PARTY.
d. Binding Effect. This MOA shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of the
respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each PARTY; provided, however, that
no PARTY may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOA without
prior written consent of the other PARTIES.
e. Amendment. The terms and provisions of this MOA may not be amended, modified,
or waived, except by an instrument in writing signed by all non-delinquent PARTIES.
For purposes of this MOA, a PARTY shall be considered delinquent if that PARTY
fails to timely pay an invoice as required by Section 9(a) or withdraws pursuant to
Section 11(d).
f. Law to Govern. This MOA is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
g. Severability. If any provision of this MOA shall be determined by any court to be
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOA shall
not be affected thereby, and this MOA shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOA.
h. Entire Agreement. This MOA constitutes the entire agreement of the PARTIES with
respect to the subject matter hereof.
i. Waiver. Waiver by any PARTY to this MOA of any term, condition, or covenant of this
MOA shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver
by any PARTY with respect to any breach of the provisions of this MOA shall not
constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or
violation of any provision of this MOA.
33480042.1
j. Counterparts. This MOA may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the
same instrument; provided, however, that such counterparts shall have been
delivered to all PARTIES to this MOA.
Representation by counsel. All PARTIES have been represented by counsel in the
preparation and negotiation of this MOA. Accordingly, this MOA shall be construed
according to its fair language. Any ambiguities shall be resolved in a collaborative
manner by the PARTIES and shall be rectified by amending this MOA as described in
section 11(e).l PARTIES’ individual obligations. Notwithstanding anything in this MOA
to the contrary, the PARTIES agree that this MOA itself shall have no bearing on the
PARTIES’ individual obligations to comply with the MS4 permit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have caused this MOA to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of the date of signature of
the PARTIES:
33480042.1
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By
MARK PESTRELLA
Director of Public Works
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RODRIGO A. CASTRO-SILVA
Acting County Counsel
By
Deputy Date
33480042.1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
By
MARK PESTRELLA
Chief Engineer
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RODRIGO A. CASTRO-SILVAActing County Counsel
By
Deputy Date
33480042.1
CITY OF ARCADIA
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
ATTEST:
By _________________________
Name, Title
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By _________________________
Name, Title
33480042.1
CITY OF BRADBURY
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
ATTEST:
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By _________________________
Name, Title
33480042.1
CITY OF DUARTE
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
ATTEST:
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By _________________________
Name, Title
33480042.1
CITY OF MONROVIA
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
ATTEST:
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By _________________________
Name, Title
33480042.1
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
ATTEST:
By ___________________ _________________________
Name, Title Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By __________________________
Name, Title
33480042.1
EXHIBIT A:
Table 1. Cost for Required Services
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total Not-to-Exceed Contract Costs $673,087.67 $673,087.67 $673,087.67 $470,673 $470,673
Scope of Work Items Years 1-3 Year 4 Year 5
TOTAL
1 Project Management, Coordination, Meetings $66,099 $11,474 $11,474 $77,573
2 CIMP Requirements $1,205,621 $299,176 $299,242 $1,881,612
3 Health and Safety Plan $11,066 $4,404 $4,404 $19,874
4 Data Management and Reporting
Methodology
$29,304 $9,768 $9,768 $48,840
5 Laboratory Analysis $183,419 $60,325 $60,325 $304,069
6 Reports $211,740 $70,580 $70,580 $352,900
7 Field Logs and Site Assessment Photos $35,838 $11,946 $11,946 $59,730
8 CIMP Revision $73,952 - - $73,952
Procurement and Installation of Monitoring
Equipment $202,224 - - $202,224
Contingency (10%) - - $296,067.50
Contract Amount minus
Contingency
$2,960,675
33480042.1
Table 2. Cost Allocation Formula for Required Services
Cost Formula:
A. 10% Base Fee = [(Total CONSULTANT costs) X 10%] /6 parties
B. 90% Land Use = [(Total CONSULTANT costs X90%] X Percentage of total land area (not including Angeles
National Forest)
Party
Acres
(Developed
Land sq.mi)
Percent of
Area
Base Fee
(1/6th of 10%)
Land Use
(90%) Total Cost
City of Arcadia 11 34.16 $49,221.22 $907,933.97 $957,215.19
City of Bradbury 1.9 5.90 $49,221.22 $155,835.32 $206,056.54
City of Duarte 3.6 11.18 $49,221.22 $297,161.66 $346,382.88
City of Monrovia 8 24.84 $49,221.22 $660,359.25 $709,580.47
City of Sierra Madre 2.8 8.70 $49,221.22 $231,125.74 $280,346.96
County of Los Angeles 4.9 15.22 $49,221.22 $404,470.04 $453,691.26
LACFCD (5% Contribution) - - - - $155,435.44
TOTAL 32.2 100 $295,327.32 $2,657,945.98 $3,108,709.00*
*Includes five percent (5%) program project administration cost payable to the CITY OF ARCADIA, up to a maximum amount of $148,034.
33480042.1
Table 2.a Cost Allocation Formula – Preparation of Measure W Regional Program Applications
Party
Acres
(Developed
Land sq.mi)
Percent of
Area
Base Fee
(1/6 of 10%)
Land Use
(90%) Total Cost
City of Arcadia 11 34.16 $1,216.33 $22,437.95 $23,654.28
City of Bradbury 1.9 5.90 $1,216.33 $3,875.65 $5,091.98
City of Duarte 3.6 11.18 $1,216.33 $7,343.33 $8,559.66
City of Monrovia 8 24.84 $1,216.33 $16,318.51 $17,534.84
City of Sierra Madre 2.8 8.70 $1,216.33 $5,711.48 $6,927.81
County of Los Angeles 4.9 15.22 $1,216.33 $9,995.09 $11,211.42
TOTAL 32.2 100 $7,298.00 $65,682.00 $72,980.00*
*Monrovia will be credited $55,445.16
33480042.1
Table 3. Invoicing Schedule for Required Services (Table 2 plus Table 2.a)
Invoice Date Jan 2021 Jan 2022 Jan 2023 Jan 2024 Jan 2025 Total
Invoiced
City of Arcadia $196,173.89 $196,173.89 $196,173.89 $196,173.89 $196,173.89 $980,869.47
City of Bradbury $42,229.70 $42,229.70 $42,229.70 $42,229.70 $42,229.70 $211,148.52
City of Duarte $70,988.51 $70,988.51 $70,988.51 $70,988.51 $70,988.51 $354,942.55
City of Monrovia $89,977.90* $145,423.06 $145,423.06 $145,423.06 $145,423.06 $671,670.15
City of Sierra Madre $57,454.95 $57,454.95 $57,454.95 $57,454.95 $57,454.95 $287,274.77
County of Los Angeles $92,980.54 $92,980.54 $92,980.54 $92,980.54 $92,980.54 $464,902.68
LACFCD (5%) $31,087.09 $31,087.09 $31,087.09 $31,087.09 $31,087.08 $155,435.44
*A credit in the amount of $55,445.16 will be applied against $145,423.06 for the January 2021 invoice.
EXHIBIT B
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Responsible Agency Representatives
City of Arcadia
11800 Goldring Rd.
Arcadia, CA 91066
Representative: Vanessa Hevener
E-mail: vhevener@ArcadiaCA.gov
Phone: (626) 254-2712
City of Bradbury
600 Winston Ave.
Bradbury, CA 91008
Representative: Kevin Kearney
E-mail: KKearney@cityofbradbury.org
Phone: (626) 358-3218
City of Duarte
1600 Huntington Drive
Duarte, CA 91010
Representative: Amanda Hamilton
E-mail: AHamilton@accessduarte.com
Phone: (626) 357-7931
City of Monrovia
600 S. Mountain Ave.
Monrovia, CA 91016
Representative: Alex Tachiki
E-mail: ATachikit@ci.monrovia.ca.us
Phone: (626) 932-5553
City of Sierra Madre
232 W. Sierra Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre, CA 91024
Representative: James Carlson
E-mail: JCarlson@cityofsierramadre.com
Phone: (626) 355-7135 ext. 803
County of Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Public Works
Stormwater Quality Division, 11th Floor
900 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Paul Alva, Assistant Division Head
E-mail: palva@dpw.lacounty.gov
Phone: (626) 458-4325
Los Angeles County Flood Control
District
Los Angeles County Public Works
Stormwater Quality Division, 11th Floor
900 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Mark Lombos, Assistant Division Head
E-mail: mlombos@dpw.lacounty.gov
Phone: (626) 458-7143
33480042.1
EXHIBIT C
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Scope of Work
RIOHONDO/SANGABRIELRIVERWATERQUALITYGROUP
REQUESTFORPROPOSALS
IMPLEMENTATIONOFTHECOORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORING
PROGRAM
Administeredby:CityofArcadia
Administeredonbehalfof:CitiesofArcadia,Bradbury,Duarte,Monrovia,andSierra
Madre,andCountyofLosAngelesandLosAngelesCounty
FloodControlDistrict
IssuanceDate:Monday,September7,2020
RequestforInformation/
ClarificationDueDate:Monday,September21,2020at5:00p.m.
ProposalDueDate:Tuesday,October13,2020at11:00a.m.
Interview:Thursday,October29,2020
SubmitProposalto:CityofArcadia
OfficeoftheCityClerk
Attn:VanessaHevener,EnvironmentalServicesManager
240WestHuntingtonDr.
P.O.BOX60021
Arcadia,CA91066Ͳ6021
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
Purpose
TheCityofArcadia,onbehalfoftheRioHondo/SanGabrielRiverWatershedQualityGroup
(RH/SGRWQG)comprisedoftheCountyofLosAngeles,LosAngelesCountyFloodControl
District,andtheCitiesofArcadia,Bradbury,Duarte,Monrovia,andSierraMadre,isrequesting
servicesofaConsultanttoimplementthemonitoringfortheCoordinatedIntegrated
MonitoringProgram(CIMP)inaccordancewiththeDecember28,2012MS4permit.Theterm
ofservicesisforthreeyears(estimatedJanuary1,2021ͲDecember31,2023)withtwo(2)oneͲ
yearextensions(2024and2025)attheoptionoftheCityofArcadia.
Background
TheNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)MunicipalSeparateStormSewer
System(MS4)PermitOrderNo.R4Ͳ2012Ͳ0175(Permit)wasadoptedonNovember8,2012by
theLosAngelesRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(RegionalBoard)andbecameeffective
December28,2012.IncludedinthePermitarerequirementsforaMonitoringandReporting
Program(MRP).TheMRPrequirementsandspecificationsarelistedinAttachmentEtothe
Permit.ThestatedPrimaryObjectivesfortheMRParelistedinPartII.A.1oftheMRP,asfollows:
1. Assessthechemical,physical,andbiologicalimpactsofdischargesfromtheMS4on
receivingwaters.
2. Assesscompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations(RWLs)andwaterqualityͲbased
effluentlimitations(WQBELs)establishedtoimplementTotalMaximumDailyLoad
(TMDL)wetweatheranddryweatherwasteloadallocations(WLAs).
3. CharacterizepollutantloadsinMS4discharges.
4. IdentifysourcesofpollutantsinMS4discharges.
5. Measureandimprovetheeffectivenessofpollutantcontrolsimplementedunderthe
Permit.
ExtensivedefaultmonitoringrequirementsarespecifiedintheMRP.However,pertheMRP,the
PermitteeshavetheoptiontodevelopaCIMPthatutilizesalternativeapproachestomeetthe
PrimaryObjectives,ifsufficientjustificationisprovidedandfinalapprovalisprovidedbythe
RegionalBoardExecutiveOfficer(EO).TheCIMPhasbeendesignedtoprovidetheinformation
necessarytoguidemanagementdecisionsinadditiontoprovidingameanstomeasure
compliancewiththePermitandiscomposedoffourelements:
1. ReceivingWaterMonitoring
2. StormWater(SW)OutfallMonitoring
3. TMDLMonitoring
4. NonͲStormWater(NSW)OutfallMonitoring
TheRH/SGRWQGsubmittedtheCIMP(AttachmentA)onJune27,2014totheRegionalBoard.
TheCIMPwasapprovedbytheRegionalBoardonJune29,2015.Whilemuchofthisscopeof
workisbasedontheApprovedCIMP,theproposalmustbesufficientlyflexibletoadjustto
changesinthenewMS4Permit,whichmaybeadoptedbytheRegionalBoardin2021.
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
Objectives
Fullyimplementallaspectsofthemonitoringprogram,withtheexceptionsofsections6through
10,inaccordancewiththeApprovedCIMP.Consultantsarerequiredtodesigntheirproposals
basedontheApprovedCIMPandbewillingtoincorporatechangeorderstocomplywiththenew
MS4PermitandrevisedCIMPasapprovedbytheRegionalBoard.
Tasks
Thefollowingtasksareprovidedasaguidetoaccomplishtheobjectives.Theservicestobe
performedbytheConsultantshallinclude,butnotbelimitedto,thefollowingitemsofwork:
1. ProjectManagement,Coordination,andMeetings
TheConsultantwillprovideprojectmanagementservicestoensuretheprojectis
deliveredonscheduleandwithinbudget.Thistaskwillprovideforadministration
andmanagementofthisproject’scontract;coordinationandcommunicationwith
membersoftheRH/SGRWQG,includingprojectkickͲoffandcloseͲoutmeetings;
annualreportpresentations;twoadditionaloptionalmeetingsattherequestofthe
RH/SGRWQGmembers;andcoordinationofanyothermeetingswiththe
RH/SGRWQG’smembers,oversightcommittee,RegionalBoardstaff,and/or
Consultantsasnecessarytodelivertheproject.
TheConsultantshallcoordinatewiththepreviousconsultantforaseamless
transition.
Deliverables:
1.1. Withinseven(7)workingdaysoftheNoticetoProceed,Consultantshall
conductakickͲoffmeetingwithRH/SGRWQGMemberstodiscusstheScope
ofWorkandanyotherpertinentdetails.
1.2. AllmeetingagendaswillbesubmittedelectronicallytotheCityofArcadia
two(2)businessdayspriortothemeetingdate.Allmeetingminuteswillbe
submittedelectronicallytotheCityofArcadiawithinfive(5)businessdays
afterthemeetingdate.
1.3. ConsultantshallconductafieldkickͲoffmeetingwithRH/SGRWQGMembers
and/orRH/SGRWQG’sotherConsultantstofamiliarizethemselveswiththe
samplinglocations.
1.4. Within14daysoffieldkickͲoffmeeting,Consultantshallmake
recommendations,alternativesandjustificationsformonitoringequipment
ateachlocation.
1.5. TheConsultantshallconductaformalpresentationoftheannualreportafter
thesubmittalofthedraftAnnualreportandbeforethereceiptofcomments
onthedraftAnnualreportfromtheRH/SGRWQGMembers.
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
1.6. TheConsultantshallsubmitatentativeprojectscheduleandmonthly
updatesinordertomeetdeadlinesestablishedwithintheScopeofWork.
2. CIMPRequirements
Allsamplecollectionandfieldmeasurementsshallbeperformedinaccordance
processandproceduressetforthintheApprovedCIMP(seeApprovedCIMP
AttachmentE–AnalyticalandMonitoringProcedures).TheConsultantshallbe
responsibleforschedulingandselfͲactivationofthesamplingteamsandshallnotify
theCityofArcadiaviaemail24hourspriortoanduponactivationofthesampling
team.Intheeventthatweatherorotherlogisticalissuespreventemailnotification
fromoccurringwithinthe24Ͳhourrequirement,Consultantwillprovidenotificationas
timelyaspossibleandwithapprovalfromtheCityofArcadia.
2.1. ReceivingWaterMonitoring
CollectandanalyzestormwaterdataasspecifiedbytheApprovedCIMPfromthe
estimatedSeptember2014,toSeptember2017(contractperiod),2018,2019
(optionalcontractextensions)atlocationsRHSGR_RH3_ARCandRHSGR_LDWͲBDW
(ApprovedCIMPsection2.3.1)fortwodryweathereventsandthreewetweather
events.
Specificconstituentsandtheirmonitoringfrequencyrequirementsarefoundinthe
ApprovedCIMPTable2Ͳ4.
AstormeventasdefinedbytheCIMPisaneventwithaminimumrainfall
accumulationof0.25inchwithaseventy(70)percentprobabilityofrainfallatleast
24hourspriortotheevent.TheSantaFeDam(USC)(#3377)LACDPWALERTRainfall
Gaugewillbeusedtodetermineastormevent.TheConsultantshallcommunicateto
CityofAzusaviaemail24hourspriortoanduponactivationofthesamplingteam.In
theeventthatweatherorotherlogisticalissuespreventemailnotificationfrom
occurringwithinthe24Ͳhourrequirement,Consultantwillprovidenotificationas
timelyaspossibleandwithapprovalfromtheCityofArcadia.Thenotificationshall
containbutnotlimitedto:
a. Anticipatedstarttimeanddateofthestormevent
b. Anticipatedhighesttotalamountofrainduringanygiven24Ͳhourperiod
duringthestorm
c. Probabilityoftheprecipitation
d. Source(s)oftheitems(a)thru(c)
e. Teststoberunonsamplestakenateachsite
f. Confirmationthatthelaboratoryhasbeennotifiedtoexpectsamples
g. Nameandcellphonenumberofconsultant'sstormeventcoordinator
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
Additionalnotificationsshallincludethefollowing:
x ConsultantshallemailandviatelephonenotifytheCityofArcadiawhenstorm
activationanddeactivationoccurs.
x ConsultantshallemailandviatelephonenotifytheCityofArcadiawhengrab
sampleshavebeendeliveredtothelaboratory.
Deliverables:
TheConsultantshallsubmit:
2.1.1PostͲEventsamplingdataandmonitoringreportswithin30calendardaysafter
eachevent.
2.2. ReceivingWaterTMDLMonitoring
CollectandanalyzestormwaterdataforconstituentsandfrequencieslistedinTable
2Ͳ4oftheApprovedCIMPatthefollowingsites:
ReceivingWaterMonitoringSites(ApprovedCIMPsection2.3.1)
RHSGR_RH3_ARC
RHSGR_LDW_BDW
ReceivingWaterMonitoring(TMDL)Sites(ApprovedCIMPsection2.3.2)
RHSGR_PRP_LAKE
WHSGR_SAW_PR
RHSGR_SAN_DD
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
Specificconstituentsandtheirmonitoringfrequencyrequirementsarefoundinthe
ApprovedCIMPTables2Ͳ4and2Ͳ5.
AstormeventasdefinedbytheCIMPisaneventwithaminimumrainfall
accumulationof0.25inchwithaseventy(70)percentprobabilityofrainfallatleast
24hourspriortotheevent.TheSantaFeDam(USC)(#3377)LACDPWALERTRainfall
Gaugewillbeusedtodetermineastormevent.TheConsultantshallcommunicateto
CityofArcadiaviaemail24hourspriortoanduponactivationofthesamplingteam.
Intheeventthatweatherorotherlogisticalissuespreventemailnotificationfrom
occurringwithinthe24Ͳhourrequirement,Consultantwillprovidenotificationas
timelyaspossibleandwithapprovalfromtheCityofArcadia.
Deliverables:
TheConsultantshallsubmit:
2.2.1PostͲEventsamplingdataandmonitoringreportswithin30calendardaysafter
eachevent.
2.3. StormwaterOutfallMonitoring
Collectandanalyzestormwaterdataforthreewetweatherevents(concurrentwith
ReceivingWaterMonitoring)forconstituentsandfrequencieslistedinTable4Ͳ11of
theApprovedCIMPand/orasspecifiedbytheApprovedCIMPfollowingthe
identifiedphasingschedule:
PeckRoadDrain
BradburyDrain
BI0602ͲLineB
BI1219ͲLineC
BeattyCanyon
(Seesection4.2ofApprovedCIMPpgs.26Ͳ38forlocations).
AstormeventasdefinedbytheCIMPisaneventwithaminimumrainfallaccumulation
of0.25inchwithaseventy(70)percentprobabilityofrainfallatleast24hourspriorto
theevent.TheSantaFeDam(USC)(#3377)LACDPWALERTRainfallGaugewillbe
usedtodetermineastormevent.TheConsultantshallcommunicatetotheCityof
Arcadiaofanymonitoringplans24hourspriortoaforecastofastormevent.
Monitoringshalltargetthefirstsignificantraineventofthestormyearfollowingthe
criteria,andatleasttwoadditionalwetͲweathereventswithinthesamewetͲweather
season.Consultantshalltargetthefirststormeventofthestormyearwithapredicted
rainfallofatleast0.25inchesata70percentprobabilityofrainfallatleast24hours
priortotheeventtime.Consultantshalltargetsubsequentstormeventsthatforecast
sufficientrainfallandrunofftomeetprogramobjectivesandsiteͲspecificstudyneeds.
Samplingeventsshallbeseparatedbyaminimumofthreedaysofdryconditions
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
(<0.25inchesofraineachday).WeatherforecastsshallbederivedfromtheSantaFe
Dam,NationalWeatherServicestationSTFC1.(Lat:34.126139degreesNorth,Lon:
117.947169degreesWest).
Deliverables:
TheConsultantshallsubmit:
2.3.1PostͲEventsamplingdataandmonitoringreportswithin30calendardaysafter
eachevent.
2.4. RioHondoPreͲLoadReductionStrategyMonitoring(AdditiveAlternativeA)
ContractormustfollowtherequirementsoftheLosAngelesRiverBacteriaTMDLfor
DryWeatherLoadReductionStrategy.PreͲLoadReductionStrategy(LRS)monitoring
isrequiredtoestimatetheE.coliloadingfromMS4outfallstotheRioHondo
TributaryoftheLosAngelesRiver,anddeterminethelocationandnumberofPriority
Outfallsaswellastosupporttheidentificationofthetypesofimplementation
actionsthatareexpectedtobenecessarytoattaintheMS4WasteLoadAllocations.
OutfallmonitoringshalltakeplaceatallMS4outfallsthataredischargingtoa
segmentortributaryduringagivenmonitoringevent.Thiseventdoesnotneedto
becompletedinoneday,butmustbecontinuousthroughouttheRioHondooutfalls.
Six(6)monitoringeventsthroughouttheRioHondooutfallsmustbecompetedas
describedintheLARiverBacteriaTMDL.SegmentortributariesoftheRioHondoare
comprisedoftheRioHondoReach3(withinEWMPboundaries),SierraMadreWash,
SantaAnitaWash,ArcadiaWashandSawpitWashinclusively.TheConsultantwill
needtorefertothedraftCIMP(Sections5.1and5.3Ͳ5.5ofApprovedCIMP)for
generalandspecificsofthisrequirement.
Deliverables:
TheConsultantshallsubmit:
2.4.1AnupdatedGISDatabase,ifneeded,ofRioHondoMS4Outfallsthatare
dischargingtoasegmentortributaryoftheRioHondo.Databaseshallinclude
appropriatefieldsasspecifiedintheCIMP.
2.4.2PostͲEventsamplingdataandmonitoringreportswithin30calendardaysafter
eachevent.
2.4.3SourceInvestigation–Contractorshalldevelopasourceidentificationschedule
basedontheprioritizedlistofoutfallsexhibitingsignificantnonͲstormwater
discharges.Thescheduleshallensurethatsourceinvestigationsareconducted
fornolessthan25%oftheoutfallsintheinventorybyAugust1,2015and100%
oftheoutfallsbyAugust1,2017.
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
2.5. NonͲStormwater(NSW)OutfallMonitoringforSanGabrielRiverTributaries
(AdditiveAlternativeB)
TheNSWOutfallScreeningProgramisamultiͲstepprocesstoidentifyandaddress
NSWdischargestoreceivingwatersasspecifiedintheApprovedCIMP.TheConsultant
willneedtorefertotheApprovedCIMP(Sections5.2Ͳ5.5ofApprovedCIMP)for
generalandspecificsofthisrequirement.
Deliverables:
TheConsultantshallsubmit:
2.5.1AnupdatedGISDatabase,asneeded,oftheSanGabrielRiverMS4Outfallswith
appropriatefieldsasspecifiedintheCIMP.
2.5.2ADraftSignificantDischargeReportwhichsummarizesthescreeningevents,
identifiesoutfallswithsignificantdischarge,andprioritizessourceinvestigation.
Itwillbesubmitted45calendardaysafterthefinalscreeningevent.TheCityof
Arcadiawillprovidecommentswithin15calendardaysaftersubmittal.
2.5.3AFinalSignificantDischargeReportwhichidentifiesoutfallswithsignificant
dischargeandprioritizessourceinvestigation.Itwillbesubmitted30calendar
daysafterreceiptofTheCityofArcadia’scomments.
2.5.4SourceInvestigation–Contractorshalldevelopasourceidentificationschedule
basedontheprioritizedlistofoutfallsexhibitingsignificantnonͲstormwater
discharges.Thescheduleshallensurethatsourceinvestigationsareconductedfor
nolessthan25%oftheoutfallsintheinventorybyAugust1,2015and100%of
theoutfallsbyAugust1,2017
TheremainderofthetasksfortheNSWwillbecompletedasneededorrequiredby
theApprovedCIMPandnewMS4Permit.
3. Health&SafetyPlan
TheproposedworkshallbeperformedbytheConsultantanditssubͲcontractorin
accordancewiththerequirementsofCaliforniaOccupationalHealth&Safety(CalͲ
OSHA).TheConsultantshallfurnishtheCityofArcadiawiththreecopiesofaHealth
andSafetyPlan(HSP)priortothestartofanywork.TheConsultantandsubͲ
contractorshallalsocomplywithanyotherFederalOccupationalHealthandSafety
Administrationrequirements,ifapplicabletotheproposedwork.HSPshalladdress
siteͲspecificsafetyconcernsatallsitesincludingbutnotlimitedtovandalism,site
accessibility,laneclosures,botanicalgarden,stormdrainlaterals,etc.
Deliverables:
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
3.1. TheConsultantshallsubmitaHealthandSafetyPlanpriortostartofanyfieldwork
inconnectionwiththisproject.
4. DataManagementandReportingMethodology
Alllaboratoryresultswillbesubmittedinaformatthatisconsistentwiththemost
recentupdateoftheSouthernCaliforniaMunicipalStormwaterMonitoring
Coalition’s(SMC)StandardizedDataTransferFormat(SDTFs).Atemplatecanbe
providedforthispurpose.
Deliverables:
4.1Inconjunctionwitheachmonitoring/samplingevent,theConsultantshallsubmit
electronicdatafilesinthemostrecentSMCformat.TheCityofArcadiawillprovide
commentswithin15calendardaysfromthereceiptofeachdatafile.TheConsultant
shallreͲsubmitthemodifieddatafileswithin15calendardaysfromthereceiptof
commentsfromtheCityofArcadia.
4.2DevelopanexternalwebͲbasedapplicationwhereagencyrepresentativescaninput
waterqualitymonitoringforvariousmonitoringlocations.Whereavailable,have
applicationincorporateGISinterfacewithmapsandforms.
4.2.1Userswouldhaveanassignedlogin(upto21securelogins)tomanagedate
securityprivilegesforeditingand/orviewingtobeestablishedwiththeCityof
Arcadia.
4.2.2Monitoringlocationscouldbeeitherpointsofpolygons.
4.2.3Databasespecificfieldsandrequiredattachmentswillbespecifiedforvarious
locationsandwaterqualitydata.
4.2.4Usersshouldbeabletoperformsimplespatialqueriesonthedataandcreate
reportsfromthewebͲbasedmapinterface.
4.2.5Datashouldalsobeaccessedforfurtheranalysisandreportingwithinadesktop
clientsuchasArcGIS.
5. LaboratoryAnalysis
Theselectedlaboratorymusthavetheabilitytoperformthewaterqualityanalysis
meetingtheapproved/modifieddetectionandreportinglimitsidentifiedinthe
ApprovedCIMPandMS4Permit.
Deliverables:
5.1Consultantshallsubmitinformationindicatingthattheselectedtestinglaboratorywill
becertifiedofmeetingtheapproved/modifiedlaboratorydetectionandreportinglimits.
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
6. Reports
TheConsultantshallprepareandsubmittotheCityofArcadiaanAnnualReport.The
AnnualReportwillbepreparedinaccordancewithCIMP,MS4Permit,and/or
RegionalBoardguidance.TheConsultantshallsubmitthefinalAnnualReporttoThe
CityofArcadiabyOctober1stannually.TheCityofArcadiawillrequire15calendar
daystoreviewandprovidecommentspriortofinalizingAnnualReport.
TheConsultantshallprepareandsubmittotheCityofArcadiaaSemiͲAnnualData
Report.TheSemiͲAnnualDataReportwillbepreparedinaccordancewithCIMP,MS4
Permit,and/orRegionalBoardguidance.TheConsultantshallsubmitthefinalSemiͲ
AnnualDataReporttoTheCityofArcadia.TheCityofArcadiawillrequire15calendar
daystoreviewandprovidecommentspriortofinalizingSemiͲAnnualDataReport.
Deliverables:
6.1. DraftAnnualReport
6.2. FinalAnnualReport
6.3. SemiͲAnnualDataReport
7. FieldLogs&SiteAssessmentPhotos
InadditiontotheAnnualMonitoringReport,theConsultantshallprovideTheCityof
ArcadiawithcopiesofallfieldlogsandphotoͲdocumentationsinaccordancewiththe
requirementsofMS4PermitandtheApprovedCIMP.ThephotoͲdocumented
assessmentsofsiteconditionsfortheupstreamanddownstreamofallthemonitoring
sitesshallbesubmittedintheelectronicformat.
Deliverables:
7.1. Fieldlogs
7.2. PhotoͲdocumentation
8. CIMPRevision
TheConsultantshallrevisetheCIMP,asneeded,toaddresschangesinthenewMS4
Permit.
Deliverables:
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
SCOPEOFWORK
8.1. TechnicalmemosummarizingtheproposedchangestotheCIMP
8.2. LetterrequestingtheproposedchangestotheCIMP
8.3. DraftRevisedCIMP
8.4. 2ndDraftRevisedCIMPaddressingRegionalBoardandpubliccomments
8.5. FinalRevisedCIMP
Attachments
1.AttachmentA–ApprovedCoordinatedIntegratedMonitoringProgram
CONSULTANTSELECTION
AProjectReviewCommitteewillreviewandevaluateallproposalssubmitted.TheCommitteewill
evaluateallproposalsreceivedandmayinterviewtoprankedConsultantsifitisdeemed
necessary.TheProjectReviewCommitteewillmaketheselectionoftheConsultantforthiswork
basedonacombinationofthefollowingcriteria:
1. ProjectUnderstanding
Comprehensionofthescopeofworkincludedintheproject,awarenessofthePermittee’s
needs,identificationoftheworkelements,sequenceofoperations,projectobjectives,
completenessinansweringtheRequestforProposal.
2. ProjectTeam
Identificationofpersoninchargeoftheproject,includingqualifications,technical
backgroundsandexperienceofallkeypersonneltobeassignedtothisproject.
3. Experience
Relevanttechnicalexperienceandprojectscompleteddemonstratingtheabilityand
capacitytoperformtheworkincludedinthisproject.Experiencewithmunicipal
governmentprojectsandfamiliaritywithpubliccontractbiddingrequirementsarevery
desirable.
4. BudgetandSchedules
Abilitytodeliverrequireddocumentsmeetingtheanticipatedscheduleforthisproject.
Techniquesusedforcontrollingcostsandattainingprojectobjectiveswithintimeand
budgetconstraints.Recordoffirminaccomplishingitsworkonschedule,withinabudget
andinprovidingrealisticcostestimates.
5. ProjectApproach
Originalityandsoundnessoffirm’sapproachtotheproject,includingunique,innovative
orcostsavingmethods.
6. Capabilities
Staffandfacilitiesavailable,locationofoffices,currentworkload,includingcommitment
ofstafftotheprojectandtechnologyapplications.
7. LocalSensitivity
FamiliaritywiththePermittees,drainagefacilities,andtheprojectvicinity.
8. Reputation
Pastclients,repeatbusiness,statureintheindustry,awardsearned,etc.
9. FullService
Qualifications,technicalbackgroundsandexperiencedofsubͲconsultants,contractors,
etc.usedonthisproject.Disciplinecoordination,servicefromprojectbeginningto
completion.
10. SelectionCriteria
TheCityofArcadiaonbehalfoftheRH/SGRWQGwillconductacomprehensive,fair,and
impartialevaluationofproposalsreceivedinresponsetothisRFP.Allproposalsreceived
willbereviewedandevaluatedbyacommitteeofqualifiedpersonnel.Thename,
information,orexperienceoftheindividualmemberswillnotbemadeavailabletoany
proposer.TheProjectReviewCommitteewillfirstreviewandscreenallproposals
submitted,exceptforthecostproposals,accordingtotheminimumqualificationsset
forthabove.Thefollowingcriteriawillbeusedinreviewingandcomparingtheproposals
andindeterminingthehighestscoringbid:
a. Qualifications,backgroundandpriorexperienceofthefirmintheServiceArea(s)
beingproposed,experienceofthekeystaffassignedtooverseeservices
provided,evaluationofsizeandscopeofsimilarworkperformedandsuccesson
thatwork(40%).
b. ResponsivenesstotheRFP,andqualityandresponsivenessoftheproposal(10%)
c. ReferencesincludingpastperformanceoftheProposer(20%).
d. CostandfeestotheRH/SGRWQGWMPgroupforhandlingmatters.Costisnot
thesoledeterminingfactorbutwillbetakenintoconsideration.Proposermust
offerservicesatarateoftheProposer.Ifratesdifferfordifferenttypesorlevels
ofservice,orfordifferentServiceAreas,theProposershouldsostate(30%).
RIGHTTOREJECTALLPROPOSALS
TheCityofArcadiareservestherighttoacceptorrejectanyorallproposals,negotiate
modificationstoproposalsthatitdeemsacceptable,torequestandconsideradditional
informationfromanyproposer,andtowaiveminorirregularitiesandtechnicaldefectsinthis
proposalprocess.TheCityreservestherighttoseeknewproposalswhenitdeterminesthatitis
inthebestinteresttodoso.Norepresentationismadethatanycontractwillbeawarded
pursuanttotheRequestforProposal.TheCitywillprovideonlythestaffassistanceand
documentationspecificallyreferredtohereinandwillnotberesponsibleforanyothercostor
obligationthatmaybeincurredbytherespondent.AllproposalssubmittedtotheCityshall
becomethepropertyoftheCity.
PROFESSIONALSERVICESAGREEMENT
TheCityofArcadia’sstandardProfessionalServicesAgreementtemplateforConsultingServices
isattachedasAppendixAandwillbeusedforthiscontract,whichataminimumwillincludethe
termssetforthintheProfessionalServicesAgreementtemplate.Theinformationprovidedbythe
selectedfirm’sproposalwillserveasthebasisfornegotiation.Negotiationsmaythenbe
undertakenwiththereviewcommittee’ssecondchoiceorceasedaltogether.Ifanagreementis
reachedwiththeConsultant,acontractfortheworkwillbepreparedinfinalform,executedby
theConsultant,accompaniedbytheappropriatecertificatesofinsurance,togetherwiththe
requiredendorsements,andreturnedtotheCityofArcadiaforapprovalandexecution.
PROPOSALREQUIREMENTS
TheCityofArcadiareservestherighttoawardacontractforallorsomeofthetasksspecifiedin
theScopeofWorkandthereforerequestedthatallproposalsincludeatminimumabreakdown
ofcostsonataskbytaskbasis.
1. ProposalSubmittal
Proposalsmustbesubmittedbymailorcourierservice(FedEx,UPS,DHL,etc.).
Additionally,adropͲoffboxwillbelocatedoutsideattheentranceofCityHallforproposal
submission.TheCitywillnotacceptinͲpersonproposals.Allproposalsmustbedelivered
bymail/courierserviceorplacedinthedropͲoffboxaddressedtotheCityClerk’sOffice
by11:00A.M.onTuesday,October13,2020.Pleasesubmitten(10)copiesandone(1)
electroniccopyofthetechnicalproposalandtwo(2)copiesofthesealedfeeto:
CityofArcadia
OfficeoftheCityClerk
240W.HuntingtonDrive
POBox60021
Arcadia,CA91066Ͳ6021
Attn:VanessaHevener,EnvironmentalServicesManager
QuestionsregardingthisRequestforProposalorrequestsforadditionalbackground
informationmaybedirectedbyemailtoMs.VanessaHeveneratvhevener@arcadiaca.gov
bySeptember21,2020nolaterthan5:00p.m.
2. ProposalFormat
Proposalsmustincludetheinformationrequestedandcomplywiththerequirements
outlinedinthisRequestforProposal.Proposalsshould,atminimum,addresstheScope
ofWorkandshouldbeformattedtoincludethefollowingsections:
a. PerceptionandApproach:DemonstrateanunderstandingoftheProjectand
howtheprojectwillbeapproachedincludingstepstoensureultimate
compliancewithobjectivesoftheMS4NPDESPermit.
b. KeyPersonnel:Qualificationswithrespecttothisproject,responsibilitiesto
beassigned,amountofeachindividual’stimetobeallocated,locationswhere
theworkwillbeperformed.
c. ProjectManagement:Provideexamplesthatdemonstratecapabilityin
managementofprojectsofthisscope.Includeasamplemonthlyreport,
procedureformonitoringprogress,providingcostcontrol,andtomaintainthe
projectonschedule.
d. FeeProposal:Submittwo(2)copiesinseparatesealedenvelopes,plainly
labeled“FeeProposal”,includinganotͲtoͲexceedfeeforallworktobe
completed.ThefeesummaryshouldalsoincludeacostandmanͲhour
breakdownconsistentwiththerequirementsoftheScopeofWork,anda
projectschedulethataccountsforalltasks.
3. CoverLetter
Allproposalsshallincludeacoverletterwhichstates,ataminimumthattheproposal
shallremainvalidforaperiodofnotlessthanninety(90)daysfromthedateofsubmittal.
4. RequiredInformation
Proposalmustincludetheminimuminformationasoutlinedbelow:
a. Legalnameoffirm,address,andtelephonenumber
b. Firm’sTaxIdentificationNumber
c. Yearfirmwasestablishedascurrentlybeingoperated
d. IdentificationoftheProjectManagerassignedtothisproject
e. Name,address,andtelephonenumberofthepersontowhom
correspondenceshouldbedirected
f. Listofsubconsultants,ifany,whowillbepartoftheprojectteamincluding
theirspecificareasofresponsibility
g. Generaldescriptionofthestructureoftheorganization(i.e.,whetheran
individual,partnership,corporation,jointventure,etc.)
h. AminimumoffourreferencesthattheCityofArcadiamaycontactconcerning
thefirm’sperformanceonsimilarprojects
i. Representativelistingofcontractsthatareofasimilarnaturetotherequired
workforwhichthefirmhasbeenengaged,payingparticularattentiontothose
ofthelastfouryearsintheSouthernCalifornia/LosAngelesandOrange
Countyareasforconsultingengineeringservices.
COSTOFPROPOSALPREPARATION
AnypartyrespondingtothisRFPshalldosoattheirownriskandcost.TheCityofArcadiashall
not,underanycircumstances,beliableforanypreͲcontractualexpensesincurredbyany
ProposerwhoelectstosubmitaproposalinresponsetothisRFPorbyanyProposerthatis
selected.PreͲcontractualexpensesaredefinedasexpensesincurredbyProposersandthe
selectedProposer,ifany,in:
Ɣ PreparingaProposalandrelatedinformationinresponsetothisRFP;
Ɣ SubmittingaProposaltotheCity;
Ɣ NegotiationswiththeRH/SGRWQGWMPgrouponanymatterrelatedtothisRFP;
Ɣ Costsassociatedwithinterviews,meetings,travelorpresentations;or
Ɣ AnyandallotherexpensesincurredbyaProposerpriortothedateofaward,ifany,ofan
agreement,andformalnoticetoproceed.
GENERALREQUIREMENTS
MinimumQualifications
ThefirmandanysubͲconsultantsmustbelegallyqualifiedtopracticetheworkrequestedinthe
StateofCalifornia.SubͲconsultantsperformingmorethan5%oftheworkmustbeapprovedby
theCityofArcadia.Previousprofessionalwork,demonstratedcapabilitiesandexperienceofthe
projectteam,andProjectManageronsimilarprojects,mustbedocumentedandwillbeaheavily
weightedfactorintheselectionprocess.
TheConsultant’scommitmentofstafftotheprojectwillalsobeaheavilyweightedfactorinthe
selectionprocess.Onlystaffwhowill,infact,commitasubstantialpercentageoftheirtimeto
theworkshouldbesetforthinanyorganizationcharts,resumes,orinterviews.AProject
Manageristobedesignatedbynameandmaynotbechangedwithoutpriorwrittenapprovalby
theCityofArcadia.Significantdeviationsfromproposedstaffmayresultinareductionofthe
Consultant’sfeeorterminationofthecontract.Additionally,theCityreservestherighttohave
theConsultantremoveandreplacetheProjectManageroranyprojectstaffmemberorsubͲ
consultantfromtheprojectforcause.
QualityofWork
TheConsultantagreestodeliverqualityproductsandservicesthatmeetorexceedgenerally
acceptedindustrystandards(orbestpractices)andthose,whichhavebeenexpresslystated
hereinasrequirements.Productswhichfailtomeetthesestandardswillnotbeaccepted.The
Consultantwillbewhollyresponsibleforcorrectinganydeficiencyatnoadditionalcosttothe
City.TheConsultant’sproposalshallincludeadetaileddescriptionofqualityassurance
proceduresthataretobeusedontheproject.
Insurance
TheConsultantshallmaintaincommercialgeneralliabilityinsuranceandprofessionalliability
(errorsandomissions)insuranceintheaggregatelimitof$1,000,000eachduringthetermofthe
proposedConsultant(seeAppendixB).Priortothestartofwork,theConsultantshallfurnisha
CertificateofInsuranceinduplicate,namingtheCitiesofArcadia,Bradbury,Duarte,Monrovia,
SierraMadre,CountyofLosAngelesandLosAngelesCountyFloodControlDistrict,itsofficers,
agentsandemployeesasadditionalinsuredunderthepolicy.Consultantshallalsofurnishproof
ofworkers’compensationliabilityinsurance.
BusinessLicenseRequirement
ThesuccessfulfirmshallpurchaseaCityofArcadiaBusinessLicensepriortocommencingwork.
NonͲdisclosureofInformation
Anyconsultanthiredtoperformworkunderthisproject,shalltakereasonableandprudent
measurestosafeguardallinformationusedinthedevelopmentoftheworkproductsandalldraft
andfinalworkproductsincludingtheinformationinthisRFP.TheConsultantshallnotdisclose
thisinformationtoanyparty,orusetheprojectdataorinformationonanyotherproject,without
theexpressconsentoftheCityofArcadiaorasrequiredbyFederallaw.TheCityshallensure
thatthesameisrequiredofanysubͲconsultantsworkingundertheConsultant.
AppendixA–SampleProfessionalServicesAgreementTemplate
1
24347.00006\30493020.2
CITY OF ARCADIA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
[__INSERT TYPE OF SERVICE/PROJECT__]
This Agreement is made and entered into as of ________________, 20____ by and
between the City of Arcadia, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of
the State of California with its principal place of business at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia,
California 91066 (“City”), and [***INSERT NAME***], a [***INSERT TYPE OF ENTITY -
CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY***]
with its principal place of business at [***INSERT ADDRESS***] (hereinafter referred to as
“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and
collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional
services for the following project:
______________________________________________________________________
(hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).
B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such
services.
C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain
Consultant to provide the services described herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Services.
Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services
attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in
accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “B.”
b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant
under this Agreement exceed the sum of $ [Insert amount of compensation]. This
amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for
printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which
includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work
performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.
3. Additional Work.
If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations
with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following
2
24347.00006\30493020.2
manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a
statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall
be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or
the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall
not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.
4. Maintenance of Records.
Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs
incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the
contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for
inspection by City.
5. Term.
The term of this Agreement shall be from [Insert start date] to [Insert end date], unless
earlier terminated as provided herein. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the
term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Project. Consultant shall perform its services
in a prompt and timely manner within the term of this Agreement and shall commence
performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). [If the
City has specific milestones or timelines for performance, please input those requirements
in the “Activity Schedule” attached as Exhibit C, otherwise delete Exhibit C.] The Notice to
Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.
6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for
delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the non-
performing party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited
to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil
disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or
judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a
reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party
describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to
resume performance of this Agreement.
7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and
regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements.
b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and
maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies.
c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of
hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed
under this Agreement.
8. Standard of Care
3
24347.00006\30493020.2
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted
professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.
9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or
interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any
reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without
legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a
provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained
herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as
Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.
10. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No
employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed
shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and
amendments from City as herein provided.
11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided
evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In
addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until
it has secured all insurance required under this section.
a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance
of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General
Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at
least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent.
(iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage
for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion
deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement
(8) Property Damage
(9) Independent Consultants Coverage
4
24347.00006\30493020.2
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting
coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured
against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion
contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents
and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10
10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or
provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and
provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured.
b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this
Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and
property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with
insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as
broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability
(Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents
and City designated volunteers additional insured status.
(iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability
program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an
additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section
3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability
for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of
that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this
Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term
of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the
Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by
him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the
“Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of
California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts
indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period
required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as
specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall
5
24347.00006\30493020.2
maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in
a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.
This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and
shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must
specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the
insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend.
e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:
Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate
for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and
property damage
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and
omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits.
(iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this
section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of
any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to
the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement.
f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence
of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required
herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent)
signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or
equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by
a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the
names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the
insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of
such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior
written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant
shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to
non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term
of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General
6
24347.00006\30493020.2
Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective
date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy
shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any
insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall
not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the
effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a
period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant
shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced
past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the
policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the
effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional
liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its
officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or
others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right
of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and
shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its
subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.
Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in
excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City
and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other
provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance
companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies
with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the
business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance
through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code
or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance
coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not
intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise
assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the
provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of
insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is
7
24347.00006\30493020.2
canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems
necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will
withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City
may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of
all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project.
(iv) Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents
or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this
Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided
evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.
Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or
subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG
20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant,
City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors
or subconsultants.
12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel
of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and
agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses,
liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including
wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or
omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors,
consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project
or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees
and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify
shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. To the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully
incorporated herein, Consultant’s obligations under the above indemnity shall be limited to claims
that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the
Consultant, but shall not otherwise be reduced. If Consultant’s obligations to defend, indemnify,
and/or hold harmless arise out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional services” (as
that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then upon Consultant obtaining a final
adjudication that liability under a claim is caused by the comparative active negligence or willful
misconduct of the City, Consultant’s obligations shall be reduced in proportion to the established
comparative liability of the City and shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage
of fault.
13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections
1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the
performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects
(“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public
8
24347.00006\30493020.2
works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $15,000 or more for maintenance or $25,000 or more for construction, alteration,
demolition, installation, or repair, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage
Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and
agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon
the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which
include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775),
employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code
Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment
of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1).
b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works”
or “maintenance” project and if the total compensation is $15,000 or more for maintenance or
$25,000 or more for construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair, then pursuant to
Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such
services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain
registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as
applicable. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the
Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all
applicable registration and labor compliance requirements.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and
enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility
to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders
issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that
affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole
responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered
Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from
any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations
against Consultant or any subcontractor.
14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements
and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens,
including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended
from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the
same.
15. City Material Requirements.
Consultant is hereby made aware of the City’s requirements regarding materials, as set
forth in [Insert the name of the document that contains the City’s standard material
requirements], which are deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
16. Laws and Venue.
This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be
brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
9
24347.00006\30493020.2
17. Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work
under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event,
City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and
specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the
work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of
services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination
occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been
received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of
such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of
such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs
other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be
entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or
compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under
this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial
failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of
Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,”
above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents,
produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this
Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.
19. Organization
Consultant shall assign _________________________ as Project Manager. The Project
Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of
the City.
20. Limitation of Agreement.
This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described
above.
21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given
or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:
CITY:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91066
Attn: [***INSERT NAME & DEPARTMENT***]
CONSULTANT:
[***INSERT NAME, ADDRESS & CONTACT
PERSON***]
10
24347.00006\30493020.2
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.
22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other
than the City and the Consultant.
23. Equal Opportunity Employment.
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color,
national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal
Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to
initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or
termination.
24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and
Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or
contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to
those matters covered hereunder. Each party acknowledges that no representations,
inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated
herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or
altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.
25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not
render the provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in
interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement. However,
Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights,
burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment
without such consent shall be invalid and void.
27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party,
unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.
28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.
29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with
this Project or other projects.
11
24347.00006\30493020.2
30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or
person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this
Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting
from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall
have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no
director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall
have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit
arising therefrom.
31. Federal Requirements [***INCLUDE THIS SECTION ONLY IF APPLICABLE;
DELETE OTHERWISE AND DELETE ASSOCIATED EXHIBIT. YOU MAY ALSO NEED TO
INCLUDE SOME INFORMATION IN THE RFP DUE TO FEDERAL FUNDING GUIDELINES.
CONSULT LEGAL COUNSEL IF NECESSARY***]
When funding for the services is provided, in whole or in part, by an agency of the federal
government, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with the provisions included in
Exhibit “D” (Federal Requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
(“Federal Requirements”). With respect to any conflict between such Federal Requirements and
the terms of this Agreement and/or the provisions of state law, the more stringent requirement
shall control.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
12
24347.00006\30493020.2
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARCADIA
AND [***INSERT NAME***]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
CITY OF ARCADIA [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT]
By: By:
Dominic Lazzaretto
City Manager Its:
Printed Name:
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
13
24347.00006\30493020.2
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
14
24347.00006\30493020.2
EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle. Consultant will include with each invoice a detailed
progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task. Consultant will inform
City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant. This is a time-and-materials
contract.
15
24347.00006\30493020.2
EXHIBIT C
Activity Schedule
16
24347.00006\30493020.2
EXHIBIT D
Federal Requirements
AppendixB–SampleInsuranceForms
AttachmentA–ApprovedCIMP
Coo
Rio H
W
ordinat
S
Revis
Hondo
Water
ed Inte
Submitta
sion Subm
1561
Fulle
TEL
www
o/San G
r Quali
Revise
egrated
l Date: J
mittal Da
1 E. Orangeth
erton, Californ
(714) 526-75
w.cwecorp.com
Gabrie
ty Gro
ed
Monito
une 27,
ate: May
horpe Avenue
nia 92831
500 | FAX (7
m
el Rive
oup
ring Pro
2014
11, 2015
e, Suite 240
714) 526-7004
er
ogram
5
4
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- i -
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. i
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES .............................................................................. IV
ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................v
ES. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... vii
ES.1 WATER QUALITY PRIORITIES .................................................................................................... vii
ES.2 MONITORING SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ix
ES.2.1 Receiving Water Monitoring ........................................................................................... x
ES.2.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring ...................................................................................... xii
ES.2.3 Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening and Monitoring ........................................................ xiv
ES.3 NEW DEVELOPMENT AND RE-DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING .............................................. xvii
ES.4 REGIONAL STUDIES ............................................................................................................. xviii
ES.5 WATERSHED COORDINATION ................................................................................................. xviii
ES.6 CIMP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ......................................................................................... xviii
ES.7 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ xix
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 RIO HONDO/SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATER QUALITY GROUP ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AREA 1
1.2 WATER QUALITY PRIORITIES ..................................................................................................... 5
1.3 CIMP OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 9
1.3.1 Receiving Water Monitoring ........................................................................................... 9
1.3.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring ....................................................................................... 9
1.3.3 Non-Stormwater Outfall Program ................................................................................... 9
1.3.4 New Development and Re-Development Effectiveness Tracking ........................................ 9
1.3.5 Regional Studies ......................................................................................................... 10
1.4 MONITORING PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................... 10
1.5 2012 MS4 PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS AND CIMP IMPLEMENTATION ................................................... 11
2. RECEIVING WATER MONITORING PROGRAM .................................................................. 12
2.1 RECEIVING WATER MONITORING OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 12
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING WATER MONITORING ........................................................................ 12
2.3 RECEIVING WATER MONITORING SITES ...................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Long-Term Assessment Site ........................................................................................ 15
2.3.2 TMDL Sites ................................................................................................................ 18
2.4 MONITORED CONSTITUENTS AND FREQUENCY .............................................................................. 19
2.5 MONITORING COORDINATION .................................................................................................. 22
3. MS4 DATABASE ................................................................................................................. 23
3.1 AVAILABLE INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 23
3.2 INFORMATION NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE .................................................................................. 24
4. STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING ............................................................................ 25
4.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 25
4.2 STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING SITES ................................................................................ 25
4.2.1 Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 ........................................................................................... 28
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- ii -
4.2.2 Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 ............................................................................................ 30
4.2.3 Santa Fe Flood Control Basin HUC-12 ........................................................................... 32
4.2.4 City of Monrovia ......................................................................................................... 34
4.2.5 Cities of Bradbury and Duarte ...................................................................................... 36
4.3 MONITORED CONSTITUENTS AND FREQUENCY .............................................................................. 38
4.4 STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING SUMMARY ........................................................................... 39
5. NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL PROGRAM ......................................................................... 40
5.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL SCREENING AND MONITORING PROGRAM IN RIO HONDO
PORTION OF THE RH/SGRWQG AREA ................................................................................................. 42
5.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL SCREENING AND MONITORING PROGRAM IN SAN GABRIEL
RIVER PORTION OF THE RH/SGRWQG AREA ........................................................................................ 44
5.3 INVENTORY OF MS4 OUTFALLS WITH NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES ............................................... 45
5.4 PRIORITIZED SOURCE IDENTIFICATION ....................................................................................... 46
5.5 SIGNIFICANT NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE SOURCE IDENTIFICATION ............................................... 47
5.6 NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE MONITORING .............................................................................. 48
5.6.1 Non-Stormwater Outfall-Based Monitoring Sites ............................................................ 48
5.6.2 Monitored Constituents and Frequency ......................................................................... 48
5.6.3 Adaptive Monitoring .................................................................................................... 49
6. NEW DEVELOPMENT/RE-DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING ............................ 51
6.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 51
6.2 EXISTING NEW DEVELOPMENT/RE-DEVELOPMENT TRACKING PROCEDURES ........................................... 51
6.3 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING ................................................. 51
6.3.1 Data Management ...................................................................................................... 52
6.3.2 Additional Data .......................................................................................................... 52
6.3.3 Reporting .................................................................................................................. 52
6.3.4 Information Sharing.................................................................................................... 52
6.4 SUMMARY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT/RE-DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING ................................... 53
7. REGIONAL STUDIES .......................................................................................................... 54
8. SPECIAL STUDIES ............................................................................................................. 55
9. NON-DIRECT MEASUREMENTS ......................................................................................... 57
10. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 58
10.1 INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM .................................................................. 58
10.2 CIMP REVISION PROCESS ...................................................................................................... 58
11. REPORTING ................................................................................................................... 60
11.1 DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS ..................................................................................................... 60
11.1.1 Event Summary Reports .............................................................................................. 60
11.1.2 Semi-Annual Analytical Data Reports ............................................................................ 60
11.2 MONITORING REPORTS .......................................................................................................... 60
11.2.1 Report Objectives ....................................................................................................... 60
11.2.2 Annual Reports .......................................................................................................... 61
11.2.2.1 Watershed Summary Information .......................................................................... 61
11.2.2.1.1 Watershed Management Area ............................................................................. 61
11.2.2.1.2 Subwatershed (HUC-12) Descriptions .................................................................. 61
11.2.2.1.3 Description of Permittee(s) Drainage Area within the Subwatershed ...................... 61
11.2.2.2 Annual Assessment and Reporting ......................................................................... 62
11.2.2.2.1 Stormwater Control Measures ............................................................................. 62
11.2.2.2.2 Effectiveness Assessment of Stormwater Control Measures ................................... 63
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- iii -
11.2.2.2.3 Non-Stormwater Water Control Measures ............................................................ 63
11.2.2.2.4 Effectiveness Assessment of Non-Stormwater Control Measures ............................ 64
11.2.2.2.5 Integrated Monitoring Compliance Report ............................................................ 64
11.2.2.2.6 Adaptive Management Strategies ........................................................................ 65
11.2.2.2.7 Supporting Data and Information ........................................................................ 65
12. CIMP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ............................................................................. 66
13. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 68
14. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 70
List of Figures
Figure ES-1 RH/SGRWQG EWMP Receiving Water Sites ..................................................................... xi
Figure ES-2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites .............................................................................. xiii
Figure 1-1 Location of the EWMP Group within the Los Angeles Basin .................................................. 2
Figure 1-2 Water Bodies and Geographic Boundary of the RH/SGRWQG .............................................. 3
Figure 2-1 Overview of Receiving Water Monitoring Sites ................................................................. 14
Figure 2-2 LTA Monitoring Sites Catchment Areas ............................................................................ 17
Figure 4-1 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites ................................................................................ 27
Figure 4-2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 ........................................ 29
Figure 4-3 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 ......................................... 31
Figure 4-4 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 .............................................. 33
Figure 4-5 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – City of Monrovia ...................................................... 35
Figure 4-6 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Cities of Bradbury and Duarte ................................... 37
Figure 5-1 Non-Stormwater Outfall Program Flow Diagram ............................................................... 41
List of Tables
Table ES-1 Water Body-Pollutant Combination Categories ................................................................. viii
Table ES-2 Summary of Rio Hondo Constituent Categories and Priorities ............................................ ix
Table ES-3 Summary of Peck Rd Park Lake Constituent Categories and Priorities ................................. ix
Table ES-4 Summary of San Garbriel River Constituent Categories and Priorities ................................. ix
Table ES-5 Los Angeles River WMA Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process ................................... xv
Table ES-6 San Gabriel River WMA Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process ................................... xvi
Table ES-7 Approach for Establishing a Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process ............................ xvii
Table 1-1 RH/SGRWQG EWMP Area Land Use Summary ..................................................................... 4
Table 1-2 TMDLs Applicable to the RH/SGRWQG EWMP Area and Downstream Areas ........................... 5
Table 1-3 Category 1 Water Body-Pollutant Combinations with WQBELs .............................................. 6
Table 1-4 RH/SGRWQG TMDLs and Applicability ................................................................................ 6
Table 1-5 Category 1 Pollutants with WQBELs for Discharges to Peck Road Park Lake ........................... 7
Table 1-6 Category 2 Water Body-Pollutant Combinations .................................................................. 7
Table 1-7 EMWP LAR Initial Constituent Categories and Priorities ........................................................ 8
Table 1-8 EWMP Peck Road Park Lake Constituent Categories and Priorities ......................................... 8
Table 1-9 EWMP SGR Constituent Categories and Priorities ................................................................. 8
Table 2-1 Summary of RH/SGRWQG Receiving Water Monitoring Sites .............................................. 13
Table 2-2 Rio Hondo LTA Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison ........................................................ 16
Table 2-3 Little Dalton Wash LTA Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison ............................................ 18
Table 2-4 Annual Frequency of Receiving Water Monitoring during Wet- and Dry-Weather Conditions .. 20
Table 2-5 Frequency of Receiving Water Monitoring for Peck Road Park Lake ..................................... 22
Table 3-1 Available Information for MS4 Database ........................................................................... 23
Table 3-2 Information to be Collected for MS4 Database .................................................................. 24
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- iv -
Table 4-1 Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison ........... 28
Table 4-2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 ......................................... 28
Table 4-3 Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison ............. 30
Table 4-4 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 ........................................... 30
Table 4-5 Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison .................. 32
Table 4-6 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 ............................................... 32
Table 4-7 City of Monrovia Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison.......................... 34
Table 4-8 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – City of Monrovia ....................................................... 34
Table 4-9 Cities of Bradbury and Duarte Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison ...... 36
Table 4-10 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Cities of Bradbury and Duarte .................................. 36
Table 4-11 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Constituents and Frequency .............................................. 38
Table 4-12 Summary of Proposed Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites in the RH/SGRWQG EWMP Area 39
Table 4-13 RH/SGRWQG Member Represented by Each Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site ................ 39
Table 5-1 Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process for Los Angeles River WMA ............................... 42
Table 5-2 Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening for San Gabriel River WMA ............................................ 44
Table 5-3 Approach for Establishing a Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process ............................... 45
Table 5-4 Summary of Endpoints for Source Identification ................................................................ 47
Table 5-5 List of Constituents for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring ................................................ 50
Table 6-1 New and Re-Development Project Data per Attachment E Part X.A ..................................... 51
Table 6-2 New and Re-Development Project Tracking per Part VI.D.7.d.iv.(1)(a) ................................ 52
Table 6-3 Standard Data Formats ................................................................................................... 53
Table 8-1 Special Studies from LAR Metals TMDL Being Considered for Implementation ...................... 55
Table 8-2 Special Studies from SGR Metals TMDL Being Considered for Implementation ..................... 55
Table 13-1 Summary of Receiving Water Monitoring Program Objectives ........................................... 68
Table 13-2 Summary of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Program Objectives ....................................... 68
Table 13-3 Summary of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Program Objectives ................................ 69
List of Attachments and Appendices
Attachment A Watershed Management Plan Area Background
Attachment B Monitoring Location Fact Sheets
Attachment C Table E-2 of the Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment D Stormwater Outfall Selection
Attachment E Analytical and Monitoring Procedures
Attachment F Caltrans Guidance Manual: Stormwater Monitoring Protocols, 2nd Edition Chapter 13
Attachment G Los Angeles County Flood Control District Background
Appendix 1 Example Field and Chain-of-Custody Forms
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- v -
Acronyms
BMP Best Management Practice
BPA Basin Plan Amendment
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CIMP Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
CRAM California Rapid Assessment Method
CWA Clean Water Act
DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
EIA Effective Impervious Area
EO Executive Officer
EWMP Enhanced Watershed Management Program
FCB Flood Control Basin
GIS Geographic Information System
GWMA Gateway Water Management Authority
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IC/ID Illicit Connection/Illicit Discharge
LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
LAR Los Angeles River
LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
LRS Load Reduction Strategy
LTA Long-Term Assessment
MCM Minimum Control Measures
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NAL Non-Stormwater Action Level
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSW Non-Stormwater
OC Organochlorine
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QA Quality Assurance and Quality Control
RAA Reasonable Assurance Analysis
RH/SGRWQG Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
ROWD Report of Waste Discharge
RW Receiving Water
RWL Receiving Water Limitation
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
SGR San Gabriel River
SGRRMP San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program
SMC Stormwater Monitoring Coalition
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- vi -
SQO Sediment Quality Objectives
SSC Suspended Sediment Concentration
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TIE Toxicity Identification Evaluation
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WBPC Water Body-Pollutant Combination
WLA Waste Load Allocation
WMA Watershed Management Area
WMP Watershed Management Program
WQBEL Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitation
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- vii -
ES. Executive Summary
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) Permit Order No R4-2012-0175, (Permit) was adopted on November 8, 2012, by the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board or LARWQCB) and became effective December 28,
2012. The Regional Board adopted the Permit to ensure the MS4s in Los Angeles County do not cause or
contribute to exceedances of water quality objectives set to protect the beneficial uses in the Receiving
Waters (RWs). The County of Los Angeles (County), Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD),
and the Cities of Arcadia, Azusa, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre comprise the Rio
Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group (RH/SGRWQG) formed to address water quality issues in
their respective jurisdictions. The RH/SGRWQG has chosen the option of developing an Enhanced
Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Plan and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP)
Plan as a path to compliance with the MS4 Permit, functioning as an EWMP Group. The purpose of the
CIMP is to specify the approach for meeting the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) Primary
Objectives component of the MS4 Permit. The Primary Objectives of the MRP include:
¾Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of MS4 discharges from the on
RWs.
