HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - CIMP IMPLEMENTATION CONTR NPDES COMPLIANCE CONTR AND MOAAgenda Item• 19
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
.` AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: June 23, 2026
SUBJECT: COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT AND NPDES PERMIT
COMPLIANCE CONTRACT AND MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT
DEPARTMENT: Neighborhood Services
PRESENTER: Darin Seegmiller
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1. Award a three-year contract to Larry Walker and Associates to provide Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Plan (CIMP) implementation, water quality monitoring, data analysis
and results investigation, and reporting assistance consistent with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit compliance, in the amount not to exceed $1,926,237.
2. Approve a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los
Angeles, and Los Angeles County Flood Control District, for CIMP implementation cost
share for a five-year term in the amount not to exceed $3,602,112.
3. Increase Stormwater Fund Miscellaneous Revenues Account 356-462101 and authorize an
ongoing appropriation from the Stormwater Fund (Fund 356) to Stormwater Professional
Services Expenditure Account 3567200-516102 as outlined in the Budget Impact.
4. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute up to two additional one-year contract
renewal options beginning in Fiscal Year 2029-30, and any adjustment consistent with the
appropriate Consumer Price Index, contingent upon the appropriation of funds by the City
Council in the annual budget for such fiscal years.
BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clarita (City) is required to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act through
the state -issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate
Page 1
Packet Pg. 110
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. The Permit regulates discharges from the City's storm drain
system and requires ongoing water quality monitoring, pollutant sampling, laboratory analysis,
and reporting. Failure to comply with these requirements could expose the City to regulatory
enforcement actions and significant penalties.
For the Upper Santa Clara River (USCR) watershed, agencies subject to these permit
requirements include the City, County of Los Angeles (County), and the Los Angeles County
Flood Control District (LACFCD).
COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (CIMP)
The NPDES Permit allows for a customized monitoring plan in lieu of the generic monitoring
plan, as long as all objectives are achieved and justified. To meet these water quality monitoring
requirements efficiently and avoid duplicative efforts, the watershed agencies jointly developed a
CIMP specific to the USCR watershed.
The CIMP was reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board on January 9, 2024, and serves as the official monitoring and reporting program for the
watershed. It outlines the monitoring locations, sampling frequencies, pollutant parameters,
laboratory methods, and reporting obligations necessary to comply with the NPDES Permit.
The CIMP is designed to:
• Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of stormwater discharges;
• Determine compliance with water quality limits and Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs);
• Characterize pollutants in stormwater and dry -weather flows;
• Identify pollutant sources; and
• Support adaptive management to improve water quality outcomes.
Implementing the approved CIMP allows the City, County, and LACFCD to maintain "deemed
compliance" status under the NPDES Permit. This status protects the City, County, and
LACFCD from enforcement actions and third -party litigation even when water quality standards
are exceeded, provided the City continues to implement the CIMP and the watershed's Enhanced
Watershed Management Plan (EWMP).
Since 2015, the City has administered the CIMP monitoring contract on behalf of the City,
County, and LACFCD within the USCR watershed. The current contract expires June 30, 2026,
requiring a new consultant agreement and an updated Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
among the watershed agencies.
CIMP MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The CIMP requires a comprehensive suite of monitoring and reporting activities, including:
Page 2
Packet Pg. 111
• Receiving Water Monitoring: Water sampling in the Santa Clara River at designated
reaches during both wet- and dry -weather to evaluate drainage area and watershed -scale
water quality.
• Outfall Monitoring: Sampling at storm drain outfalls representing different land -uses,
including monthly bacteria monitoring and additional sampling where persistent
dry -weather flows occur.
• Adaptive Management Investigations: Follow-up investigations when monitoring
identifies water quality exceedances, including upstream inspections, additional
sampling, and coordination with regulators.
• Reporting: Preparation and submittal of semi-annual and annual monitoring reports, data
uploads to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN), and
documentation required under the NPDES Permit.
• Optional Special Studies: Targeted studies to identify pollutant sources or evaluate
pollutant behavior, conducted as needed and approved by the watershed group.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) PROCESS
To implement the CIMP for the next five years, the City conducted a Request for Proposals
(RFP) to solicit proposals from qualified consulting firms that demonstrated experience in MS4
compliance, watershed monitoring, laboratory coordination, and regulatory reporting. The RFP
was published and circulated via the City's e-procurement system BidNet on February 25, 2026.
The City transmitted the solicitation to 1,688 vendors on BidNet, of which 69 vendors
downloaded the RFP. Four companies provided proposals for consideration.
The proposals were reviewed and evaluated based on each company's ability to meet the specific
needs of the City, County, and LACFCD. An evaluation panel of staff from the Environmental
Services Division scored the responses using the following categories of weighted criteria:
• Qualifications, plan of scope of work, program management (20 points);
• Experience with similar monitoring programs and references (15 points);
• Approach to providing services and meet objectives and standards (20 points);
• Coordination with a multi -agency watersheds and obtain water samples (10 points);
• Ability to effectively modify programming, apply adaptive management, and adjust to
shifting regulations and policies from regulatory agencies (20 points); and
• Cost of services provided (15 points).
The evaluation panel scored the responses based on a 100-point system, with the results outlined
below.
Rank
Company
Location
Score
1
Larry Walker and Associates
Davis, California
94
2
California Watershed Engineering
Fullerton, California
90
3
WSP USA
Los Angeles, California
87
4
Exodus Water Services
Thousand Oaks, California
71
Page 3
Packet Pg. 112
In reviewing proposals, the evaluation team awarded the highest score to Larry Walker and
Associates (LWA). The evaluation team determined that LWA proposal offered the best overall
value and demonstrated the strongest technical approach, extensive experience implementing
CIMPs throughout Los Angeles County, and direct familiarity with the USCR watershed. Their
proposal meets all requirements of the RFP, the USCR CIMP, and the NPDES Permit.
Staff has completed a due diligence review of LWA's professional references and determined its
past work history with the City, and meets the City's standards and performance expectations.
Based on the above, staff recommends awarding the contract to LWA.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) AND COST SHARE
The USCR CIMP is a watershed -specific program, requiring the City, County, and LACFCD to
jointly manage and fund the monitoring and reporting requirements. A new five-year
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been developed to continue this partnership.
The MOA:
• Establishes the cost -sharing formula for all monitoring, reporting, and program
management;
• Identifies the City as the Project Administrator responsible for contracting with the
consultant;
• Includes a 5 percent administration cost to reimburse the City for contract management;
• Includes a 10 percent contingency, used only with approval of all parties;
• Incorporates an estimated 3 percent inflation factor in years four and five;
• Covers both CIMP and EWMP implementation requirements
Cost sharing is allocated based on the proportion of watershed acreage within each agency's
jurisdiction. While the total five-year program cost is estimated at $3,602,112, the City's share is
$1,357,900, with the remaining costs funded by the County and the LACFCD.
Approval of the MOA ensures continued regional compliance with the NPDES Permit's
monitoring and reporting responsibilities while reducing the cost burden to each agency.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action decided by City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
Upon approval of the recommended actions, the Stormwater Fund (Fund 356) Miscellaneous
Revenues Account 356-462101 and the budget for the Stormwater Professional Services
Expenditure Account 3567200-516102 will increase as outlined in the Budget Impact.
ATTACHMENTS
LWA Cost File, CIMP Monitoring
Page 4
Packet Pg. 113
Cost Share Tables - USCR MOA 2026
Budget Impact CIMP MOA Cost Share
2026 MOA USCR City County LACFCD
Upper Santa Clara River CIMP (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
RFP 9 ES-25-26-20 (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Larry Walker Associates, Stormwater Monitoring, Santa. Clara River (available in the City
Clerk's Reading File)
Page 5
Packet Pg. 114
19"a
7�v1
I " ar
�•_.,., ,. sir � v� '.,. w � �1'
v _ 4.
- A
March 26, 2026
Packet Pg. 115
19.a
The following provides the Larry Walker Associates' Team (LWA Team) cost proposal in response to the
Request for Proposals (RFP) for Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance. To support
the Upper Santa Clara River Group's review of the cost proposal we have developed a series of summary
and detailed tables. Table 1 presents a summary of the three-year cost proposal by task to perform the
work in its entirety. Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 present a summary of Project Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively,
with the cost proposal broken out by total labor hours, labor costs, other direct costs (ODCs), and analytical
costs. Table 5 presents a cost breakdown by firm. Table 6 presents the staffing hours and rates. Lastly,
attached to this cost proposal, are year by year breakdowns of the cost by individual deliverable, including
notes and assumptions.
The LWA Team acknowledges that the proposal is valid for a 120-day period and the proposed work will be
performed at the "not -to -exceed" price designated by task for each team member. As Vice President of
LWA, I am authorized to bind this cost proposal.
03/25/2026
Signature Date
Larry Walker Associates I Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES PermitCompliance 11
Packet Pg. 116
19.a
Cost Proposal =A
Table 1. Cost Breakdown by Task: Three Year Summary
No
WWsk
Description
Total0)
1.0
Program Management
$94,881
$94,881
$94,881
$284,643
2.0
Dry Weather Monitoring
$44,871
$44,871
$44,871
$134,613
3.0
Dry Weather Monitoring - Monthly
Bacteria TMDL Monitoring
$50,459
$50,459
$50,459
$151,378
4.0
Wet Weather Monitoring
$66,872
$66,872
$192,481
$326,225
5.0
Source ID Additional Monitoring
$13,160
$13,160
$13,160
$39,480
6.0
Reporting
$226,418
$226,418
$226,418
$679,254
7.0
QAPP, Health and Safety Plan
$6,660
$6,660
$6,660
$19,979
8.0
Laboratory Analysis
$8,695
$8,695
$8,695
$26,085
9.0
Toxicity (Potential)
$16,441
$16,441
$16,441
$49,323
10.0 Potential Special Studies (Optional)
To Be Determined
ij MiLk 1
Potential Additional Services
New MS4 Permit Requirements
CIMP Update (Draft and Final)
-
-
$44,160
$44,160
Additional Cost Considerations
10% Contingency(2)
$52,846
$52,846 $65,407 $171,098
Total Potential Additional Services
$52,846
$52,846 $109,567 $215,258
i
i
Inclusive of subcontractor markup of 10%.
Contingencies could include but may not be limited to: additional toxicity testing (upstream sites or
Toxicity Identification Evaluations [TIES]), additional analysis to meet future screening requirements
(e.g., similar to Table E-6, toxicity sensitive species), additional DNA/RNA analysis, and/or special
studies.
Larry Walker Associates I Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Perm itCompliance 2
Packet Pg. 117
19.a
Cost Proposal
Table 2. Cost Breakdown by Task: Year 1
1W
Total..
Other
Task Description
LaborTals,
..
Costs
. .
Hours
&Costs
Costs
AV
1.0
Program Management
362
$94,881
$0
$0
$94,881
2.0
Dry Weather Monitoring
156
$31,121
$2,750
$11,000
$44,871
Dry Weather Monitoring -
3.0
Monthly Bacteria TMDL
214
$41,300
$6,189
$2,970
$50,459
Monitoring
4.0
Wet Weather Monitoring
175
$33,872
$5,500
$27,500
$66,872
5.0
Source ID Additional
59
$13,160
$0
$0
$13,160
Monitoring
6.0
Reporting
910
$226,418
$0
$0
$226,418
7.0
QAPP, Health and Safety Plan
27
$6,660
$0
$0
$6,660
8.0
Laboratory Analysis
5
$1,435
$0
$7,260
$8,695
9.0 Toxicity (Potential)
20 $4,158 $550 $11,733 $16,441
il Wor"I", W'O"
10.0 Potential Special Studies
To Be Determined
Optional)
ii,. Total Requested Services
1,928 ii i
Potential Additional Services
New MS4 Permit Requirements
CIMP Update (Draft and Final)
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Additional Cost Considerations
10% Contingency(2)
$52,846
Total Potential Additional Services
0 $0 $0 $0 $52,846
Inclusive of subcontractor markup of 10%.
Contingencies could include but may not be limited to: additional toxicity testing (upstream sites or
Toxicity Identification Evaluations [TIES]), additional analysis to meet future screening requirements
(e.g., similar to Table E-6, toxicity sensitive species), additional DNA/RNA analysis, and/or special
studies.
Larry Walker Associates I Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Perm itCompliance 13
Packet Pg. 118
19.a
Cost Proposal
Table 3. Cost Breakdown by Task: Year 2
1W
Total..
Other
Task Description
LaborTals,
..
Costs
. .
Hours
&Costs
Costs
AV
1.0
Program Management
362
$94,881
$0
$0
$94,881
2.0
Dry Weather Monitoring
156
$31,121
$2,750
$11,000
$44,871
Dry Weather Monitoring -
3.0
Monthly Bacteria TMDL
214
$41,300
$6,189
$2,970
$50,459
Monitoring
4.0
Wet Weather Monitoring
175
$33,872
$5,500
$27,500
$66,872
5.0
Source ID Additional
59
$13,160
$0
$0
$13,160
Monitoring
6.0
Reporting
910
$226,418
$0
$0
$226,418
7.0
QAPP, Health and Safety Plan
27
$6,660
$0
$0
$6,660
8.0
Laboratory Analysis
5
$1,435
$0
$7,260
$8,695
9.0
Toxicity (Potential)
20
$4,158
$550
$11,733
$16,441
10.0
Potential Special Studies
To Be Determined
Optional)
Total Requested Services 1,928 ii i
Potential Additional Services
New MS4 Permit Requirements
CIMP Update (Draft and Final)
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Additional Cost Considerations
10% Contingency(2)
$52,846
Total Potential Additional Services
0 $0 $0 $0 $52,846
Inclusive of subcontractor markup of 10%.
Contingencies could include but may not be limited to: additional toxicity testing (upstream sites or
Toxicity Identification Evaluations [TIES]), additional analysis to meet future screening requirements
(e.g., similar to Table E-6, toxicity sensitive species), additional DNA/RNA analysis, and/or special
studies.
Larry Walker Associates I Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Perm itCompliance 14
Packet Pg. 119
19.a
Cost Proposal
Table 4. Cost Breakdown by Task: Year 3
0
1.0
Task Description
6-Tals, llllllllll!!!!V
L
Program Management
Total..
..
362
..
ts
$94,881
Other
Costs
$0
Costs
AL
$0
. .
$94,881
2.0
Dry Weather Monitoring
156
$31,121
$2,750
$11,000
$44,871
3.0
Dry Weather Monitoring -
Monthly Bacteria TMDL
Monitoring
214
$41,300
$6,189
$2,970
$50,459
4.0
Wet Weather Monitoring
761
$140,231
$13,200
$39,050
$192,481
5.0
Source ID Additional
Monitoring
59
$13,160
$0
$0
$13,160
6.0
Reporting
910
$226,418
$0
$0
$226,418
7.0
QAPP, Health and Safety Plan
27
$6,660
$0
$0
$6,660
8.0
Laboratory Analysis
5
$1,435
$0
$7,260
$8,695
9.0
Toxicity (Potential)
20
$4,158
$550
$11,733
$16,441
10.0
Potential Special Studies
O tional
To Be Determined
Total
Potential Additional Services
New MS4 Permit Requirements
CIMP Update (Draft and Final)
158
$44,160
$0
$0
$44,160
Additional Cost Considerations
10% Contingency(2)
$65,407
Total Potential Additional Services
158 $44,160 $0 $0 $109,567
Inclusive of subcontractor markup of 10%.
Contingencies could include but may not be limited to: additional toxicity testing (upstream sites or
Toxicity Identification Evaluations [TIES]), additional analysis to meet future screening requirements
(e.g., similar to Table E-6, toxicity sensitive species), additional DNA/RNA analysis, and/or special
studies.
Larry Walker Associates I Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Perm itCompliance 1 5
Packet Pg. 120
19.a
Table S. Cost Breakdown by Firm: Three Year Summary
Task No.
Task Description
LWA
Tetra Tech
Bacteria
Lab
(PatChem]
General
Chem Lab
[Eurofins]
High Res
Chem Lab
(Enthalpy
Analytical)
Toxicity
Lab
(Nautilus)
All Costs
Totall�l
Total Labor
Other Direct
Costs
Analytical
1.0
Program Management
S123.900
$146,130
So
So
$0
$0
$284,643
SO
So
$284,643
2.0
Dry Weather Monitoring
$1,722
$90,810
$0
$30,000
$0
$0
$93,363
$8,250
533,000
S134,613
30
Dry Weather Monitoring - Monthly Bacteria
TMDL Monitoring
$5,166
$124,820
$8,100
$0
$0
$0
$123,900
$18,5438
$8,910
$151,378
4.0
Wet Weather Monitorin
$2,583
$208.720
$15,300
$70,200
$0
$0
$207,975
$24,200
$94,050
$326,225
5.0
Source Identification Additional Monitoring
$13,344
$23.760
$0
$0
$0
$0
$39,480
$0
$0
$39,480
6.0
Reporting see reporting breakout file
$342,852
$305,820
$0
$0
$0
$0
$679,254
$0
$0
$679,254
7.0
CAPP, Health and Safety Plan
$861
$17,380
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,979
$0
$0
$19,979
8.0
Laboratory Analysis
$4,305
$0
$600
S4 200
$15,000
$0
$4,305
$0
$21,780
$26,085
9.0
Toxicity Potential
$4,305
$8 925
$0
SO
30
$32 000
$12,473
$1 650
$35,200
S49 323
Subtotal ssss
$499,038
$929,395
S24,116a
$104,400
$15,000
S32,000
$1,495,372
$62,998
$192,940
$1,710,980
O tional Tasks
OF"
0 Potential Special Studies (Optional)
$0
$0
$0
SD
SO
SO
SD
$0
$0
SO
Total Requested Services n775
$499,038
$926,365
S24,01111
$104,400
$15,000
S32,000
S1,465,372
S52,668
$192,940
S1,710,980
Potential Additional Services
New MS4 Permit Requirements
CIMP Update Draft and Final
$A4.160
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
S44 'I -ID
SO
$0
$44,160
Subtotal
$44160
SO
SO
SO
SO
s0
S44,160
s0
$0
S44 160
Additional Cost Considerations
10% Contin encv``'
$171,098
Total Potential Additional Services 5»>
S44,160
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
S44,160
SO
s0
$215,258
Total All Services 5s»
S543,198
S926,365
S24,000
S104,400
S15,000
S32,000
S1,509,532
S52,668
S192,940
$1,926,237
1. Inclusive of subcontractor markup of 10%.
2. Contingencies could include but may not be limited to: additional toxicity testing (upstream sites or Toxicity Identification Evaluations [TIEs]),
additional analysis to meet future screening requirements (e.g., similar to Table E-6, toxicity sensitive species), additional DNA/RNA analysis,
and/or special studies.
Larry Walker Associates I Stormwater MonitoringProgram and NPDFS PermitCompliance
Packet Pg. 121
19.a
Table 6. Staffing Hours and Rates: Three Year Summary
ask N
_-
J .0 4.0 6
8.0 9.0 10.0
sk Description Monitoring Potential
NVaPotential
PP, Lab Toxicity Special additional t
A ServicesLes Tit Monthly Wet SourceAnalysis (Potential) StudiesBacteria
Weather ID:m_ - - (Optional) dM
AwLRow
Project Level
Project Level
Program
Manager
Program
Engineer 3
Staff Engineer
Project
Engineer
Senior Project
Administrator
Total
1,086
468
642
1,111
176
2,730
81
16
60
0
��
Larry Walker Associates I Stormwater MonitoringProgram and NPDES PermitCompliance 1 7
Packet Pg. 122
Cost Share tables - USCR MCA 2026
Table 1. Program Costs for Deliverables
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
5 Years
Deliverables
1
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Cost
Cost
Cost
CostZ
CostZ
CostZ
Variable Costs'
Monitoring
Program Management
�......
........... $94,881
$94,881
$94,881
$97,727
$100,659
...........
..... $483,030
Dry Weather Monitoring
$44,871
$44,871
$44,871
$46 217
$47,604
$228,434
Dry Weather Monitoring- Monthly Bacteria TMDL
$50,459
$50,459
$50,459
$51,973
$53,532
$256,882
Wet Weather Monitoring
$66,872
$66,872
$192,481
$198,255
$204,203
$728,684
Source ID Additional Monitoring
$13,160
$13,160
$13,160
$13,555
$13,961
$66,996
Reporting
$226,418
$226,418
$226,418
$233,211
$240,207
$1,152,671
QAPP, Health and Safety Plan
�...
�... $6,660
....... $6,660
...... $6,660
$6,860
$7,066
�..... $33,905
Laboratory Analysis
$8,695
$8,695
$8,695
$8,956
$9,225
$44,265
Toxicity (Potential)
$16,441
$16,441
$16,441
$16,934
$17,442
$83,699
Monitoring, Reporting and Meetings Subtotal
$528,457
$528,457
$654,066
$673,688
$693,899
$3,078,567
New MS4 Permit Requirements ...
....... ....
CIMP Plan Updates
Project Management
$44,160
$44 160
10%Contingency'
$52,846
$52,846
$65,407
$67,369
$69,3901
$307,857
Monitoring, Reporting, Meetings, CIMP Update Subtotal
$581,3031
$581,303
$763,633
$741,0571
$763,288
$3,430,583
Table 2. Total Program Costs with Citv Administration Costs
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
5 Years
Total MOA Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Estimated
CostZ
Estimated
CostZ
Estimated
CostZ
Monitoring Subtotal
$581,303
$581,303
$763,633
$741,057
$763,288
$3,430,583
$29,065
$29,065
$38,182
$37,053
$38,164
$171,529
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Santa Clarita contract Administration (5%)
TotaIMCA Cost
$610,368: $610,368: $801,814: $778,110: $801,453: $3,602,112
Table 3. Cost Share Amount by Party and Percent Land Use
Percent of
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
5 Years
Party
Acres
Area
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost2
Cost2
Cost2
MOA Cost
County of Los Angeles
71,565
60%
$349,757
$349,757
$459,461
$445,878
_
_$459,254
$2,064,107
City of Santa Clarita
47,080
40%
$230,092
$230,092
$302,263
$293,327
$302,126
$1,357,900
LACFCD (5%)
N/A
1
$30,518
$30,518
$40,091
$38,905
$40,073
$180,106
Totall
118,645
1 100%
$610,368
$610,368
$801,8141
$778,1101
$801,453
$3,602,112
Table 4. Invoicina Schedule by Fiscal Year
026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
5 Years
FY Invoice Amount
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Cost
Cost
Cost
CostZ
CostZ
CostZ
County of Los Angeles
$349,757
$349,757
$459,461
$445,878
$459,254
$2,064,107
LACFCD (5%)
$30,518
$30,518
$40,091
$38,905
$40,073
$180,106
Total
$380,275
$380,275
$499,552
$484,783
$499,327
$2,244,212
Table 5. City of Santa Clarita Costs by Fiscal Year
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
5 Years
FY Program Costs
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
CostZ
CostZ
City of Santa Clarita
$230,092
$230,092
$302,263
$293,3271
$302,126
$1,357,900
1 - Variable costs are subject to reconciliation if actual expenditures are less than estimated.
2 - Contract is for an initial three (3) years, plus two (2) optional one (1) year extensions. Includes an estimated (three) 3 percent inflationary cost adjustment.
3 - Contingencies may include: additional toxicity testing (upstream sites or Toxicity Identification Evaluations [TIES]), additional analysis to meet future screening requirements, additional DNA/RNA analysis, and/or special studies.
