Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM
FORTHELOWERLOSANGELESRIVERWATERSHEDMONITORINGGROUP
Participants Downey PicoRivera Lakewood SignalHill LongBeach SouthGate Lynwood Paramount LosAngelesCountyFloodControlDistrict
Preparedby:
RevisedJune29,2015
i
PageIntentionallyLeftBlank
ii
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 8
2 WATER BODY‐POLLUTANT CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................... 11
3 MONITORING SITES AND APPROACH .............................................................................................. 14
3.1 RECEIVING WATER MONITORING ............................................................................................................. 14
3.1.1 Mass Emission (ME) Monitoring Site ......................................................................................... 17
3.1.2 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Monitoring Sites ............................................................... 17
3.2 STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 19
3.3 NON‐STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING .............................................................................................. 21
3.4 NEW DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING ................................................................. 21
3.5 REGIONAL STUDIES ................................................................................................................................ 21
4 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING FREQUENCIES FOR EACH CIMP ELEMENT ................................................ 26
5 CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PARAMETERS ................................................................................................ 28
5.1 GENERAL AND CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS .............................................................................................. 31
5.2 MICROBIOLOGICAL CONSTITUENTS ........................................................................................................... 31
5.3 NUTRIENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 32
5.4 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBS ................................................................................................. 33
5.5 TOTAL AND DISSOLVED TRACE METALS ..................................................................................................... 34
5.6 ORGANOPHOSPHATE PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ....................................................................................... 35
5.7 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ACID, BASE/NEUTRAL) ..................................................................... 36
6 AQUATIC TOXICITY TESTING AND TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATIONS .................................... 38
6.1 SENSITIVE SPECIES SELECTION .................................................................................................................. 38
6.2 TESTING PERIOD ................................................................................................................................... 40
6.3 TOXICITY ENDPOINT ASSESSMENT AND TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION TRIGGERS ................................... 41
6.4 TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION APPROACH ...................................................................................... 41
6.5 DISCHARGE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 43
6.6 FOLLOW UP ON TOXICITY TESTING RESULTS ............................................................................................... 43
6.7 SUMMARY OF AQUATIC TOXICITY MONITORING .......................................................................................... 44
7 RECEIVING WATER MONITORING MASS EMISSION MONITORING ................................................... 46
7.1 SAMPLING FREQUENCY AND MOBILIZATION REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 46
7.2 SAMPLING CONSTITUENTS ...................................................................................................................... 46
8 RECEIVING WATER TMDL MONITORING ......................................................................................... 49
8.1 NITROGEN COMPOUNDS AND RELATED EFFECTS TMDL ............................................................................... 49
8.2 LOS ANGELES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES METALS TMDL ................................................................................ 50
8.3 LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED BACTERIA TMDL ..................................................................................... 55
8.3.1 Interim Dry Weather Limits for Bacteria ................................................................................... 59
8.3.2 Final In‐stream Targets and Allowable Exceedances ................................................................ 59
8.3.3 High Flow Suspension ................................................................................................................ 59
8.4 LONG BEACH CITY BEACHES AND LOS ANGELES RIVER ESTUARY TMDLS FOR INDICATOR BACTERIA ...................... 61
iii
8.5 DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL AND GREATER LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH HARBOR WATERS TOXIC POLLUTANTS
TMDL (HARBOR TOXICS TMDL) ............................................................................................................. 65
8.5.1 Sampling Approach ................................................................................................................... 65
8.5.2 Sampling and Analytical Procedures‐Wet Weather .................................................................. 67
8.5.3 Sampling and Analytical Procedures‐Dry Weather ................................................................... 70
8.5.4 Quality Control Measures .......................................................................................................... 70
8.5.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 71
9 STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING ........................................................................................... 75
9.1 SAMPLING FREQUENCY AND MOBILIZATION REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 77
10 NON‐STORMWATER (NSW) OUTFALL MONITORING ....................................................................... 79
10.1 NON‐STORMWATER OUTFALL SCREENING AND MONITORING PROGRAM ......................................................... 80
10.2 IDENTIFICATION OF OUTFALLS WITH SIGNIFICANT NON‐STORMWATER DISCHARGES ........................................... 84
10.3 INVENTORY OF MS4 OUTFALLS WITH NON‐STORMWATER DISCHARGES .......................................................... 85
10.4 PRIORITIZED SOURCE IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................................ 86
10.5 IDENTIFY SOURCE(S) OF SIGNIFICANT NON‐STORMWATER DISCHARGES ........................................................... 87
10.6 MONITOR NON‐STORMWATER DISCHARGES EXCEEDING CRITERIA .................................................................. 88
10.7 MONITORING PARAMETERS AND FREQUENCY ............................................................................................. 89
11 NEW DEVELOPMENT/RE‐DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING ............................................... 90
12 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................... 92
13 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 93
APPENDICESA. SITESELECTIONSTORMWATEROUTFALLMONITORINGSITESANDALTERNATIVESB. AUTOMATEDSTORMWATERMONITORINGEQUIPMENTC. GENERALFIELDSAMPLINGPROCEDURESFORCOMPOSITEANDGRABSAMPLESD. CLEANING AND BLANKING PROTOCOL FOR EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES USED IN
COLLECTIONOFFLOWORTIME‐WEIGHTEDCOMPOSITESE. QUALITYASSURANCE/QUALITYCONTROLF. NON‐STORMWATERIC/IDANDOUTFALLTRACKINGG. MINIMUMCRITERIAFOREVALUATIONOFWATERQUALITYCONSTITUENTSINTABLE
E‐2OFTHEMRPH. OUTFALLIDENTIFICATION
iv
LISTOFFIGURESFigure1‐1. LowerLosAngelesRiverWatershedGroupBoundaries........................................................10 Figure3‐1. MonitoringLocationsintheLowerLosAngelesRiverWatershed.....................................15 Figure3‐2. HUC12EquivalentswithintheLLARwithSampleLocations...............................................23 Figure3‐3. HUC12EquivalentswithintheLLARSampledbytheUR2Group.......................................24Figure3‐4. LowerLosAngelesRiverLandUse................................................................................................25Figure6‐1. DetailedAquaticToxicityAssessmentProcess...................................................................3845 Figure7‐1. Lower LosAngelesRiverReceivingWaterMonitoring andTMDLCompliance
Site............................................................................................................................................................48 Figure8‐1. Comparison of Copper and Zinc Levels forMonitoring Stations LAR1‐11 and
LAR1‐13inDryWeather...................................................................................................................51 Figure8‐2. Comparison of Copper and Zinc levels forMonitoring Stations LAR1‐11 and
LAR1‐13inWetWeather..................................................................................................................52 Figure8‐3. MonitoringSitesfortheLosAngelesRiverMetalsTMDL......................................................54 Figure8‐4. RiverMonitoringSitesfortheLosAngelesRiverBacteriaTMDL.......................................57 Figure8‐5. OutlineofLRSSamplingandAssessmentProcess...................................................................58 Figure8‐6. MonitoringSitesforBacteriaintheLosAngelesRiverEstuary...........................................64 Figure9‐1. LocationsoftheFourStormwaterOutfallMonitoringSitesintheLLARWMG...............76 Figure10‐1. FlowDiagramofNSWOutfallProgramafterClassifyingOutfallsduring Initial
Screening................................................................................................................................................83
LISTOFTABLES
Table2‐1. WetWeatherWaterBody/PollutantClassificationsfortheLowerLosAngelesRiverWG................................................................................................................................................12
Table2‐2. DryWeatherWaterBody/PollutantClassifications fortheLowerLosAngelesRiverWG................................................................................................................................................13
Table3‐1. ConsolidatedListofMonitoringSitesintheLowerLosAngelesRiverWMG..................16 Table3‐2. Summary of TMDLs Applicable to the Lower Los Angeles RiverWatershed
(LLAR)ManagementGroup..............................................................................................................18 Table3‐3. StormwaterOutfallMonitoringSites......................................................................................1920 Table3‐4. Land Use for the Outfall Monitoring Sites for the Lower Los Angeles River
Watershed.............................................................................................................................................20 Table3‐5. MonitoringSiteDesignationandMonitoringFunction..........................................................22 Table4‐1. ScheduleforImplementationofMonitoringActivitiesintheLowerLosAngeles
RiverWatershed..................................................................................................................................27 Table5‐1. SummaryofConstituentstobeMonitoredonaRegularBasisattheS10Mass
EmissionMonitoringSite..................................................................................................................30 Table5‐2. ConventionalConstituents,AnalyticalMethodsandQuantitationLimits........................31 Table5‐3. MicrobiologicalConstituents,AnalyticalMethodsandQuantitationLimits...................32 Table5‐4. Nutrients,AnalyticalMethods,andQuantitationLimits........................................................33 Table5‐5. ChlorinatedPesticidesandPCBAnalyticalMethods,andQuantitationLimits..............34 Table5‐6. MetalsAnalyticalMethods,andQuantitationLimits...............................................................35
v
Table5‐7. Organophosphate Pesticides and Herbicides Analytical Methods, andQuantitationlimits..............................................................................................................................36
Table5‐8. SemivolatileOrganicCompoundsAnalyticalMethods,andQuantitationLimits...........37 Table6‐1. PhaseIandIIToxicityIdentificationEvaluationSampleManipulations.........................42 Table7‐1. ToxicityTestVolumeRequirementsforAquaticToxicityTestingaspartofthe
LowerLosAngelesRiverCoordinatedIntegratedMonitoringProgram...........................47 Table8‐1. Summaryof30‐dayWLAs forNitrogenCompounds in theLowerLosAngeles
RiverWatershedManagementGroup..........................................................................................50 Table8‐2. Approximate percentage of River Length Served by Automated Sampling
Stations...................................................................................................................................................51 Table8‐3. NumericTargetsforTraceMetalintheLowerLosAngelesRiverWG..............................53 Table8‐4. Interim Dry Weather Waste Load Allocations for LLAR Segments and
Tributaries(ExpressedasLoad,109MPN/day)........................................................................56 Table8‐5. AllowableNumberofExceedancesofFinal In‐streamNumericTargets inDry
andWetWeatherConditions...........................................................................................................59 Table8‐6. Schedule forCompletionofLRSOutfallMonitoring forBacterialLoadsunder
theLosAngelesRiverBacterialTMDL..........................................................................................60 Table8‐7. Marine andFreshwaterReceivingWaterQualityObjectives applicable to the
LosAngelesRiverEstuary................................................................................................................62 Table8‐8. Ambient Monitoring Sites within the LLARWMG for the Los Angeles River
WatershedBacterialTMDL..............................................................................................................62 Table8‐9. Summary of Constituents to beMonitored at the S10Mass Emission for the
HarborToxicsMonitoringProgram..............................................................................................67 Table8‐10. Measurements of Suspended Sediments for Calculation of Harbor Toxics
PollutantLoads....................................................................................................................................72 Table8‐11. SummaryofTSSMeasurements(mg/L)atFourMassEmissionMonitoringSites
inLosAngelesCounty........................................................................................................................72 Table8‐12. RecommendedMethods,EstimatedDetectionLimits,TargetReportingLimits,
andRelevantTMDLTargetsforOrganochlorinePesticidesandTotalPCBs...................73 Table8‐13. RecommendedMethods,EstimatedDetectionLimits,TargetReportingLimits,
andRelevantTMDLTargetsforPAHs..........................................................................................74 Table8‐14. RecommendedMethods,EstimatedDetectionLimits,TargetReportingLimits,
andRelevantTMDLTargetsforMetals........................................................................................74 Table8‐15. InterimConcentration‐BasedSedimentWasteLoadAllocations.......................................75 Table9‐1. SummaryofConstituents tobeMonitoredon aRegularBasis at Stormwater
OutfallMonitoringSites....................................................................................................................77 Table10‐1. OutlineoftheNSWOutfallScreeningandMonitoringProgram..........................................82 Table10‐2. PotentialIndicatorParametersforIdentificationofSourcesofNSWDischarges.........84 Table10‐3. BasicDatabaseandMappingInformationfortheWatershed..............................................85 Table10‐4. MinimumPhysicalAttributesRecordedduringtheOutfallScreeningProcess.............86 Table11‐1. Information Required in the New Development/Redevelopment Tracking
Database.................................................................................................................................................91
1
vi
ACRONYMS
ALERT AutomaticLocalEvaluationinRealTimeAMEL AverageMonthlyEffluentLimitationBasinPlan WaterQualityControlPlanfortheCoastalWatershedsofLosAngelesand
VenturaCountiesBMP BestManagementPracticesBOD BiochemicalOxygenDemand5‐day@20°CCASQA CaliforniaStormwaterQualityAssociationCD CompactDiscCFR CodeofFederalRegulationsCIMP CoordinatedIntegratedMonitoringProgramCL ControlLimitCOD ChemicalOxygenDemandCTR CaliforniaToxicsRuleCV CoefficientofVariationCWA CleanWaterActCWC CaliforniaWaterCodeCWP CenterforWatershedProtectionDDD DichlorodiphenyldichloroethaneDDE DichlorodiphenyldichloroethyleneDDT DichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneDischarger LosAngelesCountyMS4PermitteesDNQ DetectedButNotQuantifiedEFA EffectiveFiltrationAreaEIA EffectiveImperviousArea
ELAPCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealthEnvironmentalLaboratoryAccreditationProgram
Facility LosAngelesCountyMS4sFIB FecalIndicatorBacteriaGIS GeographicalInformationSystemgpd gallonsperdayHUC HydrologicUnitCodeIC50 Concentrationatwhichtheorganismis50%inhibitedIC/ID IllicitConnectionandIllicitDischargeEliminationLA LoadAllocationsLACFCD LosAngelesCountyFloodControlDistrictLARWQCB RegionalWaterQualityControlBoard,LosAngelesLCC LosCerritosChannelLID LowImpactDevelopmentLOEC LowestObservedEffectConcentrationMAL MunicipalActionLimitsMBAS MethyleneBlueActiveSubstancesMCM MinimumControlMeasureME MassEmissionmg/L milligramsperLiterMDEL MaximumDailyEffluentLimitationMDL MethodDetectionLimitµg/L microgramsperLiterMGD MillionGallonsPerDayML MinimumLevelMRP MonitoringandReportingProgram
vii
MS4 MunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystemMTBE Methyltertiary‐butyletherND NotDetectedNOEC NoObservableEffectConcentrationNPDES NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystemNSW Non‐StormwaterNTR NationalToxicsRuleQA QualityAssuranceQA/QC QualityAssurance/QualityControlOceanPlan WaterQualityControlPlanforOceanWatersofCaliforniaORI OutfallReconnaissanceInventoryPCB PolychlorinatedBiphenylsPES Polyester‐reinforcedpolysulfoneRAP ReasonableAssuranceProgramRegionalWaterBoard CaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard,LosAngelesRegionRPA ReasonablePotentialAnalysisRWL ReceivingWaterLimitations
SIP StateImplementationPolicy(PolicyforImplementationofToxicsStandardsforInlandSurfaceWaters,EnclosedBays,andEstuariesofCalifornia)
SMC StormwaterMonitoringCoalitionSQO SedimentQualityObjectiveSSC SuspendedSedimentConcentrationStateWaterBoard CaliforniaStateWaterResourcesControlBoardSVOC SemivolatileOrganicCompoundsSWAMP State’sWaterAmbientMonitoringProgramTAC TestAcceptabilityCriteriaTIE ToxicityIdentificationEvaluationTKN TotalKjeldahlNitrogenTMDL TotalMaximumDailyLoadTOC TotalOrganicCarbonTRE ToxicityReductionEvaluationTSS TotalSuspendedSolidTUc ChronicToxicityUnitUSEPA UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyUSGS U.S.GeologicalSurveyWDR WasteDischargeRequirementsWET WholeEffluentToxicityWLA WasteLoadAllocationsWMA WatershedManagementAreaWMG WasteManagementGroupWMMS WatershedManagementModelingSystemWMP WatershedManagementProgramWQBELs WaterQuality‐BasedEffluentLimitationsWQS WaterQualityStandards% Percent
8
COORDINATEDINTEGRATEDMONITORINGPROGRAM(CIMP)
FORTHE
LOWERLOSANGELESRIVERWATERSHEDGROUP
1 INTRODUCTION
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) adopted a NationalPollutantDischargeElimination System (NPDES)Municipal Separate StormSewer System (MS4)PermitNo.R4‐2012‐0175(Permit)onNovember8,2012 thatbecameeffectiveonDecember28,2012.Thepurposeof thePermit is toensure theMS4s inLosAngelesCountyarenotcausingorcontributingtoexceedancesofwaterqualityobjectivesestablishedtoprotectthebeneficialusesinthereceivingwaters.ThePermitincludedguidancefordevelopmentofaMonitoringandReportingProgram (MRP‐ Attachment E) to demonstrate that water quality within the permitted area iscompliantwithestablishedreceivingwaterlimitations(RWLs).
ThePermitallowsdevelopmentofaCoordinatedIntegratedMonitoringProgram(CIMP)tospecifyapproaches for addressing the objectives of the MRP. The Lower Los Angeles River (LLAR)Watershed Management Area (WMA) chose to develop and implement a CIMP to address theuniqueconditionsofthisregion.
TheentireLosAngelesRiverWatersheddrainsawatershedof824squaremiles.TheLosAngelesRiverWMAisoneofthelargestintheregionandisalsooneofthemostdiverseintermsoflandusepatterns.Approximately 324 squaremiles of thewatershed are coveredby forest or open spacelandincludingtheareaneartheheadwaters,whichoriginateintheSantaMonica,SantaSusana,andSan Gabriel Mountains. The remainder of the watershed is highly developed. The river flowsthroughtheSanFernandoValleypastheavilydevelopedresidentialandcommercialareas. Fromtheconfluencewith theArroyoSeco,northofdowntownLosAngeles, to theconfluencewith theRioHondo,theriverflowsthroughindustrialandcommercialareasandisborderedbyrailyards,freeways,andmajorcommercialandgovernmentbuildings.
TheLLARWatershed(Figure1‐1)extendsfromPicoRiveraontheRioHondotothePacificOcean.TheLLARWatershedGroupencompassesapproximately43.7squaremiles(27,981acres)withinLosAngelesCountyandcomprises5.3%ofthedrainageareaoftheLosAngelesRiverWatershedFrom the Rio Hondo to the Pacific Ocean, the river flows through industrial, residential, andcommercial areas, including major refineries and petroleum products storage facilities, majorfreeways, rail lines, and rail yards serving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The LosAngelesRiver tidalprism/estuarybegins inLongBeachatWillowStreetandrunsapproximatelythreemilesbeforejoiningwithQueenswayBay. Thechannelhasasoftbottominthisreachwithconcrete‐linedsides.
9
The CIMP is required to integrate requirements of the current Los Angeles County MunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystem(MS4)Permit(LARWQCB,2012),theCityofLongBeachMS4permitand TMDL monitoring requirements. This new approach represents an expansion andreorganization ofmonitoring in order to allow better assessment of the effectiveness of controlmeasures using a watershed‐based approach. The CIMP is structured to support the WMP’sadaptivemanagementprocess.Newinformationanddataresultingfromthemonitoringprogramare intended to assist in evaluating theeffectivenessofmanagement actionsand to regularly re‐evaluatethemonitoringplantobetteridentifysourcesofcontaminants.Thisplanwasdevelopedtoaddressfiveprimaryobjectiveswhichinclude:
Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of discharges from theMS4s onreceivingwaters.
Assess compliance with receiving water limitations and water quality‐based effluentlimitations (WQBELs) established to implement TMDL wet and dry weather loadallocations
CharacterizepollutantloadsinMS4discharges. IdentifysourcesofpollutantsinMS4discharges. Measureandimprovetheeffectivenessofpollutantcontrolsimplementedunderthe
newMS4permits.
TheMonitoringandReportingPlan(MRP;SectionsI.CandI.D)providesfordevelopmentofaCIMPto provide Permittees the flexibility to coordinate monitoring efforts on a watershed orsubwatershed basis, leverage monitoring resources to increase cost‐efficiency and effectivenessand to closely align monitoring required for TMDLs with monitoring required to support theWatershedManagementProgram.
10
Figure1‐1. LowerLosAngelesRiverWatershedGroupBoundaries.
11
2 WaterBody‐PollutantClassificationDevelopmentofaWatershedManagementProgram(WMP)requiresPermitteestodevelopwaterqualityprioritieswithineachWMA[SectionC.5.a(page58)ofthePermit]thatwillbeusedassistindirectingimplementationofcontrolmeasuresandmonitoringtoaddressconstituentsofconcern.TheseclassificationsarepresentedanddiscussedinSection2oftheWMP.
TheCIMPwasdevelopedtofocusonexistingwaterqualityconditions.Withmorethan10yearsofmonitoring,datahasshownthatmostoftheconstituentslistedinTableE‐2oftheMRPhaveneverbeendetectedandmanymorehavebeendetected,buthavenotbeenfoundtoexceedanyRWLs.Thisnewprogram is designed to target constituents that havebeen identified as constituents ofconcern in the receiving waters. Water body‐pollutant combinations were used to classifysegmentsoftheLLARWGintooneofthefollowingthreecategories:
Category 1 (Highest Priority): Water body‐pollutant combinations for which waterquality‐based effluent limitations and/or RWLs are established in Part VI.E andAttachmentsLthroughRoftheOrder.
Category2(HighPriority):Pollutantsforwhichdataindicatewaterqualityimpairmentinthe receivingwater according to the State’sWater Quality Control Policy for DevelopingCalifornia’s CleanWaterAct Section303(d) List (State ListingPolicy) and forwhichMS4dischargesmaybecausingorcontributingtotheimpairment.
Category3(MediumPriority):PollutantsforwhichthereareinsufficientdatatoindicatewaterqualityimpairmentinthereceivingwateraccordingtotheState’sListingPolicy,butwhichexceedapplicableRWLscontainedintheOrderandforwhichMS4dischargesmaybecausingorcontributingtoexceedances.
Fivewaterbodieswereconsideredforbothwetanddryweatherconditionswhilereviewingdatapotential impairment of the receiving waters (Table 2‐1, Table 2‐2). These included the LosAngelesRiverEstuary(LARE),Reaches1and2oftheLosAngelesRiver(LAR1andLAR2),ComptonCreek(CC)andReach1of theRioHondo(RH1). Eachof thesesegments isdefined intheWaterQualityControlPlanfortheCoastalWatershedsofLosAngelesandVenturaCounties(BasinPlan).
12
Table2‐1. WetWeatherWaterBody/PollutantClassificationsfortheLowerLosAngelesRiverWG.
WATERBODYCATEGORY POLLUTANT CLASS LARE LAR1 LAR2 CC RH11 Cadmium Metal X X X X
Copper Metal X X X X X Lead Metal X X X X X Zinc Metal X X X X X Trash1 Other X X X X NitrogenCompounds2 Nutrient X X X X DDT OCPest X PCBs OCPest X PAHs SVOC X E.coli Micro X X X X Coliform&Enterococcus Micro X 2 Chlordane(sediment) OCPest X ColiformBacteria Micro X X X X Aluminum Metal X Diazinon OPPest X Oil General X Trash Other X Toxicity Bioassay X SedimentToxicity Bioassay X Cyanide General X MBAS General X X 3 Chloride General X
Mercury Metal X Diazinon OPPest X
PAHs SVOC X X Bis(2‐ethylhexylphthalate SVOC X Cyanide General X pH General X
DissolvedOxygen General X X
1. TrashwillbeaddressedbyAnnualReportsofcompliancewiththeinstallationoffullcapturesystems.2. Ammoniawaslistedincategory2forLAR1andLAR2–includedinnitrogencompoundsforcategory13. Nutrients(algae)bynitrogencompoundsforcategory1.
LAR1=LosAngelesRiverReach1LAR2=LosAngelesRiverReach2LARE=LosAngelesRiverEstuaryCC=ComptonCreekRH1=RioHondoReach1
Nutrients=nitrogenandphosphoruscompoundsOCPest=organochlorinepesticidesOPPest=organophosphoruspesticidesMicro=microbiological(fecalindicatorbacteria)SVOC=semivolatileorganiccompounds(acid,base&neutral
13
Table2‐2. DryWeatherWaterBody/PollutantClassificationsfortheLowerLosAngelesRiverWG.
WATERBODYCATEGORY POLLUTANT CLASS LARE LAR1 LAR2 CC RH11 Copper Metal X X X X X
Lead Metal X X X X X Zinc Metal X X Trash1 Other X X X X NitrogenCompounds2 Nutrients X X X X DDT OCPest X PAHs SVOC X PCBs OCPest X E.coli Micro X X X X Coliform&Enterococcus Micro X 2 Chlordane(sediment) OCPest X ColiformBacteria Micro X X X X Aluminum Metal X Selenium Metal X X Cyanide General X Oil General X Trash Other X Toxicity Bioassay X SedimentToxicity Bioassay X 3 Chloride General X X Cyanide General X
pH General X Mercury Metal X
Nickel Metal X
Thallium Metal X X Chlorpyrifos OPPest X
PAHs SVOA X X
Bis(2‐ethylhexylphthalate SVOA X
1. TrashwillbeaddressedbyAnnualReportsofcompliancewiththeinstallationoffullcapturesystems.2. Ammoniawaslistedincategory2forLAR1andLAR2–includedinnitrogencompoundsforcategory13. Nutrients(algae)bynitrogencompoundsforcategory1.