¾Assess compliance with Receiving Water Limitations (RWLs) and Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) established to implement Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) wet-weather and dry-weather Waste Load Allocations (WLAs).
¾Characterize pollutant loads in MS4 discharges.
¾Identify sources of pollutants in MS4 discharges.
¾Measure and improve the effectiveness of pollutant controls implemented under the MS4
Permit.
The CIMP provides a framework for the RH/SGRWQG to implement an effective comprehensive
monitoring program. The CIMP is designed to provide the RH/SGRWQG with the information necessary
to guide water quality program management decisions, and assess the effectiveness of watershed
actions. Additionally, the monitoring will provide a means to measure compliance with the MS4 Permit.
The CIMP is composed of five elements, including:
1. RW Monitoring
2. Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
3. Non-Stormwater (NSW) Outfall Assessment and Monitoring
4. New Development/Re-Development Effectiveness Tracking
5. Regional Studies
This document provides a discussion of the monitoring locations, constituents, monitoring frequency, and
general monitoring approach. The attachments and appendices to this CIMP describe additional
background information and detail specific analytical and monitoring procedures that will be used to
implement this CIMP.
ES.1 Water Quality Priorities
The water quality priorities are the combination of a water quality issue, location of concern, and
category of the concern. The water quality issue and where it is of concern is the Water Body-Pollutant
Combination (WBPC). Categories of WBPCs defined in the MS4 Permit with their respective priorities are
listed in Table ES-1. Priorities assigned to the WBPC will assist in the scheduling of watershed actions to
address water quality. Each WBPC will be addressed as part of the EWMP. The CIMP specifies
monitoring for each WBPC.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- viii -
Table ES-1 Water Body-Pollutant Combination Categories
Category Priority Water Body-Pollutant Combinations Included
1 Highest Priority WBPCs for which TMDL WLA or RWLs are established.
2 High Priority WBPCs for which data indicate water quality impairment in the RW
according to the 303(d) list.1
3 Medium Priority WBPCs for which there are insufficient data to indicate impairment
in the RW, but which exceed applicable RWLs.1
1 Only for pollutants where MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to RW exceedances.
Historic monitoring data from within the RH/SGRWQG EWMP area are essentially non-existent. The RWs
downstream of the EWMP area are monitored; however, the operation of dams, natural channels, and
infiltration facilities hydrologically disconnects the EWMP area from the downstream monitoring locations
in all conditions other than large storms. The water quality in the downstream reaches generally does
not represent the condition of RWs in the EWMP area. For the initial prioritization, the downstream
monitoring data are not considered.
New monitoring locations in the RWs at the downstream boundaries of the EWMP area will be monitored
for the full list of MRP Table E-2 constituents. Those constituents found to exceed the applicable water
quality objectives will be added to the water quality priorities and monitoring program as part of the
adaptive management process. Based on the MS4 Permit prioritization categories, WBPCs for the
Rio Hondo are presented in Table ES-2. WBPCs for Peck Road Park Lake are listed in Table ES-3. The
San Gabriel River (SGR) WBPCs are compiled in Table ES-4. The MS4 Permit also identifies a second
level of prioritization based on whether final WLAs, expressed as WQBELs or RWLs, become effective
before the end of the MS4 Permit term on December 28, 2017. Due to the natural rate of infiltration,
operation of upstream dams and downstream spreading grounds, the Rio Hondo and SGR are generally
dry with the exception of flows from relatively large storms. CIMP monitoring will be assessed over time
to determine whether a connection exists between the upper and lower watershed and under which
conditions. As the CIMP is implemented, the monitoring data will be used in an adaptive management
process to refine the constituents in the EWMP area that need to remain on or be added to the
prioritization. The priorities for the EWMP area were developed considering the area as hydrologically
disconnected from areas in the lower watershed. The initial establishment of monitoring locations at the
downstream boundaries of the EWMP area and analysis for the constituents in MRP Table E-2 will be a
fundamental component of early adaptive management refinements to the water quality priorities and
monitoring constituent lists. Water quality conditions identified within the EWMP area are marked with
an “X” in the three tables.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- ix -
Table ES-2 Summary of Rio Hondo Constituent Categories and Priorities
Constituent
Category 1
TMDLs
Highest Priority
Category 2
303(d) Listings
High Priority
Category 3
RWL Exceedances
Medium Priority
Copper X
Lead X X1
Zinc X
Cadmium X
Trash X
Coliform/Indicator Bacteria2 X X3
Ammonia X
Nitrate as N X
Nitrite as N X
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate X3
1 Listing on Monrovia Wash upstream of Peck Road Park Lake.
2 Replaced by E. coli as the current freshwater indicator bacterial objective in the Basin Plan.
3 Listings on Sawpit Wash upstream of Peck Road Park Lake.
Table ES-3 Summary of Peck Rd Park Lake Constituent Categories and Priorities
Constituent
Category 1
TMDLs
Highest Priority
Category 2
303(d) Listings
High Priority
Category 3
RWL Exceedances
Medium Priority
Total Nitrogen X
Total Phosphorus X
Chlordane X
DDT X
Dieldrin X
PCBs X
Table ES-4 Summary of San Garbriel River Constituent Categories and Priorities
Constituent
Category 1
TMDLs
Highest Priority
Category 2
303(d) Listings
High Priority
Category 3
RWL Exceedances
Medium Priority
Lead X
Coliform/Indicator Bacteria1 X
1 Total and Fecal Coliform objectives are no longer listed in the Basin Plan. E. coli are the current indicator for
freshwater in the Basin Plan.
ES.2 Monitoring Summary
RW monitoring is designed to assess whether water quality objectives are being met in water bodies and
if beneficial uses are being supported. Stormwater and NSW outfall monitoring is used to determine if
the MS4 is causing or contributing to water quality issues in the RW. Additionally, the stormwater and
NSW outfall monitoring is used to determine if the discharges are below municipal action levels and
action levels specified in Attachment G of the MS4 Permit, respectively. Regional Studies are designed to
measure the overall health of a watershed.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- x -
ES.2.1 Receiving Water Monitoring
The objectives of RW monitoring are to assess whether RWLs are being achieved, evaluate trends in
pollutant concentrations, and determine whether designated beneficial uses are fully supported. WBPCs
prioritizations were utilized to support the development of the monitoring approach. To address the MS4
Permit monitoring objectives and priorities, two types of monitoring are proposed, including:
¾Long-Term Assessment – Long-Term Assessment (LTA) monitoring is intended to
determine if RWLs are achieved, assess trends in pollutant concentrations over time, and
determine whether designated uses are supported.
¾TMDL – TMDL monitoring is conducted to evaluate attainment of or progress in attaining
the WLAs.
While not explicitly established in the MRP, the monitoring types distinguish between the different end
goals of monitoring for specific constituents within specific water bodies in the RH/SGRWQG area. LTA
monitoring provides a long-term record for a robust suite of constituents to understand conditions within
the watersheds. TMDL monitoring addresses TMDL related constituents and provides monitoring
locations to assess other identified exceedances of RWLs determined through data analysis.
Requirements in the MRP include RW monitoring sites at previously designated mass emission stations,
TMDL RW compliance points, and additional RW locations representative of the impacts from MS4
discharges. A previously designated mass emission station is not located within the RH/SGRWQG area.
The RH/SGRWQG area comprises a small portion of the total area draining to the mass emission station
located in Reach 2 of the SGR (S14). The water quality at S14 is not necessarily reflective of potential
contributions from MS4 discharges in the EWMP area. Data from S14 will not be used to directly assess
the EWMP area. For the Rio Hondo portion of the watershed, the designated mass emission station in
Reach 1 of the Los Angeles River (LAR) is located a great distance from the RH/SGRWQG area and has a
total upstream drainage area of 825 square miles. Monitoring at this station (S10) mass emission station
will not be beneficial for the RH/SGRWQG because the group’s contribution to conditions at the S10 mass
emission station is negligible. A tributary monitoring station is located in Rio Hondo (TS06); however,
this station was only operated for two years, will not be operated in the future, and is not a previously
designated mass emission station. Monitoring at the TS06 tributary station will not be beneficial for the
RH/SGRWQG. To meet the requirements in the MRP, monitoring at TMDL RW compliance points and
additional RW locations representative of the impacts from MS4 discharges is proposed. Proposed LTA
and TMDL monitoring locations for the RH/SGRWQG are shown on Figure ES-1.
FFigure ES-1
RH/SGRWQ
Rio Hondo/
- xi -
QG EWMP Re
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
eceiving Wa
el River Wat
Integrated M
ater Sites
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
Group
ogram
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- xii -
ES.2.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
Five stormwater outfall monitoring sites are identified for the group members participating in the
RH/SGRWQG EWMP. The drainage areas for the outfalls may cover multiple jurisdictional boundaries.
The stormwater outfall monitoring sites and the land uses within the EWMP area are presented in
Figure ES-2. The selected sites are generally representative of the land uses within their respective
12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-12) equivalent area. Three sites were selected as representative of
the major HUC-12s in the EWMP area. In lieu of a RW site, two outfall sites discharging to the
SGR Reach 5 were selected to assess the potential MS4 contribution to the reach as that section of the
river is soft bottom allowing small to moderate storms and dry-weather flows to completely infiltrate, and
upstream flow is predominately captured by upstream dams and diversions. The data collected at the
monitored outfalls will be considered representative of MS4 discharge within the respective HUC-12.
Compliance with WQBELs and RWLs may be based on comingled discharges or data not collected within
a given jurisdiction. However, outfalls located in one Watershed Management Area (WMA) will not be
used as the basis for compliance in the other WMA.
Figure ES
S-2 Stormw
Rio Hondo/
- xiii -
water Outfall
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
l Monitoring
el River Wat
Integrated M
g Sites
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
Group
ogram
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- xiv -
ES.2.3 Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening and Monitoring
The NSW Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program focuses on dry-weather discharges to RWs from
major outfalls. The program fills two roles, the first is to provide assessment of whether the NSW
discharges are potentially impacting the RW, and the second is to determine whether significant NSW
discharges are allowable. The NSW outfall program is complimentary to the Illicit Connection/Illicit
Discharge (IC/ID) minimum control measure. NSW outfall monitoring sites will be determined after the
screening events are completed and an inventory of outfalls is created. Constituents monitored at each
NSW outfall site will depend upon the RW that the outfall drains to.
For the Rio Hondo portion of the RH/SGRWQG area, of the constituents addressed by TMDLs for which
WQBELs and RWLs were incorporated into the MS4 Permit, E. coli consistently exceeds RWLs. All other
TMDL-related WQBELs and RWLs are primarily associated with wet-weather discharges. Additionally, the
LAR Bacteria TMDL Basin Plan Amendment requires Permittees to conduct outfall monitoring. The
proposed NSW monitoring for the LAR WMA is integrated with the LAR Bacteria TMDL monitoring
requirements. The NSW monitoring sites are to be determined through the NSW outfall screening and
source identification process required by the MS4 Permit. E. coli loading is proposed as the primary
characteristic for determining significant NSW discharges for drains in the Rio Hondo Watershed.
Additionally, by monitoring E. coli and flow in the NSW discharge, respective jurisdictions will have the
information necessary to develop a Load Reduction Strategy (LRS) as prescribed in the LAR Bacteria
TMDL. The characteristics for defining significant NSW discharges are intended to align with LRS
requirements. The top 10th percentile of loading is being used as a threshold for significant NSW
discharge and thereby inclusion in the LRS. Table ES-5 contains a summary of the approach.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- xv -
Table ES-5 Los Angeles River WMA Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process
Component Description
Characteristics for Defining
Significant NSW Discharges
To be consistent with the top dectile of discharges as discussed in
the LRS outlined in the LA River Bacteria TMDL, the top 10% of the
ranked outfalls will be determined as significant NSW discharges.
The ranking score is the sum of the following three ranking criteria:
¾Does the NSW discharge reach the RW during dry-weather? If
yes, continue through the ranking criteria.
¾E. coli loading rate: for each outfall monitored during the
NSW Outfall Screening Process, the average E. coli loading rate
from the six outfall surveys will be calculated. The average E.
coli loading rates from all outfalls will be ranked from highest to
lowest. A ranking score will be applied to each outfall based on
the decitile (10th percentile, 20th percentile, etc.,) of its average
E. coli loading rate.
¾Number of dry-weather exceedance days at the nearest
downstream RW site: a ranking score will also be applied to
outfalls based on the number of dry-weather exceedance days
exhibited at the nearest downstream RW site. The total number
of dry-weather (summer dry- and winter-dry) exceedance days
during the NSW Outfall Screening Process will be used. Each
RW site will be ranked from highest to lowest based on the total
number of exceedance days.
Data Collection
Data that will need to be collected include accurate flow
measurements AND E. coli. Additionally, information needed to
complete the inventory will be collected.
Frequency
The data will be collected for a total of six events. Three times as
part of the initial screening process. The remaining three monitoring
events to meet the requirements of the LAR Bacteria TMDL will be
completed as part of the NSW outfall monitoring.
Timeline It is proposed that commencement of the screening process occur in
2014.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- xvi -
A summary of the approach to address the MS4 Permit specified elements of the NSW Outfall Program
for the SGR WMA is presented in Table ES-6.
Table ES-6 San Gabriel River WMA Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process
Element Description Implementation Dates
Outfall Screening
A screening process will be implemented to
collect data for determining which outfalls
exhibit significant NSW discharges.
The screening process will
begin in 2014.
Identification of outfalls
with significant NSW
discharge
Based on data collected during the Outfall
Screening process, the outfalls will be
ranked according to flow rate and land use
characteristics. The outfalls ranked in the
top 10% will be identified as outfalls with
significant NSW discharges.
Inventory of outfalls
with NSW discharge
Develop an inventory of major MS4 outfalls
with known significant NSW discharges
and those requiring no further assessment.
Prioritized source
investigation
Use the data collected during the screening
process to prioritize the outfalls, ranked in
the top 10%, for source investigations.
Identify sources of
significant NSW
discharges
Perform source investigations per the
prioritization schedule. If not exempt or
unknown, determine abatement process.
Source investigations will be
conducted for at least 25% of
the significant NSW discharges
by the end of December 28,
2015, and 100% by December
28, 2017.
Monitoring NSW
discharges exceeding
criteria
Monitor outfalls that are determined to
convey significant NSW discharges
comprised of either unknown or
non-essential conditionally exempt NSW
discharges, or continuing discharges
attributed to illicit discharges.
First regularly scheduled
dry-weather monitoring event
after completing the source
investigation or after the CIMP
is approved by the EO,
whichever is later.
To collect data to determine the significant NSW outfalls, the RH/SGRWQG will perform three
dry-weather screenings. The initial screening provides the dual purpose of data collection for completing
the outfall database and initial evaluation of outfalls. Each outfall in the RH/SGRWQG area will be visited
during the first screening. A standard form will be used to collect characteristic data, consisting of:
¾Channel bottom, visual estimate of flow rate;
¾Whether discharge ponds in the channel or reaches a flowing RW;
¾Clarity; and
¾Presence of odors and foam.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- xvii -
Additionally, outstanding information for the MS4 inventory database will be collected, including, at a
minimum, geographically referenced photographs. Flow rates will be identified as: no flow, trickle, more
than a trickle. On the second and third screenings, drains larger than 12 inches in diameter and
equivalent rectangular shaped will be investigated. Where discharge is present at least two of the three
visits, the flow rates will be ranked and used as one metric in the significance determination. An analysis
of land use and permitted discharges will be considered in addition to the data collected from the three
screenings to evaluate the NSW flows and through this process the outfalls will be given a ranking score.
The outfalls ranked in the top 10% will be determined significant. The screening process is outlined in
Table ES-7.
Table ES-7 Approach for Establishing a Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening
Process
Component Description
Data Collection
Data include flow measurements, channel bottom, ponding of
discharge, clarity, color, odor, foam, and standard field parameters.
Land use and permitted dischargers will be considered in the
evaluation with field data to assess rankings and determine which
outfalls have significant NSW discharge.
Frequency
Three assessments will be conducted as part of the initial screening
process. The first screening will collect visual information on all
drains. The second and third screenings will collect visual data from
flowing drains greater than 12 inches in diameter.
Defining Significant Discharges
Perform GIS analysis and exclude drains, between 12 and 36 inches
in diameter, which are not associated with industrial land use.
Assess outfall flow rates into categories than rank the outfalls from
highest to lowest, while considering other characteristics, such as
water quality data and land use, that might modify the list of
significant NSW discharges.
Timeline The NSW outfall screening process will begin implementation in 2014.
ES.3 New Development and Re-Development Effectiveness Tracking
Group members are required to maintain databases to track specific information related to new and
re-development projects subject to the minimum control measures. The data will be used to assess the
effectiveness of the Low Impact Development (LID) requirements for land development and to fulfill
reporting requirements. Although internal procedures will vary, the development review process is
generally consistent across group members. The process begins with review of the project application
and issuance of entitlements by planning staff, technical review of the project design by engineering
experts, oversight of construction by inspections staff, and follow up to ensure continued operation and
maintenance by stormwater staff. Relevant project data is collected during each phase of the process.
Although the data reporting requirements apply to all EWMP group members, the procedures for
reviewing projects, tracking data, and reporting are different for each member and may even be different
across departments within a given jurisdiction. With internal processes, procedures, and types of
projects varying between individual group members, internal protocols to ensure that the required data
will be tracked are provided in the CIMP. To facilitate internal discussions and the development of
specific protocols, the CIMP provides a data template that will help standardize data collection so all
group members will have the requisite data available for annual report production. Each group member
is likely to develop a system for tracking and recording the new development and re-development
effectiveness data, and will submit separate annual reports.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- xviii -
ES.4 Regional Studies
The LACFCD will continue to participate in the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (Bioassessment
Program) being managed by the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition (SMC). The SMC is
the only regional study identified in the MRP. The LACFCD will contribute necessary resources to
implement the bioassessment monitoring requirement of the MS4 Permit on behalf of all Permittees in
Los Angeles County during the current permit cycle. Initiated in 2008, the SMC’s Regional Bioassessment
Program is designed to run over a five-year cycle. Monitoring under the first cycle concluded in 2013,
with reporting of findings and additional special studies planned to occur in 2014. SMC, including the
LACFCD, is currently working on designing the bioassessment monitoring program for the next five-year
cycle, which is scheduled to run from 2015 to 2019. When appropriate, the RH/SGRWQG anticipates
being able to commensurately contribute to the Bioassessment Program Special Studies.
ES.5 Watershed Coordination
Opportunities exist to coordinate with other watershed management groups for RW monitoring. The
CIMP is written to outline the monitoring requirements to assess the RH/SGRWQG MS4. Coordination
with other watershed management groups will occur where data from other programs may be used to
fulfill RH/SGRWQG requirements. The EWMP Group is coordinating with downstream monitoring groups
in both the LAR WMA and SGR WMA to cost share Harbors Toxics TMDL monitoring. Additionally, as
opportunities present themselves to coordinate with other Groups or Cities, the EMWP Group will do so
where deemed agreeable with the parties involved.
ES.6 CIMP Implementation Schedule
Within 90 days of CIMP approval by the Board Executive Officer (EO), CIMP implementation will
commence. The primary factors affecting initiation of sample collection relate to: (1) autosampler
permitting and installation (2) monitoring that is dependent upon prerequisite information (e.g.,
monitoring of significant NSW discharges), and weather conditions.
The process for installing autosamplers includes numerous tasks that require multiple agency
coordination for contracting, permitting, procurement, and installation. Additionally, while each proposed
site was visited to ensure feasibility, none of the sites were observed under storm condition. Unforeseen
issues with the selected sites, such as backwatering of the RW into an outfall leading to an
unrepresentative sample, or flooding resulting in unsafe conditions, may lead to relocation of the site.
Phasing in the RW and stormwater outfall sites outlined in the CIMP will allow evaluation of the sites to
determine if any need to be changed due to significant contributions from non-MS4 sources or other
reasons that sampling is not feasible at a site requiring an alternate or new site. Below is the proposed
phasing schedule, to be adjusted as required due to permitting, procurement, and site suitability.
Pending receipt of CIMP approval, sites subject to phased installation in future years are anticipated to be
available for use by July 1, of the identified monitoring year. However permitting requirements may
delay this objective.
Phase I of the CIMP implementation, Fiscal Year 2014-2015:
¾NSW screening
¾Determination of significant NSW outfalls
¾Installation of LTA sites on Rio Hondo and Little Dalton Wash
¾Installation of stormwater outfall sites on Bradbury Drain and BI 0025 Peck Road Drain
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- xix -
Phase II of the CIMP implementation, Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (assuming CIMP approved by July 1, 2015):
¾Installation of stormwater outfall sites on BI 0404 – Line A and BI 1219 – Line C
¾Dry-weather monitoring at all RW locations
¾Dry-weather monitoring where source identification of significant NSW outfalls is
completed and monitoring is required
¾Stormwater monitoring at existing and new sites
¾Initiate Peck Road Park Lake monitoring (water column, sediment, and fish tissue)
Phase III of the CIMP implementation, Fiscal Year 2016-2017 (assuming CIMP approved by July 1, 2015):
¾Installation of TMDL RW site on Sawpit Wash
¾Installation of stormwater outfall site on Beatty Canyon
¾Dry-weather monitoring at all RW locations
¾Dry-weather monitoring where source identification of significant NSW outfalls is
completed and monitoring is required
¾Stormwater monitoring at existing and new sites
¾Peck Road Park Lake monitoring (water column and sediment)
Phase IV of the CIMP implementation, Fiscal Year 2017-2018 (assuming CIMP approved by July 1, 2015):
¾Installation of TMDL RW site on Santa Anita Wash
¾Dry-weather monitoring at all RW locations
¾Dry-weather monitoring where source identification of significant NSW outfalls is
completed and monitoring is required
¾Stormwater monitoring at existing and new sites
¾Peck Road Park Lake monitoring (water column and sediment)
In years following Fiscal Year 2017-2018, assuming timely CIMP approval and no unforeseen major
complications, all currently planned stations will be installed and monitoring will proceed as specified in
the CIMP. The NSW outfall monitoring will progress as source identifications progress for the significant
discharges, where appropriate. After the discharge quality for Santa Anita and Sawpit Washes are
established, the water quality may be determined to be statistically similar, in which case the EWMP
Group may choose to alternate between sites on an annual basis in subsequent Fiscal Years.
ES.7 Adaptive Management
The monitoring specified in the CIMP is, in part, dynamic. The specified list of constituents is based on
water quality issues identified in downstream water bodies. If the analysis of collected data results in
currently identified constituents proven to not be an issue in the EWMP area water bodies, the group
members will request that the Regional Board allow those constituents to be removed from the
monitoring. Likewise, if new constituents are identified, they will be added to the ongoing monitoring.
The monitoring results will be evaluated annually against appropriate triggers and constituents added or
removed as appropriate. The results from monitoring are meant to tie into the EWMP as feedback for the
water quality changes resulting from control measures implemented by the group members.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 1 -
1. Introduction
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) Permit No. R4-2012-0175 (Permit) was adopted November 8, 2012, by the Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board or LARWQCB) and became effective December 28, 2012.
The purpose of the MS4 Permit is to ensure the MS4s in Los Angeles County are not causing or
contributing to exceedances of water quality objectives set to protect the beneficial uses in the Receiving
Waters (RWs). Included as Attachment E to the MS4 Permit are requirements for a Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MRP). The stated Primary Objectives for the MRP, listed in Part II.A.1 of the MRP,
are as follows:
1. Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of discharges from the MS4 on
RWs.
2. Assess compliance with Receiving Water Limitation (RWLs) and Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) established to implement Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) wet-weather and dry-weather Waste Load Allocations (WLAs).
3. Characterize pollutant loads in MS4 discharges.
4. Identify sources of pollutants in MS4 discharges.
5. Measure and improve the effectiveness of pollutant controls implemented under the MS4
Permit.
Extensive default monitoring requirements are specified in the MRP. However, the Permittees have the
option to develop a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) that may be used to specify
alternative approaches for meeting the Primary Objectives. Additionally, the CIMP is the vehicle to
customize TMDL monitoring requirements and other historical monitoring program requirements, to unify
efforts on a watershed scale, and provide consistent and comparable water quality observations
throughout the watershed. Modifications to the MRP or TMDL monitoring requirements must satisfy the
Primary Objectives and require sufficient justification to allow the changes. The Regional Board Executive
Officer (EO) will provide final approval of the CIMP. Modifications to the MRP require sufficient
justification for EO approval.
1.1 Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group Enhanced
Watershed Management Program Area
The Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group (RH/SGRWQG) Enhanced Watershed Management
Program (EWMP) Group is comprised of the County of Los Angeles (County), Los Angeles County Flood
Control District (LACFCD), and the Cities of Arcadia, Azusa, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and
Sierra Madre. The EWMP area is located in both the Los Angeles River (LAR) and San Gabriel River
(SGR) Watershed Management Areas (WMAs), within Los Angeles County, as shown on the location map
in Figure 1-1. The RH/SGRWQG is addressing RW and MS4 water quality through an EWMP Plan and
CIMP process. The group’s jurisdictional boundaries and RW bodies are shown on Figure 1-2. Size and
land uses for the group members are listed in Table 1-1.
Figure 1-1 Loccation of the EW
- 2 -
WMP Group with
Rio Hondo
hin the Los Ang
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
geles Basin
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
ality Group
ring Program
Figure 1-2 Wateer Bodies and G
- 3 -
Geographic Bou
Rio Hondo
undary of the RH
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
H/SGRWQG
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
ality Group
ring Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 4 -
Table 1-1 RH/SGRWQG EWMP Area Land Use Summary
Land Use Category Area1 (square miles) Percentage
Agriculture 1.1 3
Commercial 3.5 8
Education 1.1 3
Industrial 2.8 7
Multi-Family (MF) Residential 2.8 7
Single Family (SF) Residential 19.3 47
Transportation 0.7 1
Vacant 9.9 24
Total 41.2 100
1 Does not include areas of Angeles National Forest within Group Member jurisdictional boundaries.
The area included in the RH/SGRWQG EWMP encompass approximately 41 square miles of predominately
residential and open space land use and excludes areas in the Angeles National Forest. Of the total LAR
and SGR Watershed areas, the RH/SGRWQG members have jurisdiction over four and three percent of
the total watersheds, respectively. The RH/SGRWQG is located in the eastern portion of the LAR WMA
and the upper portion of the urban SGR WMA.
The LAR receives drainage from an 834-square mile area of central and eastern Los Angeles County and
extends 55 miles across urbanized areas of the San Fernando and west San Gabriel Valleys. Its
headwaters originate in the Santa Susana Mountains. The LAR flows through residential, commercial,
and industrial areas before emptying into the LAR estuary, San Pedro Bay, and ultimately the Pacific
Ocean. The Rio Hondo is a major tributary of the LAR. The Rio Hondo Watershed is approximately
142 square miles in area. The Rio Hondo and its subwatersheds have headwaters in the undeveloped
mountains of the Angeles National Forest. The RH/SGRWQG Permittees receive drainage via several
smaller tributary washes and Rio Hondo Reach 3 discharges are flow-controlled at Peck Road Park Lake.
The Cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, and Unincorporated County areas; and portions of the Cities of
Bradbury and Duarte discharge to the Rio Hondo Watershed.
Several San Gabriel Mountain canyons join Santa Anita and Sawpit Washes which drain to Peck Road
Water Conservation Park (Peck Road Park Lake) and subsequently the Rio Hondo. Peck Road Park Lake
is owned by the LACFCD and maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation.
The SGR receives drainage from a 682-square mile area of eastern Los Angeles County and has a main
channel length of approximately 58 miles. Its headwaters originate in the San Gabriel Mountains with the
East, West, and North Forks. The SGR flows through residential, commercial, and industrial areas before
emptying into the SGR estuary, between the Cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach, San Pedro Bay, and
ultimately the Pacific Ocean. The SGR above Santa Fe Dam, Reach 5, receives drainage from the
RH/SGRWQG Permittees. Also, Reach 4 of the SGR, between Ramona Road and Santa Fe Dam, forms a
portion of the EWMP area boundary, but it does not appear that RH/SGRWQG MS4 discharges directly
discharge to this water body. The City of Azusa, Unincorporated County areas, and portions of the Cities
of Bradbury and Duarte discharge to the SGR Watershed.
Approximately four miles below the mouth of the San Gabriel Canyon is the Santa Fe Dam and Reservoir,
which is operated and maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), while both the Rio Hondo
and SGR flow through portions of the Whittier Narrows Reservoir and may merge behind the reservoir
during large storm events. Minor SGR flows may be diverted by a ditch within the reservoir to the
Rio Hondo. Flows from the upper Rio Hondo and SGR watersheds may be directed to spreading grounds
located in, or adjacent to, the Rio Hondo and SGRs.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 5 -
There are no MS4 discharges to Santa Fe Dam Lake and it is not included in the CIMP and EWMP.
The geology of the SGR Valley provides rapid infiltration of water. During dry-weather, the upper
watershed is likely to be disconnected from the lower watershed. Monitoring may be used to establish
when the EWMP area is hydrologically connected to the downstream water bodies. If there is no flow to
the downstream areas, the discharges in the EWMP area cannot be causing or contributing to the
downstream water quality impairments. Water quality data for the RWs in the EWMP area are sparse.
Future monitoring results will allow the evaluation of whether MS4 discharges are causing or contributing
to water quality objective exceedances in RWs in the EWMP area and whether specific pollutants should
be identified for further actions by the RH/SGRWQG. Additional background information for the EWMP
area is presented in Attachment A.
1.2 Water Quality Priorities
Water quality priorities are based on TMDLs, State Water Resources Control Board 2010 303(d) list of
impaired water bodies, and monitoring data. Based on available information and data analysis, Water
Body-Pollutant Combinations (WBPCs) were classified in one of the three MS4 Permit defined categories.
Category 1 WBPCs are subject to established TMDLs, Category 2 are on the 303(d) list, or have sufficient
exceedances to be listed, and Category 3 are observed exceedances but too infrequently to be listed.
Additional details regarding the water quality priorities are provided in Attachment A.
TMDLs applicable to the EWMP area are listed in Table 1-2. The SGR Metals TMDL lists grouped
wet-weather WLAs for lead at SGR Reach 2 and all upstream tributaries. The allocations are applied as
grouped allocations; the combined loading from all upstream tributaries must meet the allocations at the
listed reaches. Monitoring will be necessary to identify the contribution to the loads from the EWMP area.
The Harbors Toxics TMDL included allocations for all MS4 discharges in the LAR WMA. The MS4 Permit
links the Harbors Toxics TMDL to both the LAR and SGR Watersheds requiring monitoring for all
responsible parties subject to the respective LAR and SGR Metals TMDL. Monitoring will be necessary to
identify the contribution to the loads from the EWMP area. Similar to the SGR Metals TMDL, the Lakes
TMDLs were promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and implementation
provisions, including monitoring, were not explicitly required in the TMDLs. The USEPA TMDLs proposed
only monitoring recommendations and specific requirements have been incorporated into the MRP.
Table 1-2 TMDLs Applicable to the RH/SGRWQG EWMP Area and Downstream
Areas
TMDL
LARWQCB
Resolution
Number
Effective Date and/or
USEPA Approval Date
LAR Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects 2003-009 March 23, 2004
2012-010 August 7, 2014
LAR Trash 2007-012 September 23, 2008
LAR Metals TMDL 2007-014 October 29, 2008
2010-003 November 3, 2011
LAR Bacteria TMDL 2010-007 March 23, 2012
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long
Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL 2011-008 March 23, 2012
Los Angeles Area Lakes TMDLs for Peck Road Park Lake N/A
(USEPA
TMDL)
March 26, 2012
SGR Metals and Impaired Tributaries Metals and Selenium
TMDL March 26, 2007
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 6 -
The constituents in the Category 1 classification and the location where the WQBELs apply for reaches
are summarized in Table 1-3. The MS4 Permit tables are summarized in Table 1-4. WBPCs where
WQBELs or RWLs are established through TMDLs are identified in Attachment O and P of the MS4 Permit.
Table 1-3 Category 1 Water Body-Pollutant Combinations with WQBELs
TMDL Constituent Rio Hondo San Gabriel River Reach 2
LA River Trash TMDL Trash E/R
LA River Nitrogen TMDL
Ammonia
E Nitrate
Nitrite
LA River
Metals
TMDL
Dry-
Weather
Copper
E Lead
Zinc
Wet-
Weather
Copper
E Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
LA River Bacteria TMDL E. coli E/R
SGR and Impaired
Tributaries Metals and
Selenium TMDL
Lead W1
1 TMDL included grouped allocations. Upstream tributaries limited to the SGR Reach 2 WLA.
E = Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit, R = RWL, W = WLAs, established by TMDL
Table 1-4 RH/SGRWQG TMDLs and Applicability
RH/SGRWQG Member City of Arcadia City of Azusa City of Bradbury City of Duarte City of Monrovia City of Sierra Madre County of Los Angels Los Angeles County Flood Control District LAR Trash TMDL X X X X X X
LAR Nitrogen and Related Effects TMDL X X X X X X X
LAR and Tributaries Metals TMDL X X X X X X X
LAR Watershed Bacteria TMDL X X X X X X X
Los Angeles Area Lakes Peck Road Park Lake TMDLs X X X X X X X
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and
Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxics TMDL1 X x
SGR and Impaired Tributaries Metals/Selenium TMDL X X X X X X X X
1 The RH/SGRWQG Permittees are obligated to monitor at the mouth of the Los Angeles and SGRs as part of the
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxics TMDL.
Attachment K to the MS4 Permit lists responsible parties for the respective TMDLs. Additionally, the
water body reaches the responsible parties discharge into are detailed in Attachment K for the LAR Metals
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 7 -
(Table K-9); LAR Bacteria (Table K-10); SGR Metals TMDLs (Table K-12); and Harbors Toxics TMDL
(Table K-13). The WQBELs for discharges to Peck Road Park Lake are listed in Table 1-5. All TMDLs
with WQBELs that apply to jurisdictions within the EWMP area are identified in the table.
Table 1-5 Category 1 Pollutants with WQBELs for Discharges to Peck Road Park
Lake
Constituent Water Column Suspended
Sediment Fish Tissue
Total Nitrogen W
Total Phosphorus W
Trash W
Total PCB W W Alt
Total Chlordane W W Alt
Dieldrin W W Alt
Total DDT1 W Alt
1 Total DDT measured in suspended sediment, 4-4’ DDT measured in water column.
W = WLA established by TMDL.
Alt = Alternative compliance options if fish tissue targets are met.
WBPCs on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) 2010 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
303(d) list that are not already addressed by a TMDL or other action are included as Category 2. All
listings within the EWMP area were identified and included to acknowledge that discharges from
upstream reaches could impact the listed area, particularly during wet-weather. However, a constituent
included in the table does not infer MS4 discharges from the EWMP area contribute to the downstream
impairment. The 303(d) listing and location of the listing are summarized in Table 1-6.
Table 1-6 Category 2 Water Body-Pollutant Combinations
Constituent Sawpit Wash Monrovia Wash
Lead L
Indicator Bacteria L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate L
L = Listed on 2010 303(d) list.
Historic monitoring data from within the RH/SGRWQG EWMP area are essentially non-existent. The RWs
downstream of the EWMP area are monitored; however, the operation of dams, natural channels, and
infiltration facilities hydrologically disconnects the EWMP area from the downstream monitoring locations
in all conditions other than large storms. The water quality in the downstream reaches may not be
representative of the RWs condition in the EWMP area. For the initial prioritization, the downstream
monitoring data are not considered.
New monitoring locations in the RWs at the downstream boundaries of the EWMP area will be monitored
for the full list of MRP Table E-2 constituents. Those constituents found to exceed the applicable water
quality objectives will be added to the water quality priorities and monitoring program as part of the
adaptive management process. Based on the MS4 Permit prioritization categories, WBPCs for the
Rio Hondo are presented in Table 1-7. WBPCs for Peck Road Park Lake are listed in Table 1-8. The
SGR WBPCs are compiled in Table 1-9. The MS4 Permit also identifies a second level of prioritization
based on whether final WLAs, expressed as WQBELs or RWLs, become effective before the end of the
MS4 Permit term on December 28, 2017. Due to the natural rate of infiltration, the Rio Hondo and SGR
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 8 -
are generally dry with the exception of storm flows. CIMP monitoring will be assessed over time to
determine whether a connection exists between the upper and lower watershed during dry and minor
storm events. As the CIMP is implemented, the monitoring data will be used in an adaptive management
process to refine the constituents in the EWMP area that need to remain on or be added to the
prioritization. The initial establishment of monitoring locations at the downstream boundaries of the
EWMP area and analysis for the constituents in MRP Table E-2 will be a fundamental component of early
adaptive management refinements to the water quality priorities and monitoring constituent lists. Water
quality conditions identified within the EWMP area are marked with an “X” in the three tables.
Table 1-7 EMWP LAR Initial Constituent Categories and Priorities
Constituent
Category 1
TMDLs
Highest Priority
Category 2
303(d) Listings
High Priority
Category 3
RWL Exceedances
Medium Priority
Copper X
Lead X X1
Zinc X
Cadmium X
Trash X
Coliform/Indicator Bacteria2 X X3
Ammonia X
Nitrate X
Nitrite X
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate X3
1 Listing on Monrovia Canyon Creek a tributary of Sawpit Wash.
2 E. coli is the current freshwater indicator bacteria listed in the Basin Plan..
3 Listings on Sawpit Wash upstream of Peck Road Park Lake.
Table 1-8 EWMP Peck Road Park Lake Constituent Categories and Priorities
Constituent
Category 1
TMDLs
Highest Priority
Category 2
303(d) Listings
High Priority
Category 3
RWL Exceedances
Medium Priority
Total Nitrogen X
Total Phosphorus X
Chlordane X
DDT X
Dieldrin X
PCBs X
Table 1-9 EWMP SGR Constituent Categories and Priorities
Constituent
Category 1
TMDLs
Highest Priority
Category 2
303(d) Listings
High Priority
Category 3
RWL Exceedances
Medium Priority
Lead X
Coliform/Indicator Bacteria1 X
1 E. coli is the current freshwater indicator bacteria listed in the Basin Plan.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 9 -
1.3 CIMP Overview
The primary purpose of the CIMP document is to outline the process for collecting data to meet the goals
and requirements of the MS4 Permit. The CIMP provides information on sample collection and analysis
methodologies relevant to monitoring RWs and MS4 outfalls. Two types of RW sites are utilized to fulfill
the Long-Term Assessment (LTA) and evaluation and TMDL requirements. The CIMP provides the
RH/SGRWQG with the information necessary to guide water quality program management decisions.
Additionally, the monitoring program will provide a means to measure compliance with the MS4 Permit.
The CIMP is composed of five elements, including:
1. RW Monitoring
2. Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
3. NSW Outfall Monitoring
4. New Development/Re-Development Effectiveness Tracking
5. Regional Studies
1.3.1 Receiving Water Monitoring
The RW monitoring is designed to provide data to determine whether the RWLs and water quality
objectives are being achieved. Over time, the monitoring will allow the assessment of trends in pollutant
concentrations. WBPCs prioritizations were utilized to support the development of the monitoring
approach. While not explicitly established in the MRP, two monitoring types, LTA and TMDL, are
proposed to distinguish between the different goals of monitoring for specific WBPCs in the EWMP area.
The RH/SGRWQG is proposing these two types of sites to monitor the RWs and fulfill the MS4 Permit
primary objectives.
1.3.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
The selected sites are representative of the land uses within each respective 12-digit Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC-12). The data collected at the monitored outfalls will be considered representative of MS4
discharges within the respective HUC-12.
1.3.3 Non-Stormwater Outfall Program
The Non-Stormwater (NSW) Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program focuses on dry-weather
discharges to RWs from major outfalls. The program fulfills two roles, the first is to determine whether
the NSW constituent load is adversely impacting the RW and the second is to assess whether the NSW
discharge is allowable. The NSW Outfall Program is designed to be complimentary to the Illicit
Connection/Illicit Discharge (IC/ID) Minimum Control Measure (MCM). NSW outfall monitoring sites will
be determined after the screening events have been completed and an inventory of outfalls has been
created. Constituents that will be monitored at each NSW outfall monitoring site will depend upon the
RW to which the NSW outfall monitoring site discharges.
1.3.4 New Development and Re-Development Effectiveness Tracking
EWMP Group members are required to maintain databases to track specific information related to new
and re-development projects subject to the minimum control measures.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 10 -
1.3.5 Regional Studies
Only one regional study is identified in the MRP: the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition
(SMC) Bioassessment Program. The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)
oversees the SMC. The SMC Bioassessment Program is a collaborative effort between all of the Phase I
MS4 NPDES Permittees and NPDES regulatory agencies in Southern California. The LACFCD will
contribute necessary resources to implement the bioassessment monitoring requirement of the MS4
Permit on behalf of all Permittees in Los Angeles County during the current permit cycle. Monitoring
under the first cycle concluded in 2013, with reporting of findings and additional special studies planned
to occur in 2014. The SMC, including the LACFCD, is currently working on designing the bioassessment
monitoring program for the next five-year cycle, which is scheduled to run from 2015 to 2019.
1.4 Monitoring Procedures
To ensure a cohesive and cost-effective CIMP, dry- and wet-weather conditions for RW, TMDL,
Stormwater Outfall, and NSW Outfall monitoring will be defined as the following:
¾Wet-weather monitoring conditions will be defined as a National Weather Service
forecast, of at least 70 percent probability, of greater than 0.25 inches of precipitation,
with at least 0.15 inches within one six hour period, where the 72 hours preceding the
storm produce less than 0.1 inches of rain each day.
¾Dry-weather monitoring conditions will be defined as days with less than 0.1 inches of
rain per day and prior to sample collection, for at least three days prior to the event at
the most representative Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW)
controlled rain gauges within the jurisdictional area.
Composite samples will be used for wet-weather sampling events to sufficiently characterize the RW
during wet-weather. Grab samples may be utilized to collect wet-weather sampling in certain situations,
which may include, but are not limited to, when the constituent of interest requires the use of grab
samples (e.g., E. coli; oil and grease), conditions are considered unsafe to collect composite samples, or
to perform investigative monitoring where composite sampling or installation of an automatic sample
compositor (autosampler) may not be warranted. Additionally, if autosamplers fail during a rain event, or
if the rain event is such that composite samples cannot be collected (e.g., very short in duration or
volume), grab samples will be collected and submitted for analysis for all analytes. For dry-weather
toxicity monitoring, the sampling event must take place during the historically driest month. As a result,
the dry-weather monitoring event that includes toxicity monitoring will be conducted in July. The second
dry-weather monitoring event will take place during January unless sampling during another month is
deemed to be necessary or preferable.
Generally, grab samples will be collected during dry-weather and composite samples will be collected
during wet-weather. Grab samples will be used for dry-weather sampling events as the composition of
the RW will change less over time; and thus, the grab samples sufficiently characterize the RW.
Additionally, grab samples for dry-weather are consistent with similar programs throughout the region.
Note that if rainfall begins after dry-weather monitoring has been initiated then dry-weather monitoring
will be suspended and continued on a subsequent day when weather conditions meet the dry-weather
conditions.
All reasonable efforts will be made to monitor the first significant rain event of the storm year (first flush).
The targeted storm events for wet-weather sampling will be selected based on a reasonable probability
that the events will result in substantially increased flows in the Rio Hondo and SGR over at least
12 hours. Sufficient precipitation is needed to produce runoff and increase flow. The decision to sample
a storm event will be made in consultation with weather forecasting information services after a
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 11 -
quantitative precipitation forecast has been determined. All efforts will be made to collect wet-weather
samples from all sites during a single targeted storm event. However, safety or other factors may make
it infeasible to collect some or all samples from a given storm event. For example, storm events that will
require field crews to collect wet-weather samples during holidays and/or weekends may not be sampled
due to sample collection or laboratory staffing constraints.
Additional information to support evaluating weather conditions, collecting grab and composite samples,
and targeting wet-weather sampling events is provided in Attachment E.
1.5 2012 MS4 Permit Review Process and CIMP Implementation
Following Regional Board adoption of the 2012 MS4 Permit as Order R4-2012-0175 on
November 8, 2012, thirty-seven cities and three non-governmental organizations filed petitions for review
with the SWRCB, which were acknowledged in a January 30, 2013 letter, and deemed complete on July
8, 2013. Five of the filing Cities also simultaneously filed Request for Stays, which were denied on June
14, 2013. On April 1, 2014, the SWRCB adopted an Own Motion Review and thirty-five of the petitioners
agreed to have their petitions for review placed in abeyance. The following reservation is included as a
contingency in the CIMP, while the review processes proceed.
On December 10, 2012 the Cities of Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra
Madre (hereinafter “the Cities”) submitted Administrative Petitions (Petitions) to the
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) pursuant to section 13320(a) of
the California Water Code requesting that the SWRCB review various terms and
requirements set forth in the 2012 MS4 Permit, Order No. R4-2012-0175 (2012 Permit)
adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region
(Regional Board). The Petitions were subsequently referred to as SWRCB/OCC File Nos.
A 2236. For example Monrovia’s petition for review is designated as A2236(v). The
Cities petitions requested that the State Board review certain terms/requirements
contained in the 2012 Permit, including a review of all numeric limits, both interim and
final, and whether derived from a TMDL or provided from the application of an adopted
water quality standard, or through a discharge prohibition set forth in the Permit. The
challenges to the various numeric limits set forth in the Permit, includes a challenge to all
such numeric limits that may be complied with through the implementation of an
approved Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) and Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Plan (CIMP). On July 8, 2013 the SWRCB advised the Cities that the
respective Petitions were complete and all such Petitions remain pending at this time.
In spite of the pending Petitions, the Cities are acting in good faith and moving forward
to attempt to comply with all of the applicable terms of the Permit, and look forward to
working with the Regional Board to assess and implement the strategies and
requirements necessary for compliance, including the development of an acceptable
EWMP and CIMP. Nevertheless, because, through their Petitions, the Cities believe that
many of the terms of the 2012 Permit are invalid, including the terms involving
compliance with numeric limits. The Cities hereby expressly reserve and are not waiving,
with this submission or otherwise, any of their rights to challenge the need for any EWMP
and CIMP, including their rights to seek to void or otherwise compel modifications to the
Permit terms involving the EWMP and CIMP, or to void or compel revisions to any other
part or portion of the Permit. In addition, the Cities are not waving, and hereby
expressly reserve, any and all rights they have or may have to seek to recover the costs
from the State to develop and implement any EWMP and CIMP, on the grounds that such
requirements are unfunded State mandates, and if funds are not provided by the State,
to reimburse the Cities for such programs, to invalidate all such requirements.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 12 -
2. Receiving Water Monitoring Program
The following subsections describe how the MRP requirements for RW monitoring will be met within the
EWMP area.
2.1 Receiving Water Monitoring Objectives
The objectives of the RW monitoring include the following:
¾Determine whether the RWLs are being achieved;
¾Assess trends in pollutant concentrations over time, or during specified conditions; and
¾Determine whether the designated beneficial uses are fully supported as determined by
water chemistry, as well as aquatic toxicity and bioassessment monitoring.
2.2 Description of Receiving Water Monitoring
WBPCs prioritizations were utilized to support the development of the monitoring approach. To address
the different monitoring objectives and priorities two types of monitoring are proposed:
¾Long-Term Assessment – LTA monitoring is intended to determine if RWLs are
achieved, assess trends in pollutant concentrations, and determine whether designated
uses are supported.
¾TMDL – TMDL monitoring is conducted to evaluate progress in attaining TMDL
objectives.
While not explicitly established in the MRP, the monitoring types distinguish between the different end
goals of monitoring for specific constituents within specific water bodies in the RH/SGRWQG area. LTA
monitoring provides a long-term record for a robust suite of constituents to understand conditions within
the watersheds. TMDL monitoring addresses TMDL related constituents and provides monitoring
locations to assess other identified exceedances of RWLs determined through data analysis.
2.3 Receiving Water Monitoring Sites
Requirements in the MRP include RW monitoring sites at previously designated mass emission stations,
TMDL RW compliance points, and additional RW locations representative of the impacts from MS4
discharges. A previously designated mass emission station is not located within the RH/SGRWQG area.
The designated mass emission station located in Reach 2 of the SGR (S14) is not necessarily
representative of the MS4 contributions from the EMWP area, as the EWMP area is a small portion of the
area draining to the station. Therefore, S14 will not be proposed as an LTA monitoring site for the
RH/SGRWQG; however, the LACFCD is likely to continue monitoring S14, and the resulting data may be
evaluated to identify long term trends or the consideration of additional constituents. For the Rio Hondo
portion of the watershed, the designated mass emission station in Reach 1 of the LAR (S10) is located a
great distance from the RH/SGRWQG area and has a total upstream drainage area of 825 square miles.
Monitoring at the S10 mass emission station will not be beneficial for the RH/SGRWQG because the
group’s contribution to conditions at the S10 mass emission station is negligible. A tributary monitoring
station is located within the Rio Hondo (TS06); however, this station was only operated for two years,
and will not be operated in the future. TS06 was not a previously designated mass emission station while
it was operational. Future monitoring at the TS06 tributary station will not be beneficial for the
RH/SGRWQG, as the historic location parallels the S14 site and would include a substantial amount of
influence from communities outside of the EWMP area. To meet MRP requirements, monitoring at TMDL
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 13 -
RW compliance points and additional RW locations representative of the impacts from MS4 discharges is
proposed.
Five RW sites are utilized in the CIMP. Two LTA sites have been selected in the RH/SGRWQG area to
address the RW monitoring program objectives. Two TMDL sites are located within RWs discharging to
Peck Road Park Lake, and will be used to assess the MS4 discharge to the lake. The final site is a TMDL
site in Peck Road Park Lake where water column, benthic sediment, and fish tissue samples will be
collected. The RW sites are summarized in Table 2-1, and located on Figure 2-1.
Table 2-1 Summary of RH/SGRWQG Receiving Water Monitoring Sites
Site ID Water Body
Represented
Coordinates Monitoring
Type
Latitude Longitude LTA TMDL
RHSGR_RH3_ARC Rio Hondo Reach 3 34.089836 -118.033828 X X
RHSGR_LDW_BDW Little Dalton Wash 34.099445 -117.926766 X X
RHSGR_SAN_DD Santa Anita Wash 34.106200 -118.016150 X
RHSGR_SAW_PR Sawpit Wash 34.106140 -118.006921 X
RHSGR_PRP_LAKE Peck Road Park Lake 34.103905 -118.012543 X
After the discharge quality for Santa Anita and Sawpit Washes are established, the water quality may be
determined to be statistically similar, in which case the EWMP Group may choose to alternate between
sites on an annual basis.
Figgure 2-1 Ovverview of R
Rio Hondo/
- 14 -
ReceivingW
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
Water Monito
el River Wat
Integrated M
oring Sites
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
Group
ogram
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 15 -
2.3.1 Long-Term Assessment Site
One of the primary objectives of RW monitoring is to assess trends in pollutant concentrations over time,
or during specified conditions. As a result, the primary characteristic of an ideal monitoring site is a
robust dataset of previously collected monitoring results so that trends in pollutant concentrations over
time, or during specified conditions, can be assessed. Such a site does not exist within the RH/SGRWQG
area. Therefore, new LTA sites are proposed to support an understanding of potential impacts associated
with MS4 discharges from the RH/SGRWQG. In addition, the historic mass emission station on the SGR,
located outside of the RH/SGRWQG area, is identified as an additional resource possessing a robust
dataset of previously collected monitoring results. The data collected from the mass emission station
may be evaluated for long term trends; however this data may not necessarily reflect the EWMP area
MS4 contribution to water quality.
The proposed LTA sites meet the RW site monitoring objectives and support an understanding of
potential impacts associated with MS4 discharges on RW conditions. An exceedance of an RWL at a RW
site does not on its own represent an exceedance of an RWL that was caused by or contributed to by
MS4 discharges. These sites also receive runoff from non-MS4 sources, including open space and other
permitted discharges; hence the exceedance of an RWL may have been caused or contributed to by a
non-MS4 source. A determination regarding whether MS4 discharges caused or contributed to an RWL
exceedance should be made using data collected through outfall-based monitoring.