4 - The CITY will notify the PARTIES if actual expenditures are anticipated to exceed the cost estimates contained in Table 1 and obtain written approval of such expenditures from all PARTIES
19.c
Budget Impact CIMP MOA cost share
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
5 Years
1
1
1
1
Total
Appropriate from Stormwater Fund 356 to Professional Services Expenditure Account 3567200-516102
Contract cost and Administration 1 $ 610,368 1 $ 610,368 1 $ 801,814 1 $ 778,110 1 $ 801,452 $ 3,602,112
Add to Miscellaneous Revenues Account 356-4621001
County of Los Angeles
1 $
349,757
1 $
349,757
1 $ 459,4611
$
445,878
1 $ 459,253
1 $
2,064,106
LACFCD
1 $
30,518
1 $
30,518
1 $ 40,0911
$
38,905
1 $ 40,073
1 $
180,105
Packet Pg. 125
19.d
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM AND THE
ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND NECESSARY
REPORTS FOR THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), is made and entered into as of the date of the
last signature set forth below by and between the LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT (LACFCD), a body corporate and politic, the COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES (COUNTY), a political subdivision of the State of California, and the CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA (CITY), a municipal corporation. Collectively, these entities shall be
known herein as PARTIES or individually as PARTY.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region
(REGIONAL BOARD) adopted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Order No. R4-2021-0175
(MS4 Permit) on July 23, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit became effective on September 11, 2021, and
requires that the LACFCD, the COUNTY, and 85 incorporated cities (excluding Avalon,
Palmdale, and Lancaster) within Los Angeles County, Ventura County Watershed
Protection District, County of Ventura, and 10 incorporated cities within Ventura County
to comply with the prescribed elements of the MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the current MS4 Permit is expiring September 11, 2026, but the
requirements of the MS4 Permit remain in effect until the REGIONAL BOARD adopts a
new NPDES MS4 Permit which may continue, revise, or replace compliance
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit allows for a modified monitoring and reporting
program to share water quality monitoring data and reporting requirements by watershed
area; and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit identified the PARTIES as MS4 Permittees that are
responsible for compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements pertaining to the Upper
Santa Clara River (USCR) Watershed Management Area; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES previously entered into a memorandum of
understanding on August 19, 2013 to collaborate in the development of the Enhanced
HOA.105977274.1 1
Packet Pg. 126
19.d
Watershed Management Program (EWMP) and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring
Program (CIMP) for the USCR Watershed; and
WHEREAS, the CIMP was previously prepared by the PARTIES and reviewed and
approved by the REGIONAL BOARD on June 4, 2015, revised in 2017, revised and
submitted on March 13, 2023, and approved on January 9,2024; and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit required the PARTIES to submit an updated EWMP
with an updated reasonable assurance analysis (RAA) by June 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the EWMP was prepared by the PARTIES and reviewed and
approved by the REGIONAL BOARD on June 25, 2015, revised by the PARTIES on
January 4, 2016, and approved on April 7, 2016; updated in June 2021, revised in 2023,
and approved on April 4, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES propose to hire a consultant (CONSULTANT) as set
forth in Section 6(a) below, to implement certain requirements of the CIMP, EWMP, and
MS4 Permit, which for purposes of this MOA, may include, but not limited to, conducting
water quality monitoring, data analysis, preparation of reports, special studies, adaptive
management, and other program components outlined in each respective plan, report
and/or study, and any necessary revisions in compliance with the MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed to cooperatively share and fully fund the
estimated costs of implementing certain requirements of the CIMP, EWMP and MS4
Permit and the preparation of reports, special studies, adaptive management, and other
program components outlined in each respective plan, report and/or study (collectively
but not limited to herein as PROGRAM) as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached and
made part of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that each will assume full and independent
responsibility for ensuring its own compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements despite
collaboration on the implementation of the PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have determined that hiring a CONSULTANT to
implement the PROGRAM will be beneficial to the PARTIES, and they have agreed to
contribute funds to the CITY, who will act as a Project Administrator on behalf of the
PARTIES to contract with the CONSULTANT to implement certain requirements of the
PROGRAM; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES collaboratively agreed a Scope of Work (SOW) and a
Request for Proposal (RFP) for a CONSULTANT to assist the PARTIES with
implementing the PROGRAM, as specified in the SOW, which is incorporated into this
MOA by reference; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that the total cost for implementing the
PROGRAM shall not exceed three million, six hundred two thousand, one hundred twelve
HOA.105977274.1 2
Packet Pg. 127
19.d
dollars ($3,602,112), which includes a five percent (5%) contract administration cost, an
estimated three percent (3%) inflationary increase beginning Fiscal Year 2029-30, and a
ten percent (10%) contingency; and
WHEREAS, the costs of optional special studies identified in the SOW, as shown
in Exhibit A of this MOA, are not included in the cost allocation, but will be considered for
possible implementation by all PARTIES, and addressed through an amendment to this
MOA as necessary; and
WHEREAS, other entities subject to their own NPDES Permit and/or named as
responsible PARTIES in any of the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies
in USCR Watershed may participate in applicable portions of the CIMP by amendment to
this MOA, with the concurrence of the PARTIES;
WHEREAS, the CITY will act on behalf of the PARTIES as Project Administrator
of the Professional Services Agreement(s) with CONSULTANTS for the implementation
of the PROGRAM, as specified in Section 6(a); and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES previously entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) on June 21, 2018 regarding the administration and cost sharing for implementing
the CIMP and necessary reports for the USCR, which expired on June 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES previously entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) on July 1, 2020 regarding the administration and cost sharing for implementing
the CIMP and necessary reports for the USCR, extended for one year, and is set to expire
on June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES wish to enter into a new MOA regarding the
administration and cost sharing for implementing the EWMP, CIMP and necessary
reports for the USCR for a period of five (5) years, ending on June 30, 2031; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the
PARTIES, and of the promises contained in this MOA, the PARTIES agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this MOA.
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOA is to cooperatively fund the
implementation of the PROGRAM for the USCR Watershed Area, and to coordinate the
payment and performance of the monitoring and reporting services.
Section 3. Cooperation. The PARTIES shall fully cooperate with one another to attain
the purposes of this MOA.
Section 4. Voluntary. This MOA is voluntarily entered into for the implementation of
certain requirements of the PROGRAM.
HOA.105977274.1 J
Packet Pg. 128
19.d
Section 5. Term. This MOA shall become effective on the last date of execution by a
PARTY or July 1, 2026, whichever is sooner, and shall remain in effect for five (5) years.
Upon written approval of all PARTIES, the term of this MOA may be extended, as needed,
for the term of a new NPDES MS4 Permit.
Section 6. City of Santa Clarita Responsibilities. The CITY agrees:
a. Consultant Services. To select a CONSULTANT for implementation of the
PROGRAM, and to administer the professional services agreement(s) with the
CONSULTANT in accordance with the SOW and RFP, and any subsequent
changes to the PROGRAM as agreed upon by the PARTIES and approved by the
REGIONAL BOARD. Such professional services agreement(s) include, but are
not limited to, preparation of reports, additional watershed -wide special studies,
monitoring with other watershed groups, conducting necessary special studies,
adaptive management, RAA, any necessary revisions to the program components
outlined in the EWMP and CIMP and/or conducting other collaborative activities
for the purpose of complying with the PROGRAM. The CITY will be compensated
for the administration of the CONSULTANT contract at a rate of five percent (5 %)
of each PARTY'S cost share as described in Table 1 of Exhibit A. The CITY will
comply with all procurement requirements applicable to said selection.
b. Access to LACFCD Facilities. To direct the CONSULTANT(s) to obtain any
necessary permits from LACFCD for access to and construction within LACFCD
storm drains, channels, catch basins, and similar properties (FACILITIES). The
CITY or the CONSULTANT(s) shall provide a written notice to the LACFCD 72
hours in advance of entry to the FACILITIES.
c. Report. To oversee the preparation and submittal of the reports to the REGIONAL
BOARD as described in the PROGRAM and Scopes of Work and distribute copies
of the reports to the PARTIES prior to submittal to the REGIONAL BOARD for
review and comment. The CITY will ensure the PARTIES receive an electronic
copy of the draft and completed reports from the CONSULTANT, and ensure all
reports are submitted prior to their respective deadlines. In addition, the CITY will
submit to the PARTIES the data used to prepare the reports. This data will be
transmitted electronically in a format that contains the table structure and syntax
agreed upon by the PARTIES, e.g., California Environmental Data Exchange
Network format.
d. Invoice. To invoice the PARTIES in amounts not exceeding the invoice amounts
shown in Table 4 of Exhibit A. The annual payments for the period of July 1 through
June 30 will be invoiced no later than April of the corresponding fiscal year, except
for the first invoice, which will be issued upon the execution of this MOA by all
PARTIES. At the end of each monitoring year, any unused funds will be rolled over
and used towards future years of PROGRAM implementation.
HOA.105977274.1 4
Packet Pg. 129
19.d
e. Expenditure. To utilize the funds deposited by the PARTIES only for the
administration of the CONSULTANT professional services agreement(s) and the
implementation of the PROGRAM and necessary reports. The CITY will provide
an accounting of funds expended and remaining within 90 days after the end of
each monitoring year.
f. Contingency. The CITY will notify the PARTIES if actual expenditures are
anticipated to exceed the cost estimates contained in Table 1 of Exhibit A and
obtain written approval of such expenditures from all PARTIES. Upon approval,
the PARTIES agree to reimburse the CITY for their proportional share of these
additional expenditures at an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the original cost
estimate as shown in Table 4 of Exhibit A. This 10 percent contingency will not be
invoiced, unless actual expenditures exceed the original cost estimate.
Expenditures that exceed the 10 percent contingency will require an amendment
to this MOA.
g. Termination. To provide an accounting upon termination of this MOA within 90
days of said termination. At the completion of the accounting, the CITY shall return
any unused portion of all funds deposited with the CITY within 180 days of said
termination in accordance with the cost allocation formulas set forth in Table 3 of
Exhibit A. Subject to agreement by the CITY, any funds which are to be reimbursed
to a PARTY may be reimbursed through credits towards future invoices and
agreements, if requested in writing by that PARTY.
h. Permit. To make a full -faith effort to work with the PARTIES and their
CONSULTANTS to obtain all necessary permits for installation of permanent
infrastructure or modifications to monitoring sites, and subsequent access during
monitoring events and maintenance. Permits required for construction or
installation of structures in a PARTY'S right of way may incur fees for review,
inspection, etc. Currently the Upper Santa Clara River is not required to install
permanent water quality infrastructure for monitoring locations. Funding for such
efforts will be appropriated at a future date, if necessary.
Section 7. Los Angeles County Flood Control District Responsibilities. The
LACFCD agrees:
a. LACFCD Mass Emissions Station (MES) Monitoring. To provide monitoring data
from the existing MES owned and operated by the LACFCD. Data shall be limited
to water column chemistry and aquatic toxicity, or any additional monitoring
required by the PROGRAM. Available information for the MES will be provided to
the City as needed to complete the required reporting.
b. Access to LACFCD Facilities. To assist the CITY and CONSULTANT(S) in
obtaining any necessary permits from LACFCD for access to and construction
within LACFCD storm drains, channels, catch basins, and similar properties
HOA.105977274.1 5
Packet Pg. 130
19.d
(FACILITIES) and to grant access to the PARTIES and their CONSULTANTS to
achieve the purposes of this MOA, provided the PARTIES and their
CONSULTANTS obtain a permit and provide written notice to the LACFCD 72
hours in advance of entry to the FACILITIES. Permits for construction or
installation of structures within LACFCD right of way will incur fees to cover the
cost of review, inspection, etc., by LACFCD.
c. Report. To submit the MES data to the CITY or its CONSULTANT to be
incorporated and submitted to the REGIONAL BOARD as described in the
Program. This data will be transmitted electronically in a format that contains the
table structure and syntax agreed upon by the PARTIES, e.g., the latest
Stormwater Monitoring Coalition Standard Data Transfer Format, or California
Environmental Data Exchange Network format.
Section 8. The PARTIES further agree:
a. Payment. To fund the cost of the implementation of certain requirements of the
PROGRAM, and to pay the CITY for their proportional share of the estimated cost
for the implementation, and project administration not exceeding the amounts as
shown in Table 4 of Exhibit A, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the invoice from
the CITY. The cost estimates presented in Exhibit A have been agreed upon by
the PARTIES and are subject to changes in the PROGRAM pursuant to new
REGIONAL BOARD requirements and/or unforeseen challenges in the field. Any
such changes proposed to the PARTIES' proportional share are subject to funding
appropriation and will require written agreement of the PARTIES.
b. Documentation. To make a full -faith effort to cooperate with one another to achieve
the purposes of this MOA by providing all requested information and
documentation in their possession and available for release to the CITY and its
CONSULTANT, that is deemed necessary by the PARTIES to implement certain
requirements of the PROGRAM.
c. Implementation. To assist with the preparation of the Annual Report as directly
related to the PROGRAM. Any requirements not agreed upon by the PARTIES to
be implemented by CONSULTANTS are the responsibility of individual agencies.
d. Access. Each PARTY will allow reasonable access and entry by the PARTIES
and their CONSULTANTS, on an as needed basis during the term of this MOA, to
each PARTY'S FACILITIES to achieve the purposes of this MOA, provided,
however, that prior to entering any of the PARTY'S FACILITIES, the PARTIES and
their CONSULTANTS shall provide written notice 72 hours in advance of entry
from the applicable PARTY. The PARTIES agree that the CIMP Lead shall have
the authority to obtain access permits, on behalf of all PARTIES, for the use of the
right of way of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District as necessary for the
implementation of the PROGRAM.
HOA.105977274.1 6
Packet Pg. 131
19.d
e. Permit. Each PARTY will make a full -faith effort to work with the PARTIES and
their CONSULTANTS to obtain all necessary permits for installation of permanent
infrastructure and monitoring equipment, or modifications to the monitoring sites,
and subsequent access during monitoring events and maintenance, within each
PARTY'S jurisdiction.
f. Additional Participants. The PARTIES agree that if any other entity wishes to
participate and cost share any element of the PROGRAM, an amendment to the
MOA will be drafted and will include an updated Table 4 based on updated cost
share formula contained in Table 3 of Exhibit A of this MOA and will be effective
upon execution of all the parties.
g. Additional Studies. The PARTIES agree that additional watershed -wide special
studies, monitoring with other watershed groups, conducting necessary special
studies, preparing grant applications (applicable to COUNTY and CITY only), any
necessary revisions to the PROGRAM, and/or conducting other collaborative
activities for the purpose of complying with the MS4 Permit may be funded by the
PARTIES subject to the terms of this MOA, provided that there are available
excess contract funds or contingency funds available to fund these activities. Prior
to the performance of any such activities, all PARTIES must provide written
approval of the activities and a revised Exhibit A showing cost -share amounts to
each PARTY.
h. All PARTIES agree to assist CITY with all activities set forth in Section 7(g). All
PARTIES will be held responsible for reporting necessary information related to
their respective portions of the PROGRAM, or any documents related to additional
watershed -wide special studies, monitoring with other watershed groups,
conducting necessary special studies, and the preparation of grant applications.
Section 9. Indemnification.
a. Each PARTY shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each other PARTY,
including its special districts, elected and appointed officers, employees, agents,
attorneys, and designated volunteers from and against any and all liability,
including, but not limited to demands, claims, actions, fees, costs, and expenses
(including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees), arising from or
connected with, and in relative proportion to, its own negligence or willful
misconduct under this MOA; provided, however, that no PARTY shall indemnify
another PARTY for said other PARTY'S own negligence or willful misconduct.
b. If any of PARTY pays in excess of its pro rata share in satisfaction of any liability
arising out of the implementation of the PROGRAM, such PARTY shall be entitled
to contribution from each of the other PARTIES; provided, however, that the right
of contribution is limited to the amount paid in excess of the PARTY's pro rata
share and provided further that no PARTY may be compelled to make contribution
beyond its own pro rata share of the entire liability; and provided that no PARTY
HOA.105977274.1 7
Packet Pg. 132
19.d
shall indemnify another PARTY for that PARTY'S own negligence or willful
misconduct.
c. The PARTIES agree that any liability borne by or imposed upon any PARTY or
PARTIES hereto as a result of this MOA that is not caused by or attributable to the
negligence or willful misconduct of any PARTY shall be fully borne by all the
PARTIES in accordance with their pro rata cost share, as set forth in CIMP MOA.
d. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the CITY shall require the Consultant(s)
retained pursuant to this MOA to agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless
each PARTY, its special districts, elected and appointed officers, employees,
attorneys, agents, and designated volunteers from and against any and all liability,
including but not limited to demands, claims, actions, fees, costs, and expenses
(including attorney and expert fees), arising from or connected with the
CONSULTANT's performance of its agreement with the CITY. In addition, the
CITY shall require the CONSULTANT(s) to carry, maintain, and keep in full force
and effect an insurance policy or policies, and each PARTY, its elected and
appointed officers, employees, attorneys, agents and designated volunteers shall
be named as additional insureds on the policy(ies) with respect to liabilities arising
out of the CONSULTANT's work. These requirements will also apply to any
subcontractors hired by the CONSULTANT(s).
Section 10. Termination and Withdrawal.
a. Termination. This MOA may be terminated upon the express written agreement
of all PARTIES. If this MOA is terminated, then all PARTIES must agree on the
date of termination, tasks to be completed prior to termination, payment of invoices
due at the time of termination, and equitable redistribution of remaining funds
deposited, if there are any. In the event of termination, each PARTY shall also be
responsible for the payment of its own fines, penalties or costs incurred as a result
of the non-performance of the PROGRAM. Completed work shall be owned by
the PARTY or PARTIES who fund the completion of such work. Rights to
uncompleted work by the CONSULTANT still under contract will be held by the
PARTY or PARTIES who fund the completion of such work.
b. Withdrawal. Any PARTY may withdraw from this MOA for any reason, in whole or
part, by giving the other PARTIES and the REGIONAL BOARD thirty (30) days
written notice thereof. A withdrawn PARTY shall remain wholly responsible for its
share of the agreed upon implementation costs of the PROGRAM for the extent of
the effective term of this MOA.
c. Delinquent Party. The CITY shall notify in writing all PARTIES within fourteen (14)
days of any PARTY failing to cure an alleged default in compliance with the terms
or conditions of this MOA. The non -delinquent PARTIES will determine the next
course of action.
HOA.105977274.1 8
Packet Pg. 133
19.d
d. If a PARTY fails to comply with any of the terms or conditions of this MOA, then
that PARTY shall forfeit its rights to work completed through this MOA, but no such
forfeiture shall occur unless and until the defaulting PARTY has first been given
notice of its default and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged default.
Section 11. General Provisions.
a. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this MOA, and any
request, demand, statement, or other communication required or permitted
hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the representatives of the
PARTIES at the addresses set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. The PARTIES shall promptly notify each other of any change
of contact information, including personnel changes, provided in Exhibit B within
30 days of such change. Written notice shall include notice delivered via e-mail or
fax. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if
delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed facsimile or by
e-mail; or (b) on the third (3) business day following mailing by registered or
certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth in Exhibit B.
b. Administration. For the purposes of this MOA, the PARTIES hereby designate as
their respective PARTY representatives the persons named in Exhibit B. The
designated PARTY representatives, or their respective designees, shall administer
the terms and conditions of this MOA on behalf of their respective PARTY. Each
of the persons signing below on behalf of a PARTY represents and warrants that
he or she is authorized to sign this MOA on behalf of such PARTY.
c. Relationship of the Parties. The PARTIES are, and shall remain at all times as to
each other, wholly independent entities. No PARTY to this MOA shall have power
to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of any other PARTY unless
expressly provided to the contrary by this MOA. No employee, agent, or officer of
a PARTY shall be deemed for any purpose whatsoever to be an agent, employee,
or officer of another PARTY.
d. Binding Effect. This MOA shall be binding upon, and shall be to the benefit of the
respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each PARTY; provided, however, no
PARTY may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOA without the
prior written consent of the other PARTIES.
e. Amendment. The terms and provisions of this MOA may not be amended,
modified, orwaived, except by an instrument in writing signed by all non -delinquent
PARTIES. For purposes of this subsection, a PARTY shall be considered
delinquent if that PARTY fails to timely pay an invoice as required by Section 10(c),
or withdraws pursuant to Section 10(b).
Law to Govern. This MOA is governed by, interpreted under, construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
HOA.105977274.1 `J
Packet Pg. 134
19.d
g. No Presumption in Drafting. The PARTIES to this Agreement agree that the
general rule that an Agreement is to be interpreted against the PARTY drafting it,
or causing it to be prepared shall not apply.
h. Severability. If any provision of this MOA shall be determined by any court to be
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOA shall
not be affected, and this MOA shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOA.
i. Entire Agreement. This MOA constitutes the entire agreement of the PARTIES
with respect to the subject matter hereof.
Waiver. Waiver by any PARTY to this MOA of any term, condition, or covenant of
this MOA shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant.
Waiver by any PARTY to any breach of the provisions of this MOA shall not
constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach
or violation of any provision of this MOA.
k. Counterparts. This MOA may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and
the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts shall have been
delivered to all PARTIES to this MOA.
All PARTIES have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation
of this MOA. Accordingly, this MOA shall be construed according to its fair
language. Any ambiguities shall be resolved in a collaborative manner by the
PARTIES and shall be rectified by amending this MOA as described in Section
11(e).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have caused this MOA to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of the date of signature
of the PARTIES:
HOA.105977274.1 10
Packet Pg. 135
19.d
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
In
MARK P. PESTRELLA
Director of Public Works
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
:r
Deputy
Date
Date
HOA.105977274.1
11
Packet Pg. 136
19.d
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
:0
MARK P. PESTRELLA Date
Chief Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
is
Deputy
Date
HOA.105977274.1
12
Packet Pg. 137
19.d
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Kenneth W. Striplin
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
In
Michael Villegas
Interim Director of Neighborhood Services
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph M. Montes
City Attorney
Date
HOA.105977274.1 13
Packet Pg. 138
19.d
EXHIBIT A
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed CIMP-EWMP
Table 1. Program Costs for Deliverables
2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 5 Years
Deliverables Estimated Estimated Estimated
Cost Cost Cost Cost2 Cost2 Cost2
Variable Costs'
Monitoring
Program Management
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
$94,881
$94,881
$94,881
$97,727
$100,659
$483,030
Dry Weather Monitoring
$44,871
$44,871
$44,871
$46,217
$47,604
$228,434
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Dry Weather Monitoring
$50,459
$50,459
$50,459
$51,973
$53,532
$256,882
Monthly Bacteria TMDL
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Wet Weather Monitoring
$66,872
$66,872
$192,481
$198,255
$204,203
$728,684
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Source ID Additional
Monitoring
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
$13,160
$13,160
$13,160
$13,555
$13,961
$66,996
Reporting
$226,418
$226,418
$226,418
$233,211
$240,207
$1,152,671
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
QAPP, Health and Safety
$6,660
$6,660
$6,660
$6,860
$7,066
$33,905
...........................................................................................................P....a.n
. ......................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Laboratory Analysis
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
$8,695
$8,695
$8,695
$8,956
$9,225
$44,265
Toxicity (Potential)
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
$16,441
$16,441
$16,441
$16,934
$17,442
$83,699
Monitoring Subtotal
$528,457
$528,457
$654,066
$673,688
$693,899
$3,078,567
New MS4 Permit, CIMP Update
................................................................................................................................
Project Management $44,160 I $44,160
10% Contingency3
$52,846
$52,846
$65,407
$67,369
$69,390
$307,857
Monitoring, Reporting,
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Meetings, CIMP Update
$581,303
$581,303
$763,633
$741,057
$763,288
$3,430,583
Subtotal
Table 2. Total Program Costs with City Administration Costs
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
5 Years
Cost
Cost
Cost
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Cost2
Cost2
Cost2
City of Santa Clarita
Contract Administration
(5%)
Total MOA Cost
$29,065 1 $29,065 1 $38,182 1 $37,053 1 $38,164 1 $171,529
$610,368 1 $610,368 1 $801,814 1 $778,110 1 $801,453 1 $3,602,112
1 - Variable costs are subject to reconciliation if actual expenditures are less than estimated.
2 - Contract is for an initial three (3) years, plus two (2) optional one (1) year extensions. Includes an estimated (three) 3 percent
inflationary cost adjustment.
3 - Contingencies may include: additional toxicity testing (upstream sites or Toxicity Identification Evaluations [TIEs]), additional
analysis to meet future screening requirements, additional DNA/RNA analysis, and/or special studies.