LAR1=LosAngelesRiverReach1LAR2=LosAngelesRiverReach2LARE=LosAngelesRiverEstuaryCC=ComptonCreekRH1=RioHondoReach1
Nutrients=nitrogenandphosphoruscompoundsOCPest=organochlorinepesticidesOPPest=organophosphoruspesticidesMicro=microbiological(fecalindicatorbacteria)SVOC=semivolatileorganiccompounds(acid,base&neutral
14
3 MonitoringSitesandApproachThis CIMP addresses monitoring activities required by the Monitoring and Reporting Program(MRP) ‐ No. CI‐6948 forOrder R4‐2012‐0175,NPDES PermitNo. CAS004001 for the Lower LosAngelesRiver(LLAR)WatershedManagementGroup(WMG). Developmentof thisCIMPfocusedon improving the overall effectiveness of the monitoring program by coordination of samplingefforts.
Final approval of the CIMP is expected in early 2015. Existing monitoring will continue to beconducted and beginning summer of 2014, the dry weather screening of major outfalls willcommence.Forplanningpurposes,themonitoringdescribedinthisCIMPisintendedtocommenceon July 1, 2015 or 90 days after the approval of the CIMP, whichever is later. Majority of theelementswillstartinthesummerof2015andthefollowingwetweatherseason,andtheprogramwillbephasedinoverathree‐yearperiod. Non‐stormwater(NSW)outfallmonitoringeffortsarecurrentlyunderwayinordertocompleteaninventoryofalloutfallsandallowtheprogramtomeetthefirstmajordeadlineestablishedbythePermit. ThePermitrequiresthatsourceidentificationsurveys be completed for at least 25% of all major outfalls found to convey significant non‐stormwaterdischargesbyDecember28,2015.
TheapproachpresentedinthisCIMPisdesignedtoaddressobjectivesoftheMRPbyincorporatingTMDL monitoring requirements and aligning field efforts to increase cost effectiveness.Informationonsamplingmethods,cleaningprotocolandQAQCareprovidedinAppendicesB,CandD.Thefollowingsectionsprovideabroadoverviewofthemonitoringprogram.Acomprehensivelistofmonitoringsites(Table3‐1)andthelocationsofthesesiteswithintheLLARWMG(Figure3‐1) are provided to illustrate the coverage provided for eachmajor element. Later sectionswillprovidedetailedmonitoringrequirementsforindividualelementsoftheCIMP.
3.1 ReceivingWaterMonitoring
TheMRP (Part II.E.1) specifies that receivingwatermonitoring is tobeperformedat previouslydesignated mass emission stations as well as TMDL receiving water compliance points, asdesignatedinapprovedTMDLMonitoringPlans.Theobjectivesofthereceivingwatermonitoringincludethefollowing:
Determinewhetherthereceivingwaterlimitationsarebeingachieved, Assesstrendsinpollutantconcentrationsovertime,orduringspecifiedconditions, Determinewhetherthedesignatedbeneficialusesarefullysupportedasdeterminedby
waterchemistry,aswellasaquatictoxicityandbioassessmentmonitoring.
15
Figure3‐1. MonitoringLocationsintheLowerLosAngelesRiverWatershed.
16
Table3‐1. ConsolidatedListofMonitoringSitesintheLowerLosAngelesRiverWMG.
SITECODE SITETYPE/PURPOSE NAMEPRIMARYSAMPLING2
LATITUDE3(°N)
LONGITUDE(°W)
S101 ReceivingWater/TMDL WardlowStreet Auto 33.81900 118.20556
LLAR1 StormwaterOutfall CerritosPumpStation Auto 33.77951 118.20380LLAR2 StormwaterOutfall DominguezGapPumpStation Auto 33.83945 118.20320LLAR3 StormwaterOutfall Lynwood Auto 33.91469 118.18214
LLAR4 StormwaterOutfall Firestone Auto 33.94812 118.16146
LARB11 LARBacteriaTMDL SegmentA(Wardlow) Grab 33.81735 118.20551
LARB2 LARBacteriaTMDL SegmentB(Rosecrans) Grab 33.90374 118.18240
LARB7 LARBacteriaTMDL RioHondo Grab 33.93202 118.17523
LARE1 EstuaryBacteriaTMDL LAREMouthofEstuary Grab 33.75506 118.18727
LARE2 EstuaryBacteriaTMDL LAREQueensway Grab 33.75976 118.19910
LARE3 EstuaryBacteriaTMDL LAREWillow Grab 33.80416 118.20547
LAR1‐131 LARMetalsTMDL Wardlow‐MainChannel Auto/Grab 33.81900 118.20556
LAR1‐10 LARMetalsTMDL RioHondo‐Trib Grab 33.93510 118.17218
LAR1‐9 LARMetalsTMDL I710‐MainChannel Grab 33.93421 118.17548 S10,LARB1,andLAR1‐13areall locatedat thesame location in theLosAngelesRivernearWardlowAve. Thissite is the finalcompliance
locationfortheMetalsTMDL Auto=Primarilysampledwithautomatedstormwatermonitoringequipment,Grab=Samplesprimarilytakenasgrabsamples. AllsitelocationsarebasedupontheNAD83datum.
17
Inordertoachievetheserequirements,twotypesofreceivingwatermonitoringsitesareincludedintheCIMP.Theseinclude:
MassEmission(ME)ReceivingWaterMonitoring‐Themassemissionstationwillservetoprovidealong‐termmeasureofcompliancewithreceivingwaterqualitycriteriaandallowforassessmentoftrendsinpollutantconcentrations.
TMDLReceivingWaterMonitoringSites–ThesesitesareintendedtoevaluatecomplianceorprogresstowardsattainmentofWasteLoadAllocation(WLAs)forTMDLsandultimatelyprovidedatatoevaluatewhenobjectivesaremetanddeterminewhensufficientdataexisttoreevaluatethe303(d)listing.
3.1.1 MassEmission(ME)MonitoringSite
TheLosAngelesRivermonitoringstation(S10)willcontinuetoserveastheMEmonitoringstationfortheLLAR.ThissiteislocatedintheLosAngelesRiverattheexistingstreamgaugestation(i.e.,StreamGauge F319‐R) betweenWillow Street andWardlowRoad. This site is located near thebottomofReach1 intheCityofLongBeachandwasoriginallyselectedtoavoidtidal influences.This site has beenmonitored by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) since1998andthissitewillcontinuetobemonitoredbyLACFCD.
AlthoughS10servesastheonlymassemissionmonitoringsitewithintheLLARWMG,italsoserves(andhaspreviouslyserved)asaTMDLmonitoringsitesinceitisatthebaseofthewatershedandisthe lastmonitoring location formost contaminants of concernbeforewater is discharged to theEstuary(Figure3‐1,Table3‐1).
3.1.2 TotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)MonitoringSites
Permittees within the LLAR WMG are required to conduct monitoring required under the LosAngelesCountyNPDESMS4permitandcomplywithanymonitoringrequirementsassociatedwithsixseparateTMDLs(Table3‐2).TMDLmonitoringsiteswereselectedbyreviewingrequirementsofeachTMDLapplicabletotheLLARandmonitoringsitespreviouslyselectedorrecommendedintwopreviousTMDLcomplianceplans:
LosAngelesRiverMetalsTMDLCoordinatedMonitoringPlan(MetalsCMP)–March25,2008 CoordinatedMonitoringPlanforLosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTMDL–Compliance
Monitoring–Draft(BacteriaCMP).‐March23,2013
TheMetalsCMPincludedmonitoringof foursiteswithintheLLARbut,basedupontheresultsofinitialmonitoringandtheminimaldistancesbetweensites(about2miles),monitoringatonesite(referred to as theDel Amo site, LAR1‐11)will be discontinued. Further discussion is found insection 8.2. Monitoringwill continue as per the initialMetals CMP at the remaining three siteswithintheLLARwatershed.
The Bacteria CMP was not implemented due to the fact the CIMP was anticipated to addressmonitoring of ambient bacteria within each WMG. Nevertheless, this document provided acomprehensive approach that addressed ambient bacteriamonitoring throughout thewatershed
18
andmonitoringapproachesforambientmonitoringat16sites.TheCMPprovidestheframeworkforbacteriamonitoringatthefoursiteslocatedwithintheLLAR.
Table3‐2. Summary of TMDLs applicable to the Lower Los Angeles RiverWatershed(LLAR)ManagementGroup.
TMDLREGIONALBOARDRESOLUTION#
REGIONALBOARDAPPROVALEFFECTIVE
DATENitrogenCompoundsandRelatedEffectsTMDL(NutrientTMDL)
2003‐0092012‐010
March23,2004August7,2014
LosAngelesRiverandTributariesMetalsTMDL(MetalsTMDL)
2007‐0142010‐003
October29,2008November3,2011
LosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTMDL(LARBacteriaTMDL)
2010‐007MonitoringPlan:March23,2013
March23,2012
DominguezChannelandGreaterLosAngelesandLongBeachHarborWatersToxicPollutantsTMDL(HarborToxicsTMDL)
2011‐008MonitoringPlan:November23,2013
ortheCIMP.March23,2012
LosAngelesRiverWatershedTrashTMDL(TrashTMDL)
2007‐012MonitoringPlannotrequired.
September23,2008
LongBeachCityBeachesandLosAngelesRiverEstuaryBacteriaTMDL(Beaches/EstuaryTMDL)
USEPAEstablishedTMDL March26,2012
Additional TMDLmonitoring is required for the LongBeachCityBeaches andLosAngelesRiverEstuary TMDLs for Indicator Bacteria (Estuary Bacteria TMDL). The LAR Estuary is the onlyportionofthisTMDLaddressedbythisCIMP. TheLongBeachCityBeacheswillbeaddressedaspartofaseparateWMPandIMPbeingdevelopedtoaddressportionsoftheCityofLongBeachnotaddressedbythethreeplansbeingdevelopedtheLowerLosAngelesRiver,thefreshwaterportionoftheLosCerritosChannelandtheLowerSanGabrielRiverwatersheds.
ProtectionoftherecreationalbeneficialusesoftheCityofLongBeachopenbeachesincludesboththeopenwatersusedbywindsurfersandboatersbutemphasizes theshorelineandswash‐zonewhere bathers are directly impacted by exposure to potentially contaminatedwater. In the LosAngelesRiver Estuary, swimmers do not typically accesswaters directly from the shoreline andtherefore concerns are more directed towards assessment of bacterial concentrations in openwatersoftheEstuaryandthepotential forbacteriainthiswind‐drivensurfaceplumetoimpingeupon the recreational beaches of the City of Long Beach after leaving the Estuary. InterimmonitoringpointswereselectedtoallowdeterminationofwhetherbacteriaaresubjecttosimpledilutionbymixingasthewaterpassesthroughtheestuaryorifareaswithintheEstuaryserveassourcesorsinksforindicatorbacteria.
TheDominguezChannelandGreaterLosAngelesandLongBeachHarborWatersToxicPollutantsTMDL(HarborToxicsTMDL)alsorequiresthatmonitoringbeconductedtoquantifythe loadsofpollutantsfromtheLosAngelesRiver.ThisprogramwillrequireadditionalmonitoringattheS10sitetoquantifymetals,DDT,PCBs,andPAHsassociatedwithsuspendedparticulates.Thisprogram
19
will complementmonitoringwithin theHarborwaters and theLosAngelesRiverEstuary that isalready funded bymembers of the LLAR group that are included in the Greater HarborWatersRegionalMonitoringCoalition. Fourof theLLARgroupareactiveparticipants(includingfundingthereof)intheHarborRMCeffort.ThesemembersensureclosecoordinationbetweentheHarborRMC’s TMDL monitoring and the LLAR. In addition, the LLAR has actively been offered theopportunityforvoluntarycooperationofallLosAngelesRivercitiesandagenciesinestablishingatoxicsmonitoringstationattheRiver/estuaryinterface.InaccordancewithTableCofAttachmentEofthePermit,thisCIMPfulfillstherequirementforthesubmissionofaMonitoringandReportingPlanandQualityAssuranceProjectPlan.
3.2 StormwaterOutfallMonitoring
Stormwateroutfallmonitoring is theoneelementof theprogramthatwillbephased inover thecourseoftwoyears.Stormwateroutfallsamplingsites(Table3‐3andFigure3‐2)willbeinitiatedattwositesduringthefirstyearoftheprogram.Additionalsiteswillbeaddedinthefollowingyearto bring the total number of stormwater outfall monitoring sites up to four. A detailedimplementationscheduleisprovidedinthefollowingSection4.
Thestormwateroutfallmonitoringprogramwasdesignedtoensurethatselectedmonitoringlocationsprovidedrepresentativedataby:
Monitoringatleastonemajoroutfallpersubwatershed(HUC12)drainagearea,and Thedrainageareaoftheselectedoutfallsshallberepresentativeofthelanduseswithinthe
Permitee’sjurisdiction,and Selectedoutfallsmustbeconfiguredtofacilitateaccurateflowmeasurementsandsafetyof
monitoringpersonnel.
Figure 3‐2 shows the proposed sampling locations within each subwatershed and HUC 12EquivalentBoundaries.Figure3‐3showstheHUC12EquivalentswithintheLLARsampledbytheUR2Group.
AsignificantportionofPicoRiveradrainstoareaswithexistingsignificantinfiltrationandoutfallsamplingwouldnotproviderepresentativesamples. Theoutfallmonitoringlocationsaccountforall significant land uses in thewatershed. The land uses for the individual outfall sampling areshown on Figure 3‐4 and described in Table 3‐4. Monitoring site designations and monitoringfunctionsareshowninTable3‐5.
HUCunits are shown in Figure 3‐2. There are threeHUC 12 equivalentswithin the LLAR. TheCompton Creek‐Los Angeles River is by far the largest of the three HUC units. Three of theproposedoutfallsmonitoringsitesarewithinthisHUC.ThesecondlargestHUCwithintheLLARistheAlhambraWash‐RioHondo.Oneoutfallmonitoringsite,LLAR4,willbeestablishedwithintheAlhambraWash‐Rio Hondo HUC in the first year of monitoring so that monitoring data will becollectedfrombothprincipalHUC‐12areasinthefirstyear. ThethirdHUCistheChavezRavine‐Los Angeles River HUC of which the LLAR only occupies a minimal portion. It is the LLAR’sunderstanding that the adjoining WMP group, the LA River Reach 2 Group, will be placing amonitoringstationwithinthatarea,thereforetheLLARwillnotduplicatethateffort.
20
Table3‐3. StormwaterOutfallMonitoringSites.
StormwaterOutfallMonitoringSites
JurisdictionArea LandUseHUC
Equivalent
LongBeach
SignalHill
Lakewood
Paramount
Lynw
ood
Dow
ney
SouthGate
PicoRivera
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Other
CmptCrk/LAR
Alhm/RioHondo
CR/LAR
LLAR1‐CerritosPumpStation x x x x
Byothers*
LLAR2‐DominguezGap x x x xLLAR3‐Lynwood x x x x x xLLAR4‐Firestone x x x x x xLAR1‐11DelAmosite(discontinued) *TheLosAngelesRiverUpperReach2SubwatershedGroup.
Table3‐4. Land Use for the outfallmonitoring sites for the Lower Los Angeles RiverWatershed.
DrainageArea
LandUse%
Residential Commercial Industrial MixedUse
OpenSpace
Other Areaoccupiedby LARiver
LLAR 1 75.30% 2.94% 0.65% 14.72% 1.95% 4.43% ‐
LLAR 2 75.49% 3.68% 0.00% 2.78% 10.88% 7.17% ‐
LLAR 3 73.36% 7.59% 3.62% 9.35% 0.00% 6.08% ‐
LLAR 4 66.50% 5.37% 5.51% 5.65% 11.95% 5.02% ‐
Total LLAR
Watershed provided for
comparison 63.18% 2.86% 3.03% 20.94% 4.81% 4.87% 0.31%
Average of
4 outfalls 72.66% 4.89% 2.44% 8.13% 6.20% 5.68%
21
3.3 Non‐StormwaterOutfallMonitoring
NSWoutfallbasedmonitoringwillbeconductedforoutfallsdischargingtoreceivingwatersoftheLLARWatershed. Initially, all pipes exceeding 12 inches and discharging directly into the LLARreceivingwaterswillbeidentified.Duringthefirstcycleofthepermit,thedatabasewillberefinedtodeterminewhichof the12‐inchto36‐inchpipes includedischarges fromareaswith industriallanduses. Regardlessof landuse,alloutfalls, including thosebetween12and36 inches,willbescreened.Ascreeningprogramwillbeimplementedtoinitiallydocumentsiteswithpersistentandsignificantnon‐stormwater flows. Thescreeningprogramwillutilizeacombinationof field testsand may incorporate limited laboratory testing to assist in determining whether flows are theresult of illicit connections/illicit discharges (IC/IDs), authorized or conditionally exempt non‐stormwaterflows,naturalflowsorunknown.
3.4 NewDevelopment/RedevelopmentEffectivenessTracking
Participating agencies have developedmechanisms for tracking information related to new andredevelopment projects that are subject to post‐construction best management practicerequirementsinPartVI.D.7oftheMS4Permit.
The MRP requires that Permittees develop a New Development/Re‐Development Effectivenesstracking program. Participating agencies have developed mechanisms for tracking informationrelatedtonewandredevelopmentprojectsthataresubjecttopost‐constructionbestmanagementpracticerequirementsinPartVI.D.7oftheMS4Permit.
3.5 RegionalStudies
On behalf of the participating agencies, the LACFCD will continue to provide financial and/ormonitoring resources to the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition RegionalWatershed Monitoring Program, also known as the Regionally Consistent and IntegratedFreshwater Stream Bioassessment Monitoring Program (Bioassessment Program). TheBioassessment Programwas initiated in 2009 and is structured to occur in cycles of five years.Samplingunderthefirstcycleconcludedin2013.Thenextfive‐yearcycleisscheduledtobeginin2015,withadditionalspecialstudymonitoringscheduledtooccurin2014.
Permittee representativeswill alsoparticipate in theSouthernCalifornia StormwaterMonitoringCoalition (SMC) meetings and assist in development and implementation of selected andappropriate regional studies designed to improve stormwater characterization and impactassessment.
22
Table3‐5. MonitoringSiteDesignationandMonitoringFunction.
SiteName
SiteDescription
TypeofSiteDatumNAD83
ReceivingWater
StormwaterOutfall
HarborToxicsTMDL
MetalsTMDL
BacteriaTMDLLatitude(N) Longitude
(W)River Estuary
S10 WardlowStreet 33.81900 118.20556 X X LLAR1 CerritosPumpStation 33.77951 118.20380 X
LLAR2DominguezGapPumpStation
33.83945 118.20320 X
LLAR3 Lynwood 33.91469 118.18214 X LLAR4 Firestone 33.94812 118.16146 X LARB1 SegmentA(Wardlow) 33.81900 118.20556 X LARB2 SegmentB(Rosecrans) 33.90374 118.18240 X LARB7 RioHondo 33.93202 118.17523 X LARE1 LAREMouthofEstuary 33.75506 118.18727 XLARE2 LAREQueensway 33.75976 118.19910 XLARE3 LAREWillow 33.80416 118.20547 XLAR1‐13 Wardlow‐MainChannel 33.81900 118.20556 X LAR1‐10 RioHondo‐Trib 33.93510 118.17218 X LAR1‐9 I710‐MainChannel 33.93421 118.17548 X
23
Figure3‐2. HUC12EquivalentswithintheLLARwithSampleLocations.
24
Figure3‐3. HUC12EquivalentswithintheLLARSampledbytheUR2Group.
25
Figure3‐4. LowerLosAngelesRiverLandUse.
26
4 SummaryofSamplingFrequenciesforeachCIMPElementItisanticipatedthattheCIMPwillbeimplementedinaphasedprocess(Table4‐1).TheReceivingWaterQualityMonitoringprogramwillstartatS10(Wardlow)duringthe2015dryseason. ThissitewillcontinuetobemonitoredbytheLACFD.Thissitewillbesampledduringtwodryweatherevents and three stormwater events each year. During two surveys, water quality testing willincorporate the comprehensive list of water quality parameters listed in Table E‐2 of theAttachmentEofRegionalBoardOrdersNo.R4‐2012‐0175(NPDESNO.CAS004001)andR‐4‐2014‐0024(NPDESNo.CAS004003).Thisfullsetofanalyteswillbeanalyzedinwatercollectedduringthe firstmajor stormeventof theyear andduringa critical, low flowdry seasonsurvey. July isconsidered to have the lowest historical flows based upon long‐term flowmonitoring. If theseparametersarenotdetectedatthespecifiedMethodDetectionLimit(MDL)fortheirrespectivetestmethodoriftheresultisbelowthelowestapplicablewaterqualityobjective,andisnototherwiseidentified as being 303(d)‐listed or part of an ongoing TMDL, the analyte will not be furtheranalyzed. Parameters exceeding the lowest applicablewater quality objective (AppendixG)willcontinue tobeanalyzed for theremainderof theOrderduringat thereceivingwatermonitoringstationwhere itwas detected. Acceleration of theReceivingWaterQualityMonitoring ProgramwillalsoincludetheAquaticToxicityMonitoring.
TwoStormwaterOutfallMonitoringsiteswillalsostartsamplingduringthe2015/16wetseason.ThesewillincludeLLAR2(DominguezGap)andanewstation,LLAR4(Firestone). TheremainingStormwaterOutfallMonitoringsiteswillbeinstalledinthefollowingyear.LLAR3(Lynwood)andLLAR1 (CerritosPumpStation)will be installedandoperable for the2016/17season. Once theStormwaterOutfallMonitoringsitesareinstalledtheywilleachbemonitoringduringthreestormevents each year. If running average concentrations of pollutants exceed the Municipal ActionLimits(MALs–AttachmentGoftheMRP)bymorethan20%,expandedmonitoringwillberequiredtoidentifythesourcesoftheincreasedloads.
Monitoring in themain stem of the Los Angeles River and the Rio Hondo tributary for the LosAngelesRiverBacteriaTMDL,LosAngelesRiverMetalsTMDLandtheLosAngelesRiverEstuaryBacteria TMDL all start in the summer of 2015. Monitoring data will be collected from bothprincipal HUC‐12 areas in the first year. Sampling for these three programs is based uponcollectionofgrabsamples.
Monitoringofnon‐stormwaterdischargestothereceivingwatersoftheLowerLosAngelesRiverstartedinthesummerof2014inordertomeetthefirsttargetofcompletionof25%ofthesourceinvestigationsbyDecember2015.
27
Table4‐1. ScheduleforImplementationofMonitoringActivitiesintheLowerLosAngelesRiverWatershed.
TaskDry2014
Wet2014‐15
Dry2015
Wet2015‐16
Dry2016
Wet2016‐17
Dry2017
Wet2017‐18
Dry2018
ReceivingWater/TMDL S10–Wardlow HarborToxics Chemistry1
AquaticToxicity
121
232
121
232
121
232
121
OutfallMonitoringSite LLAR1(CerritosPump) LLAR2(DominguezGap) LLAR3(Lynwood) LLAR4(Firestone)
33
3333
3333
LosAngelesRiverMetals5
LAR1‐13(Wardlow) LAR1‐10(RioHondo) LAR1‐9(I710‐LARiver)
444
4
444
4
444
4
444
LosAngelesRiverBacteria Pre‐LRS–allSegmentAoutfalls LARB1(Wardlow)6
LARB2(Rosecrans)6 LARB7(RioHondo)6
6666
666
666
666
666
666
666
LosAngelesRiverEstuary(bacteriaonly) LARE1(MouthofEstuary) LARE2(QueenswayBr.) LARE3(Willow)
444
444
444
444
Non‐StormwaterOutfall
Inventory&Screen2
SourceID3
Monitoring4
3
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing2
Ongoing2
Ongoing2
1. TableE‐2chemicalanalyseswillbeperformedonceduringthefirstwetweathereventandonceduringthefirstcriticaldryweathermonitoringevent.ConstituentsthatexceedMDLsandavailablewaterqualityobjectiveswillcontinuetobemonitoredalongwithallconstituentswithTMDLsor303(d)listing.Wetanddryweatherchemicalconstituentswillbeseparatelyassessedforpurposesofcontinuedmonitoring.
2. Initial Inventory and Screening will be completed in three surveys before the end of 2014. One re‐assessment of the Non‐Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Program will beconductedpriortoDecember2017.
3. Investigationsdesignedtotrackandclassifydischargeswillstartduringthe2015dryseason.SourcetrackingandclassificationworkdependuponthenumberofsitescategorizedasSuspectoutfallswithevidenceofsignificantflow.
4. Monitoringwillbeimplementedifsignificantdryweatherflowsareidentifiedatdischargepointsthatarecannotbeidentified,arenon‐essentialexemptflows,oridentifiedasillicitflowsthatarenotyetcontrolled.Thesesiteswillbeinitiallymonitoredtwiceayearinconjunctionwithdryweathermonitoringofthereceivingwatersite.