The number of required RW monitoring sites is not specified in the MRP; however, it is beneficial for the
RH/SGRWQG to have two LTA monitoring sites in:
¾Rio Hondo Reach 3, just downstream of the Arcadia Wash confluence; and
¾Little Dalton Wash, just upstream of the Big Dalton Wash confluence.
Designation of a SGR Reach 5 LTA monitoring site was thoughtfully considered during CIMP
development, however an LTA monitoring site was not proposed for the following reasons:
¾Dry-weather flows within Reach 5 primarily infiltrate and do not consistently reach a
point suitable for collection of a representative RW sample;
¾Storm flow within the unlined SGR channel are usually braided and migratory, precluding
the construction of stable representative sample intakes;
¾The migratory flow path precludes safe levee based sample collection;
¾Flow regulation at dams (Cogswell, San Gabriel, Morris, and Santa Fe) and for infiltration
or spreading (San Gabriel Canyon, Upper River, and in river) distort the influence of WQG
runoff, by unpredictably starving, and inundating, SGR Reach 5 of, or with, regulated
flows;
¾Over 40% of the RG/WGRWQGs SGR tributary area to Reach 5 is collected in the
Bradbury drain and discharged into the usually dry Santa Fe Dam;
¾Another 10% of the tributary area arrives by the Beatty Canyon drain; and
¾Much of the remaining tributary are is composed of undeveloped and flood plain areas
within the City of Azusa that are minimally influenced by municipal activities.
The substantial potential for sample collection artifacts and unpredictable flow management decisions,
favor MS4 influence assessment through stormwater outfall monitoring, where fewer complicating
influences, beyond the Permittees control, would be expected. In lieu of a RW site, two outfall sites to
the SGR Reach 5 were selected to assess the potential MS4 contribution. The selected outfalls include:
¾Beatty Canyon
¾Bradbury Drain
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 16 -
The first LTA site is located in Rio Hondo Reach 3, just downstream of the Arcadia Wash confluence.
This location was selected because it is the most upstream location in Rio Hondo Reach 3 which captures
the vast majority of drainage from the Rio Hondo portion of the RH/SGRWQG area. The approximate
catchment areas for the two LTA sites are illustrated on Figure 2-2. The area around the SGR Reach 5
is assessed via the outfall monitoring on Beatty Canyon and Bradbury Drain. The outfall monitoring sites
are detailed in Section 4. An overview of the land use within the catchment area is provided in
Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Rio Hondo LTA Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison
Land Use Total Catchment
Area
RH/SGRWQG
Catchment Area
Non-RH/SGRWQG
Catchment Area
Residential 68% 60% 8%
Commercial 27% 19% 8%
Open Space <5% 4% <1%
Agricultural <1% <1% 0%
Total 100%84%16%
Figurre 2-2 LTA Mon
- 17 -
nitoring Sites Ca
Rio Hondo
atchment Areas
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
s
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
ality Group
ring Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 18 -
The second LTA site is located in Little Dalton Wash, just upstream of the Big Dalton Wash confluence.
This location was selected because it is located in the SGR portion of the RH/SGRWQG area that captures
the highest percentage of drainage from the group. Placing the LTA site in Big Dalton Wash,
downstream of the confluence, will capture the San Dimas Wash drainage which is a substantial area
from outside of the RH/SGRWQG area. An overview of the land use within the catchment area is
provided in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 Little Dalton Wash LTA Monitoring Site Land Use Comparison
Land Use Total Catchment
Area
RH/SGRWQG
Catchment Area
Non-RH/SGRWQG
Catchment Area
Residential 58% 34% 24%
Commercial 36% 27% 9%
Open Space 3% 2% 1%
Agricultural 3% 2% 1%
Total 100%65%35%
The Rio Hondo and Little Dalton Wash LTA monitoring sites will also be utilized to support TMDL
monitoring. Photographs of the LTA site and flow monitoring locations are included in Attachment B.
Another primary role of the LTA sites is to identify constituents for monitoring at other locations within
the RH/SGRWQG area. Annually, the data collected will be compared to triggers proposed as a
component of the adaptive management process. Adding or dropping monitored constituents to the
closest upstream site (outfall or RW) will follow the triggers specified in Section 10.2.
2.3.2 TMDL Sites
The TMDLs addressing WBPCs within or downstream of the RH/SGRWQG area include:
¾LARWQCB LAR Trash, effective August 1, 2002 (LAR Trash TMDL)
¾LARWQCB LAR Nitrogen and Related Effects, effective March 23, 2004 (LAR Nitrogen
TMDL)
¾LARWQCB LAR and Tributaries Metals, effective October 29, 2008 (LAR Metals TMDL)
¾LARWQCB LAR Watershed Bacteria, effective March 23, 2012 (LAR Bacteria TMDL)
¾LARWQCB Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters
Toxic Pollutants, effective March 23, 2012 (Harbors Toxics TMDL)
¾USEPA SGR and Impaired Tributaries Metals and Selenium, effective March 26, 2007
(SGR Metals TMDL)
¾USEPA Los Angeles Area Lakes Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Mercury, Trash, Organochlorine
(OC) Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), effective March 26, 2012 (Lakes
TMDLs)
The RW monitoring requirements for the LAR Metals TMDL, LAR Bacteria TMDL, and SGR Metals TMDL
will be satisfied at the LTA monitoring sites. The LAR Trash TMDL Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) and
Staff Report do not require RW monitoring and the RH/SGRWQG is not required to conduct any in-stream
monitoring The LAR Nitrogen TMDL monitoring will be required upon approval of the Nitrogen Loadings
Work Plan. The Workplan for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Nitrogen Loading Reductions in
Removing Algae-Related Impairments in the Los Angeles River Watershed (i.e., the Work Plan submitted
to meet the Algae Work Plan requirements) did not propose any monitoring locations within or
downstream of the RH/SGRWQG area; thus, even if that work plan is approved, the RH/SGRWQG will not
be subject to its monitoring requirements. As part of the coordinated watershed monitoring effort for this
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 19 -
permit term, the RH/SGRWQG will monitor for LAR Nitrogen TMDL identified analytes at LAR Watershed
LTA and Stormwater Outfall monitoring sites.
On April 14, 2015, the Gateway Water Management Authority (GWMA) invited the RH/SGRWQG to
participate in a joint Dominguez Channel/Harbor Toxic TMDL Monitoring Program. The RH/SGRWQG will
satisfy the requirements of the Harbors Toxics TMDL monitoring through participation in the joint
Dominguez Channel/Harbor Toxic TMDL Monitoring Program. The joint Dominguez Channel/Harbor Toxic
TMDL Monitoring Program will consist of the installation of three proposed monitoring stations and
subsequent monitoring. All participating Permittees will share in the cost, responsibility, and testing
results. Since submission of the revised CIMP precedes its June 14, 2015 deadline for participation, the
RH/SGRWQG will provide confirmation of participation as an attachment to the WQG MS4 Permit Annual
Report in December 2015. This monitoring will serve as the Report of Implementation for the Harbors
Toxics TMDL. A copy of the April 14, 2015 invitation letter and draft agreement has been included in
Attachment H.
Within the RH/SGRWQG area, three TMDL monitoring sites are proposed to address the Lakes TMDLs,
including:
¾A new TMDL site located in Santa Anita Wash, just upstream of Peck Road Park Lake to
fulfill stormwater monitoring TMDL requirements.
¾A new TMDL site located in Sawpit Wash, just upstream of Peck Road Park Lake to fulfill
stormwater monitoring TMDL requirements.
¾A new TMDL site located within Peck Road Park Lake to fulfill in-lake compliance
monitoring, fish tissue monitoring, and trash monitoring TMDL requirements.
The approximate coordinates of the Peck Road Park Lake TMDL monitoring site are indicated in
Table 2-1. However, the exact location may shift outward due to hydrologic conditions , maintenance,
or construction that affects lake levels and the type of monitoring being conducted (i.e., water column,
sediment, or fish tissue). The proposed TMDL monitoring sites are located on Figure 2-1, while
photographs of the TMDL sites are included in Attachment B.
All responsible parties to the TMDLs are equally responsible for performing monitoring throughout the
watershed. Table 1-4 demonstrates which RH/SGRWQG members are affected by each of the TMDLs
per Attachment K, Tables K-5, K-6, K-9, K-10, and K-13, of the MS4 Permit.
As recognized by the footnote in Attachment K-4 of the MS4 Permit, the members of the RH/SGRWQG
have entered into an Amended Consent Decree with the United States and State of California, including
the Regional Board, pursuant to which the Regional Board has released the RH/SGRWQG members from
responsibility for toxic pollutants in the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach
Harbors. Accordingly, no inference should be drawn from the submission of this CIMP or from any action
or implementation taken pursuant to it that the RH/SGRWQG members are obligated to implement the
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL, including this CIMP
or any of the Toxics TMDL’s other obligations or plans, or that the RH/SGRWQG members have waived
any rights under the Amended Consent Decree.
2.4 Monitored Constituents and Frequency
The MRP clearly defines the minimum required constituents, frequency, and duration of RW monitoring.
A general summary of the frequency of monitoring and constituents identified in the MRP for RW
monitoring for flowing streams are presented in Table 2-4. The frequency of monitoring in Peck Road
Park Lake is summarized in Table 2-5.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 20 -
Table 2-4 Annual Frequency of Receiving Water Monitoring during Wet- and Dry-Weather Conditions
Constituent Annual Frequency1 (number wet events/number dry event)
Rio Hondo Santa Anita Wash Sawpit Wash Little Dalton Wash
Monitoring Type LTA TMDL TMDL LTA
Flow and field parameters2 3/9 3/9 3/9 3/2
Pollutants identified in Table E-2 of the MRP3
and not otherwise addressed below 14/14 14/14
Aquatic Toxicity 2/1 2/1
TSS and Hardness 3/2 3/2 3/2 3/2
Total Nitrogen 2/0 2/0
Organic Nitrogen 2/0 2/0
TKN 2/0 2/0
Total Phosphorus 2/0 2/0
Orthophosphate 2/0 2/0
Ammonia 3/2 2/0 2/0
Nitrate 3/2 2/0 2/0
Nitrite 3/2 2/0 2/0
Total and Dissolved Copper 3/2 4/2
Total and Dissolved Lead 3/2 3/2 3/2 4/25
Total and Dissolved Zinc 3/2 4/2
Total and Dissolved Cadmium 3/0
E. coli 3/9 3/9 3/9 3/2
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3/2
Total Dissolved Solids 2/0 2/0 0/2
TOC 1/0 1/0
DDT7, PCBs8, Dieldrin, and Chlordane9 16/06 16/06
1 Annual frequency listed as number of wet-weather events per year/number of dry-weather events per year (e.g., 3/2 signifies three wet-weather events per
year and two dry-weather events per year.
2 Field parameters are defined as DO, pH, temperature, and specific conductivity.
3 All pollutants identified in Table E-2 of the MRP that are not already addressed by TMDL monitoring at this site, will be monitored during the first significant
rain event and during the critical dry-weather event for the first year of monitoring. After the first year of monitoring where the Table E-2 constituents are
monitored, an analysis will be conducted to determine which MS4 Permit required pollutants exceeded a water quality objective at this site. Those exceeding
the respective water quality objectives will be added to the LTA monitoring list.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 21 -
4 After the first year of monitoring, pollutants identified in Table E-2 of the MRP that were not detected at the Method Detection Limit (MDL) for its respective
test method or the result is below the lowest applicable water quality objective, additional monitoring will not be conducted (i.e., the monitoring frequency
will become 0/0). For pollutants identified in Table E-2 of the MRP that are detected above the lowest applicable water quality objective, additional
monitoring will be conducted at the frequency specified in the MRP (i.e., the monitoring frequency will become 3/2) beginning the season following the Table
E-2 sampling.
5 Effectiveness monitoring frequency of monthly for dry-weather will commence after the first Metals TMDL interim milestone (September 30, 2017) if ambient
monitoring indicates that the interim requirements have not been met.
6 Per the USEPA Lakes TMDL, water samples and suspended solids samples will be collected during one wet-weather event each year and will be analyzed
for metals, DDT, PCBs, and PAHs.
7 DDT is defined as the sum of 2,4’-DDD, 2,4’-DDE, 2,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT.
8 To allow appropriate comparisons between potential sources and effects, the full suite of PCB congeners are to be analyzed for each matrix. PCBs are
defined as the sum of 54 PCB congeners when analyzed in the water column, sediment or suspended solids, including: 8, 18, 28, 31, 33, 37, 44, 49, 52, 56,
60, 66, 70, 74, 77, 81, 87, 95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 119, 123, 126, 128, 132, 138, 141, 149, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174,
177, 180, 183, 187, 189, 194, 195, 201, 203, 206, and 209.
9 Chlordane includes analyses for the following species: alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, oxychlordane, cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 22 -
Table 2-5 Frequency of Receiving Water Monitoring for Peck Road Park Lake
Constituent Frequency
In-Lake Water Quality Monitoring
TSS, TDS, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Electrical
Conductivity, and Secchi Depth
2x/summer
1x/winter
Ammonia, TKN or Organic N, Nitrate+Nitrite,
Orthophosphate, Total Phosphorus, Cylorophyll a
2x/summer
1x/winter
Total PCB1, Total DDT2, Total Chlordane3, Dieldrin 1x/winter
Fish Tissue Monitoring4
Total PCB1, Total DDT2, Total Chlordane3, Dieldrin Once every three years
Trash Monitoring
Trash Quantity Quarterly
1 To allow appropriate comparisons between potential sources and effects, the full suite of PCB congeners are to
be analyzed for each matrix. PCBs includes analyses for all aroclor species when analyzed in water and the
following 54 PCB congeners when analyzed in water or fish tissue: 8, 18, 28, 31, 33, 37, 44, 49, 52, 56, 60, 66,
70, 74, 77, 81, 87, 95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 119, 123, 126, 128, 132, 138, 141, 149, 151, 153, 156,
157, 158, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 177, 180, 183, 187, 189, 194, 195, 201, 203, 206, and 209. Analysis to be
conducted on suspended solids.
2 DDT is defined as the sum of 2,4’-DDD, 2,4’-DDE, 2,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT.
3 Chlordane includes analyses for the following species: alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, oxychlordane, cis-
Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor.
4 Composite sample of skin-off fillets from at least five common carp > 350 mm in length.
LTA RW sites generally will be monitored for all required constituents listed in Table 2-4 during three
wet-weather events per year, including the first significant rain event of the storm year, and during two
dry-weather events per year, including July which is the historically driest month. However, for toxicity,
monitoring will be conducted during two wet-weather events per year and during the one dry-weather
event that takes place during July. At a minimum, constituents for the TMDL sites will be monitored
during the first significant rain event, and subsequent storms per the LTA schedule if multiple storms are
indicated. During the first year of monitoring, wet-weather conditions will be defined as events where
greater than 0.25 inches of precipitation has fallen within the previous 24-hour period. The LACFCD's
Santa Fe Dam (USC) (#3377) precipitation gauge will be used to determine if events qualify.
Additionally, constituents in Table E-2 of the MRP, listed in Attachment C, will be assessed with
applicable water quality objectives after the first year of LTA monitoring.
The SGR Metals TMDL ambient monitoring will be conducted at a frequency of four wet- and two
dry-weather events annually. If after the first year of monitoring, ambient monitoring results indicate
that a reduction in frequency to three wet-weather events per year would provide sufficient data,
RH/SGRWQG will submit a letter to the RWQCB EO requesting to reduce the frequency to three
wet-weather events annually.
2.5 Monitoring Coordination
Opportunities potentially exist to coordinate with other watershed management groups for RW
monitoring. The CIMP is written to outline the monitoring requirements to assess the RH/SGRWQG MS4.
Coordination with other watershed management groups may occur in the future, where data from other
programs may be used to fulfill RH/SGRWQG requirements.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 23 -
3. MS4 Database
The objective of the MS4 database is to geographically link the characteristics of the outfalls within the
EWMP area with watershed characteristics including: subwatershed, water body, land use, and effective
impervious area. The information will be compiled into Geographic Information System (GIS) layers.
Based on the review of the GIS data available, the components were divided into two categories:
(1) available information being submitted with the CIMP; and (2) pending information that will be
submitted after completion of the NSW Outfall and Screening Program. The following sections outline the
data that will be submitted with the CIMP and information that is not readily available based on the MS4
Permit requirements.
Each year, the storm drains, channels, outfalls, and associated database will be updated to incorporate
the most recent characterization data for outfalls with significant NSW discharge. The updates will be
included as part of the annual reporting to the Regional Board.
3.1 Available Information
The data requirements summarized in Table 3-1 are being submitted as a map and/or in a database
concurrently with the CIMP:
Table 3-1 Available Information for MS4 Database
MS4 Permit
Requirement Database Element Submitted
VII.A.1 Surface water bodies within the RH/SGRWQG jurisdictions X
VII.A.2 Watershed (HUC-12) boundary X
VII.A.3 Land use overlay X
VII.A.5 Jurisdictional boundaries X
VII.A.6
The location and length of all open channel and underground pipes
18 inches in diameter or greater (with the exception of catch basin
connector pipes)
X
VII.A.7 Location of all dry-weather diversions X
VII.A.8 Location of all major MS4 outfalls within the Permittee's jurisdictional
boundary with each major outfall assigned an alphanumeric identifier X1
VII.A.10 Storm drain outfall catchment areas for each major outfall within the
RH/SGRWQG jurisdictions X2
VII.A.11 Each mapped MS4 outfall shall be linked to a database containing descriptive and
monitoring data associated with the outfall. The data shall include items below:
VII.A.11.a Ownership X
VII.A.11.b Coordinates X
VII.A.11.c Physical description X
1 All outfalls greater than 36 inches have been identified and are considered major. Outfalls greater than 12
inches are identified; however, those outfalls between 12 and 36 inches with drainage areas containing
industrial areas greater than two acres have not been specifically noted. The database will be upheld as
information is developed.
2 Storm drain outfalls were linked in the database to the modeling subwatersheds to provide information on the
contributing areas.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 24 -
3.2 Information Not Currently Available
As the data becomes available, it will be entered into the database. Upon completion of the NSW
screening, outstanding data will be collected. The data summarized in Table 3-2 will be populated into
a database as the data is collected. The annual reports will include the updated database.
Table 3-2 Information to be Collected for MS4 Database
MS4 Permit
Requirement Database Element To be
Developed
Date of
Submission
VII.A.4 EIA overlay (if available) As available
VII.A.9 Notation of outfalls with significant NSW discharges
(to be updated annually) X1 December 2015
VII.A.10
Detailed analysis of storm drain outfall catchment
areas for any new outfall monitoring locations,
outfalls identified as having significant NSW
discharges, and outfalls addressed by structural
BMPs
X2 Ongoing
VII.A.11 Each mapped MS4 outfall shall be linked to a database containing descriptive and
monitoring data associated with the outfall. The data shall include items below:
VII.A.11.d
Photographs of the outfall, where possible, to
provide baseline information to track operation and
maintenance needs over time
X3 December 2015
VII.A.11.e Determination of whether the outfall conveys
significant NSW discharges X1 December 2015
VII.A.11.f Stormwater and NSW monitoring data X4 Ongoing
1 The determination of significant will be made after the initial screening process outlined in this CIMP.
2 Storm drain outfalls were linked in the database to the modeling subwatersheds to provide information on
contributing areas. Detailed analysis of storm drain outfall catchment areas for the stormwater outfall
monitoring sites have been developed and additional detailed analysis for any new outfall monitoring locations,
outfalls identified as having significant NSW discharges, and outfalls addressed by structural BMPs will be
conducted as needed.
3 These data will be gathered as part of the screening and monitoring program and will be added to the database
as they are gathered.
4 These data will be gathered as part of the screening and monitoring program and will be added to a separate
water quality database as they are gathered.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 25 -
4. Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
4.1 Program Objectives
Stormwater outfall monitoring of discharges from the MS4, will allow the following three objectives to be
achieved:
1. Determine the quality of stormwater discharge relative to municipal action levels.
2. Determine whether stormwater discharge is in compliance with applicable stormwater
WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs.
3. Determine whether the discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of RWLs.
4.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
The primary criteria for the stormwater outfall monitoring program is selecting monitoring sites that are
representative of the range of land uses in the RH/SGRWQG area and provide accurate data for
measuring flows and characterizing pollutant loads. The MS4 Permit specifies a “default” requirement of
one outfall site per jurisdiction per HUC-12. Based upon the characteristics of each HUC-12 and
similarities between neighboring jurisdictions and HUC-12s, the default procedure was modified. The
MS4 Permit allows an alternative approach through an approved CIMP to increase the cost efficiency and
effectiveness of the monitoring program. For the following, the HUC-12 equivalent watersheds prepared
by the LACFCD were considered in-lieu of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) HUC-12
watersheds. The following subsections outline the approach to meet the MS4 Permit requirements
related to stormwater outfall monitoring.
Fourteen potential stormwater outfall monitoring sites were identified for further evaluation during an
initial desktop GIS analysis. The desktop GIS analysis of available outfalls was performed using land use
and jurisdictional boundary information, and consisted of the following analyses listed in sequential order:
(1) identifying the locations of major outfalls (defined as greater than 36 inches); (2) calculating the
percentage of each land use associated with the entire HUC-12 and identifying the major outfalls with
estimated catchment areas that most closely match the land use breakdown of the HUC-12 in which the
outfall is located; (3) identifying outfalls that appeared to be viable options given what could be seen
using Google Maps and Google Street View; and (4) identifying outfalls that receive drainage from
multiple jurisdictions. All fourteen potential stormwater outfall monitoring sites identified were visited.
Two additional candidate outfalls were considered as representative of MS4 discharge to SGR Reach 5.
After all the potential sites were visited, proposed stormwater outfall monitoring sites were identified.
The proposed sites were selected based on an evaluation of the land uses draining to the outfall location,
the jurisdictions draining to the outfall location (with an emphasis placed on receiving drainage from as
many jurisdictions as possible), the safety and accessibility of the site, and the ability to use autosampler
equipment at the location (including signs of power availability).
The following observations were checked at each site:
¾Coordinates
¾Dimensions
¾Presence/absence of flow
¾Odor
¾Color
¾Clarity
¾Floatables
¾Deposits
¾Vegetation
¾Atmospheric conditions
¾Accessibility
¾Safety
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 26 -
The primary criterion for selecting the proposed monitoring sites was the representativeness of the land
uses within the estimated outfall catchment area as compared to the HUC-12 as a whole. To best
compare the land uses within the MS4 areas, the HUC-12 and outfall drainage area land uses were
estimated only using open space characterized as golf courses, local parks, and regional parks for site
selection. The land use analysis used 2005 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) land
use layer. Open space associated with the Angeles National Forest, outside of the MS4 area, were not
included in the analysis.
Stormwater outfall monitoring sites selected for the RH/SGRWQG have been identified using the
procedures outlined in this section. The group has four HUC-12 equivalents within its jurisdictional area.
The Eaton Wash HUC-12 covers a minor portion of the RH/SGRWQG area and is similar in land use to the
neighboring Santa Anita Wash HUC-12. As a result, no stormwater outfall monitoring site is located in
the Eaton Wash HUC-12. One monitoring site within the Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 is identified to
represent the group members located in both the Eaton Wash and Santa Anita Wash HUC-12s, namely:
City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, and City of Sierra Madre. The City of Monrovia is also located in
the Santa Anita Wash HUC-12, but is represented by a separate site. The City of Bradbury is also located
in the Santa Anita Wash HUC-12, but given the similarities between the Cities of Bradbury and Duarte,
one monitoring site is proposed to represent both of these group members. Two additional monitoring
sites (one in the Santa Fe Flood Control Basin (FCB) HUC-12 and another in the Big Dalton Wash
HUC-12) will also be monitored to represent the City of Azusa and County of Los Angeles unincorporated
areas in the SGR WMA. The five stormwater outfall monitoring sites are presented in Figure 4-1.
The selected sites are representative of the land uses within each respective drainage area which they
represent. The data collected at the monitored outfalls will be considered representative of all MS4
discharges within the respective drainage area which the outfall represents. The resulting data will be
applied to all group members represented by the site, regardless of whether a site is located within a
particular group member’s jurisdiction or received flow from that land area. Compliance for group
members with WQBELs and RWLs may be based on commingled discharges or data not collected within a
given jurisdiction.
The stormwater outfall monitoring sites for the seven jurisdictions of the RH/SGRWQG are presented in
the following subsections. Photographs of each of the stormwater outfall monitoring sites are included in
Attachment B.
Figure 4--1 Stormwa
Rio Hondo/
- 27 -
ater Outfall
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
Monitoring
el River Wat
Integrated M
Sites
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
Group
ogram
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 28 -
4.2.1 Santa Anita Wash HUC-12
The Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 is located in the Rio Hondo portion of the LAR WMA. The HUC-12 covers
portions of the Cities of Arcadia, Bradbury, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre, as well as the County. However,
the Cities of Bradbury and Monrovia will be represented by separate stormwater outfall monitoring sites.
The BI 0404 – Line A site is selected to represent the primary land use of the Santa Anita Wash HUC-12.
The City of Monrovia site discussed below is also in the Santa Anita Wash HUC-12. Primary land use
types for the group members represented by the Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 stormwater outfall
monitoring site and primary land use types within the HUC-12 are presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use
Comparison
Land Use Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 Estimated Outfall Catchment
Residential 52% 48%
Commercial 38% 48%
Open Space 10% 4%
Agricultural 0% 0%
Table 4-2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Santa Anita Wash HUC-12
HUC-12 City Drain
Name Size Shape Material Latitude Longitude
Santa Anita
Wash Arcadia BI 0404
– Line A
87
inches Round RCP 34.127493 -118.039913
The BI 0404 – Line A site was identified as a site which is well-suited for sample collection. The primary
factor contributing to the selection of the BI 0404 – Line A site is its relative representativeness within its
apparent drainage area with respect to commercial and residential land uses which are the primary land
uses of the Santa Anita Wash HUC-12. The outfall and respective land uses are shown on Figure 4-2.
Other factors that contributed to the selection of the BI 0404 – Line A site include available space for the
placement of a permanent sampling station, if desired, and safe and easy access for setup and tear-down
of automatic sampling equipment.
Figure 4-2 Stormwwater Outfall M
- 29 -
Monitoring Site
Rio Hondo
– Santa Anita W
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
Wash HUC-12
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
ality Group
ring Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River
Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
2015 Revision Submittal
- 30 -
4.2.2 Big Dalton Wash HUC-12
The Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 is in the SGR WMA. It primarily covers portions of the MS4 in the City of
Azusa, as well as the County. Primary land use types for the group members represented by the Big
Dalton Wash HUC-12 stormwater outfall monitoring site and primary land use types within the HUC-12
are presented in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use
Comparison
Land Use Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 Estimated Outfall Catchment
Residential 57% 68%
Commercial 37% 27%
Open Space 2% 4%
Agricultural 4% 1%
Table 4-4 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Big Dalton Wash HUC-12
HUC-12 City Drain
Name Size Shape Material Latitude Longitude
Big Dalton
Wash1,2 County BI 1219 –
Line C
63
inches Round RCP 34.111369 -117.890254
1 Drain eventually discharges to Big Dalton Wash.
2 Manhole location.
The primary factor contributing to the selection of the BI 1219 – Line C site is its representativeness
within its apparent drainage area with respect to the primary land uses of the Big Dalton Wash HUC-12
for the group members that will be represented by the site. The outfall and surrounding land uses are
shown on Figure 4-3. Because there is uncertainty regarding the outfall which receives drainage from
the BI 1219 – Line C drain, sampling will occur at the nearest upstream manhole. Sampling may be
moved directly to the outfall once it is determined which of the two outfalls receives drainage from the
BI 1219 – Line C drain. Other factors contributing to the selection of the BI 1219 – Line C site include
easy access to the manhole, being located in an area where traffic can easily be diverted around the site
during setup and tear-down of autosampling equipment, and receipt of drainage from both the City of
Azusa and County.
Figgure 4-3 Stormmwater Outfall M
- 31 -
Monitoring Site
Rio Hondo
e – Big Dalton W
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
Wash HUC-12
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
ality Group
ring Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 32 -
4.2.3 Santa Fe Flood Control Basin HUC-12
The Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 is in the SGR WMA and primarily covers portions of the Cities of Arcadia,
Azusa, Bradbury, Duarte, and Monrovia, as well as the County. However, the Cities of Arcadia, Bradbury,
Duarte, and Monrovia are represented by separate stormwater outfall monitoring sites. The primary land
use types for the outfall catchment area and Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 are presented in
Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use
Comparison
Land Use Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 Estimated Outfall Catchment
Residential 52% 61%
Commercial 37% 16%
Open Space 7% 20%
Agricultural 4% 3%
Table 4-6 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Santa Fe FCB HUC-12
HUC-12 City Drain
Name Size Shape Material Latitude Longitude
Santa Fe
FCB1,2 Azusa Beatty
Canyon
144
inches
Square or
Rectangle RCB 34.143496 -117.925637
1 Drain eventually discharges to SGR Reach 5.
2 Manhole location.
The Beatty Canyon drain was identified as a drain which is well-suited for sample collection. The primary
factor contributing to the selection of the Beatty Canyon drain is the size of its drainage area relative to
the size of the other drainage area options evaluated. Also, when compared with the other options of
comparable size, the Beatty Canyon site is more representative within its apparent drainage area with
respect to the primary land uses of the Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 for the group members that are
represented by the site. The outfall location and land uses are displayed on Figure 4-4. Sampling will
occur at the nearest upstream manhole. Other factors that contributed to the selection of the Beatty
Canyon drain include easy access to the manhole, being located in an area where traffic can easily be
diverted around the site during setup and tear-down of autosampling equipment, and receipt of drainage
from both the City of Azusa and County.
FFigure 4-4 Storrmwater Outfal
- 33 -
l Monitoring Sit
Rio Hondo
te – Santa Fe F
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
FCB HUC-12
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
ality Group
ring Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 34 -
4.2.4 City of Monrovia
The City of Monrovia is in the Santa Anita Wash and Santa Fe FCB HUC-12s. One stormwater outfall
monitoring site is used to represent all MS4 drainage areas within the City of Monrovia. Primary land use
types of the City of Monrovia and the proposed stormwater outfall catchment area are presented in
Table 4-7.
Table 4-7 City of Monrovia Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land Use
Comparison
Land Use City of Monrovia Estimated Outfall Catchment
Residential 63% 58%
Commercial 30% 21%
Open Space 7% 21%
Agricultural 0% 0%
Table 4-8 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – City of Monrovia
HUC-12 City Drain
Name Size Shape Material Latitude Longitude
Santa Anita
Wash1,2 Monrovia
BI 0025
Peck Road
Drain
117
inches
Square or
Rectangle RCB 34.118660 -118.003890
1 Drain eventually discharges to Sawpit Wash.
2 Manhole location.
The primary factor contributing to the selection of the BI 0025 Peck Road Drain is its representativeness
within its apparent drainage area with respect to the primary land uses of the City of Monrovia, with the
exception of open space. The outfall and respective land uses are shown on Figure 4-5. Because the
outfall is located outside of the RH/SGRWQG area, sampling will occur at the nearest upstream manhole
within the RH/SGRWQG area. Other factors that contributed to the selection of the BI 0025 Peck Road
Drain include easy access to the manhole, a drainage area which is larger than other evaluated sites, and
receipt of drainage from primarily the City of Monrovia.
Figure 4-5 Sttormwater Out
- 35 -
fall Monitoring
Rio Hondo
Site – City of M
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
Monrovia
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
ality Group
ring Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 36 -
4.2.5 Cities of Bradbury and Duarte
The Cities of Bradbury and Duarte are in the Santa Anita Wash and Santa Fe FCB HUC-12s. One
stormwater outfall monitoring site is used to represent all MS4 drainage areas within the Cities of
Bradbury and Duarte. Primary land use types of the Cities of Bradbury and Duarte stormwater outfall
estimated catchment area are presented in Table 4-9. Table 4-10 provides relevant information for
the Cities of Bradbury and Duarte monitoring site.
Table 4-9 Cities of Bradbury and Duarte Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Land
Use Comparison
Land Use Cities of Bradbury and Duarte Estimated Outfall Catchment
Residential 64% 61%
Commercial 22% 16%
Open Space 9% 20%
Agricultural 5% 3%
Table 4-10 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site – Cities of Bradbury and Duarte
HUC-12 City Drain
Name Size Shape Material Latitude Longitude
Santa Fe
FCB Duarte Bradbury
Drain
156
inches
Square or
Rectangle RCB 34.137830 -117.955760
The primary factor contributing to the selection of the Bradbury Drain is its representativeness within its
apparent drainage area with respect to the primary combined land uses of the Cities of Bradbury and
Duarte. The outfall location and land uses are displayed on Figure 4-6. Other factors that contributed
to the selection of the Bradbury Drain include available space for the placement of a permanent sampling
station, if desired, safe and easy access for setup and tear-down of autosampling equipment, a drainage
area which is larger than the other sites which were evaluated, and receipt of drainage from both the
Cities of Bradbury and Duarte.
Figurre 4-6 Stormwaater Outfall Mo
- 37 -
onitoring Site –
Rio Hondo
Cities of Bradb
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
bury and Duarte
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
e
ality Group
ring Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 38 -
4.3 Monitored Constituents and Frequency
Outfalls discharging to flowing water bodies will be monitored for all required constituents during three
storm events per year concurrently with RW monitoring, with the exception of toxicity. Toxicity
monitoring is only required when triggered by recent RW toxicity monitoring where a toxicity
identification evaluation (TIE) on the observed RW toxicity test was inconclusive. Sampling will be
conducted for 24 hours or, if the storm duration is less than 24 hours, the event duration. The
requirements for monitored constituents at each outfall are outlined in the MRP (Part VIII.B.1.c).
Additionally, constituents in Table E-2 of the MRP, Attachment C, will not be able to be identified as
exceeding applicable water quality objectives until after the first year of LTA monitoring. An overview of
the MRP required constituents is listed in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Constituents and Frequency
Constituents
Receiving Water to which Outfall is Discharging
(number of wet-weather events per year)
Arcadia
Wash
Sawpit
Wash
San Gabriel
River Reach 5
Big Dalton
Wash
Drain BI 0404 –
Line A
Peck Road
Drain
Beatty Canyon &
Bradbury Drain
BI 1219 –
Line C
Flow, hardness, pH, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, specific conductivity,
and TSS
3 3 3 3
Table E-2 pollutants detected above
relevant objectives1 3 3 3 3
Aquatic Toxicity2
Ammonia 3 3
Nitrate 3 3
Nitrite 3 3
Total and Dissolved Copper 3 3 4 4
Total and Dissolved Lead 3 3 4 4
Total and Dissolved Zinc 3 3 4 4
Total and Dissolved Cadmium 3 3
E. coli 3 3 3 3
TOC 13 1
DDT4, PCBs5, Dieldrin, and Chlordane6 1 1
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate 3
1 Defined after the first monitoring season and an evaluation of the Table E-2 constituents is performed at the
nearest RW/LTA site.
2 Toxicity is only monitored from outfalls when triggered by recent RW/LTA toxicity monitoring where a TIE on
the sample was inconclusive. If toxicity is observed at the outfall a TIE must be conducted.
3 Monitored over the same storm as RW monitoring.
4 DDT is defined as the sum of 2,4’-DDD, 2,4’-DDE, 2,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT.
5 To allow appropriate comparisons between potential sources and effects, the full suite of PCB congeners are to
be analyzed for each matrix. PCBs are defined as the sum of 54 PCB congeners when analyzed in the water
column, sediment or suspended solids, including: 8, 18, 28, 31, 33, 37, 44, 49, 52, 56, 60, 66, 70, 74, 77, 81,
87, 95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 119, 123, 126, 128, 132, 138, 141, 149, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 167,
168, 169, 170, 174, 177, 180, 183, 187, 189, 194, 195, 201, 203, 206, and 209.
6 Chlordane includes analyses for the following species: alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, oxychlordane, cis-
Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 39 -
4.4 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Summary
The following information summarizes the previous subsections. The stormwater outfall monitoring sites
in the RH/SGRWQG area are summarized in Table 4-12 and the outfalls which represent each of the
group members in each of the HUC-12s are presented in Table 4-13. Constituents that will be
monitored at each stormwater outfall monitoring site were presented previously in Table 4-11.
Table 4-12 Summary of Proposed Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites in the
RH/SGRWQG EWMP Area
HUC-12 City Drain
Name Size Shape Material Latitude Longitude
Santa Anita
Wash Arcadia BI 0404 –
Line A
90
inches Round RCP 34.107602 -118.036477
Big Dalton
Wash1 County BI 1219 –
Line C
63
inches Round RCP 34.111369 -117.890254
Santa Fe
FCB1 Azusa Beatty
Canyon
144
inches
Square or
Rectangle RCB 34.143496 -117.925637
Santa Anita
Wash1 Monrovia
BI 0025
Peck Road
Drain
117
inches
Square or
Rectangle RCB 34.118660 -118.003890
Santa Fe
FCB Duarte Bradbury
Drain
156
inches
Square or
Rectangle RCB 34.137830 -117.955760
1 Manhole location
Table 4-13 RH/SGRWQG Member Represented by Each Stormwater Outfall
Monitoring Site
RH/SGRWQG
Member
HUC-12
Stormwater Outfall Site Eaton
Wash
Santa Anita
Wash
Santa Fe
FCB
Big Dalton
Wash
Arcadia
X BI 0404 – Line A
X BI 0404 – Line A
BI 0025 Peck Road Drain
Azusa X Beatty Canyon
X BI 1219 – Line C
Bradbury X BI 0025 Peck Road Drain
X Bradbury Drain
County of
Los Angeles
X BI 0404 – Line A
X BI 0025 Peck Road Drain
X Bradbury Drain
Beatty Canyon
X BI 1219 – Line C
Duarte X BI 0025 Peck Road Drain
X Bradbury Drain
Monrovia X BI 0025 Peck Road Drain
X Bradbury Drain
Sierra Madre X BI 0404 – Line A
X BI 0025 Peck Road Drain
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 40 -
5. Non-Stormwater Outfall Program
Objectives of the NSW outfall monitoring include the following:
¾Determine whether a discharge is in compliance with applicable NSW WQBELs derived
from TMDL WLAs.
¾Determine whether a discharge exceeds Non-Stormwater Action Levels (NALs).
¾Determine whether a discharge contributes to or causes an exceedance of RWLs.
¾Assist in identifying illicit discharges.
Additionally, the outfall screening and monitoring process is intended to prioritize outfalls for assessment
and, where appropriate, scheduling of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address the NSW flows.
The NSW Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program is focused on dry-weather discharges to RWs from
major outfalls. The program fills two roles, the first is to provide assessment of whether the NSW
discharges are potentially impacting the RW, and the second is to determine whether significant NSW
discharges are allowable. The NSW outfall program is complimentary to the IC/ID minimum control
measure. NSW outfall monitoring sites will be determined after the screening events are completed and
an inventory of outfalls is created. Constituents monitored at each NSW outfall site will depend upon the
RW on which it is located.
Additionally, the outfall screening and monitoring process is intended to meet the following objectives
(Part IX.A of the MRP):
¾Develop criteria or other means to ensure that all outfalls with significant NSW
discharges are identified and assessed during the term of the MS4 Permit.
¾For outfalls determined to have significant NSW flow, determine whether flows are the
result of IC/IDs, authorized or conditionally exempt NSW flows, natural flows, or from
unknown sources.
¾Refer information related to identified IC/IDs to the IC/ID Elimination Program (Part
VI.D.10 of the MS4 Permit) for appropriate action.
¾Based on existing screening or monitoring data or other institutional knowledge, assess
the impact of NSW discharges (other than identified IC/IDs) on the RW.
¾Prioritize monitoring of outfalls considering the potential threat to the RW and applicable
TMDL compliance schedules.
¾Conduct monitoring or assess existing monitoring data to determine the impact of NSW
discharges on the RW.
¾Conduct monitoring or other investigations to identify the source of pollutants in NSW
discharges.
¾Use results of the screening process to evaluate the conditionally exempt NSW
discharges identified in Parts III.A.2 and III.A.3 of the MS4 Permit and take appropriate
actions pursuant to Part III.A.4.d of the MS4 Permit for those discharges that have been
found to be a source of pollutants. Any future reclassification shall occur per the
conditions in Parts III.A.2 or III.A.6 of the MS4 Permit.
¾Maximize the use of resources by integrating the screening and monitoring process into
existing or planned IMP and/or CIMP efforts.
In summary, the intent of the NSW Outfall Program is to demonstrate that the group members are
effectively prohibiting non-exempt or conditionally non-exempt discharges to RWs and to assess whether
NSW discharges are causing or contributing to exceedances of RWLs. By detecting, identifying, and
eliminating illicit discharges, the program will demonstrate efforts by the RH/SGRWQG to effectively
prohibit NSW discharges to and from the MS4. Where the discharges are deemed “significant,” the
program w
program p
exceedanc
The MS4
NSW disc
monitorin
discussion
will discern w
procedures w
ces of RWLs.
Permit specif
charges. Th
g at an indiv
n of each elem
Fig
whether they a
will allow deter
ies a process
he outfall sc
vidual outfall.
ment is provid
ure 5-1 No
are illicit, exe
rmination of w
for screening
creening and
A flowchart
ded in the foll
n-Stormwat
Rio Hondo/
- 41 -
mpt, or condi
whether the d
g, investigatin
investigatio
t of the prog
owing subsec
ter Outfall P
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
itionally exem
discharges ma
ng, and ultima
ons must be
gram is prese
ctions.
Program Flo
el River Wat
Integrated M
mpt. Furtherm
ay be causing
ately monitor
completed
ented as Figu
ow Diagram
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
more, followin
g or contribut
ring of outfalls
prior to init
ure 5-1. De
Group
ogram
ng the
ting to
s with
tiating
etailed
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 42 -
5.1 Implementation of Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening and
Monitoring Program in Rio Hondo Portion of the RH/SGRWQG
Area
For the Rio Hondo portion of the RH/SGRWQG area, of the constituents addressed by TMDLs for which
WQBELs and RWLs were incorporated into the MS4 Permit, E. coli consistently exceeds RWLs for
dry-weather discharges, and is assumed a reasonable evaluation characteristic. All other TMDL-related
WQBELs and RWLs are primarily associated with wet-weather discharges. Additionally, the LAR Bacteria
TMDL Basin Plan Amendment requires Permittees to conduct outfall monitoring. The RH/SGRWQG
intends to prepare a Load Reduction Strategy (LRS) to comply with the LAR Bacteria TMDL. The LRS for
the Rio Hondo is due March 2016. NSW screening and monitoring is proposed to be integrated with the
LAR Bacteria TMDL monitoring requirements for the LRS compliance path. The NSW monitoring sites are
to be determined through the NSW outfall screening and the source identification process required by the
MS4 Permit. E. coli loading is proposed as the primary characteristic for determining significant NSW
discharges. Table 5-1 presents the components of the outfall screening process for the Rio Hondo
portion of the RH/SGRWQG area.
Table 5-1 Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process for Los Angeles River WMA
Component Description
Characteristics for Defining
Significant NSW Discharges
To be consistent with the top dectile of discharges as discussed in the
LRS outlined in the LA River Bacteria TMDL, the top 10% of the ranked
outfalls will be determined to be significant NSW discharges. The
ranking score is the sum of the following three ranking criteria:
¾Does the NSW discharge reach the RW during dry-weather? If
yes, continue through the ranking criteria.
¾E. coli loading rate: for each outfall monitored during the
NSW Outfall Screening Process, the average E. coli loading rate
from the six outfall surveys will be calculated. The average
E. coli loading rates from all outfalls will be ranked from highest
to lowest. A ranking score will be applied to each outfall based
on the decitile (10th percentile, 20th percentile, etc.,) of its
average E. coli loading rate.
¾Number of dry-weather exceedance days at the nearest
downstream RW site: a ranking score will also be applied to
outfalls based on the number of dry-weather exceedance days
exhibited at the nearest downstream RW site. The total
number of dry-weather (summer dry- and winter-dry)
exceedance days during the NSW Outfall Screening Process will
be used. Each RW site will be ranked from highest to lowest
based on the total number of exceedance days.
Data Collection
Data that will need to be collected include accurate flow measurements
AND E. coli. Additionally, information needed to complete the inventory
will be collected.
Frequency
A total of six sampling events will be performed. Three times as part of
the initial screening process. The remaining three monitoring events to
meet the requirements of the LAR Bacteria TMDL will be completed as
part of the NSW outfall monitoring.
Timeline It is proposed that commencement of the screening process occur in
2014.
An alternative frequency is proposed to integrate the approach to screening and identification of
significant NSW discharges with the LAR Bacteria TMDL outfall monitoring requirements. The frequency
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 43 -
of the LAR Bacteria outfall monitoring is six times prior to submission of a LRS. Although monitoring is
normally not required during screening, Bacteria TMDL outfall monitoring will be conducted concurrently
for increased efficiency. The frequency of sample collection for the screening and monitoring events are
as follows:
¾Screening: Sample collection will be conducted six times at all flowing storm drains to
establish the outfalls with significant NSW discharges and meet the LAR Bacteria TMDL
outfall monitoring requirements.
Monitoring at outfalls with significant NSW discharges will be re-evaluated consistent with the MS4 Permit
requirements on page E-28 of the MRP. Given that the LRS is due on March 23, 2016, it is proposed that
the screening process begin in Summer 2014 and monitoring begin in July 2015.
As the proposed approach for identifying significant NSW discharges already focuses on ranking outfalls
based upon each outfall’s individual ranking score, it is recommended that the following alternative
prioritization criteria be utilized:
1. Outfalls which have the highest ranking score.
2. Outfalls for which monitoring data exist and indicate recurring exceedances of one or
more of the Action Levels identified in Attachment G of the MS4 Permit.
In terms of scheduling source investigations, it is recommended the scheduling focus on the outfalls with
the highest ranking scores first. Outfalls will be monitored for all required constituents except toxicity.
Toxicity monitoring is only required when triggered by recent RW toxicity monitoring where a TIE on the
observed RW toxicity test was inconclusive.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 44 -
5.2 Implementation of Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening and
Monitoring Program in San Gabriel River Portion of the
RH/SGRWQG Area
Unlike the Rio Hondo portion of the RH/SGRWQG area, the SGR portion of the RH/SGRWQG area does
not have one specific constituent addressed by TMDLs for which WQBELs and RWLs were incorporated
into the MS4 Permit which consistently exceeds RWLs during dry-weather. The SGR portion of the
RH/SGRWQG area also does not have a TMDL requirement to conduct outfall monitoring. The flow rate
is proposed as the primary characteristic for determining significant NSW discharges. A summary of the
approach to address the MS4 Permit specified elements of the NSW Outfall Program for the SGR portion
of the RH/SGRWQG area is provided in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening for San Gabriel River WMA
Element Description Implementation Dates
Outfall Screening
A screening process will be implemented to
collect data for determining which outfalls
exhibit significant NSW discharges.
The screening process will
begin in 2014.
Identification of outfalls
with significant NSW
discharge
Based on data collected during the Outfall
Screening process, the outfalls will be
ranked according to flow rate categories
and land use. The outfalls ranked in the
top 10% will be identified as significant
NSW discharges.
Inventory of outfalls
with NSW discharge
Develop an inventory of major MS4 outfalls
with known significant NSW discharges
and those requiring no further assessment.
Prioritized source
investigation
Use the data collected during the screening
process to prioritize the outfalls ranked in
the top 10% for source investigations.
Identify sources of
significant NSW
discharges
Perform source investigations per the
prioritization schedule. If not exempt or
unknown, determine abatement process.
Source investigations will be
conducted for at least 25% of
the significant NSW discharges
by the end of December 28,
2015, and 100% by December
28, 2017.
Monitoring NSW
discharges exceeding
criteria
Monitor outfalls that are determined to
convey significant NSW discharges
comprised of either unknown or non-
essential conditionally exempt NSW
discharges, or continuing discharges
attributed to illicit discharges.
First regularly scheduled dry-
weather monitoring event after
completing the source
investigation or after the CIMP
is approved by the EO,
whichever is later.
To collect data to determine the significant NSW outfalls, the RH/SGRWQG will perform three
dry-weather screenings. The initial screening provides the dual purpose of data collection for completing
the outfall database and initial evaluation of outfalls. Each outfall in the RH/SGRWQG area will be visited
during the first screening. A standard form will be used to collect characteristic data, consisting of:
¾Channel bottom, visual estimate of flow rate;
¾Whether discharge ponds in the channel or reaches a flowing RW;
¾Clarity; and
¾Presence of odors and foam.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 45 -
Additionally, outstanding information for the MS4 inventory database will be collected, including, at a
minimum, geographically referenced photographs. Flow rates will be categorized as: no flow, trickle,
garden hose, and more than a garden hose. On the second and third screenings, drains larger than
12 inches in diameter and equivalent rectangular shaped will be investigated. Where discharge is present
at least two of the three visits, the flow rates will be ranked and used as one metric in the significance
determination. An analysis of land use and permitted discharges will be considered in addition to the
data collected from the three screenings to evaluate the NSW flows and through this process the outfalls
will be given a ranking score. The outfalls ranked in the top 10% will be determined to be significant
NSW outfalls. The screening process is outlined in Table 5-3.
Outfalls would be monitored for all required constituents except toxicity. Toxicity monitoring is only
required when triggered by recent RW toxicity monitoring where a TIE on the observed RW toxicity test
was inconclusive.
Table 5-3 Approach for Establishing a Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening Process
Component Description
Data Collection
Data include flow measurements, channel bottom, ponding of
discharge, clarity, color, odor, foam, and standard field parameters.
Land use and permitted dischargers will be considered in the
evaluation with field data to assess outfall ranking to determine
significant NSW discharge.
Frequency
Three assessments will be conducted as part of the initial screening
process. The first screening will collect visual information on all
drains. The second and third screenings will collect visual data from
flowing drains greater than 12 inches in diameter.
Defining Significant Discharges
Perform GIS analysis and screen out drains between 12 and 36
inches in diameter that are not associated with industrial land use.
Assess the flow rate for each outfall. Visual for the first, and
measured on each additional visit. For outfalls where the flow was
observed on two visits, the flows will be ranked from highest to
lowest. Including consideration of characteristic data and land use
information if appropriate to determine list of significant NSW
discharges.
Timeline The NSW outfall screening process will begin implementation in 2014.
1 The NSW screening process will be repeated each MS4 Permit cycle (nominally, a five year period), or where
requirements are eliminated in a subsequent MS4 Permit.
5.3 Inventory of MS4 Outfalls with Non-Stormwater Discharges
An inventory of MS4 outfalls must be developed identifying those outfalls with known significant NSW
discharges and those requiring no further assessment (Part IX.D of the MRP). If the MS4 outfall requires
no further assessment, the inventory must include the rationale for the determination of no further action
required. Rationale for a determination of no future action will be expected to include: (1) the outfall
does not have flow; (2) the outfall does not have a known significant NSW discharge; or (3) discharges
observed were determined to be exempt. The inventory will be included in a database as required by the
MRP. Each year, the inventory must be updated to incorporate the most recent characterization data for
outfalls with significant NSW discharges.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 46 -
The following physical attributes of outfalls with significant NSW discharges must be included in the
inventory and is being collected as part of the screening process described in Section 5.1 and
Section 5.2:
¾Date and time of last visual observation or inspection
¾Outfall alpha-numeric identifier
¾Description of outfall structure including size (e.g., diameter and shape)
¾Description of RW at the point of discharge (e.g., natural, soft-bottom with armored
sides, trapezoidal, concrete channel)
¾Latitude/longitude coordinates
¾Nearest street address
¾Parking, access, and safety considerations
¾Photographs of outfall condition
¾Photographs of significant NSW discharge or indicators of discharge unless safety
considerations preclude obtaining photographs
¾Estimation of discharge rate
¾All diversions either upstream or downstream of the outfall
¾Observations regarding discharge characteristics such as turbidity, odor, color, presence
of debris, floatables, or characteristics that could aid in pollutant source identification.
5.4 Prioritized Source Identification
Once the major outfalls exhibiting significant NSW discharges have been identified through the screening
process and incorporated in the inventory, Part IX.E of the MRP requires that the RH/SGRWQG prioritize
the outfalls for further source investigations. The MRP identifies the following prioritization criteria for
outfalls with significant NSW discharges:
¾Outfalls discharging directly to RWs with WQBELs or RWLs in the TMDL provisions for
which final compliance deadlines have passed.
¾All major outfalls and other outfalls that discharge to a RW subject to a TMDL shall be
prioritized according to TMDL compliance schedules.
¾Outfalls for which monitoring data exist and indicate recurring exceedances of one or
more of the Action Levels identified in Attachment G of the MS4 Permit.
¾All other major outfalls identified to have significant NSW discharges.
Once the prioritization is complete, a source identification schedule will be developed. The scheduling
will focus on the outfalls with the highest pollutant of concern loading rates first. Unless the results of
the field screening justify a modification to the schedule in the MRP, the schedule will ensure that source
investigations are completed on no less than 25% of the outfalls with significant NSW discharges by
December 28, 2015, and 100% by December 28, 2017.
As the proposed approach for identifying significant NSW discharges already focuses on ranking outfalls
based upon each outfall’s pollutant of concern loading rate, it is recommended that alternative
prioritization criteria be utilized as follows:
1. Outfalls which have the highest pollutant of concern loading rate (Rio Hondo
subwatershed only).
2. Outfalls for which monitoring data exist and indicate recurring exceedances of one or
more of the Action Levels identified in Attachment G of the MS4 Permit.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 47 -
5.5 Significant Non-Stormwater Discharge Source Identification
The screening and source identification component of the program is used to identify the source(s) and
point(s) of origin of the NSW discharge. Based on the prioritized list of major outfalls with significant
NSW discharges, investigations will be conducted to identify the source(s) or potential source(s) of NSW
flows.
Part IX.A.2 of the MRP requires Permittees to classify the source investigation results into one of four
endpoints outlined as follows and summarized in Table 5-4:
A. IC/IDs: If the source is determined to be an illicit discharge, the Permittee must
implement procedures to eliminate the discharge consistent with IC/ID requirements
(MS4 Permit Part VI.D.10) and document actions.
B. Authorized or conditionally exempt NSW discharges: If the source is determined to be an
allowable discharge specified in the MS4 Permit, a discharge subject to Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or a conditionally
exempt essential discharge, the group member must document the source. For non-
essential conditionally exempt discharges, the group member must conduct monitoring
consistent with Part IX.G of the MRP to determine whether the discharge should remain
conditionally exempt or be prohibited.
C. Natural flows: If the source is determined to be natural flows, the Permittee must
document the source.
D. Unknown sources: If the source is unknown, the Permittee must conduct monitoring
consistent with Part IX.G of the MRP.
Table 5-4 Summary of Endpoints for Source Identification
Endpoint Follow-up Action Required by MS4 Permit
A. Illicit Discharge or
Connection Refer to IC/ID program
Implement control measures and
report in annual report. Monitor if
cannot be eliminated.
B. Authorized or Conditionally
Exempt Discharges1
Document and identify if
essential or non-essential Monitor non-essential discharges
C. Natural Flows End investigation Document and report in annual report
D. Unknown Refer to IC/ID program Monitor
1 Discharges authorized by a separate NPDES permit, a discharge subject to a Record of Decision approved by
USEPA pursuant to section 121 of CERCLA, or is a conditionally exempt NSW discharge addressed by other
requirements. Conditionally exempt NSW discharge addressed by other requirements are described in detail in
Part III.A. Prohibitions – NSW Discharges of the MS4 Permit.
Source investigations will be conducted using site-specific procedures based on the characteristics of the
NSW discharge. Investigations could include:
¾Gathering field measurements to characterize the discharge.
¾Following dry-weather flows from the location where they are first observed in an
upstream direction along the conveyance system.
¾Compiling and reviewing available resources including past monitoring and investigation
data, land use/MS4 maps, aerial photography, and property ownership information.
Where investigations determine the NSW source to be authorized, natural, or essential conditionally
exempt flows, the RH/SGRWQG will conclude the investigation and move to the next highest priority
outfall for investigation. Where investigations determine that the source of the discharge is non-essential
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 48 -
conditionally exempt, an illicit discharge, or is unknown – further investigation may be conducted to
eliminate the discharge or demonstrate that it is not causing or contributing to RW problems. Where the
discharge is demonstrated to cause or contribute to RW exceedances, the regional board will be notified
within 30 days of making the determination. In some cases, source investigations may ultimately lead to
prioritized programmatic or structural BMPs. Where group members determine that they will address the
NSW discharge through modifications to programs or by structural BMP implementation, the RH/SGRWQG
will incorporate the approach into the implementation schedule developed for the EWMP and the outfall
can be lowered in priority for investigation, such that the next highest priority outfall can be addressed.
5.6 Non-Stormwater Discharge Monitoring
As outlined in the MRP, outfalls with significant NSW discharges that remain unaddressed after source
investigation shall be monitored to meet the following objectives:
¾Determine whether a Permittee’s discharge is in compliance with applicable NSW
WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs;
¾Determine if the quality of a Permittee’s discharge exceeds NALs, as described in
Attachment G of the MS4 Permit; and
¾Determine whether a Permittee’s discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of
RW limitations.
As identified in Table 5-4, outfalls that have been determined to convey significant NSW discharges
where the source investigations concluded that the source is attributable to a continued illicit discharge
(Endpoint A), non-essential conditionally exempt (Endpoint B), or unknown (Endpoint D) must be
monitored. The requirements for constituents to be monitored are outlined in MS4 Permit
Part VIII.G.1.a-e of the MRP. If the conclusion of a source investigation is that monitoring is required,
the outfall will be added to the dry-weather monitoring sites and sampled beginning on the next regularly
scheduled event. Monitoring results and an assessment of whether the discharge may be causing or
contributing to exceedances of RWLs will be included in the annual report.