4 - The CITY will notify the PARTIES if actual expenditures are anticipated to exceed the cost estimates contained in Table 1 and
obtain written approval of such expenditures from all PARTIES
0
U
LL
U
Q
J
r
c
0
U
r
U
U
U)
Q
O
2
co
N
0
N
r
C
N
E
t
U
r
Q
HOA.105977274.1 14
Packet Pg. 139
19.d
Table 3. Cost Share Amount by Party and Percent Land Use
Party
Acres
Percent
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
Term
of Area
Total
County of
71,565
60%
$349,757
$349,757
$459,461
$445,878
$459,254
$2,064,107
Los Angeles
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
City of
Santa
47,080
40%
$230,092
$230,092
$302,263
$293,327
$302,126
$1,357,900
Clarita
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
LACFCD
(5%)
N/A
N/A
$30,518
$30,518
$40,091
$38,905
$40,073
$180,106
Total
118,645
100%
$610,368
$610,368
$801,814
$778,110
$801,453
$3,602,112
Table 4. Invoicing Schedule by Fiscal Year
Party
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
Estimated
Cost
2030-31
Estimated
Cost
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
County of Los
$349,757
$349,757
$459,461
$445,878
$459,254
Angeles
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
City of Santa
$230,092
$230,092
$302,263
$293,327
$302,126
Clarita
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
L A C F C D
$30,518
$30,518
$40,091
$38,905
$40,073
1 - Includes substantiated costs incurred by the CITY for implementing certain requirements of the CIMP
and MS4 Permit prior to execution of this MOA
2 - The CITY will notify the PARTIES if actual expenditures are anticipated to exceed the cost estimates
contained in Table 1 of Exhibit A and obtain written approval of such expenditures from all PARTIES
HOA.105977274.1 15
Packet Pg. 140
19.d
EXHIBIT B
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed CIMP-EWMP
Responsible Agencies Representatives
County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works
Stormwater Quality Division, 1 st Floor
1000 South Fremont Avenue, Building A9 East
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Hannah Dewey, Division Head
E-mail: hdewey@dpw.lacounty.gov
Phone: (626) 300-4665
2. Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Department of Public Works
Stormwater Quality Division, 1 st Floor
1000 South Fremont Avenue, Building A9 East
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Hannah Dewey, Division Head
E-mail: hdewey@dpw.lacounty.gov
Phone: (626) 300-4665
3. City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Michael Villegas, Interim Director of Neighborhood Services
E-mail: mvillegas@santa-clarita.com
Phone: (661) 255-4925
HOA.105977274.1 16
Packet Pg. 141
Revised September 2023
UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT GROUP
Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program (GIMP)
Submitted by. -
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
qr--iPr'
C'4LIF0RN\P
Table of Contents
1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
2 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Program Area ................................. 3
2.1 TMDLs............................................................................................................................
3
2.2 Existing Watershed Monitoring Programs......................................................................
6
3 Monitoring Program Elements and Objectives................................................................. 7
3.1 Receiving Water Monitoring..........................................................................................
7
3.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring......................................................................................
7
3.3 Non-Stormwater Outfall Program...................................................................................
8
3.4 Regional Studies.............................................................................................................
8
3.5 Optional Special Studies.................................................................................................
8
4 Monitoring Locations........................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Receiving Water Monitoring Sites..................................................................................
9
4.1.1 Mass Emission Receiving Water Site.........................................................................
9
4.1.2 TMDL Sites..............................................................................................................
10
4.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites............................................................................
12
4.3 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites...................................................................
15
5 Monitoring Frequency and Schedule................................................................................
17
5.1 Monitoring Frequency..................................................................................................
17
5.2 Timing of Sample Collection........................................................................................
17
6 Monitoring Parameters......................................................................................................19
7 Monitoring Procedures Overview.....................................................................................
24
7.1 Sampling Methods........................................................................................................
24
7.2 Analytical and QA/QC Procedures...............................................................................
25
7.3 Toxicity Monitoring and Toxicity Investigation Evaluations .......................................
25
8 Non-Stormwater Screening and Monitoring Program ...................................................
26
8.1 Initial NSW Outfall Screening Process.........................................................................
26
8.2 Identification of Outfalls with Significant Non-Stormwater Discharges .....................
27
8.3 Source Identification for Outfalls with Significant Non-Stormwater Discharge..........
27
8.4 Non-Stormwater Discharge Monitoring.......................................................................
28
8.5 NSW Outfall Re -Screening Determination..................................................................
29
9 Other CIMP Components..................................................................................................
30
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program i September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
9.1 Optional Special Studies...............................................................................................
30
9.2 Regional Studies...........................................................................................................
30
9.3 Non -LIMP Monitoring Data.........................................................................................
31
10 Reporting and Compliance Evaluation.............................................................................
32
11 Adaptive Management........................................................................................................
34
11.1 Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Program..........................................................
34
11.2 CIMP Revision Process................................................................................................
34
12 Schedule...............................................................................................................................
36
List of Figures
Figure 1. Water Bodies and Geographic Boundary of the USCRWMG.......................................
4
Figure 2. Overview of Receiving Water Monitoring Sites..........................................................
I I
Figure 3. Overview of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites ......................................................
14
Figure 4. Overview of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites ..............................................
16
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ii September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
List of Tables
Table 1.
Land Area within WMP and Other Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Areas .............
3
Table 2.
Summary of TMDLs for the USCR WMP.......................................................................
5
Table 3.
Summary of USCRWMG Receiving Water Monitoring Sites ......................................
12
Table 4.
Summary of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites.........................................................
13
Table 5.
Outfall Monitoring Location Land Use Comparison.....................................................
13
Table 6.
Summary of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site ..................................................
15
Table 7.
Monitoring Frequency...................................................................................................
17
Table 8.
Summary of MS4 Permit Required Monitoring Parameters .........................................
19
Table 9.
Summary of Water Quality Priority Characterization for Waterbodies Applicable to the
USCRWMGCIMP...............................................................................................................
20
Table 10.
Summary of Monitoring Program for USCRWMG....................................................
22
Table 11.
Source ID Endpoints for Outfalls with Significant NSW Discharges ..........................
28
List of Attachments
Attachment A. Watershed Management Plan Area Background
Attachment B. Monitoring Location Fact Sheets
Attachment C. Reporting and Data Management
Attachment D. Monitoring Procedures
Attachment E. Los Angeles County Flood Control District Background Information
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program iii September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
List of Acronyms
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CIMP
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
EO
Executive Officer
HUC
Hydrologic Unit Code
IDDE
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
LACFCD
Los Angeles County Flood Control District
MRP
Monitoring and Reporting Program
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSW
Non-Stormwater
RW
Receiving Water
RWL
Receiving Water Limitation
SCCWRP
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
SCR
Santa Clara River
SMC
Stormwater Monitoring Coalition
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
TIE
Toxicity Identification Evaluation
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
USCR
Upper Santa Clara River
USCRWMG
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
WBPC
Water Body -Pollutant Combination
WLA
Waste Load Allocation
WQBEL
Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program iv September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Executive Summary
This Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) document is a part of compliance with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) Permit No. R4-2021-0105 (Permit) was adopted July 23, 2021 by the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and became effective
September 11, 2021. Permit No. R4-2021-0105 replaced Permit No. R4-2012-0175, which was
effective from December 28, 2012 until September 10, 2021 (2012 Permit). Geographically, the
CIMP covers the portion of the Upper Santa Clara River in Los Angeles County and the City of
Santa Clarita that is regulated by the Permit (Figure ES-1). This area encompasses approximately
121,423 acres. The entire Santa Clara River watershed is approximately 1,634 square miles that
drains into the Santa Clara River, flowing from Los Angeles County, through Ventura County, and
terminating at the Pacific Ocean between the cities of Ventura and Oxnard. Nearly ninety percent
of the watershed is open space with approximately eighty-eight percent being undeveloped raw
land.
Included in the Permit are requirements for a Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP). The
MRP specifications are listed in Attachment E to the Permit. The stated Primary Objectives for the
MRP are listed in Part I.A of the MRP, as follows:
1. Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of discharges from the MS4 on
receiving waters.
2. Assess compliance with receiving water limitations (RWLs) and water quality -based
effluent limitations (WQBELs) established to implement total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) during wet weather and dry weather.
3. Characterize pollutant loads in MS4 discharges.
4. Identify sources of pollutants in MS4 discharges.
5. Assess the overall health and evaluate long-term trends in receiving water quality.
6. Measure and improve the effectiveness of pollutant controls implemented under the Permit.
Per the Permit, the Permittees have the option to develop a CIMP in lieu of the generic MRP as
original written in the Permit. The CIMP offers the option to utilize alternative approaches to meet
the Primary Objectives, if sufficient justification is provided. The CIMP is designed to provide the
information necessary to guide management decisions in addition to providing a means to measure
compliance with the Permit and is composed of five elements:
1. Receiving Water Monitoring
2. Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
3. Non -Storm Water (NSW) Outfall Screening and Monitoring
4. Optional Special Studies
5. Regional Studies
The CIMP provides a detailed discussion of the monitoring approaches for each element. The
Attachments to the CIMP describe additional background information and detail specific analytical
and monitoring procedures that will be used to comply with the specific MRP requirements. The
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES -I September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
monitoring program is summarized below and Table ES- 1 provides an overview of the
constituents and monitoring frequency at each monitoring location.
Site Selection:
1. The current mass emission station is maintained as a receiving water monitoring location
(SNTCLR 6_ME) to determine if RWLs are achieved, assess trends in pollutant
concentrations over time, and determine whether designated uses are supported. In
addition, the mass emission station is used to meet TMDL monitoring requirements and
evaluate attainment of or progress in attaining applicable TMDLs.
2. Two TMDL receiving water monitoring locations (Reach 5 and Reach 7) are also included.
TMDL monitoring locations are intended to meet TMDL monitoring requirements and
evaluate attainment of or progress in attaining the TMDL. Additionally, water quality
priorities in the applicable reach will also be monitored at these locations.
3. Three stormwater outfall monitoring locations, one per reach in the Upper Santa Clara
River, determined to be representative of the land uses and characteristics of the WMP
area.
4. One stormwater outfall monitoring location at Lake Elizabeth to identify whether or not
the WQBELs for the Lake Elizabeth Nutrient TMDL are being attained.
5. NSW outfall monitoring site determined through the NSW outfall screening and source
identification process required by the Permit.
Parameters to be Collected:
1. Parameters were determined based on the constituents required in the MRP and the water
quality prioritization process specific to each reach.
2. For the mass emission receiving water location, all constituents required to be monitored
in the MRP will be collected except those that have not been exceeded in the past five years
based on the evaluation conducted during the water quality prioritization.
3. Constituents identified as on the 303(d) list or exceeding water quality objectives within
the last five years during the water quality prioritization process will be monitored at the
TMDL receiving water monitoring location in the reach where the listing exists, or the
exceedances were observed.
4. All constituents identified in a TMDL monitoring requirement will be monitored at the
TMDL monitoring locations.
Monitoring Frequency
1. Monitoring frequency of three wet weather events and two dry weather events per year in
the receiving waters with corresponding three wet weather events at the stormwater outfall
sites and two dry weather events at the NSW outfall sites.
2. For Table E-6 and Category 3 constituents that are being monitored due to identification
through the water quality priority process as having observed exceedances in the receiving
water, the monitoring will be reduced or eliminated if continued exceedances are not
observed within two years. If needed, the monitoring of 303(d) listed constituents may
continue to support de -listing. Additionally, flow and field parameters will not be
discontinued unless flow and field parameters are the only parameters to be measured at
the site.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-2 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Other Elements
1. Current participation in the SMC bioassessment monitoring program. Please note that if
the SMC decides to discontinue bioassessment monitoring, the USCRWMG will review
the costs and resources needed to complete bioassessment monitoring and may decide to
complete the discontinued monitoring separate from this CIMP.
2. Optional special studies
3. Reporting and compliance evaluation procedures.
In addition, the CIMP outlines an adaptive management process that describes the procedures that
will be used to evaluate data gathered through the CIMP and modify the monitoring program in
response to the results.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-3 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
4`
`Castaic
Lake_
tGa�Aoo
let
r j
touquet-
eservoir
SCR.Reach 5?�'
.•;�
SCR Reach 6 SCR
. ,-...two.;_ �`.i
Reach 7_
South Fork
SCR
USCRWMG RW and Outfall Monitoring Sites
USCR WMP Group Boundary
r-
City of Santa Clarita
• �° �e,
`�� <,� -=
' Los Angeles County
TMDL Site
Mass Emission Site
•
J Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site
�. 0 0.5 1
2 3 4
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site
Miles
Figure ES-1. Receiving Water and Outfall Monitoring Sites for USCRWMG
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-4 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River PVatershed Management Group
Table ES-1. Summary of Proposed Monitoring Program for USCRWMG
Constituent
Annual Frequency (number wet events/number dry events)'
Santa Clara River
Lake
Elizabeth
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
w
LOCU
Uti
Z
U)
N
0
d
w
U
Z
U)
O
0
d
LO
N
0
d
Q
U
Z
U)
O
0
d
w
ca ca
J W
Flow and field parameters'
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
3/2
3/0
3/2
Pollutants identified in Table E-6 of the MRP
11/1,
4
4
Aquatic Toxicity
5
5
1/1
5
5
5
5
TSS
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
3/2
3/0
Hardness
6
6
6
6
6
3/2
3/0
Ammonia
3/2
3/0
3/2
Nitrate -Nitrogen
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
3/2
Nitrite -Nitrogen
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
3/2
Chloride
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
TDS
3/2
3/0
E. coli
3/12
3/07
3/12
3/07
0/2
3/12
3/07
Copper
3/2
3/0
Iron
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
3/2
3/0
Mercury
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
3/2
3/0
Selenium
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
3/2
Orthophosphate -Phosphorus
3/2
Total Phosphorus
3/2
Sulfate
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-5 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Annual Frequency (number wet events/number dry events)'
Santa Clara River
Lake
Elizabeth
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
W
Q
Constituent
W
�I
LOCU
til
W
Uti
N
U
O
LO
N
U
O
Z
0
Z
0
0
Z
0
ca
U)
d
U)
d
d
U)
d
J W
Cyanide
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
3/2
3/0
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
3/2
3/0
0/2
1. Annual frequency listed as number of wet/dry-weather events per year, respectively (e.g., 3/2 signifies three wet and two dry weather events per year).
2. Field parameters are defined as DO, pH, temperature, and specific conductivity.
3. Monitoring frequency only applies during the first year of monitoring. Table E-6 constituents will be monitored during the first significant wet event and one dry weather event that
occurs during the historically driest month (July). For pollutants that are at or below the Reporting Limit per Part II.H.7 of the MRP or the result is below the lowest applicable water
quality objective, additional monitoring will not be conducted (i.e., the monitoring frequency will become 0/0). For pollutants that are detected above the lowest applicable water
quality objective, additional monitoring will be conducted for the condition under which the exceedance occurred (wet or dry), at the frequency specified in the MRP (i.e., the
monitoring frequency will become 3/0 for a wet weather exceedance, 0/2 for a dry weather exceedance, or 3/2 for exceedances during both event types) beginning the next
monitoring year.
4. Table E-6 constituents will be monitored at each respective outfall if an exceedance is observed at SNCLR_6_ME during the corresponding weather condition during the Table E-6
screening event. The frequency at stormwater outfalls will become 3/0 and the frequency at NSW outfalls will become 0/2.
5. Aquatic toxicity outfall monitoring will follow the process outlined in Section 7.3.
6. Hardness will only be monitored when hardness -dependent metals monitoring is also being conducted during the same monitoring event.
7. This will be the initial monitoring frequency for this permit term. The monitoring frequency will change to weekly in November 2028 to evaluate attainment of the geometric mean
WQBELs.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-6 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
I Introduction
This Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) document for the Upper Santa Clara
River (USCR) Watershed Management Group (USCRWMG or Group) is a part of compliance
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) Permit No. R4-2021-0105 (Permit), which was adopted July 23, 2021 by the
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and became effective
September 11, 2021. This CIMP replaces the previous version of the CIMP that was implemented
to meet the requirements of Permit No. R4-2012-0175 (2012 Permit), which was effective from
December 28, 2012 until September 10, 2021.
The City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles Flood Control
District (LACFCD) comprise the USCRWMG. The geographic scope of this monitoring program
is the portion of the Upper Santa Clara River in Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita
that is regulated by the Permit (Figure 1), which is approximately 121,423 acres. This excludes
state and federal lands, such as the Angeles National Forest and the state parks lands. The entire
Santa Clara River (SCR) Watershed is 1,634 square miles that drains into the SCR, one of the last
remaining natural rivers in Southern California. Nearly ninety percent of the watershed is open
space with approximately eighty-eight percent being undeveloped land. At approximately 100
miles long, the SCR originates in the northern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles
County, continuing west through Ventura County, and entering the Pacific Ocean between the
cities of Ventura and Oxnard.
Flows in SCR reaches that pass through the CIMP area are predominantly storm water runoff
during wet weather months and water reclamation plant (WRP) effluent discharges in the drier
months. In years of significant rainfall, ephemeral springs and year-round flows exist in some
tributaries and natural upstream areas. Dry season flows tend to percolate into the subsurface in
the vicinity of Lang Station Road. The Valencia and Saugus WRPs' effluent tends to seep
underground near Castaic Creek. These flows resurface further west near Torrey Road. While
effluent volumes remain relatively consistent, their proportional contribution to flow in the river
is greater during dry conditions.
Most of the monitoring in the Upper Santa Clara River prior to implementation of the CIMP in
2015 had been done related to impacts of water reclamation plant discharge. Stormwater mass
emission station monitoring in Reach 6 provided the basis of MS4 monitoring prior to the 2012
Permit. The USCRWMG CIMP greatly expanded upon previous efforts to achieve the monitoring
goals in the 2012 Permit. Additionally, the CIMP fulfills all MS4 monitoring requirements for
effective Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) within the WMP area.
The purpose of the Permit is to ensure the MS4s in Los Angeles County are not causing or
contributing to exceedances of water quality objectives set to protect the beneficial uses in the
receiving waters. Included as Attachment E to the Permit are requirements for a Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MRP). The stated Primary Objectives for the MRP, listed in Part I.A of the
MRP, are as follows:
1. Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of discharges from the MS4 on
receiving waters.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program I September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2. Assess compliance with receiving water limitations (RWLs) and water quality -based
effluent limitations (WQBELs) established to implement TMDLs during wet weather
and dry weather.
3. Characterize pollutant loads in MS4 discharges.
4. Identify sources of pollutants in MS4 discharges.
5. Assess the overall health and evaluate long-term trends in receiving water quality.
6. Measure and improve the effectiveness of pollutant controls implemented under the
Permit.
Extensive default monitoring requirements are specified in the MRP. However, Permittees have
the option to develop a CIMP that may be used to specify alternative approaches for meeting the
Primary Objectives. The USCRWMG members have selected to continue the approach of
implementing a CIMP. This document provides a discussion of the monitoring locations
(Section 4), monitoring frequency (Section 5), monitoring parameters (Section 6), and general
monitoring procedures (Section 7). Section 8 details the non-stormwater screening program and
Section 9 outlines the other required components of the MRP. Section 10 outlines the reporting
procedures and Section 11 identifies the approach to adaptively managing this CIMP. Finally,
Section 12 provides a schedule for implementation of this CIMP during and following the
Regional Board's approval process. The attachments and appendices to this CIMP describe
additional background information and detail specific analytical and monitoring procedures that
will be used to implement this CIMP. The CIMP provides Standard Operation Procedures (SOP)
to meet the requirements detailed in MRP Part II.J.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 2 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management
Program Area
The USCRWMG is addressing MS4 water quality issues through a Watershed Management
Program (WMP) and CIMP process. The USCRWMG WMP area is displayed on Figure 1 along
with the named water bodies. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the land area within the USCR
watershed by USCRWMG member and by state and federal lands that are not included in the
WMP. Additional background information for the USCRWMG WMP area is presented in
Attachment A.
Table 1. Land Area within WMP and Other Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Areas
Watershed
WMP
Approximate
Area
Agency
Agency
Land Area
(acres)
Watershed
County of Los Angeles
Yes
153,361
Land within
City of Santa Clarita
Yes
47,138
WMP under
USCRWMG
Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Yes
N/A
Member
Jurisdiction
Approximate Area of WMP Agencies
200,499
Watershed
Lake Elizabeth Watershed
No
3,323
Land outside of
Forested Areas, Including Angeles National Forest
No
214,884
WMP and
and State Parks
NPDES Permit
Conditions
Approximate Total Upper Santa Clara River
418,706
Watershed
2.1 TMDLS
There are five TMDLs currently effective within the USCRWMG WMP area. Table 2 lists the
schedule and applicable interim and final WQBELs and all other final WQBELs and RWLs
established by TMDLs and identified in Attachment M of the Permit.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 3 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
N
Kern County A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
Ventura County �
i
i
f------ - - - -- -
'
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
11
Los Angeles County
6M
USCRWMG Jurisdictional Boundary
SCR Watershed Management Area
USCRWMG Boundary
City of Santa Clarita
Los Angeles County
- - - - County Boundary
Waterbody
Figure 1. Water Bodies and Geographic Boundary of the USCRWMG
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 4 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table 2. Summary of TMDLs for the USCR WMP
Weather
ScheduleCondition
TMDL
Waterbody
Constituent
Final WQBEL
2021
2023
2029
2032
Santa Clara
Salts
River
Reaches 5
Chloride
Dry
Fina12
100 mg/L
and 6'
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 5 exceedance
Dry
Final
days (daily sampling), 1 exceedance day
Santa Clara
(weekly sampling)
Bacteria
River
Reaches 5,
E. coli
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 126 MPN/100
6,7
Wet
Final
mL geomean WQBEL, 16 exceedance
days (daily sampling), 3 exceedance days
(weekly sampling), 126 geomean RWL
1-hr average 5.2 mg/L
Santa Clara
Ammonia
Fina12
30 day average 1.75 mg/L
Nutrients
River
Reaches 53
Nitrate and
Fina12
30 day average 6.8 mg/L
Nitrite
Tota I
Final
2,536.81b-N/yr
Lake
Lake
Nitrogen
Nutrients
Elizabeth
Total
Phosphorus
Final
436.7 lb-P/yr
Trash
Lake
Elizabeth
Trash
Fina12
Zero trash discharged
1. TMDL applies to Reaches 413, 5, and 6, but only WQBELs for Reaches 5 and 6 apply to the USCR WMP Group per Part III of Attachment M of the Permit.
2. Final applicable on Effective Date of Permit.
3. TMDL includes load allocations and monitoring requirements for other reaches, but wasteload allocations and WQBELs only apply to Reach 5.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program S September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2.2 EXISTING WATERSHED MONITORING PROGRAMS
Watershed monitoring programs implemented prior to the implementation of the USCRWMG
CIMP provided historical data and information that was used to support site selection and
identification of constituents for monitoring. Prior to CIMP implementation in 2016, there were
two existing monitoring programs and two proposed monitoring programs in the watershed that
monitor in the main stem of the Santa Clara River. Other discharger specific monitoring programs
exist in the watershed, but they do not contain monitoring in the main stem of the Santa Clara
River. The existing watershed monitoring programs include:
• MS4 Permit Monitoring (Mass Emission Monitoring)
• Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) Monitoring
• Proposed Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Plan'
• Proposed Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Water Quality Monitoring Plan
The CIMP is written to meet the monitoring requirements of the MS4 Permit. Coordination with
other monitoring programs currently occurs (e.g., coordination with Santa Clarita Valley LACSD)
and will continue at the discretion of the USCRWMG where data from other programs may be
used to fulfill USCRWMG monitoring requirements. Please note that the area commonly referred
to as "Newhall Ranch" which may discharge directly or indirectly to SCR Reach 5 has traditionally
not been included in the CIMP due to it development status. At this time, the Newhall Ranch area
is not included in this CIMP for compliance monitoring. At such time in the future that Newhall
Ranch requests to be a part of this plan (e.g., for land use monitoring), this CIMP may require
revision.
12006 Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Plan for the Santa Clara River Watershed was initiated in November
2003 by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD)
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 6 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
3 Monitoring Program Elements and Objectives
The primary purpose of this CIMP is to outline the process for collecting data to meet the goals
and requirements of the MRP. The CIMP provides information on sample collection and analysis
methodologies. The CIMP is designed to provide the USCRWMG the information necessary to
guide water quality program management decisions. Additionally, the monitoring will provide a
means to measure compliance with the Permit. The MRP, as outlined in the Permit, is composed
of the following elements:
1. Receiving Water Monitoring
2. Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
3. Non-Stormwater (NSW) Outfall Screening and Monitoring
4. Regional Studies
An overview of each of the monitoring types and their monitoring objectives are described in the
following subsections. Specifics regarding each monitoring element including monitoring
locations, frequency, parameters, and procedures are provided in the subsequent sections.
3.1 RECEIVING WATER MONITORING
The objectives of receiving water monitoring include the following:
• Determine whether the RWLs are being achieved including RWLs derived from TMDL
wasteload allocations (WLAs) that apply in -stream;
• Assess trends in pollutant concentrations over time, or during specified conditions; and,
• Determine whether the designated beneficial uses are fully supported as determined by
water chemistry, as well as aquatic toxicity and bioassessment monitoring.