5. CurrentlyservicedbytheCityofLosAngeles,buttransitiontotheLLARwatershedGroupisexpectedpriortoJune30,20166. Bacterialmonitoringfrequencyinfreshwaterwillincreasetoweeklyaftercompletionofthefirstsegmentortributary‐specificimplementationphase.
28
5 Chemical/PhysicalParametersThissectionprovidesasummaryofchemicalparametersrequiredtobeanalyzedatthereceivingwater mass emission monitoring station a minimum of two times during the first year of themonitoring program and once during the critical dry weather period. Results of this screeningprocesswillbeusedtoinitiallydetermineconstituentsthatwillcontinuetobeanalyzedatthemassemissionsiteandthosethatwillbefurtherconsideredforinclusionaspartofongoingmonitoringatstormwateroutfallsites(Table5‐1). Thefullsetofanalyticalrequirementsdiscussedbelowisbased upon Table E‐2 of the Monitoring and Reporting Program and summarized in Table 5‐2throughTable5‐8below.
Analyticalrequirementsfortheprogramarebrokenoutbyanalyticaltestrequirementssincemanyare associated with an analytical test suite. This is most evident with the semivolatile organiccompoundsanalyzedbyEPAMethod625.Althoughthissectionidentifiesrecommendedmethodsfor each analyte, many of the target constituents can be addressed by alternative methods.Selectionofanalyticalmethodsisintendedtobeperformance‐basedtoallowlaboratoriesflexibilitytoutilizemethodsthatmeetorexceedMLslistedintheMRP.
ThelistsofTableE‐2constituentsonlyshowminimumlevelsrequiredforeachanalyteunderthemonitoring program since Method Detection Limits (MDLs) will vary among laboratories.ReportinglimitsarerequiredtomeettheestablishedMLsunlessmatrixorotherinterferencesareencounteredthatcannotbeeliminatedbyadditionalcleanupprocedures.
Thecriticaldryweathereventisdefinedastheperiodwhenhistoricalin‐streamflowrecordsarelowest or during the historically driest month. The Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA)1conductedanassessmentof long‐termrainfallrecordsandfoundthattheleastamountofrainfalloccursinAugustyetverylittledifferenceexistsbetweenMayandSeptember.
InitialmonitoringofTableE‐2constituentsduringonewetandonedryweathereventisintendedtoserveasacross‐checkand/orverificationthatthesepollutantshavenotbecomeanissueinthereceivingwaterssincethelasttimetheyweremeasured.Thisscreeningprocessisintendedtobeconductedonetimeatthereceivingwatermassemissionsiteduringeachfive‐yearpermitcycle.IfaparameterisnotdetectedattheMethodDetectionLimit(MDL)foritsrespectivetestmethodortheresultisbelowthelowestapplicablewaterqualityobjective,andisnototherwiseidentifiedasabasicmonitoringrequirement,aTMDLanalyteora303(d)listing,itisnotrequiredtobeanalyzedagainduringthecurrentfive‐yearpermitcycle.If,duringeitherthewetordryweatherscreening,aparameterisdetectedexceedingthelowestapplicablewaterqualityobjectivethentheparameteristobeanalyzedfortheremainderofthefive‐yearcycleatthereceivingwatermonitoringstationwhereitwasdetectedduringtherespectiveconditions(wetordry).
1Draft Reasonable Assurance Analysis for Lower Los Angeles River, Los Cerritos Channel, and Lower SanGabrielRiver.May2014.
29
Inaddition, anyadditional constituents found tocommonlyexceedreceivingwater limitationsattheMEsitewillalsobeincorporatedintostormwateroutfallmonitoringprograminordertohelpidentifywatershedsourcesofthepollutants.
JustificationforaddinganddeletingconstituentsfromthestormwateroutfallmonitoringprogramwillfollowtheprocessestablishedintheLosAngelesRiverMetalsCMP.AnyTableE‐2constituentsincorporated intoongoingmonitoringprogramat theMEreceivingwatermonitoringsitewillbeaddedtothestormwateroutfallmonitoringrequirementsaftertwoconsecutiveexceedancesofwetweatherreceivingwaterqualitylimitations.Similarly,itisnotintendedthatconstituentscontinuetobemonitoredatstormwateroutfallsitesiftheyarenotdetectedonaregularbasisand/orarenot foundatconcentrations thatwouldcontribute toexceedancesofwaterqualitycriteria in thereceivingwaters. Constituentswillbe removed from the list if theyarenotdetectedat levelsofconcernfortwoconsecutivestormwatermonitoringevents.
ComprehensivemonitoringofprioritypollutantsinthereceivingwatersattheMEsiteisintendedto assure that all constituents with potential to impact water quality are incorporated into themonitoring program. In addition, any Table E‐2 constituents incorporated into the ongoingmonitoring program at the ME receiving water monitoring site, will also be added to thestormwater outfall monitoring requirements if they exceed RWLs at the ME site after twoconsecutivewetweathermonitoringevents.
30
Table5‐1. SummaryofConstituentstobeMonitoredonaRegularBasisattheS10MassEmissionMonitoringSite.
CLASSOFMEASUREMENTS
MASSEMISSIONSITE(S10)
Wet2 Dry
Flow 4 2FieldMeasurements
Dissolvedoxygen,pH,temperature,andspecificconductivity
4 2
MRPTableE‐2Constituents1(otherthanthosespecificallylistedbelow)
1 1
AquaticToxicity 2 1GeneralandConventionalPollutants(Table5‐2)
Allexcepttotalphenols,turbidity,BOD5,MTBE,andperchlorate,andfluoride.
4
2
MicrobiologicalConstituents3(Table5‐3) E.coli
6
6
Nutrients(Table5‐4) Nitrogencompoundsonly
3
2
Metals(Table5‐6) Al,Cd,Cu,Pb,Ni,Sb,Zn,TotalSe&Hg
4
2
OrganophosphatePesticides(Table5‐7) Diazinon
3
2
SemivolatileOrganicCompounds(Table5‐8) Bis(2‐ethlyhexylyphthalate
3
2
1. AllTableE‐2constituentswillbemeasuredduringthefirstmajorstormeventoftheseasonandthecritical,lowflowdryweathereventduringthefirstyearoftheCIMP. TheLosAngelesCountyFloodControlDistrictownsandoperatesS10.UponconcurrenceoftheExecutiveOfficeoftheRegionalBoard,theFloodControlDistrictmayreducetestingforpollutantslistedonE2ifpastmonitoringhasshownahistoryofnon‐detectsordetectionwellbelowapplicableWQO.
2. ThefourthstormeventisonlyforthepurposeoffulfillingtheTMDLrequirements.Onlymetals,TSS,SSC,andhardnesswillbeanalyzed.
3. Thewetanddryweathersamplingfrequencyinfreshwaterwill increasetoweeklyaftercompletionofthefirstsegmentortributary‐specificimplementationphase.
31
5.1 GeneralandConventionalPollutants
ManyofthegeneralandconventionalpollutantslistedinTable5‐2willcontinuetobeanalyzedaspartofthebasemonitoringrequirements.Totalphenols,turbidity,BOD5,fluoride,perchlorate,andMTBEwillnotbepartofthebasemonitoringrequirementsunlesstheseconstituentsareidentifiedas constituents of concern during the first monitored storm event of the season and/or inassociationwithmonitoringconductedduringthecriticallowflowevent.
Table5‐2. ConventionalConstituents,AnalyticalMethodsandQuantitationLimits.
CONSTITUENTS
TargetReportingLimits
CONVENTIONALPOLLUTANTS METHOD mg/LOilandGrease EPA1664 5TotalPetroleumHydrocarbon EPA 418.1 5TotalPhenols EPA 420.1 0.1Cyanide EPA 335.2,SM4500‐CNE 0.003Turbidity EPA 180.1,SM2130B 1TotalSuspendedSolids EPA 160.2,SM2540D 1TotalDissolvedSolids EPA 160.1,SM2540C 1VolatileSuspendedSolids EPA 160.4,SM2540E 1TotalOrganicCarbon EPA 415.1,SM5310B 1BiochemicalOxygenDemand EPA405.1, SM5210B 3ChemicalOxygenDemand EPA 410.1,SM5220D 4Alkalinity EPA 310.1,SM2320B 5SpecificConductance EPA 120.1,SM2510B 1TotalHardness EPA 130.2,SM2340C 1MBAS EPA 425.1,SM5540‐C 0.02Chloride EPA300.0,SM4110B 2Fluoride EPA300.0,SM4110B 0.1Perchlorate EPA314.0 4ug/LVolatileOrganics METHOD mg/LMethyltertiarybutylether(MTBE) EPA624 1FieldMeasurements1 METHOD mg/LpH‐fieldinstrumentation In‐situ,EPA 150.1 0– 14Temperature‐field In‐situ N/ADissolvedOxygen‐field1 In‐situ,SM4500(OG) Sensitivityto5mg/L
1FieldmeasurementswillbetakenIn‐situduringdryweathersurveysandingrabsamplesduringwetweathermonitoring.2DissolvedOxygenwillonlybemeasuredduringdryweathersurveys.
5.2 MicrobiologicalConstituents
All four microbiological constituents used as fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) will continue to bemonitoredattheS10(Wardlow)ReceivingWatermonitoringsite.Bacteriausedasfecalindicatorsinmarinewaterswill continue tobeanalyzedduringwet anddryweather surveysdue tobeingsituatedjustabovetheLosAngelesRiverEstuary.
32
AllfourFIBswillalsobeanalyzedduringstormwateroutfallmonitoringattheonlysite(LAR1)thatdischargestotheEstuary.OnlyE.coliwillbemonitoredattheremainingthreestormwateroutfallsites(LAR2,LAR3,andLAR4)sinceeachlocatedinfreshwaterportionofthewatershed.
EscherichiacoliwillalsobeanalyzedatthethreeBacteriaTMDLmonitoringsitesintheLLARWGandwillbemeasuredaspartofthebacterialoadassessmentrequiredforinalldrydischargestoSegmentAoftheLosAngelesRiver.Table5‐3providesbothupperandlowerquantificationlimitsforeachFIBestablishedtoassurethatquantifiableresultsareobtained.Upperquantificationlimitsareonlyidentifiedtoassurethatmeasurementsresultinquantitativevalues.
Table5‐3. MicrobiologicalConstituents,AnalyticalMethodsandQuantitationLimits.
BACTERIA1 MethodLowerLimitsMPN/100ml
UpperLimitsMPN/100ml
Totalcoliform(marinewaters) SM9221B <20 >2,400,000Fecalcoliform(marinewaters) SM9221B <20 >2,400,000Enterococcus(marinewaters) SM9230C <20 >2,400,000E.coli(freshwaters) SM9223COLt <10 >2,400,0001Microbiological constituents will vary based upon sampling point. Total and fecal coliform andenterococcuswillbemeasuredonlyinmarinewatersoratlocationswhereeitherthedischargepointorreceivingwaterbodywill impactmarinewaters. These includes themassemissionsite,S10,andLLAR1, the only stormwater outfall site discharging to the Estuary. E.coliwill be analyzed at siteswithinthefreshwaterportionofthewatershed.
5.3 Nutrients
Nitrogencompounds(Table5‐1andTable5‐4)arerequiredaspartofthebaserequirementsforboth the ME (S10) and stormwater outfall monitoring sites (LAR1 through LAR4). Analysis ofnitrogencompoundsisrequiredduetotheNitrogenTMDL.Phosphoruscompoundshavenotbeenidentifiedasconstituentsofconcern inthewatershedandwill thereforeonlybeanalyzedduringthetwoeventswhereallTableE‐2constituentsareanalyzed.
33
Table5‐4. Nutrients,AnalyticalMethods,andQuantitationLimits.
CONSTITUENT METHODREPORTING
LIMIT(mg/L)
TotalKjeldahlNitrogen(TKN)1 EPA351.1 0.50NitrateasNitrogen(NO3‐N)1,2 EPA300.0 0.10NitriteasNitrogen(NO2‐N)1,2 EPA300.0 0.05TotalNitrogen1 calculation NAAmmoniaasNitrogen(NH3‐N) EPA350.1 0.10TotalPhosphorus SM4500‐PEorF 0.1DissolvedPhosphorus SM4500‐PEorF 0.11. TotalNitrogenisthesumofTKN,nitrate,andnitrite.2. Nitrate–NandNitrite‐NmaybeanalyzedtogetherusingEPA300
5.4 OrganochlorinePesticidesandPCBs
Organochlorinepesticides (OCpesticides) andPCBshavebeen analyzed inboth stormwater anddryweatherwatersamplescollectedatS10between2006and2013. Noneof these compoundsweredetectedinanysamplestakenduringthistimeperiod.Inrecognitionofthisissue,theHarborToxics TMDL required testing to be conducted by analyzing these compounds on suspendedsediment transportedduring stormevents. A specialmonitoringprogramhasbeenproposed toallow better assessment of these compounds while also providing data to support the HarborToxicsTMDL.MonitoringfortheseconstituentswillbeconductedatS10usingthesamefrequencyassamplingbeingconductedintheHarborwatersandintheLosAngelesRiverEstuary.
TheHarborToxicsTMDLrequiresmonitoringduringtwostormeventsandonedryweatherevent.MonitoringduringthetwostormeventswillusemethodsdetailedinSection8.5.Monitoringduringdry weather will utilize conventional methods (Table 5‐5) being used in the Harbor receivingwatersandtheestuary.Duringdryweatherflows,suspendedsedimentconcentrationswillbetoolowtoallowfordirectassessmentofchlorinatedpesticidesandPCBsinthesuspendedparticulatefraction.Samplingwillbecoordinatedwiththe“CoordinatedComplianceMonitoring,andReportingPlanIncorporatingQualityAssuranceProjectPlanComponents:GreaterLosAngelesandLongBeachHarborWaters”,(AnchorQEA,2013).
MonitoringforPCBswillbereportedasthesummationofaroclorsandaminimumof50congeners,using EPA Method 8270 without the use of High Resolution Mass Spectrometry for routinemonitoring,duetotheextremehighcostinvolved.
34
Table5‐5. ChlorinatedPesticidesandPCBAnalyticalMethods,andQuantitationLimits.
CHLORINATEDPESTICIDES METHOD ReportingLimitug/L
Aldrin EPA608 0.005alpha‐BHC EPA608 0.01beta‐BHC EPA608 0.005delta‐BHC EPA608 0.005gamma‐BHC(lindane) EPA608 0.02alpha‐chlordane EPA608 0.1gamma‐chlordane EPA608 0.14,4'‐DDD EPA608 0.054,4'‐DDE EPA608 0.054,4'‐DDT EPA608 0.01Dieldrin EPA608 0.01alpha‐Endosulfan EPA608 0.02beta‐Endosulfan EPA608 0.01Endosulfansulfate EPA608 0.05Endrin EPA608 0.01Endrinaldehyde EPA608 0.01Heptachlor EPA608 0.01HeptachlorEpoxide EPA608 0.01Toxaphene EPA608 0.5POLYCHLORINATEDBIPHENYLS1 EPA8270 0.005Aroclor‐1016 EPA608 0.5Aroclor‐1221 EPA608 0.5Aroclor‐1232 EPA608 0.5Aroclor‐1242 EPA608 0.5Aroclor‐1248 EPA608 0.5Aroclor‐1254 EPA608 0.5Aroclor‐1260 EPA608 0.5
1. MonitoringforPCBswillbereportedasthesummationofaroclorsandaminimumof50congeners,withouttheuseofHighResolutionMassSpectrometryforroutinemonitoring..54PCBcongenersinclude: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, and209. These include all 41 congeners analyzed in theSCCWRPBightProgramanddominantcongenersusedtoidentifythearoclors.
5.5 TotalandDissolvedTraceMetals
A total of 16 tracemetals are listed in Table E‐2 of theMRP. Analyticalmethods and reportinglimits for these elements are summarized in Table 5‐6. Most metals will be analyzed by EPAMethod 200.8 using ICP‐MS to provide appropriate detection limits. Hexavalent chromium andmercury both require alternative methods. Hexavalent chromium has been analyzed at TMDLcompliancemonitoringsitesinboththeLosAngelesRiver(S10)andtheSanGabrielRiver(S14)forthepasteighttotenyears. Analyticalmethodsanddetectionlimitsusedforthemonitoringhavebeen consistent with those required in Table E‐2 of the MRP. Hexavalent chromium will beanalyzed with all Table E‐2 constituents but this trace metal has never been detected a levelsgreaterthanthereportinglimitsoitwillnotlikelybemonitoredonaregularbasis.
35
DissolvedmercuryhasnotbeendetectedinanywetordryweathersamplingconductedattheLosAngelesRiverMassEmissionSite (S10)since2006and totalmercuryhasonlybeendetectedontwooccasions. Totalmercurywillbeanalyzedaspartof thebaseprogramsince itwasdetectedduring twowetweather events approximately10years ago and it remainsoneof themunicipalaction limits (MALs) included in theMRP. Automated stormwater samplers are not suitable forsamplingstormwateratthelowmercurydetectionlimits(0.5nanograms/liter).Grabsampleswillbetakenforanalysisofmercuryinordertoaugmentcompositesamples,whichwillbeanalyzedbyEPAmethod245.1.ThesegrabsampleswillbeanalyzedbyMethod1631Esincethismethodislesssubjecttointerferencesandwillbecollectedatthesametimethatmonitoringcrewspulltheothergrabsamplesrequiredbythemonitoringprogram.AdditionalQA/QCwillbespecifiedtosupporttheextremelylowdetectionlimitsrequiredbytheprogram.
Table5‐6. MetalsAnalyticalMethods,andQuantitationLimits.
METALS(Dissolved&Total) METHODReportingLimitug/L
Aluminum EPA200.8 100Antimony EPA200.8 0.5Arsenic EPA200.8 0.5Beryllium EPA200.8 0.5Cadmium EPA200.8 0.25Chromium(total) EPA200.8 0.5Chromium(Hexavalent)1 EPA218.6 5Copper EPA200.8 0.5Iron EPA200.8 25Lead EPA200.8 0.5Mercury1Mercury(Lowlevel)
EPA245.11631E
0.20.0005
Nickel EPA200.8 1Selenium EPA200.8 1Silver EPA200.8 0.25Thallium EPA200.8 0.5Zinc EPA200.8 1
1. Only total hexavalent chromium and mercury will be analyzed during the initial wet and dry weatherscreeningofTableE‐2constituents.
5.6 OrganophosphatePesticidesandHerbicides
Organophosphate pesticides, triamine pesticides and herbicides list in Table E‐2 of theMRP aresummarizedinTable5‐7.Duetothefactthatdiazinonandchlorpyrifosarenolongeravailableforresidential use, these constituents are now rarely detected and none of the organophosphatepesticides/herbicideshavebeendetectedattheLosAngelesRiverMassEmissionmonitoringsiteinthepast10years.
36
Twocompoundsinthislist,atrazineandsimazine,arenotorganophosphatepesticides,theycanbeanalyzed by EPA Method 8141a. Both are triazine herbicides which are used for control ofbroadleaf weeds. Based upon historical data, herbicides such as these and the three additionalseparately listedcompoundsareunlikely torequirecontinuedanalysisaftercompletionof initialscreening of Table E‐2 constituents. Alternative analyticalmethodsmay be used as long as theestablishedreportinglimitscanbemet.
Diazinon remains on the 303(d) list but has detected at much lower frequencies andconcentrations. Although this analyte remains on the list to be analyzed at theME station, werecommend reevaluation after the first year ofmonitoring. If concentrations remain below theupdatedCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGamecriteria,thisanalyteshouldberemovedfromthelistfortheMEsite.
Table5‐7. Organophosphate Pesticides and Herbicides Analytical Methods, andQuantitationLimits.
ORGANOPHOSPHATEPESTICIDES METHOD
ReportingLimitug/L
Atrazine EPA507,8141A 1Chlorpyrifos EPA8141A 0.05Cyanazine EPA8141A 1Diazinon EPA8141A 0.01Malathion EPA8141A 1Prometryn EPA8141A 1Simazine EPA8141A 1HERBICIDESGlyphosate EPA547 52,4‐D EPA515.3 0.022,4,5‐TP‐SILVEX EPA515.3 0.2
5.7 SemivolatileOrganicCompounds(Acid,Base/Neutral)
Semivolatileorganiccompounds fromTableE‐2of theMRPare listed inTable5‐8below. Acidsconsistmostlyofphenoliccompoundswhichareuncommoninstormwatersamples.Base/neutralsinclude polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are the only semivolatile organiccompounds considered to be constituents of concern. PAHs are included as part of the HarborToxicsTMDLandwillbepartofthebaseprogramatS10.
37
Table5‐8. SemivolatileOrganicCompoundsAnalyticalMethods,andQuantitationLimits.
SEMIVOLATILEORGANICCOMPOUNDS
METHOD ReportingLimit
ACIDS ug/L2‐Chlorophenol EPA625 24‐Chloro‐3‐methylphenol EPA625 12,4‐Dichlorophenol EPA625 12,4‐Dimethylphenol EPA625 22,4‐Dinitrophenol EPA625 52‐Nitrophenol EPA625 104‐Nitrophenol EPA625 5Pentachlorophenol EPA625 2Phenol EPA625 12,4,6‐Trichlorophenol EPA625 10BASE/NEUTRAL ug/LAcenaphthene EPA625 1Acenaphthylene EPA625 2Anthracene EPA625 2Benzidine EPA625 51,2Benzanthracene EPA625 5Benzo(a)pyrene EPA625 2Benzo(g,h,i)perylene EPA625 53,4Benzofluoranthene EPA625 10Benzo(k)fluoranthene EPA625 2Bis(2‐Chloroethoxy)methane EPA625 5Bis(2‐Chloroisopropyl)ether EPA625 2Bis(2‐Chloroethyl)ether EPA625 1Bis(2‐Ethylhexl)phthalate EPA625 54‐Bromophenylphenylether EPA625 5Butylbenzylphthalate EPA625 102‐Chloroethylvinylether EPA625 12‐Chloronaphthalene EPA625 104‐Chlorophenylphenylether EPA625 5Chrysene EPA625 5Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene EPA625 0.11,3‐Dichlorobenzene EPA625 11,4‐Dichlorobenzene EPA625 11,2‐Dichlorobenzene EPA625 13,3‐Dichlorobenzidine EPA625 5Diethylphthalate EPA625 2Dimethylphthalate EPA625 2di‐n‐Butylphthalate EPA625 102,4‐Dinitrotoluene EPA625 52,6‐Dinitrotoluene EPA625 54,6Dinitro‐2‐methylphenol EPA625 51,2‐Diphenylhydrazine EPA625 1di‐n‐Octylphthalate EPA625 10
38
SEMIVOLATILEORGANICCOMPOUNDS METHOD
ReportingLimit
Fluoranthene EPA625 0.05Fluorene EPA625 0.1Hexachlorobenzene EPA625 1Hexachlorobutadiene EPA625 1Hexachloro‐cyclopentadiene EPA625 5Hexachloroethane EPA625 1Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene EPA625 0.05Isophorone EPA625 1Naphthalene EPA625 0.2Nitrobenzene EPA625 1N‐Nitroso‐dimethylamine EPA625 5N‐Nitroso‐diphenylamine EPA625 1N‐Nitroso‐di‐n‐propylamine EPA625 5Phenanthrene EPA625 0.05Pyrene EPA625 0.051,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene EPA625 1
6 AquaticToxicityTestingandToxicityIdentificationEvaluationsAquatictoxicitytestingsupportstheidentificationofbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)toaddresssourcesoftoxicityinurbanrunoff. Monitoringbeginsinthereceivingwaterandtheinformationgained is used to identify constituents formonitoring at outfalls to support the identification ofpollutants that need tobe addressed in theWMP. The sub‐sections belowdescribe thedetailedprocess for conducting aquatic toxicity monitoring, evaluating results, and the technical andlogistical rationale. Control measures and management actions to address confirmed toxicitycaused by urban runoff are addressed by theWMP, either via currently identifiedmanagementactionsorthosethatareidentifiedviaadaptivemanagementoftheWMP.
6.1 SensitiveSpeciesSelection
ThePermitMonitoringandReportingProgram(MRP)(pageE‐32)statesthatsensitivityscreeningto select themost sensitive test species shouldbe conductedunless “a sensitive test specieshasalreadybeendetermined,orifthereispriorknowledgeofpotentialtoxicant(s)andatestspeciesissensitive to such toxicant(s), then monitoring shall be conducted using only that test species.”Previousrelevantstudiesconductedinthewatershedshouldbeconsidered.Suchstudiesmayhavebeen completed via previous MS4 sampling, wastewater NPDES sampling, or special studiesconductedwithinthewatershed.
AsdescribedintheMRP(pageE‐31),ifsamplesarecollectedinreceivingwaterswithsalinitylessthan1partperthousand(ppt),or fromoutfallsdischargingtoreceivingwaterswithsalinity lessthan1ppt,toxicitytestsshouldbeconductedonthemostsensitivetestspeciesinaccordancewithspecies and short‐term testmethods in Short‐termMethodsforEstimatingtheChronicToxicityof
39
EffluentsandReceivingWaterstoFreshwaterOrganisms (EPA/821/R‐02/013, 2002; Table IA, 40CFRPart136).SalinitiesofbothdryandwetweatherdischargesfromtheLowerLosAngelesRiverareconsideredtomeetthefreshwatercriteria. ThefreshwatertestspeciesidentifiedintheMRPare:
Astaticrenewaltoxicitytestwiththefatheadminnow,Pimephalespromelas(LarvalSurvivalandGrowthTestMethod1000.04).