5.6.1 Non-Stormwater Outfall-Based Monitoring Sites
The outfall screening and prioritization approach will result in an inventory of outfalls. Where required,
the NSW discharge will be monitored per the MS4 Permit requirements. The monitoring is described in
the following section.
5.6.2 Monitored Constituents and Frequency
Outfalls will be monitored for all required constituents except toxicity (toxicity monitoring is only required
when triggered by recent RW toxicity monitoring where a TIE on the observed RW toxicity test was
inconclusive). Additionally, constituents in Table E-2 of the MRP, will not be able to be identified as
exceeding applicable water quality objectives until after the first year of LTA monitoring.
While a monitoring frequency of four times per year is specified in the MS4 Permit, it is inconsistent with
the dry-weather RW monitoring requirements. The RW monitoring requires two dry-weather monitoring
events per year. Additionally, during the term of the current MS4 Permit, outfalls are required to be
screened at least once and those with significant NSW discharges will be subject to a source
investigation. As a result, NSW outfall monitoring events will be conducted twice per year. The NSW
outfall monitoring events will be coordinated with the dry-weather RW monitoring events to allow for an
evaluation of whether the NSW discharges are causing or contributing to an observed exceedance of
water quality objectives in the RW. To be consistent with RW monitoring, NSW monitoring will consist of
collecting grab samples.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 49 -
NSW outfall monitoring sites will be determined after the screening events have been completed and an
inventory of outfalls has been created. Constituents that will be monitored at each NSW outfall site will
depend upon the RW to which the NSW outfall monitoring site discharges. A list of constituents
applicable to NSW outfall monitoring, based on discharge to which RW, is presented in Table 5-5.
5.6.3 Adaptive Monitoring
Monitoring for NSW discharges will be more dynamic than either the RW or stormwater outfall
monitoring. Where source identifications are completed and monitoring is required, the outfall will be
added to the site list for subsequent dry-weather monitoring events. Monitoring at outfalls with
significant NSW discharges will be re-evaluated annually consistent with the triggers outlined in
Section 10.2. Modifications to the monitored constituents for each outfall will be detailed in the
following annual report. As NSW discharges are addressed, monitoring at the outfall will cease. Thus,
the number and location of outfalls monitored has the potential to change on an annual basis. The
process for adapting monitoring locations and frequency is presented in Section 10.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 50 -
Table 5-5 List of Constituents for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
Constituents Arcadia
Wash
Santa
Anita
Wash
Little
Santa
Anita
Canyon
Creek
Sawpit
Wash
Rio
Hondo
Reach 3
San
Gabriel
River
Reach 5
Little
Dalton
Wash
Big
Dalton
Wash
San
Dimas
Wash
Flow, hardness, pH,
dissolved oxygen,
temperature, specific
conductivity, and TSS
X X X X X X X X X
Table E-2 pollutants
detected above relevant
objectives1
X X X X X X X X X
Ammonia X X X X X
Nitrate-N X X X X X
Nitrite-N X X X X X
Total and Dissolved Copper X X X X X X X X X
Total and Dissolved Lead X X X X X X X X X
Total and Dissolved Zinc X X X X X X X X X
Di-Ethyl Hexyl Phthalate X
E. coli2 X X X X X
Trash3 X X X X X X X X X
1 Monitoring for Table E-2 constituents only after first season of monitoring at the LTA sites.
2 In addition, to comply with the LAR Bacteria TMDL, at least six snapshots of the Rio Hondo must be conducted. The snapshot events shall include E. coli by
USEPA- approved methods and flow rate at all MS4 outfalls that are discharging to a segment or tributary or across jurisdictional boundaries during a given
monitoring event.
3 Trash is only monitored in discharge if complying with WLAs through the installation of partial capture treatment systems and institutional controls.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 51 -
6. New Development/Re-Development Effectiveness Tracking
6.1 Program Objectives
EWMP Group members are required to maintain databases to track specific information related to new
and re-development projects subject to the MCMs in Part VI.D.7. The tracking requirements are
applicable to projects that were approved on or after the effective date of the MS4 Permit
(December 28, 2012). The specific data to be tracked is listed in Part X.A of Attachment E to the MS4
Permit (see Table 6-1 below). The data will be used to assess the effectiveness of the LID requirements
for land development and to fulfill reporting requirements.
Table 6-1 New and Re-Development Project Data per Attachment E Part X.A
MS4 Permit Data Tracking Requirements
Name of the Project Project design storm volume (gallons or MGD)
Name of the Developer Percent of design storm volume to be retained
onsite
Project location and map1 Design volume for water quality mitigation
treatment BMPs (if any)
Documentation of issuance of requirements to the
developer
One year, one hour storm intensity2 (if flow
through treatment BMPs are approved)
85th percentile storm event for the project design
(inches per 24 hours)
Percent of design storm volume to be infiltrated at
an offsite mitigation or groundwater
replenishment site
95th percentile storm event for projects draining to
natural water bodies (inches per 24 hours)
Percent of design storm volume to be retained or
treated with biofiltration at an offsite retrofit
project
Other design criteria required to meet
hydromodification requirements for drainages to
natural water bodies
Location and maps of offsite mitigation,
groundwater replenishment, or retrofit sites1
Project design storm (inches per 24 hours) Date of Certificate of Occupancy
1 Preferably linked to the GIS Storm Drain Map
2 As depicted on the most recently issued isohyetal map published by the Los Angeles County hydrologist
6.2 Existing New Development/Re-Development Tracking Procedures
The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Program (SUSMP) requirements implemented under the
previous MS4 Permit (Order R4-01-182) laid the foundation for the MCMs contained in Part VI.D.7 of the
current MS4 Permit. With implementation of the SUSMP, Permittees required post-construction BMPs on
applicable projects, developed standard requirements for project submittals, and began to track related
data. The Permittees will build on the existing procedures for land development to ensure that all
required project data is captured.
6.3 Special Considerations for Data Management and Reporting
Although the data requirements are clear, the procedures for reviewing projects, tracking data, and
reporting are different for each jurisdiction and may even be different across departments within the
same jurisdiction. Due to the complexity of land development processes across jurisdictions, there are
certain challenges that will arise when revising or implementing new data tracking procedures. The
following considerations will assist agencies in developing internal protocols to ensure data is tracked as
required and managed to facilitate assessment and reporting.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 52 -
6.3.1 Data Management
Data is collected across multiple departments and therefore there may be variations in the formatting of
the information. Departments will often use proprietary software and data may be housed in various
databases.
6.3.2 Additional Data
When developing data management protocols and internal procedures, group members will also consider
the land development data tracking requirements contained in Part VI.D.7.d.iv.(1)(a). These
requirements are distinct from those listed in the MRP but will likely be addressed similarly. Data
requirements under Part VI.D are contained in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 New and Re-Development Project Tracking per Part VI.D.7.d.iv.(1)(a)
New Development and Re-Development Data, Per Part VI.D.7.d.iv.(1)(a)
Municipal Project ID Maintenance Records
State Waste Discharge Identification Number Inspection Date(s)
Project Acreage Inspection Summary(ies)
BMP Type and Description Corrective Action(s)
BMP Location (coordinates) Date Certificate of Occupancy Issued
Date of Acceptance Replacement or Repair Date
Date of Maintenance Agreement
6.3.3 Reporting
Reporting requirements pertaining to new development and re-development are prescribed in Part VI.D.7
and in the MRP. The Permittees may identify and collect additional data as necessary through the land
development process to facilitate annual reporting.
6.3.4 Information Sharing
A data template has been developed with defined data entry fields to facilitate consistent data collection,
consistent with the data fields and formats provided in Table 6-3. Where possible, data fields that are
added to software programs in use within departments will adhere to these protocols. At minimum,
when data is compiled for a jurisdiction prior to generating an annual report, the data will be collected
according to these specified formats. Standardized data format will facilitate analysis and reporting
between jurisdictions (i.e., at the watershed scale).
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 53 -
Table 6-3 Standard Data Formats
Data (Units) Standard Format
Name of the Project (None) Text Field (1-100 characters)
Name of the Developer (None) Text Field (1-100 characters)
Project location and map (None)
APN (XXX-XXX-XX-XX)
Street Address (Text Field 1-100 Characters)
Jurisdiction
Date of Certificate of Occupancy (None) MM/DD/YYYY
85th percentile storm event for the project design
(inches per 24 hours) Numeric (0.01 – 5)
95th percentile storm event for projects draining to
natural water bodies (inches per 24 hours) Numeric (0.01 – 5)
Other design criteria required to meet
hydromodification requirements for drainages to
natural water bodies (none)
Text Field (1-100 characters)
Project design storm (inches per 24 hours) Numeric (0.01 – 5)
Project design storm volume (gallons(1) or MGD) Numeric (0.1 – 1,000,000,000)
Percent of design storm volume to be retained
onsite (percent) Numeric (0 – 100)
Design volume for water quality mitigation
treatment BMPs (gallons1 or MGD) Numeric (0.1 – 1,000,000,000)
One year, one hour storm intensity for flow-
through treatment BMPs (inches per hour) Numeric (0.01 – 20)
Percent of design storm volume to be infiltrated at
an offsite mitigation or groundwater
replenishment site (percent)
Numeric (0 – 100)
Percent of design storm volume to be retained or
treated with biofiltration at an offsite retrofit
project (percent)
Numeric (0 – 100)
Location and maps of offsite mitigation,
groundwater replenishment, or retrofit sites
(none)
APN (XXX-XXX-XX-XX)
Street Address (Text Field 1-100 Characters)
Jurisdiction
Documentation of issuance of requirements to the
developer (none) MM/DD/YYYY
1 MS4 Permit specifies gallons or million gallons per day (MGD)
6.4 Summary of New Development/Re-Development Effectiveness
Tracking
The RH/SGRWQG members have developed mechanisms for tracking new development and
re-development projects that have been conditioned for post-construction BMPs pursuant to MS4 Permit
Part VI.D. Mechanisms for tracking the effectiveness of these BMPs have been developed pursuant to
MS4 Permit Attachment E.X. A sample tracking mechanism has been developed by the group members.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 54 -
7. Regional Studies
Only one regional study is identified in the MRP: Southern California SMC Bioassessment Program. The
SMC Bioassessment Program is a collaborative effort between all of the Phase I MS4 NPDES Permittees
and NPDES regulatory agencies in Southern California. The goal of the SMC is to develop technical
information necessary to better understand stormwater mechanisms and impacts, and develop tools to
effectively and efficiently improve stormwater decision-making. The LACFCD will coordinate and assist in
implementing the bioassessment monitoring requirement of the MS4 Permit on behalf of all Permittees in
Los Angeles County during the current permit cycle. Monitoring under the first cycle concluded in 2013,
with reporting of findings and additional special studies planned to occur in 2014. The SMC Joint
Executive Workgroup is currently working on designing the bioassessment monitoring program for the
next five-year cycle, which is scheduled to run from 2015 to 2019.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 55 -
8. Special Studies
Special studies will be conducted at the discretion of the RH/SGRWQG. Where data become available to
better assess the potential sources of impairments in the watersheds, the RH/SGRWQG will be better able
to judge whether to perform the special studies. As monitoring progresses and information on the EWMP
area RWs and outfalls becomes available, the special studies can be further defined and considered.
Table 8-1 and Table 8-2 list the planned topics to be considered for special studies. Regional Board
approval of this CIMP would allow timely implementation of special studies in the event the RH/SGRWQG
chooses to pursue them. At the discretion of the RH/SGRWQG, the planned topics of special studies may
be initiated to better understand the behavior of metals in their specific portion of the watershed.
Table 8-1 Special Studies from LAR Metals TMDL Being Considered for
Implementation
TMDL Planned Topics for Special Study
LAR Metals TMDL
Refined flow estimates where there presently are no flow gauges and for improved
gauging of low-flow conditions
Water quality measurements, including a better assessment of hardness, water
chemistry data (e.g., TSS and organic carbon) that may refine the use of metals
partitioning coefficients.
Effects of studies designed to evaluate site-specific toxic effects of metals on the
LAR and its tributaries
Source studies designed to characterize loadings from background or natural
sources
Review of water quality modeling assumptions including the relationship between
metals and TSS as expressed in the potency factors and buildup and wash-off and
transport coefficients
Evaluation of aerial deposition and sources of aerial deposition
Table 8-2 Special Studies from SGR Metals TMDL Being Considered for
Implementation
Purpose Planned Topics for Special Study
Evaluate numeric
targets Site-Specific Translator
Characterize sources Refine estimates of metals loading from open space and natural sources
Evaluate contribution from and sources of atmospheric deposition
Refine modeling
assumptions
Refine dry-weather source representation
Refine stormwater translator
Refine relationship between metals loading and suspended sediments
Refine potency factors
Refine sediment wash-off and transport
Refine representation of hydromodifications in the watershed
Refine copper WLAs Assess effect of upstream freshwater discharges on beneficial uses of Estuary
Evaluate BMPs Evaluate effectiveness of structural and non-structural BMPs
The LARWQCB provided comments on the draft RH/SGRWGQ CIMP on February 10, 2015. These
comments included the suggestion to conduct an aquatic toxicity sensitive species selection study and a
CASQA study suggesting the use of Hyalella azteca as sensitive species for Pyrethroid pesticides.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 56 -
While Attachment E outlines toxicity testing procedures, the CASQA study articulates the disadvantages
of shifting among different sensitive species based on ever changing pollutant combinations. A rarely
observed herbicide could guide toxicity monitoring for the remainder of this permit cycle based on the
sensitivity of one species to it. This would be further complicated by the many groups within each
watershed, which might easily identify different “most sensitive” species resulting in conflicting results
across group borders. The support of beneficial uses would not be furthered if one group is focused on
metals, another pyrethroids, a third herbicides, while a headwater group is using a different species due
to water hardness, and the final group focuses on marine species.
Either the SMC, or the MS4 Permit TAC, should coordinate this task, so that a fair and comparable study
is developed and implemented among the MS4 Permittees, or a process for switching among species and
coordinating among watershed groups is developed so that toxicants might be identified and controlled
soon after they appear within a watershed management area.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 57 -
9. Non-Direct Measurements
Water quality data collected through other monitoring programs – e.g., NPDES Publicly-Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) – in the watershed will be incorporated to the extent practicable. It is not the intent or
purpose of the CIMP to compile and analyze all available data. Data reported by these entities will be
evaluated for suitability for inclusion in the CIMP database. If the data are deemed to be suitable they
will be included in the database described in the following element. Data from other programs will be
used to supplement land use data to evaluate loading to the RW as well as to evaluate RW quality.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 58 -
10. Adaptive Management
10.1 Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Program
The monitoring specified in the CIMP is, in part, dynamic. Historically, monitoring has not been
performed in the RH/SGRWQG EWMP area RWs. Past monitoring efforts have been based on water
quality issues identified in downstream water bodies. As new monitoring data is collected, if constituents
currently identified prove to not be an issue in the RH/SGRWQG EWMP area water bodies, they will be
removed from the monitoring program. Likewise, if new constituents are identified, they will be added to
the ongoing monitoring.
The results from the monitoring are meant to tie into the EWMP as feedback for the water quality
changes resulting from control measures implemented by the RH/SGRWQG.
10.2 CIMP Revision Process
This CIMP identifies a range of sampling that will likely result in data that will require changes to ensure
monitoring meets the requirements and intent of the MRP and supports EWMP implementation.
However, since many of those potential changes are identified in this CIMP, it should not be necessary to
obtain Regional Board approval of modifications already considered in this CIMP to ensure timely
implementation of appropriate modifications to monitoring. Changes identified in this section will be
discussed in the annual report and implemented starting no later than the first CIMP monitoring event of
the next monitoring year, including:
1. Adding constituents at RW and/or outfall monitoring sites, increasing monitoring
frequency, or adding sites as a result of requirements in the MRP (e.g., TIE results),
procedures outlined in this CIMP, or to further support meeting the monitoring
objectives.
2. Discontinuing monitoring for Table E-2 constituents that are not identified as a water
quality priority and are not detected at levels above relevant water quality objectives in
the first year of monitoring.
3. Discontinuing monitoring of any non-TMDL, non-303(d) constituent at a specified site if
there are two consecutive monitoring events for the same condition (i.e., wet- or
dry-weather) with no exceedances observed.
4. When analytical data no longer support the need for continued monitoring of a
parameter or constituent, including 303(d) listed constituents; a delisting proposal will be
submitted to the Regional Water Board EO for approval or denial within 180 days.
5. Modifying methods for consistency with USEPA method requirements or to achieve lower
detection limits at the discretion of the RH/SGRWQG.
6. Changing analytical laboratories.
7. Relocating an outfall monitoring location determined to be not representative of MS4
discharges in the RH/SGRWQG EWMP area, for reasons other than the observed water
quality, or because monitoring at the site is not feasible.
8. Implementing the changes associated with conducting at least one re-assessment of the
NSW Outfall Program during the MS4 Permit term.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 59 -
9. Choosing to initiate one or more of the Special Studies outlined in Section 8.
10. Modifications to sampling protocols resulting from coordination with other watershed
monitoring programs. In particular, suspended sediment monitoring associated with
meeting the requirements of the Harbors Toxics TMDL will be conducted downstream of
the RH/SGRWQG EWMP area. If consistent exceedances of interim WQBELs are
observed and the RH/SGRWQG determines that control measures will need to be
implemented to meet the final WQBELs by March 23, 2032, the RH/SGRWQG will
commence monitoring at the LTA sites to assess the degree to which discharges from the
RH/SGRWQG EWMP area are causing or contributing to those exceedances. After March
23, 2032, if there are two consecutive monitoring events with exceedances observed, the
RH/SGRWQG will commence monitoring at the stormwater outfall monitoring sites to
assess the degree to which discharges from each RH/SGRWQG member may be causing
or contributing to those exceedances.
Should additional modifications be identified that are not specified in this section that would be major
changes to the approach (e.g., moving or removing a stormwater outfall or RW location), the
modifications will be proposed in the annual report and in a separate letter to the Regional Board
requesting EO approval of the change.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 60 -
11. Reporting
The following sections detail monitoring and reporting requirements outlined in the MRP. The annual
reports will be due on December 15th each year and will cover the period of July 1st to June 30th of the
previous fiscal year.
11.1 Documents and Records
RH/SGRWQG members will retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and
maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation,
copies of all reports required by the MS4 Permit, and records of all data used to complete the Report of
Waste Discharge (ROWD) and application of the MS4 Permit, for a permit required period of at least
three years from the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application.
11.1.1 Event Summary Reports
Reports of monitoring activities shall include at a minimum the following information:
¾The date, time of sampling or measurements, exact place, weather conditions, and rain
fall amount.
¾The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements.
¾The date(s) analyses were performed.
¾The individual(s) who performed the analyses.
¾The analytical techniques or methods used.
¾The results of such analyses.
¾The data sheets showing toxicity test results.
11.1.2 Semi-Annual Analytical Data Reports
Results from each of the RW or outfall based monitoring station conducted in accordance with the
Standard Operating Procedure shall be sent electronically to the Regional Board’s Stormwater site at
MS4stormwaterRB4@waterboards.ca.gov. The monitoring results will be submitted on a semi-annual
basis and highlight exceedances applicable to WQBELs, RWLs, action levels, or aquatic toxicity
thresholds. Corresponding sample dates and monitoring locations will be included. Data will be
transmitted in the most recent Southern California SMC’s Standardized Data Transfer Formats.
11.2 Monitoring Reports
11.2.1 Report Objectives
The annual reporting process is intended to provide the Regional Board with summary information to
allow for the assessment of the Permittees:
¾Participation in one or more Watershed Management Programs (WMPs).
¾Impact of each Permittee(s) stormwater and NSW discharges on the RW.
¾Each Permittee’s compliance with RWLs, numeric WQBELs, and NALs.
¾The effectiveness of each Permittee(s) control measures in reducing discharges of
pollutants from the MS4 to RWs.
¾Whether the quality of MS4 discharges and the health of RWs is improving, staying the
same, or declining as a result of WMP efforts, and/or TMDL implementation measures, or
other Minimum Control Measures.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 61 -
¾Whether changes in water quality can be attributed to pollutant controls imposed on new
development, re-development, or retrofit projects.
The annual report process also seeks to provide a forum for Permittee(s) to discuss the effectiveness of
its past and ongoing control measure efforts and to convey its plans for future control measures.
Detailed data and information will also be provided in a clear and transparent fashion to allow the
Regional Board and general public to review and verify conclusions presented by the Permittee.
11.2.2 Annual Reports
Annual reports shall be organized to include the following information. Annual reports will include all
aspects of CIMP implementation occurring July 1 through June 30.
11.2.2.1 Watershed Summary Information
Part XVII.B of the MRP allows for Permittees participation in an EWMP to provide the following Watershed
Summary Information through the development of an EWMP.
11.2.2.1.1 Watershed Management Area
When a Permittee has collaboratively developed an EWMP, reference to the EWMP and any revisions to
the EWMP may suffice for baseline information regarding the WMA. If not, the annual report must
contain information detailing the following:
¾The effective TMDLs, applicable WQBELs and RWLs, and implementation and reporting
requirements, and compliance dates.
¾CWA section 303(d) listings of impaired waters not addressed by TMDLs.
¾Results of regional bioassessment monitoring.
¾A description of known hydromodificaitons to RWs and a description, including locations,
of natural drainage systems.
¾Description of groundwater recharge areas including number and acres.
¾Maps and/or aerial photographs identifying the location of ecologically sensitive areas
(ESAs), Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), natural drainage systems, and
groundwater recharge areas.
11.2.2.1.2 Subwatershed (HUC-12) Descriptions
Information shall be included for each subwatershed (HUC-12) within the Permittee(s) jurisdiction.
Where relevant information is already present in an EWMP, baseline information regarding the
subwatershed descriptions may be satisfied by reference to the EWMP. The following descriptions of
subwatersheds must be present:
¾Description including HUC-12 number, name and a list of all tributaries named in the
Basin Plan.
¾Land use map of the HUC-12 watershed.
¾85th percentile, 24-hour rainfall isohyetal map for the subwatershed.
¾One-year, one-hour storm intensity isohyetal map for the subwatershed.
¾MS4 map for the subwatershed, including major MS4 outfalls and all low flow diversions.
11.2.2.1.3 Description of Permittee(s) Drainage Area within the Subwatershed
Information shall be included for each drainage area within the Permittee(s) jurisdiction. Where relevant
information is already present in an EWMP, baseline information regarding the subwatershed descriptions
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 62 -
may be satisfied by reference to the EWMP. The following descriptions of drainage area must be
present:
¾A subwatershed map depicting the Permittee(s) jurisdictional area and the MS4, including
major outfalls (with identification numbers), and low flow diversions located within the
Permittee(s) jurisdictional area.
¾Provide the estimated baseline percent of Effective Impervious Area (EIA) within the
Permittee(s) jurisdictional area.
11.2.2.2 Annual Assessment and Reporting
The following sections shall be included in each Permittee or group of Watershed Permittees’ Annual
Report. The information will be provided for each watershed within the Permittee’s jurisdiction.
Annual Reports submitted on behalf of a group of watershed Permittees shall clearly identify all data
collected and strategies, control measures, and assessments implemented by each Permittee within its
jurisdiction as well as those implemented by multiple Permittees on a watershed scale.
11.2.2.2.1 Stormwater Control Measures
The following information shall be complied for inclusion in the Annual Report by each Permittee.
1. Estimated cumulative change in percent EIA since the effective date of the Permit, and if
possible, the estimated change in the stormwater runoff volume during the 85th
percentile storm event.
2. Summary of new development/re-development projects constructed within the
Permittee(s) jurisdictional area during the reporting year.
3. Summary of retrofit projects that reduced or disconnected impervious area from MS4
during the reporting year.
4. Summary of other projects designed to intercept stormwater runoff prior to discharge to
the MS4 during the reporting year.
5. Estimate the total runoff volume retained on site by the implementation of such projects
during the reporting year.
6. Summary of actions taken in compliance with TMDL implementation plans or approved
EWMP to implement TMDL provisions.
7. Summary of riparian buffer/wetland restoration projects completed during the reporting
year. For riparian buffers include width, length and vegetation type; for wetland include
acres restored, enhanced or created.
8. Summary of other Minimum Control Measures implemented during the reporting year, as
the Permittee deems relevant.
9. Status of all multi-year efforts that were not completed in the current year and will
therefore continue into the subsequent year(s). Additionally, if any of the requested
information cannot be obtained, the Permittee(s) shall provide a discussion of the
factor(s) limiting its acquisition and steps that will be taken to improve future data
collection efforts.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 63 -
11.2.2.2.2 Effectiveness Assessment of Stormwater Control Measures
The following information will be included to detail Stormwater Control Measures during the reporting
year:
¾Rainfall summary for the reporting year. Summarize the number of storm events,
highest volume event (inches/24 hours), highest number of consecutive days with
measurable rainfall, total rainfall during the reporting year compared to average annual
rainfall for the subwatershed.
¾Provide a summary table describing rainfall during stormwater outfall and wet-weather
RW monitoring events. The summary description shall include the date, time that the
storm commenced and the storm duration in hours, the highest 15-minute recorded
storm intensity (converted to inches/hour), the total storm volume (inches), and the time
between the storm event sampled and the end of the previous storm event.
¾Where control measures were designed to reduce impervious cover or stormwater peak
flow and flow duration, provide hydrographs or flow data of pre- and post-control activity
for the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event, if available.
¾For natural drainage systems, develop a reference watershed flow duration curve and
compare it to a flow duration curve for the subwatershed under current conditions.
¾Provide an assessment as to whether the quality of stormwater discharges as measured
at designed outfalls is improving, staying the same or declining. The Permittee may
compare water quality data from the reporting year to previous years with similar rainfall
patterns, conduct trends analysis, or use other means to develop and support its
conclusions.
¾Provide an assessment as to whether wet-weather RW quality within the jurisdiction of
the Permittee is improving, staying the same or declining, when normalized for variations
in rainfall patterns. The Permittee may compare water quality data from the reporting
year to previous years with similar rainfall patterns, conduct trends analysis, draw from
regional bioassessment studies, or use other means to develop and support its
conclusions.
¾Status of all multi-year efforts, including TMDL implementation, that were not completed
in the current year and will continue into the subsequent year(s). Additionally, if any of
the requested information cannot be obtained, the Permittee shall provide a discussion of
the factors(s) limiting its acquisition and steps that will be taken to improve future data
collection efforts.
11.2.2.2.3 Non-Stormwater Water Control Measures
The following information will be included to detail NSW control measures present in the Permittee’s
jurisdiction:
¾Estimate the number of major outfalls within the Permittee’s jurisdiction in the
subwatershed.
¾Provide the number of outfalls what were screened for significant NSW discharges during
the reporting year.
¾Provide the cumulative number of outfalls that have been screened for significant NSW
discharges since the date the Permit was adopted through the reporting year.
¾Provide the number of outfalls with confirmed significant NSW discharge.
¾Provide the number of outfalls where significant NSW discharge was attributed to other
NPDES permitted discharges; other authorized NSW discharges; or conditionally exempt
discharges.
¾Provide the number of outfalls where significant NSW discharges were abated as a result
of the Permittee’s actions.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 64 -
¾Provide the number of outfalls where NSW discharges was monitored.
¾Provide the status of all multi-year efforts, including TMDL implementation, that were not
completed in the current year and will continue into the subsequent year(s).
Additionally, if any of the requested information cannot be obtained, the Permittee shall
provide a discussion of the factor(s) limiting its acquisition and steps that will be taken to
improve future data collection efforts.
11.2.2.2.4 Effectiveness Assessment of Non-Stormwater Control Measures
The following information will be included to assess NSW control measures effectiveness:
¾Provide an assessment as to whether RW quality within the jurisdiction of the Permittee
is impaired, improving, staying the same or declining during the dry-weather conditions.
Each Permittee may compare water quality data from the reporting year to previous
years with similar dry-weather flows, conduct trends analysis, draw from regional
bioassessment studies, or use other means to develop and support its conclusions.
¾Provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the Permittee(s) control measures in
effectively prohibiting NSW discharges through the MS4 to the RW.
¾Provide the status of all multi-year efforts that were not completed in the current year
and will continue into the subsequent year(s).
11.2.2.2.5 Integrated Monitoring Compliance Report
The following information will be included to assess the Permittee(s) compliance with applicable TMDLs,
WQBELs, RWLs, and action levels:
¾Provide an Integrated Monitoring Report that summarizes all identified exceedances of
the following against applicable RWLs, WQBELs, NALs, and aquatic toxicity thresholds:
Outfall-based stormwater monitoring data
Wet-weather RW monitoring data
Dry-weather RW data
NSW outfall monitoring data
All sample results that exceeded one or more applicable thresholds shall be readily
identified.
¾If aquatic toxicity was confirmed and a TIE was conducted, identify the toxic chemicals
as determined by the TIE. Include all relevant data to allow the Regional Board to
review the adequacy and findings of the TIE. This shall include, but not be limited to:
The sample(s) date
Sample(s) start and end time
Sample type(s)
Sample location(s) as depicted on a map
The constituents, analytical results, and applicable limitation.
¾Provide a description of efforts that were taken to mitigate and/or eliminate all NSW
discharges that exceeded one or more applicable WQBELs, or caused or contributed to
aquatic toxicity.
¾Provide a description of efforts that were taken to address stormwater discharges that
exceeded one or more applicable WQBELs, or caused or contributed to aquatic toxicity.
¾Where RWLs were exceeded, provide a description of efforts that were taken to
determine whether discharges from the MS4 caused or contributed to the exceedances
and all efforts that were taken to control the discharge of pollutants from the MS4 to
those RWs in response to the exceedances.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 65 -
11.2.2.2.6 Adaptive Management Strategies
The following information will be included to outline Adaptive Management Strategies:
¾Identify the most effective control measures and describe why the measures were
effective and how other measures will be optimized based on past experiences.
¾Identify the least effective control measures and describe why the measures were
deemed ineffective and how the control measures will be modified or terminated.
¾Identify significant changes to control measures during the prior year and the rationale
for the changes.
¾Describe all significant changes to control measures anticipated for the next year and
rationale for the changes. Those changes requiring approval of the Regional Board or its
EO shall be clearly identified at the beginning of the Annual Report.
¾Include a detailed description of control measures to be applied to new development or
re-development projects disturbing more than 50 acres.
¾Provide the status of all multi-year efforts that were not completed in the current year
and will continue into the subsequent year(s).
11.2.2.2.7 Supporting Data and Information
Beginning with the first annual report generated after beginning CIMP implementation, all reported
monitoring data and associated meta data shall be summarized in an Excel spreadsheet and sorted by
watershed, subwatershed and monitoring station/outfall identifier linked to the subwatershed map. The
data summary must include the date, sample type (flow-weighted composite, grab, and field
measurement), sample start and stop times, constituent, analytical method, value, and units. The date
field must be linked to a database summarizing the weather data for the sampling date including 24-hour
rainfall, rainfall intensity, and days since the previous rain event.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 66 -
12. CIMP Implementation Schedule
CIMP implementation will commence within 90 days after approval by the EO of the Regional Board.
New development and re-development effectiveness tracking will begin no later than the date of Draft
EWMP submittal (June 28, 2015).
Implementation of the CIMP will begin this fall with the NSW screening. Within 90 days of CIMP
approval, sample collection for all constituents at all dry-weather RW sites will commence. The remaining
monitoring will be affected by the feasibility of collecting a sample within 90 days of CIMP approval. The
two primary factors affecting the feasibility of sample collection upon approval of this CIMP relate to
(1) automatic sampler installation and (2) monitoring that is dependent upon prerequisite information
(e.g., monitoring of significant NSW discharges).
The process for installing automatic samplers includes numerous tasks that require multiple agency
coordination and permitting. Numerous automatic sampler stations have been installed throughout the
County and provide significant experience in understanding the challenges and timelines for designing,
permitting, and installing autosampler stations. The following is an overview of the tasks and timelines
associated with automatic sampler installation, and what would be considered a relatively straightforward
installation timeframe:
¾Detailed automatic sampler site configuration/design, which includes data collection and
review, identification of MS4 Permit requirements, concept design, development of
summary technical memorandums, and review by participating agencies and associated
divisions: 12 months
¾Obtaining permits from one or more of the following entities: USACE, LACFCD, United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California
Coastal Commission, and the Regional Board: 3 to 10 months
¾Purchasing of equipment through a contractor or agency procurement process (can occur
somewhat concurrently with permitting): 2 to 6 months
¾Connecting to power via an upgrade to existing service or establishing new service:
1 to 6 months
¾Construction of monitoring station assuming no bid/award process: 1 month
¾Total time: 18 to 30 months
The installation may not be straightforward at each site. While each proposed site was visited to ensure
feasibility, none of the sites were observed under storm condition. Unforeseen issues with the selected
sites, such as backwatering of the RW into an outfall leading to an unrepresentative sample, or flooding
resulting in unsafe conditions, may lead to relocation of the site.
Phasing in the RW and stormwater outfall sites outlined in the CIMP will allow evaluation of the sites to
determine if any need to be changed due to significant contributions from non-MS4 sources or other
reasons that sampling is not feasible at a site requiring an alternate or a new site. Below is the proposed
phasing schedule, to be adjusted as required due to permitting, procurement, and site suitability. After
Board EO approval in 2015, sites subject to phased installation are anticipated to be available for use by
July 1, of the identified monitoring year, pending permitting approvals, which may delay this objective.
¾Phase I of the CIMP implementation, Fiscal Year 2014-2015:
NSW screening
Determination of significant NSW outfalls
Installation of LTA sites on Rio Hondo and Little Dalton Wash
Installation of stormwater outfall sites on Bradbury Drain and BI 0025 Peck Road
Drain
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 67 -
¾Phase II of the CIMP implementation, Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (assuming CIMP
approved by July 1, 2015):
Installation of stormwater outfall sites on BI 0404 – Line A and BI 1219 – Line C
Dry-weather monitoring at all RW locations
Dry-weather monitoring where source identification of significant NSW outfalls is
completed and monitoring is required
Stormwater monitoring at existing and new sites
Initiate Peck Road Park Lake monitoring (water column, sediment, and fish tissue)
¾Phase III of the CIMP implementation, Fiscal Year 2016-2017 (assuming CIMP
approved by July 1, 2015):
Installation of TMDL RW site on Sawpit Wash
Installation of stormwater outfall site on Beatty Canyon
Dry-weather monitoring at all RW locations
Dry-weather monitoring where source identification of significant NSW outfalls is
completed and monitoring is required
Stormwater monitoring at existing and new sites
Peck Road Park Lake monitoring (water column and sediment)
¾Phase IV of the CIMP implementation, Fiscal Year 2017-2018 (assuming CIMP
approved by July 1, 2015):
Installation of TMDL RW site on Santa Anita Wash
Dry-weather monitoring at all RW locations
Dry-weather monitoring where source identification of significant NSW outfalls is
completed and monitoring is required
Stormwater monitoring at existing and new sites
Peck Road Park Lake monitoring (water column and sediment)
In years following Fiscal Year 2017-2018, assuming timely CIMP approval and no unforeseen major
complications, all currently planned stations will be installed and monitoring will proceed as specified in
the CIMP. If adjustments to the phasing schedule become necessary, the rational will be discussed and a
new timeline will be proposed in the annual report as a component of the adaptive management. After
the discharge quality for Santa Anita and Sawpit Washes are established, the water quality may be
determined to be statistically similar, in which case the EWMP Group may choose to alternate between
sites on an annual basis in subsequent Fiscal Years.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 68 -
13. Conclusion
The CIMP incorporates the primary objectives listed in the MS4 Permit. Additionally, the EWMP Group is
collaborating with downstream groups to coordinate required TMDL monitoring. A summary of how the
RW monitoring program meets the intended objectives of the RW monitoring program outlined in Part
II.E.1 of the MRP is presented in Table 13-1, while a summary of how the stormwater outfall monitoring
program meets the intended objectives of the stormwater outfall monitoring program outlined in
Part VIII.A of the MRP is presented in Table 13-2.
Table 13-1 Summary of Receiving Water Monitoring Program Objectives
MRP Objective CIMP Component Meeting Objective
Determine whether the
RWLs are being achieved
¾Five total RW monitoring sites
¾TMDL RW monitoring sites located as required by TMDLs
¾Constituents added for monitoring based on the water quality
priorities (i.e., the constituents at the highest risk of exceeding RWLs)
Assess trends in pollutant
concentrations over time,
or during specified
conditions
¾LTA stations set at base of the EWMP area
¾Monitoring during dry-weather and wet-weather
¾Constituents added for monitoring based on the water quality
priorities and outcome of the Table E-2 analysis.
Determine whether the
designated beneficial uses
are fully supported as
determined by water
chemistry, as well as
aquatic toxicity and
bioassessment monitoring
¾One monitoring site located in the major water bodies exiting the
EWMP area
¾Aquatic toxicity monitoring to be conducted during dry- and
wet-weather
¾Constituents added for monitoring based on the water quality
priorities
Table 13-2 Summary of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Program Objectives
MRP Objective CIMP Component Meeting Objective
Determine the quality of a
Permittee’s discharge
relative to municipal action
levels, as described in MS4
Permit Attachment G
¾Stormwater outfall monitoring sites chosen using a representative
land use within HUC-12 approach
¾Extensive list of constituents being collectively monitored at
stormwater outfall monitoring sites
Determine whether a
Permittee’s discharge is in
compliance with applicable
WQBELs derived from
TMDL WLAs
¾Stormwater outfall sites are located to assess applicable WQBELs
¾Stormwater outfall monitoring sites chosen using a representative
land use within HUC-12s
¾List of constituents based on the water quality priorities which
includes constituents with WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs and
considers current and historical exceedances in RWs
Determine whether a
Permittee’s discharge
causes or contributes to
an exceedance of RWLs
¾Stormwater outfall sites are representative of subwatersheds
¾Monitoring frequency equal to RW monitoring frequency to enable
determination of whether the Permittee’s discharge is causing or
contributing to any observed exceedances of water quality objectives
in the RW
¾Stormwater outfall sites chosen to be representative of land use
¾Constituents lists based on the monitoring requirements of the water
body to which they discharge, as well as downstream water bodies
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 69 -
NSW outfall monitoring sites will be determined after the screening events are completed and significant
discharges are identified. Constituents that will be monitored for at each NSW outfall site will depend
upon the RW to which the site discharges. A summary of how the NSW outfall monitoring program
meets the intended objectives of the NSW outfall monitoring program outlined in Part II.E.3 of the MRP is
presented in Table 13-3.
Table 13-3 Summary of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Program Objectives
MRP Objective CIMP Component Meeting Objective
Determine whether a
Permittee’s discharge is in
compliance with applicable
NSW WQBELs derived
from TMDL WLAs
¾List of constituents based on the water quality priorities which
incorporate constituents with WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs and
considers current and historical exceedances in RWs.
Determine whether a
Permittee’s discharge
exceeds NALs, as
described in Attachment G
of the MS4 Permit
¾Extensive list of constituents being collectively monitored at NSW
outfall monitoring sites
Determine whether a
Permittee’s discharge
causes or contributes to
an exceedance of RWLs
¾List of constituents based on the monitoring requirements of the
water body to which they discharge, as well as downstream water
bodies
Assist a Permittee in
identifying illicit discharges
as described in Part
VI.D.10 of the MS4 Permit
¾NSW outfall program is designed to be complimentary to IC/ID
program
¾NSW outfall program provides a mechanism for the detection,
identification, and elimination of illicit discharges
¾Where NSW discharges are deemed “significant,” the NSW outfall
program will discern whether the discharges are illicit, exempt, or
conditionally exempt
¾If the source identification component of the NSW outfall program
determines a discharge to be an illicit discharge, the discharge will be
referred to the IC/ID program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 70 -
14. References
Cowgill, U.M. and D.P. Milazzo. 1990. The sensitivity of two cladocerans to water quality variables,
salinity and hardness. Arch. Hydrobiol. 120:185–196.
Kayhanian, M., C. Stransky, S. Bay, S. Lau, M.K. Stenstrom. 2008. Toxicity of urban highway runoff with
respect to storm duration. Science of the Total Environment 389:109-128.
LARWQCB. 2002. Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region for the
Los Angeles River Trash TMDL. Attachment A to Resolution No. 2001-013. Adopted September
19, 2001. Effective August 1, 2002. Revised September 23, 2008.
LARWQCB. 2003. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region to Incorporate
the Los Angeles River Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects TMDL. Attachment A to
Resolution No. 03-009. Adopted July 10, 2003. Effective March 23, 2004. Revised June 4, 2013.
LARWQCB. 2007. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region to Incorporate
the Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL. Attachment A to Resolution No. 2007-014.
Adopted September 6, 2007. Effective October 29, 2008. Revised November 3, 2011.
LARWQCB. 2010. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region to Incorporate
the Los Angeles River Watershed Bacteria TMDL. Attachment A to Resolution No. R10-007.
Adopted July 9, 2010. Effective March 23, 2012.
LARWQCB. 2011. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region to Incorporate
the Total Maximum Daily Load for Toxic Pollutants in Dominguez Channel and Greater
Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-008. Adopted
May 5, 2011. Effective March 23, 2012.
Lee, G. F. and A. Jones-Lee. “Review of the City of Stockton Urban Stormwater Runoff Aquatic Life
Toxicity Studies Conducted by the CVRWQCB, DeltaKeeper and the University of California, Davis,
Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory between 1994 and 2000,” Report to the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board, G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, October (2001).
Los Angeles RWQCB, Final Staff Report for the Implementation Plans and Schedules for the Los Cerritos
Channel and San Gabriel River Metals TMDLs, 2013.
Palumbo, A., Fojut, T., TenBrook, P. and Tjerdeema, R. 2010a. Water Quality Criteria Report for
Diazinon. Prepared for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board by the
Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis. March.
Palumbo, A., Fojut, T., Brander, S., and Tjerdeema, R. 2010b. Water Quality Criteria Report for
Bifenthrin. Prepared for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board by the
Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis. March.
Schiff, K., Bax, B., Markle, P., Fleming, T. and Newman, J. 2007. Wet and Dry Weather Toxicity in the
San Gabriel River. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences: Vol. 106: 3.
Available at: http://scholar.oxy.edu/scas/vol106/iss3/2.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). 2009. Sediment Quality Assessment
Draft Technical Support Manual. Technical Report 582.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 71 -
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity
Identification Evaluations: Phase I. Toxicity Characterization Procedures. 2nd Edition. EPA-600-
6-91-003. National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Toxicity Identification Evaluation:
Characterization of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005F. May 1992.
National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993a. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity
Identification Evaluations- Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples Exhibiting
Acute and Chronic Toxicity. EPA-600-R-92-080. National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center,
Duluth, MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993b. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity
Identification Evaluations- Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures for Samples Exhibiting
Acute and Chronic Toxicity. EPA-600-R-92-081. National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center,
Duluth, MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. Short-term Methods for Estimating the
Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine
Organisms. EPA-600-R-95-136. August.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Marine toxicity identification evaluation
(TIE): Phase I guidance document. EPA/600/R-96/054. National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory. Narragansett, RI.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002a. Short-term Methods for Estimating the
Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition.
October. EPA-821-R-02-013.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002b. Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fifth Edition.
October. EPA-821-R-02-012.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Sediment toxicity identification
evaluation (TIE) phases I, II, and III guidance document. EPA/600/R-07/080. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division.
Narragansett, RI.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Metals
and Selenium – San Gabriel River and Impaired Tributaries. USEPA Region 9. March 26, 2007.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Test of Significant Toxicity Technical Document. EPA/833-R-10-004, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Los Angeles Area Lakes Total Maximum
Daily Loads for Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Mercury, Trash, Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs.
USEPA Region 9. March 26, 2012.
Weston, D.P. and E.L. Amweg. 2007. Whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for
pyrethroid insecticides: II. Esterase addition. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26:2397-
2404.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 72 -
Wheelock, C., Miller, J., Miller, M., Gee, S., Shan, G. and Hammock, B. 2004. Development of Toxicity
Identification Evaluation (TIE) procedures for pyrethroid detection using esterase activity.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23:2699-2708.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 73 -
Attachment A
Watershed Management Plan
Area Background
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 74 -
A.1 Watershed Background
The following subsections summarize the hydrology, geographic boundaries, and existing monitoring
programs in the watershed management area covered by the CIMP.
A.1.1 Enhanced Watershed Management Program Area Overview
Flows from the upper Rio Hondo and SGR watersheds maybe directed to spreading grounds located in, or
adjacent to, the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Rivers.
RWs within the EWMP area include:
¾Rio Hondo Water Bodies
Arcadia Wash
Little Santa Anita Canyon Creek
Santa Anita Wash
Monrovia Canyon Wash
Sawpit Wash
Rio Hondo Reach 3
¾SGR Water Bodies
SGR Reach 5
Little Dalton Wash
Big Dalton Wash
San Dimas Wash
Lakes and reservoirs in the EWMP area include:
¾Rio Hondo Watershed Lake
Peck Road Park Lake
¾SGR Watershed Lake
Santa Fe Dam Park Lake
A.2 Existing Monitoring Programs
Existing watershed monitoring programs provide historical data and information that can be used to
support site selection and identification of constituents for monitoring. The following subsections briefly
describe the current state of existing monitoring programs relevant to the EWMP Group.
A.2.1 Council for Watershed Health Monitoring Programs
The LAR Watershed Monitoring Program (LARWMP) and San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program
(SGRRMP) are primarily funded by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) and conducted by
the Council for Watershed Health (formerly Los Angeles and SGRs Watershed Council). Nearly all existing
sites are located outside the EWMP area. Only one site monitored on one occasion is reflective of RWs in
the EWMP area. No exceedances of water quality objectives were found at this site. The LARWMP and
SGRRMP include monitoring to address five core management questions related to priority beneficial
uses:
¾What is the condition of streams in the watershed?
¾Are conditions at areas of unique interest getting better or worse?
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 75 -
¾Are RWs near discharges meeting water quality objectives?
¾Is it safe to swim?
¾Are locally caught fish safe to eat?
The monitoring conducted under the SGRRMP and LARWMP are summarized in Table A-1 and
Table A-2, respectively. During the 2009-2013 five-year cycle, bioassessment monitoring was
conducted under the LARWMP and SGRRMP which are programs under the SMC. The Council for
Watershed Health oversees the two programs. The Council for Watershed Health will continue to
conduct the LARWMP and SGRRMP, which will include SMC Bioassessment Program monitoring for the
next five-year cycle in the Los Angeles River and SGR WMAs.
Table A-1 San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program Monitoring Summary
Question Approach Sites Indicators Frequency
1 Randomized
design for
streams in
watershed
10 new per year Triad: bioassessment,
water chemistry,
toxicity, CRAM
Annually, in spring
2 Fixed sites in
freshwater and
estuary
4 high value
wetlands
Wetland habitat (CRAM) Annually, in summer
5 tributary
confluence with
mainstem
3 background sites
bioassessment, water
chemistry, toxicity,
CRAM
Annually, in spring
4 estuary sites Water Quality, sed.
chemistry, toxicity,
infauna
Annually, in summer
3 Assess NPDES
RW results
against WQS
NPDES RW
sampling locations
Water quality,
chemistry, toxicity,
bioassessment, bacteria
Varies
4 Focus on high-
use areas
8 upper watershed
river sites
E. coli 5/month (May-Sep)
5 lower watershed
sentinel sites
E. coli 5/month (May-Sep)
1 estuary site Total coliforms, E. coli,
Enterococcus
2/week (All Year)
5 Focus on Popular
fishing sites
Commonly
caught species
High-risk
chemicals
Rotating popular
fishing locations:
2 sites/year
Commonly caught fish
at each location:
Mercury, DDTs, PCBs,
arsenic, selenium
Annually in late
summer
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 76 -
Table A-2 Los Angeles River Regional Monitoring Program Monitoring Summary
Question Approach Sites Indicators Frequency
1 Randomized
design for
streams in
watershed
10 new per year Triad: bioassessment,
water chemistry,
toxicity, CRAM
Annually, in spring
2 Fixed sites in
freshwater and
estuary
~6 high value Riparian habitat (CRAM) Annually, in summer
4 tributary
confluence with
mainstem
1 or 2 background
sites
Bioassessment, water
chemistry, toxicity,
riparian habitat (CRAM)
Annually, in spring
1 estuary site Conventional water
quality
Full suite water quality
Sediment chemistry,
toxicity, infauna
Not determined
Annually
Annually
3 Assess NPDES
RW Quality
Upstream and
downstream of
WRP discharges:
LA/Glendale
City of Burbank
Tillman WRP
Constituents with
established water
quality standards
Varies
4 Focus on high-
use areas
6-10 in river E. coli Weekly in swim
season
9 sentinel E. coli Weekly all year
15 beach Total coliforms, E. coli,
Enterococcus
Annually in summer
5 Focus on popular
fishing sites
Commonly
caught species
High-risk
chemicals
3 lakes
2 river
1 estuary
Commonly caught fish
at each location:
Mercury, DDTs, PCBs,
selenium
Annually in summer
A.3 TMDL Monitoring Requirements
One primary objective of the monitoring that will be conducted is fulfilling monitoring requirements
established in TMDL Basin Plan Amendments (BPAs) and/or in Part XIX of the MRP, which establishes
reporting requirements and associated monitoring requirements in association with adopted TMDLs in the
region. Attachment K to the MS4 Permit lists responsible parties for the respective TMDLs. Additionally,
the water body reaches the responsible parties discharge into are detailed in Attachment K for the LAR
Metals (Table K-9); LAR Bacteria (Table K-10); and SGR Metals TMDLs (Table K-12). Attachments O and
P of the MS4 Permit lists the TMDLs directly applicable in the EWMP area. The applicable TMDLs are
listed in Table A-3. The water bodies within the EWMP area and downstream of the EWMP area with
established TMDLs and/or 303(d) listings are highlighted in Figure A-1.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 77 -
Table A-3 TMDLs Applicable to the RH/SGRWQG EWMP Area and Downstream
Areas
TMDL
LARWQCB
Resolution
Number
Effective Date and/or
USEPA Approval Date
LAR Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects 2003-009 March 23, 2004
2012-010 August 7, 2014
LAR Trash 2007-012 September 23, 2008
LAR Metals TMDL 2007-014 October 29, 2008
2010-003 November 3, 2011
LAR Bacteria TMDL 2010-007 March 23, 2012
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and
Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL 2011-008 March 23, 2012
Los Angeles Area Lakes TMDLs for Peck Road Park
Lake N/A
(USEPA TMDL)
March 26, 2012
SGR Metals and Impaired Tributaries Metals and
Selenium TMDL March 26, 2007
Fig
gure A-1 TMMDLs and 3003(d) Listing
Rio Hondo/
- 78 -
gs Within an
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
nd Downstre
el River Wat
Integrated M
eam of the E
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
EWMP Area
Group
ogram
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 79 -
A.3.1 Harbors Toxics TMDL
While the Harbors Toxics TMDL was developed to address impairments in (among other water bodies)
San Pedro Bay, it does apply to the jurisdictions in the RH/SGRWQG because the LAR and SGR discharge
to San Pedro Bay. The Harbors Toxics TMDL BPA monitoring requirements were incorporated into the
MRP (Part XIX.C). A summary of the monitoring requirements identified in the TMDL BPA is presented in
Table A-4. Note that rather than submitting a separate CMP or Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
for the TMDL, the CIMP will address this TMDL’s monitoring requirements. Note that as the LAR Estuary
is not located within the RH/SGRWQG, this CIMP does not address the related monitoring requirements.
Table A-4 Summary of Harbors Toxics TMDL Monitoring Requirements
Location Medium Constituents Condition Frequency
SGR Estuary1
Water,
suspended solids
Metals2, DDT, PCBs, PAHs,
flow, general chemistry3
Dry-weather Annually
Wet-weather Twice per year4
Sediment
General sediment quality
constituents and the full
chemical suite as specified in
SQO Part 1
Not applicable Every two years
1 The MS4 Permit links the LAR Watershed and SGR Watershed responsible parties identified in the respective
LAR and SGR Metals TMDLs as, in part, responsible for conducting water and suspended solids monitoring at
the mouth of the SGR to determine the SGR’s contribution to the impairments in the Greater Harbor waters.
2 Copper, lead, and zinc.
3 Temperature, DO, pH, and electrical conductivity.
4 Including the first large storm event of the season.
As recognized by the footnote in Attachment K-4 of the MS4 Permit, the County of Los Angeles, LACFCD,
and the Cities of Arcadia, Azusa, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre (CIMP Participants) have
entered into an Amended Consent Decree with the United States and State of California, including the
Regional Board, pursuant to which the Regional Board has released the CIMP Participants from
responsibility for toxic pollutants in the Dominguez Channel and the Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach
Harbors. Accordingly, no inference should be drawn from the submission of this CIMP or from any action
or implementation taken pursuant to it that the CIMP Participants are obligated to implement the DC
Toxics TMDL, including this CIMP or any of the DC Toxics TMDL’s other obligations or plans, or that the
CIMP Participants have waived any rights under the Amended Consent Decree.
A.3.2 LAR Trash TMDL
The LAR Trash TMDL Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) and Staff Report do not require RW monitoring and
responsible parties are not required to conduct any type of monitoring if complying with WLAs through
the installation of full capture systems. Alternatively, responsible parties utilizing partial capture
treatment systems and institutional controls must use a mass balance approach to estimate trash
discharged. This is done through a calculated trash daily generation rate (DGR). The DGR is the average
amount of trash accumulated in a specific land area over a 24-hour period. The DGR is used to estimate
the amount of trash discharged after a storm event. The sum of all storm event discharges equals the
calculated annual trash discharge for a responsible party. Responsible parties utilizing partial capture
treatment systems and institutional controls must directly measure the amount of trash deposited in the
drainage area during any 30-day period from June 22nd to September 22nd each year. Annual
recalculation acts as a measure of the effectiveness of source reduction measures. The recommended
method for measuring trash during this time period is to close the catch basins in a manner that prevents
trash from being swept into the catch basins, and then to collect trash on the ground via street sweeping,
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 80 -
manual pickup, or other comparable means. The DGR and storm event discharge are calculated using
the following equations:
¾DGR = Amount of trash collected during a 30-day period / 30 days
¾Storm Event Discharge = [days since last street sweeping * DGR] - Amount of trash from
catch basins
A.3.3 LAR Nitrogen TMDL
The LAR Nitrogen TMDL BPA required MS4 responsible parties to submit a Work Plan to estimate nitrogen
loadings from the storm drain system (Nitrogen Loadings Work Plan) by March 23, 2005. The Nitrogen
Loadings Work Plan was to include ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite monitoring through a phased approach
with the possibility of the first phase of monitoring occurring at the S10 Mass Emission Station as well as
include a protocol and schedule for implementing any additional monitoring, if necessary. The Nitrogen
TMDL BPA also required major NPDES Permittees, including stormwater and wastewater reclamation
plants, to submit a Work Plan to evaluate the effectiveness of nitrogen reductions on removing
impairments from algae, odors, scum, and pH (Algae Work Plan) by March 23, 2005. The monitoring
program for the Algae Work Plan was to include instream monitoring of algae, foam, scum, pH, and
odors in the LAR. In addition, groundwater discharges to the LAR were to also be analyzed for nutrients
to determine the magnitude of these loadings and the need for load allocations.
Two separate Work Plans were submitted in early 2005; thus, the requirement to submit the Work Plans
has been met. Given that the submitted Work Plans do not appear to have been approved by the
LARWQCB, MS4 responsible parties have not been required to meet specific monitoring requirements
(i.e., monitoring a list of constituents at specified locations and frequencies) to satisfy the LAR Nitrogen
TMDL monitoring requirements. However, the Monitoring Work Plan to Assess Nutrients Loading from
the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System in the Los Angeles River Watershed (i.e., the Work Plan
submitted to meet the Nitrogen Loadings Work Plan requirements) did propose a phased approach to
monitoring, with the first phase consisting of quarterly monitoring at the S10 Mass Emission Station for
the following constituents:
¾Dissolved Oxygen
¾Temperature
¾Conductivity
¾pH
¾Ammonia
¾Nitrate-Nitrogen
¾Nitrite-Nitrogen
The LAR Nitrogen TMDL monitoring would be required upon approval of the Nitrogen Loadings Work
Plan. The Work Plan for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Nitrogen Loading Reductions in Removing
Algae-Related Impairments in the LAR Watershed (i.e., the Work Plan submitted to meet the Algae Work
Plan requirements) did not propose any monitoring locations within or downstream of the EWMP area,
however the constituents will be monitored at the LTA sites.
A.3.4 LAR Metals TMDL
The LAR Metals TMDL requires ambient and TMDL effectiveness monitoring to be conducted. The LAR
Metals TMDL specifies that total recoverable metals, dissolved metals, including cadmium and zinc, and
hardness are to be monitored monthly at each ambient monitoring location until the TMDL is
re-considered at year five. Given that the TMDL has been reconsidered and that five years have passed
since the effective date of the TMDL, these specific ambient monitoring requirements do not appear to
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 81 -
apply. The LAR Metals TMDL does not specify the requirements for ambient monitoring that takes place
after the TMDL re-consideration.
In addition, the LAR Metals TMDL required the responsible parties to submit a CMP to address TMDL
effectiveness monitoring requirements and allows for additional monitoring and special studies to refine
the estimate of loading capacity and waste load and/or load allocations, or optimize implementation
efforts. As previously described, the LAR Metals TMDL Technical Committee submitted the LAR Metals
TMDL CMP in March 2008 to meet the TMDL effectiveness monitoring requirements of the LAR Metals
TMDL. Given that the LAR Metals CMP was approved, the MS4 responsible parties must conduct the
monitoring specified in the LAR Metals CMP. The City of Los Angeles WPD, in collaboration with other
responsible parties including the RH/SGRWQG, conducts the CMP monitoring to address this TMDL. The
LAR Metals TMDL CMP does not include any monitoring locations within the EWMP area, but does include
locations downstream of the area.