The receiving water monitoring approach will provide data to determine whether RWLs are being
achieved in the Santa Clara River. Receiving water monitoring also allows for the assessment of
trends in pollutant concentrations over time. Receiving water monitoring consists of the mass
emission receiving water site designed to meet all receiving water permit requirements and
additional TMDL monitoring locations necessary to evaluate TMDL requirements and 303(d)
listings.
3.2 STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING
MS4 stormwater outfall monitoring supports two permit objectives, including:
• Determine whether a Permittee's discharge is in compliance with applicable stormwater
WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs that apply at the outfall; and,
• Determine whether a Permittee's discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of
RWLs that apply in -stream.
The stormwater outfall monitoring program is designed to characterize stormwater discharges
from MS4s at representative outfall locations within the USCRWMG WMP area. Three
stormwater outfall monitoring locations have been selected for the USCRWMG WMP area.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 7 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
3.3 NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL PROGRAM
Objectives of the NSW outfall monitoring include the following:
• Determine whether a Permittee's discharge is in compliance with applicable NSW
WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs that apply at the outfall;
• Determine whether a Permittee's discharge contributes to or causes an exceedance of
RWLs that apply in -stream; and,
• Assist a Permittee in identifying illicit discharges as described in Part VIILI of the Permit.
The NSW Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program is focused on dry weather discharges to
receiving waters from major outfalls. The program fills two roles. The first is to provide data to
allow determination of whether the NSW constituent load is adversely impacting the receiving
water. The second is to assess the Permit requirement to effectively prohibit NSW discharges.
To fulfill these two roles, two elements of the NSW program have been defined. The first is NSW
outfall monitoring to assess compliance with NSW WQBELs and the potential for a discharge to
cause or contribute to a RWL exceedance. The second element is the NSW screening program.
The NSW screening program is designed to be complimentary to the Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination (IDDE) Program. As outlined in the screening program included in Section 8, the
screening process identified NSW outfall monitoring locations which are monitored as part of the
NSW outfall monitoring program.
3.4 REGIONAL STUDIES
The MRP encourages participation in regional studies, including participation in the Southern
California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition (SMC) Regional Watershed Monitoring Program
(bioassessment) and Southern California Bight Project. The Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project (SCCWRP) oversees the SMC. LACFCD currently participates in the SMC
regional program. The SMC consists of stormwater agencies in southern California which
collaborate on stormwater quality related research projects of importance to the region with the
goal to enhance scientific knowledge and develop management solutions. More details on the SMC
program and workplan can be found at https://socalsmc.org//. Initiated in 2008, the SMC's
Regional Bioassessment Program is designed to run over a five-year cycle. Please note that if the
SMC decides to discontinue bioassessment monitoring, the USCRWMG will review the costs and
resources needed to complete bioassessment monitoring and may decide to complete the
discontinued monitoring separate from this CIMP.
3.5 OPTIONAL SPECIAL STUDIES
Special studies may be conducted if needed to answer specific questions and/or if localized water
quality concerns are identified through the CIMP and WMP process, helping the USCRWMG
better implement the WMP.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 8 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
4 Monitoring Locations
The CIMP monitoring locations consist of receiving water and outfall monitoring locations.
Monitoring locations have been identified to achieve the monitoring objectives.
4.1 RECEIVING WATER MONITORING SITES
The requirements in the MRP include receiving water monitoring sites at previously designated
mass emission stations, TMDL receiving water compliance points, and additional receiving water
locations representative of the impacts from MS4 discharges. To meet these requirements, two
types of monitoring locations are included in the CIMP.
• Mass Emission Receiving Water — The mass emission receiving water (ME) monitoring
location is intended to determine if RWLs are achieved, assess trends in pollutant
concentrations over time, and determine whether designated beneficial uses are fully
supported.
• TMDL Receiving Water— TMDL receiving water monitoring locations (TMDL) were
selected to evaluate attainment of, or progress in attaining the TMDL, and support
evaluating the status of 303(d) listings and other RWL exceedances specific to other
reaches in the watershed.
While not explicitly established in the MRP, the monitoring types proposed distinguish between
the different end goals of monitoring for specific constituents within specific water bodies in the
USCRWMG WMP area. ME monitoring provides a long-term record to understand conditions
within the USCRWMG WMP area for a robust suite of parameters. TMDL monitoring addresses
TMDL-related constituents and provides monitoring locations to assess other identified
exceedances of RWLs determined through an analysis of existing data.
The receiving water monitoring sites meet the MRP objectives and support an understanding of
potential impacts associated with MS4 discharges. However, as described in the MRP (Part I.C.1),
receiving water sites are intended to assess receiving water conditions. An exceedance of a RWL
at a receiving water site may not on its own indicate MS4 discharges caused or contributed to the
RWL exceedance. As the receiving water sites also receive runoff from non-MS4 sources,
including open space and other permitted discharges, the exceedance of a RWL may have been
caused or contributed to by a source other than the USCRWMG. A determination regarding
whether MS4 discharges caused or contributed to a RWL exceedance should be made using
receiving water monitoring data, representative outfall monitoring data, and other pertinent data
and information.
4.1.1 Mass Emission Receiving Water Site
One of the primary objectives of receiving water monitoring is to assess trends in pollutant
concentrations over time, or during specified conditions. As a result, the primary characteristic of
an ideal receiving water assessment monitoring site is a robust dataset of previously collected
monitoring results so that trends in pollutant concentrations over time, or during specified
conditions, can be assessed.
The Santa Clara MS4 Mass Emission Station, S29, will provide representative measurement of the
effects of the MS4 discharges on the receiving water for the upper portion of the watershed which
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 9 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
is covered by the USCRWMG WMP area. The location of the proposed ME monitoring site can
be seen on Figure 2. Photographs of the ME site and flow monitoring locations for the ME site
are included in Attachment B.
4.1.2 TMDL Sites
Within the USCRWMG WMP area, TMDL monitoring sites are required in SCR Reaches 5, 6,
and 7 to meet the requirements of the Bacteria TMDL. In addition, Part V.0 of Attachment M to
the Permit specifies WQBELs for the County of Los Angeles' discharges to Elizabeth Lake for
the Trash TMDL. The County of Los Angeles has installed six full capture devices to achieve the
final WQBELs. As such, per the requirements of the Trash TMDL, a monitoring site within Lake
Elizabeth is not required.
Given the Bacteria TMDL has the most stringent monitoring requirements, the in -stream site
selection has been centered on meeting the requirements of the Bacteria TMDL. The Bacteria
TMDL requires at least one monitoring location per impaired reach. As this CIMP details the
monitoring to be conducted within the USCRWMG WMP area and not the downstream reaches,
Reaches 5, 6, and 7 will each have one monitoring location. Table 3 lists the TMDL monitoring
sites and Attachment B provides a summary of the monitoring locations and associated attributes.
As the monitoring locations are situated upstream of one another, their drainage areas overlap, so
each monitoring location's drainage area includes the drainage areas for all upstream monitoring
locations. The sites are shown on Figure 2. Photographs of the TMDL sites are included in
Attachment B.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 10 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Lake
SCR�Reach 5
r
hi
6
SCR Rb�ah 7
Fork
R�
2 3 4
a Mile`',
e-,.0 7,. ,
USCRWMG Receiving Water Sites `>
USCR WMP Group Boundary
Los Angeles County
City of Santa Clarita
TMDL Site
Mass Emission Site
Figure 2. Overview of Receiving Water Monitoring Sites
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 11 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table 3. Summary of USCRWMG Receiving Water Monitoring Sites
Site ID
Water Body
Coordinates
Latitude Longitude
Monitoring
Type
ME TMDL
SNTCLR 5 R-E
SCR Reach 5
34.41856
-118.63569
X
SNTCLR 6 ME
SCR Reach 6
34.42611
-118.58583
X X
SNTCLR 7 R-A
SCR Reach 7
34.42403
-118.53956
X
4.2 STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING SITES
The Permit requires the identification of monitoring locations for stormwater outfall monitoring.
Outfall monitoring locations were selected to represent discharges upstream of the receiving water
monitoring location within each reach of the Santa Clara River. The primary criteria for selecting
monitoring sites was that the drainage areas to the sites are representative of the range of land uses
in the USCRWMG WMP area and provide accurate data for characterizing pollutant loads. While
the permit includes default requirements for one outfall site per HUC-12 within the Permittee's
jurisdiction, identification of alternative approaches is allowed as part of the CIMP development.
The site selection process was utilized to identify sites that are representative based on land uses
and characteristics of the development of the USCRWMG WMP area.
Monitoring one stormwater outfall site per HUC-12 in the USCRWMG WMP area results in an
overly burdensome number of stormwater outfall sites given the number of USCRWMG member
agencies. Also, the number of stormwater outfall sites being monitoring by the USCRWMG should
be relatively consistent with the number of stormwater outfall sites being monitored by other Los
Angeles County Watershed Management Groups of similar size and characteristics. As such, the
analysis was conducted to select one outfall per reach of the Santa Clara River with catchment
land uses that were similar in characteristics to the overall USCRWMG WMP area. In addition, to
determine whether the County's discharge to Lake Elizabeth is attaining applicable WQBELs in
Attachment M of the Permit for the Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrient TMDL, the analysis was
conducted to also select one outfall which discharges to Lake Elizabeth.
Once potential outfalls were identified with representative land uses, the sites were field checked
to ensure that it was safe and possible to monitor at the location. Potential sites were evaluated to
consider the jurisdiction draining to the site and the characteristics of the drainage area. Based on
the site selection process, one outfall was selected as representative of discharges upstream of each
reach of the Santa Clara River. The site selection approach is appropriate due to the similar land
uses between the two jurisdictions in the USCRWMG WMP. If representative samples cannot be
collected or conditions are prohibitive of safe sampling at any of the outfall sites, an alternative
previously evaluated site, which discharges upstream of the same reach of the Santa Clara River,
will be used in subsequent events. The Regional Board will be notified of any monitoring site
location changes in the Annual Report for the period when the change took place. Justification and
any relevant documentation, such as field photos, will be included.
The four selected outfall monitoring sites are presented in Figure 3 and summarized in Table 4.
Three of the outfall monitoring sites comprise the Permit -required stormwater outfall monitoring
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 12 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
program, the fourth outfall discharging to Lake Elizabeth will be monitored solely for the
determination of whether the County's discharge to Lake Elizabeth is attaining applicable
WQBELs in Attachment M of the Permit for the Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrient TMDL. A
summary of the land use for each of the sites as compared to the USCRWMG WMP area land use
is included in Table 5. Detailed maps and photographs of each of the stormwater outfall
monitoring sites are included in Attachment B.
The selected sites are representative of the land uses within the USCRWMG as shown in Table 5.
The data collected at the monitored outfalls will be representative of all MS4 discharge upstream
of the applicable receiving water monitoring locations. The resulting data will be applied to all
USCRWMG members represented by the site, regardless of whether a site is located within a
particular jurisdiction or received flow from that land area.
Table 4. Summary of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
Site ID / Drain
Name
Jurisdiction
the Outfall is
Located In
Owner/
Operator of
the Outfall
Site ID of
Downstream
RW Location
Latitude
Longitude
PD 2443
County
LACFCD
SNTCLR 5 R-E
34.49705
-118.61252
PD 0717
City
LACFCD
SNTCLR 6 ME
34.38176
-118.55110
PD 0494
City
LACFCD
SNTCLR 7 R-A
34.406088
-118.470119
Lake Elizabeth East
County
LACFCD
N/A'
34.66196
-118.38712
1. Lake Elizabeth outfall site will only be sampled to determine whether the County's discharge to Lake Elizabeth is attaining
applicable WQBELs in Attachment M of the Permit for the Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrient TMDL.
Table 5. Outfall Monitoring Location Land Use Comparison
Land Use
USCRWMG WMP Area
PD 2443
PD 0717
PD 0494
Residential
12%
26%
53%
88%
Commercial
12%
38%
11 %
12%
Open
76%
36%
36%
0%
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 13 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
•
t
L'ake
t
t�
v
. i
M
r .r
�
f s
.'rim � r""" �'
, ,..*' �, -.:
' L''� iM•�„'�,
.�..:
Bouquet
a
a
�V
Castaic-
M ry-
o
�u
R
I
r
o
e�
Gee
U
`o
Gap1°
�oc,
vet eb \
Gan
�opo,
SCR,Reach 5
*�6pa
f -`
�i
SCR Reach 6
SCR Reach 7,
South Fork
SAC R
0+'i►'�rs
/ j - „
J
a 00,
�
I
USCR WMP Group Boundary
Los Angeles County
�•
City of Santa Clarita
v
�. 0 0.5 1.�.
2 3 4
Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site
Miles
Figure 3. Overview of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 14 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
4.3 NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING SITES
As required by the permit, significant NSW discharge outfall monitoring locations have been
identified through the NSW outfall screening program described in Section 8. As discussed in
Section 8, monitoring for certain types of discharges was required after source investigations.
Significant NSW discharge outfall monitoring locations have been identified through the screening
and source investigation process and are presented in Figure 4 and summarized in Table 6.
Monitoring will continue to be conducted at this site to assess whether the discharge exceeds NSW
WQBELs and whether the discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of RWLs.
Table 6. Summary of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site
Jurisdiction
the Outfall Site ID of
Site ID /Drain is Located Owner/Operator of Downstream RW
Name In the Outfall Location Latitude Longitude
PD 2507 City City SNTCLR_6_ME 34.45467-118.55839
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 15 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
go
�
`o Gap`1°
OoJQ Gte
ion
�`,Cti
►way
`
SCR Reach 6 SCR Reach 7
South Fork
S,CR
lt'
� h t
11 It
- ? USCR WMP Group Boundary
Los Angeles County
r.
City of Santa Clarita
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site
Miles
Figure 4. Overview of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 16 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
5 Monitoring Frequency and Schedule
The MRP clearly defines the minimum required frequency and duration of receiving water and
outfall monitoring. This section provides the proposed frequency of monitoring, monitoring
schedule, and timing of sample collection for the CIMP.
5.1 MONITORING FREQUENCY
A general summary of the CIMP monitoring frequency for receiving water and outfall monitoring
is included in Table 7.
Table 7. Monitoring Frequency
Monitoring Program Element Dry Frequency Wet Frequency
Receiving Water
Stormwater Outfall
NSW Outfall
21 32
- 33
23
1. Aquatic toxicity to be monitored once per year during the historically driest month (July). E. coli to be monitored
monthly.
2. Aquatic toxicity to be monitored once per year during the first significant rain event of the water year.
3. Consistent with the requirements of Attachment G of the Permit, outfall aquatic toxicity monitoring may be
required. If triggered, outfall aquatic toxicity monitoring will be conducted concurrently with receiving water
aquatic toxicity monitoring. The monitoring frequency for E. coli at the stormwater outfall sites will change to
weekly in November 2028 to evaluate attainment of the geometric mean WQBELs.
Stormwater and non-stormwater outfall monitoring will be conducted concurrently with receiving
water monitoring to allow consideration of the potential impacts of the outfall discharges on the
receiving waters. Part IV.E of Attachment M of the Permit states the following related to geometric
mean monitoring associated with the Bacteria TMDL: "Geometric mean values shall be calculated
on each sample day based on a statistically sufficient number of samples (generally not less than
5 samples equally spaced over a 30-day period) consistent with the REC-1 bacteria objectives."
Since the geometric mean objectives require a statistically sufficient number of samples for
calculation, weekly sampling is needed to meet this Permit requirement. As per Part IV.E of
Attachment M of the Permit, the geometric mean objectives are not required to be met until March
2029 and there are no interim geometric mean limits. As such, weekly monitoring is not necessary
at this time.
5.2 TIMING OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
One of the dry weather monitoring events will occur during the historically driest month (July)
and the additional dry weather monitoring events will occur on days with less than 0.1 inch of rain
in the past 72 hours as measured from the nearest Los Angeles County controlled rain gauge within
the watershed. For dry weather toxicity monitoring, sampling will be conducted during the dry
weather monitoring event that occurs during the historically driest month.
The USCR watershed has vast areas of undeveloped land and significant areas of high infiltration
rates, which include the channels themselves, as most are natural, sandy -bottomed. As such, for
the first significant rain event of the water year, mobilization for wet weather sample collection
will be triggered by the prediction of a storm of I inch or greater with a 70 percent probability of
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 17 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
rainfall at least 24 hours prior to the event start time. Mobilization for subsequent wet weather
events will be conducted at the discretion of the USCRWMG based on 1) soil saturation conditions,
2) the forecasted intensity and duration of each storm, and 3) a consideration of the likelihood that
additional storms of sufficient strength will arrive later in the wet season so as to ensure that the
USCRWMG mobilizes for at least three wet weather events each water year. Wet weather
sampling events will be separated by a minimum of three days of dry conditions (<O.1 inch of rain
each day).
For NSW outfall monitoring events, samples will not be collected if the discharge from the outfall
is not hydrologically connected and not affecting the receiving water body. The NSW outfall site
is only being sampled to identify potential impacts on receiving waters. As a result, if the discharge
is not reaching the receiving water, collection of a sample is not necessary. The field conditions
will be documented and photographed to demonstrate that the outfall discharge is not reaching
receiving waters.
2 Because a significant storm event is based on predicted rainfall, it is recognized that this monitoring may be triggered
without 1" of rainfall actually occurring. In this case, the monitoring event will still qualify as meeting this requirement
provided that sufficient sample volume is collected to meet the data completeness objectives of this CIMP.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 18 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
6 Monitoring Parameters
The parameters outlined in the MRP to be monitored at receiving water and outfall monitoring
locations are summarized in Table 8. As part of the WMP, the USCRWMG have conducted a data
analysis to determine water quality priorities for the watershed (Attachment A). The water quality
priorities analysis is utilized in the CIMP to define the parameters that will be monitored at each
site. Since the analysis is reach -specific, different parameters will be monitored at different
monitoring locations. The analysis used to develop the parameters to be monitored at each site is
shown in Table 9. As previously mentioned, there are no MS4 discharges from the USCRWMG
to the Los Angeles River watershed. As a result, the Los Angeles River Watershed TMDLs for
which the City has allocations are not included in the analysis.
Table 8. Summary of MS4 Permit Required Monitoring Parameters
Stormwater Significant NSW
Classification Identified in Permit Receiving Water' Outfal12 Outfal12
Flow X X X
Field measurements: DO, pH, temp, X X X
specific conductivity
Hardness and TSS X X X
Pollutants assigned TMDL WLAs X X X
Pollutants identified for 303(d)-listed X X X
receiving waters
Aquatic Toxicity X X3 X3
Parameters in Table E-6 of the MRP X X4 X4
1. All parameters will be monitored at SNTCLR_6_ME. The parameters monitored at the other locations will vary based on the
water quality priority analysis.
2. The parameters monitored at the outfall locations are set equal to the constituents to be sampled in the reach to which the outfall
discharges for the first year of monitoring. After the first year, receiving water monitoring results and toxicity analysis will be used
to refine the constituents to be monitored.
3. Toxicity monitoring is only required when triggered by receiving water toxicity monitoring as outlined in Attachment D. Additional
constituents may be added based on the results of a TIE completed consistent with requirements of Attachment G of the Permit.
4. Parameters in Table E-6 are only monitored at outfall locations if they are identified as exceeding applicable water quality
objectives at SNTCLR_6_ME during the same weather condition (i.e., wet weather for stormwater outfalls and dry weather for
NSW outfalls).
All constituents that were identified as a water quality priority will be included in the monitoring
program.' Table E-6 of the MRP lists the constituents that will be monitored during the first
receiving water monitoring event for each weather condition. The constituents in Table E-6 that
are not water quality priorities will be assessed with applicable water quality objectives after the
first event. If the constituents are not detected during the first event at levels above applicable
water quality objectives, monitoring for those constituents will cease. Additionally, the monitoring
parameters may be modified throughout the monitoring process as outlined in the adaptive
management process (Section 11).
s Except for water quality priorities which are indicators of pollution and not pollutants (e.g., eutrophic conditions),
which have not exceeded in the past five years, and trash.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 19 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
A summary of the monitoring frequencies and parameters for each monitoring site are shown in
Table 10.
Table 9. Summary of Water Quality Priority Characterization for Waterbodies Applicable to the
USCRWMG CIMP
Class'
Constituent
Santa Clara River Reach
Lake Elizabeth
5
1 6
1 7
Category 1A: WBPCs with past due or upcoming (i.e., prior to July 2026) TMDL deadlines with
exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Bacteria
E. coli (dry)
F
F
F
Salts
Chloride
F
F
Category 1 B: WBPCs with future (i.e., beyond July 2026) TMDL deadlines and with exceedances
in the past 5 years.2
Bacteria
I E. coli (wet)
F
F
F
Category 1 D: WBPCs with past due, upcoming, or future TMDL deadlines without exceedances
in the past 5 years.2
Nutrients
Ammonia
F
3
Nitrate plus Nitrite
F
3
Total Nitrogen
F
Total Phosphorus
F
Trash
Trash
F
Category 2A: 303(d) Listed WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Metals
Iron
303(d)
L
L
Mercury
L
Category 213: 303(d) Listed WBPCs that are not a "pollutant" (e.g., toxicity).
Toxicity
Toxicity
303(d)
Other
pH
303(d)
Eutrophic
303(d)
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
L
303(d)
Temperature
303(d)
Category 2C: 303(d) Listed WBPCs without exceedances in past 5 yearsz or that could be
delisted.
Pesticides
Chlorpyrifos
D
Trash
Trash
303(d)
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 20 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Class'
Constituent
Santa Clara River Reach
Lake Elizabeth
5
6
7
Category 3A: WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Nutrients
Nitrate plus Nitrite
X
Metals
Copper
X
Mercury
X
X
Selenium
X
X
Other
Cyanide
X
X
Salts
TDS
X
Sulfate
X
X
Phthalates
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
X
PAHs
Indeo(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
X
Category 313: All other
WBPCs that are not a "pollutant" (e.g., toxicity).
Other
pH
X
X
X
Dissolved Oxygen
X
X
Temperature
X
Category 3C: All other WBPCs with exceedances in the past 10 years4, but without exceedances
in past 5 years.2
Metals
Copper
X
Zinc
X
Salts
TDS
X
Pesticides
PCBs
X
1. Pollutants are considered in a similar class if they have similar fate and transport mechanisms, can be addressed via the
same types of control measures, and within the same timeline already contemplated as part of the Watershed Management
Program for the TMDL.
2. Date range for the past 5 years is July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020.
3. Reach 6 is included in the Nutrients TMDL, but no WLAs for MS4 discharges are assigned for this waterbody in the TMDL.
4. Date range for the past 10 years is July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020.
F = Final TMDL
D = 303(d) listing that could now be delisted and has no exceedances in last 5 years
303(d) = 303(d) Listing for which data is unavailable to suggest that it could now be delisted
L = WBPC that meets the listing criteria, but is not currently on the 303(d) list
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring program 21 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table 10. Summary of Monitoring Program for USCRWMG
Constituent
Annual Frequency (number wet events/number dry events)'
Santa Clara River
Lake
Elizabeth
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
w
LOCU
Uti
Z
U)
N
0
d
w
U
Z
U)
O
0
d
LO
N
0
d
Q
U
Z
U)
O
0
d
w
ca
J W
Flow and field parameters'
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
3/2
3/0
3/2
Pollutants identified in Table E-6 of the MRP
11/1,
4
4
Aquatic Toxicity
5
5
1/1
5
5
5
5
TSS
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
3/2
3/0
Hardness
6
6
6
6
6
3/2
3/0
Ammonia
3/2
3/0
3/2
Nitrate -Nitrogen
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
3/2
Nitrite -Nitrogen
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
3/2
Chloride
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
TDS
3/2
3/0
E. coli
3/12
3/07
3/12
3/07
0/2
3/12
3/07
Copper
3/2
3/0
Iron
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
3/2
3/0
Mercury
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
3/2
3/0
Selenium
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
3/2
Orthophosphate -Phosphorus
3/2
Total Phosphorus
3/2
Sulfate
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 22 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Annual Frequency (number wet events/number dry events)'
Santa Clara River
Lake
Elizabeth
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
W
Q
Constituent
W
�I
LOCU
til
W
Uti
N
U
CDN
LO
U
1*
O
Z
0
Z
0
0
Z
0
ca ca
U)
d
U)
d
dI
U)
d
J W
Cyanide
3/2
3/0
3/2
3/0
0/2
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
3/2
3/0
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
3/2
3/0
0/2
1. Annual frequency listed as number of wet/dry-weather events per year, respectively (e.g., 3/2 signifies three wet and two dry weather events per year).