Astaticrenewaltoxicitytestwiththedaphnid,Ceriodaphniadubia(SurvivalandReproductionTestMethod1002.05).
Astaticrenewaltoxicitytestwiththegreenalga,Selenastrumcapricornutum(alsonamedRaphidocelissubcapitata)(GrowthTestMethod1003.0).
The three test specieswere evaluated to determine if either a sensitive test species had alreadybeen determined, or if there is prior knowledge of potential toxicant(s) and a test species issensitivetosuchtoxicant(s).InreviewingtheavailabledataintheLosAngelesRiver,LosCerritosChannel, and the San Gabriel Riverwatersheds, organophosphate pesticides and/ormetals havebeen identifiedasproblematic andaregenerally considered theprimary aquatic life toxicantsofconcernfoundinurbanrunoff.Pyrethroidpesticidesareknowntobepresentinurbanrunoffandpotentiallycontributetotoxicityinthesewaters.Testsspecifictopyrethroidpesticidesaresimplylesscommon. Giventheknowledgeofthepresenceofthesepotentialtoxicantsinthewatershed,thesensitivitiesofeachofthethreespecieswereconsideredtoevaluatewhichisthemostsensitivetothepotentialtoxicantsinthewatersheds.
Ceriodaphniadubiahasbeenreportedasa sensitive test species forhistoricalandcurrentuseofpesticidesandmetals,andstudiesindicatethatitismoresensitivetothetoxicantsofconcernthanP.promelas or S.capricornutum. In its aquatic life copper criteria document, the USEPA reportsgreater sensitivity of C. dubia to copper (species mean acute value of 5.93µg/l) compared toPimephales promelas (species mean acute value of 69.93µg/l; EPA, 2007). C. dubia’s relativelyhigher sensitive to metals is common across multiple metals. Researchers at the University ofCalifornia,Davisalsoreviewedavailablespeciessensitivityvaluesindevelopingpesticidecriteriafor theCentralValleyRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard. TheUCDavis researchers reportedhighersensitivityofC.dubiatodiazinonandbifenthrin(speciesmeanacutevalueof0.34µg/land0.105µg/l) compared to P. promelas (species mean acute value of 7804µg/l and 0.405µg/l;Palumbo et al., 2010a, b). Additionally, a study of theCity of Stocktonurban stormwater runofffoundacuteandchronictoxicitytoC.dubia,withnotoxicitytoS.capricornutumorP.promelas(Leeand Lee, 2001). The toxicity was attributed to organophosphate pesticides, indicating a highersensitivity ofC.dubia compared toS.capricornutum orP.promelas. P.promelas is generally lesssensitive tometals and pesticides but has been found to bemore sensitive to ammonia than C.dubia. However, as ammonia is not typically a constituent of concern for urban runoff andammonia isnotconsistentlyobservedabovethe toxic thresholds in thewatershed,P.promelas isnot considered a particularly sensitive species for evaluating the impacts of urban runoff inreceivingwatersinthewatershed.
40
Selenastrumcapricornutum is a species that is sensitive toherbicides;however,while sometimespresentinurbanrunoff,measuredconcentrationsaretypicallyverylow.Herbicideshavenotbeenidentifiedasapotentialtoxicantinthewatershed.S.capricornutumisalsonotconsideredthemostsensitivespeciesas it isnot sensitive toeitherpyrethroidsororganophosphatepesticidesand isnotassensitivetometalsasC.dubia.TheS.capricornutumgrowthtestcanalsobeaffectedbyhighconcentrationsofsuspendedanddissolvedsolids,colorandpHextremes,whichcaninterferewiththe determination of sample toxicity. As a result, it is common to manipulate the sample bycentrifugationandfiltrationtoremovesolidsinordertoconductthetest.Thisprocessmayaffectthetoxicityofthesample.Inastudyofurbanhighwaystormwaterrunoff(Kayhanianet.al,2008),thegreenalgaresponsetothestormwatersampleswasmorevariablethanboththeC.dubiaandtheP.promelasandinsomecasesthealgagrowthwasconsideredtobepotentiallyenhancedduetothepresenceofstimulatorynutrients.
As C.dubia is identified as the most sensitive to known potential toxicant(s) typically found inreceiving waters and urban runoff in the freshwater potions of the watershed and hasdemonstrated toxicity in programs within the watershed (CWH and ABC Laboratories, 2013),C.dubiaisselectedasthemostsensitivespecies.Thespeciesalsohastheadvantageofbeingeasilymaintained in in‐housemasscultures. Thesimplicityof the test, theeaseof interpretingresults,andthesmallervolumenecessarytorunthetest,makethetestavaluablescreeningtool.Theeaseofsamplecollectionandhighersensitivitywillsupportassessingthepresenceofambientreceivingwater toxicityor longtermeffectsof toxicstormwaterover time.Assuch, toxicity testingwillbeconductedusingC.dubia.
An alternative species ofwater fleas,Daphniamagna,maybe used if thewater being testedhaselevatedhardness. C.dubia testorganismsare typicallycultured inmoderatelyhardwaters(80‐100mg/LCaCO3)andcanhaveincreasedsensitivitytoelevatedwaterhardnessgreaterthan400mg/LCaCO3),whichisbeyondtheirtypicalhabitatrange.Becauseofthis,Daphniamagnamaybesubstitutedininstanceswherehardnessinsitewatersexceeds400mg/L(CaCO3).DaphniamagnaismoretoleranttohighhardnesslevelsandisasuitablesubstitutionforC.dubiaintheseinstances(CowgillandMilazzo,1990).
6.2 TestingPeriod
ThefollowingdescribesthetestingperiodstoassesstoxicityinsamplescollectedintheLCCWMPareaduringdryandwetweatherconditions. Short‐termchronictestswillbeusedtoassessbothsurvival and reproductive/growthendpoints forC.dubia forbothwet anddryweather samplingefforts. Althoughwetweatherconditionsintheregiongenerallypersist for lessthanthechronictestingperiods (7days), theC.dubia chronic testwillbeused forwetweather toxicity testing inaccordance with Short‐termMethods forEstimatingtheChronicToxicityofEffluentsandReceivingWaterstoFreshwaterOrganisms(EPA,2002a).Utilizationofstandardchronictestsonwetweathersamplesarenotexpectedtogenerateresultsrepresentativeofthetypicalconditionsfoundinthereceivingwaterintendedtobesimulatedbytoxicitytesting.
41
6.3 Toxicity Endpoint Assessment and Toxicity Identification EvaluationTriggers
PertheMRP,toxicitytestendpointswillbeanalyzedusingtheTestofSignificantToxicity(TST)t‐test approach specified by the USEPA (USEPA, 2010). The Permit specifies that the chronic in‐streamwasteconcentration(IWC)issetat100%receivingwaterforreceivingwatersamplesand100%effluentforoutfallsamples.UsingtheTSTapproach,a t‐valueiscalculatedforatestresultandcomparedwithacriticalt‐valuefromUSEPA’sTSTImplementationDocument(USEPA,2010).Follow‐uptriggersaregenerallybasedonthePermitspecifiedstatisticalassessmentasdescribedbelow.
For chronicC.dubia toxicity testing, if a ≥50%reduction in survival or reproduction isobservedbetweenthesampleand laboratorycontrol that isstatisticallysignificant,a toxicity identificationevaluation(TIE)willbeperformed.
TIEprocedureswillbeinitiatedassoonaspossibleafterthetoxicitytriggerthresholdisobservedtoreducethepotentialforlossoftoxicityduetoextendedsamplestorage.Ifthecauseoftoxicityisreadilyapparentoriscausedbypathogenrelatedmortalityorepibiontinterferencewiththetest,theresultwillberejected, ifnecessary,amodifiedtestingprocedurewillbedevelopedfor futuretesting.
Incaseswheresignificantendpoint toxicityeffectsgreaterthan50%areobservedin theoriginalsample,butthefollow‐upTIEpositivecontrol“signal”isfoundtonotbestatisticallysignificant,thecauseoftoxicitywillbeconsiderednon‐persistent.Noimmediatefollow‐uptestingisrequiredonthe sample. However, future test results will be evaluated to determine if implementation ofconcurrentTIEtreatmentsareneededtoprovideanopportunitytoidentifythecauseoftoxicity.
6.4 ToxicityIdentificationEvaluationApproach
Theresultsoftoxicitytestingwillbeusedtotriggerfurtherinvestigationstodeterminethecauseofobserved laboratory toxicity. The primary purpose of conducting TIEs is to support theidentificationofmanagementactionsthatwillresultintheremovalofpollutantscausingtoxicityinreceiving waters. Successful TIEs will direct monitoring at outfall sampling sites to informmanagementactions.Assuch,thegoalofconductingTIEsistoidentifypollutant(s)thatshouldbesampled during outfall monitoring so thatmanagement actions can be identified to address thepollutant(s).
The TIE approach as described in USEPA’s 1991 Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification isdividedintothreephasesalthoughsomeelementsofthefirsttwophasesareoftencombined.Eachofthethreephasesisbrieflysummarizedbelow:
PhaseIutilizesmethodstocharacterizethephysical/chemicalnatureoftheconstituentswhichcausetoxicity.Suchcharacteristicsassolubility,volatilityandfilterabilityaredeterminedwithoutspecificallyidentifyingthetoxicants.PhaseIresults
42
areintendedasafirststepinspecificallyidentifyingthetoxicantsbutthedatageneratedcanalsobeusedtodeveloptreatmentmethodstoremovetoxicitywithoutspecificidentificationofthetoxicants.
PhaseIIutilizesmethodstospecificallyidentifytoxicants. PhaseIIIutilizesmethodstoconfirmthesuspectedtoxicants.
APhaseITIEwillbeconductedonsamplesthatexceedaTIEtriggerdescribedinSection6.4.Waterqualitydatawillbereviewedtofuturesupportevaluationofpotentialtoxicants.Arangeofsamplemanipulationsmaybeconductedaspartof theTIEprocess. Themostcommonmanipulations are described in Table 6‐1. Information from previous chemical testing and/or TIE efforts will be used to determine which of these (or other) sample manipulations are most likely to provide useful information for identification of primary toxicants. TIE methods will generally adhere to USEPA proceduresdocumentedinconductingTIEs(USEPA,1991,1992,1993a‐b).
Table6‐1. PhaseIandIIToxicityIdentificationEvaluationSampleManipulations.
TIESampleManipulation ExpectedResponse
pHAdjustment(pH7and8.5) AlterstoxicityinpHsensitivecompounds(i.e.,ammoniaandsometracemetals)
Filtrationorcentrifugation* RemovesparticulatesandassociatedtoxicantsEthylenediamine‐TetraaceticAcid(EDTA)orCationExchangeColumn*
Chelatestracemetals,particularlydivalentcationicmetals
Sodiumthiosulfate(STS)addition Reducestoxicantsattributabletooxidants(i.e.,chlorine)andsometracemetals
PiperonylButoxide(PBO)* Reducestoxicityfromorganophosphatepesticidessuchasdiazinon,chlorpyrifosandmalathion,andenhancespyrethroidtoxicity
Carboxylesteraseaddition(1) HydrolyzespyrethroidsTemperatureadjustments(2) PyrethroidsbecomemoretoxicwhentesttemperaturesaredecreasedSolidPhaseExtraction(SPE)withC18column*
Removesnon‐polarorganics(includingpesticides)andsomerelativelynon‐polarmetalchelates
SequentialSolventExtractionofC18column
FurtherresolutionofSPE‐extractedcompoundsforchemicalanalyses
NoManipulation* Baselinetestforcomparingtherelativeeffectivenessofothermanipulations
* Denotestreatmentsthatwillbeconductedduringtheinitiationoftoxicitymonitoring,butmayberevisedastheprogramisimplemented.ThesetreatmentswererecommendedforinitialstormwatertestinginAppendixE(ToxicityTestingToolforStormwaterDischarges)oftheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard’sJune2012PublicReviewDraft“PolicyforToxicityAssessmentandControl”.
1 Carboxylesteraseadditionhasbeenusedinrecentstudiestohelpidentifypyrethroid‐associatedtoxicity(Wheelocketal.,2004;WestonandAmweg,2007).However,thistreatmentisexperimentalinnatureandshouldbeusedalongwithotherpyrethroid‐targetedTIEtreatments(e.g.,PBOaddition).
2 Temperatureadjustmentsareanotherrecentmanipulationusedtoevaluatepyrethroid‐associatedtoxicity.Lowertemperaturesincreasethelethalityofpyrethroidpesticides.(Harwood,YouandLydy,2009)
TheWatershedGroupwillidentifythecause(s)oftoxicityusingaselectionoftreatmentsinTable6‐1 and, if possible, using the results of water column chemistry analyses. After any initialassessmentsof thecauseof toxicity, the informationmaybeusedduring futureevents tomodifythe targeted treatments to more closely target the expected toxicant or class of toxicants.
43
Moreover, if the toxicant or toxicant class is not initially identified, toxicity monitoring duringsubsequenteventswillconfirmifthetoxicantispersistentorashort‐termepisodicoccurrence.
As the primary goals of conducting TIEs is to identify pollutants for incorporation into outfallmonitoring, narrowing the list of toxicants following Phase I TIEs via Phase II/III TIEs is notnecessary if the toxicant class determined during the Phase I TIE is sufficient for 1) identifyingadditional pollutants for outfallmonitoring and/or 2) identifying controlmeasures. Thus, if thespecificpollutant(s)orclassesofpollutants(e.g.,metalsthatareanalyzedviaEPAMethod200.8)are identifiedthensufficient information isavailableto incorporatetheadditionalpollutants intooutfall monitoring and to start implementation of control measures to target the additionalpollutants.
PhaseIITIEsmaybeutilizedto identifyspecificconstituentscausingtoxicity inagivensample ifthe results of Phase I TIE testing and a review of available chemistry data fails to provideinformation necessary to identify constituents that warrant additional monitoring activities ormanagementactionstoidentifylikelysourcesofthetoxicantsandleadtoeliminationofthesourcesofthesecontaminants.PhaseIIITIEswillbeconductedfollowinganyPhaseIITIEs.
ForthepurposesofdeterminingwhetheraTIEisinconclusive,TIEswillbeconsideredinconclusiveif:
Thetoxicityispersistent(i.e.,observedinthebaseline),and Thecauseoftoxicitycannotbeattributedtoaclassofconstituents(e.g.,insecticides,metals,
etc.)thatcanbetargetedformonitoring.
If (1) a combinationof causes that act in a synergisticor additivemannerare identified; (2) thetoxicity canbe removedwitha treatmentor via a combinationof theTIE treatments; or (3) theanalysisofwaterqualitydatacollectedduring thesameevent identify thepollutantoranalyticalclassofpollutants,theresultofaTIEisconsideredconclusive.
NotethattheMRP(pageE‐33)allowsaTIEPrioritizationMetric(asdescribedinAppendixEoftheStormwaterMonitoring Coalition’sModelMonitoring Program) for use in ranking sites for TIEs.However, as the extent to which TIEs will be conducted is unknown, prioritization cannot beconductedatthistime.However,prioritizationmaybeutilizedinthefuturebasedontheresultsoftoxicitymonitoringandanapproachtoprioritizationwillbedevelopedthroughtheCIMPadaptivemanagementprocessandwillbedescribedinfutureversionsoftheCIMP.
6.5 FollowUponToxicityTestingResults
PerPartsVIII.B.c.viandXI.G.1.doftheMRP,iftheresultsoftwoTIEsonseparatereceivingsamplescollected during the same conditions (i.e., wet or dry weather) are inconclusive, a toxicity testconductedduringthesameconditions(i.e.,wetordryweather),usingthesametestspecies,willbeconductedatapplicableupstreamoutfallsassoonasfeasible(i.e.,thenextmonitoringeventthatisatleast45daysfollowingthetoxicitylaboratory’sreporttransmittingtheresultsofaninconclusive
44
TIE). The same TIE evaluation triggers and TIE approach presented in Section 6.3 and 6.4,respectivelywillbefollowedbasedontheresultsoftheoutfallsample.
TheMRP(pageE‐33) indicates the followingactionsshouldbe takenwhena toxicantorclassoftoxicantsisidentifiedthroughaTIE:
1. GroupMembersshallanalyzeforthetoxicant(s)duringthenextscheduledsamplingeventinthedischargefromtheoutfall(s)upstreamofthereceivingwaterlocation.
2. Ifthetoxicantispresentinthedischargefromtheoutfallatlevelsabovetheapplicablereceivingwaterlimitation,atoxicityreductionevaluation(TRE)willbeperformedforthattoxicant.
ThelistofconstituentsmonitoredatoutfallsidentifiedintheCIMPwillbemodifiedbasedontheresults of the TIEs. Similarly, upon completion of a successful dry weather TIE, additionalconstituents identified in the TIE will be added to monitoring requirements at outfalls withsignificantnon‐stormwaterflows.MonitoringforthoseconstituentswilloccurassoonasfeasiblefollowingthecompletionofasuccessfulTIE(i.e.,thenextmonitoringeventthatisatleast45daysfollowingthetoxicitylaboratory’sreporttransmittingtheresultsofasuccessfulTIE).
TherequirementsoftheTREswillbemetaspartoftheadaptivemanagementprocessintheWMPsrather than theCIMP. The identification and implementation of controlmeasures to address thecausesoftoxicityaretiedtomanagementofthestormwaterprogram,nottheCIMP.ItisexpectedthattherequirementsofTREswillonlybeconductedfortoxicantsthatarenotalreadyaddressedbyanexistingPermitrequirement(i.e.,TMDLs)orexistingorplannedmanagementactions.
TheWaterBoards’TMDLRoundtableiscurrentlyevaluatingoptionstostreamlineandconsistentlyrespond to urban‐use pesticide impairment listings throughout the State including a statewideurban‐use pesticide TMDL modeled after the San Francisco Bay Area Urban Creeks PesticidesTMDL.InAdditiontotoxicitytesting,statewideeffortswillbemonitoredtostudythesepesticidesbeing discussed by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Pesticides sub‐committeeandotherRegionalWaterBoards.
6.6 SummaryofAquaticToxicityMonitoring
The approach to conducting aquatic toxicitymonitoring as described in the previous sections issummarizedindetail inFigure6‐1. Theintentoftheapproachisto identifythecauseoftoxicityobservedinreceivingwatertotheextentpossiblewiththetoxicitytestingtoolsavailable,therebydirectingoutfallmonitoringforthepollutantscausingtoxicitywiththeultimategoalofsupportingthedevelopmentandimplementationofmanagementactions. ThetoxicityapproachissubjecttomodificationsbasedondiscussionswiththeRegionalBoard.
45
Figure6‐1. DetailedAquaticToxicityAssessmentProcess.
46
7 ReceivingWaterMonitoringMassEmissionMonitoringAllreceivingwaterqualitymonitoringattheLosAngelesRivermassemissionmonitoringsite,S10(Figure 7‐1), will continue to be conducted by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District(LACFCD).Flow‐weightedcomposite sampleswillbecollectedduringeachmonitoringeventandwillbeanalyzedforanalytesinTable5‐1.
7.1 SamplingFrequencyandMobilizationRequirements
MonitoringofreceivingwaterqualityatS10willbeperformedthreetimesayearduringthewetseasonandtwotimesayearduringdryweatherconditions. ScreeningforTableE‐2constituentslisted in the MRP will be conducted during the first significant storm of the year and during acriticallydryweatherperiod. Largersamplingvolumesarerequiredto incorporateallanalyticaltests and associated QA/QC needed for Table E‐2 constituents, bioassay tests and to providesufficientvolumesshouldTIEsberequired.
WetweatherconditionsaredefinedintheMRPaswhenthereceivingwaterbodyhasflowthatisatleast 20percent greater than itsbase flowor, in the caseof anestuary, during a stormevent ofgreaterthanorequalto0.1inchofprecipitation.
Theseinclude:
WetSeasondefinedasOctober1throughApril15 Eventsprecededby less than0.1 inchesofrainfallwithin thewatershedovera threeday
period. Rainfallofatleast0.25inchesand Maximum flow rates greater than 500 cfsmeasured at theWardlowRoad gaging station
associatedwiththeS10massemissionmonitoringsite.
TheMRPprovidesdefinesdryweatheras(forrivers,streamsorcreeks)asperiodswhenflowisnomore than 20% greater than base flow conditions. In the case of the Estuary, dry weatherconditions are further defined by rainfall being less than 0.1 inches of rain on the day of thesamplingandhavingexperiencedno lessthanthreedaysofdryweatherafteraraineventof0.1inchesorgreaterwithinthewatershed,asmeasuredfromatleast50percentofLosAngelesCountycontrolledraingaugeswithinthewatershed.
7.2 SamplingConstituents
ChemicalanalysisarescheduledtobeconductedforallanalyteslistedinTable5‐2throughTable5‐8duringthefirstsignificantrainfalloftheseasonandagainduringaperiodofcriticallowflow.ChemicalconstituentsnotdetectedinexcessoftheirrespectiveMethodDetectionLimits(MDLs)orthat do not exceed available water quality standards will be considered for removal duringsubsequentsurveys. Adjustmentstothelistofanalyticaltestswillbeassessedseparatelyforwetanddryweathersamplingrequirements.
47
ConstituentstobesampledattheMEsiteduringallothersamplingeventsarelistedinTable5‐1.SamplingrequiresfocusonconstituentsthatarecurrentlypartofaTMDL,are303(d)listedorthathave exceeded RWL but data are not sufficient for listing. This approach is designed to targetconstituentsofconcerninthewatershed. Inaddition,anextensivesamplingofallconstituentsisscheduledfortwotimeperiodsduringthefirstyearofthepermitwhencontaminantsareexpectedtohave thegreatestpotential forbeingdetected. Additional constituents fromtheTableE‐2 listthataredetectedatlevelsofconcernduringthosetwotimeperiodswillbeaddedtothemonitoringlistattheMEsite.
As noted in the previous section, it has been determined that adequate data exist to determinewhichofthethreefreshwaterspeciesareconsideredtobemostsensitiveduringbothstormeventsand dry weather periods. Available literature and local data indicate that the most sensitivebioassaytestspeciesisCeriodaphniadubia.ThepriorsectiononAquaticToxicityTestingandTIEsgoes into detail as to species selection and the overall approach recommended for measuringtoxicity in the receiving waters and strategies to eliminate any sources of toxicity. During wetweather conditions, bioassay tests will be performed based upon exposure to 100 percent testwatersovera48‐hourtimeperiodsincethistimeexposureisdeemedtobemoreconsistentwiththedurationof typicalstormevents. Sinceexposuretimesduringthedryseasonaremuch long,dry weather testing will utilize 7‐day chronic toxicity tests that assess both survival andreproductive endpoints for C.dubia. Chronic testing will also be conducted on 100 percentundilutedsamples. Table7‐1providessamplevolumesnecessaryfortoxicitytests(bothwetanddryweather)aswellasminimumvolumesnecessarytofulfillPhaseITIEtestingifnecessary. Asdetailed in the previous section, the sublethal endpoints will be assessed using EPA’s TSTprocedure to determine if there is a statistically significant 50% difference between samplecontrolsandthetestwatersandultimatelydetermineiffurthertestingshouldbeisnecessary.
Table7‐1. ToxicityTestVolumeRequirementsforAquaticToxicityTestingasPartoftheLowerLosAngelesRiverCoordinatedIntegratedMonitoringProgram.
TestOrganism ToxicityTestTypeTest
Concentration
VolumeRequiredfor
InitialScreen(L)
MinimumVolumeRequiredforTIE
(L)1
FreshwaterTestsforSampleswithSalinity<1.0pptDaphnidWaterFlea(Ceriodaphniadubia)
48‐HourAcuteSurvival7‐dayChronicSurvivalandReproduction
100%only 1.5 10
SampleReceiptWaterQuality
‐‐ ‐‐ 1.0 ‐‐
Totalvolumerequiredpereventforsampleswithsalinity<1.0ppt;
2.5 a
1MinimumvolumesforTIEareforPhase1characterizationtestingonly.TheadditionalvolumecollectedforpotentialTIEtestingcanbeheldinrefrigeration(4°Cinthedark,noheadspace)andshippedtothelaboratoryatalaterdateifneeded.
Note:TheNPDESpermittargetsa36‐hrholdingtimeforinitiationoftestingbutallowsamaximumholdingtimeof72‐hrifnecessary.
48
Figure7‐1. LowerLosAngelesRiverReceivingWaterMonitoringandTMDLComplianceSite.
49
8 ReceivingWaterTMDLMonitoringThe followingsectionsprovideasummaryofTMDLsapplicable to theLLAR,any interimor finalWaste Load Allocations applicable to each TMDL, and monitoring requirements required toevaluatecompliance.