A.3.5 LAR Bacteria TMDL
Ambient monitoring, monitoring to assess attainment with WLAs, monitoring to support LRS or alternative
compliance strategies, and monitoring to support wet-weather implementation plans are requirements for
the responsible parties listed in the LAR Bacteria TMDL. A CMP is required in the LAR Bacteria TMDL to
detail how the responsible parties will conduct monitoring. The CMP must detail: number and location of
sites (at least one per water body covered by the Bacteria TMDL), measurements and sample collection
methods (E. coli), and monitoring frequencies. The City of Los Angeles submitted a CMP on
March 23, 2013, which was developed in cooperation with other responsible parties. The CMP was
submitted with an acknowledgement that a CIMP would be developed and utilized as the basis of LAR
Bacteria TMDL monitoring. Therefore, the MRP has not been approved by the LARWQCB and monitoring
has not commenced at this time. The requirements of the various types of monitoring required by the
LAR Bacteria TMDL are summarized in Table A-5.
Table A-5 Summary of Bacteria TMDL Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring Type Requirements
RW Monitoring
Monitoring at one or more responsible party-specified sites per water
body covered by the TMDL at a responsible party-specified
frequency.
Compliance Monitoring
Interim WLA:
Monitor each water body covered by the TMDL at least monthly until
the end of the execution part of its first implementation phase.
In-stream targets:
Monitor each water body covered by the TMDL at least weekly after
the first implementation phase.
LRS
Pre-LRS Monitoring:
Conduct six “snapshot” monitoring events of E. coli and flow at all
outfalls discharging to a water body.
Post-LRS Monitoring:
Conduct three “snapshot” monitoring events of E. coli and flow at all
outfalls discharging to a water body.
LRS Equivalent Condition
Compliance
Conduct six “snapshot” monitoring events of E. coli and flow at all
outfalls discharging to a water body.
Wet-Weather Implementation
Plans
Responsible parties must propose monitoring to support their Wet-
Weather Implementation Plans.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 82 -
A.3.6 SGR Metals TMDL
The SGR Metals TMDL applies to various RWs within (SGR Reach 5) and downstream of the EWMP area
(SGR Reaches 1 through 4, Walnut Creek Wash, and the SGR Estuary). As the TMDL was originally
promulgated by USEPA, implementation provisions, including monitoring were not explicitly required in
the previous MS4 Permit. Rather, the USEPA TMDL proposed monitoring recommendations. The
LARWQCB adopted a BPA incorporating an implementation plan and schedule on June 6, 2013. The BPA
contained general requirements for ambient monitoring and TMDL effectiveness monitoring. However,
very specific requirements were incorporated into the MRP (Part XIX.E of the MRP). A summary of the
ambient monitoring and TMDL effectiveness monitoring requirements identified in the MRP that apply to
water bodies within or downstream of the RH/SGRWQG area are presented in Table A-6 and Table A-7,
respectively. Coordination with EWMP groups in the lower sections of the watershed would be
reasonable to ensure the RH/SGRWQG would not have to perform all monitoring on their own.
Table A-6 SGR Metals TMDL Ambient Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the
RH/SGRWQG
Constituents Frequency Condition Medium Location(s)
Total and
dissolved1
metals,
hardness2
Not specified
Dry- and wet-
weather Water SGR Reach 4 and 5, and Walnut
Creek
Dry-weather Water SGR Reach 2
Wet-weather Water SGR Reach 1, SGR Reach 3, and
SGR Estuary
Sediment
toxicity resulting
from metals3
Semi-annually Not applicable Sediment SGR Estuary
1 The TMDL targets, and resulting WLAs, are expressed in terms of total recoverable metals. Monitoring for total
recoverable metals is required. It is the recommendation of the Approach TM to also monitor the dissolved
fraction of the metals for copper, lead, and zinc to allow for the calculation of site-specific translators and to
assess attainment of the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria which is expressed as the dissolved fraction of the
metal.
2 Specific constituents are not identified in the MRP, it was assumed that constituents associated with wet-
weather WLAs would be sampled during wet-weather (total and dissolved copper, lead, and zinc) and those
associated with WLAs in dry-weather would be sampled during dry-weather (total and dissolved copper).
3 Metals identified in Part XIX.E the MRP include copper, lead, selenium and zinc.
Table A-7 SGR Metals TMDL Effectiveness Monitoring Requirements Applicable to
the RH/SGRWQG Portion in the San Gabriel River WMA
Condition Constituents Location(s)Frequency
Dry-weather Total and dissolved1
copper, hardness
SGR Reach 1 and
SGR Estuary Monthly
Wet-Weather2 Total and dissolved1
lead, hardness SGR Reach 2
At least 4 wet-weather events total
in a given storm season (November
to March), unless there are fewer
than 4 wet-weather events total
1 The TMDL targets, and resulting WLAs, are expressed in terms of total recoverable metals. Monitoring for total
recoverable metals is required. It is the recommendation of the Approach TM to also monitor the dissolved
fraction of the metals for copper, lead, and zinc to allow for the calculation of site-specific translators and to
assess attainment of the CTR criteria which is expressed as the dissolved fraction of the metal.
2 Wet-weather conditions: 260 cubic feet per second in SGR Reach 2.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 83 -
A.3.7 USEPA Lakes TMDL
The USEPA Lakes TMDLs apply to Santa Fe Dam Park Lake and Peck Road Park Lake. WLAs were not
assigned to MS4s in the Santa Fe Dam Park Lake TMDLs and will not be discuss further. The Peck Road
Park Lake TMDLs include WLAs for: nitrogen, phosphorus, chlordane, Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
(DDT), dieldrin, PCBs, and Trash. As previously discussed, the Peck Road Park Lake TMDLs were
promulgated by USEPA, and implementation provisions, including monitoring were not explicitly required
in the TMDLs. Rather, the TMDLs proposed monitoring recommendations. However, specific monitoring
requirements were incorporated into the MRP (Part XIX.D) for the Peck Road Park Lake TMDLs. A
summary of the monitoring requirements for the various Peck Road Park Lake TMDLs is presented in
Table A-8.
Table A-8 Summary of Peck Road Park Lake TMDLs Monitoring Requirements
TMDL Constituent(s)Monitoring Frequency
Peck Road Park Lake Nutrient
TMDL
In-lake Compliance Monitoring
TMDL constituents: Ammonia, TKN or
organic nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite,
orthophosphate, total phosphorus, TSS,
TDS, and chlorophyll a.
General constituents throughout water
column: temperature, DO, pH, electrical
conductivity, and Secchi depth.
At a minimum, twice
during summer months
and once during winter.
Stormwater Monitoring
Discharge Point: flow, ammonia, TKN or
organic nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite,
orthophosphate, total phosphorus, TSS,
and TDS.
Twice per year
Peck Road Park Lake PCBs
and OC Pesticides TMDLs
In-lake Compliance Monitoring
TMDL constituents: TSS, total PCBs, total
chlordane, total DDTs, and dieldrin
General constituents throughout water
column: temperature, DO, pH, electrical
conductivity, Secchi depth
Annually
Fish Tissue Monitoring
OC pesticides and PCBs must meet fish
tissue targets in a composite sample of
skin-off fillets from at least five common
carp > 350mm in length
At least every three
years
Stormwater Monitoring
Discharge Point: Collect sufficient volume
of suspended solids to analyze total
organic carbon, TSS, total PCBs, total
chlordane, total DDTs, and dieldrin.
Measurements of flow, DO, pH, and
electrical conductivity
Once per year during a
wet-weather event
Peck Road Park Lake Trash
TMDL
Monitor trash deposited in the vicinity of
Peck Road Park Lake and in the water
body to comply with the TMDL target and
gage implementation efforts effectiveness.
Quarterly
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 84 -
A.3.8 Summary of TMDL Compliance Points
Currently, only the Harbors Toxics TMDL has an implementation plan with effective interim and final
compliance milestones. The Regional Board has adopted an implementation plan for the SGR Metals
TMDL and is currently being reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board. The implementation
plan is anticipated to be effective within the current MS4 Permit term. The compliance dates and
milestones for the TMDLs are listed in Table A-9, Table A-10, and Table A-11. In Table A-9 and
Table A-11 the milestone dates for the SGR Metals TMDL correspond to the implementation plan
adopted by the Regional Board.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 85 -
Table A-9 Interim and Final TMDL Compliance Applicable to the Rio Hondo and Tributaries (Except Dry-Weather
Los Angeles River Bacteria)
TMDL Water Bodies Constituents Compliance
Goal
Weather
Condition
Interim and Final Compliance Dates
(Bolded numbers indicate deadlines within the current MS4 Permit term)1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2037
LA River Nitrogen All Water Bodies
Ammonia, Nitrate,
Nitrite, Nitrate
+Nitrite
Meet
WQBELs All Pre 2012
Final
LA River Trash All Water Bodies Trash % Reduction All 9/30 9/30 9/30 9/30 9/30
70% 80% 90% 96.7% 100%
LA River Metals
All Water Bodies Copper, Lead, Zinc
% of MS4
area Meets
WQBELs
Dry 1/11 1/11 1/11
50% 75% 100%
All Water Bodies Copper, Lead, Zinc,
Cadmium
% of MS4
area Meets
WQBELs
Wet 1/11 1/11 1/11
25% 50% 100%
LA River Bacteria All Water Bodies E. coli Meet
WQBELs Wet 3/23
Final
Dominguez
Channel and
LA/LB Harbors
Toxics2
Estuary
Sediment: DDTs,
PCBs, Copper,
Lead, Zinc, PAHs
Meet
WQBELs All
12/28 3/23
Interim Final
USEPA Lakes
TMDLs
Peck Road Park
Lake
Total-P, Total-N,
Trash Water and
Sediment: PCBs,
Chlordane, DDT,
Dieldrin
Meet WLAs All
USEPA TMDLs do not contain implementation schedules. The MS4 Permit
(Part VI.E.3.c, page 145) allows MS4 Permittees to propose a schedule in an
EWMP.
1 The MS4 Permit term is assumed to be five years from the MS4 Permit effective date or December 27, 2017.
2 Harbors Toxics TMDL applied to both the LAR and SGR WMAs.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 86 -
Table A-10 Interim and Final Dry-Weather Los Angeles River Bacteria TMDL Compliance Dates Applicable to the
Rio Hondo and Tributaries
TMDL Water Bodies Constituents Compliance
Goal
Weather
Condition
Interim and Final Compliance Dates
(Bolded numbers indicated milestone deadlines
within the current MS4 Permit term)1
2016 2020 2023 2030
LA River
Bacteria
All Water
Bodies E. coli Meet
WQBELs
Dry
w/o LRS
3/23
Final
Dry
w/ LRS
3/23 9/23 3/23 3/23
Submit LRS2 Complete LRS Interim Final
1 The MS4 Permit term is assumed to be five years from the MS4 Permit effective date or December 27, 2017.
2 LRS requires coordinated effort by all MS4 Permittees within a segment or tributary. A LRS must quantitatively demonstrate that the actions for specific outfalls
are sufficient to result in attainment of the final WLAs. Requires six snapshot outfall sampling events prior to LRS and three post-LRS snapshot sampling
events.
Table A-11 Interim and Final TMDL Compliance Dates Applicable to the San Gabriel River and Tributaries
TMDL Water Bodies Constituents Compliance
Goal
Weather
Condition
Interim and Final Compliance Dates
(Bolded numbers indicated milestone deadlines
within the current MS4 Permit term)1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2020 2023 2026 2032
Dominguez
Channel and
LA/LB Harbors
Toxics2
Estuary
Sediment: DDTs,
PCBs, Copper,
Lead, Zinc, PAHs
Meet
WQBELs All
12/28 3/23
Interim Final
SGR Metals
TMDL3 SGR Reach 2 Lead Percent
Compliance4 Wet 9/30 9/30 9/30 9/30
10% 35% 65% 100%
1 The MS4 Permit term is assumed to be five years from the MS4 Permit effective date or December 27, 2017.
2 Harbors Toxics TMDL applied to both the LAR and SGR WMAs.
3 Assumes adoption and approval of draft implementation plan.
4 Alternatively may be demonstrated as percent of required reduction.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 87 -
A.4 Water Quality Priorities
Water quality priorities for the RH/SGRWQG are based on TMDLs, 303(d) list, and monitoring data.
Based on available information and data analysis, WBPCs were classified in one of the three MS4 Permit
defined categories. Category 1 if WBPCs are subject to established TMDLs, Category 2 if they are on the
303(d) List, or have sufficient exceedances to be listed, and Category 3 if there are observed
exceedances but too infrequently to be listed.
A.4.1 Water Body-Pollutant Subject to TMDL
Appendix O and P in the MS4 Permit lists the TMDLs directly applicable to the EWMP area. WBPCs
identified through TMDLs are included as Category 1. Additional information on the TMDLs is provided in
the previous Section.
A.4.2 Water Body-Pollutant on 2010 303(d) List
WBPCs on the SWRCB’s 2010 CWA Section 303(d) List that are not already addressed by a TMDL or other
action are included as Category 2. The 303(d) listed water bodies are highlighted on Figure A-1 and the
location of the listing are presented in Table A-12. All listings within or downstream of the EWMP area
were identified and included to acknowledge that discharges from upstream reaches could impact the
listed area, particularly during wet-weather. However, a constituent included in the table does not infer
MS4 discharges from the EWMP area contribute to the downstream impairment. Additional analysis
would need to be conducted to make that determination. The modeling conducted as part of the
Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) analysis or special studies implemented through the CIMP would be
alternatives allowing the RH/SGRWQG to make the determination.
Table A-12 Category 2 Water Body-Pollutant Combinations
Constituent Sawpit Wash Monrovia Wash
Lead L
Indicator Bacteria L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate L
L = Listed on 2010 303(d) list.
A.4.3 Water Body-Pollutant RWL Exceedances
Monitoring data, within the Los Angeles and SGR WMAs, was received from The Council for Watershed
Health. The data received from the Council for Watershed Health largely consisted of short term
monitoring activities and many sites from these programs were only used for a single sampling event or
had a limited number of constituents tested at the sites. One site monitored for one event is the only
monitoring in the program reflective of the RWs in the EWMP area. All data records were screened to
identify potential water quality objective exceedances.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 88 -
A.4.4 RH/SGRWQG Water Quality Priorities
Table A-13 defines subcategories of WBPCs that correspond with the MS4 Permit prioritization
categories. The WBPCs are placed in the respective subcategories in Table A-14.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 89 -
Table A-13 Details for Water Body-Pollutant Combination Subcategories
Category Water Body-Pollutant Combinations Description
1
Category 1A: WBPCs with past due or current MS4
Permit term TMDL deadlines.
WBPCs with TMDLs with past due or current MS4 Permit term interim
and/or final limits. These pollutants are the highest priority for the current
MS4 Permit term.
Category 1B: WBPCs with TMDL deadlines beyond
the MS4 Permit term.
The MS4 Permit does not require the prioritization of TMDL interim and/or
final deadlines outside of the MS4 Permit term or USEPA TMDLs, which do
not have implementation schedules. To ensure EWMPs consider long term
planning requirements and utilize the available compliance mechanisms
these WBPCs should be considered during BMP planning and scheduling,
and during CIMP development.
Category 1C: WBPCs addressed in USEPA TMDL
without a Regional Board Adopted Implementation
Plan.
2
Category 2A: 303(d) listed WBPCs or WBPCs that
meet 303(d) listing requirements.
WBPCs with confirmed impairment or exceedances of RW limitations.
WBPCs in a similar class1 as those with TMDLs are identified. WBPCs
currently on the 303(d) list are differentiated from those that are not to
support utilization of EWMP compliance mechanisms.
Category 2B: 303(d) listed WBPCs or WBPCs that
meet 303(d) listing requirements that are not a
“pollutant”2 (i.e., toxicity).
WBPCs where specific actions may not be identifiable because the cause
of the impairment or exceedances is not resolved. Either routine
monitoring or special studies identified in the CIMP should support
identification of a “pollutant” linked to the impairment and re-prioritization
in the future.
3
Category 3A: All other WBPCs with exceedances
identified through CIMP implementation.
Pollutants that are in a similar class1 as those with TMDLs are identified.
Category 3B: All other WBPCs that are not a
“pollutant”2 (i.e., toxicity).
WBPCs where specific actions may not be identifiable because the cause
of the impairment or exceedances is not resolved. Either routine
monitoring or special studies identified in the CIMP should support
identification of a “pollutant” linked to the impairment and re-prioritization
in the future.
Category 3C: WBPCs identified by the RH/SGRWQG
members.
The RH/SGRWQG members may identify other WBPCs for consideration in
EWMP planning.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 90 -
Table A-14 Summary of RH/SGRWQG WBPC Categories
Class1 Constituents Rio Hondo
Reach 3
Monrovia
Wash
Sawpit
Wash
San Gabriel
River
Reach 5
San Dimas
Wash
Big Dalton
Wash
Peck Road
Park Lake
Category 1A: WBPCs with past due or current term TMDL deadlines.
Nutrients
Ammonia F F F
Nitrate F F F
Nitrite F F F
Metals
Copper (Dry) I I I
Lead (Dry) I I I
Zinc (Dry) I I I
Copper (Wet) I I I
Lead (Wet) I I I I3 I3 I3
Zinc (Wet) I I I
Cadmium (Wet) I I I
Trash Trash I/F I/F I/F
Category 1B: WBPCs with TMDL deadlines beyond the current MS4 Permit term.
Metals
Copper (Dry) F F F
Lead (Dry) F F F
Zinc (Dry) F F F
Copper (Wet) F F F
Lead (Wet) F F F F3 F3 F3
Zinc (Wet) F F F
Cadmium (Wet) F F F
Bacteria Fecal Coliform and E. coli I/F I/F I/F
Category 1C: WBPCs addressed in USEPA TMDL without an Implementation Plan.
Nutrients Total Nitrogen X
Total Phosphorus X
Legacy
PCB (Sediment) X
PCB (Water) X
Chlordane (Sediment) X
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 91 -
Table A-14 Summary of RH/SGRWQG WBPC Categories
Class1 Constituents Rio Hondo
Reach 3
Monrovia
Wash
Sawpit
Wash
San Gabriel
River
Reach 5
San Dimas
Wash
Big Dalton
Wash
Peck Road
Park Lake
Chlordane (Water) X
Dieldrin (Sediment) X
Dieldrin (Water) X
Legacy DDT (Sediment) X
DDT (Water) X
Category 2C: 303(d) listed WBPCs.
Metals Lead 303(d)
Bacteria Indicator Organisms 303(d) 303(d) 303(d)
Other Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 303(d)
Category 3: All other WBPCs with exceedances identified through CIMP implementation.4
1 Pollutants are considered in a similar class if they have similar fate and transport mechanisms, can be addressed via the same types of control measures, and
within the same timeline already contemplated as part of the EWMP for the TMDL (MS4 Permit, Part VI.C.2.a.i).
2 While pollutants may be contributing to the impairment, it currently is not possible to identify the specific pollutant/stressor.
3 Grouped wet-weather WLA, expressed as total recoverable metals discharged to all upstream reaches and tributaries of the SGR Reach 2.
4 Monitoring of MRP Table E-2 constituents in the first year LTA sites are established will identify the Category 3 constituents.
Note that unless explicitly stated as sediment, constituents are associated with the water column.
I/F = Denotes where the MS4 Permit includes interim (I) and/or final (F) effluent and/or RW limitations.
X = Identification of a WBPC, but no corresponding MS4 Permit implementation.
303(d) = WBPC on the 2010 303(d) list where the listing was confirmed during data analysis.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 92 -
Constituents may change subcategories as the monitoring progresses, source investigations occur, and
BMP implementation begins. Constituents for which exceedances decrease over time will be removed
from the priority list and moved to the monitoring priority categories; or, dropped from the priority list. If
the frequency of constituent exceedances increases to a consistent level, for a constituent that is
currently not a priority, then the constituent would be reevaluated using the prioritization procedure,
likely increasing the priority of the constituent. Due to the natural rate of infiltration, the Rio Hondo and
SGR are generally dry with the exception of storm flows. Future monitoring will be assessed to establish
the disconnect between the upper and lower watershed during dry and minor storm events. On
establishing the disconnection, the corresponding WBPCs flagged due to downstream water quality issues
will be adjusted or removed from the categorization.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 93 -
Attachment B
Monitoring Location Fact Sheets
B.1 R
Table B
Wate
Body
Nam
Rio Hon
Reach
General
Arcadia W
Receiving
B-1 Rio Ho
er
y
e
Wa
Body
ndo
3 Tribu
l Descriptio
Wash and Rio
g Water S
ondo Long-T
ater
Type
utary RHS
n: LTA and
o Hondo Reac
RHS
Sites
Term Asse
Site ID
SGR_RH3_ARC
TMDL monito
ch 3.
RHSGR_RH
SGR_RH3_A
Rio Hondo/
- 94 -
ssment Sit
Historica
Site ID
C N/A
oring site loca
H3_ARC Aeri
ARC Looking
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
te
al Site Typ
LTA, TMD
ated just dow
ial View
g Upstream
el River Wat
Integrated M
pe Latitud
DL 34.0898
wnstream of t
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
de Longitu
36 -118.033
the confluenc
Group
ogram
ude
3828
ce of
Table B
Wate
Body
Name
Little Da
Wash
General
Little Da
B-2 Little D
er
y
e
Wa
Body
alton
h Tribu
l Descriptio
lton Wash an
Dalton Was
ter
Type
utary RHSG
on: LTA and
d Big Dalton
R
RHS
sh Long-Te
Site ID
GR_LDW_BDW
d TMDL moni
Wash downst
RHSGR_LDW
SGR_LDW_B
Rio Hondo/
- 95 -
erm Assessm
Historic
Site ID
W N/A
toring site lo
tream of Vinc
W_BDW Aer
BDW Lookin
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
ment Site
cal
D
Site
Type
LTA,
TMDL
ocated just u
cent Avenue.
rial View
ng Upstream
el River Wat
Integrated M
Latitude
34.09944
upstream of t
m
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
e Longitu
5 -117.926
the confluenc
Group
ogram
ude
6766
ce of
Table B
Wate
Body
Nam
Santa A
Wash
General
B-3 Santa A
er
y
e
Wa
Body
Anita
h Tribu
l Description
Anita Wash
ater
y Type
utary RHS
n: TMDL mo
RHS
h TMDL Sit
Site ID
SGR_SAN_DD
nitoring site l
RHSGR_SA
SGR_SAN_D
Rio Hondo/
- 96 -
te
Historica
Site ID
D N/A
ocated in San
AN_DD Aeria
D LookingD
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
al Site Typ
TMDL
nta Anita Was
al View
Downstream
el River Wat
Integrated M
pe Latitud
34.1062
sh near Daine
m
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
de Longitu
00 -118.016
es Drive.
Group
ogram
ude
6150
Table B
Wate
Body
Nam
Sawpit W
General
B-4 Sawpit
er
y
e
Wa
Body
Wash Tribu
l Description
t Wash TM
ater
y Type
utary RHS
n: TMDL mo
RH
DL Site
Site ID
SGR_SAW_PR
nitoring site l
RHSGR_SA
HSGR_SAW_
Rio Hondo/
- 97 -
Historica
Site ID
R N/A
ocated in Saw
AW_PR Aeria
_PR Looking
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
al Site Typ
TMDL
wpit Wash ne
al View
g Upstream
el River Wat
Integrated M
pe Latitud
34.10614
ear Peck Road
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
de Longitu
40 -118.006
d.
Group
ogram
ude
6921
Table B
Water
Body
Name
Peck Ro
Park Lak
General
the mon
monitori
B-5 Peck R
r
y
e
Water
Body
Type
ad
ke Lake
l Descriptio
nitoring site
ng being cond
Road Park L
r
Sit
RHSGR_
n: TMDL mo
may vary du
ducted (i.e., w
Lake TMDL
te ID
_PRP_LAKE
onitoring site
ue to hydrol
water column
RHSG_PRP
Rio Hondo/
- 98 -
Site
Historical
Site ID
N/A
located in Pe
ogic conditio
n, sediment, o
P_LAKE Aeria
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
Site
Type
TMDL 3
eck Road Par
ons affecting
or fish tissue)
al View
el River Wat
Integrated M
Latitude
34.103905
rk Lake. The
lake levels
.
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
Longitud
-118.0125
exact locatio
and the typ
Group
ogram
de
543
on of
pe of
B.2 S
Table B
HUC-1
Eaton W
and Sa
Anita W
General
downstre
Stormwa
B-6 BI 040
12 Gro
Mem
Wash
nta
Wash
Arca
l Descriptio
eam of Duarte
ter Outfa
04 – Line A
oup
mber Dr
adia BI 0
on: New sto
e Road.
all Sites
rain Name
0404 – Line A
ormwater out
BI 0404 –
Rio Hondo/
- 99 -
Size
A 87 inches
tfall monitori
Line A Aeria
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
Site Typ
s Stormwat
Outfall
ng site disch
al View
el River Wat
Integrated M
pe Latitud
ter 34.1274
harging to A
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
de Longitu
93 -118.039
rcadia Wash
Group
ogram
ude
9913
just
Table B
HUC-1
Big Dalt
Wash
General
Located
B-7 BI 121
12 Gro
Mem
ton
h Cou
l Descriptio
on S. Citrus A
19 – Line C
oup
mber Dr
unty BI 1
on: New sto
Avenue in fro
rain Name
1219 – Line C
ormwater ou
nt of the prop
BI 1219 –
BI 1
Rio Hondo/
- 100 -
Size
C 63 inches
tfall monitor
perty located
Line C Aeria
1219 –Line C
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
Site Typ
s Stormwat
Outfall
ing site disc
near 588-598
al View
C
el River Wat
Integrated M
pe Latitud
ter 34.1113
harging to B
8 S. Citrus Av
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
de Longitu
69 -117.890
Big Dalton W
venue.
Group
ogram
ude
0254
Wash.
Table B
HUC-1
Santa
FCB
General
on W. Si
B-8 Beatty
12 Gro
Mem
Fe Azu
l Description
erra Madre A
y Canyon
oup
mber Dr
usa Be
n: New storm
Avenue in fron
rain Name
eatty Canyon
mwater outfa
nt of the prop
Beatty Ca
Bea
Rio Hondo/
- 101 -
Size
144 inche
all monitoring
erty located a
anyon Aerial
atty Canyon
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
Site Typ
es Stormwat
Outfall
site discharg
at 1351 W. Si
l View
el River Wat
Integrated M
pe Latitud
ter 34.1434
ging to SGR R
ierra Madre A
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
de Longitu
96 -117.925
Reach 5. Loc
Avenue.
Group
ogram
ude
5637
cated
Table B
HUC-1
Santa A
Wash
General
on Peck
RH/SGRW
B-9 BI 002
12 Gro
Mem
Anita
h Mon
l Description
Road north o
WQG area.
25 Peck Roa
oup
mber Dr
rovia BI
R
n: New storm
of the interse
BI 0
ad Drain
rain Name
I 0025 Peck
Road Drain
mwater outfa
ection with W
0025 Peck R
BI 0025
Rio Hondo/
- 102 -
Size
117 inche
all monitoring
W. Wyland Wa
Road Drain A
Peck Road D
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
Site Typ
es Stormwat
Outfall
site discharg
ay at nearest
Aerial View
Drain
el River Wat
Integrated M
pe Latitud
ter 34.1186
ging to Sawpi
upstream ma
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
de Longitu
60 -118.003
it Wash. Loc
anhole within
Group
ogram
ude
3890
cated
n the
Table B
HUC-1
Santa
FCB
General
daylights
B-10 Bradb
12 Gro
Mem
Fe Dua
l Descriptio
s near the inte
bury Drain
oup
mber Dr
arte Bra
on: New st
ersection of M
rain Name
adbury Drain
tormwater o
Mount Olive D
Bradbury
Brad
Rio Hondo/
- 103 -
Size
156 inche
utfall monito
Drive and Bloo
Drain Aeria
dbury Drain
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
Site Typ
es Stormwat
Outfall
oring site loc
omdale Street
l View
n
el River Wat
Integrated M
pe Latitud
ter 34.1378
cated where
t.
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
de Longitu
30 -117.955
e Bradbury D
Group
ogram
ude
5760
Drain
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 104 -
Attachment C
Table E-2 of the
Monitoring and Reporting Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 105 -
C.1 Table E-2 of the Monitoring and Reporting Program
Constituents
Conventional Pollutants
Oil and Grease
Total Phenols
Cyanide
pH
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform
E. coli
General
Dissolved Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Turbidity
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Ammonia-Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate-Nitrite
Alkalinity
Specific Conductance
Total Hardness
MBAS
Chloride
Fluoride
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
Perchlorate
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 106 -
Constituents
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Acids
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Base/Neutral
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
1,2 Benzanthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
3,4 Benzofluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 107 -
Constituents
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
di-n-Butyl phthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
4,6 Dinitro-2-methylphenol
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
di-n-Octyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitroso-dimethyl amine
N-Nitroso-diphenyl amine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propyl amine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Chlorinated Pesticides
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
alpha-chlordane
gamma-chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 108 -
Constituents
Dieldrin
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Toxaphene
Polychlorinated Biphenyels
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Organophosphate Pesticides
Atrazine
Chlorpyrifos
Cyanazine
Diazinon
Malathion
Prometryn
Simazine
Herbicides
2,4-D
Glyphosate
2,4,5-TP-SILVEX
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 109 -
Attachment D
Stormwater Outfall Selection
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 110 -
D.1 Stormwater Outfall Site Selection
The primary criterion cited in the MRP for selection of monitoring sites for the stormwater outfall
monitoring program is that the sites are representative of the range of land uses in the area. An
additional stated criterion for site selection is the ability to accurately measure flows for pollutant loads
characterization. Flow measurement is easily addressed by physical assessment of the site conditions
and consideration of access to the site. The primary criterion in the MRP implies an assessment of
variation of land uses within the WMA, potential variation in water quality issues for different HUC-12
drainages, and geographic variation in factors influencing runoff quality.
In addition to the primary criteria for monitoring site selection, the MS4 Permit defined specific objectives
depend on the representativeness of the stormwater outfall monitoring are as follows:
¾Determine the quality of discharge relative to municipal action levels
¾Determine whether the discharge is in compliance with WQBELs derived from TMDL
WLAs
¾Determine whether a discharge causes or contributes to exceedances of RWLs
The default approach in the MRP to achieving adequate representation is to select one major outfall in
each HUC–12 within each individual Permittee’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the minimum number of
outfalls required for monitoring under the default approach is equal to the total number of unique
combinations of HUC-12s and jurisdictions. The default approach is geared toward ensuring adequate
accountability and representation if the Permittees monitor as individual entities, but results in monitoring
more outfall discharges than needed for efforts coordinated among the RH/SGRWQG. For the
SGR and LAR WMAs, there would be 12 stormwater outfalls using the default approach.
As an alternative to the MRP’s default monitoring approach, the EWMP Group is proposing to monitor one
major outfall for each HUC-12 in the WMAs. The resulting data would be considered representative of all
group members’ discharge in their respective HUC-12, would provide representative results needed to
meet all three specific monitoring objectives, and would also provide the basis for stormwater
management decisions for all group members. The rationale supporting the EWMP Group’s alternative
approach follows.
D.2 Representativeness of Selected Outfalls
The principal criterion for the site selection for stormwater outfall monitoring is that sites are
representative of the range of land uses in the WMAs. The drainages within the EWMP Group’s WMA are
comprised primarily of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, with minimal percentages of
agriculture and undeveloped open space. The five proposed outfalls were selected specifically to
characterize runoff from drainages that are representative of the mix of these primary land uses in the
WMAs, and to minimize contributions from other land uses. Land use summaries for the RH/SGRWQG
are listed in Error! Reference source not found..
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 111 -
Table D - 1 Land Use Summary, Percent of Drainage
Outfall Site ResidentialCommercial Open Space Agricultural Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 Santa Anita Wash HUC-12 52% 38% 10% 0%
Estimated Outfall Catchment 48% 48% 4% 0%
Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 Big Dalton Wash HUC-12 57% 37% 2% 4%
Estimated Outfall Catchment 68% 27% 4% 1%
Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 Santa Fe FCB HUC-12 52% 37% 7% 4%
Estimated Outfall Catchment 61% 16% 20% 3%
City of Monrovia City of Monrovia 63% 30% 7% 0%
Estimated Outfall Catchment 73% 27% 0% 0%
Cities of Bradbury and
Duarte
Cities of Bradbury and Duarte 64% 22% 9% 5%
Estimated Outfall Catchment 61% 16% 20% 3%
D.3 Stormwater Monitoring Data Variability
The inter-event variability (e.g., for different storm events) in stormwater discharge quality is much
greater than between individual outfall drainages or major land uses. Based on stormwater monitoring
results from other programs, discharge quality from drainages with similar mixed land uses is not
substantially different, and it will be impossible to distinguish statistically between drainages with a
reasonable amount of monitoring because of the high variability in discharge quality for each site. The
statistical power analysis based on the range of typical stormwater discharge quality distributions and the
number of sample collected for the MS4 Permit term, 15 samples per site, is enumerated in Table D - 2
Detectible Significant Percent Differences Between Sites. For example, the analysis results in an
average difference between sites would need to be greater than 62% to be detected with 95%
confidence and 80% power for a pollutant with a fairly “typical” coefficient of variance (COV) of 0.66.
COVs for stormwater discharge quality are generally greater than 0.2 and commonly exceed 1.0.
Programmatically meaningful differences (i.e., differences between sites as small as 20%) would not be
expected to be detected for most constituents over the timeframe of the MS4 Permit.
Table D - 2 Detectible Significant Percent Differences Between Sites
Sample Size = 15, alpha = 0.05
COV Power = 0.8 power = 0.9
0.20 21% 24%
0.31 32% 36%
0.42 42% 48%
0.53 52% 59%
0.66 62% 70%
0.80 71% 81%
0.95 80% 91%
1.12 89% 100%
1.31 97% 109%
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 112 -
Given the high variability typical of stormwater pollutant levels, and with only a few storm events that can
be collected per year, it will not be possible to make meaningful distinctions between drainages, either
within land use types, across land use types, or between jurisdictions. Management implementation by
the Permittees is also expected to be relatively consistent throughout the WMAs, so additional focus on
geographic differences is not necessary. This means that only a handful of sites are needed to
adequately characterize residential land use discharge quality within the WMA. Consequently, sampling
more than a few representative sites is unlikely to significantly improve characterization of runoff quality,
or to better inform the EWMP Groups’ management decisions.
Realistically achievable changes in stormwater runoff quality or loads (e.g., 20–50% reductions) are
statistically demonstrable only over relatively long periods of time (10 years). This is also due to the
high variability between events and the relatively low number of events that can be sampled each
season, and additional monitoring sites will do little to improve the statistical power of such trend analysis
within the MS4 Permit timeframe compared to longer periods of evaluation. This also supports the need
to assess management effectiveness and compliance based primarily on successful implementation
actions rather than explicit demonstration of improvements in runoff quality.
D.4 Recommendation for Stormwater Outfall Site Selection
Based on the evaluations above, the EWMP Group’s proposed CIMP approach to monitor one outfall for
each HUC-12 in the WMA will provide the representative data needed to meet the specific MS4 Permit
objectives for stormwater outfall monitoring and support management decisions of the EWMP Group.
Additional monitoring sites within four HUC-12s will not provide significant improvements in
representation or characterization of discharge quality, or additional information for discharge quality
management.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 113 -
Attachment E
Analytical and Monitoring Procedures
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 114 -
Attachment E details the monitoring procedures that will be utilized to collect and analyze samples to
meet the goals and objectives of the CIMP and the MS4 Permit. The details contained herein serve as a
guide for ensuring that consistent protocols and procedures are in place for successful sample collection
and analysis. The attachment is divided into the following sections:
1. Analytical Procedures
2. Sampling Methods and Sample Handling
3. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
4. Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency
5. Data Management, Validation and Usability
E.1 Analytical Procedures
E.1.1 Field Parameters
Portable field meters will measure within specifications outlined in Table E-1.
Table E-1 Analytical Methods and Project Reporting Limits for Field Measurements
Parameter/Constituent Method Range Project RL
Current velocity Electromagnetic -0.5 to +20 ft/s 0.05 ft/s
pH Electrometric 0 – 14 pH units NA
Temperature High stability thermistor -5 – 50 oC NA
Dissolved oxygen Membrane 0 – 50 mg/L 0.5 mg/L
Turbidity Nephelometric 0 – 3000 NTU 0.2 NTU
Conductivity Graphite electrodes 0 – 10 mmhos/cm 2.5 umhos/cm
E.1.2 Methods and Detection and Reporting Limits
Method detection limits (MDL) and reporting limits (RLs) must be distinguished for proper understanding
and data use. The MDL is the minimum analyte concentration that can be measured and reported with a
99% confidence that the concentration is greater than zero. The RL represents the concentration of an
analyte that can be routinely measured in the sampled matrix within stated limits and with confidence in
both identification and quantitation.
For this CIMP, RLs must be verifiable by having the lowest non-zero calibration standard or calibration
check sample concentration at or less than the RL. RLs have been established in this CIMP based on the
verifiable levels and general measurement capabilities demonstrated for each method. These RLs should
be considered as maximum allowable RLs to be used for laboratory data reporting. Note that samples
diluted for analysis may have sample-specific RLs that exceed these RLs. This will be unavoidable on
occasion. However, if samples are consistently diluted to overcome matrix interferences, the analytical
laboratory will be required to notify the RH/SGRWQG regarding how the sample preparation or test
procedure in question will be modified to reduce matrix interferences so that project RLs can be met
consistently.
Analytical methods, MDLs, and RLs required for samples analyzed in the laboratory are summarized in
Table E-2, Table E-3, and Table E-4 for analysis in water, sediment, and tissue, respectively. For
organic constituents, environmentally relevant detection limits will be used to the extent practicable. The
RLs listed in Table E-2 are consistent with the requirements of the available minimum levels provided in
the MRP, except for total dissolved solids, which was set equal to the minimum level identified in the
California State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s (SWAMP)
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 115 -
QAPP. Alternative methods with RLs that are at or below those presented in Table E-2, Table E-3, and
Table E-4 are considered equivalent and can be used in place of the methods presented in Table E-2,
Table E-3, and Table E-4.
Prior to the analysis of any environmental samples, the laboratory must have demonstrated the ability to
meet the minimum performance requirements for each analytical method presented in Table E-2,
Table E-3, and Table E-4. The initial demonstration of capability includes the ability to meet the
project-specified Method Detection Limits and Reporting Limits, the ability to generate acceptable
precision and accuracy, and other analytical and quality control constituents documented in this CIMP.
Data quality objectives for precision and accuracy are summarized in Table E-5.
Table E-2 Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis
of Water Samples
Parameter/Constituent Method1 Units Project
RL
MRP Table E-2
ML
Toxicity
Pimephales promelas
EPA-821-R-02-013
(1000.0) and EPA-821-
R-02-012 (2000.0)
NA NA NA
Ceriodaphnia dubia
EPA-821-R-02-013
(1002.0) and EPA-821-
R-02-012 (2002.0)
NA NA NA
Selenastrum capricornutum EPA-821-R-02-013
(1003.0) NA NA NA
Bacteria
Escherichia coli SM 9221 MPN/100mL 10 235
Conventionals
Oil and Grease EPA 1664A mg/L 5 5
Cyanide SM 4500-CN E mg/L 0.005 0.005
pH SM 4500 H+B/ EPA
9040/ EPA 9045D NA NA 0-14
Dissolved Oxygen NA mg/L 0.5 Sensitive to 5
Specific Conductance EPA 120.1 μs/cm 1 1
Turbidity EPA 180.1 NTU 0.1 0.1
Total Hardness SM 2340C mg/L 2 2
Dissolved Organic Carbon SM 5310B mg/L 0.6 NA
Total Organic Carbon SM 5310B mg/L 1 1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon EPA 1664 mg/L 5 5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand SMOL-5210 mg/L 5 2
Chemical Oxygen Demand SM 5220D mg/L 20 20-900
MBAS SM 5540C mg/L 0.5 0.5
Chloride EPA 300.0 mg/L 1 2
Fluoride EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.1 0.1
Sulfate EPA 375.4 mg/L 1 NA
Perchlorate EPA 314.0 μg/L 4 4
Chlorophyll a SM 10200 H mg/L 0.01 NA
Dissolved Phosphorus SM 4500-P E mg/L 0.05 0.05
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 116 -
Table E-2 Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis
of Water Samples
Parameter/Constituent Method1 Units Project
RL
MRP Table E-2
ML
Total Phosphorus SM 4500-P E mg/L 0.05 0.05
Orthophosphate-P EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.2 NA
Ammonia (as N) SM 4500-NH3 C mg/L 0.1 0.1
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.1 0.1
Nitrate (as N) EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.1 0.1
Nitrite (as N) EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.1 0.1
Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen SM 4500-NH3 C mg/L 0.1 0.1
Total Alkalinity SM 2320B mg/L 2 2
Solids
Suspended Sediment
Concentration ASTMD 3977-97 mg/L 3 NA
Total Suspended Solids SM 2540D mg/L 2 2
Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C mg/L 10 2
Volatile Suspended Solids EPA 1684 mg/L 1 2
Metals in Freshwater (dissolved and total)
Aluminum EPA 200.8 μg/L 100 100
Antimony EPA 200.8 μg/L 0.5 0.5
Arsenic EPA 200.8 μg/L 1 1
Beryllium EPA 200.8 μg/L 0.5 0.5
Cadmium EPA 200.8 μg/L 0.25 0.25
Chromium (total) EPA 200.8 μg/L 0.5 0.5
Chromium (Hexavalent) EPA 200.8 μg/L 5 5
Copper EPA 200.8 μg/L 0.5 0.5
Iron EPA 200.8 μg/L 100 100
Lead EPA 200.8 μg/L 0.5 0.5
Mercury EPA 1631 μg/L 0.5 0.5
Nickel EPA 200.8 μg/L 1 1
Selenium EPA 200.8 μg/L 1 1
Silver EPA 200.8 μg/L 0.25 0.25
Thallium EPA 200.8 μg/L 1 1
Zinc EPA 200.8 μg/L 1 1
OC Pesticides
Aldrin EPA 608 ng/L 5 5
alpha-BHC EPA 608 ng/L 10 10
beta-BHC EPA 608 ng/L 5 5
delta-BHC EPA 608 ng/L 5 5
gamma-BHC (Lindane) EPA 608 ng/L 20 20
Chlordane-alpha EPA 608 ng/L 100 100
Chlordane-gamma EPA 608 ng/L 100 100
Oxychlordane EPA 608 ng/L 200 NA
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 117 -
Table E-2 Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis
of Water Samples
Parameter/Constituent Method1 Units Project
RL
MRP Table E-2
ML
Cis-nonachlor EPA 608 ng/L 200 NA
Trans-nonachlor EPA 608 ng/L 200 NA
2,4'-DDD EPA 625/ 8270C ng/L 2 NA
2,4'-DDE EPA 625/ 8270C ng/L 2 NA
2,4'-DDT EPA 625/ 8270C ng/L 2 NA
4,4’-DDD EPA 625/ 8270C ng/L 50 50
4,4’-DDE EPA 625/ 8270C ng/L 50 50
4,4’-DDT EPA 625/ 8270C ng/L 10 10
Dieldrin EPA 608 ng/L 10 10
Endosulfan I EPA 608 ng/L 20 20
Endosulfan II EPA 608 ng/L 10 10
Endosulfan Sulfate EPA 608 ng/L 50 50
Endrin EPA 608 ng/L 10 10
Endrin Aldehyde EPA 608 ng/L 10 10
Heptachlor EPA 608 ng/L 10 10
Heptachlor Epoxide EPA 608 ng/L 10 10
Toxaphene EPA 608 ng/L 500 500
PCBs
Congeners2 EPA 625/ 8270C ng/L 2 NA
Aroclors (1016, 1221, 1232,
1242, 1248, 1254, 1260) EPA 608/625/ 8270C ng/L 500 500
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Chlorpyrifos EPA 614 ng/L 50 50
Diazinon EPA 614 ng/L 10 10
Malathion EPA 614 ng/L 1000 1000
Triazine
Atrazine EPA 530 μg/L 2 2
Cyanazine EPA 530 μg/L 2 2
Prometryn EPA 530 μg/L 2 2
Simazine EPA 530 μg/L 2 2
Dioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD EPA 1613 ng/L 0.005 NA
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 118 -
Table E-2 Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis
of Water Samples
Parameter/Constituent Method1 Units Project
RL
MRP Table E-2
ML
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
OCDD EPA 1613 ng/L 0.025 NA
OCDF EPA 1613 ng/L 0.050 NA
Herbicides
2,4-D EPA 8151A μg/L 10 10
Glyphosate EPA 547 μg/L 5 5
2,4,5-TP-SILVEX EPA 8151A μg/L 0.5 0.5
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol EPA 625 μg/L 10 10
2,4-Dichlorophenol EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
2,4-Dimethylphenol EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
2,4-Dinitrophenol EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
2,4-Dinitrotoluene EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
2,6-Dinitrotoluene EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
2-Chloronaphthalene EPA 625 μg/L 10 10
2-Chlorophenol EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
2-Nitrophenol EPA 625 μg/L 10 10
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
4-Nitrophenol EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
Acenaphthene EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
Acenaphthylene EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
Anthracene EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
Benzidine EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
Benzo(a)anthracene EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
Benzo(a)pyrene EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene EPA 625 μg/L 10 10
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
Benzo(k)fluoranthene EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
Benzyl butyl phthalate EPA 625 μg/L 10 10
bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 119 -
Table E-2 Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis
of Water Samples
Parameter/Constituent Method1 Units Project
RL
MRP Table E-2
ML
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
Chrysene EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene EPA 625 μg/L 0.1 0.1
Diethyl phthalate EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
Dimethyl phthalate EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
Di-n-butylphthalate EPA 625 μg/L 10 10
Di-n-octylphthalate EPA 625 μg/L 10 10
Fluoranthene EPA 625 μg/L 0.05 0.05
Fluorene EPA 625 μg/L 0.1 0.1
Hexachlorobenzene EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
Hexachlorobutadiene EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
Hexachloro-cyclo pentadiene EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
Hexachloroethane EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene EPA 625 μg/L 0.05 0.05
Isophorone EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
Naphthalene EPA 625 μg/L 0.2 0.2
Nitrobenzene EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
N-Nitroso-dimethyl amine EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
N-Nitroso-di-n-propyl amine EPA 625 μg/L 5 5
Pentachlorophenol EPA 625 μg/L 2 2
Phenanthrene EPA 625 μg/L 0.05 0.05
Total Phenols EPA 625 mg/L 0.2 0.1
Phenol EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
Pyrene EPA 625 μg/L 0.05 0.05
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
Methyl tert-butyl ether
(MTBE) EPA 625 μg/L 1 1
RL – Reporting Limit
NA – Not applicable
1 Methods may be substituted by an equivalent method that is lower than or meets the project RL.
2 To allow comparison of potential source and effect all congeners across each matrix is analyzed. Analysis for
PCB congeners includes the following constituents: PCB-8, 18, 28, 31, 33, 37, 44, 49, 52, 56, 60, 66, 70, 74,
77, 81, 87, 95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 119, 123, 126, 128, 132, 138, 141, 149, 151, 153, 156, 157,
158, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 177, 180, 183, 187, 189, 194, 195, 201, 203, 206, and 209.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 120 -
Table E-3 Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis
of Sediment
Parameter/Constituent Method1 Units Project RL
General Parameters
% Solids EPA 1684 % NA
Total Organic Carbon SM5310B % Dry Weight 0.05
Chlordane Compounds
alpha-Chlordane USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
gamma-Chlordane USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
Oxychlordane USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
trans-Nonachlor USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
cis-Nonachlor USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
Other OC Pesticides
2,4'-DDD USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
2,4'-DDE USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
2,4'-DDT USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
4,4'-DDD USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
4,4'-DDE USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
4,4'-DDT USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.5
Total DDT USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g NA
Dieldrin USEPA 8081A/8270C ng/dry g 0.02
PAHs
1-Methylnaphthalene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
1-Methylphenanthrene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
2-Methylnaphthalene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Acenaphthene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Anthracene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Benzo(a)anthracene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Benzo(a)pyrene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Benzo(e)pyrene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Biphenyl USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Chrysene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Fluoranthene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Fluorene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Naphthalene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Perylene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Phenanthrene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Pyrene USEPA 8270C/8270D - SIM ng/dry g 20
Total PCBs2 USEPA 8270C/8270D-SIM ng/dry g 0.2
Metals
Cadmium EPA 6020 μg/dry g 0.05
Copper EPA 6020 μg/dry g 0.05
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 121 -
Table E-3 Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis
of Sediment
Parameter/Constituent Method1 Units Project RL
Lead EPA 6020 μg/dry g 0.05
Silver EPA 6020 μg/dry g 0.05
Zinc EPA 6020 μg/dry g 0.05
RL = Reporting Limit
NA = Not applicable
1 Methods may be substituted by an equivalent method that is lower than or meets the project RL.
2 To allow comparison of potential source and effect all congeners across each matrix is analyzed. Analysis for
PCBs includes the following constituents: PCB-8, 18, 28, 31, 33, 37, 44, 49, 52, 56, 60, 66, 70, 74, 77, 81, 87,
95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 119, 123, 126, 128, 132, 138, 141, 149, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 167,
168, 169, 170, 174, 177, 180, 183, 187, 189, 194, 195, 201, 203, 206, and 209.
Table E-4 Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis
of Tissue
Parameter/Constituent Method1 Units Project RL
Chlordane2 EPA 8270C ng/dry g 5
Dieldrin EPA 8270C ng/dry g 5
PCBs(3) EPA 8270C ng/dry g 5
RL = Reporting Limit
NA = Not applicable
1 Methods may be substituted by an equivalent method that is lower than or meets the project RL.
2 Analysis for chlordane includes the following constituents: alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, oxychlordane,
cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor.
3 To allow comparison of potential source and effect all congeners across each matrix is analyzed. Analysis for
PCBs includes the following constituents: PCB-8, 18, 28, 31, 33, 37, 44, 49, 52, 56, 60, 66, 70, 74, 77, 81, 87,
95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 119, 123, 126, 128, 132, 138, 141, 149, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 167,
168, 169, 170, 174, 177, 180, 183, 187, 189, 194, 195, 201, 203, 206, and 209.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 122 -
Table E-5 Data Quality Objectives
Parameter/Constituent Accuracy Precision Recovery Completeness
Field Measurements
Water Velocity (for Flow calc.) 2% NA NA 90%
pH + 0.2 pH units + 0.5 pH units NA 90%
Temperature + 0.5 °C + 5% NA 90%
Dissolved Oxygen + 0.5 mg/L + 10% NA 90%
Turbidity 10% 10% NA 90%
Conductivity 5% 5% NA 90%
Laboratory Analyses – Water
Conventionals and Solids 80 – 120% 0 – 25% 80 – 120% 90%
Aquatic Toxicity 1 2 NA 90%
Nutrients3 80 – 120% 0 – 25% 90 – 110% 90%
Metals3 75 – 125% 0 – 25% 75 – 125% 90%
Dioxin) 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
Semi-Volatile Organics3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
Volatile Organics3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
Triazines3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
Herbicides3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
OC Pesticides3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
PCB Congeners3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
PCB Aroclors3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
OP Pesticides3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
Laboratory Analyses – Sediment
% Solids NA NA NA 90%
Total Organic Carbon 80 – 120% 0 – 25% 80 – 120% 90%
OC Pesticides3 25 – 140% 0 – 30% 25 – 140% 90%
PCB Congeners3 60 – 125% 0 – 30% 60 – 125% 90%
PAHs3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
Metals3 60 – 130% 0 – 30% 60 – 130% 90%
Laboratory Analyses – Tissue
Chlordane3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
DDTs3 35 – 140% 0 – 30% 35 – 140% 90%
Dieldrin3 50 – 150% 0 – 25% 50 – 150% 90%
1 Must meet all method performance criteria relative to the reference toxicant test.
2 Must meet all method performance criteria relative to sample replicates.
3 See Table E-2, Table E-3, and Table E-4 for a list of individual constituents in each suite for water, sediment,
and tissue, respectively.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 123 -
E.1.2.1 Method Detection Limit Studies
Any laboratory performing analyses under this program must routinely conduct MDL studies to document
that the MDLs are less than or equal to the project-specified RLs. If any analytes have MDLs that do not
meet the project RLs, the following steps must be taken:
¾Perform a new MDL study using concentrations sufficient to prove analyte quantitation at
concentrations less than or equal to the project-specified RLs per the procedure for the
Determination of the Method Detection Limit presented in Revision 1.1, 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 136, 1984.
¾No samples may be analyzed until the issue has been resolved. MDL study results must
be available for review during audits, data review, or as requested. Current MDL study
results must be reported for review and inclusion in project files.
An MDL is developed from seven aliquots of a standard containing all analytes of interest spiked at five
times the expected MDL. These aliquots are processed and analyzed in the same manner as
environmental samples. The results are then used to calculate the MDL. If the calculated MDL is less
than 0.33 times the spiked concentration, another MDL study should be performed using lower spiked
concentrations.
E.1.2.2 Project Reporting Limits
Laboratories generally establish RLs that are reported with the analytical results—these may be called
reporting limits, detection limits, reporting detection limits, or several other terms used by the reporting
laboratory. These laboratory limits must be less than or equal to the project RLs listed in Table E-2.
Wherever possible, project RLs are lower than the relevant numeric criteria or toxicity thresholds.
Laboratories performing analyses for this project must have documentation to support quantitation at the
required levels.
E.1.2.3 Laboratory Standards and Reagents
All stock standards and reagents used for standard solutions and extractions must be tracked through the
laboratory. The preparation and use of all working standards must be documented according to
procedures outlined in each laboratory’s Quality Assurance Manual; standards must be traceable
according to USEPA, A2LA or National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) criteria. Records
must have sufficient detail to allow determination of the identity, concentration, and viability of the
standards, including any dilutions performed to obtain the working standard. Date of preparation,
analyte or mixture, concentration, name of preparer, lot or cylinder number, and expiration date, if
applicable, must be recorded on each working standard.
E.1.3 Sample Containers, Storage, Preservation, and Holding Times
Sample containers must be pre-cleaned and certified free of contamination according to the USEPA
specification for the appropriate methods. Sample container, storage and preservation, and holding time
requirements are provided in Table E-6. The analytical laboratories will supply sample containers that
already contain preservative as listed in Table E-6, including ultra-pure hydrochloric and nitric acid,
where applicable. After collection, samples will be stored at 4°C until arrival at the contract laboratory.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 124 -
Table E-6 Sample Container, Sample Volume, Initial Preservation, and Holding
Time Requirements for Constituents Analyzed at a Laboratory
Constituent Sample
Container
Sample
Volume1
Immediate
Processing and
Storage
Holding
Time
Water
Toxicity
Initial Screening Glass or
FLPE-lined
jerrican
40 L Store at 4°C 36 hours2 Follow-Up Testing
Phase I TIE
E. coli (fresh) PE 120 mL Na2S2O3 and Store
at 4°C 8 hours
Oil and Grease PE 250 mL HCl and Store at
4°C 28 days
Chlorophyll a Amber PE 1 L Store at 4°C
Filter w/in
48 hours,
28 days
Cyanide PE 1 L NaOH and Store at
4°C 14 days
Dissolved Organic Carbon PE 250 mL Store at 4°C Filter/28
days
Total Organic Carbon PE 250 mL H2SO4 and Store at
4°C 28 days
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Glass 1 L HCl or H2SO4 and
Store at 4°C 7/40 days3
Biochemical Oxygen Demand PE 1L Store at 4°C 48 hours
Chemical Oxygen Demand PE 500 mL H2SO4 and Store at
4°C 28 days
MBAS PE 1 L Store at 4°C 48 hours
Fluoride PE 500 mL None required 28 days
Chloride PE 250 mL Store at 4°C 28 days
Sulfate 28 days
Boron PE 250-mL Store at 4°C 180 days
Perchlorate PE 500 mL Store at 4°C 28 days
Nitrate Nitrogen
PE 250 mL Store at 4°C 48 hours Nitrite Nitrogen
Orthophosphate-P
Ammonia Nitrogen
Glass 250-mL H2SO4 and Store at
4°C 28 days Total and Dissolved Phosphorus
Organic Nitrogen
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen PE 250 mL H2SO4 and Store at
4°C 28 days
Total Alkalinity PE 500 mL Store at 4°C 14 days
Suspended Sediment Concentration PE 250 mL Store at 4°C 120 days
Total Suspended Solids PE 250 mL Store at 4°C 7 days
Total Dissolved Solids PE 250 mL Store at 4°C 7 days
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 125 -
Table E-6 Sample Container, Sample Volume, Initial Preservation, and Holding
Time Requirements for Constituents Analyzed at a Laboratory
Constituent Sample
Container
Sample
Volume1
Immediate
Processing and
Storage
Holding
Time
Volatile Suspended Solids PE 250 mL Store at 4°C 7 days
Hardness PE 500 mL Store at 4°C 180 days
Metals 6 months4
Mercury Glass 500 mL Store at 4°C 48 Hours
Dioxin Amber
glass 2 x 1 L Store at 4°C 1 year
PCBs, OC Pesticides, OP Pesticides,
Triazine Pesticides
Amber
glass 4 x 1 L Store at 4°C 7/40 days3
Suspended Solids Analysis for Organics
and Metals
Amber
glass 20 x 1 L Store at 4°C 1 year5
Herbicides Glass 2 x 40 mL Thiosulfate and
Store at 4°C 14 days
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Glass 2 x 1 L Store at 4°C 7 days
Volatile Organic Compounds VOA 3 x 40 mL HCl and Store at
4°C 14 days
Sediment
% Solids
Glass 2 x 8 oz
jar Store at 4°C
7 days
Total Organic Carbon 1 year6
OC Pesticides, PCBs, PAHs 1 year5 Metals
Tissue
% Lipids
teflon
sheet 200 g Store on dry ice 1 year5 Chlordane
DDTs
Dieldrin
PE – Polyethylene
1 Additional volume may be required for QC analyses.
2 Tests should be initiated within 36 hours of collection. The 36-hour hold time does not apply to subsequent
analyses for TIEs. For interpretation of toxicity results, samples may be split from toxicity samples in the
laboratory and analyzed for specific chemical constituents. All other sampling requirements for these samples
are as specified in this document for the specific analytical method. Results of these analyses are not for any
other use (e.g., characterization of ambient conditions) because of potential holding time exceedances and
variance from sampling requirements.