2. Field parameters are defined as DO, pH, temperature, and specific conductivity.
3. Monitoring frequency only applies during the first year of monitoring. Table E-6 constituents will be monitored during the first significant wet event and one dry weather event that
occurs during the historically driest month (July). For pollutants that are at or below the Reporting Limit per Part II.H.7 of the MRP or the result is below the lowest applicable water
quality objective, additional monitoring will not be conducted (i.e., the monitoring frequency will become 0/0). For pollutants that are detected above the lowest applicable water
quality objective, additional monitoring will be conducted for the condition under which the exceedance occurred (wet or dry), at the frequency specified in the MRP (i.e., the
monitoring frequency will become 3/0 for a wet weather exceedance, 0/2 for a dry weather exceedance, or 3/2 for exceedances during both event types) beginning the next
monitoring year.
4. Table E-6 constituents will be monitored at each respective outfall if an exceedance is observed at SNCLR_6_ME during the corresponding weather condition during the Table E-6
screening event. The frequency at stormwater outfalls will become 3/0 and the frequency at NSW outfalls will become 0/2.
5. Aquatic toxicity outfall monitoring will follow the process outlined in Section 7.3.
6. Hardness will only be monitored when hardness -dependent metals monitoring is also being conducted during the same monitoring event.
7. This will be the initial monitoring frequency for this permit term. The monitoring frequency will change to weekly in November 2028 to evaluate attainment of the geometric mean
WQBELs.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 23 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
7 Monitoring Procedures Overview
Detailed monitoring procedures are outlined in Attachment D. This section provides an overview
of the content of Attachment D and highlights key elements of the monitoring procedures.
7.1 SAMPLING METHODS
The MRP requires the following sampling methods:
Grab samples shall be taken for constituents that are required to be collected as such (e.g.,
pathogen indicator bacteria, oil and grease, cyanides, and volatile organics); in instances
where grab samples are generally expected to be sufficient to characterize water quality
conditions (primarily dry weather); and where the sample location limits Permittees' ability
to install an automated sampler.
Flow -weighted composite samples shall be taken for stormwater outfall samples.
For implementation of this USCR CIMP, grab samples will be collected at all monitoring locations
except the mass emission site (SNTCR_6_ME) where 3-hour time -weighted grab sample
composites will be collected, consistent with the protocols established during the previous permit
term. Grab samples will be collected for both wet and dry weather. Grab samples are justified for
this watershed as most of the receiving water limitation exceedances occur during dry weather.
Additionally, the chloride and nutrient TMDLs are only of concern during dry weather when grabs
can be considered representative, and bacteria samples are collected as grab samples. Therefore,
all TMDL sampling is appropriately characterized by grab samples. Additionally, most areas of
the USCRWMG consist of soft bottom, meandering channel(s), which would make installation of
composite sampling equipment difficult to locate and ensure flows were collected. Predicting flow
patterns is also difficult in this watershed as the river and tributaries remain dry for the majority of
the year. Manual composites are prohibitive due to the staffing, cost, and geographic spread of the
monitoring sites that would need to be visited multiple times within a single monitoring event.
Samples will be collected at all applicable outfall and receiving water monitoring locations during
a given event to the extent feasible to allow comparison between outfall and receiving water data.
For NSW outfall monitoring, samples will only be collected if the discharge is reaching the
receiving water. If the receiving water is not flowing or if the discharge is not reaching the
receiving water, then the non-stormwater discharge will not impact the receiving water and does
not need to be monitored.
The sampling methods in Attachment D include protocols for sample collection using grab and
composite sampling methods, flow measurement procedures, sample volume, time of sample
collection and other procedures outlined in the MRP to encompass any methods that may be used
during CIMP monitoring.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 24 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
7.2 ANALYTICAL AND QA/QC PROCEDURES
Attachment D also includes detailed analytical and Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures
using sufficiently sensitive analytical test methods that are consistent with 40 CFR Parts 122 and
136, and 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N for the analysis of pollutants.'
7.3 TOXICITY MONITORING AND TOXICITY INVESTIGATION EVALUATIONS
Detailed procedures for toxicity monitoring are outlined in Attachment D. This section provides
an overview of the process that will be used to evaluate receiving water toxicity data, conduct
toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs) if triggered, and initiate outfall monitoring if needed.
Dry weather toxicity monitoring will be conducted using Chironomus dilutus and wet weather
toxicity monitoring will be conducted using Hyalella azteca (refer to Attachment D Section 7.4.1
Sensitive Species Selection for additional details regarding the selection of the most sensitive
species). Toxicity samples will be collected at receiving water locations at the frequency outlined
in Table 7 and according to Table 10. The procedure outlined in Attachment D will be used to
evaluate the results of the sample, determine if a TIE is necessary, and utilize the results of a TIE
(if conducted) to adapt the monitoring program.
4 Unless another test procedure is required under 40 CFR subchapter N or is otherwise specified in the Permit for such
pollutants [40 CFR sections 122.410)(4) and 122.44(i)(1)(iv)] or if local commercial laboratories do not offer these
analytical test methods at the same sensitivity. If local commercial laboratories do not offer these analytical test
methods at the same sensitivity, the most sensitive analytical test method offered by local commercial laboratories
will be used.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 25 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
8 Non-Stormwater Screening and Monitoring Program
The NSW Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program is a multi -step process to identify and
address NSW discharges to the receiving waters. The outfall screening and monitoring process is
intended to meet the following objectives (Part VII.A of the MRP):
1. Develop criteria or other means to ensure that all outfalls with significant NSW discharges
are identified and assessed during the term of the Permit.
2. For outfalls determined to have significant NSW flow, determine whether flows are the
result of illicit discharges, authorized or conditionally exempt NSW flows, natural flows,
or from unknown sources.
3. Address illicit discharges in accordance with the IDDE Program (Part VIII.I of the Permit)
for appropriate action.
4. Prioritize monitoring of outfalls considering the potential threat to the receiving water and
applicable TMDL compliance schedules.
5. Based on existing screening or monitoring data or other institutional knowledge, assess
the impact of NSW discharges (other than identified illicit discharges) on the receiving
water.
6. Conduct monitoring and assess the monitoring dataa to determine the impact of NSW
discharges on the receiving water.
7. Conduct monitoring or other investigations to identify the source of pollutants in NSW
discharges, consistent with the IDDE Program.
8. Use results of the screening process to evaluate the conditionally exempt NSW discharges
identified in Parts III.A.2 and III.A.3 of the Permit and take appropriate actions pursuant
to Part III.A.5.c of the Permit for those discharges that have been found to be a source of
pollutants.
9. Maximize the use of Permittee resources by integrating the screening and monitoring
process into existing monitoring and/or screening efforts.
8.1 INITIAL NSW OUTFALL SCREENING PROCESS
The NSW outfall screening and monitoring program began in 2015 with a field check of all major
outfalls as defined in the permits to gather the necessary field information. During the field
screening, outfalls were observed during dry weather, at least 72 hours after a rain event of 0.1
inches or greater. The following information was gathered:
1. Date, Time, Weather
2. Photos of outfall and receiving water using a GPS-enabled camera
3. Coordinates of outfall
4. Physical descriptions of outfall, site condition, and accessibility
5. Discharge characteristics, such as odor and color
6. Presence of flow
7. Receiving water characteristics
5 Major outfalls defined as 36" or greater (or equivalent with drainage area of more than 50 acres) or 12" or greater
(or equivalent with drainage area of 2 acres or more) that drain areas zoned as industrial.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 26 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
After the initial event, NSW outfalls where flow greater than a trickle was observed during the
initial screening event were revisited for two more events. During the second and third screening
events, all of the information listed above, in addition to visual field estimates of flow, was
gathered. Additional outfall screening events were conducted in 2017, 2018, and 2020. In total,
the County screened 60 major outfalls and the City screened 218 storm drain outlets in 2015.
8.2 IDENTIFICATION OF OUTFALLS WITH SIGNIFICANT NON-STORMWATER
DISCHARGES
The three outfall screening events were used to define the outfalls that require no further
assessment and outfalls with significant NSW discharges. Outfalls were noted as requiring "No
Further Assessment" if:
1. No flow is observed from the outfall.
2. The source is confirmed to be from NPDES permitted, categorically exempt essential flow
or natural flow, or
3. Flow is categorized as not significant.
The data collected during the outfall screening process, along with other information about the
outfall catchment area, was used to determine which outfalls observed to be flowing during the
screening process were categorized as having "significant discharge." Many factors were taken
into consideration when determining significant outfall discharges and include the following
criteria:
Proximity of the outfall to the main stem of the Santa Clara River where TMDLs apply.
Outfall has persistent flows, meaning flow was observed on two or more of the three
screenings at a rate "greater than a garden hose".'
o Flows were categorized as follows:
■ No Flow/Wet (0 gpm)
■ Trickle (<2 gpm)
■ Garden Hose (2-10 gpm)
■ Greater than Garden Hose (>10 gpm)
Characteristics of the catchment area, including but not limited to, presence of permitted
discharges in the area, land use characteristics, and previous IDDE (formerly Illicit
Connection/Illicit Discharge) results.
Outfalls with significant NSW discharge were designated in an inventory.
8.3 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION FOR OUTFALLS WITH SIGNIFICANT NON-
STORMWATER DISCHARGE
The screening and source identification components of the program are used to identify the
source(s) and point(s) of origin of the NSW discharge. Based on the list of major outfalls with
6 Inaccessible outfalls observed to have persistent flows "greater than garden hose" at the nearest downstream
receiving water or nearest upstream manhole would also be considered significant.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 27 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
significant NSW discharges, investigations were conducted to identify the source(s) or potential
source(s) of non-stormwater flows.
Part VII.A.2 of the MRP requires Permittees to classify the source investigation results into the
following endpoints:
A. Illicit discharges: If the source is determined to be an illicit discharge, the Permittee must
implement procedures to eliminate the discharge consistent with IDDE requirements
(Permit Part VIII.I) and document actions.
B. Non -essential Conditionally Exempt: If the source is determined to be a non -essential
conditionally exempt discharge, the Permittee must conduct monitoring consistent with
Part VII.E of the MRP to determine whether the discharge should remain conditionally
exempt or be prohibited.
C. Essential Conditionally Exempt: If the source is determined to be a conditionally exempt
essential discharge, the Permittee must document the source.
D. Authorized: If the source is determined to be an NPDES permitted discharge or a discharge
subject to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), the Permittee must document the source.
E. Natural flows: If the source is determined to be natural flows, the Permittee must document
the source.
F. Unknown sources: If the source is unknown, the Permittee must conduct monitoring
consistent with Part VII.E of the MRP.
Source investigations were conducted using site -specific procedures based on the characteristics
of the NSW discharge. Investigations included:
• Identifying permitted discharges within the catchment area.
• Identifying if the flow is from a channelized stream or creek.
• Following dry weather flows from the location where they are first observed in an upstream
direction along the conveyance system.
• Compiling and reviewing available resources including past monitoring and investigation
data, land use/MS4 maps, aerial photography, and property ownership information.
• Gathering field measurements to characterize the discharge.
The outfall shown in Table 11 was found to have significant non-stormwater discharges. Source
investigations were conducted and the outfall endpoint was found to be Non -Essential,
Conditionally Exempt.
Table 11. Source ID Endpoints for Outfalls with Significant NSW Discharges
Major Outfalls with
Jurisdiction Significant NSW Discharges Source Identification Endpoint
City PD 2507 Non -Essential, Conditionally Exempt
8.4 NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE MONITORING
As identified in Table 11, the outfall has been determined to convey significant NSW discharges
where the source investigations concluded that the source is attributable to non -essential
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 28 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
conditionally exempt discharges (Endpoint B) and must be monitored. Constituents to be
monitored, monitoring frequency, and monitoring procedures are outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 7
respectively.
Monitoring for NSW discharges will be more dynamic than either the receiving water or
stormwater outfall monitoring. As non-stormwater discharges are addressed, monitoring at the
outfall will cease. Thus, the number and location of outfalls monitored has the potential to change
on an annual basis. The process for adapting monitoring locations and frequency is presented in
Section 11.
8.5 NSW OUTFALL RE -SCREENING DETERMINATION
Part VII.D.2.b of the MRP requires that Los Angeles County Permittees consider dry weather
receiving water monitoring data downstream of the outfalls and other relevant information to
determine if re -screening is necessary for any of the previously screened outfalls that did not have
significant NSW discharge. As detailed in the previous sections, previously screened outfalls that
did not have significant NSW discharge were re -screened in 2017, 2018, and 2020 and no
significant NSW discharges were observed at any of the outfalls. As such, additional re -screening
is not warranted during this Permit term. Additionally, the dry weather trends analysis conducted
by the USCRWMG and presented within their Annual Reports has repeatedly shown that the dry
weather receiving water quality and non-stormwater outfall quality is almost entirely either
improving or staying the same for all dry weather monitoring locations. Given the lack in
variability in receiving water and non-stormwater outfall quality between monitoring events,
conducting a re -screening for any of the previously screened outfalls that did not have significant
NSW discharge is unnecessary at this time. As such, additional re -screening is not warranted
during this Permit term, but re -screening will be conducted when trends in receiving water quality
or non-stormwater outfall water quality indicate that dry weather conditions within the watershed
may be changing.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 29 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
9 Other CIMP Components
9.1 OPTIONAL SPECIAL STUDIES
The USCRWMG is not proposing to implement any optional special studies at this time. As
previously noted, special studies may be conducted if needed to answer specific questions and/or
if localized water quality concerns are identified through the CIMP and WMP process, helping the
USCRWMG better implement the WMP. Please note that the Regional Board may implement a
special study in relation to nutrients in Lake Elizabeth which would be outside of the scope of the
monitoring conducted by the USCRWMG as part of this LIMP. In the previous version of this
CIMP, two optional special studies were identified, and data were collected to answer the questions
which were the impetus of those studies.
The first study was included to support characterization of receiving water quality and
identification of sources for a USCRWMG identified water quality priority (pyrethroids in
Bouquet Canyon). The USCRWMG collaborated with the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR) regarding pesticides in Bouquet Canyon. The City supported the CDPR
implementation of the Stream Pollution Trends (SPoT) Monitoring Program, which conducts
statewide monitoring to provide information on the condition of California waterways with respect
to trends in sediment toxicity and contamination. SPoT data are currently used by the California
State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards to assess the levels to which aquatic
life beneficial uses are supported in California streams and rivers. Monitoring events were
conducted by CDPR to narrow down the possible drainage areas that are causing or contributing
to the issue, and also to characterize the pesticide types and their relative concentrations. Finally,
the City has also been working with the Pyrethroids Working Group and CDPR on outreach.
Training seminars have been held for pesticide applicators to re -enforce proper application as well
as for them to provide guidance to residents for proper aftercare to prevent pesticide runoff to the
storm drain. Outreach included television commercials regarding the harmful impacts that
pesticide usage can have on fish, advertisements in local magazines, billboards, posters in the area,
and message -banners. The City also participates in the CASQA Our Water, Our World Program
to train garden centers and hardware store employees on integrated pest management and reducing
overall pesticide use.
The second study was included to support characterization of Reach 7 upstream of the
USCRWMG WMP area. Assessing natural bacteria contributions from relatively uninhabited,
rural areas is consistent with optional special studies outlined in the Bacteria TMDL. As presented
in the updated USCR WMP (June 2021), alternative measures may be needed to address E. coli
impairments. Multiple bacteria source investigations have been conducted by the Permittees
regarding the source of E. coli exceedances and the studies have indicated that non-anthropogenic
or natural sources are the main cause of exceedances. With a significant number of projects having
been implemented in Reach 7 and consistently dry outfalls to Reach 7, no special studies are
currently proposed at this time.
9.2 REGIONAL STUDIES
The MRP identifies two regional studies: the SMC Regional Watershed Monitoring Program and
the Southern California Bight Program. SCCWRP oversees the SMC. LACFCD currently
participates in the SMC regional program. The SMC consists of stormwater agencies in southern
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 30 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
California which collaborate on stormwater quality related research projects of importance to the
region with the goal to enhance scientific knowledge and develop management solutions. More
details on the SMC program and workplan can be found at hLtps://socalsmc.org//. Initiated in 2008,
the SMC's Regional Bioassessment Program is designed to run over a five-year cycle. Please note
that if the SMC decides to discontinue bioassessment monitoring, the USCRWMG will review the
costs and resources needed to complete bioassessment monitoring and may decide to complete the
discontinued monitoring separate from this CIMP.
9.3 NON-CIMP MONITORING DATA
Water quality data collected through other monitoring programs (e.g., NPDES WRP) in the
watershed will be incorporated to the extent practicable. The extent practicable will be dictated by
the cost of gathering and compiling information from outside programs. Data reported by these
entities will be evaluated for suitability for inclusion in the CIMP database. If the data are deemed
to be suitable, they will be included in the CIMP database.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 31 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
10 Reporting and Compliance Evaluation
Attachment C details the procedures for managing and reporting data to meet the goals and
objectives of this CIMP and the Permit. The details contained in Attachment C serve as a guide
for ensuring that consistent protocols and procedures are in place for successful data management
and reporting. Data management procedures include data review, verification, and validation.
Annual monitoring reports are required to be submitted by December 15 of each year. The annual
monitoring reports will cover the monitoring period of July 1 through June 30. The annual
monitoring reports will include the following:
• Monitoring Results
• Certification
• Summary of Sampling Events
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control
• Summary of Exceedances
• Summary of Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
Trash Report Forms will also be submitted annually with each Permittee's Annual Report Form
(Sections 2 through 8 of Attachment H of the Permit) and shall report on compliance with the Lake
Elizabeth Trash TMDL and Trash Discharge Prohibitions using the Trash TMDL Reporting Form
and/or Trash Discharge Prohibition Reporting Form (contained in Attachment I of the Permit or a
revised form approved by the Regional Board).
The WMP Progress Report Form (Section 1 of Attachment H of the Permit) will be submitted on
a semi-annual basis no later than December 15 and June 15 of each year for the preceding January
1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31 reporting period, respectively.
Analytical data reports are required to be submitted on a semi-annual basis and will include the
following:
• Receiving water and outfall monitoring results (includes QA/QC results);
• Corresponding sample dates and monitoring locations;
• Exceedances applicable to WQBELs, RWLs, or aquatic toxicity thresholds; and
• Precipitation data from the nearest rain gauges to the sampling locations.
Semi-annual data reports will be submitted with the annual report and six months prior to the
annual report (June of each year). The June data reports will cover the monitoring period of July
1 through December 31 and the December data reports will cover the monitoring period of January
1 through June 30.
Although not required to be submitted, the outfall-based database will be maintained and include
the information required in Part VIII.A.1-9 of Attachment E of the Permit.
Furthermore, if any of the authorized or conditionally exempt essential NSW discharges are
determined to be a source of pollutants that causes or contributes to an exceedance of applicable
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 32 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
limitations in Part IV, Part V, and Attachments K through S of the Permit, Part III.A.8 of the Permit
requires that the Regional Board be notified within 30 days of any such determination.
The compliance evaluation will be conducted as outlined in Attachment C. However, the analysis
will also take into consideration the relationship between the types of monitoring and the pathways
for determining compliance outlined in the Permit. As a result, while the Mass Emission station
will serve to help evaluate the receiving water objectives and support an understanding of potential
impacts associated with MS4 discharges, an exceedance of a RWL at a receiving water site does
not on its own represent an exceedance of a RWL that was caused by or contributed to by MS4
discharges as these sites also receive runoff from non-MS4 sources, including open space and other
permitted discharges. Additionally, consistent with Part X of the Permit, an exceedance at an
outfall location when the corresponding downstream receiving water location meeting the RWLs
does not constitute a Permit violation. Finally, reporting of compliance will be accomplished by
evaluating the data per Part X of the Permit.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 33 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
11 Adaptive Management
The adaptive management process will be utilized on an annual basis to evaluate the CIMP and
update the monitoring requirements as necessary. Several monitoring elements are dynamic and
may require modifications to the monitoring sites, frequency, or parameters. This section lays out
a range of possible modifications to this CIMP and the process for CIMP revision and update.
11.1 INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
The monitoring specified in the CIMP is in part dynamic. The specified monitoring program is
based on analysis of existing data and the MRP requirements. As CIMP monitoring occurs, more
information will be gathered that will require modifications to the procedures outlined in the
CIMP. Every year, an evaluation of the CIMP will be conducted to identify potential modifications
resulting from the following:
• Source investigations determine that MS4 discharges are not a source of a constituent.
• TIEs result in the identification of additional constituents that need to be monitored.
• Additional outfall monitoring is needed in response to RWL exceedances.
• NSW outfall sites may change as discharges are addressed.
• Monitoring data demonstrates that water quality objectives are not being exceeded in the
receiving waters.
The results from the monitoring are meant to tie into the WMP as feedback for the water quality
changes resulting from control measures implemented by the Group Members. So additional
changes may be considered during the evaluation based on the control measure implementation
needs.
11.2 CIMP REVISION PROCESS
This CIMP identifies a range of sampling that will likely result in data that will require changes to
ensure monitoring meets the requirements and intent of the MRP and supports WMP
implementation. However, since many of those potential changes are identified in this CIMP, it
should not be necessary to obtain Regional Board approval of modifications already considered in
this CIMP to ensure timely implementation of appropriate modifications to monitoring. These
changes are outlined in this section. Changes identified in this section will be discussed in the
annual monitoring report and implemented starting no later than the first CIMP monitoring event
of the next monitoring year (i.e., the first event after July 1 of the year following the annual
monitoring report submittal), including:
1. Adding constituents, increasing monitoring frequency, or adding sites as a result of any
requirements in the MS4 Permit (e.g., TIE results), procedures outlined in the CIMP, or to
further support meeting the monitoring objectives.
2. Discontinuing monitoring for Table E-6 constituents that are not otherwise identified for
monitoring and are at or below the Reporting Level (RL) listed in Attachment D or the
result is below the lowest applicable water quality objectives in the first year of monitoring
following approval of this revised CIMP.
3. Discontinuing monitoring of any non-TMDL constituent at a specified site if there are two
years with no exceedances of non-303(d) listed constituents (e.g., Table E-6 and Category
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 34 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
3 constituents) observed for the same condition (i.e., wet or dry weather). Flow and field
parameters will not be discontinued unless flow and field parameters are the only
parameters to be measured at the site.
4. Changing the monitoring procedure from grabs to manual composite or automated
sampling.
5. Modifying the methods for consistency with USEPA method requirements or to achieve
lower detection limits.
6. Changing analytical laboratories.
7. Modifications to sampling protocols resulting from coordination with other watershed
monitoring programs.
8. Coordination with additional non-USCRWMG agencies and/or incorporation of entities
into the USCRWMG CIMP.
Should additional modifications be identified that are not specified in this section that would be
major changes to the approach (e.g., moving or removing a receiving water location), the
modifications will be proposed in a separate letter to the Regional Water Board requesting
Executive Officer (EO) approval of the change. Upon receipt of written approval from the EO, this
CIMP will be updated and a revised CIMP will be provided to the Regional Board.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 35 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
12 Schedule
Monitoring conducted under the currently approved CIMP will continue to be conducted during
the CIMP update approval process. Implementation of modifications will commence after
approval by the EO of the Regional Board. For monitoring of constituents identified in Table E-6
of the MRP during wet weather, the screening event will be conducted during the first significant
storm event of the first monitoring year following Regional Board approval of this revised CIMP,
so long as that approval comes at least 30 days prior to the first storm event of the season. If not,
the Table E-6 wet weather screening event will be conducted during the next storm event that is at
least 30 days after approval. For monitoring of constituents identified in Table E-6 of the MRP
during dry weather, the screening event will be conducted during the first July following Regional
Board approval of this revised CIMP, so long as that approval comes at least 30 days prior to the
end of July. If not, the Table E-6 dry weather screening event will be conducted during the next
July.
Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 36 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment A: Watershed Management Plan Area
Background
1 WATERSHED BACKGROUND
The following subsections summarize the hydrology, geographic boundaries, and existing
monitoring programs in the watershed management area covered by the CIMP.