8.1 NitrogenCompoundsandRelatedEffectsTMDL
AttachmentAtoResolutionNo.R12‐010
ThisTMDLidentifiesWaterReclamationPlants(WRP)asthemajorsourcesofnitrogencompoundstotheLosAngelesRiver. These facilities includetheDonaldC.TillmanWaterReclamationPlant,theLosAngeles‐GlendaleWRP,andtheBurbankWRP.AllarelocatedupstreamoftheLLARWMG.During dry weather periods, these major POTWs contribute 84.1% of the total dry weathernitrogen load. Urban runoff, stormwater, and groundwater discharges also contribute nitrogenloads.TheTMDLclassifiesdischargesfromMS4sasminorpointsourcesofnitrogencompounds.
WasteLoadAllocations(WLAs)areestablishedforsegmentsof theLowerLARwatershed(Table8‐1). A review of water quality measurements taken at the Wardlow (S10) Mass Emissionmonitoring site between 2006 and 2013 indicated that individual nitrate and nitrite‐nitrogenconcentrations never exceeded the 30‐day WLAs. In addition, three single sample ammonia‐nitrogenmeasurements taken in late2006and2007were foundtoexceedthe30‐daygeometricmeanstandardof2.4mg/Lforammonia‐nitrogen.
Lowconcentrationsofnitrogencompoundshavebeenconsistentlyreported inbothwetanddryweatherdischargesmonitoredattheCityofLongBeachDominguezGapMassEmissionMonitoringSite between 2008 and 2013 (Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc., 2013). Concentrations of ammonia‐nitrogen are reported to be less than 0.7 mg/L during both dry and wet weather monitoring.Concentrationsofnitrate‐N indryweatherdischargeshaveneverexceeded1.9mg/Landallwetweatherdischargeshavehadconcentrationsoflessthan1.4mg/L.
Based upon the low concentrations of nitrogen reported in receivingwaters of the Los AngelesRiverandrecognitionthatPOTWsarethemajorcontributorsofnitrogentotheRiverduringdryweather,theexistingmassemissionmonitoringsitelocatedatWardlowRoad(S10)willbeusedtoassess compliancewith the Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects TMDL for the LLARWMG.Monitoringofnitrogencompoundswillbeincludedwitheachofthethreewetweathereventsandfortwodryweatherevents.
50
Table8‐1. Summaryof30‐dayWLAsforNitrogenCompounds intheLowerLosAngelesRiverWatershedManagementGroup.
SegmentAmmonia‐
N(mg/L)
Nitrate‐N(mg/L)
Nitrite‐N
(mg/L)
Nitrate+Nitrite‐N
(mg/L)LosAngelesRiverReach1 2.4 8.0 1.0 8.0
LosAngelesRiverReach2 2.4 8.0 1.0 8.0
LosAngelesRiverTributariesexcludingtheWhittierNarrows
2.3 8.0 1.0 8.0
Inaddition,thehighestfour‐dayaveragewithinthe30‐dayperiodshallnotexceed2.5timesthe30‐dayaveragewasteloadallocation.
8.2 LosAngelesRiverandTributariesMetalsTMDL
AttachmentAtoResolutionNo.R2007‐014
The LosAngelesRiverMetalsTMDLbecame effective onOctober 29, 2008. In order to addresscompliancewiththisTMDL(Table8‐3),aCoordinatedMonitoringPlan(CMP)wasdevelopedandimplemented jointlyby the responsibleLosAngelesRiverWatershedMS4permittees inOctober2008.Wetanddryweathermonitoringbeganat13locationsintheLARiverandmajortributaries.Four of the monitoring sites were located within the LLAR WMG area. Grab sampling wasconductedatallfourmonitoringsitesonamonthlybasisduringdryweatherconditions.Twositeswere equipped with autosamplers which were used to collect stormwater runoff samples. AsummaryoftheresultsofthismonitoringeffortispresentedinSection2oftheWMP.
AutomatedsamplingequipmentwasusedatLAR1‐132nearWardlowRd.andatLAR1‐11locatedjustnorthofDelAmoBlvd.TheLAR1‐13siteislocatedatthesamesiteastheLosAngelesRivermassemissionmonitoringsiteS10.BothareassociatedwithatLosAngelesCountygagingstationF319‐R.ThislocationhasbeenusedasthefinalcompliancepointfortheMetalsTMDLandisalsoeffectivelythelowerendofReach1oftheLosAngelesRiver.LAR1‐11islocatedjust3300meters(just over twomiles) to the north. This site is also north of the locationwhere ComptonCreekdischargestotheLosAngelesRiverandmarksthelowerendofReach2.Monitoringresultsfromthesetwocloselyspacedsitesweretypicallydifficulttodifferentiate.ThelocationofLAR1‐11isanartifactofthepriorReach1/Reach2segmentingundertheTMDL,whichisnowbeingsupersededbythewatershedapproach.ThelocationofsiteLAR1‐11waswellsuitedfordifferentiatingReach2 and Reach 1, but does not provide significant information for watershed implementationactivities.
2LAR1‐13islocatedatthesamesiteasS‐10.
51
The river segment between stations LAR1‐11 and LAR1‐13 is nearly an order ofmagnitude lessthananyoftheotherstations.
Table8‐2. Approximate Percentage of River Length Served by Automated SamplingStations.
MonitoringSite Percent*(%)
LLAR1‐1 16.4
LLAR1‐4 16.0
LARB1‐7 21.4
LAR1‐11 35.3
LAR1‐13 02.6
*Percentagedoesnotaddto100duetothelengthoftheestuarynotbeingincluded
Historical monitoring at LAR1‐11 and LAR1‐13 do not show significant differences in pollutanttrends(Whenapollutantincreasesordecreasesatonestation,italsoincreasesordecreasesattheotherstations)asisshownininFigures8‐1and8‐2usingcopperandzinclevelsforthe2013‐14CMP sampling results. The zinc levels parallel each other, the copper level are almostindistinguishableatthetwomonitoringstations.
Figure8‐1. ComparisonofCopperandZincLevels forMonitoringStationsLAR1‐11andLAR1‐13inDryWeather.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5 6
ug/L
Dry Weather
11‐Cu
11‐Zn
13‐Cu
13‐Zn
52
Figure8‐2. ComparisonofCopperandZincLevels forMonitoringStationsLAR1‐11andLAR1‐13inWetWeather.
For the past several years, the CMPMetals TMDLmonitoring programs and the mass emissionstationhaverepresentedtheonlystructuralmonitoringstationsintheLosAngelesRiver.Withtheadventof theCIMPandIMPs, thenumberofsampling locations fortheLosAngelesRiveranditstributaries,includingComptonCreekismarkedlyincreasing.
Asaresult,continuedmonitoringatLAR1‐11wasredundantandnotprovidingusefulinformationforwetanddryweathermonitoring. Thusthreesites(Figure8‐3)willcontinuetobemonitoredfortheLARmetalsTMDL.
TheLAR1‐13monitoringsitewillcontinuetobeusedforcollectionof flow‐weightedstormwatercompositesamplessince(1)thissitealsoservesasthefinalcompliancepointforthemetalsTMDL,(2)isthefurthestdownstreamandisneartheinterfaceoftheriver/estuaryinterfaceand(3)theLLARgroupshasalreadyindicatedtheHarborToxicsTMDLwouldbesituatedatthissite. Threestorm events will be monitored at this location to be consistent with receiving water qualitymonitoringrequirementsatthissite.
Dryweathermonitoringdata from theLosAngelesRiverMetalsCMPhas shownmetals tobe incomplianceduringdryweather.Asaresultofthehighlevelofcompliance,dryweathermonitoringat each of the three sites (Figure 8‐3) is scheduled be conducted on a quarterly basis. No dryweather samplingwill be conductedduringmonthswhen a storm event is sampled at LAR1‐13.Scheduling of monitoring activities will be coordinated with the Upper Los Angeles RiverWatershedManagementGroup(ULARWMG).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 2 3 4 5 6
ug/L
Wet Weather
11‐Cu
11‐Zn
13‐Cu
13‐Zn
53
Table8‐3. NumericTargetsforTraceMetalintheLowerLosAngelesRiverWG.
TMDLTarget WaterbodyMetal(μg/L)
Cadmium Copper3,5,6 Lead3,5,6 Zinc4,5
DryWeatherTotalRecoverableMetalsTargets1,2
Reach1 ‐ 23 12 ‐
Tributary‐ ComptonCr. 19 8.9
Reach2 ‐ 22 11 ‐
ArroyoSeco ‐ 22 11 ‐
Tributary‐ RioHondoReach1 ‐ 13 5 131
WetWeatherTotalRecoverableMetalsTarget7,8
Reach1and2,ComptonCreek,ArroyoSeco,RioHondoReach1
3.1 17 62 159
Notes:
1. Dryweathertargetsapplytodayswhenmaximumdailyflowintheriverislessthan500cfsatWardlowgage.2. Dryweatherconversionfactorsusedtoconverttotalrecoverabletodissolvedfraction:copper=0.96;lead=0.79;zinc=0.613. DryweathertargetsforcopperandleadarebasedonchronicCaliforniaToxicRule(CTR)criteria.4. DryweathertargetsforzincarebasedonacuteCTRcriteriausingthe10percentilehardnessvalue.5. Copper,leadandzinctargetsdependentonwaterhardness.6. Copperandleadtargetsbasedon50thpercentilehardnessvalues.7. CFWetweatherconversionfactorsforcopper,lead,andzinctoconverttotalrecoverabletodissolvedbasedonregressionof
datacollectedatWardlowgage:copper=0.65;lead=0.82;zinc=0.61.ConversionfactorforcadmiumtakenfromCTR=0.94.8. Wetweathertargetsforcadmium,copper,leadandzincbasedonacuteCTRcriteriaandthe50thpercentilehardnessvalues
forstormwatercollectedatWardlowgagestation.
54
Figure8‐3. MonitoringSitesfortheLosAngelesRiverMetalsTMDL.
55
8.3 LosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTMDL
AttachmentAtoResolutionNo.R10‐007
The Basin Plan Amendment (Resolution No. R10‐007) describes three categories of compliancemonitoring:
1)Ambient(River)Monitoring is tooccuronamonthlybasis ineachriversegmentandtributaryaddressedundertheTMDL,until thesubjectriversegmentortributaryisattheendoftheexecutionpartofitsfirstimplementationphase,atwhichtime,itwilltransitiontoweeklymonitoring.
2)LoadReductionStrategy (LRS)Monitoring is required for parties pursing an LRS, inwhichintensiveoutfallmonitoringwillbeconductedbeforeandafterimplementationoftheLRS.Pre‐LRSmonitoringwillbeusedtoestimatebacterialoadingfromMS4Outfallsandtoidentifyappropriate implementationactionstomeetWasteLoadAllocation(WLAs).Post‐LRSmonitoring will be used to evaluate compliance with interimWLAs and to plan foradditional implementation actions to meet final WLAs during a second implementationphase,ifnecessary.
3)WetWeathermonitoringistobeaddressedbyWetWeatherImplementationPlansduein2022.
ThisCoordinated IntegratedMonitoringPlan (CIMP) is limited to1)quarterly surveysnecessaryfor the AmbientMonitoring program and 2) LRS surveys needed to first develop LRS Plans andlater evaluate effectiveness of BMP implementation actions in meeting WLAs within definedreachesandtributarieswithintheLLARWMG.WeeklyAmbientMonitoringofreceivingwatersisnot scheduled to occur until 7 years after a given reach or tributary has begun the firstimplementationphase. Giventhattimeline,itisexpectedthatweeklyambientmonitoringwillbeaddressedbyafutureaddendumtotheCIMP.
Rivermonitoringwillbeconductedquarterlyateachofthethreemonitoringsites locatedwithintheLLARWMG(Figure8‐4).MonitoringwillbeconductedduringdryweatherconditionsandwillconsistofcollectionofwatersamplesforanalysisofE.coliandconcurrentflowmeasurementstoallow forcalculationof loads. The timingofeachsurveywillbecoordinatedwith theupperLosAngelesRiverWMGs.SamplingmethodsaredetailedinAppendixC.
LRSMonitoringwillbeconductedtosupportdevelopmentof thePhase1LRSPlansandevaluatecompliancewith interimdryweatherWLAs (Table8‐4). LRSmonitoring for the first phasewillrequiresixsynopticsurveysofallMS4stormdrainswithinatargetedRiverSegmentorTributary.WatersampleswillbecollectedfromallflowingstormdrainsandanalyzedforEscherichiacoli(E.coli). Concurrent flowmeasurementswillbenecessary toallow for loadcalculations. TheLLARWMGincludesallofLosAngelesRiverSegmentAbutonlyportionsofRiverSegmentB,ComptonCreek and Rio Hondo. In caseswhere a segment or defined tributary is not fully encompassedwithintheLLARWMG,thegroupplanstoworkcooperativelywithadjoiningWMGstodevelopboth
56
theinitialbacterialloadingdataandtolaterevaluatecompliancewithinterimdryweatherWLAsafterimplementation.LRSmonitoringwillnotbeconductedfortheinitialLRSplanningeffortforSegment B since data were previously collected as part of the CREST program. The first LRSsurveyswillbeconductedforRiverSegmentAandRioHondoReach1sincetheLRSplanisduebySeptember30,2016andMarch23,2016(Table8‐6).
TheLRSprocessisoutlinedinFigure8‐5.LRSmonitoringisrequiredaspartofStep1toprovidethedatanecessary todevelop theLRSplanandagain inStep6when it isnecessary toevaluateeffectivenessofthestrategy.
8.3.1 InterimDryWeatherLimitsforBacteria
TheBasinPlanAmendment(ResolutionNo.R10‐007)establishedInterimDryWeatherWLAsforallsegmentsoftheLosAngelesRiverandthemajortributaries. Table8‐4summarizesWLAsforsegmentsandtributarieslocatedwithintheLLARWMG.
Table8‐4. Interim Dry Weather Waste Load Allocations for LLAR Segments andTributaries(ExpressedasLoad,109MPN/day).
RiverSegmentorTributary E.coliLoad(109MPN/day)
LosAngelesRiverSegmentA 301
LosAngelesRiverSegmentB 518
ComptonCreek 7
RioHondo 2
Source:ResolutionNo.R10‐007,AmendmenttotheWaterQualityControlPlanfortheLosAngelesRegion
8.3.2 FinalIn‐streamTargetsandAllowableExceedances
Thefinalin‐streamnumerictargetsforthisTMDLareasfollows:
•GeometricMeanTarget:E.colidensityshallnotexceed126MPN/100mL.
•SingleSampleTarget:E.colidensityshallnotexceed235MPN/100mL.
It is important to note that these Final In‐stream Targets do not apply to monthly ambientmonitoringresults.Theyareincludedhereforreferenceonly.Thesetargetsonlyapplytoweeklymonitoringresults,whichwillbe initiatedafteragivenriversegmentortributaryhascompletedthe first phase of implementation of its LoadReduction Strategy. The single sample targets areassignedanallowablenumberofexceedancedaysfordryweatherandwetweather.IftheRegionalBoard adopts new bacterial standards, the CIMP, including any monitoring reports, shall beupdatedtoincorporatethechanges.
57
Figure8‐4. RiverMonitoringSitesfortheLosAngelesRiverBacteriaTMDL.
58
BasedUpontheLosAngelesRiverBacteriaTMDLStaffReport.
Figure8‐5. OutlineofLRSSamplingandAssessmentProcess.
59
8.3.3 HighFlowSuspension
Certain reaches and tributaries of the Los Angeles River are subject to a High Flow Suspension(HFS) of the recreational beneficial uses. All segments and tributaries locatedwithin the LLARWMGwouldbesubjecttosuspensionofrecreationalbeneficialusesfortimeperiodswhenrainfallis greater than or equal to 0.5 inches over a 24‐hour time period and a 24‐hour time periodfollowing the event (Board Resolution No. 2003‐010). Since this CIMP only includes samplingscheduled to be conducted during dry weather, HFS days are not likely to apply to the resultsobtained through this monitoring program and are included here for reference purposes only.Table8‐5showsthefinaldryandwetweatherallowableexceedancesbasedondailyandweeklysampling.
Table8‐5. AllowableNumberofExceedancesofFinalIn‐streamNumericTargetsinDryandWetWeatherConditions.
AllowableNumberofExceedanceDays
DailySampling
WeeklySampling
DryWeather 5 1
WetWeather(Non‐HFS1Waterbodies) 15 2
WetWeather(HFSWaterbodies)10(notincluding
HFSdays)2(notincludingHFSdays)
1. HFS=HighFlowSuspension
TheRiverBacteriasamplingprogramwillbebasedupontheMarch2013CoordinatedMonitoringPlanforLosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTMDL–ComplianceMonitoringdevelopedby theLARiverWatershedBacteria TMDLTechnical Committeewith the exception thatmonitoring in theestuarywillbeconductedquarterlyratherthanmonthlyandfreshwaterbacteriamonitoringwillbeconductedmonthly.Thebacteriamonitoringfrequencywillincreasetoweeklyaftercompletionof the first segment or tributary‐specific implementation phase. This plan established 16 sitesthroughout the Los Angeles River Watershed to characterize ambient water quality conditions.FourofthesesitesarelocatedintheLLARWMG.Quarterlywatersampleswillbecollectedateachsiteforanalysisofthefecalindicator,Escherichiacoli(E.coli).Quarterlymonitoringisconsideredto initiallybesufficient todetermineasegmentor tributary is incompliancewith interimWLAs.SinceinterimWLAsareexpressedasaload,flowmeasurementswillbetakenatornearthetimeofeach sample collection so that theE.coliMPN/day can be calculated. Quarterlymonitoringwillonlybeconductedduringdryweatherconditions.Samplingmustbeprecededbyaminimumof72hourswithoutrainfallwithinthewatershed.
LRS sampling is initially required to evaluate bacterial loads associatedwith each defined RiverSegmentorTributaryintheLARBacteriaTMDL. Samplingconductedtosupportdevelopmentofbacteriareductionplanrequiressixsamplingeventswherewatersamplesandflowmeasurementsaretakeninalloutfallsdischargingtothedefinedarea.Effectivenessmonitoringisscheduledtobeconductedafterall actionshavebeen taken tocontrolbacterial loads to levelsbelowestablished
60
WasteLoadAllocations(WLAs). Effectivenessmonitoring isexpectedtorequire threeadditionalsynoptic surveys of the target segment. If thismonitoring does not demonstrate thatWLAs arebeingmet,asecondphaseoftestingisrequiredtoevaluatefurtheractionsnecessarytomeetthedryweatherWLAs.InitialLRSmonitoringwascompletedforSegmentBoftheLosAngelesRiveraspartof theCRESTstudies (CREST2010a,b). Appendix1of theCREST reportprovidedexamplecalculationsandrecommendationsforreducingdryweatherloads.AfinalLRSplanisrequiredtobe submitted by September 30, 2014. This plan may utilize recommendations provided in theCRESTreportorrecommendalternativestrategiesforreducingbacterialloads.
Table8‐6providesascheduleforthefirsttwocyclesofthePermitfordevelopmentofinitialLRSplans and completing effectiveness monitoring River Segments A and B and tributaries thatdischarge to these River Segments. It is currently intended that an LRS plan be completed foroutfallsdischargingtotheLosAngelesEstuary(LAR).InordertoprovideconsistencywiththeLosAngelesRiverBacteriaTMDL,anLRSplanfortheLARisscheduledtobecompletedbySeptember2021whenLRSplansaredueforRiverSegmentsCandD.
Table8‐6. Schedule forCompletionofLRSOutfallMonitoring forBacterialLoadsundertheLosAngelesRiverBacterialTMDL.
SegmentB SegmentA
SegmentBTributariesRioHondo
SegmentATributariesComptonCreek
FirstPhase
MonitoringforDevelopmentofLRS–6outfallsurveys
Sept 23, 2014, 2.5years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
Sept 23, 2016, 4.5years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
March 23, 2016, , 4years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
March 23, 2018, 6years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
MonitoringforEffectivenessofLRS–3outfallsurveys
March 23, 2022, 10years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
March 23, 2024, 12years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
September 23,2023,11.5 years aftereffective date of theTMDL
Sept 23, 2025, 13.5years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
SecondPhase
Submit a new LRS ‐6newoutfallsurveys
March 23, 2023, 11years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
March 23, 2025, 13years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
March23,2024,12.5years after effectivedateoftheTMDL
September 23, 2026,,14.5 years aftereffective date of theTMDL
1. Thisscheduleislimitedtoactivitiesduringthefirsttwopermitcycles(10years)thatrequiredatacollectionefforts.
61
8.4 Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary TMDLs forIndicatorBacteria
TheLowerLARWatershedGroupincludesdrainagestotheLosAngelesRiverEstuary,butnotLongBeach City Beaches. A robust monitoring program was to be developed for the LAR Estuary.Existing data includes bi‐weekly monitoring from May through September of 2009, and 2010.Monitoringwastobeexpandedtoincludeyearroundmonitoringrequirements,andatleastthreemonitoring locations within the Estuary. It was recognized that adequate data to establish areference estuary approach was not available at the time when TMDLs were developed forindicator bacteria along the City beaches and in the Los Angeles River Estuary. It was alsorecognized that, as adequate data from reference estuary studies becomes available, it may beappropriatetoconsiderareferenceestuaryapproachtoevaluatecompliancewiththeseTMDLs.
The Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary Bacteria TMDL was developed byUSEPAandthereforedidnotincorporateanImplementationPlan.TheRegionalBoarddevelopedaseparateTMDLforbacteriaintheLosAngelesRiverthathasbeenincorporatedintotheBasinPlanAmendment with a schedule to meet compliance in 25 years (Resolution Number R10‐007,approved by the State Board on November 1, 2011). The USEPA recognized that waste loadallocations and load allocations (expressed as allowable exceedance days) were appropriate toimplement in a timeline consistent with the lower segments of the Los Angeles River BacteriaTMDL,andthattheRegionalBoardshouldconsideroptionsthatprovidetimetocomply,absentastate‐adopted implementation schedule, and consistentwith the StateWaterBoard’s complianceschedulepolicy.Interimmilestoneswererecommendedtobelinkedtolocalizedeffortstoreducebacteria loading in the direct drainage areas included in these TMDLs, and should consider theinfluenceofupstreambacteriasourcestotheLAREstuaryandtheLBCBeaches.
The LLAR WMG only includes the LAR Estuary portion of this TMDL but the salinities can beexpectedtorangefromafreshwatertoamarineenvironment.ReceivingwaterqualityobjectivesfortheLAREstuaryforREC‐13beneficialusesaresummarizedinTable8‐7. .TheTMDLestimateddirectloadstotheEstuaryduringdryweathersolelyonthebasisofE.coli.Whiletheyrecognizedthat the different indicator bacteria were not directly comparable, it was assumed that sourceswere similar for indicator bacteria applicable to themarine environment. Due to the transitionfromafreshwatertoamarineenvironment,allfourindicatorbacteriawillbeconsidered.
3uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water isreasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to swimming, wading, water‐skiing, skin andscubadiving,surfing,whitewateractivities,fishingoruseofnaturalhotsprings.
62
Table8‐7. MarineandFreshwaterReceivingWaterQualityObjectivesapplicable to theLosAngelesRiverEstuary.
WaterQualityObjectives MarineREC‐1 FreshwaterREC‐1SINGLESAMPLEE.coli NA 235CFU/100mLFecalcoliform 400CFU/100mL Enterococcus 104CFU/100mL TotalColiform1 10,000CFU/100mL 30‐DAYGEOMETRICMEANE.coli NA 126CFU/100mLFecalcoliform 200CFU/100mL Enterococcus 35CFU/100mL TotalColiform 1,000CFU/100mL
1. Totalcoliformshallnotexceed1,000/100mL, if theratioof fecaltototalcoliformexceeds0.1(this isanadditionalsinglesamplelimitforREC‐1marinewaters;presentedintheBasinPlan).
ThepurposeofconductingamonitoringprogramintheLosAngelesRiverEstuaryisto:
developanunderstandingofbacterialloadingratestotheestuaryand determineifbacteriaundergosimpledilutionasthefreshwaterpassesthroughtheestuary
mixingwithmarinewaters or if areas of the estuary serve as either sources or sinks forbacteriathatcanultimatelybetransportedtoLongBeachCityBeaches.
Threemonitoringsites(Figure8‐6)willbemonitoredwithintheestuary. Samplinglocationsarelocated at the upstream and downstream limits of the estuary, and near theQueenswayBridge.Duringeachsurvey,sampleswillbetakenforeachofthemarineandfreshwaterbacteriaindicatorsinduetotherangeofconditionswithintheestuary.Inaddition,in‐situmeasurementswillbetakenforsalinity,temperatureandturbidityusingfieldinstrumentation.Samplingpointswillbeselectedatthecenterofthebrackishsurfaceplume(lowestsalinity)resultingfromfreshwaterflowsfromtheLosAngelesRiver. Thiswillassurethatconditionsreflectthecenterofsurface flowspassingthroughtheestuary.Samplingisintendedtobecompletedinthemorningwithina2‐hourintervalinordertoassurethatsamplingrepresentsasynopticviewofconditionswithintheestuarythatisunimpactedbydifferentialexposuretosunlight.
Table8‐8. AmbientMonitoring Siteswithin the LLARWMG for the Los Angeles RiverWatershedBacterialTMDL.