3 7/40 = 7 days to extract and 40 days from extraction to analysis.
4 6 months after preservation.
5 One year if frozen, otherwise 14 days to extract and 40 days from extraction to analysis.
6 One year if frozen, otherwise 28 days.
E.1.4 Aquatic Toxicity Testing and Toxicity Identification Evaluations
Aquatic toxicity testing at long term characterization sites supports the identification of BMPs that
eliminate urban runoff sources of toxicity or removes them to the maximum extent practicable. The
RH/SGRWQG will evaluate aquatic toxicity samples according to the approach described in the following
sections. Control measures and management actions to address confirmed toxicity caused by urban
runoff are discussed in the Adaptive Management section of the EWMP.
The appro
which des
conducted
will be us
If after th
and asses
samples.
determine
generally
directed b
The sub-
modificati
identificat
oach to aqua
scribes the s
d twice per ye
sed to evaluat
he first year o
ssment will be
Monitoring
ed necessary
persist for le
by the LARWQ
sections belo
ons will be
tion of urban
Figu
tic toxicity m
pecific evalua
ear in wet-we
te toxicity acr
of monitoring
e performed
begins in t
y during the
ess than the a
QCB. Dry-we
ow describe
made as n
runoff caused
ure E-1 Gen
onitoring at l
ation process
eather and on
ross sites and
the results ar
with available
the RW and
e toxicity as
acute test per
eather sample
the process
necessary aft
d toxicity.
neralized Aq
Rio Hondo/
- 126 -
long term cha
s for each sa
nce per year i
d inform follo
re inconclusiv
e data prior t
is only perf
sessment pr
riod (48 hour
es will be ass
s and its tec
ter evaluating
quatic Toxici
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
aracterization
ample collecte
in dry-weathe
ow-up assessm
ve as describe
to initiation o
formed at u
rocess. Alth
rs), chronic te
sessed using
chnical and
g the first
ity Assessm
el River Wat
Integrated M
n sites is show
ed as part of
er. The first
ments of the
ed below, a d
of any dischar
urban runoff
hough wet-w
esting method
seven day ch
logistical rat
year of data
ent Process
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
wn in Figure
f routine sam
year of moni
causes of to
discharge scre
rge aquatic to
discharge si
weather cond
ds will be use
hronic test pe
tionale. Pro
a to best e
s
Group
ogram
e E-1,
mpling
toring
oxicity.
eening
oxicity
ites if
ditions
ed, as
eriods.
ogram
ensure
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 127 -
E.1.4.1 Summary of Previous Relevant Studies
A 2005-2006 aquatic toxicity study was performed by the SMC1. The study area included the SGR main
stem and tributaries and was performed following significant improvements to POTWs to remove
ammonia and metals, and just after diazinon and chlorpyrifos use restrictions and bans. The pesticide
bans were effective beginning in 2005, and some tributary toxicity was attributed to remaining use of the
pesticides. The researchers generally found much lower rates of significant toxicity to Ceriodaphia dubia
than a previous study performed in the 1990’s. The SMC study is used as a model for this aquatic
toxicity program to evaluate urban runoff effects, with a focus on replacement pesticides (e.g.,
pyrethroids) that are now commonly used and have additive synergistic effects that are more difficult to
identify.
E.1.4.2 Sensitive Species Selection
The MRP (page E-32) states that a sensitivity screening to select the most sensitive test species should
be conducted unless “a sensitive test species has already been determined, or if there is prior knowledge
of potential toxicant(s) and a test species is sensitive to such toxicant(s), then monitoring shall be
conducted using only that test species.” Previous relevant studies conducted in the watershed should be
considered. Such studies may have been completed via previous MS4 sampling, wastewater NPDES
sampling, or special studies conducted within the watershed. The following discuss the species selection
process for assessing aquatic toxicity in RWs.
As described in the MRP (page E-31), if samples are collected in RWs with salinity less than
1 part per thousand (ppt), or from outfalls discharging to RWs with salinity less than 1 ppt, toxicity tests
should be conducted on the most sensitive test species in accordance with species and short-term test
methods in Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and RWs to Freshwater
Organisms (EPA/821/R-02/013, 2002; Table IA, 40 CFR Part 136). The freshwater test species identified
in the MRP are:
¾A static renewal toxicity test with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Larval
Survival and Growth Test Method 1000.04).
¾A static renewal toxicity test with the daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia (Survival and
Reproduction Test Method 1002.05).
¾A static renewal toxicity test with the green alga, Selenastrum capricornutum (also
named Raphidocelis subcapitata) (Growth Test Method 1003.0).
The three test species were evaluated to determine if either a sensitive test species had already been
determined, or if there is prior knowledge of potential toxicant(s) and a test species is sensitive to such
toxicant(s). In reviewing the available data in the watershed, metals, historical organics, and currently
used pesticides have been identified as problematic and are generally considered the primary aquatic life
toxicants of concern found in urban runoff. Given the knowledge of the presence of these potential
toxicants in the watershed, the sensitivities of each of the three species were considered to evaluate
which is the most sensitive to the potential toxicants in the watershed.
Ceriodaphnia dubia (C. dubia) has been reported as a sensitive test species for historical and current use
pesticides and metals, and studies indicate that it is more sensitive to the toxicants of concern than
Pimephales promelas (P. promelas) or Selenastrum capricornutum (S. capricornutum). In Aquatic Life
Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria - Copper, the USEPA reports greater sensitivity of C. dubia to copper
1 Schiff, K., Bax, B., Markle, P., Fleming, T. and Newman, J. 2007. Wet and Dry Weather Toxicity in the San Gabriel
River. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences: Vol. 106: Iss. 3. Available at:
http://scholar.oxy.edu/scas/vol106/iss3/2
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 128 -
(species mean acute value of 5.93 μg/l) compared to P. promelas (species mean acute value of 69.93
μg/l; EPA, 2007). C. dubia’s relatively higher sensitivity to metals is common across multiple metals.
Additionally, researchers at the University of California (UC), Davis reviewed available reported species
sensitivity values in developing pesticide criteria for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The UC Davis researchers reported higher sensitivity of C. dubia to diazinon and bifenthrin
(species mean acute value of 0.34 μg/l and 0.105 μg/l) compared to P. promelas (species mean acute
value of 7804 μg/l and 0.405 μg/l; Palumbo et al., 2010a,b). Additionally, a study of the City of Stockton
urban stormwater runoff found acute and chronic toxicity to C. dubia, with no toxicity to S. capricornutum
or P. promelas (Lee and Lee, 2001). The toxicity was attributed to organophosphate pesticides,
indicating a higher sensitivity of C. dubia compared to S. capricornutum or P. promelas. C. dubia is also
the test organism selected to assess the ambient toxicity of the LAR by the LAR Watershed Monitoring
Program and has been the most-sensitive species to the Donald C. Tillman and the Los Angeles-Glendale
Water Reclamation Plant effluent as well as the LAR RW in the vicinity of the water treatment plants.
While P. promelas is generally less sensitive to metals and pesticides, this species can be more sensitive
to ammonia than C. dubia. However, as ammonia is not typically a constituent of concern for urban
runoff and ammonia is not consistently observed above the toxic thresholds in the watershed, P.
promelas is not considered a particularly sensitive species for evaluating the impacts of urban runoff in
RWs in the watershed.
S. capricornutum is a species sensitive to herbicides. However, while sometimes present in urban runoff,
herbicides are not identified as a potential toxicant in the watershed. Additionally, S. capricornutum is
not considered the most sensitive species as it is not sensitive to pyrethroids or organophosphate
pesticides and is not as sensitive to metals as C. dubia. Additionally, the S. capricornutum growth test
can be affected by high concentrations of suspended and dissolved solids, color, and pH extremes, which
can interfere with the determination of sample toxicity. As a result, it is common to manipulate the
sample by centrifugation and filtration to remove solids to conduct the test; however, this process may
affect the toxicity of the sample. In a study of urban highway stormwater runoff (Kayhanian et. al,
2008), S. capricornutum response to the stormwater samples was more variable than the C. dubia and
the P. promelas and in some cases the algal growth was possibly enhanced due to the presence of
stimulatory nutrients. Also, in a study on the City of Stockton urban stormwater runoff (Lee and Lee,
2001) the S. capricornutum tests rarely detected toxicity where the C. dubia and the P. promelas
regularly detected toxicity.
As C. dubia is identified as the most sensitive to known potential toxicant(s) typically found in RWs and
urban runoff in the freshwater potions of the watershed, C. dubia is selected as the most sensitive
species. The species also has the advantage of being easily maintained in house mass cultures. The
simplicity of the test, the ease of interpreting results, and the smaller volume necessary to run the test,
make the test a valuable screening tool. The ease of sample collection and higher sensitivity will support
assessing the presence of ambient RW toxicity or long term effects of toxic stormwater over time.
Toxicity testing in the freshwater portions of the watershed will be conducted using C. dubia. However,
C. dubia test organisms are typically cultured in moderately hard waters (80-100 mg/L CaCO3) and can
have increased sensitivity to elevated water hardness greater than 400 mg/L CaCO3), which is beyond
their typical habitat range. Because of this, in instances where hardness in site waters exceeds 400 mg/L
(CaCO3), an alternative test species may be used. Daphnia magna is more tolerant to high hardness
levels and is a suitable substitution for C. dubia in these instances (Cowgill and Milazzo, 1990).
E.1.4.3 Testing Period
The following describes the testing periods to assess toxicity in samples collected in the EWMP area
during dry- and wet-weather conditions. Although the duration of watershed storms better conforms to
acute toxicity testing methodologies, the RH/SGRWQG will assess undiluted grab sample aquatic toxicity,
using survival and reproductive endpoints, based on a C. dubia seven (7) day testing period in
accordance with Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 129 -
Waters to Freshwater Organisms (USEPA, 2002a), as instructed by the LARWQCB. It is unclear that
applying chronic testing methods, to grab or 24 our composite samples, will simulate the chronic
conditions which would actually be found in the RW that is intended to be simulated by toxicity testing.
Similar to wet-weather samples, chronic toxicity tests will be used to assess both survival and
reproductive/growth endpoints for C. dubia in dry-weather samples. Chronic testing will be conducted on
undiluted samples in accordance with Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents
and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (USEPA, 2002a).
The MS4 Permit specifies that the Permittees shall collect and analyze samples from RW monitoring
locations to evaluate the extent and cause of toxicity in RW. Accordingly, chronic toxicity samples will be
taken from RW sites, and not from outfall sites.
E.1.4.4 Toxicity Endpoint Assessment and Toxicity Identification
Evaluation (TIE) Triggers
Part XII.G.4, of Attachment E to the 2012 MS4 Permit directs that toxicity test endpoint data be analyzed
using the Test of Significant Toxicity (TST) t-test approach specified by the USEPA (USEPA, 2010), with
the chronic In-stream Waste Concentration (IWC) set at 100% RW, for RW samples, and 100% effluent,
for Stormwater and NSW Outfall samples. Based on Attachment E, Part XII.I, a follow-up TIE will be
triggered, for chronic C. dubia aquatic toxicity testing, if a statistically significant, greater than, or equal
to, fifty percent reduction in survival or reproduction is observed between the undiluted runoff water
sample and laboratory control. The TIE procedure will be initiated as soon as possible after the toxicity
trigger threshold is observed, to reduce the potential loss of toxicity associated with sample storage. If
Pathogen Related Mortality (PRM), epibiont interference, or other alternative cause of morbidity or
mortality is readily apparent, the test results will be rejected and if necessary, a modified procedure
developed for future testing.
In cases where significant toxic endpoint effects are observed in the sample, triggering the TIE, but the
TIE sample baseline does not produce a statistically significant outcome in comparison to the TIE control,
the toxicity cause will be considered non-persistent and no additional testing of the original sample is
required. If this pattern is repeated thrice consecutively for a specific location and condition, future
toxicity test results should be evaluated to determine if parallel TIE treatments are warranted to provide
an improved opportunity to identify the toxicity cause.
E.1.4.5 Toxicity Identification Evaluation Approach
The results of toxicity testing will be used to trigger further investigations to determine the cause of
observed laboratory toxicity. The primary purpose of conducting TIEs is to support the identification of
management actions that will result in the removal of pollutants causing toxicity in RWs. Successful TIEs
will direct monitoring at outfall sampling sites to inform management actions. The goal of conducting
TIEs is to identify pollutant(s) that should be sampled during outfall monitoring so that management
actions can be identified to address the pollutant(s).
The TIE approach is divided into three phases as described in USEPA’s 1991 Methods for Aquatic TIEs –
Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures – Second Edition (EPA/600/6-9/003) and briefly summarized
as follows:
¾Phase I utilizes methods to characterize the physical/chemical nature of the constituents
which cause toxicity. Such characteristics as solubility, volatility and filterability are
determined without specifically identifying the toxicants. Phase I results are intended as
a first step in specifically identifying the toxicants but the data generated can also be
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 130 -
used to develop treatment methods to remove toxicity without specific identification of
the toxicants.
¾Phase II utilizes methods to specifically identify toxicants.
¾Phase III utilizes methods to confirm the suspected toxicants.
A Phase I TIE will be conducted on samples that exceed a TIE trigger described above. Water quality
data will be reviewed to future support evaluation of potential toxicants. TIEs will perform the
manipulations described in Table E-7. TIE methods will generally adhere to USEPA procedures
documented in conducting TIEs (USEPA, 1991, 1992, 1993a-b).
Table E-7 Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluation Sample Manipulations
TIE Sample Manipulation Expected Response*
pH Adjustment (pH 7 and 8.5) Alters toxicity in pH sensitive compounds (i.e., ammonia and some
trace metals)
Filtration or centrifugation Removes particulates and associated toxicants
Ethylenedinrilo-Tetraacetic
Acid (EDTA) Chelates trace metals, particularly divalent cationic metals
Sodium thiosulfate (STS)
addition
Reduces toxicants attributable to oxidants (i.e., chlorine) and some
trace metals
Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Reduces toxicity from organophosphate pesticides such as diazinon,
chlorpyrifos and malathion, and enhances pyrethroid toxicity
Carboxylesterase addition Hydrolyzes pyrethroids
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE)
with C18 column
Removes non-polar organics (including pesticides) and some
relatively non-polar metal chelates
Sequential Solvent Extraction
of C18 column Further resolution of SPE-extracted compounds for chemical analyses
No Manipulation Baseline test for comparing the relative effectiveness of other
manipulations
* Recommended Stormwater Testing Treatments. Appendix E, State Water Resources Control Board June 2012
Public Review Draft “Policy for Toxicity Assessment and Control”.
The RH/SGRWQG will identify the cause(s) of toxicity using the treatments in Table E-7 and, if possible,
using the results of water column chemistry analyses. After any initial determinations of the cause of
toxicity, the information may be used during future events to modify the targeted treatments to more
closely target the expected toxicant or to provide additional treatments to narrow the toxicant cause(s).
Moreover, if the toxicant or toxicant class is not initially identified, toxicity monitoring during subsequent
events will confirm if the toxicant is persistent or a short-term episodic occurrence.
As the primary goals of conducting TIEs is to identify pollutants for incorporation into outfall monitoring,
narrowing the list of toxicants following Phase I TIEs via Phase II or III TIEs is not necessary if the
toxicant class determined during the Phase I TIE is sufficient for: (1) identifying additional pollutants for
outfall monitoring; and/or (2) identifying control measures. Thus, if the specific pollutant(s) or the
analytical class of pollutant (e.g., metals that are analyzed via USEPA Method 200.8) are identified then
sufficient information is available to inform the addition of pollutants to outfall monitoring.
Phase II TIEs may be utilized to identify specific constituents causing toxicity in a given sample if
information beyond what is gained via the Phase I TIE and review of chemistry data is needed to identify
constituents to monitor or management actions. Phase III TIEs will be conducted following any Phase II
TIEs.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 131 -
For the purposes of determining whether a TIE is inconclusive, TIEs will be considered inconclusive if:
¾The toxicity is persistent (i.e., observed in the positive control), and
¾The cause of toxicity cannot be attributed to a class of constituents (e.g., insecticides,
metals, etc.) that can be targeted for monitoring.
If (1) a combination of causes that act in a synergistic or additive manner are identified; (2) the toxicity
can be removed with a treatment or via a combination of the TIE treatments; or (3) the analysis of water
quality data collected during the same event identify the pollutant or analytical class of pollutants, the
result of a TIE is considered conclusive.
Note that the MRP (page E-33) allows a TIE Prioritization Metric (as described in Appendix E of the
Southern California SMC’s Model Monitoring Program) for use in ranking sites for TIEs. However, as the
extent to which TIEs will be conducted is unknown, prioritization cannot be conducted at this time.
However, prioritization may be utilized in the future based on the results of toxicity monitoring and an
approach to prioritization will be developed through the CIMP adaptive management process and will be
described in future versions of the CIMP.
E.1.4.6 Follow Up on Toxicity Testing Results
The MRP (page E-33) indicates the following actions should be taken when a toxicant or class of toxicants
is identified through a TIE:
¾RH/SGRWQG Members shall analyze for the toxicant(s) during the next scheduled
sampling event in the discharge from the outfall(s) upstream of the RW location.
¾If the toxicant is present in the discharge from the outfall at levels above the applicable
RW limitation, a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) will be performed for that toxicant.
¾The list of constituents monitored at outfalls identified in the CIMP will be modified based
on the results of the TIEs.
Monitoring for constituents identified based on the results of a TIE will occur as soon as feasible following
the completion of a successful TIE (i.e., the next monitoring event that is at least 45 days following the
toxicity laboratory’s report transmitting the results of a successful TIE).
The requirements of the TREs will be met as part of the adaptive management process in the EWMP
rather than conducted via the CIMP. The identification and implementation of control measures to
address the causes of toxicity are tied to management of the stormwater program, not the CIMP. It is
expected that the requirements of TREs will only be conducted for toxicants that are not already
addressed by an existing MS4 Permit requirement (i.e., TMDLs) or existing or planned management
actions.
E.1.4.7 Summary of Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
The approach to conducting aquatic toxicity monitoring as described in the previous sections of this
Attachment is summarized in detail in Figure E-2. The intent of the approach is to identify the cause of
toxicity observed in RW to the extent possible with the toxicity testing tools available, thereby directing
outfall monitoring for the pollutants causing toxicity with the ultimate goal of supporting the development
and implementation of management actions.
1 Test fa
sampling
2 For fresh
chronic
weather
the follo
3 The goa
the toxic
analytica
informat
monitori
Fi
ilure includes
g event.
hwater, the TIE
(dry-weather)
r, a follow up sa
ow up sample e
al of conducting
cant(s) into the
al class of tox
tion is availab
ing.
gure E-2 De
pathogen or e
E threshold is e
test. If a 5
ample will be c
exhibits a 50%
g Phase I TIEs
e list of constit
xicants (i.e., m
le to inform t
etailed Aqua
epibont interfe
equal to or gre
50% effect in
collected within
% effect, a TIE
s is to identify
tuents monitore
metals that ar
the addition of
Rio Hondo/
- 132 -
atic Toxicity
erence, which
eater than 50%
a sub-lethal e
n two weeks of
will be initiate
the cause of t
ed during outfa
re analyzed vi
f pollutants to
/San Gabrie
Coordinated
y Assessmen
should be ad
% (50%) mor
endpoint for ch
f the completio
ed.
toxicity so that
all monitoring.
ia EPA Metho
o the list of p
el River Wat
Integrated M
nt Process
ddressed prior
rtality in an acu
hronic test is o
n of the initial
t outfall monito
Thus, if speci
d 200.8) are
pollutants mon
ter Quality G
Monitoring Pro
to the next t
ute (wet-weath
observed durin
sample collecti
oring can incor
ific toxicant(s)
identified, suf
itored during
Group
ogram
toxicity
her) or
ng dry-
ion. If
rporate
or the
fficient
outfall
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 133 -
E.1.5 Bioassessment/Macrobenthic Community Assessment
The LACFCD has indicated that it will continue its participation in the SMC Regional Bioassessment
Monitoring Program on behalf of the RH/SGRWQG. Thus no specific monitoring and analytical
procedures are included in the CIMP at this time. If in the future, such monitoring is necessary under
this program, the CIMP will be revised to include appropriate procedures.
E.1.5.1 List of Laboratories Conducting Analysis
The chosen laboratories will be able to meet the measurement quality objectives set forth in Table E-2
through Table E-5. Laboratories will meet California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
(ELAP) and/or National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) certifications and any
data quality requirements specified in this document. Due to contracting procedures and solicitation
requirements, qualified laboratories have not yet been selected to carry out the analytical responsibilities
described in this CIMP. Selected laboratories will be listed along with laboratory certification information
in Table E-8. Following the completion of the first monitoring year, the CIMP will be updated to include
the pertinent laboratory specific information. At the end of all future monitoring years the RH/SGRWQG
will assess the laboratories performance and at that time a new laboratory may be chosen.
Table E-8 Summary of Laboratories Conducting Analysis for the RH/SGRWQG
CIMP
Laboratory1 General Category of Analysis Lab Certification No. & Expiration Date2
1 Information for all laboratories will be added to this table following their selection and upon CIMP update.
2 Lab certifications are renewed on an annual basis.
E.1.5.2 Alternate Laboratories
In the event that the laboratories selected to perform analyses for the RH/SGRWQG CIMP are unable to
fulfill data quality requirements outlined herein (e.g., due to instrument malfunction), alternate
laboratories need to meet the same requirements that the primary laboratory have met. The original
laboratory selected may recommend a qualified laboratory to act as a substitute. However, the final
decision regarding alternate laboratory selection rests with the Project Manager and Project QA Manager.
E.2 Sampling Methods and Sample Handling
The following sections describe the steps to be taken to properly prepare for and initiate water quality
sampling for the RH/SGRWQG CIMP.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 134 -
E.2.1 Monitoring Event Preparation
Monitoring event preparation includes preparation of field equipment, placing bottle orders, and
contacting the necessary personnel regarding site access and schedule. The following steps will be
completed two weeks prior to each sampling event (a condensed timeline may be appropriate in storm
events, which may need to be completed on short notice):
1. Contact laboratories to order sample containers and to coordinate sample transportation
details.
2. Confirm scheduled monitoring date with field crew(s), and set-up sampling day itinerary
including sample drop-off.
3. Prepare equipment.
4. Prepare sample container labels and apply to bottles.
5. Prepare the monitoring event summary and field log sheets to indicate the type of field
measurements, field observations and samples to be collected at each of the monitoring
sites.
6. Verify that field measurement equipment is operating properly (i.e., check batteries,
calibrate, etc.)
Table E-9 provides a checklist of field equipment to prepare prior to each monitoring event.
Table E-9 Field Equipment Checklist
Monitoring Plan
Sample Containers plus Extras with Extra Lids
Pre-Printed, Waterproof Labels (extra blank sheets)
Event Summary Sheets
Field Log Sheets
Chain of Custody Forms
Bubble Wrap
Coolers with Ice
Tape Measure
Paper Towels or “Rags in a Box”
Safety Equipment
First Aid Kit
Cellular Telephone
Gate Keys
Hip Waders
Plastic Trash Bags
Sealable Plastic Bags
Grab Pole
Clean Secondary Container(s)
Field Measurement Equipment
New Powder-Free Nitrile Gloves
Pens
Stop Watch
Camera
Blank Water
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 135 -
E.2.1.1 Bottle Order/Preparation
Sample container orders will be placed with the appropriate analytical laboratory at least two weeks prior
to each sampling event. Containers will be ordered for all water samples, including quality control
samples, as well as extra containers in case the need arises for intermediate containers or a replacement.
The containers must be the proper type and size and contain preservative as appropriate for the specified
laboratory analytical methods. Table E-6 presents the proper container type, volume, and immediate
processing and storage needs. The field crew must inventory sample containers upon receipt from the
laboratory to ensure that adequate containers have been provided to meet analytical requirements for
each monitoring event. After each event, any bottles used to collect water samples will be cleaned by
the laboratory and either picked up by or shipped to the field crew.
E.2.1.2 Container Labeling and Sample Identification Scheme
All samples will be identified with a unique identification code to ensure that results are properly reported
and interpreted. Samples will be identified such that the site, sampling location, matrix, sampling
equipment and sample type (i.e., environmental sample or QC sample) can be distinguished by a data
reviewer or user. Sample identification codes will consist of a site identification code, a matrix code, and
a unique sample ID number. The format for sample ID codes is RHSGR- ###.# - AAAA - XXX, where:
¾RHSGR indicates that the sample was collected as part of the RH/SGRWQG CIMP.
¾### identifies the sequentially numbered monitoring event, and # is an optional
indicator for re-samples collected for the same event. Sample events are numbered from
001 to 999 and will not be repeated.
¾AAAA indicates the unique site identification code assigned to each site. Site
identification codes are provided in Table E-10.
¾XXX identifies the sample number unique to a sample bottle collected for a single event.
Sample bottles are numbered sequentially from 001 to 999 and will not be repeated
within a single event.
Table E-10 Summary of RH/SGRWQG Receiving Water Monitoring Sites
Site ID Water Body Represented Coordinates Monitoring Type
Latitude Longitude LTA TMDL
RHSGR_RH3_ARC Rio Hondo Reach 3 34.089836 -118.033828 X X
RHSGR_LDW_BDW Little Dalton Wash 34.099445 -117.926766 X X
RHSGR_SAN_DD Santa Anita Wash 34.106200 -118.016150 X
RHSGR_SAW_PR Sawpit Wash 34.106140 -118.006921 X
RHSGR_PRP_LAKE Peck Road Park Lake 34.104531 -118.011307 X
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 136 -
Custom bottle labels should be produced using blank waterproof labels and labeling software. Labels will
be placed on the appropriate bottles in a dry environment; applying labels to wet sample bottles should
be avoided. Labels should be placed on sides of bottles rather than on bottle caps. All sample containers
will be pre-labeled before each sampling event to the extent practicable. Pre-labeling sample containers
simplifies field activities, leaving only sample collection time and date and field crew initials to be filled
out in the field. Custom labels will be produced using blank water-proof labels. This approach will allow
the site and analytical constituent information to be entered in advance and printed as needed prior to
each monitoring event. Labels should include the following information:
¾Program Name
¾Station ID
¾Sample ID
¾Date
¾Collection Time
¾Sampling Personnel
¾Analytical Requirements
¾Preservative Requirements
¾Analytical Laboratory
E.2.1.3 Field Meter Calibration
Calibration of field measurement equipment is performed as described in the owner’s manuals for each
individual instrument. Each individual field crew will be responsible for calibrating their field
measurement equipment. Field monitoring equipment must meet the requirements outlined in
Table E-1 and be calibrated before field events based on manufacturer guidance, but at a minimum
prior to each event. Each calibration will be document on each event’s calibration log sheet (presented in
Appendix 1).
If calibration results do not meet manufacturer specifications, the field crew should first try to recalibrate
using fresh aliquots of calibration solution. If recalibration is unsuccessful, new calibration solution
should be used and/or maintenance should be performed. Each attempt should be recorded on the
equipment calibration log. If the calibration results cannot meet manufacturer’s specifications, the field
crew should use a spare field measuring device that can be successfully calibrated. Additionally, the
Project Manager should be notified.
Calibration should be verified using at least one calibration fluid within the expected range of field
measurements, both immediately following calibration and at the end of each monitoring day. Individual
constituents should be recalibrated if the field meters do not measure a calibration fluid within the range
of accuracy presented in Table E-1. Calibration verification documentation will be retained in the event’s
calibration verification log (presented in Appendix 1). Table E-11 outlines the typical field instrument
calibration procedures for each piece of equipment requiring calibration. Results of calibration checks will
be recorded on the calibration log sheet.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 137 -
Table E-11 Calibration of Field Measurement Equipment
Equipment/
Instrument
Calibration and Verification
Description
Frequency
of
Calibration
Frequency
of
Calibration
Verification
Responsible
Party
pH Probe
Calibration for pH measurement is
accomplished using standard buffer
solutions. Analysis of a mid-range
buffer will be performed to verify
successful calibration.
Day prior to
1st day or 1st
day of
sampling
event
After each
day’s
calibration
and at the
end of the
sampling day
Individual
Sampling
Crews
Temperature
Temperature calibration is factory-set
and requires no subsequent
calibration.
Dissolved
Oxygen
Probe
Calibration for dissolved oxygen
measurements is accomplished using a
water saturated air environment.
Dissolved oxygen measurement of
water-saturated air will be performed
and compared to a standard table of
DO concentrations in water as a
function of temperature and
barometric pressure to verify
successful calibration.
Conductivity
Conductivity calibration will follow
manufacturer’s specifications. A
mid-range conductivity standard will
be analyzed to verify successful
calibration.
Turbidity
Turbidity calibration will follow
manufacturer’s specifications. A mid-
range turbidity standard will be
analyzed to verify successful
calibration.
E.2.1.4 Weather Conditions
To ensure a cohesive and cost-effective CIMP, dry- and wet-weather conditions for RW, TMDL,
Stormwater Outfall, and NSW Outfall monitoring will be defined as the following:
¾Wet-weather conditions, suitable to trigger monitoring, will be defined as a National
Weather Service forecast of 70 percent, or greater, probability of greater than
0.25 inches of precipitation, with at least 0.15 inches within one six hour period, where
the 72 hours preceding the storm produce less than 0.1 inches of rain each day.
¾Dry-weather is defined as days with less than 0.1 inches of rain per day, for at least
three days prior to the event at the most representative LACDPW controlled rain gauges
within the jurisdictional area.
Note that if rainfall begins after dry-weather monitoring has been initiated, then dry-weather monitoring
will be suspended and continued on a subsequent day when weather conditions meet the dry-weather
conditions. Generally, grab samples will be collected during dry-weather and composite samples will be
collected during wet-weather. Grab samples will be used for dry-weather sampling events because the
composition of the RW will change less over time; and thus, the grab sample can sufficiently characterize
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 138 -
the RW. Grab samples during dry-weather are consistent with similar programs within the region.
However, to sufficiently characterize the RW during wet-weather, composite samples will generally be
used for wet-weather sampling events. Grab samples may be utilized to collect wet-weather sampling in
certain situations, which may include, but are not limited to, when the constituent of interest requires the
use of grab samples (e.g., E. coli and oil and grease), situations where it is unsafe to collect composite
samples, or to perform investigative monitoring where composite sampling or installation of an automatic
sample compositor (autosampler) may not be warranted.
The MRP includes specific criteria for the time of monitoring events. With the exception of bacteria and
metals monitoring, most constituents will be monitored during two dry-weather monitoring events. For
dry-weather toxicity monitoring, sampling must take place during the historically driest month. As a
result, the dry-weather monitoring event that includes toxicity monitoring will be conducted in July. The
second dry-weather monitoring event will take place during January unless sampling during another
month is deemed to be preferable.
The first significant rain event of the storm year (first flush) will be monitored. The targeted storm
events for wet-weather sampling will be selected based on a reasonable probability that the events will
result in substantially increased flows in the Rio Hondo and SGR over at least 12 hours. Sufficient
precipitation is needed to produce runoff and increase flow. The decision to sample a storm event will be
made in consultation with weather forecasting information services after a quantitative precipitation
forecast (QPF) has been determined. All efforts will be made to collect wet-weather samples from all
sites during a single targeted storm event. However, safety or other factors may make it infeasible to
collect samples from a given storm event. For example, storm events that will require field crews to
collect wet-weather samples during holidays and/or weekends may not be sampled due to sample
collection or laboratory staffing constraints.
For a storm to be tracked, the first flush event will have a predicted rainfall of at least 0.25 inches with at
least a 70 percent probability of rainfall 24 hours prior to the forecasted time of initial rainfall. Because a
significant storm event is based on predicted rainfall, it is recognized that this monitoring may be
triggered without 0.25 inches of rainfall actually occurring. In this case, the monitoring event will still
qualify as meeting this requirement provided that sufficient sample volume is collected to do all required
laboratory analysis. Documentation will be provided showing the predicted rainfall amount.
Subsequent storm events must meet the tracking requirements, flow objectives, as well as be separated
by a minimum of three days of dry-weather. Antecedent conditions will be based on the LACDPW rain
gauge listed in Table E-12. The rain gauge has been used to define wet- and dry-weather during TMDL
monitoring in the watershed since 2009. Data can be obtained over the internet at the following
location:
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Precip/index.cfm
Once on the County site, click the ‘See Data’ link in the “Near Real-Time Precipitation Map” section. The
web page displays a map showing real-time rainfall totals (in inches) for different rain gauges. Although
the default precipitation period is 24 hours, the user can view rainfall totals over different durations.
Data from the rain gauges is updated every 10 minutes.
Table E-12 Real-Time Rain Gauge Used to Define Weather Conditions for CIMP
Monitoring
Jurisdictional Group Rainfall Gauge Gauge Type
RH/SGRWQG Santa Fe Dam (USC)
(#3377)
LACDPW ALERT
Rainfall Gauge
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 139 -
The targeted storm events for wet-weather sampling will be selected based on a reasonable probability
that the events will result in substantially increased flows in the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo River for at
least 12 hours. Sufficient precipitation is needed to produce runoff and increase flow. The decision to
sample a storm event will be made in consultation with weather forecasting information services after a
QPF has been determined. All efforts will be made to collect wet-weather samples from all sites during a
single targeted storm event. However, safety or other factors may make it infeasible to collect samples
from the same storm event.
For the purpose of triggering wet-weather sampling preparation, field staff can estimate that any rainfall
prediction of 0.1-0.5 inches in a 6- to 12-hour period at the Santa Fe Dam gate site would be sufficient to
mobilize for wet-weather sampling. The sampling crew should prepare to depart at the forecasted time
of initial rainfall. The first of the four manual composite samples should be targeted for collection within
2 hours of local rainfall.
Publicly available meteorological forecasting systems are suggested for identifying and anticipating storm
event sampling. The sampling decision protocol begins when the sampling crew recognizes an
approaching storm, through weekly monitoring of forecasts. The National Weather Service’s weather
forecast for downtown Los Angeles can be accessed on-line at:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/
Then click on “Los Angeles” on the area map.
From the forecast page, the link to “Quantitative Precipitation Forecast” provides forecasted precipitation
in inches for the next 24 hours, in 3-hour increments for the first 12 hours and in 6-hour increments for
the last 12 hours.
E.2.1.5 Flow Gauge Measurements
USGS flow gauges along the SGR will be used to determine whether the RW flow has exceeded the
20 percent threshold. Flows above the 20 percent threshold will classify the RW body as being in “wet”
conditions and flows that are less than the 20 percent threshold will be “dry” conditions. In addition to
the USGS rain gauges, field crews will monitor flow at each of the sampling sties. Table E-13 presents
the location of flow gauges located on the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo River
Table E-13 Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River Flow Gauges
Water Body Water Body Type Gauge Location Gauge ID
Rio Hondo River Main Stem Rio Hondo River above Whittier Narrows Dam RHR
San Gabriel River Main Stem SGR above Whittier Narrows Dam SGRW
San Gabriel River Main Stem SGR Below Santa Fe Dam SGRS
E.2.2 Sample Handling
Proper sampling handling ensures the samples will comply with the monitoring methods and analytical
hold time and provides traceable documentation throughout the history of the sample.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 140 -
E.2.2.1 Documentation Procedures
The Project Manager is responsible for ensuring that each field sampling team adheres to proper custody
and documentation procedures. Field log sheets documenting sample collection and other monitoring
activities for each site will be bound in a separate master logbook for each event. Field personnel have
the following responsibilities:
¾Keep an accurate written record of sample collection activities on the field log sheets.
¾Ensure that all field log sheet entries are legible and contain accurate and inclusive
documentation of all field activities.
¾Note errors or changes using a single line to cross out the entry and date and initial the
change.
¾Ensure that a label is affixed to each sample collected and that the labels uniquely
identify samples with a sample ID, site ID, date and time of sample collection and the
sampling crew initials.
¾Complete the chain of custody forms accurately and legibly.
E.2.2.2 Field Documentation/Field Log
Field crews will keep a field log book for each sampling event that contains a calibration log sheet, a field
log sheet for each site, and appropriate contact information. The following items should be recorded on
the field log sheet for each sampling event:
¾Monitoring station location (Site ID);
¾Date and time(s) of sample collection;
¾Name(s) of sampling personnel;
¾Sample depth;
¾Sample ID numbers and unique IDs for any replicate or blank samples;
¾QC sample type (if appropriate);
¾Requested analyses (specific constituents or method references);
¾Sample type (e.g., grab or composite);
¾The results of any field measurements (e.g., flow, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
conductivity, turbidity) and the time that measurements were made;
¾Qualitative descriptions of relevant water conditions (e.g., water color, flow level, clarity)
or weather (e.g., wind, rain) at the time of sample collection; and,
¾Trash observations;
¾Observations of recreational activities;
¾A description of any unusual occurrences associated with the sampling event, particularly
those that may affect sample or data quality.
The field log will be scanned into a PDF and transmitted along with the Post-Event Summary Report to
the Project Manager within one week of the conclusion of each sampling event. Appendix 1 contains an
example of the field log sheet.
E.2.2.3 Sample Handling and Shipment
The field crews will have custody of samples during each monitoring event. Chain-of-custody (COC)
forms will accompany all samples during shipment to contract laboratories to identify the shipment
contents. All water quality samples will be transported to the analytical laboratory by the field crew or by
overnight courier. The original COC form will accompany the shipment, and a signed copy of the COC
form will be sent, typically via fax, by the laboratory to the field crew to be retained in the project file.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 141 -
While in the field, samples will be stored on ice in an insulated container, so that they will be kept at less
than 6ÛC. Samples that must be shipped to the laboratory must be examined to ensure that container
lids are tight and placed on ice to maintain the temperature between 4°C. The ice packed with samples
must be approximately 2 inches deep at the top and bottom of the cooler, and must contact each sample
to maintain temperature. The original COC form(s) will be double-bagged in re-sealable plastic bags and
either taped to the outside of the cooler or to the inside lid. Samples must be shipped to the contract
laboratory according to Department of Transportation standards. The method(s) of shipment, courier
name, and other pertinent information should be entered in the “Received By” or “Remarks” section of
the COC form.
Coolers must be sealed with packing tape before shipping and must not leak. It is assumed that samples
in tape-sealed ice chests are secure whether being transported by field staff vehicle, by common carrier,
or by commercial package delivery. The laboratory’s sample receiving department will examine the
shipment of samples for correct documentation, proper preservation and compliance with holding times.
The following procedures are used to prevent bottle breakage and cross-contamination:
¾Bubble wrap or foam pouches are used to keep glass bottles from contacting one
another to prevent breakage, re-sealable bags will be used if available.
¾All samples are transported inside hard plastic coolers or other contamination-free
shipping containers.
¾The coolers are taped shut to prevent accidental opening.
¾If arrangements are not made in advance, the laboratory’s sample receiving personnel
must be notified prior to sample shipment.
All samples remaining after successful completion of analyses will be disposed of properly. It is the
responsibility of the personnel of each analytical laboratory to ensure that all applicable regulations are
followed in the disposal of samples or related chemicals.
Samples will be stored and transported at less than 6°C. The containers containing the water samples
for testing will be shipped to the toxicity testing laboratory for analysis. Samples will be sent to the
toxicity testing laboratory priority overnight on the same day that the 24-hour composite sample
collection process is completed. The individual sample containers containing the water samples for
chemical analysis will be shipped to the analytical chemistry laboratory for analysis.
Samples will be stored in coolers with ice and bubble wrap and delivered to the appropriate laboratory as
indicated in Table E-14. Appropriate contacts are listed along with lab certification information.
Table E-14 Analytical Laboratories
Laboratory Analysis Shipping
Method Contact Phone Address
Lab Certification
No. & Expiration
Date1
TBD Toxicity,
TIEs
Overnight
delivery
TBD Inorganic
Chemistry
Same day
delivery
TBD Pesticides
Overnight
delivery
or Courier
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 142 -
E.2.2.4 Chain-of Custody Forms
Sample custody procedures provide a mechanism for documenting information related to sample
collection and handling. Sample custody must be traceable from the time of sample collection until
results are reported. A sample is considered under custody if:
¾It is in actual possession.
¾It is in view after in physical possession.
¾It is placed in a secure area (accessible by or under the scrutiny of authorized personnel
only after in possession).
A COC form must be completed after sample collection and prior to sample shipment or release. The
COC form, sample labels, and field documentation will be cross-checked to verify sample identification,
type of analyses, number of containers, sample volume, preservatives, and type of containers. A
complete chain-of-custody form is to accompany the transfer of samples to the analyzing laboratory. A
typical chain-of-custody form is illustrated in Appendix 1.
E.2.2.5 Laboratory Custody Procedures
Contract laboratories will follow sample custody procedures as outlined in the laboratory’s Quality
Assurance Manual. A copy of each contract laboratory’s QA Manual is available at the laboratory upon
request. Laboratories shall maintain custody logs sufficient to track each sample submitted and to
analyze or preserve each sample within specified holding times. The following sample control activities
must be conducted at the laboratory:
¾Initial sample login and verification of samples received with the COC form;
¾Document any discrepancies noted during login on the COC;
¾Initiate internal laboratory custody procedures;
¾Verify sample preservation (e.g., temperature);
¾Notify the Project Manager if any problems or discrepancies are identified; and,
¾Perform proper sample storage protocols, including daily refrigerator temperature
monitoring and sample security.
Laboratories shall maintain records to document that the above procedures are followed. Once samples
have been analyzed, samples will be stored at the laboratory for at least 30 days. After this period,
samples may be disposed of properly.
E.2.3 Field Protocols
Briefly, the key aspects of quality control associated with sample collection for eventual chemical and
toxicological analyses are as follows:
¾Field personnel will be thoroughly trained in the proper use of sample collection gear and
will be able to distinguish acceptable versus unacceptable water samples in accordance
with pre-established criteria.
¾Field personnel will be thoroughly trained to recognize and avoid potential sources of
sample contamination (e.g., engine exhaust, ice used for cooling).
¾Sampling gear and utensils which come in direct contact with the sample will be made of
non-contaminating materials (e.g., borosilicate glass, high-quality stainless steel and/or
Teflon™, according to protocol) and will be thoroughly cleaned between sampling
stations according to appropriate cleaning protocol (rinsing thoroughly with laboratory
reagent water at minimum).
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 143 -
¾Sample containers will be of the recommended type and will be free of contaminants
(i.e., pre-cleaned).
¾Conditions for sample collection, preservation and holding times will be followed.
Field crews will be comprised of two persons per crew, minimum. For safety reasons, sampling will occur
during daylight hours, when possible. Sampling events should proceed in the following manner:
1. Before leaving the sampling crew base of operations, confirm number and type of sample
containers as well as the complete equipment list.
2. Proceed to the first sampling site.
3. Fill-out the general information on the field log sheet.
4. Collect the samples indicated on the event summary sheet in the manner described in
the CIMP. Collect additional volume and blank samples for field-initiated QA/QC samples,
if necessary. Place filled sample containers in coolers and carefully pack and ice samples
as described in the CIMP. Using the field log sheet, confirm that all appropriate
containers were filled.
5. Collect field measurements and observations, and record these on the field log sheet.
6. Repeat the procedures in steps 3, 4, and 5 for each of the remaining sampling sites.
7. Complete the COC forms using the field log sheets.
8. After sample collection is completed, deliver and/or ship samples to appropriate
laboratory.
E.2.4 Sample Collection
All samples will be collected in a manner appropriate for the specific analytical methods to be used. The
proper sampling techniques, outlined in this section, will ensure that the collected samples are
representative of the water bodies sampled. Should field crews feel that it is unsafe to collect samples
for any reason, the field crews SHOULD NOT COLLECT a sample and note on the field log that the
sample was not collected, why the sample was not collected, and provide photo documentation, if
feasible.
E.2.4.1 Overview of Sampling Techniques
As described below, the method used to collect water samples is dependent on the depth, flow and type
of outfall. Nonetheless, in all cases:
¾Throughout each sample collection event, the sampler should exercise aseptic techniques
to avoid any contamination (i.e., do not touch the inner surfaces or lip edges of the
sample bottle or cap).
¾The sampler should collect a single representative grab sample.
¾The sampler should use clean, powder-free, nitrile gloves for each site to prevent
contamination.
¾When collecting the sample, he or she should not breathe in the direction of the
container.
¾Gloves should be changed if they are soiled or if the potential for cross-contamination
exists from handling sampling materials or samples.
¾While the sample is collected, the bottle lid shall not be placed on the ground.
¾No eating or drinking during sample collection.
¾No smoking.
¾Never sample near a running vehicle. Do not park vehicles in immediate sample
collection area, even non-running vehicles.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 144 -
¾When the sample is collected leave ample air space (about 1 inch) in the bottle to facilitate
mixing by shaking for lab analysis.
¾After the sample is collected and the cap is tightly screwed back on the bottle, the time of
sampling should be recorded on the field tablet or log sheet.
¾Any QA/QC samples that are collected, as specified in Section E.3, should be also be
denoted on the field log sheet or field tablet and labeled according the convention
described in Section E.2.1.2.
¾Immerse samples in ice at least one third the height of the bottle.
¾Fill out COC form as described in Section E.2.2.4 and deliver to the appropriate lab within
6 hours of sample collection. Samples have a holding time of 6-hours from collection and
a 2-hour sample processing time after arriving at the laboratory (total time of 8 hours; not
to be exceeded).
To prevent contamination of samples, clean metal sampling techniques using USEPA protocols outlined in
USEPA Method 16692 will be used throughout all phases of the sampling and laboratory work, including
equipment preparation, sample collection, and sample handling, storage, and testing. All containers and
test chambers will be acid-rinsed prior to use. Filled sample containers will be kept on ice until receipt at
the laboratory.
The protocol for clean metal sampling, based on USEPA Method 1669, is summarized below:
¾Samples are collected in rigorously pre-cleaned sample bottles with any tubing specially
processed to clean sampling standards.
¾At least two persons, wearing clean, powder-free nitrile or latex gloves at all times, are
required on a sampling crew.
¾One person, referred to as “dirty hands”, opens only the outer bag of all double-bagged
sample bottles.
¾The other person, referred to as “clean hands”, reaches into the outer bag, opens the
inner bag and removes the clean sample bottle.
¾Clean hands rinses the bottle at least two times by submerging the bottle, removing the
bottle lid, filling the bottle approximately one-third full, replacing the bottle lid, gently
shaking and then emptying the bottle. Clean hands then collects the sample by
submerging the bottle, removing the lid, filling the bottle and replacing the bottle cap
while the bottle is still submerged.
¾After the sample is collected, the sample bottle is double-bagged in the opposite order
from which it was removed from the same double-bagging.
¾Clean, powder-free gloves are changed whenever something not known to be clean has
been touched.
¾The time of sample collection is recorded on the field log sheet.
To reduce potential contamination, sampling personnel will adhere to the following rules:
¾No smoking.
¾Never sample near a running vehicle. Do not park vehicles in the immediate vicinity of
the sample collection area (even non-running vehicles).
¾Do not eat or drink during sample collection.
¾Do not breathe, sneeze or cough in the direction of an open sample bottle.
2 USEPA. April 1995. Method 1669: Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels.
EPA 821-R-95-034.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 145 -
Each person on the field crew will wear clean clothing that is free of dirt, grease, or other substances that
could contaminate the sampling apparatus or sample bottles.
E.2.5 Field Measurements and Observations
Field measurements will be collected and observations made at each sampling site after a sample is
collected. Field measurements will include the constituents identified in the CIMP for which a laboratory
analysis is not being conducted. Field monitoring equipment must meet the requirements outlined in
Table E-6. Field measurements for sediment samples shall be collected from within one meter of the
sediment. All field measurement results and field observations will be recorded on a field log sheet
similar to the one presented in and as described in Section E.2 of this Attachment.
Measurements (except for flow) will be collected at approximately mid-stream, mid-depth at the location
of greatest flow (if feasible) with a Hydrolab DS4 multi-probe meter, or comparable instrument(s). If at
any time the collection of field measurements by wading appears to be unsafe, field crews will not
attempt to collect mid-stream, mid-depth measurements. Rather, field measurements will be made
either directly from a stable, unobstructed area at the channel edge, or by using a telescoping pole and
intermediate container to obtain a sample for field measurements and for filling sample containers. For
situations where flows are not sufficiently deep to submerge the probes, an intermediate container will be
utilized. The location of field measurements will be documented on the field log sheet.
Flow measurements will be collected as outlined in the following subsections at freshwater RW and NSW
outfall monitoring sites. Regardless of measurement technique used, if a staff gauge is present the
gauge height will be noted. Field crews may not be able to measure flow at several sites during wet-
weather because of inaccessibility of the site. If this is the case, site inaccessibility will be documented
on the field log sheet.
The field sampling crew has the primary responsibility for responding to failures in the sampling or
measurement systems. Deviations from established monitoring protocols will be documented in the
comment section of the field log sheet and noted in the post event summaries. If monitoring equipment
fails, monitoring personnel will report the problem in the notes section of the field log sheet and will not
record data values for the variables in question. Broken equipment will be replaced or repaired prior to
the next field use. Data collected using faulty equipment will not be used.
E.2.5.1 Velocity Meter Flow Measurements
For sampling sites where water is deep enough (>0.1-foot) a velocity meter will be utilized. For these
cases, velocity will be measured at approximately equal increments across the width of the flowing water
using a Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate® velocity meter3, which uses an electromagnetic velocity sensor. A
“flow pole” will be used to measure the water depth at each measurement point and to properly align the
sensor so that the depth of each velocity measurement is 0.6 * total depth, which is representative of the
average velocity. The distance between velocity measurements taken across the stream is dependent on
the total width. No more than 10% of the flow will pass through any one cross section.
E.2.5.2 Shallow Sheet Flow Measurements
If the depth of flow does not allow for the measurement of flow with a velocity meter (<0.1-foot) a
“float” will be used to measure the velocity of the flowing water. The width, depth, velocity, cross
section, and corresponding flow rate will be estimated as follows:
3 For more information, see http://marsh-mcbirney.com/Products/2000.htm
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 146 -
Sheet flow width: The width (W) of the flowing water (not the entire part of the channel that is damp)
is measured using a tape measure at the “top,” “middle,” and “bottom” of a marked-off distance –
generally 10 feet (e.g., for a 10-foot marked-off section, WTop is measured at 0-feet, WMid is measured at
5 feet, and WBottom is measured at 10 feet).
Sheet flow depth: The depth of the sheet flow is measured at the top, middle, and bottom of the
marked-off distance. Specifically, the depth (D) of the sheet flow is measured at 25%, 50%, and 75% of
the flowing width (e.g., DMid50% is the depth of the water at middle of the section in the middle of the
sheet flow) at each of the width measurement locations. It is assumed that the depth at the edge of the
sheet flow (i.e., at 0% and 100% of the flowing width) is zero.
Representative cross-section: Based on the collected depth and width measurements, the
representative cross-sectional area across the marked-off sheet flow is approximated as follows:
Sheet flow velocity: Velocity is calculated based on the amount of time it took a float to travel the
marked-off distance (typically 10-feet or more). Floats are normally pieces of leaves, litter, or floatables
(suds, etc.). The time it takes the float to travel the marked-off distance is measured at least three
times. Then average velocity is calculated as follows:
Average Surface Velocity = Distance Marked off for Float Measurement
Average Time for Float to Travel Marked off Distance
Flow Rate calculation: For sheet flows, based on the above measurements/estimates, the estimated
flow rate, Q, is calculated by:
Q = f x (Representative Cross Section) x (Average Surface Velocity)
The coefficient f is used to account for friction effects of the channel bottom. That is, the float travels on
the water surface, which is the most rapidly-traveling portion of the water column. The average velocity,
not the surface velocity, determines the flow rate, and thus f is used to “convert” surface velocity to
average velocity. In general, the value of f typically ranges from 0.60 – 0.90 (USGS 1982). Based on
flow rate measurements taken during the LA River Bacteria Source Identification Study (CREST 2008) a
value of 0.75 will be used for f.
E.2.5.3 Free-Flowing Outfalls
Some storm drain outfalls are free-flowing, meaning the runoff falls from an elevated outfall into the
channel, which allows for collection of the entire flowing stream of water into a container of known
volume (e.g., graduated bucket or graduated Ziploc bag). The time it takes to fill the known volume is
measured using a stopwatch, and recorded on the field log. The time it takes to fill the container will be
measured three times and averaged to ensure that the calculated discharge is representative. In some
}
{
)]2222(4[
)],2222(4[
)],2222(4[
Re
%75%50%75%25%50%25
%75%50%75%25%50%25
%75%50%75%25%50%25
BottomBottomBottomBottomBottomBottom
Bottom
MidMidMidMidMidMid
Mid
TopTopTopTopTopTop
Top
DDDDDDW
DDDDDDW
DDDDDDWAverage
SectionCrossvepresentati
u
u
u
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 147 -
cases, a small portion of the runoff may flow around or under the container. For each measurement,
“percent capture,” or the proportion of flow estimated to enter the bucket, will be recorded.
For free-flowing outfalls, the estimated flow rate, Q, is calculated by:
Based on measurements of free-flowing outfalls during the LA River Bacteria Source Identification Study
(CREST 2008), estimated capture typically ranges from 0.75 – 1.0.
E.2.6 Receiving Water Sample Collection
A grab sample is a discrete individual sample. A composite sample is mixture of grab samples collected
over a period of time either as time or flow weighted. A time weighted composite is created by mixing
multiple aliquots collected at specified time intervals. A flow weighted composite is created by mixing
multiple aliquots collected at equal time intervals but then mixed based on flow rate.
Composite samples are generally considered to be more representative of a given time period and
varying conditions over that time period, whereas grab samples represent an instant in time. Because
composite samples are more representative of a given time period they are generally used to develop an
understanding of pollutant loadings. In the case of TMDL monitoring, allocations in water are primarily
set as concentrations which are considered over varying averaging periods (1 hour, 4-day, and 30-day).
A composite sample collected over the averaging period timeframe would allow for a direct comparison to
allocations. However, there is varying averaging periods for the same constituents that would require
multiple composite samples and there are real logistical and hold time issues faced in collection of
composites over a 4 or 30-day period. Composite samples will be used for wet-weather sample collection
because they provide a better representation of the changing storm conditions.
Grab samples will be used for dry-weather sampling events, because the composition of the RW will
change less over time and thus the grab sample can sufficiently characterize it. Grab samples will be
collected at approximately mid-stream, mid-depth at the location of greatest flow (where feasible) by
direct submersion of the sample bottle. This is the preferred method for grab sample collection;
however, due to monitoring site configurations and safety concerns, direct filling of sample bottles may
not always be feasible, especially during wet events. Monitoring site configuration will dictate grab
sample collection technique. Grab samples will be collected directly into the appropriate bottles
whenever feasible (containing the required preservatives). Clean, powder-free nitrile gloves will be worn
while collecting samples. In the event that a peristaltic pump and priority-cleaned silicone and Teflon™
tubing are used as a last resort to collect samples (i.e., due to unsafe conditions during wet events), the
sample collection tubing and the sample bottle and lid shall come into contact only with surfaces known
to be clean, or with the water sample. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for collection of surface
water samples are provided in Section E.2.5.
The potential exists for monitoring sites to lack discernable flow. The lack of discernable flow may
generate unrepresentative data. To address the potential confounding interference that can occur under
such conditions, sites sampled should be assessed for the following conditions and sampled or not
sampled accordingly:
])()([CaptureEstimatedContainerFilltoTime
VolumecontainerFilledAverageQu
])()([CaptureEstimatedContainerFilltoTime
VolumecontainerFilledAverageQu
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 148 -
¾Pools of water with no flow or visible connection to another surface water body should
not be sampled. The field log should be completed for non-water quality data (including
date and time of visit) and the site condition should be photo-documented.
¾Flowing water (i.e., based on visual observations, flow meter data, and a
photo-documented assessment of conditions immediately upstream and downstream of
the sampling site) site should be sampled.
It is the combined responsibility of all members of the sampling crew to determine if the performance
requirements of the specific sampling method have been met, and to collect additional samples if
required. If the performance requirements outlined above or documented in sampling protocols are not
met, the sample will be re-collected. If contamination of the sample container is suspected, a fresh
sample container will be used. The Project Manager will be contacted if at any time the sampling crew
has questions about procedures or issues based on site-specific conditions.
E.2.6.1 Direct Submersion: Hand Technique
Where practical, all grab samples will be collected by direct submersion at mid-stream, mid-depth using
the following procedures.
¾Wear clean powder-free nitrile gloves when handling containers and lids. Change gloves
if soiled or if the potential for cross-contamination occurs from handling sampling
materials or samples.
¾Use pre-labeled sample containers as described in the Sample Container Labeling section.
¾Remove the lid, submerge the container to mid-stream/mid-depth, let the container fill
and secure the lid.
¾Place the sample on ice.
¾Collect the remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the
same protocols described above.
¾Fill out the COC form, note sample collection time on the field log sheet, and deliver
samples to the appropriate laboratory.
E.2.6.2 Intermediate Container Technique
Samples may be collected with the use of a specially cleaned intermediate container, if necessary,
following the steps listed below. A secondary container may include a container that is similar in
composition to the sample container or a pre-cleaned pitcher made of the same material as the sample
container.
¾Wear clean powder-free nitrile gloves when handling bottles and lids. Change gloves if
soiled or if the potential for cross-contamination occurs from handling sampling materials
or samples.
¾Use pre-labeled sample containers as described in the Sample Container Labeling section.
¾Submerge the intermediate container to mid-stream/mid-depth (if possible), let the
container fill, and quickly transfer the sample into the individual sample container(s) and
secure the lid(s).