1.1 Watershed Management Program Area Overview
The WMP addresses the portion of the Upper Santa Clara River in Los Angeles County and the City
of Santa Clarita that is regulated by the Permit. State and federal lands, including the Angeles
National Forest and the state parks lands, are outside Permit regulation and, therefore, not included
in the scope of the WMP. The Upper Santa Clara River watershed covered by the WMP encompasses
approximately 199,811 acres. The entire Santa Clara River Watershed is 1,045,760 acres, which
includes the land area within Ventura County as well as national forest and state park land.
Reaches 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Santa Clara River receive drainage from the USCRWMG members.
Please note that the area commonly referred to as "Newhall Ranch" which may discharge directly or
indirectly to SCR Reach 5 has traditionally not been included in the CIMP due to it development
status. At this time, the Newhall Ranch area is not included in this CIMP for compliance monitoring.
At such time in the future that Newhall Ranch requests to be a part of this plan (e.g., for land use
monitoring), this CIMP may require revision. Receiving waters within the WMP area include:
1. Santa Clara River Reaches 5, 6, 7, and 8;
2. South Fork Santa Clara River;
3. Agua Dulce Canyon Creek;
4. Mint Canyon Creek;
S. Bouquet Canyon Creek;
6. Dry Canyon Creek;
7. San Francisquito Canyon Creek; and
8. Castaic Creek.
Although there are a number of lakes with 303(d) listings in the WMP area, there are no MS4
discharges to those lakes, with the exception of Lake Elizabeth. As a result, only Lake Elizabeth is
covered in the CIMP. Likewise, there are no MS4 discharges to the Los Angeles River (LAR) from the
portion of the City of Santa Clarita located in the LAR watershed. As such, monitoring in the LAR is
not proposed in the CIMP.
1.1.1 Participating Permittees
The participating Permittees in the USCRWMG include the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District, and the City of Santa Clarita. These Permittees are collectively
referred to as the USCRWMG or Group Members. Although the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District has MS4 facilities within the WMP boundaries, it does not have jurisdiction over land use.
Approximate land area and land use summaries for the Group Members are listed in Table A-1.
Revised CIMP A-1 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-1. Land Area within WMP and Other Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Areas
Watershed
WMP
Approximate
Area
Agency
Agency
g y
Land Area
(acres)'
Watershed
County of Los Angeles
Yes
153,361
Land within
City of Santa Clarita
Yes
47,138
WMP
under
Permittee
Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Yes
N/A
Jurisdiction
Approximate Area of WMP Agencies
200,499
Lake Elizabeth Watershed
No
3,323
Watershed
Land outside of
Forested Areas, Including Angeles National Forest
No
214,884
WMP and
and State Parks
NPDES Permit
Conditions
Approximate Total Upper Santa Clara River
418,706
Watershed
1.1.2 Geographic Boundaries
The WMP area is primarily located in the Santa Clara River Valley within the northern section of Los
Angeles County as shown in Figure A-1. The majority of the WMP area is located within the Santa
Clara River Watershed Management Area (WMA); however, an extremely small rural and
undeveloped area (0.09 square miles or 0.233 square kilometers) within the LAR watershed is
located within the City of Santa Clarita and is included in the WMP area. There are no storm drains,
gutters, catch basins, or other types of MS4 infrastructure in the portion of the City within the LAR
watershed. When it rains, the single paved road within this area sheds water by sheet -flow to the
surrounding open space.
Like the portion of the City of Santa Clarita in the LAR watershed, other areas within the City and
County in the Santa Clara River watershed are rural and undeveloped, and do not have MS4
infrastructure. While these areas are included in the WMP because they are within the Permittees'
jurisdictions, these areas do not contain MS4 infrastructure that can generate discharges to
receiving water bodies. In some cases, the areas are primarily natural open space.
The jurisdictional boundaries for the Group Members are shown on Figure A-2 along with the
major water bodies and reach breaks. Additionally, the HUC-12 subwatershed boundaries and land
use for the USCRWMG are shown in Figures A-3 and A-4, respectively.
Revised CIMP A-2 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
°^rrr, d'�no'ar;tya
arrtjj tiara PJverWMA Location
saF&a C4ara PR"r VVMA
rAminty ftiardwf
.._® tela�nr rr�ways
h9 °Iris
Li55 AftoWaa Courtly r
Y .
P
a.
Figure A-1. Location of the WMP Group within the Los Angeles Basin
Revised CIMP A-3 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
N
Kern County A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
Ventura County '
------------'
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
6
Los Angeles County
L- -
USCRWMG Jurisdictional Boundary
SCR Watershed Management Area
® USCRWMG Boundary
City of Santa Clarita
Los Angeles County
- - - - County Boundary
Waterbody
Figure A-2. Water Bodies and Geographic Boundary of the USCRWMG.
Revised CIMP A-4 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
N
Kern County A
-------------------------------
Los Angeles County
� ym Jei• e�
OoJQ Oe
SCR
hh5Reach SC-R Reach
6
South Fork
Ventura County
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
USCRWMG HUC-12 Boundaries
SCR Watershed Management Area
USCRWMG Boundary
HUC-12 Subwatershed Boundaries
City of Santa Clarita
Los Angeles County
- - - - - County Boundary
Waterbody
Figure A-3. HUC-12 Boundaries of the USCRWMG.
Revised CIMP A-5 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
N
Kern County A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County
i
ik Lake" o �, 5 ,
a
Y H
WI U
boo ee
r * v h
•
4
A
i
Ventura County ;
,
,
,-
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
USCRWMG Land Use
SCR Watershed Management Area - Commercial
USCRWMG Boundary
Industrial
City of Santa Clarita
- Transport., Comm., & Utilities
Los Angeles County
Open Space
- - - - County Boundary
- Agriculture
Waterbody
Vacant
SCAG Land Use 2016
Water
Residential
Unknown
Figure A-4. USCRWMG Land Use.
Revised CIMP A-6 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2 TMDL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Historical watershed monitoring programs provided data and information used to support site
selection and identification of constituents for monitoring during the development of the 2015
CIMP. Such programs included MS4 Permit monitoring (Mass Emission monitoring), monitoring
conducted by LACSD, the Santa Clara River Watershed -Wide Monitoring Program, the Newhall
Ranch Water Quality Monitoring Program, and the TMDL Monitoring Plans. Elements of these
monitoring programs were incorporated into the 2015 CIMP.
One primary objective of CIMP monitoring is fulfilling the monitoring requirements established in
TMDL Basin Plan Amendments (BPAs) and/or in Part XV of the MRP, which establishes reporting
requirements and associated monitoring requirements in association with adopted TMDLs in the
region. Attachment M to the Permit lists the TMDLs directly applicable in the WMP area. The
applicable TMDLs are listed in Table A-2. The water bodies within the WMP area with established
TMDLs are highlighted in Figure A-5.
Revised CIMP A-7 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-2. TMDLs Applicable to the WMP Area.
Effective Date or
Regional Board
TMDL
EPA Approval Date
Resolution Number
Santa Clara River Nitrogen Compounds TMDL
3/23/2004
2003-011
(Nitrogen TMDL)
5/4/2005
2004-004
TMDL for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River
6/12/2008
2006-016
(Chloride TMDL)
4/6/2010
2008-012
4/28/2015
R14-010
Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash
3/6/2008
2007-009
TMDL (Trash TMDL)
6/1/2022
R19-005
TMDL for Indicator Bacteria in the Santa Clara River
Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 (Bacteria TMDL)
3/21/2012
R10-006
TMDL for Nutrients in the Santa Clara River Lakes
(Elizabeth Lake, Lake Hughes, and Munz Lake)
6/27/2017
R16-006
(Lakes Nutrients TMDL)
Revised CIMP A-8 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Kern County
• ,---•-•-------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County
Ventura County
Lake
Elizabeth
SCR a�
n5 Reach G
GRReac ' 6
5
SCR Reach 7
a
a
as
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
Bouquet
Reservoir
USCR WMP Group Impaired Waters
SCR Watershed Management Area
USCRWMG Boundary
City of Santa Clarita
Los Angeles County
- - - - County Boundary
i I USCR WMA MS4 ME Site
TMDL Waterbody
Figure A-5. TMDLs Within the WMP Area
Revised CIMP A-9 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2.1 Santa Clara River Nitrogen Compounds TMDL
The Permit includes WQBELs for discharges to Santa Clara River Reach 5 (Los Angeles Regional
Basin Plan Reach Designation) for Total Ammonia and Nitrate-N plus Nitrite-N. Allocations and
monitoring requirements are included for other reaches in the TMDL, but wasteload allocations and
WQBELs only apply to Reach S. A summary of the monitoring requirements identified in the TMDL
BPA is presented in Table A-3. Compliance with the Nitrogen TMDL has been achieved in the Santa
Clara River since the addition of nitrification/denitrification processes at the Saugus and Valencia
Water Reclamation Plants. Per the TMDL Staff Report, the MS4 is considered a minor source of
nitrogen compounds.
Table A-3. Summary of Nitrogen TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the USCRWMG
Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location
Total Ammonia, Dry Weather
Not Specified Water Santa Clara River Reach 5
Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N Wet Weather
2.2 TMDL for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River
The Chloride TMDL applies to Reaches 413, 5, 6, and 7, but the Permit only lists reach specific
WQBELs for chloride in Reach 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. In addition to chloride, the TMDL
also requires monitoring of total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfate. A summary of the monitoring
requirements identified in the TMDL is presented in Table A-4.
Table A-4. Summary of Chloride TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the USCRWMG
Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location(s)
Chloride, TDS, Not Specified Dry weather Water Santa Clara River
and Sulfate Reach 5 and 6
2.3 Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Nutrients TMDL
For the Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Nutrients TMDL, the only TMDL waterbody to
which USCRWMG members discharge is Lake Elizabeth. The Permit includes WQBELs for
discharges to Lake Elizabeth for total nitrogen and phosphorus. A summary of the monitoring
requirements identified in the TMDL BPA is presented in Table A-5.
Table A-5. Summary of Lake Nutrients TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the
USCRWMG
Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location
Total Nitrogen Dry Weather
Total Phosphorus Not Specified Water Lake Elizabeth
Wet Weather
Revised CIMP A-10 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2.4 Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDLs
For the Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDLs, the only TMDL waterbody to
which USCRWMG members discharge is Lake Elizabeth. Compliance with the Lake Elizabeth Trash
TMDL has been met through the installation of full capture devices on all conveyances that
discharge to Lake Elizabeth at the MS4 catch basins.
2.5 Santa Clara River Indicator Bacteria TMDL
The Bacteria TMDL states that compliance with interim WLAs must be assessed using in -stream
monitoring while compliance with final WLAs must be assessed using in -stream and outfall
monitoring. A summary of monitoring requirements is presented in Table A-6.
Table A-6. Summary of Bacteria TMDL Monitoring Requirements applicable to the USCRWMG
Constituent Frequency Condition Matrix Location(s)
Adequate to assess Dry Weather
Santa Clara River
E. coli compliance with the 30-day Water
geometric mean objectives Wet Weather Reach 5, 6, and 7
2.6 Summary of TMDL Compliance Points
The City of Santa Clarita is identified in Attachment J of the Permit as being a responsible party for
the Los Angeles River Bacteria TMDL. However, as discussed in the geographic scope, the City has
no MS4 discharges to the Los Angeles River. Table A-7 lists the schedule and applicable final
WQBELs and RWLs established by TMDLs and identified Attachment M of the Permit.
Revised CIMP A-11 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-7. Summary of TMDLs for the USCRWMG
Weather
Schedule
TMDL
Waterbody
Constituent
Condition
Final WQBEL
2021
2023
2029
2032
Salts
Santa Clara River
Chloride
Dry
Fina12
100 mg/L
Reaches 5 and 6
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 5 exceedance days
Dry
Final
(daily sampling), 1 exceedance day (weekly
sampling)
Bacteria
Santa Clara River
E. coli
Reaches 5, 6, 7
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 126 MPN/100 mL
geomean WQBEL, 16 exceedance days (daily
Wet
Final
sampling), 3 exceedance days (weekly sampling),
126 geomean RWL
1-hr average 5.2 mg/L
Ammonia
Fina12
Santa Clara River
30-day average 1.75 mg/L
Nitrogen
Reaches 53
Nitrate and
Fina12
30-day average 6.8 mg/L
Nitrite
Total
Final
2,536.8 lb-N/yr
Lake
Nitrogen
Nutrients
Lake Elizabeth
Total
Final
436.7 lb-P/yr
phosphorus
Trash
Lake Elizabeth
Trash
Fina12
Zero trash discharged
1. TMDL applies to Reaches 413, 5, and 6, but only WQBELs for Reaches 5 and 6 apply to the USCR WMP Group per Part III of Attachment M of the Permit.
2. Final applicable on Effective Date of Permit.
3. TMDL includes load allocations and monitoring requirements for other reaches, but wasteload allocations and WQBELs only apply to Reach 5.
Revised CIMP A-12 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
3 WATER QUALITY PRIORITIES
Water quality priorities for the WMP area are based on TMDLs, the 303(d) List, and monitoring
data. Based on available information and data analysis, WBPCs were classified in one of the three
Permit defined categories. WBPCs are categorized as Category 1 if they are subject to established
TMDLs, Category 2 if they are on the 303 (d) List or have sufficient exceedances to be listed, and
Category 3 if exceedances have been observed but are not frequent enough to meet the threshold
for placement on the 303(d) List.
Subcategories were identified and created to refine the prioritization process. Those pollutants with
measurements exceeding water quality objectives are further evaluated and categorized based on
the frequency, timing, and magnitude of exceedances. The subcategories are listed in Table A-8. The
WBPCs are placed in the respective subcategories in Table A-9. Please see the WMP for additional
details on the determination of water quality priorities.
Table A-8. Details for Water Body -Pollutant Combination Subcategories
Category
Water Body -Pollutant Combinations (WBPCs)
Category 1A: WBPCs with past due or upcoming (i.e., prior to July 2026) TMDL
deadlines with exceedances in the past 5 years.
Category 1 B: WBPCs with future (i.e., beyond July 2026) TMDL deadlines and with
exceedances in the past 5 years.
1
Category 1C: WBPCs addressed in USEPA TMDL without a Regional Board Adopted
Implementation Plan.
Category 1 D: WBPCs with past due, upcoming, or future TMDL deadlines without
exceedances in the past 5 years.
Category 2A: 303(d) Listed WBPCs or WBPCs that meet 303(d) Listing requirements
with exceedances in the past 5 years.
Category 2B: 303(d) Listed WBPCs or WBPCs that meet 303(d) Listing requirements
2
that are not a "pollutant"' (i.e., toxicity).
Category 2C: 303(d) Listed WBPCs or WBPCs that meet 303(d) Listing requirements
without exceedances in past 5 years or that could be delisted.
Category 21): 303(d) Listed WBPCs for which MS4 discharges are not causing or
contributing. 2
Category 3A: All other WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.
Category 3B: All other WBPCs that are not a "pollutant"' (i.e., toxicity).
3
Category 3C: All other WBPCs that have exceeded in the past 10 years, but not in past
5 years.
Category 31): WBPCs identified by the USCR WMP Group Members.
1. While pollutants may be contributing to the impairment, it currently is not possible to identify the specific pollutant/stressor.
2. Pollutants in this category are in reaches within the WMP area that do not receive MS4 discharges but are included in the
WMP for completeness and to acknowledge all 303(d) listings within the watershed. There are no compliance
expectations with Category 2D WBPCs.
Revised CIMP A-0 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-9. Summary of Water Quality Priority Characterization for Waterbodies Applicable to the
USCRWMG CIMP
Class'
Constituent
Santa Clara River Reach
Lake
Elizabeth
5
6
7
Category 1A: WBPCs with past due or upcoming (i.e., prior to July 2026) TMDL deadlines with
exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Bacteria
E. coli (dry)
F
F
F
Salts
Chloride
F
F
Category 1 B: WBPCs with future (i.e., beyond July 2026) TMDL deadlines and with exceedances in the
past 5 years.2
Bacteria
E. coli (wet)
F
F
F
Category 1 D: WBPCs with past due, upcoming, or future TMDL deadlines without exceedances in the past
5 years.2
Nutrients
Ammonia
F
3
Nitrate plus Nitrite
F
3
Total Nitrogen
F
Total Phosphorus
F
Trash
Trash
F
Category 2A: 303(d) Listed WBPCs with exceedances in the
past 5 years.2
Metals
Iron
303(d)
L
L
Mercury
L
Category 213: 303(d) Listed WBPCs that are not a "pollutant" (e.g., toxicity).
Toxicity
Toxicity
303(d)
Other
pH
303(d)
Eutrophic
303(d)
Organic Enrichment/Low DO
303(d)
Temperature
303(d)
Category 2C: 303(d) Listed WBPCs without exceedances in past 5 years2 or that
could be delisted.
Pesticides
Chlorpyrifos
I D
Trash
I Trash
303(d)
Category 3A: WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Nutrients
Nitrate plus Nitrite
X
Metals
Copper
X
Mercury
X
X
Selenium
X
X
Other
Cyanide
X
X
Salts
TDS
X
Sulfate
X
X
Phthalates
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
X
PAHs
Indeo(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
X
Category 313: All other WBPCs that are not a "pollutant" (e.g., toxicity).
Other
pH
X
X
X
Dissolved Oxygen
X
X
Temperature
X
Revised CIMP A-1 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Class'
Constituent
Santa Clara River Reach
Lake
Elizabeth
5
6
7
Category 3C: All other WBPCs with exceedances in the past 10 years", but without exceedances in past 5
years.2
Metals
Copper
X
Zinc
X
Salts
TDS
X
Pesticides
PCBs
X
1. Pollutants are considered in a similar class if they have similar fate and transport mechanisms, can be addressed via
the same types of control measures, and within the same timeline already contemplated as part of the Watershed
Management Program for the TMDL.
2. Date range for the past 5 years is July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020.
3. Reach 6 is included in the Nutrients TMDL, but no WLAs for MS4 discharges are assigned for this waterbody in the
TMDL.
4. Date range for the past 10 years is July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020.
F=Final TMDL
D=303(d) listing that could now be delisted and has no exceedances in last 5 years
303(d)= 303(d) Listing for which data is unavailable to suggest that it could now be delisted
L=WBPC that meets the listing criteria, but is not currently on the 303(d) list
Changes to the subcategorization of WBPCs may be made as additional data are collected by the
CIMP and as BMP implementation continues. WBPCs may be moved to a lower priority category or
removed from the list of water quality priorities if the frequency of exceedances decreases over
time. WBPCs may also be moved to a higher priority category or added to the list of water quality
priorities if the frequency of exceedances increases. Due to a high rate of infiltration of the natural
sandy soil, many segments of the Santa Clara River are dry with the exception of storm flows. Many
discharges from outfalls to the river and its tributaries do not reach the main stem of the river due
to this naturally high infiltration rate. Future monitoring will assess if and how different portions of
the watershed are hydrologically connected during dry weather and minor storm events.
WBPCs identified as water quality priorities are included in this CIMP and monitored as follows:
Category 1 WBPCs: All WBPCs required to be monitored by a TMDL through either a Basin
Plan Amendment approved by the Regional Board or through monitoring requirements
specified in the MRP will be monitored as part of this CIMP, except as described below:
o Total nitrogen and total phosphorus in Lake Elizabeth are not prioritized at this time
given that the final TMDL deadline is in 2032 and that additional efforts are
underway to evaluate the contribution of various sources in the watershed. These
activities are expected to improve understanding of the fate and transport of total
nitrogen and total phosphorus in the Lake Elizabeth watershed.
Category 2 WBPCs: All WBPCs that are included on the current 303(d) list will be
monitored unless they could now be delisted and have no exceedances in the last five years.
Category 3 WBPCs: All WBPCs for which there are insufficient data to indicate impairment
in the receiving water according to the Listing Policy, but which have exceeded applicable
receiving water limitations in the past five years and for which MS4 discharges may be
causing or contributing to the exceedance will be monitored as part of this CIMP.
Revised CIMP A-2 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment B: Monitoring Location Fact Sheets
Monitoring location fact sheets are presented for the receiving water, stormwater outfall, and
non-stormwater outfall monitoring sites identified in Section 4 of the CIMP. The monitoring
location fact sheet for each site contains relevant information regarding the site's location (e.g.,
coordinates), a general description, aerial satellite imagery, and a photograph. For the
stormwater outfall locations, land use information and a map of the catchment area are also
included.
4 RECEIVING WATER SITES
The receiving water monitoring sites in the USCRWMG's WMP area and the type of monitoring
conducted at each site are summarized in Table B-1. Section 4 of the CIMP details the site
selection process which resulted in the selection of the identified sites. Please note that the area
commonly referred to as "Newhall Ranch" which may discharge directly or indirectly to SCR
Reach 5 has traditionally not been included in the CIMP due to it development status. At this
time, the Newhall Ranch area is not included in this CIMP for compliance monitoring. At such
time in the future that Newhall Ranch requests to be a part of this plan (e.g., for land use
monitoring), this CIMP may require revision.
Table B-1. Summary of Receiving Water Monitoring Sites
Site ID
Water Body
Coordinates
Latitude Longitude
Monitoring Type
ME TMDL
SNTCLR 5 R-E
SCR Reach 5
34.41856
-118.63569
X
SNTCLR 6 ME
SCR Reach 6
34.42611
-118.58583
X X
SNTCLR 7 R-A
SCR Reach 7
34.42403
-118.53956
X
RWA— Receiving Water Assessment
Revised CIMP B-1 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
4.1 Receiving Water Assessment Site
Waterbody Waterbody Historical
Name Type Site ID Site ID Site Type Latitude Longitude
SCR Reach Main Stem SNTCLR 6 ME MS4 ME ME, TMDL 34.42636-118.58655
6 — — S29
General Description: ME and TMDL monitoring site located at the downstream end of Reach 6 at The
Old Road. This site coincides with the S29 Mass Emission Station. This location is also upstream of the
Valencia WRP's discharge location. Samples from this monitoring location characterize water quality in
Reach 6, including approximately 80% of the discharge from the urbanized areas of the USCRWMG
(i.e., MS4 discharges).
14
4
k�
w
n
�
,
. lie. �Y�
° •Y M r
SNTCLR
6 ME Aerial View
SNTCLR 6 ME Ground -Level View
8
Revised CIMP B-2 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
4.2 Santa Clara River Reach 5 TMDL Site
Waterbody Waterbody Historical
Name T e Site ID Site ID Site Type Latitude Longitude
SCR 5 each Main Stem SNTCLR-5—R-E LARCE D TMDL 34.41856-118.63569
General Description: TMDL monitoring site located downstream of the City of Santa Clarita
approximately in the middle of Reach 5. This monitoring site coincides with a current LACSD monitoring
location, which is approximately three miles downstream of the Valencia WRP's discharge point.
Samples from this monitoring site characterize water quality of Reach 5, including approximately 90%
of the MS4 discharges.
SNTCLR 5 R-E Aerial View
a
+n
Y
SNTCLR 5 R-E Ground -Level View
Revised CIMP B-3 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
4.3 Santa Clara River Reach 7 TMDL Site
Waterbody Waterbody Historical
Name T e Site ID Site ID Site Type Latitude Longitude
SCR Reach Main Stem SNTCLR_7_R-A LARCASD TMDL 34.42403-118.53956
General Description: TMDL monitoring site located at the downstream end of Reach 7. The site
coincides with a LACSD receiving water monitoring location just upstream of the Saugus WRP
discharge point. Samples from this monitoring location characterize water quality of Reach 7, including
approximately 40% of the MS4 discharaes.
i
R`
�'' •. J' � `� •�� � `. , �"�
,may
�q Y
4
t'.
SNTCLR 7 R-A Aerial View
SNTCLR 7 R-A Ground -Level View
Revised CIMP B-4 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
5 STORMWATER OUTFALL SITES
The stormwater outfall monitoring sites in the USCRWMG's WMP area are summarized in
Table B-2. Section 4 of the CIMP details the process which resulted in the selection of the
identified sites.
Table B-2. Summary of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
Jurisdiction the
Owner/
Site ID of
Site ID / Drain
Outfall is
Operator of
Downstream
Name
Located In
the Outfall
RW Location
Latitude
Longitude
PD 2443
County
LACFCD
SNTCLR_5_R-E
34.49705
-118.61252
PD 0717
City
LACFCD
SNTCLR_6_ME
34.38176
-118.55110
PD 0494
City
LACFCD
SNTCLR_7_R-A
34.406088
-118.470119
Lake Elizabeth
County
LACFCD
N/A'
34.66196
-118.38712
East
1. Lake Elizabeth outfall site will only be sampled to determine whether the County's discharge to Lake Elizabeth is attaining
applicable WQBELs in Attachment M of the Permit for the Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrient TMDL.