SiteID SiteName WaterBodyGPSCoordinates
DescriptionLatitude(N)
Longitude(W)
LARB1SegmentA(Wardlow)
LosAngelesRiver(Reach1)
33.81735 118.20551LocatedatWardlowRdMassEmissionstation(S10)
LARB2SegmentB(Rosecrans)
LosAngelesRiver(Reach2)
33.90374 118.18240 LocatedatRosecransAve
LARB7 RioHondo Tributary:RioHondo
33.93202 118.17523 LocatedabovewithConfluencewiththeLARiver
63
Baseduponasimpleestuarinemixingmodel,alinearchangeinbacteriaconcentrationsinresponsetochangesinsalinitywouldindicatethattheLosAngelesRiveriseithertheonlybacterialsourceorat least the dominant source of bacteria to the Estuary. Increasing concentrations of bacteriarelative to a linear dilution line will be indicative of a source along the Estuary. If measuredconcentrationsofbacteriadecrease faster thanexpectedbaseduponsimpledilutionof theRiverwaterwould indicate that the estuary serves as a sink. The latter casewouldoccur if estuarinemixingcreatesconditionswherebacteriawouldtendtoberemovedbycoagulationandsettlingofparticulatematter.
Thismonitoringisexpectedtoprovideinformationtoassessthemajorsourcesofbacteriatotheestuaryandassist indeterminingwhereeffortswouldbebestdirectedtoreducebacteriawithinrecreationalwatersof theLosAngelesRiverEstuaryandatbeaches impactedby the freshwaterplumeasitleavesthemouthoftheEstuary.
64
Figure8‐6. MonitoringSitesforBacteriaintheLosAngelesRiverEstuary.
65
8.5 Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach HarborWatersToxicPollutantsTMDL(HarborToxicsTMDL)
AttachmentAtoResolutionNo.R11‐008
TheBasinPlanAmendment(ResolutionNo.R11‐008)indicatesthatresponsiblepartiesidentifiedintheexistingmetalsTMDLsforLosAngelesRiverWatershedareresponsibleforconductingwaterand sediment monitoring above the Los Angeles River Estuary to determine the Rivers’contributiontotheimpairmentsintheGreaterHarborwaters.
WaterColumnMonitoring
TheBasinPlanAmendmentindicatesthatwatersamplesandtotalsuspendedsolidssamplesaretobecollectedfromatleastonesiteduringtwowetweathereventsandonedryweathereventeachyear. The first large storm event of the season is to be included as one of the wet weathermonitoringevents.Watersamplesandtotalsuspendedsolidsamplesaretobeanalyzedformetals,DDT, PCBs, and PAHs. Sampling is intended to collect sufficient volumes of water to allow forfiltration of suspended solids for analysis of the listed pollutants in the bulk sediment. Generalwater chemistry (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and electrical conductivity) and a flowmeasurementarealsorequiredateachsamplingevent.Generalchemistrymeasurementsmaybetaken in the laboratory immediately following sample collection if auto samplers are used forsamplecollectionorifweatherconditionsareunsuitableforfieldmeasurements.
SedimentMonitoring
The Basin Plan Amendment also requires collection of sediment samples from at least one siteeverytwoyearsforanalysisofgeneralsedimentqualityconstituentsandthefullchemicalsuiteasspecified in SQO Part 1. Sediment monitoring has been incorporated into the CoordinatedCompliance,Monitoring, andReportingPlan for theGreaterLosAngeles andLongBeachHarborWaters(AnchorQEA,2013)andthereforewillnotbeaddressedinthisCIMP.
TheHarborToxicsMonitoringProgramincludes twomonitoringsiteswithin theQueenswayBayportionoftheLosAngelesRiverEstuarythatwillbemonitoredeverytwoyears forbothgeneralsedimentqualityandallchemicalconstituentsspecifiedforSQOPart1testing.Permitteeslocatedin thenearshore areas asdefinedby theHarborToxicsTMDLare contributing toHarborToxicsmonitoring performed in both receivingwaters and sediments of the LosAngelesRiverEstuary,SanPedroBayandthePortofLongBeach.
8.5.1 SamplingApproach
Anumberofdifferentapproacheshavebeenattemptedtoenablecollectionofstormwatersamplesbaseduponflow‐weightedcompositesandthenextractthesuspendedsedimentsforanalysis.Thevariousapproacheshavemetwithvariedlevelofsuccessandtypicallyrequireextensivelabortoextractthesedimentforanalysis.Regardlessoftheapproachused,nonearebaseduponstandardmethods.
66
WearerecommendinganalternativeapproachforassessingtheloadsoftoxiccontaminantsbeingdischargedtotheHarborenvironmentthatwillsubstantiallyreducetheamountofsamplehandlingand potential for introduction of error. This approach will utilize High Resolution MassSpectrometry (HRMS) toanalyze fororganochlorinepesticides (EPA1699),PCBs (EPA1668)andPAHs(CARB429m).Testmethodsfortheseorganictoxiccompoundstargettherequiredanalytes,butalsoenableassessmentofeachcompoundincludedinthePart1SedimentQualityObjectives(SQOs).Thesecompoundsincludechlordanewhichis303(d)listedinboththeLosAngelesRiverEstuarysedimentsandinSanPedroBaysediments.
ThefrequencyofmonitoringfortheHarborToxicsTMDL(Table8‐9.)willbeconsistentfordryandwetweathermonitoringrequirementsspecified in theTMDLhowever, theHRMSmethodwillbeusedforthetwowetweathermonitoringeventsandconventionalanalyticalmethodswillbeusedforthedryweathermonitoringevent.
During the first three years of Harbor Toxics monitoring, analyses will be conducted on wholewater samples. These test methods provide detection limits that are roughly 100 times moresensitivethanconventionallowresolutiontests. Inaddition,theseextremelylowdetectionlimitscanbeachievedwithaslittleas3‐6litersofstormwaterfromeachmonitoringlocation.
Useof thisapproach isexpected togreatlyenhance theability toconsistentlyobtainappropriatesamples for measuring and comparing loads of toxic pollutants associated with each majorstormwaterdischarge. Thiswill assure thatallkey toxicscanbequantifiedat levels suitable forestimation of mass loads to the Harbor waters. For purposes of load calculations, it would beassumed that100%of these toxicswereassociatedwith suspendedsolids. SeparateanalysesofTSS/SSCwouldbeusedtonormalizethedata.Afterthreeyears(sixstormevents)thedatawillbereevaluatedtoassesswhetherdirectanalysisofthefilteredsuspendedsedimentsarenecessarytoimproveloadassessments.Ifdeemednecessary,amodifiedapproachwillbeevaluatedbaseduponuseofHRMSmethodsforanalysisoffilteredsuspendedsediments.UseofHRMSforanalysisofthefiltered sediment will reduce sediment mass requirements down to one gram per analyticalmethod, but this still requires collection and transport of large volumes ofwater for laboratoryfiltration. It is currently not clear whether the process of filtering large samples and directanalyzingtargettoxics insuspendedsedimentswillresult inanysignificant improvements inourability to assess loads of the toxics being addressed in the Harbor TMDL. In fact, collecting,transporting and processing the high volumes of stormwater necessary for this approach mayresult inadecrease inourability toobtainusefuldataandwill likely result inadecrease inourabilitytoassesspollutantloadsfromallwatersheds.
SimilarapproacheshavebeenusedbytheSanFranciscoEstuary Institute(SFEI)staff (Gilbreath,PearceandMcKee,2012)tomeasuretheperformanceofaraingarden.Autosamplerswereusedtocollect stormwater influent and treatedeffluent toassess removalefficiency forpesticides,PCBs,mercury,andcoppersubjecttoTMDLs.HRMSwasusedtoquantifyPCBremoval.HRMSmethodsarealsobeingused inVirginiatoassist in identificationofsourcesofPCBs inMS4andindustrialstormwaterdischarges(Gilinsky,2009).
67
Table8‐9. SummaryofConstituents tobeMonitoredat the S10MassEmission for theHarborToxicsMonitoringProgram.
CLASSOFMEASUREMENTS
MASSEMISSIONSITE(S10)
Wet5 Dry
Flow 4 2FieldMeasurements
Dissolvedoxygen,pH,temperature,andspecificconductivity
4 2
OrganochlorinePesticidesandPCBs(Table5‐5) Chlordane1,DDTs2,PCBs3
2
1
Metals(Table5‐6) Al,Cd,Cu,Pb,Ni,Sb,Zn,TotalSe&Hg
4
1
SemivolatileOrganicCompounds(Table5‐8) PAHs4
2
1
1. Chlordanecomponentsarebaseduponsumofchlordane‐alpha,chlordane‐gamma,nonachlor‐alpha,nonachlor‐gamma,andoxychlordaneconsistentwiththeHarborToxicsTMDL.
2. DDTcompounds include:2,4’‐DDD,2,4’‐DDE,2,4’‐DDT,4,4’‐DDD,4,4’‐DDE,and4,4’‐DDT. Only the4,4’‐DDD,4,4’‐DDE, and4,4’‐DDTareincludedinroutinemonitoraspartofTableE‐2constituents.
3. PCBsincludesthesevenaroclorslistedinTable5‐5orthefollowing54PCBcongeners: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,and209.
4. PAHsincludethe18compoundsusedtoevaluatesedimentqualityERLsandERMs:acenaphthene,anthracene,biphenyl,naphthalene,2,6‐dimethylnaphthalene,fluorene,1‐methylnaphthalene,2‐methylnaphthalene,1‐methylphenanthrene,phenanthrene,benzo(a)anthracene,benzo(a)pyrene,benzo(e)pyrene,chrysene,dibenz(a,h)anthracene,fluoranthene,perylene,andpyrene.PAHswillbequantifiedaspartoftheHarborToxicsMonitoringrequirements–twowetseasonandonedryseasonevent.Methodsinthereferencedtablewillonlybeusedfordryweathertesting.
5. ThefourthstormeventisonlyforthepurposeoffulfillingtheTMDLrequirements.Onlymetals,TSS,SSC,andhardnesswillbeanalyzed.
8.5.2 SamplingandAnalyticalProcedures‐WetWeather
StormwatersamplesfortheHarborToxicsMonitoringProgramwillbecollectedusingautomatedstormwater samplingmethodsspecified inAppendixB. Aseparateautosamplerand intakehosewillbeinstalledateachsite.Existingflowmeteringequipmentateachsitewillbeusedtopacethesamplertoobtainaflow‐weightedcompositesample.
BasedonTSSmeasurementsatfourmassemissionsitesinLACounty(Table8‐10. and8‐11),useof a TSS concentration of 100 mg/L is expected to provide a conservative basis for estimatingreporting limits for OC pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs in suspended sediments based upon 2‐litersamples.However, an additional liter of stormwaterwill be provided for each organic analyticalsuite for a total of nine liters. An accurate measure of suspended sediments is critical to thissamplingapproach.TSSwillbeanalyzed;however,SSCwillbeusedasthestandardforcalculatingthe concentrations of target constituents in suspended sediments and total contaminant loadsassociated with those sediments. Each of themeasures of suspended solids will require 1‐litersamples.Anyadditionalwater(uptoanothersixliters)willbeprovidedtothelaboratoryin2.5‐Lamberglassbottles.
68
Thisapproachrequiresamaximumof17litersofstormwaterforanalysisoforganicconstituentsand sediment tests required for the Harbor Toxics TMDL. Analyses could be performed on aminimumofeightlitersofwaterbutfieldduplicateswouldneedtobeprovidedfromanothersite.Thefollowingconfigurationofsamplecontainersandsamplevolumeswillprovidethelaboratorywiththemaximumdegreeof flexibilitytoassurethatdetection limitsaremetandsuitablewatervolumesareavailabletocompleteanalysisoffieldduplicatesforeachanalyticalsuite.
Six2.5‐Lamberglasscontainers(filledtotwoliters) Three1‐Lamberglasscontainers Two1‐LHDPEcontainersforsuspendedsediment
Sincedetectionlimitswilldependupontheconcentrationofsuspendedsedimentinthesample,thelaboratory analyzing the suspended sediment concentrations will be asked to provide a rushanalysistoprovideinformationthatcanbeusedtodirectprocessingofthesamplesfortheorganiccompounds.ProcessingofsamplewatersprovidedtothelaboratorywilldependupontheresultsoftheSSCanalysis.
IfSuspendedSedimentConcentrations(SSC)arelessthan150mg/L,anadditionalliterofwater will be extracted for each subsequent HRMS analysis. If TSS concentrations arebetween150and200mg/L,oneoftheadditionallitersamplesmaybeusedtoincreasethevolumeof samplewater for justPAHsor the twoadditional litersmaybeusedas a fieldduplicateforoneoftheanalyses.
IfSSCconcentrationsaregreaterthan200mg/L,twoofthethreeadditionallitersmaybeusedasafieldduplicateforoneanalysis.Ifavailable,theadditionalwaterprovidedin2.5Lcontainerswillalsobeconsideredforuseasfieldreplicates.
If the initial SSC sample indicates that sediment content is less than 50mg/L, additionalmeasures will be taken to improve PAH reporting limits with respect to suspendedsedimentloads.Thiswouldincludeuseofextrasamplewatertobringupthetotalsamplevolume(uptoamaximumof4liters)orreductionthefinalextractvolume.
Givenadequatesamplevolumesandnormallevelsofsuspendedsediment,afieldduplicatewillbeanalyzedforeachanalysis.FieldduplicatesforthethreeHRMSanalysesmaycomefrom different monitoring sites in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River watershedsdependingonavailablevolumes.Partiesconductingthetestingateachsitewillcoordinatetesting to enhance the opportunity to incorporate at least one field duplicate sample foreachtest.
Targetreportinglimits(Table8‐12. andTable8‐13. ) were established based upon bedsediment reporting limits listed in theCoordinatedComplianceandReportingPlanfortheGreaterLosAngelesandLongBeachHarborWaters(AnchorQEA,2013).Table8‐12. andTable8‐13. provide a summary of the detection limits attainable in water samples using HRMS analyticalmethods.Estimateddetection limitsareprovided for concentrationsof the target constituents insuspendedsedimentsgiventheassumptionthat2‐litersamplevolumeswillbeusedforeachtest,
69
suspended sediment content is 100 mg/L and that 100 percent of the target constituents areassociatedwiththesuspendedsediment.Thisprovidesaconservativeassumptionwithrespecttoevaluatingthepotential impactsofconcentrationsofOCpesticides,PCBs,andPAHsinsuspendedsedimentonconcentrationsinbedsediment.Additionally,Table8‐12. andTable8‐13. presentrelevantTMDLtargetsandreportinglimitssuggestedintheSWAMPQAPP(SWRCB,2008)and theSQOTechnicalSupportManual (SCCWRP,2009).The following isa comparisonbetweentheestimateddetectionlimitsforOCpesticides,PCBs,andPAHsinthesuspendedsediments.Theapproachusedtoassessconcentrationsoftracemetalsinsuspendedsedimentsisbaseduponuseoftheroutinemonitoringinformation.Table8‐14. examines the possible limitations of thisapproachiftracemetalconcentrationsareextremelylow,approachingdetectionlimits.
ForOCpesticides (Table8‐12), estimateddetection limits in the suspendedsedimentarecomparableorlowerthanHarborToxicsTMDLtargetslimitsforbedsediments
For PCBs (Table 8‐12), estimated detection limits in the suspended sediment are belowTMDL targets limits for bed sediments. Additionally, estimated detection limits in thesuspended sediment are at or below target bed sediment reporting limits for theHarborToxics sedimentmonitoring program and below target reporting limits presented in theSWAMPQAPP(SWRCB,2008)andtheSQOTechnicalSupportManual(SCCWRP,2009).
Most PAH compounds (Table 8‐13), are expected to be detectable in the suspendedsedimentatconcentrationssimilar to targetbedsedimentreporting limits for theHarborToxicsmonitoringprogram,targetreportinglimitspresentedintheSWAMPQAPP(SWRCB,2008),andmaximumreportinglimitscitedintheSQOtechnicalSupportManual(SCCWRP,2009). Only two compounds, naphthalene and phenanthrene, are expected to havedetectionlimitsroughlythreetimesthetargetbedsedimentreportinglimitsfortheHarborToxicsTMDL. Bothof theseanalytesare lightweightPAHs thatarenotconsidered tobemajoranalytesofconcerninstormwater.
Table 8‐14 summarizes the reporting limits applicable to total recoverable metals.Estimatedequivalentconcentrationsinsuspendedsolidsareveryconservativelyestimatedbased upon 100 percent of the metals being associated with suspended particulates asmeasuredvaluesapproachprojectdetectionlimits.Inreality,thisisnotalikelycondition.When concentrations of total recoverablemetals approach the very low detection limitsusedinthisprogram,sedimentloadswillalsobeextremelylowandtheconcentrationsofmetals in the dissolved phasewill become amore significant fraction of the totalmetalsconcentrations. If concentrations of total cadmium and mercury are extremely low,comparisonwithTMDLtargetsinbedsedimentscouldbelimited
Initial monitoring results will be compared against interim sediment Waste Load Allocations(WLAs) established for the respective receivingwaters (Table8‐15). For the LosAngelesRiver,interim WLAs for the Los Angeles River Estuary would apply and for the San Gabriel Riverwatershed,interimallocationsfortheNearshoreWatersofSanPedroBaywillapply.
70
8.5.3 SamplingandAnalyticalProcedures‐DryWeather
Suspended sediment concentrations during periods of dry weather are extremely low and notsuitable for use of methods intended to quantify the concentrations of toxics associated withparticulates. Dryweathersampleswillbecollectedassurfacegrabsamples. Eachsamplewillbecollecteddirectlyintothelaboratorysamplecontainersusingcleansamplingtechniquesoutlinedinthe sectionof grab sampling. Dryweather samplingwill be scheduled tobe conductedduring atimeperiodwhenflowsarehistoricallyattheminimumlevels.
Watersampleswillbecollectedandsubmittedforthefollowingparameters:
TotalSuspendedSolids(TSS)andSuspendedSedimentConcentrations(SSC) Dissolvedandtotalmetals Organochlorine pesticides (including DDT and its derivatives, chlordane compounds,
dieldrin,andtoxaphene) Polychlorinatedbiphenyl(PCB)congeners
AnalyticalmethodsforeachoftheseconstituentswillbeconsistentwithmethodslistedinSection5forTableE‐2 constituents. Analyticalmethodswill also be consistentwithmethodsused in theHarborwaterswiththeexceptionofmetalswhichrequirechelation/extractionmethodsinsalinewaters.
In situ measurements will include temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and salinity. In situmeasurementswillbetakenwithacalibratedwaterqualitysonde(HachQuantaorequivalent).
8.5.4 QualityControlMeasures
Quality control measures for all HRMS analyses will include field equipment blanks to assessbackgroundcontaminationduetothefieldequipmentandsamplehandling. Onefieldequipmentblankwillbeanalyzedfromonesetoffieldequipmentprioreachmonitoringeventduringthefirstyear.Datawillbeevaluatedattheendoftheyeartodetermineiffieldequipmentblanksshouldbereduced to oneper season. For the field blank, two liters ofHPLC gradewater providedby thelaboratorywillbepumpedthroughtheentireautosamplerandintakehoseforeachanalyticaltest(OC pesticides, PCBs and PAHs). The blank water will be pumped into precleaned samplecontainers and refrigerated until the stormwater sampling is completed. If the storm does notoccurimmediatelyafterblanking,theequipmentblankwillbetransmittedunderChainofCustodyto the laboratory in order themeet the requirement for extraction of aqueous sampleswithin 7daysofcollection. Extractswillbehelduntilstormwatersamplesarereceivedunlessstormdoesnotdevelopwithinaperiodof30daysafterextraction(samplesarerequiredtobeanalyzedwithin40daysofextraction). Ifasuccessfulstormevent ismonitoredimmediatelyaftertheequipmentblank is taken, theequipmentblankandstormwatersampleswillbesubmittedto the laboratorytogether. Given adequate sample volumes, field duplicates will also be analyzed to assessvariabilityassociatedwiththesamplingandsubsamplingprocesses.
Laboratory quality control measures will include analysis of method blanks, initial calibrations,analysisofOngoingPrecisionandRecovery(OPR)samplesanduseoflabeledcompoundstoassess
71
recoveriesandmatrix interferences. Methodblankswillbebaseduponprocessingof laboratorywatervolumesidenticaltothoseusedforthefieldsamples.Initialcalibrationsarerunperiodicallybutdailycalibrationchecksareconducted toverifystabilityof thecalibration. OPRtestswillbeconductedwitheachbatchofsamples.OPRsamplesareblanksspikedwithlabelledisotopesthatareusedtomonitoringcontinuedperformanceofthetest.Labelledisotopesareaddedtoeachfieldsampleandanalyzedtomeasurerecoveryinthesamplematrix.EstimatedDetectionLimits(EDLs)willbecalculatedforeachanalyteassociatedwitheachfieldsample.Foreachanalyte‘x’,theEDLiscalculatedbythefollowingformula:
EDLx=2.5*Where: Na= Analytepeaktopeaknoiseheight.
Qis= Concentrationofinternalstandard.Rah= AreaofHeightRatioAis= AreaofinternalstandardRRF= initial calibration average relative response factor for the congener of
interest.wv= sampleweight/volume.2.5= Minimumsignaltonoiseratio.
Quality controlmeasures forwater samples takenduringdryweatherperiodswill be consistentwith all measures applied for sampling suspended sediment, trace metals, organochlorinepesticidesandPCBsaspartoftheReceivingWaterMonitoringProgram.
8.5.5 Summary
Insummary,targetreportinglimitsforallbutoneoftheorganiccompoundsofinterestarebeloworcomparabletorelevantTMDLtargetsandtheoverwhelmingmajorityarebelowbedsedimentreporting limits identified in theHarborToxicsMonitoringProgram(Anchor,2013), theSWAMPQAPP (SWRCB, 2008), the SQOTechnical SupportManual (SCCWRP, 2009) and available EffectsRangeLow(ERL)valuesusedtoassessdirecteffectsonHarborsediments. Inthecaseofmetals,some limitations may exist for two elements, cadmium and mercury, in extreme conditions.However,neithersedimentsinbotheasternSanPedroBaynortheLosAngelesRiverEstuaryarecitedasbeingimpairedbythesetwometals.
Thesamplingapproachisbaseduponcollectionandanalysisofwholewatersamplestoestimateconcentrationsof targetpollutantsassociatedwithsuspendedsediments in flow‐ratedcompositesamplesofstormwater.Useofthisapproachisexpectedtoresultinverylowdetectionlimitsthatwillallowforquantificationoftotalcontaminantloadsforeachconstituentofconcern.Itwillalsoallow for reasonable estimates of the concentrations of target compounds in the suspendedsedimentandprovide fordirectcomparisonswith targetsestablished in thereceivingwaters forbedsediments.Thisapproachmeetstheoverallobjectivesoftheprogramwhilealsoenhancingthechancesofsuccessfullymonitoringmultiplestormeventsinthetargetedwatershedsandprovidingdatanecessary toevaluate relative loads fromeachwatershedduringmultiple stormseachyear.The proposed methods are also expected to allow incorporation of quality control measures
(Na)*(Qis)*(Rah) (Ais)*(RRF)*(wv)
72
necessary toevaluatepotential sourcesofcontaminationandevaluatevariabilityassociatedwithbothfieldsamplingandanalyticalprocesses.
SamplingofdryweatherdischargesfromtheLosAngelesRiverandatthemouthoftheLowerSanGabriel River Estuary will be based upon surface grab samples. Samples will be analyzed forsuspended sediment, trace metals, organochlorine pesticides and PCBs as part of the ReceivingWaterMonitoringProgram
Table8‐10. Measurements of Suspended Sediments for Calculation of Harbor ToxicsPollutantLoads.
SAMPLEMEDIUM CONSTITUENT METHOD
TARGETREPORTING
LIMIT
WaterTotalSuspendedSolids(TSS) SM2540D 1.0mg/L
SuspendedSedimentConcentration(SSC) ASTMD3977,MethodB 1.0mg/L
Table8‐11. Summary of TSSMeasurements (mg/L) at FourMass EmissionMonitoringSitesinLosAngelesCounty.
Site SiteID2nd
QuartileMedian
3rdQuartile
LosAngelesRiver‐Wardlow S10 65 143 291CoyoteCreek S14 33 55 117BallonaCreek S01 NA 158 NALosCerritosChannel LCC1 96 155 260
NA=notavailable
73
Table8‐12. RecommendedMethods,EstimatedDetectionLimits,TargetReportingLimits,andRelevantTMDLTargetsforOrganochlorinePesticidesandTotalPCBs.
Constituent and Analytical Method
Water Detection Limit
(1)
Equivalent Suspended Sediment Detection Limit
(2)
Harbor Toxics
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)
pg/L ng/g – dry wt
Chlordane Compounds (EPA 1699)
alpha‐Chlordane 40 0.2 2 1 0.5
1.3(TotalChlordane)
0.5(Total
Chlordane)
gamma‐Chlordane 40 0.2 2 1 0.54
Oxychlordane 40 0.2 1 1 NA
trans‐Nonachlor 40 0.2 2 1 4.6
cis‐Nonachlor 40 0.2 1 2 NA
Other OC Pesticides (EPA 1699)
2,4'‐DDD 40 0.2 2 2 0.5
1.3(TotalDDT)
1.58TotalDDT)
2,4'‐DDE 80 0.4 2 2 0.5
2,4'‐DDT 80 0.4 3 3 0.5
4,4'‐DDD 40 0.2 2 2 0.5
4,4'‐DDE 80 0.4 2 2 0.5
4,4'‐DDT 80 0.4 5 5 0.5
Total DDT 80 0.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.5
TotalPCBs(EPA1668)
5‐20 0.025‐0.1 0.23
0.2 3.0 3.2 22.7
1. Water EDLs based upon 2 liters of water. 2. Suspended Sediment detection limits based upon estimate of 100 mg/L suspended solids. 3. Harbor Toxics high resolution analytical methods include a target of 0.2 ng/g for all congeners except PCB‐189 which
has a target of 10 ng/g.