¾Place the sample(s) on ice.
¾Collect remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the same
protocols described above.
¾Fill out the COC form, note sample collection time on the field log sheet, and deliver the
samples to the appropriate laboratory.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 149 -
Some flows may be too shallow to fill a container without using an intermediate container. When
collecting samples from shallow sheet flows it is very important to not scoop up algae, sediment, or other
particulate matter on the bottom because such debris is not representative of flowing water. To prevent
scooping up such debris either: (1) find a spot where the bottom is relatively clean and allow the sterile
intermediate container to fill without scooping; or (2) lay a clean sterile Ziploc® bag on the bottom and
collect the water sample from on top of the bag. A fresh Ziploc® bag must be used at each site.
E.2.6.3 Pumping
The use of a peristaltic pump is not anticipated to be necessary at the CIMP sites; however, information
is included here in case pump use becomes necessary due to safety concerns. Samples may be collected
with the use of a peristaltic pump and specially cleaned tubing following the steps listed below.
¾Wear clean powder-free nitrile gloves when handling bottles, lids, and pump tubing.
Change gloves if soiled or if the potential for cross-contamination occurs from handling
sampling materials or samples;
¾Use pre-labeled sample containers as described in the Sample Container Labeling
section;
¾Attach pre-cleaned tubing into the pump, exercising caution to avoid allowing tubing
ends to touch any surface known not to be clean. A separate length of clean tubing
must be used at each sample location for which the pump is used;
¾Place one end of the tubing below the surface of the water. To the extent possible,
avoid placing the tubing near the bottom of the channel so that settled solids are not
pumped into the sample container.
¾Hold the other end of the tubing over the opening of the sample container, exercising
care not to touch the tubing to the sample container.
¾Pump the necessary sample volume into the sample container and secure the lid;
¾Place the sample on ice;
¾Collect remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the same
protocols described above; and
¾Fill out the COC form, note sample collection time on the field log sheet, and deliver the
samples to appropriate laboratory.
E.2.6.4 Autosamplers
Automatic sample compositors are used to characterize the entire flow of a storm in one analysis. They
can be programmed to take aliquots at either time or flow based specified intervals. To setup and install
an automatic compositor it is recommended to read the manufacturer’s instructions, before beginning
setup in the field. The general steps to setup the sampler are described below.
1. Connect power source to automatic sampling computer. This can be in the form of a
battery or a power cable.
2. Install pre-cleaned tubing into the pump. Teflon coated tubing will be used from the
sample intake to the peristaltic pump and silicon tubing will be used inside the peristaltic
pump. Clean tubing will be used at each site and for each event, in order to minimize
contamination.
3. Attach strainer to intake end of the Teflon tubing and install in sampling channel.
4. If running flow based composite samples; install flow sensor in sampling channel and
connect it to the automatic compositor.
5. Install and label composite bottle. If sampler is not refrigerated, then add enough ice to
the composite bottle chamber to keep sample cold for the duration of sampling. Make
sure not to contaminate the inside of the composite bottle with any of the ice.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 150 -
6. Program the sampler as to the manufacturer’s instructions and make sure sampler is
powered and running before leaving the site.
After the sample collection is completed the following steps must be taken to ensure proper sample
handling.
1. Upon returning to the site, check the status of the sampler and record any errors or
missed samples. Note on the field log the time of the last sample, as this will be used for
filling out the COCs.
2. Remove composite bottle and store on ice at <6°C. If dissolved metals are required then
begin the sample filtration process outlined in Section E.2.6.5, within 15 minutes of the
last composite sample.
3. Power down automatic compositor and leave sampling site.
4. The composite sample will need to be split into the separate analysis bottles before being
shipped to the laboratory. This is best done in a clean and weatherproof environment,
using clean sampling technique.
E.2.6.5 Dissolved Metals Field Filtration
When feasible, samples for dissolved metals will be filtered in the field. The following describes an
appropriate dissolved field filtration method. An alternative an equivalent method may be utilized, if
necessary. A 50 mL plastic syringe with a 0.45 μm filter attached will be used to collect and filter the
dissolved metals sample in the field. The apparatus will either come certified pre-cleaned from the
manufacturer and confirmed by the analytical laboratory or be pre-cleaned by and confirmed by the
analytical laboratory at least once per year. The apparatus will be double bagged in Ziploc plastic bags.
To collect the sample for dissolved metals, first collect the total metals sample using clean sampling
techniques. The dissolved sample will be taken from this container. Immediately prior to collecting the
dissolved sample, shake the total metals sample. To collect the dissolved metals sample using clean
sampling techniques, remove the syringe from the bag and place the tip of the syringe into the bottle
containing the total metals sample and draw up 50 mL of sample into the syringe. Next, remove the
filter from the zip-lock bag and screw it tightly into the tip of the syringe. Then put the tip of the syringe
with the filter into the clean dissolved metals container and push the sample through the filter taking care
not to touch the inside surface of the sample container with the apparatus. The sample volume needs to
be a minimum of 20 mL. If the filter becomes clogged prior to generating 20 mL of sample, remove and
dispose of the used filter and replace it with a new clean filter (using the clean sampling techniques).
Continue to filter the sample. When 20 mL has been collected, cap the sample bottle tightly and store on
ice for delivery to the laboratory.
E.2.7 Stormwater Outfall Sample Collection
Stormwater outfalls will be monitored with similar methods as discussed in the RW sampling section.
Sampling will not be undertaken if the outfalls are not flowing or if conditions exist where the RW is back-
flowing into the outfall. It is the combined responsibility of all members of the sampling crew to
determine if the performance requirements of the specific sampling method have been met, and to
collect additional samples if required. If the performance requirements outlined above or documented in
sampling protocols are not met, the sample will be re-collected. If contamination of the sample container
is suspected, a fresh sample container will be used. The Project Manager will be contacted if at any time
the sampling crew has questions about procedures or issues based on site-specific conditions.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 151 -
E.2.7.1 Free-Flowing Outfalls
For outfalls that are free-flowing, the sterile bottle is immersed in the flowing water and allowed to fill.
The bottle should not be scraped against the side of the channel or any other structure near the flowing
water. If the outfall cannot be reached safely by immersing the bottle by hand, a grab pole can be used
instead. When using a grab pole, ensure that the sample container is properly attached.
E.2.8 Non-Stormwater Outfall Sample Collection
The outfall screening process is designed to identify outfalls that discharge significant NSW flow. All
outfalls with significant NSW discharges will be identified and assessed. If outfalls have significant flow
then the source of the flow will be found and determined if it is due to an illicit discharge or connection.
Outfalls that pose a potential threat to the RW will be monitored.
E.2.8.1 Preparation for Outfall Surveys
Preparation for outfall surveys includes preparation of field equipment, placing bottle orders, and
contacting the necessary personnel regarding site access and schedule. The following steps should be
completed two weeks prior to each outfall survey:
1. Check weather reports and LACDPW rain gauges to ensure that antecedent dry-weather
conditions are suitable.
2. Contact appropriate Flood Maintenance Division personnel from the Los Angeles County
Flood Control District to notify them of dates and times of any activities in flood control
channels.
3. Contact laboratories to order bottles and to coordinate sample pick-ups.
4. Confirm scheduled sampling date with field crews.
5. Set-up sampling day itinerary including sample drop-offs and pick-ups.
6. Compile field equipment.
7. Prepare sample labels.
8. Prepare event summaries to indicate the type of field measurements, field observations
and samples to be taken at each of the stations.
9. Prepare COCs.
10. Charge the batteries of field tablets (if used).
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 152 -
E.2.9 Stormborne Sediment Collection
The Peck Road Park Lakes TMDL and the Harbors Toxics TMDLs include requirements for the analysis of
water quality samples to assess the contribution of certain organic pollutants associated with bulk
sediment (Table E-15).
Table E-15 Categories of Constituents for Assessing Sediment Concentrations in
Water for the Peck Road Park Lake TMDLs and the Harbors Toxics
TMDL
General Category of
Constituent Harbors Toxics TMDLs Peck Road Park Lake TMDLs
Metals1 X
DDTs2 X X
Chlordanes2 X
Dieldrin X
PCBs2 X X
PAHs2 X
1 Metals include copper, lead, silver, and zinc.
2 See Table E-3 for a list of individual constituents in each category.
Most of the OC pesticides and PCBs and many of the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) tend to
strongly associate with sediment and organic material. These constituents commonly have octanol/water
partition coefficients (log Kow) that are greater than six, elevated soil/water partition coefficients (log Kd)
and elevated soil adsorption coefficients (log Koc). The lighter weight PAHs such as naphthalene,
acenaphthene and acenaphthylene tend to be more soluble in water and volatile. Concentrations of OC
pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs are often below or are very close to the limits of detection for conventional
analytical methods used for analyzing water samples. Although collection and filtration of high volumes
of stormwater will allow improved quantification of these constituents, it also introduces substantial
potential for introduction of errors.
Use of filtration methods in combination with conventional analytical methods requires collection of large
volumes of stormwater and a filtration processes to obtain the suspended sediment from the water
column. Use of conventional analytical methods for analysis of the filtered sediment is then expected to
require at least 5 grams of sediment (typically 10 grams is preferred by laboratories) for each of the
groups of analytes (metals, OC pesticides, PCBs and PAHs) to achieve detection limits necessary to
quantify loads. Efforts by the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County in the Ballona Creek and
Marina del Rey watersheds, respectively, have demonstrated the challenges associated with collecting
and analyzing suspended sediments. Assuming samples contain sediment at an average TSS
concentration of 100 mg/L and that all sediment could be recovered, analyses might require as much as
50 liters for each test method (total of 200 liters). An ongoing special study is underway in Marina del
Rey to evaluate a passive method for capturing sufficient sediment to conduct analysis. In Ballona Creek,
the City of Los Angeles has been successful in collecting sufficient volumes of sediment over the course
of a year to conduct the analysis. This allows for the quantification of annual loading; however, it does
not allow for an evaluation of concentrations and loads under various storm conditions. Although use of
lower sediment volumes may be possible, both detection limits and quality control measures might be
impacted. In Ballona Creek, duplicate and quality control analysis have been limited to the available
sediment, resulting in situations where either certain target constituents or quality control analysis are
not completed.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 153 -
Alternatively, a High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) analyses4 may be used to provide lower
detection levels. However, the HRMS process is eventually an experimental method and only would be
used if determined by the RH/SGRWQG to be acceptable. HRMS analyses are quantified by isotope
dilution techniques. Analytical performance is measured by analysis of Ongoing Precision and Recovery
(OPR) analyses and labeled compound recovery. Analysis of laboratory blanks address concerns of false
positives. In addition, these extremely low detection limits can be achieved with as little as 3-6 liters of
stormwater. These test methods provide detection limits that are roughly 100 times more sensitive than
conventional analytical methods. The HRMS may be preferable where the conventional methods for
analyzing the metals of interest are found to not be sufficiently sensitive to assess concentrations on
suspended sediments. Change in methods will be discussed in the commensurate annual report as
outlined in CIMP Section 10.
For purposes of load calculations, it would be assumed that 100% of OC pesticides, PCBs and PAHs were
associated with suspended solids. Separate analyses of TSS would be used to normalize the data. After
three years (approximately four to six storm events) the data will be reevaluated to assess whether
continued use of the HRMS approach remains to be beneficial. If deemed necessary, a modified
approach will be evaluated for analysis of filtered suspended sediments.
E.2.9.1 Sampling and Analytical Procedures
Stormwater samples for the Peck Road Park Lake TMDLs and the Harbors Toxics TMDLs will be collected
using autosamplers as described in Section E.2.6.4. Based on TSS measurements at three mass
emission sites in Los Angeles County (Table E-16), use of a TSS concentration of 100 mg/L is expected
to provide a conservative basis for estimating reporting limits for OC pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs in
suspended sediments based upon 1-liter samples. However, two liters of stormwater will be provided for
each organic analytical suite for a total of six liters. An accurate measure of suspended sediments is
critical to this sampling approach. TSS will be used as the standard for calculating the concentrations of
target constituents in suspended sediments and total loads.
Since detection limits will depend upon the concentration of suspended sediment in the sample, the
laboratory analyzing the suspended sediment concentrations will be asked to provide a rush analysis to
provide information that can be used to direct processing of the samples for the organic compounds. If
TSS is less than 150 mg/L, two liters will be extracted for subsequent HRMS analysis. If TSS
concentrations are between 150 and 200 mg/L, one of the additional liter samples may be used to
increase the volume of sample water for just PAHs or the additional liter may be used as a field duplicate
for each analysis. If TSS concentrations are greater than 200 mg/L, the additional liter may be used as a
field duplicate for each analysis. If the initial TSS sample indicates that sediment content is less than
50 mg/L, additional measures will be taken to improve PAH reporting limits with respect to suspended
sediment loads. A field duplicate from one site will be analyzed if adequate sample volumes are
obtained.
Target reporting limits (Table E-17 and Table E-18) were established based upon bed sediment
reporting limits listed in the Coordinated Compliance and Reporting Plan for the Greater Los Angeles and
Long Beach Harbor Waters (Anchor QEA, 2013). Table E-17 and Table E-18 provide a summary of the
detection limits attainable in water samples using HRMS analytical methods. Estimated detection limits
are provided for concentrations of the target constituents in suspended sediments given the assumption
that suspended sediment content of the water sample is 100 mg/L and that 100 percent of the target
constituents are associated with the suspended sediment. This provides a conservative assumption with
respect to evaluating the potential impacts of concentrations of OC pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs in
4 This approach will match the methods to compounds to analyze for OC pesticides (USEPA 1699), PCBs
(USEPA 1668) and PAHs (CARB).
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 154 -
suspended sediment on concentrations in bed sediment. Additionally, Table E-17 and Table E-18
present relevant TMDL targets and reporting limits suggested in the SWAMP QAPP (SWRCB, 2008) and
the Sediment Quality Objectives (SQO) Technical Support Manual (SCCWRP, 2009). The following
summarizes a comparison between the estimated detection limits for OC pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs in
the suspended sediments to target reporting limits:
¾For OC pesticides (Table E-17), estimated detection limits in the suspended sediment
are at or below TMDL targets limits for bed sediments, except for dieldrin. The dieldrin
estimated detection limit is above the lowest TMDL target, but not the remaining TMDL
targets, and is below observed concentrations reported in the TMDL staff reports.
Additionally, estimated detection limits in the suspended sediment are below target bed
sediment reporting limits for this CIMP and target reporting limits presented in the
SWAMP QAPP (SWRCB, 2008) and the SQO Technical Support Manual (SCCWRP, 2009),
except for dieldrin. Dieldrin is above the bed sediment reporting limit in this CIMP, but
below target reporting limits presented in the SWAMP QAPP (SWRCB, 2008) and the SQO
Technical Support Manual (SCCWRP, 2009).
¾For PCBs (Table E-17), estimated detection limits in the suspended sediment are below
TMDL targets limits for bed sediments. Additionally, estimated detection limits in the
suspended sediment are at or below target bed sediment reporting limits for this CIMP
and below target reporting limits presented in the SWAMP QAPP (SWRCB, 2008) and the
SQO Technical Support Manual (SCCWRP, 2009).
¾For PAHs (Table E-18), estimated detection limits in the suspended sediment are below
TMDL targets limits for bed sediments. Most individual PAH compounds would be
expected to be detectable in the suspended sediment at concentrations about 2.5 times
greater that the target bed sediment reporting limits for this CIMP and the target
reporting limits presented in the SWAMP QAPP (SWRCB, 2008). Approximately half of
the individual PAH compounds are above the target reporting limits presented in the SQO
Technical Support Manual (SCCWRP, 2009), while the other half are below. Two
compounds, naphthalene and phenanthrene, would have detection limits roughly 6 times
the target bed sediment reporting limits for this CIMP. Naphthalene is an extremely light
weight PAH that is not considered a major analyte of concern in storm water.
As noted previously, metals of interest are quantifiable with standard analytical methods. Detection limits
for trace metals (Table E-2) are suitable for calculation of concentrations in suspended solids and the
concentration of trace metals associated with the particulate fraction will be calculated as:
CP=CT-CD
where CT =Concentration of total recoverable metals
CD =Concentration of dissolved fraction
CP =Concentration of the particulate fraction
USEPA’s guidance document for development of metals translators (EPA, 1996) uses the same approach
for calculation of the trace metals in the particulate fraction.
In summary, all but one of the target reporting limits are below relevant TMDL targets and the
overwhelming majority are below bed sediment reporting limits identified in this CIMP and the SWAMP
QAPP (SWRCB, 2008) and SQO Technical Support Manual (SCCWRP, 2009). The approach to analyzing
whole water samples to estimate concentrations of target pollutants on bed sediment provides an
opportunity to improve the understanding of loads during multiple storms each year, while simultaneously
resolving the concentration levels necessary to determine compliance with WLAs.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 155 -
Table E-16 Summary of Median TSS Measurements (mg/L) at Two Mass Emission
Monitoring Sites in Los Angeles County
Water Body Los Angeles County Monitoring Site ID Median
Los Angeles River S10 143
San Gabriel River S14 113
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 156 -
Table E-17 Recommended Methods, Estimated Detection Limits, Target Reporting Limits, and Relevant TMDL
Targets for Organochlorine Pesticides and Total PCBs
Constituent
and Analytical
Method
Water
Detection
Limit1
Suspended
Sediment
Detection
Limit2
RH/SGR
CIMP
Target Bed
Sediment
Reporting
Limits
SWAMP
QAPP
(2008)
Reporting
Limit
SQO
Technical
Support
Manual
(2009)
Reporting
Limit
Harbors Toxics
TMDL
Sediment
Target
(Indirect
Effects)
Harbors
Toxics TMDL
Sediment
Target
(Direct
Effects)
Peck Road
Park Lake
Sediment
Target
(Indirect
Effects)
pg/L ng/g – dry wt
Chlordane Compounds (EPA 1699)
alpha-Chlordane 40 0.4 0.5 1 0.5
1.3
(Total
Chlordane)
0.5
(Total
Chlordane)
1.73
(Total
Chlordane)
gamma-
Chlordane 40 0.4 0.5 1 0.54
Oxychlordane 40 0.4 0.5 1 NA
trans-Nonachlor 40 0.4 0.5 1 4.6
cis-Nonachlor 40 0.4 0.5 2 NA
Other OC Pesticides (EPA 1699)
2,4'-DDD 40 0.4 0.5 2 0.5
1.9
(Total DDT)
1.58
(Total DDT)
5.28
(Total DDT)
2,4'-DDE 80 0.4 0.5 2 0.5
2,4'-DDT 80 0.4 0.5 3 0.5
4,4'-DDD 40 0.4 0.5 2 0.5
4,4'-DDE 80 0.4 0.5 2 0.5
4,4'-DDT 80 0.4 0.5 5 0.5
Total DDT 80 0.4 --- --- 0.5
Dieldrin 40 0.4 0.02 2 2.7 NA 0.02 0.8
Total PCBs
(EPA 1668) 5-20 0.05-0.2 0.2 0.2 3.0 3.2 22.7 1.29
NA = Not applicable
1 Water MLs based upon 1 liter of water.
2 Suspended Sediment MLs based upon estimate of 100 mg/L suspended solids.
3 Target is for the summed value of the individual constituents and is not specific to each constituent species.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 157 -
Table E-18 Estimated Detection Limits, Target Reporting Limits, and Relevant TMDL Targets for PAHs
Constituent
Water
Detection
Limit1
Suspended
Sediment
Detection
Limit2
RH/SGR CIMP
Target Bed
Sediment
Reporting Limits
SWAMP QAPP
(2009)
Reporting
Limit
SQO Technical
Support Manual
Reporting Limit
Harbors Toxics
TMDL Sediment
Target
(Direct Effects)
pg/L ng/g – dry wt
1-Methylnaphthalene 5 50 20 20 20
552
(Low Weight)3
1700
(High Weight)3
4700
(Total PAHs)
1-Methylphenanthrene 5 50 20 20 20
2-Methylnaphthalene 5 50 20 20 20
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 5 50 20 20 20
Acenaphthene 5 50 20 20 20
Anthracene 5 50 20 20 20
Benzo(a)anthracene 5 50 20 20 80
Benzo(a)pyrene 5 50 20 20 80
Benzo(e)pyrene 5 50 20 20 80
Biphenyl 5 50 20 20 20
Chrysene 5 50 20 20 80
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 5 50 20 20 80
Fluoranthene 5 50 20 20 80
Fluorene 5 50 20 20 20
Naphthalene 12.5 125 20 20 20
Perylene 5 50 20 20 80
Phenanthrene 12.5 125 20 20 20
Pyrene 5 50 20 20 80
NA = Not applicable
1 Water MLs based upon 1 liter of water and CARB 429m. Detection limits are based upon a final extract of 500 μL. If the SSC is low, either an additional liter
of water can be extracted to halve the detection limit or the final extract volume can be reduced. Depending on sample characteristics, the extract volume
can be reduced to as little as 50-100 μL which would drop MLs by a factor of 0.1 to 0.2 times the listed ML.
2 Suspended Sediment MLs based upon estimate of 100 mg/L suspended solids.
3 Low Molecular Weight PAHs Low weight PAHs include Acenaphthene, Anthracene, Phenanthrene, Biphenyl, Naphthalene, 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene, Fluorene,
1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, 1-methylphenanthrene, High Molecular Weight PAHs: Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(e)pyrene,
Chrysene, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Perylene, Pyrene.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 158 -
E.2.9.2 Sediment Sample Collection in Lakes
The top layer of sediment will be sampled from the bottom of the lake using an Eckman dredge or a
similar device. While on a boat, the field crew will drop the Eckman dredge to the bottom of the lake and
obtain a sample. Using a pre-cleaned stainless steel trowel, the field crew will scoop the top two to three
centimeters of the sample and place it in a clean polyethylene bag. This procedure will be repeated,
carefully to as not sample the exact same location, and the final composited sample will be mixed and
placed into the appropriate sample jars.
E.2.10 Bioaccumulation Sample Collection – Freshwater Reaches
Bioaccumulation sampling will be used to monitor trends in the concentration of contaminants in the
tissues of aquatic organisms. This will be conducted in order to assess both ecological and human health
concerns and to see if the trends or patterns of contaminant concentrations mirror those observed from
the sediment analyses. Human health concerns will be assessed by sampling the tissues from fish
species that are commonly taken for consumption by sport fisherman.
Fish sampling protocols shall be conducted in accordance with the California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) General Protocol for Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis. Fish may
be analyzed, as individuals (preferred) or as composites (secondary). During each survey, the goal will
be to collect at least nine fish per targeted species that are of legal size and/or edible size5. If fish are
analyzed as composite samples, each composite sample shall include a minimum of three fish, with up to
five fish per sample preferred, especially if smaller fish are caught (OEHHA, 2005). All fish composite
samples must follow OEHHA’s “75 percent rule,” where the length of the smallest fish should be at least
75% of the length of the largest fish of a species in a composite sample.
Fish sampling techniques may vary due to season, weather, flow rate, target species, etc. Sport fish may
be taken by hook and line or seine. Sampling gear may include electrofishing boats, backpack
electrofishers, seine nets, gill nets, trap nets, hook and line, or other equipment as required. Reasonable
attempts will be made to collect two to three species of sport fish; but, if sport fish cannot be obtained,
whatever species of fish, if any, that can be obtained will be collected and analyzed. However, data
collected from species that are not typically consumed will be for informational purposes only and not
considered representative of human health exposures. The more likely a species is to be consumed by
anglers, the greater the importance of information.
E.2.11 Trash Monitoring
E.2.11.1 LA River Trash TMDL
The following subsections describe the monitoring approaches for the trash TMDLs within the
RH/SGRWQG EWMP area: LAR Trash TMDL and the Peck Road Park Lake Trash TMDL.
The following RH/SGRWQG members are implementing the LAR Trash TMDL through the installation of
full capture devices: County of Los Angeles and Cities of Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia, and Sierra
Madre. No specific monitoring is required or will be conducted for the LA River Trash TMDLs for these
jurisdictions. The full capture approach is also being implemented within the drainage area of Peck Road
Park Lake, thereby addressing the requirements of the Peck Road Park Lake Trash TMDL, including the
monitoring requirements.
5 The Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Sport Fishing Regulations define legal size requirements using total
length. All size measurements are in terms of total length.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 159 -
E.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality control samples will be collected in conjunction with environmental samples to verify data quality.
Quality control samples collected in the field will generally be collected in the same manner as
environmental samples.
E.3.1 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control
This section describes the QA/QC requirements and processes. Quality control samples will be collected
in conjunction with environmental samples to verify data quality. Quality control samples collected in the
field will generally be collected in the same manner as environmental samples. There are no
requirements for quality control for field analysis of general constituents (e.g., temperature, pH,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH) outlined in SWAMP guidance documents. However, field crews
will be required to calibrate equipment as outlined in Section E.2.1.3 of this Attachment. Table E-19
presents the quality assurance constituent addressed by each quality assurance requirement as well as
the appropriate corrective action if the acceptance limit is exceeded.
Table E-19 Quality Control Requirements
Quality
Control
Sample Type
QA
Parameter Frequency1 Acceptance
Limits Corrective Action
Quality Control Requirements – Field
Equipment
Blanks Contamination 5% of all
samples2 < MDL Identify equipment contamination
source. Qualify data as needed.
Field Blank Contamination 5% of all
samples < MDL
Examine field log. Identify
contamination source. Qualify
data as needed.
Field Duplicate Precision 5% of all
samples
RPD < 25% if
|Difference| > RL
Reanalyze both samples if
possible.
Identify variability source. Qualify
data as need,ed.
Quality Control Requirements – Laboratory
Method Blank Contamination 1 per analytical
batch < MDL
Identify contamination source.
Reanalyze method blank and all
samples in batch. Qualify data as
needed.
Lab Duplicate Precision 1 per analytical
batch
RPD < 25% if
|Difference| > RL Recalibrate and reanalyze.
Matrix Spike Accuracy 1 per analytical
batch
80-120%
Recovery for
GWQC Check LCS/CRM recovery.
Attempt to correct matrix
problem and reanalyze samples.
Qualify data as needed.
75-125% for
Metals
50-150%
Recovery for
Pesticides (3)
Matrix Spike
Duplicate Precision 1 per analytical
batch
RPD < 30% if
|Difference| > RL
Check lab duplicate RPD. Attempt
to correct matrix problem and
reanalyze samples. Qualify data
as needed.
Laboratory Accuracy 1 per analytical 80-120% Recalibrate and reanalyze LCS/
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 160 -
Table E-19 Quality Control Requirements
Quality
Control
Sample Type
QA
Parameter Frequency1 Acceptance
Limits Corrective Action
Control
Sample (or
CRM or Blank
Spike)
batch Recovery for
GWQC
CRM and samples.
75-125% for
Metals
50-150%
Recovery for
Pesticides (3)
Blank Spike
Duplicate Precision 1 per analytical
batch
RPD < 25% if
|Difference| > RL
Check lab duplicate RPD. Attempt
to correct matrix problem and
reanalyze samples. Qualify data
as needed.
Surrogate
Spike
(Organics
Only)
Accuracy
Each
environmental
and lab QC
sample
30-150%
Recovery3
Check surrogate recovery in LCS.
Attempt to correct matrix
problem and reanalyze sample.
Qualify data as needed.
MDL = Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit RPD = Relative Percent Difference
LCS = Laboratory Control Sample/Standard CRM = Certified/ Standard Reference Material
GWQC = General Water Quality Constituents
1 “Analytical batch” refers to a number of samples (not to exceed 20 environmental samples plus the associated
quality control samples) that are similar in matrix type and processed/prepared together under the same
conditions and same reagents (equivalent to preparation batch).
2 Equipment blanks will be collected by the field crew before using the equipment to collect sample.
3 Or control limits set at + 3 standard deviations based on actual laboratory data.
E.3.2 QA/QC Requirements and Objectives
E.3.2.1 Comparability
Comparability of the data can be defined as the similarity of data generated by different monitoring
programs. For this monitoring program, this objective will be ensured mainly through use of
standardized procedures for field measurements, sample collection, sample preparation, laboratory
analysis, and site selection; adherence to quality assurance protocols and holding times; and reporting in
standard units. Additionally, comparability of analytical data will be addressed through the use of
standard operating procedures and extensive analyst training at the analyzing laboratory.
E.3.2.2 Representativeness
Representativeness can be defined as the degree to which the environmental data generated by the
monitoring program accurately and precisely represent actual environmental conditions. For the CIMP,
this objective will be addressed by the overall design of the program. Representativeness is attained
through the selection of sampling locations, methods, and frequencies for each constituent of interest,
and by maintaining the integrity of each sample after collection. Sampling locations were chosen that are
representative of various areas within the watershed and discharges from the MS4, which will allow for
the characterization of the watershed and impacts MS4 discharges may have on water quality.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 161 -
E.3.2.3 Completeness
Data completeness is a measure of the amount of successfully collected and validated data relative to the
amount of data planned to be collected for the project. It is usually expressed as a percentage value. A
project objective for percent completeness is typically based on the percentage of the data needed for
the program or study to reach valid conclusions.
Because the CIMP is intended to be a long term monitoring program, data that are not successfully
collected during a specific sample event will not be recollected at a later date. Rather subsequent events
conducted over the course of the monitoring will provide robust data sets to appropriately characterize
conditions at individual sampling sites and the watershed in general. For this reason, most of the data
planned for collection cannot be considered absolutely critical, and it is difficult to set a meaningful
objective for data completeness.
However, some reasonable objectives for data are desirable, if only to measure the effectiveness of the
program when conditions allow for the collection of samples (i.e., flow is present). The program goals for
data completeness, shown in Table E-5, are based on the planned sampling frequency, SWAMP
recommendations, and a subjective determination of the relative importance of the monitoring element
within the CIMP. If, however, sampling sites do not allow for the collection of enough samples to provide
representative data due to conditions (i.e., no flow) alternate sites will be considered. Data completeness
will be evaluated on a yearly basis.
E.3.3 QA/QC Field Procedures
Quality control samples to be prepared in the field will consist of equipment blanks, field blanks, and field
duplicates as described below.
E.3.3.1 Equipment Blanks
The purpose of analyzing equipment blanks is to demonstrate that sampling equipment is free from
contamination. Equipment blanks will be collected by the analytical laboratory responsible for cleaning
equipment and analyzed for relevant pollutants before sending the equipment to the field crew.
Equipment blanks will consist of laboratory-prepared blank water (certified to be contaminant-free by the
laboratory) processed through the sampling equipment that will be used to collect environmental
samples.
The equipment blanks will be analyzed using the same analytical methods specified for environmental
samples. If any analytes of interest are detected at levels greater than the MDL, the source(s) of
contamination will be identified and eliminated (if possible), the affected batch of equipment will be re-
cleaned, and new equipment blanks will be prepared and analyzed before the equipment is returned to
the field crew for use.
E.3.3.2 Field Blanks
The purpose of analyzing field blanks is to demonstrate that sampling procedures do not result in
contamination of the environmental samples. Per the Quality Assurance Management Plan for SWAMP
(SWRCB, 2008) field blanks are to be collected as follows:
¾At a frequency of 5% of samples collected for the following constituents: trace metals in
water (including mercury), VOC samples in water and sediment, DOC samples in water,
and bacteria samples.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 162 -
¾Field blanks for other media and analytes should be conducted upon initiation of
sampling, and if field blank performance is acceptable (as described in Table E-19),
further collection and analysis of field blanks for these other media and analytes need
only be performed on an as-needed basis, or during field performance audits. An as-
needed basis for the RG/SGRWQG CIMP will be annually.
Field blanks will consist of laboratory-prepared blank water (certified to be contaminant-free by the
laboratory) processed through the sampling equipment using the same procedures used for
environmental samples.
If any analytes of interest are detected at levels greater than the MDL, the source(s) of contamination
should be identified and eliminated, if possible. The sampling crew should be notified so that the source
of contamination can be identified (if possible) and corrective measures taken prior to the next sampling
event.
E.3.3.3 Field Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing field duplicates is to demonstrate the precision of sampling and analytical
processes. Field duplicates will be prepared at the rate of 5% of all samples, and analyzed along with the
associated environmental samples. Field duplicates will consist of two grab samples collected
simultaneously, to the extent practicable. If the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) of field duplicate
results is greater than the percentage stated in Table E-19 and the absolute difference is greater than
the RL, both samples should be reanalyzed, if possible. The sampling crew should be notified so that the
source of sampling variability can be identified (if possible) and corrective measures taken prior to the
next sampling event.
E.3.4 QA/QC Laboratory Analyses
Quality control samples prepared in the laboratory will consist of method blanks, laboratory duplicates,
matrix spikes/duplicates, laboratory control samples (standard reference materials), and toxicity quality
controls.
E.3.4.1 Method Blanks
The purpose of analyzing method blanks is to demonstrate that sample preparation and analytical
procedures do not result in sample contamination. Method blanks will be prepared and analyzed by the
contract laboratory at a rate of at least one for each analytical batch. Method blanks will consist of
laboratory-prepared blank water processed along with the batch of environmental samples. If the result
for a single method blank is greater than the MDL, or if the average blank concentration plus two
standard deviations of three or more blanks is greater than the RL, the source(s) of contamination should
be corrected, and the associated samples should be reanalyzed.
E.3.4.2 Laboratory Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing laboratory duplicates is to demonstrate the precision of the sample preparation
and analytical methods. Laboratory duplicates will be analyzed at the rate of one pair per sample batch.
Laboratory duplicates will consist of duplicate laboratory fortified method blanks. If the RPD for any
analyte is greater than the percentage stated in Table E-19 and the absolute difference between
duplicates is greater than the RL, the analytical process is not being performed adequately for that
analyte. In this case, the sample batch should be prepared again, and laboratory duplicates should be
reanalyzed.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 163 -
E.3.4.3 Matrix Spikes and Matrix Spike Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates is to demonstrate the performance of
the sample preparation and analytical methods in a particular sample matrix. Matrix spikes and matrix
spike duplicates will be analyzed at the rate of one pair per sample batch. Each matrix spike and matrix
spike duplicate will consist of an aliquot of laboratory-fortified environmental sample. Spike
concentrations should be added at five to ten times the reporting limit for the analyte of interest.
If the matrix spike recovery of any analyte is outside the acceptable range, the results for that analyte
have failed to meet acceptance criteria. If recovery of laboratory control samples is acceptable, the
analytical process is being performed adequately for that analyte, and the problem is attributable to the
sample matrix. An attempt will be made to correct the problem (e.g., by dilution, concentration, etc.),
and the samples and matrix spikes will be re-analyzed.
If the matrix spike duplicate RPD for any analyte is outside the acceptable range, the results for that
analyte have failed to meet acceptance criteria. If the RPD for laboratory duplicates is acceptable, the
analytical process is being performed adequately for that analyte, and the problem is attributable to the
sample matrix. An attempt will be made to correct the problem (e.g., by dilution, concentration, etc.),
and the samples and matrix spikes will be re-analyzed.
E.3.4.4 Laboratory Control Samples
The purpose of analyzing laboratory control samples (or a standard reference material) is to demonstrate
the accuracy of the sample preparation and analytical methods. Laboratory control samples will be
analyzed at the rate of one per sample batch. Laboratory control samples will consist of laboratory
fortified method blanks or a standard reference material. If recovery of any analyte is outside the
acceptable range, the analytical process is not being performed adequately for that analyte. In this case,
the sample batch should be prepared again, and the laboratory control sample should be reanalyzed.
E.3.4.5 Surrogate Spikes
Surrogate recovery results are used to evaluate the accuracy of analytical measurements for organics
analyses on a sample-specific basis. A surrogate is a compound (or compounds) added by the laboratory
to method blanks, samples, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates prior to sample preparation, as
specified in the analytical methodology. Surrogates are generally brominated, fluorinated or isotopically
labeled compounds that are not usually present in environmental media. Results are expressed as
percent recovery of the surrogate spike. Surrogate spikes are applicable for analysis of PCBs and
pesticides.
E.3.4.6 Toxicity Quality Control
For aquatic toxicity tests, the acceptability of test results is determined primarily by performance-based
criteria for test organisms, culture and test conditions, and the results of control bioassays. Control
bioassays include monthly reference toxicant testing. Test acceptability requirements are documented in
the method documents for each bioassay method.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 164 -
E.4 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency
Frequencies and procedures for calibration of analytical equipment used by each contract laboratory are
documented in the QA Manual for each contract laboratory. Any deficiencies in analytical equipment
calibration should be managed in accordance with the QA Manual for each contract laboratory. Any
deficiencies that affect analysis of samples submitted through this program must be reported to the
RH/SGRWQG, or designee. Laboratory QA Manuals are available for review at the analyzing laboratory.
E.5 Data Management, Validation and Usability
The Monitoring Manager will maintain an inventory of data and its forms. After each sampling event,
data collected in the RH/SGRWQG CIMP will be verified and validated before it is deemed ready for
reporting. This section describes the process that the Monitoring Manager will take to verify and validate
the collected data.
E.5.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Requirements
The acceptability of data is determined through data verification and data validation. Both processes are
discussed in detail below. In addition to the data quality objectives presented in Table E-5, the standard
data validation procedures documented in the contract laboratory’s QA Manual will be used to accept,
reject, or qualify the data generated by the laboratory. Each laboratory’s QA Officer will be responsible
for validating data generated by the laboratory.
Once analytical results are received from the analyzing laboratory, the RH/SGRWQG will perform an
independent review and validation of analytical results. Table E-5 provides standards for precision,
accuracy, and completeness of the data. Decisions to reject or qualify data will be made by the
RH/SGRWQG, based on the evaluation of field and laboratory quality control data, according to
procedures outlined in Section 13 of Caltrans document No. CTSW-RT-00-005, Guidance Manual:
Stormwater Monitoring Protocols, 2nd Edition (LWA, 2000).
E.5.2 Data Verification
Data verification involves verifying that required methods and procedures have been followed at all
stages of the data collection process, including sample collection, sample receipt, sample preparation,
sample analysis, and documentation review for completeness. Verified data have been checked for a
variety of factors, including transcription errors, correct application of dilution factors, appropriate
reporting of dry weight versus wet weight results, and correct application of conversion factors.
Verification of data may also include laboratory qualifiers, if assigned.
Data verification should occur in the field and the laboratory at each level (i.e., all personnel should verify
their own work) and as information is passed from one level to the next (i.e., supervisors should verify
the information produced by their staff). Records commonly examined during the verification process
include field and sample collection logs, COC forms, sample preparation logs, instrument logs, raw data,
and calculation worksheets.
In addition, laboratory personnel will verify that the measurement process was "in control" (i.e., all
specified data quality objectives were met or acceptable deviations explained) for each batch of samples
before proceeding with the analysis of a subsequent batch. Each laboratory will also establish a system
for detecting and reducing transcription and/or calculation errors prior to reporting data.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 165 -
E.5.3 Data Validation
In general, data validation involves identifying project requirements, obtaining the documents and
records produced during data verification, evaluating the quality of the data generated, and determining
whether project requirements were met. The main focus of data validation is determining data quality in
terms of accomplishment of measurement quality objectives (i.e., meeting QC acceptance criteria). Data
quality indicators, such as precision, accuracy, sensitivity, representativeness, and completeness, are
typically used as expressions of data quality. The Project QA Manager, or designee, will review verified
sample results for the data set as a whole, including laboratory qualifiers, summarize data and QC
deficiencies and evaluate the impact on overall data quality, assign data validation qualifiers as
necessary, and prepare an analytical data validation report. The validation process applies to both field
and laboratory data.
In addition to the data quality objectives presented in Table E-5, the standard data validation
procedures documented in the analyzing laboratory’s QA Manual will be used to accept, reject or qualify
the data generated. The laboratory will submit only data that have met data quality objectives, or data
that have acceptable deviations explained. When QC requirements have not been met, the samples will
be reanalyzed when possible, and only the results of the reanalysis will be submitted, provided that they
are acceptable. Each laboratory’s QA Officer is responsible for validating the data it generates.
E.5.4 Data Management
Event Summary Reports and Analytical Data Reports will be sent to and kept by the Project Manager.
Each type of report will be stored separately and ordered chronologically. The field crew shall retain the
original field logs. The contract laboratory shall retain original COC forms. The contract laboratory will
retain copies of the preliminary and final data reports. Concentrations of all constituents will be
calculated as described in the laboratory SOPs or referenced method document for each analyte or
constituent.
The field log and analytical data generated will be converted to a standard database format maintained
on personal computers. After data entry or data transfer procedures are completed for each sample
event, data will be validated. After the final quality assurance checks for errors are completed, the data
will be added to the final database. The database used to manage data will be upgraded as necessary to
meet the requirements of the program.
Program data will be submitted electronically with the Annual Monitoring Report in either Microsoft
Access® or Microsoft Excel® file format. Tabular data summaries included in the annual report will be
generated from this data file (“database”). Additionally, those data collected by the RH/SGRWQG CIMP
will be formatted to comply with SWAMP database requirements.
All chemical, bacteriological, and toxicity analyses shall be conducted at a laboratory:
¾Certified for such analyses by an appropriate governmental regulatory agency
¾Participated in “Intercalibration Studies” for stormwater pollutant analysis conducted by
the SMC
¾Which performs laboratory analyses consistent with the stormwater monitoring guidelines
as specified in the Stormwater Monitoring Coalition Laboratory Guidance Document, 2nd
Edition
R. Gossettt and K. Schiff (2007), and its revisions
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 166 -
Attachment F
Caltrans Guidance Manual:
Stormwater Monitoring Protocols, 2nd Edition
Chapter 13 QA/QC Data Evaluation
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 167 -
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 168 -
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 169 -
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 170 -
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 171 -
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-5 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Samples that exceed their holding time prior to analysis are qualified as “estimated”, or
may be rejected depending on the circumstances.
Contamination
Blank samples are used to identify the presence and potential source of sample
contamination and are typically one of four types:
1.Method blanks are prepared and analyzed by the laboratory to identify
laboratory contamination.
2.Field blanks are prepared by the field crew during sampling events and submitted
to the laboratory to identify contamination occurring during the collection or the
transport of environmental samples.
3.Equipment blanks are prepared by the field crew or laboratory prior to the
monitoring season and used to identify contamination coming from sampling
equipment (tubing, pumps, bailers, etc.).
4.Trip blanks are prepared by the laboratory, carried in the field, and then
submitted to the laboratory to identify contamination in the transport and
handling of volatile organics samples.
5.Filter blanks are prepared by field crew or lab technicians performing the sample
filtration. Blank water is filtered in the same manner and at the same time as other
environmental samples. Filter blanks are used to identify contamination from the
filter or filtering process.
If no contamination is present, all blanks should be reported as “not detected” or “non-
detect” (e.g., constituent concentrations should not be detected above the reporting limit).
Blanks reporting detected concentrations (“hits”) should be noted in the written QA/QC
data summary prepared by the data reviewer. In the case that the laboratory reports hits
on method blanks, a detailed review of raw laboratory data and procedures should be
requested from the laboratory to identify any data reporting errors or contamination
sources. When other types of blanks are reported above the reporting limit, a similar
review should be requested along with a complete review of field procedures and sample
handling. Often times it will also be necessary to refer to historical equipment blank
results, corresponding method blank results, and field notes to identify contamination
sources. This is a corrective and documentative step that should be done as soon as the
hits are reported.
If the blank concentration exceeds the laboratory reporting limit, values reported for each
associated environmental sample must be evaluated according to USEPA guidelines for
data evaluations of organics and metals (USEPA, 1991; USEPA, 1995) as indicated in
Table 13-1.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 172 -
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-6 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Table 13-1. USEPA Guidelines for Data Evaluation
Step Environmental
Sample
Phthalates and
other common
contaminants
Other Organics Metals
1. Sample > 10X
blank concentration No action No action No action
2. Sample < 10X
blank concentration
Report associated
environmental
results as “non-
detect” at the
reported
environmental
concentration.
No action Results considered
an “upper limit” of
the true
concentration (note
contamination in
data quality
evaluation narrative).
3. Sample < 5X blank
concentration
Report associated
environmental
results as “non-
detect” at the
reported
environmental
concentration.
Report associated
environmental
results as “non-
detect” at the
reported
environmental
concentration.
Report associated
environmental
results as “non-
detect” at the
reported
environmental
concentration.
Specifically, if the concentration in the environmental sample is less than five times the
concentration in the associated blank, the environmental sample result is considered, for
reporting purposes, “not-detected” at the environmental sample result concentration
(phthalate and other common contaminant results are considered non-detect if the
environmental sample result is less than ten times the blank concentration). The
laboratory reports are not altered in any way. The qualifications resulting from the data
evaluation are made to the evaluator’s data set for reporting and analysis purposes to
account for the apparent contamination problem. For example, if dissolved copper is
reported by the laboratory at 4 Pg/L and an associated blank concentration for dissolved
copper is reported at 1 Pg/L, data qualification would be necessary. In the data reporting
field of the database (see Section 14 ), the dissolved copper result would be reported as 4
Pg/L), the numerical qualifier would be reported as “<”, the reporting limit would be left
as reported by the laboratory, and the value qualifier would be reported as “U” (“not
detected above the reported environmental concentration”).
When reported environmental concentrations are greater than five times (ten times for
phthalates) the reported blank “hit” concentration, the environmental result is reported
unqualified at the laboratory-reported concentration. For example, if dissolved copper is
reported at 11 Pg/L and an associated blank concentration for dissolved copper is
reported at 1 Pg/L, the dissolved copper result would still be reported as 11 Pg/L.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 173 -
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-7 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Precision
Duplicate samples provide a measure of the data precision (reproducibility) attributable
to sampling and analytical procedures. Precision can be calculated as the relative percent
difference (RPD) in the following manner:
RPDi 2*Oi D i
Oi Di *100%
where:
RPD i = Relative percent difference for compound i
O i = Value of compound i in original sample
D i = Value of compound i in duplicate sample
The resultant RPDs should be compared to the criteria specified in the project’s DQOs.
The DQO criteria shown in Table 13-2 below are based on the analytical method
specifications and laboratory-supplied values. Project-specific DQOs should be
developed with consideration to the analytical laboratory, the analytical method
specifications, and the project objective. Table 13-2 should be used as a reference point
as the least stringent set of DQO criteria for Caltrans monitoring projects.
Laboratory and Field Duplicates
Laboratory duplicates are samples that are split by the laboratory. Each half of the split
sample is then analyzed and reported by the laboratory. A pair of field duplicates is two
samples taken at the same time, in the same manner into two unique containers.
Subsampling duplicates are two unique, ostensibly identical, samples taken from one
composite bottle (see Section 10). Laboratory duplicate results provide information
regarding the variability inherent in the analytical process, and the reproducibility of
analytical results. Field duplicate analysis measures both field and laboratory precision,
therefore, it is expected that field duplicate results would exhibit greater variability than
lab duplicate results. Subsampling duplicates are used as a substitute for field duplicates
in some situations and are also an indicator of the variability introduced by the splitting
process.
The RPDs resulting from analysis of both laboratory and field duplicates should be
reviewed during data evaluation. Deviations from the specified limits, and the effect on
reported data, should be noted and commented upon by the data reviewer. Laboratories
typically have their own set of maximum allowable RPDs for laboratory duplicates based
on their analytical history. In most cases these values are more stringent than those listed
in Table 13-2. Note that the laboratory will only apply these maximum allowable RPDs
to laboratory duplicates. In most cases field duplicates are submitted “blind” (with
pseudonyms) to the laboratory.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 174 -
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-8 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Environmental samples associated with laboratory duplicate results greater than the
maximum allowable RPD (when the numerical difference is greater than the reporting
limit) are qualified as “J” (estimated). When the numerical difference is less than the RL,
no qualification is necessary. Field duplicate RPDs are compared against the maximum
allowable RPDs used for laboratory duplicates to identify any pattern of problems with
reproducibility of results. Any significant pattern of RPD exceedances for field
duplicates should be noted in the data report narrative.
Corrective action should be taken to address field or laboratory procedures that are
introducing the imprecision of results. The data reviewer can apply “J” (estimated)
qualifiers to any data points if there is clear evidence of a field or laboratory bias issue
that is not related to contamination. (Qualification based on contamination is assessed
with blank samples.)
Laboratories should provide justification for any laboratory duplicate samples with RPDs
greater than the maximum allowable value. In some cases, the laboratory will track and
document such exceedances, however; in most cases it is the job of the data reviewer to
locate these out-of-range RPDs. When asked to justify excessive RPD values for field
duplicates, laboratories most often will cite sample splitting problems in the field.
Irregularities should be included in the data reviewer’s summary, and the laboratory’s
response should be retained to document laboratory performance, and to track potential
chronic problems with laboratory analysis and reporting.
Accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement to an accepted reference
or true value. Accuracy is measured as the percent recovery (%R) of spike compound(s).
Percent recovery of spikes is calculated in the following manner:
%R = 100% * [(C s – C) / S]
where:
%R = percent recovery
Cs = spiked sample concentration
C = sample concentration for spiked matrices
S = concentration equivalent of spike added
Accuracy (%R) criteria for spike recoveries should be compared with the limits specified
in the project DQOs. A list of typical acceptable recoveries is shown in Table 13-2. As
in the case of maximum allowable RPDs, laboratories develop acceptable criteria for an
allowable range of recovery percentages that may differ from the values listed in Table 13-
2.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 175 -
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-9 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Percent recoveries should be reviewed during data evaluation, and deviations from the
specified limits should be noted in the data reviewer’s summary. Justification for out of
range recoveries should be provided by the laboratory along with the laboratory reports,
or in response to the data reviewer’s summary.
Laboratory Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples
Evaluation of analytical accuracy and precision in environmental sample matrices is
obtained through the analysis of laboratory matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate
(MSD) samples. A matrix spike is an environmental sample that is spiked with a known
amount of the constituent being analyzed. A percent recovery can be calculated from the
results of the spike analysis. A MSD is a duplicate of this analysis that is performed as a
check on matrix recovery precision. MS and MSD results are used together to calculate
RPD as with the duplicate samples. When MS/MSD results (%R and RPD) are outside
the project specifications, as listed in Table 13-2, the associated environmental samples
are qualified as “estimates due to matrix interference”. Surrogate standards are added to
all environmental and QC samples tested by gas chromatography (GC) or gas
chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). Surrogates are non-target compounds
that are analytically similar to the analytes of interest. The surrogate compounds are
spiked into the sample prior to the extraction or analysis. Surrogate recoveries are
evaluated with respect to the laboratory acceptance criteria to provide information on the
extraction efficiency of every sample.
External Reference Standards
External reference standards (ERS) are artificial certified standards prepared by an external
agency and added to a batch of samples. ERS’s are not required for every batch of
samples, and are often only run quarterly by laboratories. Some laboratories use ERS’s in
place of laboratory control spikes with every batch of samples. ERS results are assessed
the same as laboratory control spikes for qualification purposes (see below). The external
reference standards are evaluated in terms of accuracy, expressed as the percent recovery
(comparison of the laboratory results with the certified concentrations). The laboratory
should report all out-of-range values along with the environmental sample results. ERS
values are qualified as biased high” when the ERS recovery exceeds the acceptable
recovery range and “biased low” when the ERS recovery is smaller than the recovery
range.
Laboratory Control Samples
LCS analysis is another batch check of recovery of a known standard solution that is used
to assess the accuracy of the entire recovery process. LCSs are much like ERS's except
that a certified standard is not necessarily used with LCSs, and the sample is prepared
internally by the laboratory so the cost associated with preparing a LCS sample is much
lower than the cost of ERS preparation. LCSs are reviewed for percent recovery within
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 176 -
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-10 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
control limits provided by the laboratory. LCS out-of-range values are treated in the same
manner as ERS out-of-range values. Because LCS and ERS analysis both check the entire
recovery process, any irregularity in these results supersedes other accuracy-related
qualification. Data are rejected due to low LCS recoveries when the associated
environmental result is below the reporting limit.
A flow chart of the data evaluation process, presented on the following pages as Figures
13-1 (lab-initiated QA/QC samples) and 13-2 (field-initiated QA/QC), can be used as a
general guideline for data evaluation. Boxes shaded black in Figures 13-1 and 13-2
designate final results of the QA/QC evaluation.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 177 -
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 178 -
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-12 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Figure 13-1. Technical Data Evaluation for Lab-Initiated QA/QC Samples
Holding time
compliance?
Are Method blanks
ND or within project
specs?
Are MS recoveries
within project specs?
Qualify results as estimated if holding
time variance allowed, or reject
results. Proceed to next step.
Are sample
results ND?
If MS result is >UL,
qualify detected associated environmental sample results as
estimates due to matrix interference.
If MS result is <LL,
qualify associated environmental sample results as estimates
due to matrix interference and consider rejecting associated
environmental sample data below detection based on other
supporting QA/QC data.
No qualification.
Proceed to next step.
Qualify associated detected
environmental sample results as “U”.
Proceed to next step.
no
no
no
noyes Are Lab duplicate RPDs
within project specs?
Qualify sample results as estimates
due to analytical variability.
Proceed to next step.
Are measured differences between samples
less than the reporting limit?
No qualification.
Proceed to next step.
no
yesAre sample results
<10x (phthalates & common contaminants) or
<5x (semi- & non-volatiles & metals*)
blank concentration?
1.
2.
3.
4.yesno
No qualification.
Proceed to next step.yesno
yesAre MSD RPDs within
project specs?
Qualify sample results as estimates
due to matrix interfernce.
Proceed to next step.
5.no
yesyesno6.yesLCS & ERS recoveries
within project specs?
No qualification.
Proceed to field-initiated QA/QC data evaluation. yes If spike recovery result is >UL,
qualify associated environmental sample results above detection levels as
estimates due to high analytical bias.
If spike recovery result is <LL or more than half of recoveries are outside
acceptability limits,
qualify associated detected environmental sample results as estimates due to low
analytical bias and reject associated environmental sample data below detection.
*Environmental results between 5x and 10x the blank concentration are qualified as “an upper limit on the true concentration” and the data user should be cautioned.
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 179 -
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-13 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Figure 13-2. Technical Data Evaluation for Field-Initiated QA/QC Samples
Do overall QC results
indicate systematic
problems?
No
qualificati
on.
Proceed
to next
step.
Results
considered
ND.
Proceed to
next step.no9.
No limitation on use of
unqualified data.
Qualified data should be
noted and reported.
*Environmental results between 5x and 10x the blank concentration are qualified as “an upper limit on the true concentration” and the data user should be cautioned.
Are field blanks ND?Are sample
results ND?No qualification.
Proceed to next step.
Qualify associated detected
environmental sample results as “U”.
Proceed to next step.
no no
Are sample results
<10x (phthalates & common contaminants) or
<5x (semi- & non-volatiles & metals*)
blank concentration?
7.yesno
No qualification.
Proceed to next step.yesyesAre field duplicate RPDs
within project specs?
Report patterns in data report
narrative. Remediate field and lab
protocols as necessary. Qualify
results if deemed necessary.
Proceed to next step.
Are measured differences between samples
less than the Reporting Limit?
No qualification.
Proceed to next step.
no
yes8.no
yesMake additional data qualifications as
necessary matrix, method, etc.
Qualified data should be noted and reported.
yes
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 180 -
Attachment G
Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Background
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 181 -
G.1 Los Angeles County Flood Control District Background
In 1915, the Los Angeles County Flood Control Act established the LACFCD and empowered it to manage
flood risk and conserve stormwater for groundwater recharge. In coordination with the USACE and the
LACFCD developed and constructed a comprehensive system that provides for the regulation and control
of flood waters through the use of reservoirs and flood channels. The system also controls debris,
collects surface storm water from streets, and replenishes groundwater with stormwater, imported, and
recycled waters. The LACFCD covers the 2,753 square-mile portion of Los Angeles County south of the
east-west projection of Avenue S, excluding Catalina Island. It is a special district governed by the
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, and its functions are carried out by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works. The LACFCD service area is shown in Figure G-1.
Unlike cities and counties, the LACFCD does not own or operate any municipal sanitary sewer systems,
public streets, roads, or highways. The LACFCD operates and maintains storm drains and other
appurtenant drainage infrastructure within its service area. The LACFCD does not have planning, zoning,
development permitting, or other land use authority within its service area. The Permittees that have
such land use authority are responsible under the MS4 Permit for inspecting and controlling pollutants
from industrial and commercial facilities, development projects, and development construction sites based
on MS4 Permit Part II.E (page 17)
The MS4 Permit language clarifies the unique role of the LACFCD in stormwater management programs:
“[g]iven the LACFCD’s limited land use authority, it is appropriate for the LACFCD to have a separate and
uniquely-tailored storm water management program. Accordingly, the storm water management
program minimum control measures imposed on the LACFCD in Part VI.D of this Order differ in some
ways from the minimum control measures imposed on other Permittees. Namely, aside from its own
properties and facilities, the LACFCD is not subject to the Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program, the
Planning and Land Development Program, and the Development Construction Program. However, as a
discharger of storm and non-storm water, the LACFCD remains subject to the Public Information and
Participation Program and the Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Program. Further, as
the owner and operator of certain properties, facilities and infrastructure, the LACFCD remains subject to
requirements of a Public Agency Activities Program.” (MS4 Permit, Part II.F, page 18.)
Consistent with the role and responsibilities of the LACFCD under the MS4 Permit, the [E]WMPs and
CIMPs reflect the opportunities that are available for the LACFCD to collaborate with Permittees having
land use authority over the subject watershed area. In some instances, the opportunities are minimal,
however the LACFCD remains responsible for compliance with certain aspects of the MS4 permit as
discussed above.
During the development of the CIMP, LACFCD infrastructure was evaluated for monitoring opportunities.
The LACFCD will be collaborating with the groups for all of the monitoring.