Revised CIMP B-5 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
5.1 PD 2443
Wate mod Location Dram Size Site Type Latitude Longitude
Name
SCR County P D 2443 Winches SW Oulaf I 34.49705 g]8.e]252
Reach 5
General Description: mor wa%roulafl monitoringsi! discharging to Cas*E Creek just
downstream G Lake Hughes Road. The P D 2443 drain monitoring site only receives drainage for m the
County. Land uses include: 28 percent residential, 38 percent commercial, and ae percent open sac.
�. .
! `
A >
< \ ■
PD2 4 aerial View
■
^\
PD2 4 Ground -Level View
Revised Ggp &6 Septem»E2023
Uprk,mcl m merest 8e Management Group
Figure B-1. Catchment Land Use for PD 2443
Revised CIMP B-7 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
5.2 PD 0717
Waterbody Location Drain Name Size Site Type Latitude Longitude
SCR Reach City PD 0717 120 inches SW Outfall 34.38176-118.55110
6
General Description: Stormwater outfall monitoring site discharging to the South Fork Santa Clara River
between Lyons Avenue and Orchard Village Road. The PD 0717 drain monitoring site only receives
drainage from the City. Primary land use types include: 53 percent residential, 11 percent
commercial/industrial, and 36 percent open sace.
10
PD 0717 Aerial View
a
PD 0717 Ground -Level View
Revised CIMP B-8 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
5.3 P D 0494
HUC-12 Location Drain Name Size Site Type Latitude Longitude
Sand City PD 0494 78 inches SW Outfall 34.406088-118.470119
Canyon
General Description: SW outfall monitoring site discharging to an unnamed tributary to Santa Clara River
Reach 7 and is located on Friendly Valley Golf Course which is privately owned and located near the
intersection of Via Princesa and Sierra Highway. The PD 0494 drain monitoring site only receives drainage
from the City. Primary land use types include: 88% residential; 12% commercial/industrial; and less than 1
percent open sace.
n
u
a
i
M ,
PD 0494 Aerial View
Imp
PD 0494 Ground -Level View
Revised CIMP B-10 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
"I � . t., � , rw. - � '
1
st4
AA
1 .
."
�, � �,, -, � to �, � . {� i .•�R,�,
�✓ r *r
4
. A I
r✓ ,�� ",` Land Use t
y, =" Commercial
i r
. t.
+R
t Open Space
Residential
,fµ.•'� Y Outfall Drainage Area
Outfall Monitoring Site
Storm Drain System
N ,.
0 0.05 0.1
t' mmmmm=== Miles
Figure B-3. Catchment Land Use for PD 0494
Revised CIMP B-11 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
5.4 Lake Elizabeth (East)
Waterbody Location Drain Name size site Type Latitude Longitude
Lake County Unknown 30 inches SW Outfall 34.66196-118.38712
Elizabeth
General Description: Stormwater outfall monitoring site discharging to Lake Elizabeth just west of the
intersection of Ranch Club Road and Montello Drive. The Lake Elizabeth (East) drain monitoring site
onlv receives drainaae from the Countv.
Lake Elizabeth (East) Aerial View
Lake Elizabeth (East) Ground -Level View
Revised CIMP B-12 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
6 NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL SITES
The non-stormwater outfall monitoring sites in the USCRWMG's WMP area are summarized in
Table B-3. Section 4 of the CIMP details the process which resulted in the selection of the
identified sites.
Table B-3. Summary of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site
Jurisdiction
Owner/
Site ID of
Site ID / Drain the Outfall is
Operator of
Downstream RW
Name Located In
the Outfall
Location Latitude Longitude
PD 2507 City
LACFCD
SNTCLR_6_ME 34.45467-118.55839
Revised CIMP B-14 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
6.1 PD 2507
Waterbody Location Drain Name Size Site Type Latitude Longitude
Santa Clara
08 NSW
River Reach City PD 2507 inches Outfall 34.45467-118.55839
6
General Description: Non-stormwater outfall monitoring site discharging to San Francisquito Creek
just south of Village Circle Drive.
10 7.«
A
INK
�y In
PD 2507 Aerial View
f r�
i � Alf
A
PD 2507 Ground -Level View
Revised CIMP B-15 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
i .• -- �<. . A."y � p. � i .af �� '�- r � .;fir' v ", 4� yo,��i
f• ,I s
�r - w�J .r G "�wr i aai � � _♦ � 1e J{ .c' :�l T�fAr !'.•
� � " ' •!_r�� +���.��X f� ` � ''E 1 i 'sc \,�kvs�,,w.'�i*z',��`�3
w
ti Py �i y
Lt s jr,
d1w � `f.7Gs\ �-YM�
I'}i \ L may. Y y�'•M
w' �� ` \� `;'-CJ \` 1i`•��rjy., r'm§. ..' `•, �:�''r $'fir/' �'1•..
y"y y, i. „T� ��•i-
.41
0'���`}b�!.'.r
�+i;
G�}yJ � � _ p�j �'t ~ �� r '�'• � �� ' fir#' � � �1�.-.C.�y �1,"ll � �R �dr � .lr'
�'��
/•per. !•� _ `� r f'a` '�,. �."i• ,_�' :y� � ,y;� �..� r �*}��y
yo d�:'�
1i'. Lrl .+ � rr iy '►y-�k�;y ►► � y l�,ji '� -� � v� i �'rr,,.
Alm
jog
"� .■ ter. ►y .t .}.�'�•T{Tv �`;,
���..� lT: r�•rMj _+ 4�i'�r� ` ).Ar � � N" d. ♦ ' �! ��'. s" i�":.a{7 .�lj�, ..�
,, � �'¢;� Ft ��� �. , ��� "' �'l � � a _ fir,.; �' I�'+''T y +►��'.�+�.. !.�,
Outfall Monitoring Site
Outfall Drainage Area
Storm Drain System
Waterbody
} r ♦ � r'4Y� "ir ; 'v rrJ � � .y 1,1 .,;jrT �,��G?rL i•'". luy ��y/J7,� �, � � 4.
NN�6��'.Ir ' �1,� � :;"-R'i ( ;?t' -. ,a� �{` � �.. w � �: •.' � wig .;,+ ..p ,�, T ' w1
7
- � ��i1-siTt`.'E� .��� - ba► �� '�'�i "e3.�' "d'y yti x;�a � �•1,j`
�.�.' � � V•.: �' .r.. �:r.x �._.__ x's�p'Fi.�" ,�, r`"�-'' y�i�:+ r �i
x
i
Attachment C: Reporting and Data Management
7 REPORTING
The MRP includes a number of reporting requirements to summarize CIMP implementation efforts,
the data collected as part of the CIMP, as well as to report on implementation of the Permit
requirements as a whole. The following sections detail monitoring and reporting requirements
outlined in the MRP and provides information on how the data collected as part of this CIMP are to
be used.
7.1 Annual Report Form
As outlined in Part XIV.A.1 of the MRP, each USCRWMG member will complete and submit an Annual
Report using the Annual Report Form (contained in Sections 2 through 8 of Attachment H of the
MS4 Permit) no later than December 15 of each year for the preceding July 1 to June 30 reporting
period. Unless otherwise specified by the Regional Board, each Group member will submit its
Annual Report to the Regional Board in pdf file format via an electronic method (e.g., CD, USB drive,
attachment/link in email', etc.).
7.2 Semi -Annual Watershed Management Program Progress Report
As outlined in Part XIV.A.2 of the MRP, a WMP Progress Report, as contained in Section 1 of
Attachment H of the MS4 Permit, will be submitted on a semi-annual basis no later than
December 15 and June 15 of each year for the preceding January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to
December 31 reporting period, respectively. Unless otherwise specified by the Regional Board, the
USCRWMG will submit a WMP Report to the Regional Board in pdf file format via an electronic
method (e.g., CD, USB drive, attachment/link in emailz, etc.).
7.3 Annual Trash Reporting Forms
As outlined in Part XIV.A.3 of the MRP, the USCRWMG will annually report on compliance with the
Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDL using the Trash TMDL Reporting Form
(contained in Attachment I of the MS4 Permit or a revised form approved by the Regional Board)
and submit completed forms as attachments to the Annual Report Form identified in Section 7.1.
7.4 Annual Monitoring Reports and Certification
As required by Part XIV.B of the MRP, a Monitoring Report will be submitted no later than December
15 of each year for the preceding July 1 to June 30 reporting period and contain the following:
1. Summary of each sampling event including
a. Dates
' Emailed to MS4stormwaterRB40waterboards.ca.go.
Z Ibid.
Revised CIMP C-1 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
b. Site ID (i.e., station ID or monitoring location ID)
c. Monitoring Location Type (i.e., outfall or receiving water)
d. Sample Media (e.g., water column, bed sediment, fish tissue, storm -borne sediment)
e. For receiving water monitoring locations, Site ID of the upstream outfall.
f. For outfall monitoring locations, the receiving water the outfall discharges to and if
being monitored, the Site ID of the receiving water monitoring location.
g. Missed monitoring events and justification.
h. Weather Condition (i.e., wet or dry). For applicable TMDLs with a specific definition,
the weather condition per the TMDL will be indicated.
i. Station ID of rain gage station(s) and/or flow gage station(s) used to determine the
weather condition.
j. Wet weather sampling events will contain the following additional information:
i. Storm start time
ii. Storm duration (hours)
iii. Highest storm intensity - 15 minutes (inches/hour)
iv. Total storm volume (inches)
v. Whether the sample event occurred during the first significant storm.
vi. Whether the sampling event was preceded by at least three days of dry
weather (less than 0.1 inches of rain each day).
k. Dry weather sampling events will contain the following additional information:
i. Whether the sample event occurred during the historically driest month.
ii. Whether the sampling event occurred at least three days after a rain event of
0.1 inches or greater.
1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
a. QA/QC results
b. Actions to address any QA/QC issues that arose
2. Summary of exceedances of applicable WQBELs, receiving water limitations, and aquatic
toxicity thresholds for all test results, with corresponding sampling dates, monitoring site
IDs, and weather conditions. Quantitative descriptions of trends in water quality (e.g.,
improving, staying the same, declining) in the receiving water and outfalls, using statistical
analysis and/or graphical presentation of data, for wet and dry weather conditions. A
summary of efforts taken to address exceedances where it is determined that outfall
discharges are causing or contributing to receiving water exceedances.
3. Summary of Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
a. If aquatic toxicity was confirmed and a TIE was conducted, the toxic chemicals as
determined by the TIE will be identified. All relevant data of the TIE will be included
including, but not limited to, the sample(s) date, sample(s) start and end time,
sample type(s) (flow -weighted composite, grab, or field measurement), sample
location(s), the parameters, the analytical results, and the applicable limitation.
b. A full laboratory report for each toxicity test prepared according to the appropriate
test methods manual chapter on Report Preparation, including:
Revised CIMP C-2 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
i. The toxicity test results for the t-test, reported as "Pass" or "Fail", and the
"Percent Effect",
ii. The dates of sample collection and initiation of each toxicity test,
iii. Test species with biological endpoint values for each concentration tested,
iv. Reference toxicant test results,
v. Water quality measurements for each toxicity test (e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, conductivity, hardness, salinity, chlorine, ammonia),
vi. THE/TIE testing results, and
vii. A printout of CETIS (Comprehensive Environmental Toxicity Information
System) program results.
c. TIEs (Phases I, II, and III) that have been completed or are being conducted, by
monitoring location.
d. The development, implementation, and results for each THE Corrective Action Plan,
beginning the water year following the identification of each pollutant or pollutant
class causing toxicity.
In addition, a certification and signature as outlined in Section 7.6 shall be submitted with each
annual monitoring report submittal.
7.5 TMDL Reporting
As required by Part XV of the MRP, the USCRWMG will report on compliance with TMDLs contained
in Attachment M of the MS4 Permit in the USCRWMG's Annual Monitoring Report.
7.6 Signatory and Certification Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Regional Board, State Board, and/or
USEPA will be signed and certified in accordance with Attachment D of the MS4 Permit as follows:
1. All permit applications shall be signed by either a principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. For purposes of this provision, a principal executive officer includes: (i) the
chief executive officer of the agency, or (ii) a senior executive officer having responsibility
for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency.
2. All reports required by the Permit and other information requested by the Regional Board,
State Board, or USEPA shall be signed by a principal executive officer, a ranking elected
official, or by a duly authorized representative of a principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a principal executive officer or ranking
elected official.
b. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility
for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of
equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.)
Revised CIMP C-3 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
c. The written authorization is submitted to the Regional Board and State Board.
3. If an authorization of a duly authorized representative is no longer accurate because a
different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a
new authorization will be submitted to the Regional Board and State Board prior to or
together with any reports, information, or applications, to be signed by an authorized
representative.
4. The following certification will be made by any person signing an application or report:
"7 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under
my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible forgathering
the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations"
5. Any person providing the electronic signature for documents described above that are
submitted electronically shall meet all relevant requirements as outlined above and shall
ensure that all relevant requirements of 40 C.F.R. part 3 (Cross -Media Electronic Reporting)
and 40 C.F.R. part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Requirements) are met for that
submission. (40 C.ER § 122.22(e).)
7.7 Use of Submitted Data
As stated in Part I.A.2 of the MRP, a Primary Objective of the Monitoring Program is to assess
compliance with RWLs and WQBELs established to implement TMDLs during dry and wet weather.
As such, a discussion of how the compliance evaluation will be conducted is warranted and is
presented below.
7.8 Compliance Evaluation
The compliance evaluation will take into consideration the relationship between the types of
monitoring and the pathways for determining compliance outlined in the Permit. For example, the
receiving water monitoring sites meet the MRP objectives and support an understanding of
potential impacts associated with MS4 discharges. However, as described in the MRP (Part I.C.1),
receiving water sites are intended to assess receiving water conditions. An exceedance of a RWL at a
receiving water site does not on its own indicate MS4 discharges caused or contributed to the RWL
exceedance. As the receiving water sites also receive runoff from non-MS4 sources, including open
space and other permitted discharges, the exceedance of a RWL may have been caused or
contributed to by a non-MS4 source. Additionally, consistent with Part X of the Permit, an
exceedance at an outfall location when the corresponding downstream receiving water location is
meeting water quality objectives and RWLs does not constitute that WQBELs are not being met.
Finally, reporting of compliance will be accomplished by evaluating the data, in addition to the
status of WMP implementation consistent with the Permit (Parts IX and X). Generally, reporting of
compliance will consider whether the following conditions, as applicable, are met:
1. There are no exceedances of the WQBEL for the specific pollutant in the discharge at the
Permittee's compliance point(s), including an outfall to the receiving water that collects
Revised CIMP C-4 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
discharges from multiple Permittees' jurisdictions.
2. There are no exceedances of the receiving water limitation for the specific pollutant in the
receiving water(s) at, or downstream of, the Permittees' compliance point(s).
3. There is no direct or indirect discharge from the Permittee's MS4 to the receiving water
during the relevant time period.
4. The exceedance is the result of an authorized or exempt non-stormwater discharge specified
in Part III.A.2 of this Order during a specific sampling event. The water quality
characteristics must be based on the source specific water quality monitoring data from the
authorized or conditionally exempt essential non-stormwater discharge or other relevant
information documenting the characteristics of the specific non-stormwater discharge.
5. The approved USCRWMG WMP is being implemented pursuant to Part IX of the Permit.
6. Conditions of effective Time Schedule Orders (TSOs) are met.
In addition, evaluation of compliance for pollutants subject to TMDLs will consider the
requirements specified in the applicable TMDLs.
Revised CIMP C-5 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment D: Monitoring Procedures
Attachment D details the monitoring procedures that will be utilized to collect and analyze samples
to meet the goals and objectives of the CIMP and, in turn, the Permit. The details contained herein
serve as a guide for ensuring that consistent protocols and procedures are in place for successful
sample collection and analysis. This attachment is divided into the following six sections:
• Analytical Procedures
• Sample Collection and Handling
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control
• Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency
• Data Management, Validation, and Usability
• Monitoring Procedures References
Revised CIMP D-1 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
8 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The following subsections detail the analytical procedures for data generated in the field and in the
laboratory.
8.1 Field Parameters
Portable field meters will measure within specifications outlined in Table D-1.
Table D-1. Analytical Methods and Project Reporting Limits for Field Measurements
Parameter/Constituent
Method
Range
Project RL
Current velocity
Electromagnetic
-0.5 to +20 ft/s
0.05 ft/s
pH
Electrometric
0 — 14 pH units
NA
Temperature
High stability thermistor
-5 — 50 °C
NA
Dissolved oxygen
Membrane or Optical
0 — 50 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
Turbidity
Nephelometric
0 — 3000 NTU
0.2 NTU
Specific Conductivity
Graphite electrodes
0 — 10 mmhos/cm
2.5 umhos/cm
RL — Reporting Limit NA— Not applicable
8.2 Methods and Detection and Reporting Limits
Method detection limits (MDL) and reporting limits (RLs) must be distinguished for proper
understanding and data use. The MDL is the minimum analyte concentration that can be measured
and reported with a 99% confidence that the concentration is greater than zero. The RL represents
the concentration of an analyte that can be routinely measured in the sampled matrix within stated
limits and with confidence in both identification and quantitation.
For this CIMP, RLs must be verifiable by having the lowest non -zero calibration standard or
calibration check sample concentration at or less than the RL. As described in Part II.H.7 of the MRP,
attainment of the recommended RLs in Table E-6 of the MRP are not required, but Permittees are
encouraged to attain the recommended RLs to ensure that analytical test methods are capable of
detecting and measuring constituents at, or below the applicable RWLs and/or WQBELs. RLs have
been established in this CIMP based on the verifiable levels and general measurement capabilities
demonstrated for each method. These RLs should be considered as maximum allowable reporting
limits to be used for laboratory data reporting. Note that samples diluted for analysis may have
sample -specific RLs that exceed these RLs. This will be unavoidable on occasion. However, if
samples are consistently diluted to overcome matrix interferences, the analytical laboratory will be
required to notify the Project Manager how the sample preparation or test procedure in question
will be modified to reduce matrix interferences so that project RLs can be met consistently.
Analytical methods, MDLs, and RLs required for samples analyzed in the laboratory are summarized
in Table D-2. For organic constituents, environmentally relevant detection limits will be used to the
extent practicable. Alternative methods with RLs that are at or below the project RLs listed in
Table D-2 are considered equivalent and can be used in place of the methods presented. Alternative
methods shall be among those listed in the most current version of 40 CFR Part 136 at the time of
Revised CIMP D-2 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
analysis. This requirement does not apply for constituents for which no methods are listed in 40
CFR Part 136.
Prior to the analysis of any environmental samples, the laboratory must demonstrate the ability to
meet the minimum performance requirements for each analytical method presented in Table D-2.
The initial demonstration of capability includes the ability to meet the project RLs, the ability to
generate acceptable precision and accuracy, and other analytical and quality control parameters
documented in this CIMP. Data quality objectives for precision and accuracy are summarized in
Section 10.
Table D-2. Analytical Methods, Project Reporting Limits (RLs) and MRP Table E-6 Reporting
Levels (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis of Water Samples
Parameter/Constituent
Method')
Units
Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Toxicity
Ceriodaphnia dubia
EPA-821-R-02-013
NA
NA
NA
Pimephales promelas
EPA-821-R-02-013
NA
NA
NA
Hyalella azteca
EPA-821-R-02-012
NA
NA
NA
Chironomus dilutus
EPA-821-R-02-012
NA
NA
NA
Bacteria
E. coli (freshwater)
SM 9221/SM 9223 B
MPN/100mL
100
100
Conventionals
Oil and Grease
EPA 1664A
mg/L
5
5
Total Phenols
EPA 625.1
mg/L
0.2
0.1
Cyanide
SM 4500-CNE/EPA 335.4
mg/L
0.01
0.005
Total Hardness
SM 2340C
mg/L
2
2
Turbidity
SM 2130B/EPA 180.1
NTU
0.1
0.1
Dissolved Organic Carbon
SM 5310B
mg/L
0.6
0.2
Total Organic Carbon
SM 5310B
mg/L
1
1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
EPA 1664
mg/L
5
5
Chemical Oxygen Demand
SM 5220D
mg/L
20
20
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
SM-5210B
mg/L
5
2
Alkalinity
SM 2320B
mg/L
2
2
MBAS
SM 5540C
mg/L
0.5
0.5
Fluoride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
0.1
0.1
Revised CIMP
D-3
September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent
Method')
Units
Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Perchlorate
EPA 314.0
mg/L
0.004
0.006
Ammonia (as N)
SM 4500-NH3 C
mg/L
0.1
0.1
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
EPA 300.0
mg/L
0.1
0.1
Nitrate (as N)
EPA 300.0
mg/L
0.1
0.1
Nitrite (as N)
EPA 300.0
mg/L
0.1
0.1
Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen (TKN)
SM 4500-NH3 C
mg/L
0.4
0.1
Total Phosphorus (as P)
SM 4500-P E
mg/L
0.05
0.05
Orthophosphate as P, (Dissolved) SM 4500-PE/EPA 300.0
mg/L
0.2
0.05
Sulfate
EPA 300.0
mg/L
1
NA
Chloride
EPA 300.0
mg/L
2
2
Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
SM 2540C
mg/L
2
2
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
SM 2540D
mg/L
2
2
Suspended Sediment Concentration
ASTMD 3977-97
mg/L
5
5
Metals in Freshwater (dissolved and total)
Aluminum
EPA 200.8
pg/L
100
87
Antimony
EPA 200.8
pg/L
0.5
0.5
Arsenic
EPA 200.8
pg/L
1
1
Beryllium
EPA 200.8
pg/L
0.5
0.5
Cadmium
EPA 200.8
pg/L
0.25
0.25
Chromium (total)
EPA 200.8
pg/L
0.5
0.5
Chromium (Hexavalent)
SM 3500-Cr B/
EPA 218.6
pg/L
10/
5
2
Iron
EPA 200.8
pg/L
100
100
Lead
EPA 200.8
pg/L
0.5
0.5
Silver
EPA 200.8
pg/L
0.25
0.25
Thallium
EPA 200.8
pg/L
1
0.24
Copper
EPA 200.8
pg/L
0.5
0.5
Revised CIMP
D-4
September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent
Method')
Units
Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Nickel
EPA 200.8
pg/L
1
1
Selenium
EPA 200.8
pg/L
1
1
Zinc
EPA 200.8
pg/L
1
1
Mercury
EPA 1631 E
pg/L
0.05
0.04
Organochlorine Pesticides
Aldrin
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.005
0.005
alpha-BHC
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.01
beta-BHC
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.005
0.005
delta-BHC
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.005
0.005
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.02
0.01
alpha -chlordane
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.1
0.025
gamma -chlordane
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.1
0.025
Oxychlordane
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.2
NA
Cis-nonachlor
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.2
NA
Trans-nonachlor
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.2
NA
2,4'-DDD
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
NA
2,4'-DDE
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
NA
2,4'-DDT
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
NA
4,4'-DDD
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
0.025
4,4'-DDE
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
0.025
4,4'-DDT
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.005
Dieldrin
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.005
alpha-Endosulfan
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.02
0.02
beta-Endosulfan
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.01
Endosulfan sulfate
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
0.01
Endrin
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.005
Endrin aldehyde
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.01
Heptachlor
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.01
Revised CIMP
D-5
September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent
Method')
Units
Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Heptachlor Epoxide
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.01
Toxaphene
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.5
0.5
PCBs
Total PCBs (2)
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2000
170
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Chlorpyrifos
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
0.01
Diazinon
EPA 614/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.01
0.01
Malathion
EPA 614/EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
0.1
Atrazine
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
1
Cyanazine
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
2
Prometryn
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
2
Simazine
EPA625.1
pg/L
2
2
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
EP 625.1
pg/L
1
1
2-Chlorophenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
1
2-Chloronapthalene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
10
7.5
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
5
2-Nitrophenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
10
10
2,4-Dinitrophenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
4
2,4-Dichlorophenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
2,4-Dimethylphenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
2
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
10
1
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
5
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
5
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
5
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
5
Revised CIMP
D-6
September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent
Method')
Units
Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
4-Nitrophenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
5
Acenaphthene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
Acenaphthylene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
1
Anthracene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
1
Benzidine
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
5
Benzo(a)anth race ne
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
1
Benzo(a)pyrene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
10
1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
1
Butyl benzyl phthalate
EPA 625.1
pg/L
10
1
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
5
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
4.4
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
2
Chrysene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.1
0.1
Diethyl phthalate
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
2
Dimethyl phthalate
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
2
Di-n-butyl phthalate
EPA 625.1
pg/L
10
3
Di-n-octyl phthalate
EPA 625.1
pg/L
10
3
Fluoranthene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
0.05
Fluorene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.1
0.1
Hexachlorobenzene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
Hexachlorobutadiene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
Hexachloroethane
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
1
Inden o(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
0.05
Revised CIMP D-7 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent
Method')
Units
Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Isophorone
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
Naphthalene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.2
0.2
N-Nitrosodimethyl amine
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
1
N-Nitrosodiphenyl amine
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
N-Nitrosodi-n-propyl amine
EPA 625.1
pg/L
5
1
Nitrobenzene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
Pentachlorophenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
2
1
Phenanthrene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
0.05
Phenol
EPA 625.1
pg/L
1
1
Pyrene
EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.05
0.05
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
EPA 624
pg/L
1
1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
EPA 624
pg/L
1
1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
EPA 624
pg/L
1
1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
EPA 624
pg/L
1
1
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
EPA 624
pg/L
10
1
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
EPA 624
mg/L
0.013
0.013
Herbicides
Glyphosate
EPA 547
pg/L
5
5
2,4-D
EPA 615
pg/L
10
10
Dacthal (DCPA)
EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1
pg/L
0.1
0.1
2,4,5-TP(SILVEX)
EPA615
pg/L
0.5
0.5
Pyrethroid Pesticides
Bifenthrin
EPA625.1-MRM
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Cyfluthrin
EPA625.1-MRM
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Cypermethrin
EPA625.1-MRM
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Esfenvalerate
EPA625.1-MRM
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Lambda-cyhalothrin
EPA625.1-MRM
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Revised CIMP
D-8
September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent Methods')
Units
Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Permethrin EPA625.1-MRM
pg/L
0.005
0.005
Total Pyrethroids NA
pg/L
NA
NA
Fipronil and its Degradates
Fipronil EPA625.1-NCI
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Fipronil Sulfide EPA625.1-NCI
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Fipronil Sulfone EPA625.1-NCI
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Fipronil Desulfinyl EPA625.1-NCI
pg/L
0.002
0.002
Neonicotinoids
Imidacloprid EPA625.1-MRM
pg/L
0.5
0.5
RL - Reporting Limit NA- Not applicable
1. Methods provided in this table are recommendations. They are subject to change depending upon the analytical laboratory
selected for the project, as long as project MDLs and RLs are achieved.