74
Table8‐13. RecommendedMethods,EstimatedDetectionLimits,TargetReportingLimits,andRelevantTMDLTargetsforPAHs.
Constituent
Water Detection Limit
(1)
Equivalent Suspended Sediment Detection Limit
(2)
Harbor ToxicsTarget Bed Sediment Reporting Limits
SWAMP QAPP (2008)
Reporting Limit
SQO Technical Support Manual (2009)Reporting
Limit
Harbors Toxics TMDL Sediment
Target (Direct Effects)
pg/L ng/g – dry wt
LowMolecularWeightPAHs 1‐Methylnaphthalene 5 25 20 20 20 1‐Methylphenanthrene 5 25 20 20 20 2‐Methylnaphthalene 5 25 20 20 20 2012,6‐Dimethylnaphthalene 5 25 20 20 20 Acenaphthene 5 25 20 20 20 Anthracene 5 25 20 20 20 Biphenyl 5 25 20 20 20 Fluorene 5 25 20 20 20 Phenanthrene 12.5 62.5 20 20 20 240Naphthalene 12.5 62.5 20 20 20
LOW MOLECULAR WT PAHS 552HighMolecularWeightPAHs Benzo(a)anthracene 5 25 20 20 80 261Benzo(a)pyrene 5 25 20 20 80 430Benzo(e)pyrene 5 25 20 20 NA Chrysene 5 25 20 20 80 384Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 5 25 20 20 80 260Fluoranthene 5 25 20 20 80 Perylene 5 25 20 20 80 Pyrene 5 25 20 20 80 665
HIGHMOLECULARWTPAHS 1700 TOTALPAHs 4700
1. Water EDLs based upon 2 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 decrease the detection limit by 1/3 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 EDLs by a factor of 0.1 to 0.2 times the listed EDLs.
2. Suspended Sediment detection limits based upon estimate of 100 mg/L suspended solids.
Table8‐14. RecommendedMethods,EstimatedDetectionLimits,TargetReportingLimits,andRelevantTMDLTargetsforMetals.
Constituent and Analytical Method
Water Detection Limit (ML)
Equivalent Suspended Sediment Detection Limit
(1)
Harbor ToxicsTarget Bed Sediment Reporting Limits
SWAMP QAPP (2008) Reporting Limit
SQO Technical Support
Manual (2009) Reporting Limit
Harbors Toxics TMDL
Sediment Target
(Direct Effects)
ug/L µg/g – dry wt
Total Metals
Cadmium 0.25 2.5 0.01 0.01 0.09 1.2Copper 0.50 5.0 0.01 0.01 52.8 34Lead 0.50 5.0 0.01 0.01 25.0 46.7Mercury 0.20 2.0 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.15Zinc 1 10 0.1 0.1 60 150
1. Suspended Sediment EDLs based upon estimate of 100 mg/L suspended solids.
75
Table8‐15. InterimConcentration‐BasedSedimentWasteLoadAllocations.
WaterbodyPollutant(µg/g– drywt)
Copper Lead Zinc DDT PAHs PCBs
LosAngelesRiverEstuary 53.0 46.7 183.5 0.254 4.36 0.683
SanPedroBayNear/OffShoreZones 76.9 66.6 263.1 0.057 4.022 0.193
BOLDEDvaluesindicatecaseswheretheinterimallocationsareequaltothefinalallocations
9 StormwaterOutfallMonitoringFouroutfallmonitoringsites(Figure9‐1)havebeenassessedandselected formonitoringwithinthe LLAR Watershed Management Group in order to meet the requirements of the Order forstormwater outfall monitoring. Appendix A provides a summary of the selected sites and twoalternativemonitoringsites.ThesesiteswereselectedtoprovidegoodspatialrepresentationofthewatershedintermsofHUC12boundaries,jurisdictionalboundariesandlanduseswithintheWMG.The Dominguez Gap Pump Station (LLAR2) and the Firestone (LLAR4) stormwater outfallmonitoring siteswill be the first sites to bemonitored. Thesewill be followed by the Lynwood(LLAR3) outfall and the Cerritos Pump Station (LLAR1) outfalls that will be installed in thefollowing year (Table 4‐1). Detailed information on the monitoring equipment, field samplingprocedures,protocolforcleaningallmaterialsthatcomeintocontactwiththewatersamples,andqualityassurance/qualitycontrolproceduresareprovidedinAppendicesBthroughE.
Constituentsmonitoredat each stormwateroutfallmonitoring siteareoutlined inTable9‐1andincludewaterbody/pollutantprioritiesunderCategories1,2and3.TheseincludeallconstituentswithestablishedTMDLs,thatare303(d)listedorthathavebeenfoundtoexceedreceivingwaterlimitationsonatleastoneoccasion.ConstituentsmonitoredateachstormwateroutfallmonitoringsitewillincludeanalytesmeasuredatS10withtheexceptionofAquaticToxicity.Anyconstituentsdetected at levels of concern from Table E‐2 will be considered for addition to monitoringrequirements for the stormwater outfall sites after being detected twice during storm eventsmonitoredatS10.
Monitoringdatawillbereviewedannuallytodetermineifadjustmentstothewaterbody/pollutantcategories.Category3constituentswillbeconsideredforremovalfromthemonitoringprogramifno exceedances are identified over a period of two consecutive years. Constituents currentlyclassifiedascategory2prioritieswillbeconsideredforremovalfromthemonitoringrequirementswhensufficientdataareavailabletosupportdelistingundertheState’slisting/delistingpolicy.Anyadjustments to the monitoring requirements will be implemented during the subsequentmonitoringyear.
76
Figure9‐1. LocationsoftheFourStormwaterOutfallMonitoringSitesintheLLARWMG.
77
Table9‐1. SummaryofConstituents tobeMonitoredonaRegularBasisatStormwaterOutfallMonitoringSites.
CLASSOFMEASUREMENTSSTORMWATEROUTFALLSITES
WetOnly2
LAR1 LAR2 LAR3 LAR4
Flow 4 4 4 4FieldMeasurements
Dissolvedoxygen,pH,temperature,andspecificconductivity
4 4 4 4
GeneralandConventionalPollutants(Table5‐2)Allexcepttotalphenols,turbidity,BOD5,MTBE,andperchlorate,andfluoride.
4
4
4
4
MicrobiologicalConstituents3(Table5‐3) E.coli,Total&FecalColiform,enterococcus E.coli
41
4
4
4
4
Nutrients(Table5‐4) Nitrogencompoundsonly
3
3
3
3
Metals(Table5‐6) Al,Cd,Cu,Pb,Ni,Sb,Zn,TotalSe&Hg
4
4
4
4
SemivolatileOrganicCompounds(Table5‐8) Bis(2‐ethlyhexylyphthalate
3
3
3
3
1. AnalysisofallFIBswillonlybeincludedforLLAR1thatdischargesdirectlytotheLosAngelesRiverEstuary.2. ThefourthstormeventisonlyforthepurposeoffulfillingtheTMDLrequirements.Onlymetals,TSS,SSC,andhardnesswillbe
analyzed.3. Thewetanddryweathersamplingfrequencymaychangesolongasonesamplepermonthiscollectedinfreshwater.
9.1 SamplingFrequencyandMobilizationRequirements
The sampling frequency andmobilization requirements for Stormwater Outfall Monitoring siteswill be consistentwithmonitoring conducted at the S10 (Wardlow)ReceivingWaterMonitoringSite. A total of three events will be monitored at each outfall site once they are installed.MonitoringwillbeconcurrentwithS10monitoring inorder toallowforcomparisonofpollutantloadingratesassociatedwitheachsegmentrelativetoultimatepollutantloadsmeasuredattheS10site.
StormwatermonitoringattheStormwaterOutfallMonitoringSiteswillbeconductedbyLLARstaffwhilemonitoringatS10willbeperformedbyLACFCDstaff.MonitoringwillrequirecoordinationamongbothgroupstoincreasethelikelihoodofsamplingbeingconductedconcurrentlyatboththeME site in receiving waters and at the stormwater outfalls. Although this may not always bepossibleduetoequipmentfailuresorotherfactors,concurrentsamplingwillenhancetheabilitytointerpretthedata.
MonitoringattheoutfallswillthereforeberestrictedtothesamewetweatherdefinitionsasusedfortheS10massemissionstation.Theseinclude:
WetSeasondefinedasOctober1throughApril15
78
Eventsprecededby less than0.1 inchesofrainfallwithin thewatershedovera threedayperiod.
Rainfallofatleast0.25inchesand Maximum flow rates greater than 500 cfsmeasured at theWardlowRoad gaging station
associatedwiththeS10massemissionmonitoringsite.
Becauseasignificantstormeventisbasedonpredictedrainfall,itisrecognizedthatthismonitoringmay be triggeredwithout 0.25 inches of rainfall actually occurring. In this case, themonitoringevent will still qualify as meeting this requirement provided that sufficient sample volume iscollectedtoperformallrequiredanalyses. Documentationwillbeprovidedshowingdatausedtodetermine that a stormeventwas expected toyield sufficient rain tobe considereda significantstormeventthatjustifiedmobilizingfieldcrewsandpreparationofautosamplersforcollectionofwatersamples.
79
10 Non‐Stormwater(NSW)OutfallMonitoringUltimately,theNSWprogramisintendedtoestablishaprocessforidentifyingoutfallsthatserveaspotential sources of contaminants. Sites where initial screening indicates the potential fordischargesofamagnitudeconsideredtohavethepotentialtocauseorcontributetoexceedancesofreceiving water limitations will require further efforts to classify the discharges and determineappropriateactions,ifany.
Detailedobjectivesof thescreeningandmonitoringprocess (Section IX.A,pageE‐23of theMRP)includethefollowing:
1. Developcriteriaorothermeanstoensurethatalloutfallswithsignificantnon‐stormwaterdischargesareidentifiedandassessedduringthetermofthisOrder.
2. Foroutfallsdeterminedtohavesignificantnon‐stormwaterflow,determinewhetherflowsare the result of illicit connections/illicit discharges (IC/IDs), authorized or conditionallyexemptnon‐stormwaterflows,naturalflows,orfromunknownsources.
3. Refer information related to identified IC/IDs to the IC/ID Elimination Program (PartVI.D.10oftheOrder)forappropriateaction.
4. Basedonexistingscreeningormonitoringdataorotherinstitutionalknowledge,assesstheimpactofnon‐stormwaterdischarges(otherthanidentifiedIC/IDs)onthereceivingwater.
5. PrioritizemonitoringofoutfallsconsideringthepotentialthreattothereceivingwaterandapplicableTMDLcomplianceschedules.
6. Conduct monitoring or assess existing monitoring data to determine the impact of non‐stormwaterdischargesonthereceivingwater.
7. Conduct monitoring or other investigations to identify the source of pollutants in non‐stormwaterdischarges.
8. Useresultsofthescreeningprocesstoevaluatetheconditionallyexemptnon‐stormwaterdischarges identified inParts III.A.2 and III.A.3of theOrder and takeappropriate actionspursuant to Part III.A.4.d of theOrder for those discharges that have been found to be asourceofpollutants.AnyfuturereclassificationwilloccurpertheconditionsinPartsIII.A.2orIII.A.6oftheOrder.
9. Maximize the use of Permittee resources by integrating the screening and monitoringprocessintoexistingorplannedCIMPefforts.
Specific methods given in the MRP will be followed. In cases where flow is determined to besignificant, the program will take further action to determine if the flows are illicit, exempt,conditionallyexempt, conditionally exemptbutnon‐essential, or if the source(s)of thedischargecannotbeidentified(unknown).Illicitdischargesrequireimmediateactionand,iftheycannotbeeliminated, monitoring will be implemented until such time that the illicit discharge can be
80
eliminated. Discharges classified as conditionally exempt but non‐essential or unknown alsorequireongoingmonitoring.
The Lower Los Angeles River Watershed group will reassess non‐stormwater outfall‐ basedscreening andmonitoring onceduring the permit term, likely during the 2016‐2017period, andfollowMRPmethodsforsamplingofnon‐stormwaterdischarges.
The following sections summarize the elements of the program and processes to ultimatelyeliminatemajorsourcesofnon‐stormwaterdischarges.
10.1 Non‐StormwaterOutfallScreeningandMonitoringProgram
The NSW Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program will begin with three screening surveysstarting in the summerof2014 to identifyoutfallsorotherdischarges that are considered tobesignificantandpersistentsourcesofnon‐stormwaterflowtoeithertheopenchannelsorreceivingwaters.
Theinitialsurveywillfocusoncompletinganinventoryofalloutfallstoreceivingwaters.Outfallsgreater than12‐inches indiameter (or equivalent)will bephotographed anddocumented. Onlymajor outfalls, including outfalls 12‐inch‐diameter or greater within industrial areas will beevaluatedforsignificantflows.Regardlessoflanduse,alloutfalls,includingthosebetween12and36 inches,willbescreened. Information fromall threescreeningsurveyswillbeconsolidatedtoassist in the identificationandrankingofoutfalls considered tohavesignificantNSWdischarges.Multiple linesofevidencewillbeconsideredwhenassessingthesignificanceofadischarge. Therelativemagnitude of the discharges, persistence of the flow, visual and physical characteristicsrecordedateachsite,andlandusesassociatedwiththedrainagewillbeprimaryconsiderationfordeterminationofsignificantflows.
Acombinationoffieldobservations,flowmeasurementsandfieldwaterqualitymeasurementswillbeused to classify outfalls intooneof the following three categories thatwill determine furtheractions(Figure10‐1):
1.SuspectDischarge–Outfallswithpersistenthighflowsduringatleasttwooutofthreevisitsandwithhighseverityononeormorephysical indicators(odors,oildeposits,etc.).Outfallsinthiscategoryrequireprioritizationandfurtherinvestigation.
2.PotentialDischarge ‐ Flowing or non‐flowing outfalls with presence of two or morephysical indicators. Outfalls inthiscategoryareconsideredtobe lowprioritybutwillbecontinuetobemonitoredperiodicallytodetermineifthesitesaresubjecttolessfrequent,dischargesordetermineifactionscanbetakentoreduceoreliminatethefactorsthatleadtothesitebeingconsideredapotentialsourceofcontaminants.
81
3. Unlikely Discharge ‐ Non‐flowing outfalls with no physical indicators of an illicitdischarge. Outfalls within this classification would be not be subject to any furtherscreening.
Subsequent source investigations conducted fordischargeswith significant flowmayutilize fieldwater quality instrumentation and/or simple field test kits to assist in further classifyingdischarges.Collectionofwatersamplesforlimitedlaboratorytestingmaybeincorporatedintotheprogramas requirements formorecomplex, accurateandscientifically supportabledatabecomenecessarytocharacterizenon‐stormwaterdischargesandprovidescientificallysupportabledatatotrackthesourceofthesedischarges.TheCenterforWatershedProtectionandPitt(2004)provideanevaluationoftwelveanalytesforassistanceindeterminingthesourceofNSWdischarges(Table10‐2).Threeoftheanalytescanbemeasuredwithin‐situinstrumentation.OtherscanbeanalyzedrelativelyinexpensivelybyuseoffieldtestkitsorcanbeanalyzedinanELAP‐certifiedlaboratory.In addition, three to five of the listed tests are often considered sufficient to screen for illicitdischarges. Ammonia, MBAS, fluoride (assuming tap water is fluorinated), and potassium areconsidered to confidently differentiate between sewage, wash water, tap water and industrialwastes. Incorporation of in‐situmeasurement of temperature, pH, TDS/salinity, turbidity anddissolved oxygen can further assist in characterizing and tracking the source(s) of an NSWdischarge.
82
Table10‐1. OutlineoftheNSWOutfallScreeningandMonitoringProgram.
Element Description Timing of Completion
1. Outfall Screening The Permittees will implement a screening process to determine which outfalls exhibit significant NSW discharges and those that do not require further investigation. Data will be recorded on Outfall Reconnaissance Investigation (ORI) forms and in the associated database (Appendix F).
Commencing in the summer of 2014 and completing by 2015.
2. Identification of outfalls with significant NSW discharge (Part IX.C of the MRP)
Data from the Outfall Screening process will be used to categorize MS4 outfalls on the basis of discharge flow rates, field water quality and physical observations.
Concurrent with Outfall Screening
December 28, 2014 with Annual CIMP Report
3. Inventory of Outfalls with NSW discharge (Part IX.D of the MRP)
Develop an inventory of all major MS4 outfalls, identify outfalls with known NSW discharges and identify outfalls with no flow requiring no further assessment.
Concurrent with Outfall Screening
December 28, 2014 with Annual CIMP Report
4. Prioritized source investigation (Part IX.E of the MRP)
Use the data collected during the Outfall Screening process to further prioritize outfalls for source investigations.
Prioritization for Source Investigation will be occur after completion of Outfall Screening
5. Identify sources of significant NSW discharges (Part IX.F of the MRP)
For outfalls exhibiting significant NSW discharges, Permittees will perform source investigations per the established prioritization.
Complete source investigations for 25% of the outfalls with significant NSW discharges by December 28, 2015 and 100% by December 28, 2017..
6. Monitoring NSW discharges exceeding criteria (Part IX.G of the MRP)
Monitor outfalls determined to convey significant NSW discharges comprised of either unknown or conditionally exempt non-essential discharges, or illicit discharges that cannot be abated.
Monitoring will commence within 90 days of completing the source investigations or after the Executive Officer approves this CIMP, whichever is later
83
Figure10‐1. FlowDiagramofNSWOutfallProgramafterClassifyingOutfallsduringInitialScreening.
84
Table10‐2. Potential Indicator Parameters for Identification of Sources of NSWDischarges.
IndicatorParametersAmmonia E.coli
Boron Fluoride
Chlorine Hardness
Color pH‐Field
Conductivity‐Field Potassium
Detergents–Surfactants(MBASorfluorescence) TurbidityBased upon CWP and Pitt 2004. IllicitDischargeDetectionandEliminationAGuidanceManual forProgramDevelopmentandTechnicalAssessments
10.2 IdentificationofOutfallswithSignificantNon‐StormwaterDischarges
The screening program is necessary to collect information necessary to identify outfalls withpotentially significant NSW discharges. The outfall screening includes collection of informationnecessarytoprovideanaccurateinventoryofthemajoroutfalls,assessflowfromeachoutfallandin thereceivingwaters,determinethegeneralcharacteristicsof thereceivingwaters(e.g. is flowpresent,doestheflowfromtheoutfallrepresentalargeproportionoftheflow,isitanearthenorlinedchannel),andrecordgeneralobservationsindicativeofpossibleillicitdischarges.Theinitialscreeningsurvey(s)willalsobeusedtorefinetheinventoryinformationrequiredinSection10.3
Theoutfallscreeningprocesshasalreadybeeninitiatedinordertomeettheestablishedscheduleforcompletionof25%ofthesourceidentificationwork.OncethescreeningprocessiscompletedPermittees are required to identify MS4 outfalls with “significant” NSW discharges. The MRP(Section IX.C.1) indicates that significantNSWdischargesmaybedeterminedbasedupononeormoreofthefollowingcharacteristics:
a. DischargesfrommajoroutfallssubjecttodryweatherTMDLs.
b. Discharges forwhichexistingmonitoringdataexceedsNon‐StormwaterActionLevels(NALs)identifiedinAttachmentGoftheOrder.
c. Non‐stormwaterdischargesthathavecausedorhavethepotentialtocauseovertoppingofdownstreamdiversions.
d. Discharges exceeding a proposed threshold discharge rate as determined by thePermittee.
Therelativemagnitudeofthedischarges,persistenceoftheflow,visualandphysicalcharacteristicsrecordedateachsite,andlandusesassociatedwiththedrainagewillbetheprimaryfactorsusedtodetermine if flows are significant. Characteristics of the receiving waters (flow, channelcharacteristics –hardor soft‐bottom, etc.) at thedischarge locationwill alsobe consideredwhendetermining the relative significance of NSW discharges. The most important consideration iswhether the dischargehas the potential to cause or contribute to exceedance of receivingwaterqualitylimitations.Factorsthatprovidethebestinsightwithrespecttotheseimpactswillreceivethegreatestweightwhenestablishingthelistof“significant”NSWdischarges.
85
10.3 InventoryofMS4OutfallswithNon‐StormwaterDischarges
PartVII.AoftheMRPrequiresthattheCIMPplan(s)includeamap(s)and/ordatabaseoftheMS4that includes theelements listed inTable10‐3. Most requiredelements are complete andbeingsubmitted with this CIMP. Elements requiring further development include the EffectiveImperviousArea, informationon the lengthofopenchannelsandundergroundpipesequal toorgreaterthan18inches,andthedrainageareasassociatedwitheachoutfall.SubbasinsusedfortheWMMS model are currently associated with each outfall within that subbasin. If an outfall isidentifiedasasignificantsourceofNSWdischarges,drainageareasforeachtargetedoutfallwillberefined and updated in the database. Additional information such as documenting presence ofsignificantNSWdischarges, linkstoadatabasedocumentingwaterqualitymeasurementsatsiteswith significant NSW discharges will be updated annually and submitted with the CIMP annualreport. TheagenciesofLLARarecommittedtoupdatingtheinventoryofoutfallswithsignificantnon‐stormwaterdischarges.MapsofexistingstormwateroutfallsareattachedasAppendixH.
Table10‐3. BasicDatabaseandMappingInformationfortheWatershed.
DatabaseElementStatus
Complete Schedule1. SurfacewaterbodieswithinthePermittee(s)jurisdiction X2. Sub‐watershed(HUC12)boundaries X3. Landuseoverlay X
4. EffectiveImperviousArea(EIA)overlay(ifavailable) Will
provideifavailable
5. Jurisdictionalboundaries X6. Thelocationandlengthofallopenchannelandundergroundpipes18inchesin
diameterorgreater(withtheexceptionofcatchbasinconnectorpipes)X1
7. Thelocationofalldryweatherdiversions X8. ThelocationofallmajorMS4outfallswithinthePermittee’sjurisdictionalboundary.
Eachmajoroutfallshallbeassignedanalphanumericidentifier,whichmustbenotedonthemap
X2
9. Notationofoutfallswithsignificantnon‐stormwaterdischarges(tobeupdatedannually)
X ongoing
10. StormdrainoutfallcatchmentareasforeachmajoroutfallwithinthePermittee(s)jurisdiction
X3 ongoing
11. EachmappedMS4outfallshallbelinkedtoadatabasecontainingdescriptiveandmonitoringdataassociatedwiththeoutfall.Thedatashallinclude:4
a. Ownership Xb. Coordinates Xc. Physicaldescription Xd. Photographsoftheoutfall,wherepossibletoprovidebaselineinformationtotrack
operationandmaintenanceneedsovertime X
e. Determinationofwhethertheoutfallconveyssignificantnon‐stormwaterdischarges ongoingf. Stormwaterandnon‐stormwatermonitoringdata ongoing
1. Locationsareidentifiedbutthelengthofallopenchannelandundergroundpipesarenotfullydocumented.2. AttributesintheshapefilecontainaUniqueIDforalloutfallsgreaterthan12”indiameter.3. Catchmentsforeachoutfallareincludedastheareaofthesubbasinsassociatedwitheachoutfall.Severaloutfallsmaydrainthese
subbasins.Datawillbedevelopedasneededtoresolvethedrainageareasspecifictoeachoutfall.
4. Efforts are ongoing to define ownership andmaintenance responsibility. As data become available, information regarding theconveyanceofNSWandassociatedwaterqualitydatawillbeaddedtothedatabase.Informationwillbeupdatedbaseduponthethreescreeningsurveys.
86
Asacomponentoftheinventoryandscreeningprocess,Permitteesarerequiredtodocumentthephysical attributes of MS4 outfalls determined to have significant non‐stormwater discharges.Table10‐4summarizestheminimumphysicalattributesrequiredtoberecordedandlinkedtotheoutfalldatabase. ThesedatawillbemaintainedusingtheOutfallReconnaissanceInventory(ORI)fieldformandassociateddatabase(AppendixF)developedbyCWPandPitt(2004).DataentrycanbeaccomplishedbycompletingtheORIformwhileconductingthescreeningsurvey.CurrentformsareshownintheAppendixFbutmaybemodifiedastheparametersanddatabasearemodifiedtoprovide different informationmore relevant to the NSW program. Maps of existing stormwateroutfallsareattachedinAppendixH.
Table10‐4. MinimumPhysicalAttributesRecordedduringtheOutfallScreeningProcess.