Figure G-1 Loos Angeles Cou
- 182 -
nty Flood Contr
Rio Hondo
rol District Serv
o/San Gabriel R
Coordinated In
vice Area
River Water Qua
ntegrated Monitor
ality Group
ring Program
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 183 -
Attachment H
GWMA Invitation Letter and
Draft Agreement
Members: A
Lakewood ·
164
Christopher C
Artesia · Bell · Bell G
Long Beach · Long
401 Paramount
Inv
On May
Region a
TMDL re
Gabriel
These p
specializ
Authority
of and s
will shar
The thre
•T
•S
•T
Attached
participa
GWMA.
altering
group pa
permitte
and an a
number
provided
fee for G
cost of a
ash, Board Chair
P
Gardens · Bellflowe
g Beach W ater Dep
t Blvd., Paramo
vitation to
11, 2011, t
adopted the
equires citie
Rivers to co
pollutants an
zed monitor
y (GWMA)
ubsequent
re the cost,
ee monitorin
The existing
Spring Stree
The existing
d is the esti
ate in the pr
Due to the
or customiz
aying (1) a
ees were co
area fee. T
of participa
d by the mo
GWMA mem
administerin
L
Integr
r •Adriana Figue
Proudly serving Ga
er ·Central Basin Mu
partment · Lynwood
With Technical
ount, CA 90723
o participa
T
the Californ
e “Domingu
es and age
onduct mon
nd the asso
ring equipm
has been r
monitoring
responsibil
ng stations
g Los Angel
et and the S
g Coyote Cr
imated cost
rogram, Pe
e number o
zation. Cos
shared bas
ollectively as
These are p
ants is confi
onitoring co
mbers and a
ng this prog
Los Angeles
rated Regio
eroa, Vice-Chair •
ateway cities and
unicipal Water Dist
d · Maywood · Mon
l Support From The
Joint Po
3 • 562.663
ate in a joi
TMDL Mon
nia Regiona
uez Channe
ncies (perm
nitoring for
ociated test
ment. To re
requested to
at three m
lity and test
will be loca
es River m
San Gabriel
reek mass e
t share mat
rmittees wi
of permittee
st shares w
seline fee a
ssessed a s
preliminary e
irmed and f
nsultant. G
a 5% admin
gram.
s Gateway R
onal Water M
•Charlie Honey
agencies in South
trict · Cerritos · Com
ntebello · Norwalk ·
· W hittier
e Sanitation Distric t
- 184 -
owers Auth
3.6850 phone 5
int Doming
nitoring Pr
al Water Qu
el and Grea
mittees) trib
toxic polluta
ing method
educe costs
o act as the
onitoring st
ting results
ated at or ne
ass emissio
l River (a ne
emission st
trix for all th
ll be require
s involved,
were develo
and (2) a fee
shared bas
estimates w
final installa
GWMA will a
nistrative fe
Region
Managemen
ycutt, Secretary/T
heastern Los Ange
mmerce · Cudahy ·
Paramount · Pico
ts Of Los Angeles C
hority
562-634-8216
g uez Chan
rogram
uality Contr o
ater Harbors
utary to the
ants as def
d require the
s, the Gatew
e fiduciary a
tations. All
.
ear:
on station a
ew installat
tation at Sp
hree of the
ed to sign a
the Agreem
ped based
e based on
seline fee a
which are lik
ation and m
also assess
ee for non-m
nt
Treasurer •Kevin
eles County
Downey · Hawaiia
Rivera · Santa Fe S
County
fax • www
nnel/Harb
ol Board, L
s Toxic TM
e Los Angel
fined by tha
e installatio
way Water
agent for th
participatin
at Wardlow
tion), and
pring Street
monitoring
an Agreeme
ment is not
on each wa
area. Indiv
s if they we
kely to chan
monitoring c
s a 3% adm
members to
n Wattier, Chair E
an Gardens · Huntin
Springs · Signal Hi
w.gatewayirwm
April 14, 20
bor Toxic
os Angeles
DL”. This
les and San
at TMDL.
on of
Manageme
e installatio
ng permitte
w,
.
sites. To
ent with
subject to
atershed
vidual
ere a group
nge as the
cost are
ministrative
o cover the
Emeritus
ngton Park · La Mir
ll · South Gate · Ve
mp.org
015
s
n
ent
on
es
ada ·
ernon
Members: A
Lakewood ·
16
Christopher C
Artesia · Bell · Bell G
Long Beach · Long
401 Paramoun
If you ar
email it t
The dea
Penn at
If you ha
please c
ash, Board Chair
P
Gardens · Bellflowe
g Beach W ater Dep
t Blvd., Paramo
re interested
to Toni Pen
adline for en
tonipenn.g
ave technic
contact Joh
L
Integr
r •Adriana Figue
Proudly serving Ga
er ·Central Basin Mu
partment · Lynwood
With Technical
ount, CA 90723
d in particip
nn so that s
ntering into
ateway@g
cal question
n Hunter at
Los Angeles
rated Regio
eroa, Vice-Chair •
ateway cities and
unicipal Water Dist
d · Maywood · Mon
l Support From The
Joint Po
3 • 562.663
pating, plea
she can pre
the Agreem
mail.com if
s regarding
t 562-802-7
s Gateway R
onal Water M
•Charlie Honey
agencies in South
trict · Cerritos · Com
ntebello · Norwalk ·
· W hittier
e Sanitation Distric t
- 185 -
wers Autho
3.6850 phone
ase complet
pare the Ag
ment is Jun
f you have q
g the propo
7880 extens
Region
Managemen
ycutt, Secretary/T
heastern Los Ange
mmerce · Cudahy ·
Paramount · Pico
ts Of Los Angeles C
ority
562-634-8216
te the attac
greement fo
e 14, 2015
questions r
sed monito
sion 25.
nt
Treasurer •Kevin
eles County
Downey · Hawaiia
Rivera · Santa Fe S
County
fax
•www
ched questio
or your con
. Please co
egarding th
oring or cos
n Wattier, Chair E
an Gardens · Huntin
Springs · Signal Hi
w.gatewayirwm
onnaire and
nsideration.
ontact Toni
he agreeme
st share
Emeritus
ngton Park · La Mir
ll · South Gate · Ve
mp.org
d
ent.
ada ·
ernon
Members: A
Lakewood ·
16
Christopher C
Artesia · Bell · Bell G
Long Beach · Long
401 Paramoun
Joi
The dea
Penn at
If you ha
please c
ash, Board Chair
P
Gardens · Bellflowe
g Beach W ater Dep
t Blvd., Paramo
nt Doming
NameofIn
GWMAMe
Yes
No
ContactPe
Name:
Title:
Compan
Address
Phone:
Email:
adline for en
tonipenn.g
ave technic
contact Joh
L
Integr
r •Adriana Figue
Proudly serving Ga
er ·Central Basin Mu
partment · Lynwood
With Technical
ount, CA 90723
guez Cha
ndividualMS
ember:
erson:
nyName:
s:
ntering into
ateway@g
cal question
n Hunter at
Los Angeles
rated Regio
eroa, Vice-Chair •
ateway cities and
unicipal Water Dist
d · Maywood · Mon
l Support From The
Joint Po
3 • 562.663
nnel/Harb
Que
4Permittee/
the Agreem
mail.com if
s regarding
t 562-802-7
s Gateway R
onal Water M
•Charlie Honey
agencies in South
trict · Cerritos · Com
ntebello · Norwalk ·
· W hittier
e Sanitation Distric t
- 186 -
wers Autho
3.6850 phone
bor Toxic T
stionnaire
/City
ment is Jun
f you have q
g the propo
7880 extens
Region
Managemen
ycutt, Secretary/T
heastern Los Ange
mmerce · Cudahy ·
Paramount · Pico
ts Of Los Angeles C
ority
562-634-8216
TMDL Mo
e 14, 2015
questions r
sed monito
sion 25.
nt
Treasurer •Kevin
eles County
Downey · Hawaiia
Rivera · Santa Fe S
County
fax
•www
onitoring P
. Please co
egarding th
oring or cos
n Wattier, Chair E
an Gardens · Huntin
Springs · Signal Hi
w.gatewayirwm
Program
ontact Toni
he agreeme
st share
Emeritus
ngton Park · La Mir
ll · South Gate · Ve
mp.org
ent.
ada ·
ernon
Harbor Toxics TMDL Monitoring
LosAngelesRiverWatersheds
Area is preliminary and subject to revisions.
Lastupdate4/16/2015
- 187 -
(50% equal share,50%byarea)(50% equal share, 50% by area)
Installationand1stYear'soperations
$110,000
2ndYearandsubsequentyears
$60,000
GroupNameCities/PermitteesInvolvedArea (acres)Area Base Cost AreaCostTotal Cost Base Cost Area Cost Total Cost
UpperLosAngelesRiver
WatershedGroup
Alhambra
Burbank
Calabasas
Glendale
HiddenHills
LaCanadaFlintridge
LosAngeles
Montebello
MontereyPark
Pasadena
Rosemead
SanGabriel
SanMarino
SouthPasadena
TempleCity
Unincorporated
4,884
11,095
4,006
19,588
961
5,534
181,288
5,356
4,952
14,805
3,311
2,645
2,410
2,186
2,577
40,553
1.3%
3.0%
1.1%
5.3%
0.3%
1.5%
48.7%
1.4%
1.3%
4.0%
0.9%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
10.9%
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$653
$685
$1,557
$562
$2,749
$135
$777
$25,441
$752
$695
$2,078
$465
$371
$338
$307
$362
$5,691
$1,339
$2,210
$1,215
$3,402
$788
$1,430
$26,094
$1,405
$1,348
$2,731
$1,118
$1,024
$991
$960
$1,015
$6,344
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$356
$374
$849
$307
$1,499
$74
$424
$13,877
$410
$379
$1,133
$253
$202
$184
$167
$197
$3,104
$730
$1,206
$663
$1,856
$430
$780
$14,233
$766
$735
$1,490
$610
$559
$541
$524
$553
$3,460
LowerLosAngelesRiver
Downey3,5461.0%$1,306$498$1,804$713$271$984
Lakewood510.0%$1,306$7$1,313 $713$4 $716
LongBeach12,3013.3%$1,306$1,726$3,032 $713$942 $1,654
Lynwood3,0980.8%$1,306$435$1,741$713$237$950
WatershedParamount1,9970.5%$1,306$280$1,586$713$153$865
PicoRivera1,5100.4%$1,306$212$1,518 $713$116 $828
SignalHill7740.2%$1,306$109$1,415 $713$59 $772
SouthGate4,7041.3%$1,306$660$1,966$713$360$1,073
RioHondo/SanGabriel
RiverWaterQualityGroup
Arcadia6,9121.9%$1,493$970$2,463$814$529$1,343
Azusa00.0%$1,493$0$1,493 $814$0 $814
Bradbury
Duarte
Monrovia
512
832
5,056
0.1%
0.2%
1.4%
$1,493
$1,493
$1,493
$72
$117
$710
$1,565
$1,610
$2,202
$814
$814
$814
$39
$64
$387
$853
$878
$1,201
SierraMadre1,7920.5%$1,493$251$1,744 $814$137 $951
Unincorporated1,7920.5%$1,493$251$1,744$814$137$951
UpperReach2Group
Bell1,6760.5%$1,493$235$1,728$814$128$943
BellGardens1,5770.4%$1,493$221$1,714 $814$121 $935
Commerce4,1951.1%$1,493$589$2,082 $814$321 $1,135
Cudahy7860.2%$1,493$110$1,603$814$60$874
HuntingtonPark1,9300.5%$1,493$271$1,764 $814$148 $962
Maywood7540.2%$1,493$106$1,599 $814$58 $872
Vernon3,2980.9%$1,493$463$1,956$814$252$1,067
Other
Carson* ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ
Compton* ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ
ElMonte4,4821.2%$3,483$629$4,112$1,900$343$2,243
Irwindale1,0240.3%$3,483$144$3,627 $1,900$78 $1,978
SouthElMonte1,5770.4%$3,483$221$3,705$1,900$121$2,021
LACFCD(5%) ͲͲ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ͲͲ$5,500 ͲͲ ͲͲ $3,000
Totals372,327 100.0%$52,250 $52,250$104,500 $28,500 $28,500 $57,000
GWMA members will pay an additional 3% in administrative costs Non-GWMA members will an additional 5% in administrative costs
GWMA will collect a 25% deposit on each cost share amount listed in case a city decides to drop out
*did not indicate intent to participate
Area is preliminary and subject to revisions.
Lastupdate4/16/2015
Harbor Toxics TMDL Monitoring
LosAngelesRiverWatersheds
- 188 -
(50% equal share,50%byarea)(50% equal share, 50% by area)
Installationand1stYear'soperations
$110,000
2ndYearandsubsequentyears
$60,000
GroupNameCities/PermitteesInvolvedArea (acres)Area Base Cost AreaCostTotal Cost Base Cost Area Cost Total Cost
RioHondo/SanGabriel
RiverWaterQualityGroup
Arcadia1280.1%$1,493$41$1,534$814$22$837
Azusa5,9523.7%$1,493$1,909$3,401 $814$1,041 $1,855
Bradbury
Duarte
Monrovia
704
64
64
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
$1,493
$1,493
$1,493
$226
$21
$21
$1,719
$1,513
$1,513
$814
$814
$814
$123
$11
$11
$937
$825
$825
SierraMadre00.0%$1,493$0$1,493 $814$0 $814
Unincorporated1,3440.8%$1,493$431$1,924$814$235$1,049
UpperSanGabrielRiver
BaldwinPark4,3352.7%$1,742$1,390$3,132$950$758$1,708
Covina4,4812.7%$1,742$1,437$3,179 $950$784 $1,734
Glendora
Industry
9,307
7,647
5.7%
4.7%
$1,742
$1,742
$2,984
$2,452
$4,726
$4,194
$950
$950
$1,628
$1,337
$2,578
$2,287
LaPuente2,2071.4%$1,742$708$2,449 $950$386 $1,336
Unincorporated40,81225.0%$1,742$13,086$14,828$950$7,138$8,088
EastSanGabrielValley
WatershedManagement
Area
Claremont
LaVerne
Pomona
SanDimas
5,790
5,030
7,929
8,539
3.6%
3.1%
4.9%
5.2%
$2,613
$2,613
$2,613
$2,613
$1,857
$1,613
$2,542
$2,738
$4,469
$4,225
$5,155
$5,351
$1,425
$1,425
$1,425
$1,425
$1,013
$880
$1,387
$1,493
$2,438
$2,305
$2,812
$2,918
LowerSanGabrielRiver
Bellflower1,2160.7%$1,045$390$1,435$570$213$783
Cerritos5,6453.5%$1,045$1,810$2,855 $570$987 $1,557
DiamondBar4,5632.8%$1,045$1,463$2,508 $570$798 $1,368
Downey4,2372.6%$1,045$1,359$2,404 $570$741 $1,311
Lakewood
LongBeach
1,293
2,138
0.8%
1.3%
$1,045
$1,045
$415
$686
$1,460
$1,731
$570
$570
$226
$374
$796
$944
Norwalk6,2463.8%$1,045$2,003$3,048 $570$1,092 $1,662
PicoRivera3,9292.4%$1,045$1,260$2,305 $570$687 $1,257
SantaFeSprings5,6833.5%$1,045$1,822$2,867 $570$994 $1,564
Whittier9,3825.8%$1,045$3,008$4,053$570$1,641$2,211
OtherElMonte1,5771.0%$2,613$506$3,118$1,425$276$1,701
Irwindale5,1283.1%$2,613$1,644$4,257 $1,425$897 $2,322
SouthElMonte1,8231.1%$2,613$585$3,197 $1,425$319 $1,744
Walnut5,7573.5%$2,613$1,846$4,458 $1,425$1,007 $2,432
WestCovina* ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ
LACFCD(5%) ͲͲ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ͲͲ$5,500 ͲͲ ͲͲ $3,000
Totals162,950 100.0%$52,250 $52,250$104,500 $28,500 $28,500 $57,000
GWMA members will pay an additional 3% in administrative costs Non-GWMA members will an additional 5% in administrative costs
GWMA will collect a 25% deposit on each cost share amount listed in case a city decides to drop out
*did not indicate intent to participate
Area is preliminary and subject to revisions.
Lastupdate4/16/2015
Harbor Toxics TMDL Monitoring
LosAngelesRiverWatersheds
- 189 -
(50% equalshare,50% by area)(50% equal share, 50% by area)
Installationand1stYear'soperations
$110,000
2ndYearandsubsequentyears
$60,000
GroupNameCities/PermitteesInvolved Area (acres)Area Base Cost AreaCost Total Cost Base Cost Area Cost Total Cost
LowerSanGabrielRiver
Artesia1,0372.0%$2,613$1,062$3,675$1,425$579$2,004
Cerritos5,64511.1%$2,613$5,781$8,394 $1,425$3,153 $4,578
DiamondBar4,5638.9%$2,613$4,673$7,286 $1,425$2,549 $3,974
HawaiianGardens6141.2%$2,613$629$3,241 $1,425$343 $1,768
LaMirada
Lakewood
5,018
1,293
9.8%
2.5%
$2,613
$2,613
$5,139
$1,324
$7,752
$3,937
$1,425
$1,425
$2,803
$722
$4,228
$2,147
LongBeach2,1384.2%$2,613$2,190$4,802 $1,425$1,194 $2,619
Norwalk6,24612.2%$2,613$6,397$9,009 $1,425$3,489 $4,914
SantaFeSprings5,68311.1%$2,613$5,820$8,433 $1,425$3,175 $4,600
Whittier9,38218.4%$2,613$9,608$12,221$1,425$5,241$6,666
OtherHaciendaHeights*
Unincorporated
ͲͲ
9,400
ͲͲ
18.4%
ͲͲ
$26,125
ͲͲ
$9,627
ͲͲ
$35,752
ͲͲ
$14,250
ͲͲ
$5,251
ͲͲ
$19,501
LACFCD(5%) ͲͲ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ͲͲ$5,500 ͲͲ ͲͲ $3,000
Totals51,019 100.0%$52,250 $52,250$104,500 $28,500 $28,500 $57,000
GWMA members will pay an additional 3% in administrative costs Non-GWMA members will an additional 5% in administrative costs
GWMA will collect a 25% deposit on each cost share amount listed in case a city decides to drop out
*did not indicate intent to participate
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
- 190 -
Appendix 1
Example Field and Chain-of-Custody Forms
- 191 -
EXAMPLE Field Log Page 1 of 2
OBSERVATIONS
Weather:
Water Color: In stream Activity:
Water Characteristics (flow type, odor, turbidity, floatables):
Other comments (trash, wildlife, recreational uses, homeless activity, etc. – Use notes section if more room is needed):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
GENERAL INFORMATION Date: __________
Site ID: Sampling Personnel: ________________________
GPS Coordinates: (lat) ____________________ (lon) ________________________ Picture/Video #: __________
In situ WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Time Temp
(0C) pH D.O.
(mg/L)
D.O.
% Sat
Elec Cond.
(uS/cm)
COLLECTED WATER QUALITY SAMPLES
Sample ID Analysis Time Volume Notes
Field blank
Field duplicate
ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING NOTES:
- 192 -
Example Field Log Page 2 of 2
FLOW MEASUREMENTS WITH FLOAT AND STOPWATCH Number of Flow Paths:______
Fill out Path # Path# Path# Path# Path# Path#
Width of Flow at Top of Marked Section:
Width of Flow at Middle of Marked Section:
Width of Flow at Bottom of Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 0% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 25% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 50% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 75% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 100% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 0% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 25% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 50% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 75% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 100% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 0% of Bottom Marked Section
Depth of Flow at 25% of Bottom Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 50% of Bottom Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 75% of Bottom Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 100% of Bottom Marked Section
Distance Marked-off for Velocity:
Time 1:
Time 2:
Time 3:
Specify if measurements are in inches or feet using “in” or “ft”
FLOW MEASUREMENTS WITH VELOCITY METER
Estimated Total Width of Flowing Water (ft): ____________ Distance measured from (circle): RIGHT or LEFT
Measurement Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from Bank (ft)
Depth (ft)
Velocity (ft/s)
ADDITIONAL FLOW MEASUREMENT NOTES:
FLOW MEASUREMENT WITH GRADUATED CONTAINER
Container Volume: Percent Capture:
Time to fill container:
Minutes Seconds
Time1
Time2
Time3
EXAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
- 193 -
Company: Phone: Job No. Page _______ of _______
Project Manager: Email: Analysis Requested Test Instruction & Comments
Project Name: Project #
Site Name:
& Address:
Container
Sample ID Lab ID Date Time Matrix Number/Size Pres.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Sample Receipt: To Be Filled By Lab Turn Around Time Relinquished By: 1 Relinquished By: 2 Relinquished By: 3
Total Number of Containers Normal Signature Signature Signature
Custody Seals Yes No N/A Rush Printed Name Printed Name
Received in Good Condition Yes No Same Day Date Time Date Time Date Time
Properly Cooled Yes No N/A 24 Hrs Received By 1 Received By 2 Received By 3
Samples Intact Yes No N/A 48 Hrs Signature Signature Signature
Samples Accepted Yes No 72 Hrs Printed Name Printed Name Printed Name
Date Time Date Time Date Time
1
24347.00006\30493020.2
CITY OF ARCADIA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED
MONITORING PROGRAM (“CIMP”) FOR THE RIO HONDO/SAN GABRIEL
RIVER WATER QUALITY GROUP
This Agreement is made and entered into as of ________________, 20____ by and
between the City of Arcadia, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of
the State of California with its principal place of business at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia,
California 91066 (“City”), and California Watershed Engineering (“CWE”, a California
Corporation, with its principal place of business at 1561 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 240,
Fullerton, CA 92831 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes
individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional
services for the following project: Implementation of the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring
Program (“CIMP” for the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group (hereinafter
referred to as “the Project”).
B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such
services.
C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain
Consultant to provide the services described herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Services.
Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services
attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in
accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “B.”
b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant
under this Agreement exceed the sum of Two Million, Nine Hundred Sixty Thousand, Six
Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars and No Cents ($2,960,675.00). This amount is to cover all
printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses.
Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed
description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on
a monthly billing basis.
2
24347.00006\30493020.2
3. Additional Work.
If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations
with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following
manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a
statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall
be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or
the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall
not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.
4. Maintenance of Records.
Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs
incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the
contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for
inspection by City.
5. Term.
The term of this Agreement shall be for five (5) years from the date of execution, unless
earlier terminated as provided herein. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the
term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Project. Consultant shall perform its services
in a prompt and timely manner within the term of this Agreement and shall commence
performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). The
Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.
6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for
delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the non-
performing party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited
to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil
disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or
judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a
reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party
describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to
resume performance of this Agreement.
7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and
regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements.
b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and
maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies.
c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of
hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed
under this Agreement.
3
24347.00006\30493020.2
8. Standard of Care
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted
professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.
9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or
interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any
reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without
legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a
provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained
herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as
Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.
10. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No
employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed
shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and
amendments from City as herein provided.
11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided
evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In
addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until
it has secured all insurance required under this section.
a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance
of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General
Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at
least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent.
(iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage
for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion
deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement
(8) Property Damage
4
24347.00006\30493020.2
(9) Independent Consultants Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting
coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured
against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion
contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents
and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10
10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or
provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and
provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured.
b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this
Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and
property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with
insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as
broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability
(Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents
and City designated volunteers additional insured status.
(iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability
program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an
additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section
3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability
for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of
that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this
Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term
of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the
Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by
him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the
“Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of
California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts
indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period
required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as
specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
5
24347.00006\30493020.2
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall
maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in
a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.
This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and
shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must
specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the
insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend.
e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:
Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate
for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and
property damage
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and
omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits.
(iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this
section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of
any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to
the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement.
f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence
of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required
herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent)
signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or
equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by
a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the
names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the
insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of
such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior
written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant
shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to
non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term
6
24347.00006\30493020.2
of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General
Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective
date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy
shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any
insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall
not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the
effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a
period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant
shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced
past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the
policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the
effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional
liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its
officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or
others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right
of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and
shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its
subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.
Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in
excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City
and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other
provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance
companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies
with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the
business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance
through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code
or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance
coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not
intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise
assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the
provisions concerning indemnification.
7
24347.00006\30493020.2
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of
insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is
canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems
necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will
withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City
may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of
all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project.
(iv) Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents
or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this
Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided
evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.
Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or
subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG
20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant,
City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors
or subconsultants.
12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel
of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and
agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses,
liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including
wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or
omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors,
consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project
or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees
and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify
shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. To the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully
incorporated herein, Consultant’s obligations under the above indemnity shall be limited to claims
that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the
Consultant, but shall not otherwise be reduced. If Consultant’s obligations to defend, indemnify,
and/or hold harmless arise out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional services” (as
that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then upon Consultant obtaining a final
adjudication that liability under a claim is caused by the comparative active negligence or willful
misconduct of the City, Consultant’s obligations shall be reduced in proportion to the established
comparative liability of the City and shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage
of fault.
13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections
1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the
8
24347.00006\30493020.2
performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects
(“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public
works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $15,000 or more for maintenance or $25,000 or more for construction, alteration,
demolition, installation, or repair, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage
Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and
agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon
the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which
include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775),
employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code
Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment
of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1).
b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works”
or “maintenance” project and if the total compensation is $15,000 or more for maintenance or
$25,000 or more for construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair, then pursuant to
Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such
services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain
registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as
applicable. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the
Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all
applicable registration and labor compliance requirements.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and
enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility
to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders
issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that
affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole
responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered
Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from
any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations
against Consultant or any subcontractor.
14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements
and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens,
including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended
from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the
same.
15. City Material Requirements.
Consultant is hereby made aware of the City’s requirements regarding materials, as set
forth in Request for Proposal, which are deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
9
24347.00006\30493020.2
16. Laws and Venue.
This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be
brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
17. Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work
under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event,
City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and
specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the
work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of
services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination
occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been
received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of
such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of
such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs
other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be
entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or
compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under
this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial
failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of
Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,”
above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents,
produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this
Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.
19. Organization
Consultant shall assign Jason Pereira, P.E., as Project Manager. The Project Manager
shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.
20. Limitation of Agreement.
This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described
above.
21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given
or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:
10
24347.00006\30493020.2
CITY:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91066
Attn: Vanessa Hevener
Environmental Services Manager
CONSULTANT:
California Watershed Engineering
1561 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 240
Fullerton, CA 92831
Attn: Jason Pereira, P.E.
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.
22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other
than the City and the Consultant.
23. Equal Opportunity Employment.
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color,
national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal
Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to
initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or
termination.
24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and
Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or
contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to
those matters covered hereunder. Each party acknowledges that no representations,
inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated
herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or
altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.
25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not
render the provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in
interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement. However,
Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights,
burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment
without such consent shall be invalid and void.
11
24347.00006\30493020.2
27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party,
unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.
28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.
29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with
this Project or other projects.
30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or
person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this
Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting
from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall
have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no
director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall
have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit
arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
12
24347.00006\30493020.2
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARCADIA
AND CALIFORNIA WATERSHED ENGINEERING (“CWE”)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
CITY OF ARCADIA CALIFORNIA WATERSHED ENGINEERING
By: By:
Dominic Lazzaretto
City Manager Title:
Printed Name:
ATTEST: By:
Title:
By:
City Clerk Printed Name:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
13
24347.00006\30493020.2
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
The Scope of Services for the Implementation of the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
(“CIMP”) shall include, but are not limited to the following:
Task 1 – Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings
Project management will include administration and management of the Project contract,
coordination and communication with members of the RH/SGRWQG, annual report
presentations, and meeting coordination. CWE will lead the project management task
and provide sub-consultant guidance, interagency coordination, scheduling, budget
tracking, and invoicing. Project management efforts are critical to allow the Project to be
completed on time and within budget. CWE will proactively engage the City of Arcadia
and RH/SGRWQG with timely and concise communications and anticipate feedback at
various stages of Project implementation. We will conduct the following Project meetings:
x Project kick-off meeting (virtually) to discuss the Scope of Work and approach within
seven (7) days of the Notice to Proceed (NTP)
x Field kick-off meeting with RH/SGRWQG members at sampling locations
x Annual Report presentation to the RH/SGRWQG members (three [3] meetings)
x Optional meetings with the RH/SGRWQG, oversight committee, Los Angeles RWQCB
staff, and/or consultants to deliver the Project (two [2] meetings anticipated)
x Project close-out meeting
We will prepare and submit a sign-in sheet and agenda to the City of Arcadia two (2)
business days prior to each meeting. The agenda will serve as the basis for the meeting
summary, which will be prepared and submitted to the City of Arcadia within five (5)
business days after the meeting.
Under the existing contract, CWE conducted a field kick-off meeting and prepared
recommendations, alternatives, and justifications for monitoring equipment at each
location. Plans were prepared and subsequently submitted to the LACFCD and USACE
for permitting. Those permit applications are pending approval. We believe this field kick-
off meeting is unnecessary and could provide the RH/SGRWQG a cost savings if
eliminated. Task 9 has been added to discuss continued monitoring equipment
installation permitting support and procurement and installation of monitoring equipment
once the permits are approved.
In addition to the scheduled meetings, CWE will provide the RH/SGRWQG with a project
schedule and monthly updates.
14
24347.00006\30493020.2
Deliverables: Agenda, sign-in sheet, and meeting summary for up to eight (8) meetings
during the base three-year term of the contract, including the kick-off, field kick-off, Annual
Report presentation, and close-out meetings. Presentations (in PDF format) for each
Annual Report. Project schedule noting milestones and deadlines based on the Scope
of Work.
Task 2 – CIMP Requirements
CWE has extensive knowledge of the approved CIMP, having authored and implemented
the CIMP on behalf of the RH/SGRWQG for the past five years. The CWE Team will
perform sample collection and field measurements in accordance with the process and
procedures in the approved CIMP. CWE Team members are well-qualified and
experienced at collecting wet- and dry-weather samples and performing field analytical
measurements. As described in Task 2.1, CWE will prepare for monitoring events well
before mobilization, notify the City of Arcadia, mobilize sampling teams, conduct mid-
event communication, and notify the City of demobilization and sample delivery to the
laboratory.
Task 2.1 – Receiving Water Monitoring
Annually, three wet-weather flow integrated and nine dry-weather grab samples are
proposed for the Long-Term Assessment (LTA) site RHSGR_RH3_ARC (Rio Hondo
Reach 3), and four wet-weather flow integrated and two dry-weather grab samples are
proposed for RHSGR_LDW_BDW (Little Dalton Wash), as described in Table 2-4 of the
approved CIMP. TMDL monitoring will also occur at these two sites and is described in
Task 2.2.
Dry-weather LTA site water quality monitoring is expected to proceed like most other
regulatory water quality monitoring programs, meaning that it can be regimented and
thoughtfully orchestrated. For dry-weather sampling, water quality samples will not be
collected from stagnant puddles, where constituents are concentrated by evaporation, or
when unrepresentative flow characteristics are readily apparent. CWE knows that
months of planning and preparation are necessary so that mobilization and water quality
sampling proceed smoothly and with as few surprises as humanly possible; especially
when the Group receives their laboratory reports, semi-annual data submissions, and
draft Annual Reports. The CIMP identifies that one sample should be collected during
historic critical low flow month of July. CWE proposes to continue conducting this event
during the second week of the month to coordinate the date of dry-weather sample
collection events with downstream MES sampling, which we conduct on behalf of the
LACFCD. The second dry-weather sample may occur at any time assuming a lack of
precluding rainfall of 0.1 inches per day over the preceding 72 hours. CWE proposes that
this event be deferred until May or early June, but dry-weather samples could be collected
if a wet-weather event dissipates after staff have field mobilized, as discussed below.
15
24347.00006\30493020.2
This requires coordination, but CWE has successfully planned for and implemented this
on many occasions.
Wet-weather monitoring is significantly dependent on the additional dynamics introduced
by storm forecasting and flow variance. Forecasted qualifying storms may dissipate
before producing measurable runoff, and events that appear to not be qualifying may
produce qualifying amounts of rainfall. Dry-weather samples may be collected in the case
of a qualifying storm not materializing, which reduces the likelihood of a “false start” and
may save the RH/SGRWQG the cost of an otherwise wasted mobilization effort.
The CWE Team knows that sample collection preparations begin upon receipt of the NTP
and hopefully long before the first rain event. HSPs, site SOPs, and Master CoCs need
to be developed or updated for each site, approved by the client, and sufficiently clear for
field staff to use as a reference. Sample bottle procurement and swap out for
autosamplers, off-hour laboratory notification, and drop off procedures need to be
prepared, tested, and tested again as the event nears. Site-specific collection, safety,
expendables, personal protective equipment, and back up gear must be procured and
stored in a dedicated location. Contact information for field staff and back up personnel
must be readily available for notification of the incoming storm event.
While the CIMP and RFP emphasize the Santa Fe Dam Rain Gauge, its value is
retrospective of past events, rather than in forecasting future events, and there is no
requirement that if a qualifying event based on forecasts falls below a quarter inch that
the collected samples or data must be rejected. For a catchment of this size, CWE
proposes to track forecasts from two well-spaced, but representative points, such as the
Sierra Madre/Arcadia border on the Arcadia Wash (34.16°, -118.06°) and central Azusa
where I-210 and Little Dalton Wash cross (34.12°, -117.90°) using the National Weather
Service (NWS) Los Angeles/Oxnard Forecasting Office website 1. Storm forecasts will be
intermittently reviewed, and saved, based on NWS update schedules. We often track
forecasts from multiple NWS offices (San Diego and Oxnard), having noted differing
accuracy and interpretations between their forecasts.
In the days before the expected arrival of the storm event, field analytical equipment must
be tested and calibration documented, replacement samples bottles ordered, clean
bottles or jars installed in autosamplers (if installed) and its programming and operational
status verified. Between 40 and 24 hours before the start time of an approaching event,
CWE will prepare an event forecast summary for the City of Arcadia that includes:
x Anticipated start date and time of the storm event
x NWS (or other sources if used) projections for the anticipated highest total amount of
rain during any given 24-hour period and precipitation probabilities
x Tests, including proposed constituent or constituent classes, to be run on samples
from each site
1 Arcadia/Sierra Madre: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/forecast/wxtables/index.php?lat=34.16&lon=-118.06
Azusa: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/forecast/wxtables/index.php?lat=34.12&lon=-117.90
16
24347.00006\30493020.2
x Confirmation that the laboratory has been notified to expect samples
x Contact information, including cell phone number, for the storm event coordinator
Beyond the projected start and intensity forecast information, CWE accounts for past
storm history, daylight, traffic, staff and site-specific characteristics, planned work shifts,
alternate forecasting and Doppler Radar reports in issuing the final mobilization to field
sites orders. CWE is ready to wait for client orders or make independent mobilization
decisions based on the Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) of our trained regional experts
and managers. Flow-weighted sample collection during wet-weather will be initiated
when measured flows exceed baseline levels by 20% or as soon as possible after
stormwater-based outfall monitoring, as identified in Permit Part VII.C.1.c. Similar
information regarding traffic, weather patterns, and staffing, plus analyte (bacteria) hold
times and laboratory sample receiving hours (to avoid late drop off fees) are considered
in making the decision to begin shift changes and start running samples from the field to
the laboratory.
Field logs, post event summaries, CoC reports, and laboratory analytical reports will be
submitted to the RH/SGRWQG within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring events.
Deliverables: Event forecast summaries and notifications of storm activation,
deactivation, sample delivery to the laboratory (before, during, and after monitoring
events). Post-event sampling data and monitoring summaries (thirty [30] days after each
monitoring event).
Task 2.2 – Receiving Water TMDL Monitoring
The TMDL required monitoring at the LTA receiving water sites, RHSGR_RH3_ARC and
RHSGR_LDW_BDW, will be scheduled to coincide with the wet- and dry-weather events
described in Task 2.1 to reduce costs. Additional TMDL sites include
RHSGR_PRP_LAKE (Peck Road Park Lake), RHSGR_SAW_PR (Sawpit Wash), and
RHSGR_SAN_DD (Santa Anita Wash).
Collection of Peck Road Water Conservation Park Lake (PRWCPL) water, sediment, and
fish tissue samples, as per the Peck Road Lake Nutrient and Toxics TMDL, will be
implemented by Weston Solutions. Weston Solutions has experience conducting
monitoring at impaired lakes in Southern California, including PRWCPL. Weston
Solutions supplies its own monitoring equipment, boats, sensors, specialized gear for
water column, deep water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring, including electroshocking
fish in conjunction with the CDFW. The proposed budget includes quarterly trash
assessments around the lake perimeter.
Water quality surveys will be undertaken twice each summer, and once each winter, to
assess physical and nutrient conditions within the lake. Samples will be collected at one
17
24347.00006\30493020.2
station to be determined based on water depth and other characteristics. Lake water
quality profiles will be assessed in the field for conductivity, pH, temperature, and
dissolved oxygen, using a Conductivity, Temperature, Depth (CTD) meter. Nutrient water
quality grab samples will be taken, from half the Secci Disk depth, as per the TMDL, and
analyzed in the laboratory. Organic contaminants (Total Organic Carbon [TOC], Dieldrin,
total Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes [DDTs], total Chlordane and total Polychlorinated
Biphenyls [PCBs]) will be annually collected as mid-depth grab samples and analyzed
using high resolution methods (EPA 1668) to achieve the TMDL designated water
concentration Method Detection Limits (MDLs).
Annual sediment samples will be collected at one station using a Van Veen Sampler to
assess Organic contaminant (TOC, Dieldrin, total DDTs, total Chlordanes and total PCB
concentrations. The top 2 to 3 cm of sediment, collected from the sampler, will be
homogenized in the field, stored in glass jars, and sent to the laboratory for analysis using
high resolutions methods (EPA 1668) to achieve TMDL MDLs.
Fish tissue samples will be collected once every three years to assess organic
contaminant (Dieldrin, total DDTs, total Chlordanes and total PCBs) concentrations and
percent lipids. Five Common Carp, greater than 350 cm long, will be collected using
electroshock methods and one homogenized skin-off composite will be analyzed using
traditional analytical methods that achieve TMDL identified MDLs. Fish tissue samples
were collected in November 2017 and will be scheduled for collection when feasible after
the NTP is issued. Very few companies are permitted to conduct the electroshock method
in freshwater lakes. Previously, US Fish and Wildlife staff at the Moss Landing Marine
Lab were contracted to perform this work, but their scheduling is currently restricted due
to COVID-19. We are researching alternatives to accommodate scheduling the fish tissue
sample collection once the NTP is issued.
Monitoring data quality objectives will follow Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
(SWAMP) protocols. One field and one laboratory duplicate will be assessed for each
matrix from each monitoring event. High resolution methods do not require matrix spikes
or matrix spike duplicates, and our proposal budget does not include analysis for these
QC samples. Solid reference material is included in the cost estimate for quality
assurance purposes, as per the CIMP.
Annually, three wet-weather flow integrated and nine dry-weather grab samples are
proposed at RHSGR_SAW_PR and RHSGR_SAN_DD, as described in Table 2-4 of the
CIMP. Sediment sampling will occur at RHSGR_SAW_PR and RHSGR_SAN_DD once
per year during a wet-weather event, as per
Table 2-4 of the CIMP.
Except for sediment and fish tissue derived analytical reports, field logs, post event
summaries, CoC reports, and laboratory analytical reports will be submitted to the
RH/SGRWQG within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring events.
18
24347.00006\30493020.2
Deliverables: Event forecast summaries and notifications of storm activation,
deactivation, sample delivery to the laboratory (before, during, and after monitoring
events). Post-event sampling data and monitoring summaries (thirty [30] days after each
monitoring event), except for sediment and fish tissue derived analytical reports, which
will be provided upon completing the QA/QC process.
Task 2.3 – Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
Stormwater outfall monitoring will be implemented similar to the LTA and TMDL wet-
weather monitoring described in Task 2.1 and Task 2.2.
Stormwater outfall monitoring locations include Peck Road Drain (PRD), Bradbury Drain
(BRD), BI 0404-Line A (ALA), BI 1219-Line C (BLC), and Beatty Canyon (BCD). The
RFP includes BI 0602-Line B; however, this stormwater outfall monitoring location is
identified as BI 0404-Line A in Table 4-11 of the CIMP. Three wet-weather flow integrated
samples are required annually for ALA and PRD, and four wet-weather flow integrated
samples are required annually for BCD, BRD, and BLC, as per Table 4-11 of the CIMP.
The RFP requests a phased implementation schedule for stormwater outfall monitoring,
which was implemented from 2015 to 2018. Since 2018, annual monitoring has occurred
at PRD, BRD, ALA, BLC, and BCD. Our proposed budget includes annual monitoring at
the five stormwater outfall locations.
Wet-weather monitoring event planning, mobilization, sample collection, demobilization,
laboratory delivery, and reporting will follow the wet-weather sampling criteria identified
in the LTA and TMDL tasks and will be conducted during the same events to develop
complimentary monitoring data.
Deliverables: Event forecast summaries and notifications of storm activation,
deactivation, sample delivery to the laboratory (before, during, and after monitoring
events). Post-event sampling data and monitoring summaries (thirty [30] days after each
monitoring event).
Task 2.4 – Rio Hondo Pre-Load Reduction Strategy Monitoring (Additive Alternative A)
LRSs are one way to meet dry-weather compliance for the LAR Bacteria TMDL. Pre-LRS
Monitoring started in 2015 with the development of an outfall inventory. In total, 312
outfalls in the Rio Hondo subwatershed of the Los Angeles River were identified. Outfalls
were screened three times during September, October, and November 2015. The
screening included observing the approximate flow rate and collecting samples for E. coli
testing. NSW discharges were observed at 59 of the 312 outfalls, but only 12 outfalls had
NSW discharges during all three screening events. These 12 outfalls were ARCW004,
ARCW035, SANAW-028, SANAW048, SAWPW001, SAWPW-024, SAWPW-050,
19
24347.00006\30493020.2
SMW029, SMW034, SMW-065, SMW-075, and SMW-078. The outfalls were prioritized
based on flow rate and E. coli loading. Source identification was conducted for three of
the prioritized outfalls. Based on the outcome of the initial screenings, enhancements at
Peck Road Park Lake to increase infiltration were proposed, similar to the Rio Hondo
Ecosystem Restoration Project and Arcadia Wash Water Conservation Diversion
described in the Revised Watershed Management Program (rWMP).
Three additional screenings will be undertaken to meet the LAR Bacteria TMDL, as
described in Section 5.1 of the approved CIMP. Pre-LRS monitoring will benefit the multi-
benefit regional projects described in the rWMP by helping to establish potential dry-
weather bacteria loading for the feasibility studies. Although these projects have been
proposed with wet-weather compliance in mind, they can be designed to capture and
treat dry-weather flows. The data obtained from pre-LRS monitoring can support concept
development beyond the projects described in the rWMP, if needed, to meet LAR Bacteria
TMDL goals.
The inventory developed in 2015 will be revised and edited to reflect new developments
or changes to the storm drain system. Three screening events will be conducted to
inspect outfall characteristics, including approximate flow rate, and collect E. coli samples.
This task assumes assistance from the RH/SGRWQG in obtaining encroachment or other
permits. Ranking criteria will be used to identify the highest priority outfalls for source
investigation. Post-event sampling data and monitoring reports will be submitted thirty
(30) days after each event.
Deliverables: An updated GIS database of the Rio Hondo MS4 Outfalls, post-event
sampling data and monitoring reports, and schedule for source identification.
Task 2.5 – NSW Outfall Monitoring for San Gabriel River Tributaries (Additive
Alternative B)
The NSW Outfall Monitoring Program started in 2015 with developing an inventory of
outfalls with significant NSW discharge and prioritizing the NSW outfalls for source
identification. In total, 114 outfalls were identified in the SGR watershed for investigation.
During September, October, and November 2015, the outfalls were screened three times,
and NSW flows were observed at 13 of the 114 outfalls. Only two outfalls, LTLDW-033
and LTLDW-052, had NSW flows during all three screening events and were identified as
potentially significant sources of NSW discharges. Source identification was conducted
for LTLDW-052, and facilities with NPDES permits were identified in the drainage area.
The inventory developed in 2015 will be updated to reflect new developments or changes
to the storm drain system. Three screening events will be conducted to inspect outfall
characteristics, including approximate flow rate. Screening will help identify significant
changes in the past five years and if new source identification is needed. This task
assumes assistance from the RH/SGRWQG in obtaining encroachment or other permits.
20
24347.00006\30493020.2
Ranking criteria will be used to identify the highest priority outfalls for source investigation.
Draft and final reports will be prepared to summarize the findings of the investigation.
Deliverables: An updated GIS database of the San Gabriel River MS4 Outfalls, Draft and
Final Significant Discharge Reports, and schedule for source identification.
Task 3 – Health and Safety Plan
CWE places the uppermost importance of the health and safety of its employees,
subcontractors, clients, and the public during all work assignments. We believe that
health and safety is a continual process in which we strive for continuous improvement in
the performance of our responsibilities, with a goal of zero accidents/injuries within our
companies and subcontractors across all contracts. We believe that accidents are
preventable through close attention to work design detail, careful hazards assessment
and control, and focused attention to safe work practices. We are committed to
integrating best practices and requirements.
Our approach to developing and implementing a successful HSP is built on the premise
that health and safety is the responsibility of all employees, and consistent with this
approach, CWE has developed a Behavior-Based Safety (BBS) approach in which
employees and team members are responsible for each other by recognizing at-risk
behaviors and identifying techniques to foster a safe working environment. BBS
promotes safe behavior through active employee involvement, safety ownership, and
accountability at all levels of the workplace. Employees are empowered to assume a
safety leadership role and contribute to the safety of ourselves, co-workers, clients, and
subcontractors. Behavior is improved through proactive, instructive, supportive, and
motivational intervention.
Consistent with this BBS approach, CWE will design and implement a HSP which
complies with the California Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) and Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, and includes conducting in-
house training, inspections, audits and evaluations to evaluate its implementation and
effectiveness in protecting the health, safety and well-being of all team personnel as well
as RH/SGRWQG personnel, other contractors, and the public during the performance of
work assignments.
CWE will prepare a site-specific HSP for tasks to be performed. Our site-specific
knowledge will be used to update the HSP developed under our current contract for CIMP
implementation resulting in a cost savings to the RH/SGRWQG. The site conditions,
including the increased presence of persons experiencing homelessness, have changed
since the initial HSP was developed in 2015, and revisions will be made to the HSP to
reflect these changes. Additionally, COVID-19 precautions will be added to the HSP that
reflect current guidelines to protect the health of team personnel during the performance
21
24347.00006\30493020.2
of work assignments. The HSP includes a site description, list of key personnel with
appropriate qualifications and competence, work zone descriptions, personal protective
equipment (PPE), decontamination procedures, monitoring equipment required for the
performance of each task, emergency contact information, training requirements, medical
surveillance, and applicable Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). The HSP also
addresses specific hazards and mitigation measures as they apply to specific work
assignments under each task. The CWE Team’s Project Manager and CIH will work
closely together to prepare the HSP for submittal to the RH/SGRWQG for review, respond
to comments received, and incorporate approved revisions and additions into the HSP
for finalization.
Deliverables: Draft (in PDF format) and final HSP (in PDF and printed format). Three (3)
copies of the final HSP will be submitted to the RH/SGRWQG.
Task 4 – Data Management and Reporting Methodology
Water quality data will be submitted in a format that is consistent with the most recent
update of the SMC Standardized Data Transfer Format (SDTF). The SDTF follows typical
CEDEN conventions. The CWE Team is familiar with these and has successfully
submitted station, event, and water quality parameters to CEDEN on a semi-annual basis.
Task 4.1 – Water Quality Data Submission
Field logs, post event summaries, CoC reports, and laboratory analytical reports will be
submitted to the RH/SGRWQG within thirty (30) days of storm events, as described in
Task 2. Following submission of the initial summaries, CWE will prepare electronic
summaries in a standardized CEDEN format for submission to the City of Arcadia. The
City of Arcadia will have fifteen (15) days to provide comment, after which the finalized
data in electronic format will be submitted to the City and Los Angeles RWQCB. We
assume this data will also be used in completing Task 6.3.
Deliverables: Draft and final water quality data in CEDEN format (MS Excel format)
Task 4.2 – External Web-Based Data Management
The CIMP RFP asks for mechanisms to support the monitoring, reporting, water quality
program management decision making, and assessing the effectiveness of watershed
actions. Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS) and GIS are effective in
presenting and analyzing collected data. Based on the size of the RH/SGRWQG
jurisdictional area, need to view trend data, and for multiple stakeholder/agency input and
analysis, a centralized and internet/cloud-based GIS system is proposed, which allows
for security-based access, real-time data collection, review, and comment. Collected data
and other scope of work deliverables can be uploaded for review, comment, and update
22
24347.00006\30493020.2
in its native format along with the downloading of data for use in local systems and
desktop environments.
To maintain data ownership rights, remain flexible for client assumption of control, while
being based on a universal format for compatibility/conversion, an ESRI® cloud-based
system is proposed. ESRI ArcGIS products are the most versatile tools available to
deliver the proposed scoped of services and deliverables. The ESRI GIS Server or
ArcGIS Online platform allows for the functionality, scalability, and multi-access security
provisions necessitated by this scope of work. These systems allow for the collection and
presentation of data on maps, the editing of information, and have the ability to run
geospatial queries online or offline on desktop applications. Dozens of stakeholders can
access the information simultaneously. Specific pre-populated queries, or customized
queries designed on the fly can be executed in the ArcGIS Online platform.
Implementation of the cloud-based version will allow for seamless transition of work
products between clients or contractors over the project duration, and can be extended
to accommodate MS4 Permit reporting requirements by establishing a system that can
last the test of time and stakeholder turnover.
The CWE Team will develop a GIS template for monitoring locations and formulate
spreadsheet templates as per the MS4 Permit identified SDTF, which is reported by the
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project to follow CEDEN formatting, for use
within the system or as an external linkage to the GIS system (GIS Server or ArcGIS
Online). CWE is familiar with extranet and intranet implementations, including Microsoft
SharePoint, for wide area environmental programs. These sites are cost-effective and
easily deployed and can be used in conjunction with the GIS Server or ArcGIS Online
system or as standalone websites. CWE will work with the RH/SGRWQG in identifying
metadata categories for the monitoring events and develop the necessary database fields
and linkages to geospatial maps to be accessible through the cloud-based system or
standalone data-driven websites. Based on these requirements from established needs
assessment workshops, we can establish if additional technologies will need to be
implemented, such as geocoded photography, flow modeling, and asset inventory. CWE
has implemented hand-held data loggers and GIS/Global Positioning System (GPS)
enabled devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc.) to collect customized data
inputs for project specific needs. CWE’s tried and tested technology methodologies will
be tailored to the RH/SGRWQG’s requirements and be universally compatible with
industry GIS systems and data export formats for public and internal use. We will provide
training and support for stakeholders to access the developed systems.
Our approach to GIS, mapping, and database support is to commit experienced staff for
the successful completion of the project. Our team of professionals will be supervised by
our Database Management Lead, Farooq Qureshi, ENV SP, CNA, CNE, MSCE, with 22
years of industry experience in deploying GIS, mapping and technology projects for public
agency infrastructure and facility projects. CWE also brings resources with over 30 years
23
24347.00006\30493020.2
of project success for municipal water and sewer utility planning, design, and construction
in Southern California.
While fully ready to implement this task as proposed, the CWE Team is not aware of it
being a requirement of the MS4 Permit and it is unclear how much additional monitoring
data would be developed outside of the proposed work. Given that the data would likely
be available through CEDEN, the implementation of this task might be delayed or
deferred until a genuine purpose and need for the Data Management System can be
identified.
Deliverables: ESRI® cloud-based GIS system and training session (virtual) for
stakeholders
Task 5 – Laboratory Analysis
The CWE Team includes three laboratories (Eurofins, Enthalpy Analytical, and ABC
Laboratories) based on their ability to achieve 2012 MS4 Permit, Attachment E, Table E-
2 Minimum Levels and analysis costs. Enthalpy Analytical will be used for bacteria
testing, ABC Laboratories for toxicity testing, and Eurofins for wet chemistry analyses.
Deliverables: Information indicating the testing laboratories are certified to meet
laboratory detection and reporting limits.
Task 6 – Reports
The CWE Team will prepare draft and final RH/SGRWQG MS4 Permit Annual Reports
and Semi-Annual Data Reports beginning with the 2020-2021 reporting year. Reports
will be provided to the City as an editable document to allow for easy revision tracking
prior to finalizing the report and submission to the Regional Board.
Task 6.1 – Draft Annual Report
At the end of each reporting year, CWE will prepare and distribute to each RH/SGRWQG
member an information request matrix to collect data related to the implementation efforts
completed throughout the reporting period. Based on the information provided, the Draft
Annual Report will be prepared and annually submitted to the members by September
1st. The members will annually review and provide comments on their individual and
Watershed Annual Reports by September 15th.
Deliverables: Draft Annual Report in MS Word format (five [5] Draft Annual Reports
assumed).
24
24347.00006\30493020.2
Task 6.2 – Final Annual Report
CWE will address comments received from the RH/SGRWQG on the Draft Annual
Reports to prepare the Final Annual Reports. These reports will be submitted annually
to the members by October 1st and transmitted to the Regional Board by the December
15th deadline.
Deliverables: Final Annual Report in PDF format (five [5] Final Annual Reports assumed)
Task 6.3 – Semi-Annual Data Report
Several of the monitoring tasks identified in Task 2 require submitting the field log,
laboratory reports, and event summaries to the RH/SGRWQG within thirty (30) days after
sampling events. Task 4.1 includes submitting this data electronically in CEDEN format
to the City of Arcadia for review and comments. Once finalized, CWE assumes that this
data is to be semiannually submitted to CEDEN. We anticipate completing this task by
April 1st and October 1st annually, in conjunction with the completion of the Final
RH/SGRWQG MS4 Permit Annual Report. Results from each of the receiving water and
outfall-based monitoring stations will be submitted electronically to the Regional Board.
The results will be submitted semi-annually (April 1st and October 1st) and will highlight
exceedances applicable to WQBELs, RWLs, action levels, and aquatic toxicity thresholds
for each sample date and monitoring location.
Deliverables: Water quality data submitted semi-annually to CEDEN (ten [10] submittals
assumed).
Task 7 – Field Logs and Site Assessment Photos
The City of Arcadia and RH/SGRWQG will be provided with field logs and photographs
of upstream and downstream conditions at all monitoring sites. The field logs include
general information, observations, measurements, and field notes on water quality and
flow. The general information includes site location, quantity of photographs taken, arrival
and departure times, and sampling team. Observations are made of trash, wildlife,
recreational uses, and homeless activity. Field measurements taken include water
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen content, turbidity, and specific conductivity. Flow
measurements include aliquot collection time, percent of total sample volume, and flow
depth in the drain or channel.
Deliverables: Field logs and photographs of upstream and downstream conditions at all
monitoring sites following each sampling event provided in electronic format.
25
24347.00006\30493020.2
Task 8 – CIMP Revision
While a tentative draft MS4 Permit has been released for public review and comment, the
final adopted MS4 Permit may significantly differ from the current version. The extent of
required CIMP changes resulting from a new MS4 Permit are currently unknown.
Therefore, the fee provided for this task is strictly for budgeting purposes and will need to
be refined and negotiated once a more defined scope of work can be determined for
accomplishing the RH/SGRWQG’s desired tasks.
After the new MS4 Permit is adopted, CWE will perform a thorough analysis of the
permit’s requirements and prepare a technical memorandum summarizing proposed
CIMP changes. CWE will draft a letter to the Los Angeles RWQCB, on behalf of the
RH/SGRWQG, outlining the proposed CIMP changes and requesting their concurrence.
Once the path forward is clear between the RH/SGRWQG and Los Angeles RWQCB,
CWE will prepare a Draft Revised CIMP for RH/SGRWQG members to review and
comment. CWE will address member comments and transmit the Revised CIMP to the
Los Angeles RWQCB. After the public review period, CWE will review comments
received from the public and Los Angeles RWQCB, prepare a response to comments,
and provide the RH/SGRWQG with recommendations. With RH/SGRWQG member
consensus, the 2nd Draft Revised CIMP will be prepared addressing the Los Angeles
RWQCB and public comments. Further comments received on the 2nd Draft Revised
CIMP will be addressed in a Final Revised CIMP.
Deliverables: Technical Memorandum summarizing the proposed CIMP changes, letter
requesting CIMP changes, Draft Revised CIMP, 2nd Draft Revised CIMP, and Final
Revised CIMP.
Task 9 – Procurement and Installation of Equipment
Under our current contract, we prepared recommendations, alternatives, and
justifications for monitoring equipment. The monitoring equipment includes an enclosure,
autosampler, power source (battery for sites without grid access), tubing, and sample
collection containers. Plans have been submitted to the LACFCD and USACE for review
and are pending permit approval. Once the permits and plans have been approved, the
monitoring equipment will be procured and installed at each monitoring site. We have
reached out to vendors to obtain quotes for the procurement and installation of the
monitoring equipment, and quotes are included separately in the cost estimate.
Deliverables: Permitting support and procurement and installation of monitoring
equipment.
26
24347.00006\30493020.2
EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle. Consultant will include with each invoice a detailed
progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task. Consultant will inform
City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant. This is a time-and-materials
contract.
Compensation shall be based on time and materials spent in accordance with the following tasks,
not to exceed the total compensation listed below:
The schedule of prices is attached as attachment “A” to this Exhibit “B”.
Implementation of the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program - $2,960,675.00
Total Compensation - $2,960,675.00
The total compensation shall not exceed the total listed without written authorization in
accordance with Section 2 (b) of the agreement.
27
24347.00006\30493020.2
EXHIBIT C
Activity Schedule
All work shall be completed in accordance with the following schedule:
The term of this Agreement shall be for five (5) years from the date of execution. All tasks under
Exhibit “A” shall be adhered to and executed accordingly.