DatabaseElement
a. Dateandtimeoflastvisualobservationorinspectionb. Outfallalpha‐numericidentifierc. Descriptionofoutfallstructureincludingsize(e.g.,diameterandshape)d. Descriptionofreceivingwateratthepointofdischarge(e.g.,natural,soft‐bottomwitharmoredsides,trapezoidal,
concretechannel)e. Latitude/longitudecoordinatesf. Neareststreetaddressg. Parking,access,andsafetyconsiderationsh. Photographsofoutfallconditioni. Photographs of significant non‐stormwater discharge (or indicators of discharge) unless safety considerations
precludeobtainingphotographsj. Estimationofdischargeratek. Alldiversionseitherupstreamordownstreamoftheoutfalll. Observations regarding discharge characteristics such as turbidity, odor, color, presence of debris, floatables, or
characteristicsthatcouldaidinpollutantsourceidentificationm. Observations regarding the receiving water such as flow, channel type, hard/soft bottom. (added minimum
attribute.
10.4 PrioritizedSourceIdentification
After completion of the initial reconnaissance survey and the two additional screening surveys,siteswillberankedbaseduponboth initial flowobservationsfromthereconnaissance inventoryandtheclassificationsassignedduringeachofthescreeningsurveys.SourceinvestigationswillbescheduledtobeconductedatsitescategorizedasPotentialIllicitdischarges.
The MRP (IX.E.1) states that prioritization of source investigations should be based upon thefollowingitemsinorderofimportance.
a. Outfalls discharging directly to receiving waters with WQBELs or receiving waterlimitationsintheTMDLprovisionsforwhichfinalcompliancedeadlineshavepassed.
87
b. Allmajor outfalls and other outfalls that discharge to a receivingwater subject to aTMDLshallbeprioritizedaccordingtoTMDLcomplianceschedules.
c. OutfallsforwhichmonitoringdataexistandindicaterecurringexceedancesofoneormoreoftheActionLevelsidentifiedinAttachmentGofthisOrder.
d. Allothermajoroutfallsidentifiedtohavesignificantnon‐stormwaterdischarges.
Additional information from the screening process will be used to refine priorities. Sites withevidence of higher, more frequent flow, presence of odors or stains will be assigned higherprioritiesforsourceinvestigations.
10.5 IdentifySource(s)ofSignificantNon‐StormwaterDischarges
The screening and source identification component of the program is intended to identify thesourceorsourcesofcontaminantscontributingtoanNSWdischarge.TheprioritizedlistofmajoroutfallswithsignificantNSWdischargeswillbeusedtodirectinvestigationsstartingwithoutfallsdeemedtopresentthegreatestrisktothereceivingwaterbody.
TheOrderrequirestheWMGtodevelopasourceidentificationschedulebasedontheprioritizedlistofoutfallsexhibitingsignificantNSWdischarges.Sourceinvestigationswillbeconductedfornoless than25%of theoutfalls in the inventorybyDecember2015and100%of theoutfalls in theinventorybyDecember2017.
Part IX.A.2of theMRPrequiresPermittees toclassify thesource investigationresults intooneoffour endpoints: illicit connections/illicit discharges (IC/IDs), authorized or conditionally exemptnon‐stormwater flows,natural flows,or fromunknownsources. Ifsource investigations indicatethesourceisillicitorunknown,thePermitteewilldocumentactionstoeliminatethedischargeandimplementmonitoringifthedischargecannotbeeliminated.
IfthesourceofadischargeisfoundtobeattributabletonaturalflowsorauthorizedconditionallyexemptNSWdischarge,thePermitteemustidentifythebasisforthedetermination(naturalflows)andidentifytheNPDESpermitteddischarger. If thesourceisfoundtobeaconditionallyexemptbut non‐essential discharge, monitoring is required to determine whether the discharge shouldremainconditionallyexemptorbeprohibited.
Sourceinvestigationswillbeconductedusingavarietyofdifferentapproachesdependingupontheinitialscreeningresults,landusewithintheareadrainedbythedischargepoint,andtheavailabilityofdrainagemaps.Anyadditionalwaterqualitysamplingmaybeconductedasnecessary.
Tracking of dry weather flows from the location where they are first observed in anupstreamdirectionalongtheconveyancesystem.
Collection of additional water samples for analysis of NWS indicators for assistance indifferentiatingmajorcategoriesofdischargessuchastapwater,groundwater,washwatersandindustrialwastewaters.
Compiling and reviewing available resources including pastmonitoring and investigationdata, land use/MS4 maps, aerial photography, existing NPDES discharge permits andpropertyownershipinformation.
88
IfsourcetrackingeffortsindicatethatthedischargeoriginatesfromajurisdictionupstreamoftheboundariesoftheLCCWMP,theappropriatejurisdictionandtheRegionalBoardwillbenotifiedinwritingof thedischargewithin30daysof thedetermination. All existing information regardingdocumentation and characterization of the data, contribution determination efforts, and effortstakentoidentifyitssourcewillbeincluded.
Investigationswillbeconcludedifauthorized,natural,oressentialconditionallyexemptflowsarefoundtobethesourceofthedischarge. Ifthedischargeisdeterminedtobeduetonon‐essentialconditionally exempt, illicit, or unknown discharges, further investigationswill be considered toassesswhether the discharge can be eliminated. Alternatively, if the discharges are either non‐essential conditionally exempt or of an unknown source, additional investigations may beconductedtodemonstratethatitisnotcausingorcontributingtoreceivingwaterimpairments.
10.6 MonitorNon‐StormwaterDischargesExceedingCriteria
As required in the MRP (Part II.3.3), outfalls with significant NSW discharges that remainunaddressed after source identificationwill bemonitored. The objectives of the non‐stormwateroutfallbasedmonitoringprogramincludethefollowing:
a. Determine whether a Permittee’s discharge is in compliance with applicable NSWWQBELsderivedfromTMDLWLAs,
b. Determinewhether a Permittee’s discharge exceedsNSW action levels, as described inAttachmentGoftheOrder,
c. Determine whether a Permittee’s discharge contributes to or causes an exceedance ofreceivingwaterlimitations
d. AssistaPermitteeinidentifyingillicitdischargesasdescribedinPartVI.D.10oftheOrder.
Aftercompletionofsourceinvestigations,outfallsfoundtoconveyNSWdischargesthatcouldnotbeabatedandwereidentifiedasillicit,conditionallyexempt,butnon‐essentialorunknownwillbemonitored.Monitoringwillbeinitiatedwithin90daysofcompletingthesourceinvestigationsorassoonasthefirstscheduleddryweathersurvey.ConductingNSWmonitoringatthesametimeasreceivingwaterdryweathermonitoringwillbemorecosteffectiveandallowevaluationofwhetherthe NSW discharges are causing or contributing to any observed exceedances of water qualityobjectivesinthereceivingwater.
MonitoringofNSWdischargesisexpectedtoundergosubstantialchangesfromyeartoyearastheresult of ongoingactions taken to control or eliminate thesedischarges. AsNSWdischarges areaddressed, monitoring of the discharges will no longer be required. In addition, if monitoringdemonstratesthatdischargesdonotexceedanyWQBELs,non‐stormwateractionlevels,orwaterqualitystandardsforpollutantsidentifiedonthe303(d)listafterthefirstyear,monitoringofthepollutantsmeetingallreceivingwaterlimitationswillbenolongerbenecessary.Duetopotentialfrequent adjustments in thenumber and locationofoutfalls requiringmonitoringandpollutantsrequiring monitoring, the annual CIMP report is expected to communicate adjustments in the
89
number and locations ofmonitored discharges, pollutants beingmonitored and justifications foranyadjustments.
10.7 MonitoringParametersandFrequency
TheMRP (Section IX.G.1) specifies theminimum parameters formonitoring of NSW discharges.Determinationofmonitoringparametersateachsiterequiresconsiderationofanumberoffactorsapplicabletoeachsite.Monitoringparameterswillinclude:
a. Flow,
b. Pollutants assigned a WQBEL or receiving water limitation to implement TMDLProvisions for the respective receivingwater, as identified in Attachments L ‐ R of theOrder,
c. Other pollutants identified on the CWA section 303(d) List for the receiving water ordownstreamreceivingwaters,
d. Pollutants identified inaTIEconducted in response toobservedaquatic toxicityduringdryweatheratthenearestdownstreamreceivingwatermonitoringstation(LCC1)duringthe last sample event or, where the TIE conducted on the receivingwater samplewasinconclusive,aquatictoxicity.Ifthedischargeexhibitsaquatictoxicity,thenaTIEshallbeconducted.
e. OtherparametersinTableE‐2identifiedasexceedingthelowestapplicablewaterqualityobjectiveatLCC1(thenearestdownstreamreceivingwaterstation)perPartVI.D.1.d.
TheMRP(PartIX.G.2‐4)specifiesthefollowingmonitoringfrequencyforNSWoutfallmonitoring:
For outfalls subject to a dry weather TMDL, the monitoring frequency shall be per theapprovedTMDLmonitoringplanorasotherwisespecifiedintheTMDLorasspecifiedinanapprovedCIMP.
ForoutfallsnotsubjecttodryweatherTMDLs,approximatelyquarterlyforfirstyear. Monitoringcanbeeliminatedorreducedtotwiceperyear,beginninginthesecondyearof
monitoring if pollutant concentrations measured during the first year do not exceedWQBELs,NALsorwaterqualitystandardsforpollutantsidentifiedonthe303(d)List.
While amonitoring frequency of four timesper year is specified in thePermit, it is inconsistentwith the dryweather receivingwatermonitoring requirements. The receivingwatermonitoringrequirestwodryweathermonitoringeventsperyear.Additionally,duringthetermofthecurrentPermit,outfallsarerequiredtobescreenedatleastonceandthosewithsignificantNSWdischargeswillbesubject toasource investigation.Asaresult, theLCCWMGrecommendsthatNSWoutfallmonitoring events be conducted twice per year. The NSW outfall monitoring events will becoordinated with the dry weather receiving water monitoring events to provide betteropportunities to determine if the NSW discharges are causing or contributing to any observedexceedancesofwaterqualityobjectivesinthereceivingwater.
90
Any monitoring required will be performed using grab samples (refer to Appendix A for fieldsampling procedures) rather than automated samplers. Bacteria, which are expected to be thelimitingfactoratmanysitesduringdryweather,requirecollectionbygrabmethodsanddeliverytothe laboratory within 6 hours. Based upon the much reduced variability experienced inmeasurements of dry weather flows associated with ongoing monitoring programs, measuredconcentrationsofotheranalytesarenotexpectedtovarysignificantlyovera24‐hourperiod.
11 NewDevelopment/Re‐DevelopmentEffectivenessTrackingEach permittee will maintain an electronic database to track qualifying new development andredevelopmentprojectswhicharesubjecttothePlanningandLandDevelopmentProgramofthePermit(SectionVI.D.7.d.iv).TheelectronicdatabasecontainstheinformationlistedinTable11‐1,which includes details about the project and the design of onsite and offsite best managementpractices(BMPs).Table11‐1alsoprovidesadescriptionoftherequiredinformation.
91
Table11‐1. Information Required in the New Development/Redevelopment TrackingDatabase.
RequiredInformation Description
GeneralSite
Inform
ation ProjectNameandDeveloperName
Briefnameofprojectanddeveloperinformation(e.g.name,address,andphonenumber).
ProjectLocationandMapCoordinatesandmapoftheprojectlocation.ThemapshouldbelinkedtotheGISstorm‐drainmaprequiredinpartVII.AofthePermit.
Documentationofissuanceofrequirementstothedeveloper
DatethattheprojectdeveloperwasissuedthePermitrequirementsfortheproject(e.g.conditionsofapproval).
DateofCertificateofOccupancy DatethattheCertificateofOccupancywasissued.
On‐siteBMPSizingInform
ation
85thpercentilestormevent(inchesper24hours)
85th percentilestormdepthfortheprojectlocationcalculatedusingtheAnalysisof85thPercentile24‐hourRainfallDepthsWithintheCountyofLosAngeles.
95thpercentilestormevent(inchesper24hours)
95th percentilestormdepthfortheprojectlocationcalculatedusingtheAnalysisof85thPercentile24‐hourRainfallDepthsWithintheCountyofLosAngeles.Onlyappliesiftheprojectdrainsdirectlytoanaturaldrainagesystem5andissubjecttohydromodificationcontrolmeasures.
Projectdesignstorm(inchesper24hours)ThedesignstormforeachBMPascalculatedusingtheAnalysisof85thPercentile24‐hourRainfallDepthsWithintheCountyofLosAngeles.
Projectsdesignvolume(gallonsorMGD)Thedesignstormvolume(designstormmultipliedbytributaryareaandrunoffcoefficient)foreachBMP.
Percentofdesignstormvolumetoberetainedonsite
Thepercentageofthedesignvolumewhichon‐siteBMPswillretain.
Otherdesigncriteriarequiredtomeethydromodificationrequirementsforprojectsthatdirectlydraintonaturalwaterbodies
InformationrelevanttodetermineiftheprojectmeetshydromodificationrequirementsasdescribedinthePermite.g.,peakflowandvelocityinnaturalwaterbody,peakflowfromprojectareainmitigatedandunmitigatedcondition,etc.).Onlyappliesiftheprojectdrainsdirectlytoanaturaldrainagesystem.
One‐year,one‐hourstormintensityasdepictedonthemostrecentlyissuedisohyetalmappublishedbytheLosAngelesCountyHydrologistforflow‐throughBMPs
Ifflow‐throughBMPs(e.g.,sandfilters,mediafilters)forwaterqualityareusedattheproject,providetheone‐year,one‐hourstormintensityattheprojectsitefromthemostrecentisohyetalmapissuedbyLACounty.
Off‐siteBMPInform
ation
Locationandmapsofoff‐sitemitigation,groundwaterreplenishment,orretrofitsites
Ifanyoff‐sitemitigationisused,providelocationsandmapslinkedtotheGISstorm‐drainmaprequiredinpartVII.AofthePermit.
DesignvolumeforwaterqualitymitigationtreatmentBMPs
Thecalculateddesignvolume,Ifwaterqualitymitigationisrequired.
Percentofdesignstormvolumetobeinfiltratedatanoff‐sitemitigationorgroundwaterreplenishmentprojectsite
Thepercentageofthedesignvolumewhichoff‐sitemitigationorgroundwaterreplenishmentwillretain.
Percentofdesignstormvolumetoberetainedortreatedwithbiofiltrationatanoff‐siteretrofitproject
Thepercentageofthedesignvolumewhichoff‐sitebiofiltrationwillretainortreat.
5 A natural drainage system is defined as a drainage system that has not been improved (e.g., channelized or armored). The clearing or dredging
of a natural drainage system does not cause the system to be classified as an improved drainage system.
92
12 ReportingReportingwillnormallyconsistofAnnualCIMPReportsandsemi‐annualdatareports.DischargeAssessmentPlanswillbeonlysubmitted ifTIEsare foundtoproduce inconsistentresultsduringtwoconsecutivetests.Theseincludethefollowingreports:
AnnualCIMPReports
Annual CIMP monitoring reports are required to be submitted to the Regional Water BoardExecutive Officer by December 15th of each year in the form of three compact disks (CD) Theannualreportingprocessisintendedtomeetthefollowingobjectives.
SummaryinformationallowingtheRegionalBoardtoassess:
a. EachPermittee’sparticipationinoneormoreWatershedManagementPrograms.b. The impact of each Permittee(s) stormwater and non‐stormwater discharges on the
receivingwater.c. Each Permittee’s compliance with receiving water limitations, numeric water quality‐
basedeffluentlimitations,andnon‐stormwateractionlevels.d. The effectiveness of each Permittee(s) control measures in reducing discharges of
pollutantsfromtheMS4toreceivingwaters.e. Whether thequalityofMS4dischargesand thehealthof receivingwaters is improving,
stayingthesame,ordecliningasaresultwatershedmanagementprogramefforts,and/orTMDLimplementationmeasures,orotherMinimumControlMeasures.
f. Whetherchangesinwaterqualitycanbeattributedtopollutantcontrolsimposedonnewdevelopment,re‐development,orretrofitprojects.
DataSubmittals–CEDENFiles
Analyticaldatareportsarerequiredtobesubmittedonasemi‐annualbasisinformatsconsistentwith CEDEN. These reports are required to be subject to verification and validation prior tosubmittal. Theyaretocovermonitoringperiodsof July1throughDecember30forthemid‐yearreportandJuly1‐June30fortheendofyearreport.Thesedatareportsshouldincludeverificationof having be submitted and accepted through the SCWRPP Regional Data Center. These datareportsshouldsummarize:
Exceedances of applicableWQBELs, receivingwater limitations, or any available interimactionlevelsorotheraquatictoxicitythresholds.
Basicinformationregardingsamplingdates,locations,orotherpertinentdocumentation.
93
13 ReferencesBonin,JenniferL.andTimothyP.Wilson(2006).OrganicCompounds,TraceElements,Suspended
Sediment,andFieldCharacteristicsattheHeads‐of‐TideoftheRaritan,Passaic,Hackensack,Rahway,andElizabethRivers,NewJersey,2000‐03,PreparedincooperationwiththeNewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.DataSeries123.U.S.GeologicalSurvey.
Clark, S. E., C. Y. S. Siu, et al. 2009. "Peristaltic Pump Autosamplers for Solids Measurement inStormwaterRunoff."WaterEnvironmentResearch81:192‐200.
CleanerRiversthroughEffectiveStakeholder‐ledTMDLs(CREST),2009a.DraftLosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTMDL–TechnicalReportSection4:BacteriaTMDLSourceAssessment.July2009.
CleanerRiversthroughEffectiveStakeholder‐ledTMDLs(CREST),2009b.DraftLosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTMDL–TechnicalReportSection4:BacteriaTMDLSourceAssessmentAppendix.July2009.
Cleaner Rivers through Effective Stakeholder‐led TMDLs (CREST), 2010. Draft Appendix 3:AdditionalDetailsonCostsandProjectTimelinesforLosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTMDLDryWeatherImplementationPlan.February2010.
CleanerRiversthroughEffectiveStakeholder‐ledTMDLs(CREST).2008.LosAngelesRiverBacteriaSourceIdentificationStudy:FinalReport,November2007.
Council forWatershed Health (CWH) and ABC Laboratories, Inc. 2013. 2011 San Gabriel RiverRegionalMonitoringProgram,2011AnnualReport.
Cowgill,U.M.andD.P.Milazzo.1990.Thesensitivityoftwocladoceranstowaterqualityvariables,salinityandhardness.Arch.Hydrobiol.120:185–196.
Gilbreath,A.N., Pearce, S. P. andMcKee, L. J. (2012). MonitoringandResults forElCerritoRainGardens.ContributionNo.683.SanFranciscoEstuaryInstitute,Richmond,California.
Gilinsky, Ellen (2009). TMDL Guidance Memo No. 09‐2001. Guidance for monitoring of pointsources for TMDL development using low‐level PCB method 1668. Commonwealth ofVirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality,WaterDivision.
Harwood,A.D,J.You,andM.J.Lydy.2009.Temperatureasatoxicityidentificationevaluationtoolfor pyrethroid insecticides: toxicokinetic confirmation. Environmental Toxicology andChemistry28(5):1051‐1058
Horowitz,A.J.1995.Theuseofsuspendedsedimentandassociatedtraceelements.inWaterqualitystudies:Wallingford,Oxfordshire,IAHSPress,IAHSSpecialPublicationno.4,58p.
Kayhanian,M.,C.Stransky,S.Bay,S.Lau,M.K.Stenstrom.2008. Toxicityofurbanhighwayrunoffwithrespecttostormduration.ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment389:109‐128.
94
Lee,G.F.andA.Jones‐Lee.“ReviewoftheCityofStocktonUrbanStormwaterRunoffAquaticLifeToxicityStudiesConductedbytheCVRWQCB,DeltaKeeperandtheUniversityofCalifornia,Davis,AquaticToxicologyLaboratorybetween1994and2000,”ReporttotheCentralValleyRegionalWater Quality Control Board, G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, October(2001).
LosAngelesRiverCMPreportFebruary13,2014
LosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTechnicalCommittee.2013.CoordinatedMonitoringPlanforLosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTMDL–ComplianceMonitoring.
Mahler, B.J., P.C. Van Metre, J.T. Wilson, A.L Guilfoyle and M.W. Sunvison 2006. Concentrations,loads,andyieldsofparticle‐associatedcontaminantsinurbancreeks,Austin,Texas,1999–2004:U.S.GeologicalSurveyScientificInvestigationsReport2006–5262,107p.
McCarty,HarryB.,J.Schofield,K.Miller,R.N.Brent,P.VanHoof,andB.Eadie.2004.ResultsoftheLake Michigan Mass Balance Study:Polychlorinated Biphenyls and trans‐Nonachlor DataReport.PreparedforUSEPAGreatLakesNationalProgram,EPA905R‐01‐011.
Palumbo, A., Fojut, T., Brander, S., and Tjerdeema, R. 2010b. Water Quality Criteria Report forBifenthrin. Prepared for the Central Valley RegionalWater Quality Control Board by theDepartmentofEnvironmentalToxicology,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis.March.
Palumbo, A., Fojut, T., TenBrook, P. and Tjerdeema, R. 2010a.Water Quality Criteria Report forDiazinon. Prepared for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board by theDepartmentofEnvironmentalToxicology,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis.March.
Rantz, S.E and others. 1982. Measurement and Computation of Streamflow: Volume 1.MeasurementofStageandDischarge.GeologicalSurveyWater‐SupplyPaper2175.
RegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(RWQCB),2010.LosAngelesRiverWatershedBacteriaTotalMaximumDailyLoad.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles (LARWQCB). 2012. Waste DischargeRequirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within theCoastalWatersheds of Los Angeles County, except thoseDischargesOriginating from theCityofLongBeachMS4.OrderNo.R4‐2012‐0175,NPDESPermitNo.CAS004001.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles (LARWQCB). 2014 Waste DischargeRequirementsforMunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystemDischargesfromtheCityofLongBeach.OrderNo.R4‐2014‐0024,NPDESPermitNo.CAS004003
StateofCalifornia’sSurfaceWaterAmbientMonitoringProgramSeptember1,2008http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/qapp/qaprp082209.pdf
StateWaterResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB).2012.PolicyofToxicityAssessmentandControl.PublicReviewDraft,June2012.
95
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2000. Policy for Implementation of ToxicsStandardsforInlandSurfaceWaters,EnclosedBays,andEstuariesofCalifornia(Phase1ofthe Inland Surface Waters Plan and the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan). SWRCBResolution2000‐15.
Stenstrom, Michael K., I.H. (Mel) Suffet and Victor Vasquez. 2009. Final Data Evaluation Report,Field Studies for the Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for OrganochlorinePesticidesandPolychlorinatedBiphenylsinThreeLosAngelesCountLakes.InstituteoftheEnvironment,UCLA.ReporttoLosAngelesRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard,March15,2009.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2012. Surface Water Quality MonitoringProcedures,Volume1:PhysicalandChemicalMonitoringMethod.RG415
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Methods for Aquatic ToxicityIdentificationEvaluations:PhaseI.ToxicityCharacterizationProcedures.2ndEdition.EPA‐600‐6‐91‐003.NationalEffluentToxicityAssessmentCenter,Duluth,MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Toxicity Identification Evaluation:Characterization of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I. EPA/600/6‐91/005F. May 1992.NationalEffluentToxicityAssessmentCenter,Duluth,MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993a. Methods for Aquatic ToxicityIdentification Evaluations‐ Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for SamplesExhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. EPA‐600‐R‐92‐080. National Effluent ToxicityAssessmentCenter,Duluth,MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993b. Methods for Aquatic ToxicityIdentification Evaluations‐ Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures for SamplesExhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. EPA‐600‐R‐92‐081. National Effluent ToxicityAssessmentCenter,Duluth,MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Method 1669 Sampling AmbienWaterforTraceMetalsatEPAWaterQualityCriteriaLevels.
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).1996.TheMetalsTranslator:GuidanceforCalculatingaTotalRecoverablePermitLimitfromaDissolvedCriterion.EPA823‐B‐96‐007,June1996
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a United States EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).2002a.Short‐termMethodsforEstimatingtheChronicToxicityofEffluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. October. EPA‐821‐R‐02‐013.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Aquatic Life Ambient FreshwaterQualityCriteria–Copper.February.EPA‐822‐R‐07‐001.
96
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. National Pollutant DischargeElimination System Test of Significant Toxicity Technical Document. EPA/833‐R‐10‐004,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofEnvironmentalManagement,Washington,DC.
Walkowiak,D.K.,Ed.2008.IscoOpenChannelFlowMeasurementHandbook.
Weston, D.P. and E.L. Amweg. 2007. Whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools forpyrethroid insecticides: II. Esterase addition. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry26:2397‐2404.
Wheelock,C.,Miller,J.,Miller,M.,Gee,S.,Shan,G.andHammock,B.2004.DevelopmentofToxicityIdentificationEvaluation(TIE)proceduresforpyrethroiddetectionusingesteraseactivity.EnvironmentalToxicologyandChemistry23:2699‐2708.
Wilson, Timothy P. 2006. Results of Cross‐ChannelMonitoring During the Lower Passaic RiverEnvironmental Dredging Pilot Program on the Lower Passaic River, December 1 to 12,2005.USGSReport,WestTrenton,NewJersey