2. Analysis for PCB congeners includes the following constituents: PCB-8, 18, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 44, 49, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 70,
74, 77, 87, 95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 126, 128, 137, 138, 141, 146, 149, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 169, 170, 174, 177,
180, 183, 187, 189, 194, 195, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 206, and 209.
Revised CIMP D-9 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
8.2.1 Method Detection Limit Studies
Any laboratory performing analyses under this program must routinely conduct MDL studies to
document that the MDLs are less than or equal to the project -specified RLs. If any analytes have
MDLs that do not meet the project RLs, the following steps must be taken:
1. Perform a new MDL study using concentrations sufficient to prove analyte quantitation at
concentrations less than or equal to the project -specified RLs per the procedure for the
Determination of the Method Detection Limit presented in Revision 2.40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 136, 1984.
2. No samples may be analyzed until the issue has been resolved. MDL study results must be
available for review during audits, data review, or as requested. Current MDL study results
must be reported for review and inclusion in project files.
An MDL is developed from seven aliquots of a standard containing all analytes of interest spiked at
five times the expected MDL. These aliquots are processed and analyzed in the same manner as
environmental samples. The results are then used to calculate the MDL. If the calculated MDL is less
than 0.33 times the spiked concentration, another MDL study should be performed using lower
spiked concentration.
8.2.2 Project Reporting Limits
Laboratories generally establish RLs that are reported with the analytical results -these may be
called reporting limits, detection limits, reporting detection limits, or several other terms by the
reporting laboratory. These laboratory limits must be less than or equal to the project RLs listed in
Table D-2. Wherever possible, project RLs are lower than the relevant numeric criteria or toxicity
thresholds. Laboratories performing analyses for this project must have documentation to support
quantitation at the required levels.
8.2.3 Laboratory Standards and Reagents
All stock standards and reagents used for standard solutions and extractions must be tracked
through the laboratory. The preparation and use of all working standards must be documented
according to procedures outlined in each laboratory's Quality Assurance Manual; standards must be
traceable according to U.S. EPA, A2LA or National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)
criteria. Records must have sufficient detail to allow determination of the identity, concentration,
and viability of the standards, including any dilutions performed to obtain the working standard.
Date of preparation, analyte or mixture, concentration, name of preparer, lot or cylinder number,
and expiration date, if applicable, must be recorded on each working standard.
8.3 Sample Containers, Storage, Preservation, and Holding Times
Sample containers must be pre -cleaned and certified free of contamination according to the USEPA
specification for the appropriate methods. Typical requirements for sample container, storage and
preservation, and holding time are provided in Table D-3 based on the methods listed in Table D-2,
but are subject to change based on the method selected and consultation with the analytical
laboratory. The analytical laboratories will supply sample containers that already contain
preservative per Table D-3, including ultra -pure hydrochloric and nitric acid, where applicable.
After collection, samples will be stored at 4oC until arrival at the contract laboratory.
Revised CIMP D-10 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-3. Sample Container, Volume, Initial Preservation, and Holding Time Requirements for
Parameters Analyzed at a Laboratory (')
Sample
Sample
Immediate
Parameter
Container
Volume()
Processing
Holding Time
and Storage
Water
Aquatic Toxicity
Initial Screening
Glass or
Follow -Up Testing
FLPE-lined
20 L
Store at 40C
36 hours(')
Phase I TIE
jerrican
E. coli (freshwater)
PE
120 mL
Na2S2O3 and
8 hours
Store at 40C
HCI or H2SO4 to
Oil and Grease
Glass
1 L
pH<2 and Store
28 days
at 4°C
Total Phenols
Glass
2 x 1 L
Store at 40C
7/40 days(4)
NaOH to
pH>10, Add
Cyanide
PE
500 mL
reducing agent
14 days
if oxidizer
present, and
Store at 40C
H2SO4 t0
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
PE
250 mL
pH<2(5) and
28 days
Store at 40C
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
PE
250 mL
Store at 4°C
Filter(6)/28 days
HCI or H2SO4
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Glass
1 L
and Store at
7/40 days(4)
4°C
H2SO4 to pH<2
Chemical Oxygen Demand
PE
500 mL
and Store at
28 days
4°C
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
PE
1 L
Store at 40C
48 hours
MBAS
PE
1 L
Store at 40C
48 hours
Nitrate Nitrogen
Nitrite Nitrogen
PE
250 mL
Store at 40C
48 hours
Orthophosphate-P (Dissolved)
Ammonia Nitrogen
H2SO4 and
Total Phosphorus
PE or Glass
250 mL
Store at 4°C
28 days
Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen (TKN)
PE or Glass
250 mL
H2SO4 and
Store at 40C
28 days
Sulfate
PE
250 mL
Store at 4°C
28 days
Revised CIMP
D-11
September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Sample Sample
Immediate
Parameter Container Volume(')
Processing
Holding Time
and Storage
Chloride PE 250-mL
Store at 40C
28 days
Fluoride PE 500 mL
None required
28 days
Perchlorate PE 500 mL
Store at 40C
28 days
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) PE 250 mL
Store at 40C
7 days
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) PE 250 mL
Store at 40C
7 days
Suspended Sediment Concentration PE 250 mL
Store at 40C
120 days
(SSC)
Alkalinity PE 500 mL
Store at 40C
14 days
Total Hardness
HNO3 to pH<2
180 days
(or H2SO4 to
PE 1 L
pH<2 for
Metals
Hardness) and
6 months�6'>
Store at 40C (1)
NH4SO4to pH
24 hours/28
Chromium (Hexavalent) PE 250 mL
9-9.5 and Store
days(')
at 4° C
HNO3 to pH<2
Mercury Glass 500 mL
and Store at
28 days
40C (4)
PCBs, OC Pesticides, OP Amber glass 4 x 1 L
Store at 40C
7/40 days (4)
Pesticides, Triazine Pesticides
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Glass 2 x 1 L
Store at 40C
7/40 days (4)
Volatile Organic Compounds VOA 3 x 40 mL
HCI and Store
at 4oC
14 days
Herbicides Glass 2 x 40mL
Thiosulfate and
Store at 40C
14 days
Pyrethroids, Fipronil and its Glass 2 x 1 L
Store at 4°C
7/40 days (4)
Degradates, Neonicotinoids
PE —Polyethylene VOA— Volatile Organic Analysis
1. Typical requirements are provided here based on the methods listed in Table D-2 but are subject to
change in
consultation with the analytical laboratory and the analytical method performed.
2. Additional volume may be required for QC analyses.
3. The 36-hour sample hold time for test initiation shall be targeted. However,
no more than 72 hours shall elapse before the
conclusion of sample collection and test initiation. The hold time does not apply
to subsequent analyses for TIEs. For
interpretation of toxicity results, samples may be split from toxicity samples
in the laboratory and analyzed for specific
chemical parameters. All other sampling requirements for these samples are as specified in this document for the specific
analytical method. Results of these analyses are not for any other use (e.g.
characterization of ambient
conditions)
because of potential holding time exceedances and variance from sampling requirements.
4. 7/40 = 7 days to extract and 40 days from extraction to analysis.
5. To avoid the hazards of strong acids in the field, transport restrictions, and possible contamination samples
may be
collected without preservative and preserved upon receipt by the analytical
laboratory, if allowed for
in the applicable
analytical method. Samples collected for analysis of constituents in the dissolved fraction will not be
acidified until after
filtration.
6. All samples to be analyzed for constituents in the dissolved fraction must be filtered upon arrival at analysis laboratory.
Revised CIMP D-12 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
6 months after preservation
To achieve the 28-day holding time, use the ammonium sulfate buffer solution specified in EPA Method 218.6.
8.4 Aquatic Toxicity Testing and Toxicity Follow Up Actions
Aquatic toxicity testing supports the identification of best management practices (BMPs) to address
sources of toxicity in urban runoff. The following outlines the approach for conducting aquatic
toxicity monitoring and evaluating results. Monitoring begins in the receiving water and the
information gained is used to identify constituents for monitoring at outfalls to support the
identification of pollutants that need to be addressed in the WMP. The subsections below describe
the detailed process for conducting aquatic toxicity monitoring, evaluating results, and the technical
and logistical rationale. Control measures and management actions to address confirmed toxicity
caused by urban runoff are addressed by the WMP, either via currently identified management
actions or those that are identified via adaptive management of the WMP.
8.4.1 Sensitive Species Selection
The MRP (page E-31) states that, to determine the most sensitive test species, Permittee(s) shall
conduct two wet weather and two dry weather toxicity tests with the species listed. Sensitive
species determinations may result in one most sensitive test species for wet weather and a different
most sensitive test species for dry weather or the same most sensitive test species for both dry and
wet weather. The following sub -sections discuss the species selection process for assessing aquatic
toxicity in receiving waters.
As described in the MRP (page E-30), if samples are collected in receiving waters with salinity less
than 1 part per thousand (ppt) or from outfalls discharging to receiving waters with salinity less
than 1 ppt, toxicity tests should be conducted on the most sensitive test species in accordance with
species and short-term test methods in Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (EPA/821/R-02/013, 2002; Table IA, 40
CFR Part 136) and Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA/821/R-02/012, 2002; Table IA, 40 CFR Part 136). In no case
shall the following test species be substituted with another organism unless written authorization
from the Regional Water Board Executive Officer is received:
a. Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow): Larval Survival and Growth Test Method EPA-821-
R-02-013
b. Ceriodaphnia dubia (freshwater crustacean: Survival and Reproduction Test Method EPA-
821-R-02-013
c. Hyalella azteca (freshwater amphipod): Survival Test Method EPA-821-R-02-012
d. Chironomus dilutus (midge): Survival Test Method EPA-821-R-02-012
Wet weather test species sensitivity screening events were conducted in December 2021. Dry
weather test species sensitivity screening events were conducted in July 2021 and 2022, as July
represents the historically driest month. Table D-4 summarizes the results of the test species
sensitivity screening events conducted during dry and wet weather. As noted in Table D-4, toxicity
was only observed during dry weather in the Chironomus dilutus test. Given the observance of
Chironomus dilutus toxicity during dry weather, Chironomus dilutus was selected as the most
sensitive test species and will be utilized during toxicity testing in dry weather conditions. As noted
in Table DA toxicity was not observed in any of the test species during wet weather. As such, other
Revised CIMP D-13 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
relevant information must be utilized to select the species which will be utilized during toxicity
testing in wet weather conditions. As noted in the USCRWMG WMP, pyrethroids are a prioritized
waterbody-pollutant combination in the USCRWMG WMP area. As such, it is important to use a test
species which is sensitive to pyrethroids. Given that Hyalella azteca has frequently shown toxicity
due to pyrethroid pesticides, Hyalella azteca will be utilized during toxicity testing in wet weather
conditions.
Table D-4. Summary of Toxicity Sensitive Test Species Screening 0]
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Chironomus
Hyalella
Fathead minnow
Site
dilutus
azteca
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Acute
Acute
Chronic
Dry
0/2
0/2
1/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
SNTCLR_6_ME
(Not Toxic)
(Not Toxic)
(92.1 %)
(Not Toxic)
(Not Toxic)
(Not Toxic)
Wet
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
SNTCLR_6_ME
(Not Toxic)
(Not Toxic)
(Not Toxic)
(Not Toxic)
(Not Toxic)
(Not Toxic)
1. Toxic samples, defined as a failure of the TST, are indicated by the number of samples that failed and the
number of tests completed (e.g., 1/2 signifies one of two tests failed the TST). The value inside of the
parentheses is the percent effect measured relative to the laboratory control.
8.4.2 Toxicity Endpoint Assessment and Toxicity Identification Evaluation Triggers
Per the MRP, toxicity test endpoints will be analyzed using the Test of Significant Toxicity (TST)
t-test approach specified by the USEPA (USEPA, 2010). The Permit specifies that the critical acute
and chronic in -stream waste concentration (IWC) is set at 100% receiving water for receiving water
samples and 100% effluent for wet and dry weather outfall samples. Using the TST approach, a t-
value is calculated for a test result and compared with a critical t-value from USEPAs TST
Implementation Document (USEPA, 2010). Follow-up triggers are generally based on the Permit
specified statistical assessment as described below.
The toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) trigger is defined as when the survival or sublethal
endpoint demonstrates a >_ SO Percent Effect at the instream waste concentration as per the MRP
(page E-32).
TIE procedures will be initiated as soon as possible (i.e., preferably within 48 hours) after the
toxicity trigger threshold is observed to reduce the potential for loss of toxicity due to extended
sample storage. If the cause of toxicity is readily apparent or is caused by pathogen related
mortality (PRM) or epibiont interference with the test, the result will be rejected and will not be
used to trigger TIES. If necessary, a modified testing procedure will be developed for future testing
to address such interferences.
In cases where there is a >_S 0% effect in the original sample, but the follow-up TIE baseline
treatment is not statistically significant, the cause of toxicity will be considered non -persistent. No
Revised CIMP D-14 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
immediate follow-up toxicity testing is required on the sample. However, future test results should
be evaluated to determine if parallel TIE treatments are necessary to provide an opportunity to
identify the cause of toxicity.
8.4.3 Toxicity Identification Evaluation Approach
The results of toxicity testing will be used to trigger further investigations to determine the cause of
observed laboratory toxicity. The primary purpose of conducting TIES is to support the
identification of management actions that will result in the removal of pollutants causing toxicity in
receiving waters. Successful TIES will direct monitoring at outfall sampling sites to inform
management actions. As such, the goal of conducting TIES is to identify pollutant(s) that should be
sampled during outfall monitoring so that management actions can be identified to address the
pollutant(s).
The TIE approach is divided into three phases as described in USEPA's 1991 Methods for Aquatic
Toxicity Identification Evaluations - Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures - Second Edition
(EPA/600/6-9/003) and briefly summarized as follows:
• Phase I utilizes methods to characterize the physical/chemical nature of the constituents
which cause toxicity. Such characteristics as solubility, volatility and filterability are
determined without specifically identifying the toxicants. Phase I results are intended as a
first step in specifically identifying the toxicants, but the data generated can also be used to
develop treatment methods to remove toxicity without specific identification of the
toxicants.
• Phase II utilizes methods to specifically identify toxicants.
• Phase III utilizes methods to confirm the suspected toxicants.
A Phase I TIE will be conducted on samples that exceed a TIE trigger described above. Water quality
data will be reviewed to further support evaluation of potential toxicants. A range of sample
manipulations may be conducted as part of the TIE process. The most common manipulations are
described in Table D-5. When determining the TIE treatments to use on a given sample that meets the
TIE trigger threshold, 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 toxicant(s). TIE methods will generally adhere to USEPA procedures
documented in conducting TIES (USEPA, 1991, 1992, 1993a-b).
The WMG will identify the cause(s) of toxicity using a selection of treatments in Table D-5 and, if
possible, using the results of water column chemistry analyses. After any initial determinations of
the cause of toxicity, the information may be used during future events to modify the targeted
treatments to more closely target the expected toxicant or to provide additional treatments to
narrow the toxicant cause(s). Moreover, if the toxicant or toxicant class is not initially identified,
toxicity monitoring during subsequent events will confirm if the toxicant is persistent or a short-
term episodic occurrence.
As the primary goal of conducting TIES is to identify pollutants for incorporation into outfall
monitoring, narrowing the list of toxicants following Phase I TIES via Phase II or III TIES is not
necessary if the toxicant class determined during the Phase I TIE is sufficient for: (1) identifying
additional pollutants for outfall monitoring; and/or (2) identifying control measures. Thus, if the
specific pollutant(s) or the analytical class of pollutant(s) (e.g., metals that are analyzed via USEPA
Revised CIMP D-15 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Method 200.8) are identified then sufficient information is available to inform the addition of
pollutants to outfall monitoring.
Table D-5. Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluation Sample Manipulations
TIE Sample Manipulation
Expected Response
No Manipulation
Baseline test for comparing the relative effectiveness of other
manipulations
Filtration or centrifugation
Removes particulates and associated toxicants
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) with
Removes non -polar organics (including pesticides) and some
C18 column
relatively non -polar metal chelates
Sequential Solvent Extraction of
Further resolution of SPE-extracted compounds for chemical
C18 column
analyses
Ethylenediamine-Tetraacetic Acid
(EDTA) or Cation Exchange
Chelates trace metals, particularly divalent cationic metals
Column
Reduces toxicity from organophosphate pesticides such as
Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO)
diazinon, chlorpyrifos and malathion, and enhances
pyrethroid toxicity
pH Adjustment (pH 7 and 8.5)
Alters toxicity in pH sensitive compounds (i.e., ammonia and
some trace metals)
Carboxylesterase addition(')
Hydrolyzes pyrethroids
Temperature adjustments(')
Pyrethroids become more toxic when test temperatures are
decreased
1. Carboxylesterase addition has been used in studies to help identify pyrethroid-associated toxicity (Wheelock et al., 2004;
Weston and Amweg, 2007). However, this treatment is experimental in nature and should be used along with other pyrethroid-
targeted TIE treatments (e.g., PBO addition).
2. Temperature adjustments are another manipulation used to evaluate pyrethroid-associated toxicity. Lower temperatures
increase the lethality of pyrethroid pesticides. (Harwood, You and Lydy, 2009)
Phase II TIES may be utilized to identify specific constituents causing toxicity in a given sample if
the results of Phase I TIE testing and a review of available chemistry data fails to provide
information necessary to identify constituents that warrant additional monitoring activities or
management actions to identify likely sources of the toxicants and lead to elimination of the sources
of these contaminants. Phase III TIES may be conducted following any Phase II TIES.
For the purposes of determining whether a TIE is inconclusive, TIES will be considered inconclusive
if..
• The toxicity is persistent (i.e., observed in the baseline), and
The cause of toxicity cannot be attributed to a constituent or class of constituents (e.g.,
metals, insecticides, etc.) that can be targeted for monitoring even after conducting
appropriate TIE treatments.
If (1) a combination of causes that act in a synergistic or additive manner are identified; (2) the
toxicity can be removed with a treatment or via a combination of the TIE treatments; or (3) the
Revised CIMP D-16 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
analysis of water quality data collected during the same event identify the pollutant or analytical
class of pollutants, the result of a TIE is considered conclusive.
In cases where significant endpoint toxicity effects >_50% are observed in the original sample, but
the follow-up TIE baseline "signal" is not statistically significant, the cause of toxicity will be
considered non -persistent. No immediate follow-up testing is required on the sample. However,
future test results should be evaluated to determine if parallel TIE treatments are necessary to
provide an opportunity to identify the cause of toxicity.
Per Attachment G of the Permit, no more than two TIES are required at one receiving water site
during the permit term if the TIES identify the same constituent or class of constituents as the cause
of toxicity.
Note that the MRP (page E-32) allows a TIE Prioritization Metric (as described in Appendix E of the
Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition's (SMC) Model Monitoring Program) for use in
ranking sites for TIES. However, as the extent to which TIES will be conducted is unknown,
prioritization cannot be conducted at this time. However, prioritization may be utilized in the future
based on the results of toxicity monitoring and an approach to prioritization will be developed
through the CIMP adaptive management process and will be described in future versions of the
CIMP.
8.4.4 Follow Up on Toxicity Testing Results
Follow-up monitoring requirements in response to observed toxicity or inclusive TIES can be found
in Attachment G of the Permit, which outlines the requirements for follow-up monitoring in four
receiving water scenarios where toxicity is present:
• Toxicity is present, but not above the TIE trigger as defined in Attachment E, Part IX.J.1;
• Toxicity is present above the TIE trigger and the TIE identifies the constituent(s) causing the
toxicity;
• Toxicity is present above the TIE trigger during wet weather, but the TIE is inconclusive; and
• Toxicity is present above the TIE trigger during dry weather, but the TIE is inconclusive.
Toxicity testing may be required at upstream receiving water monitoring site(s) and/or upstream
monitoring sites(s) when toxicity is observed below the TIE threshold or if a TIE is conducted but is
inconclusive. Details regarding the process for adding toxicity monitoring at additional sites is
provided in Attachment G and incorporated into this CIMP by reference.
If a toxicant or class of toxicants is identified through a TIE, the toxicant(s) should be sampled at the
monitoring site where the toxicity was identified, upstream receiving water site(s), and upstream
outfall site(s). The list of constituents monitored at outfalls identified in the CIMP will be modified
based on the results of the TIES. Monitoring for constituents identified based on the results of a TIE
will occur as soon as feasible following the completion of a successful TIE (i.e., the next monitoring
event that is at least 45 days following the toxicity laboratory's report transmitting the results of a
successful TIE).
A toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) must be performed as outlined in the MRP (page E-32) if the
toxicant is present in the discharge from the outfall at levels above the applicable limitation or in
response to an inclusive TIE as outlined in Attachment G. If a TRE is required, the TRE report will be
Revised CIMP D-17 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
submitted concurrently with the Annual Monitoring Report submitted by December I sth of each
year.
8.5 Bio-Assessment/Macrobenthic Community Assessment
LACFCD currently participates in the SMC regional program. The SMC consists of stormwater
agencies in southern California which collaborate on stormwater quality related research projects
of importance to the region with the goal to enhance scientific knowledge and develop management
solutions. More details on the SMC program and workplan can be found at https://socalsmc.orgl.
Initiated in 2008, the SMC's Regional Bioassessment Program is designed to run over a five-year
cycle. Please note that if the SMC decides to discontinue bioassessment monitoring, the USCRWMG
will review the costs and resources needed to complete bioassessment monitoring and may decide
to complete the discontinued monitoring separate from this CIMP.
8.6 Laboratory Identification
Laboratories will be chosen based on their ability to meet the project RLs described in Table D-2 as
well as the measurement quality objectives in Section 10 of this CIMP. Laboratories are required to
meet ELAP and/or NELAP certifications and any data quality requirements specified in this
document. The current qualified laboratories carrying out analytical responsibilities described in
this CIMP are Eurofins Calscience, Inc., in Tustin, CA, Pat -Chem Laboratories in San Fernando, CA,
Enthalpy Analytical Laboratories in Orange, CA and Aquatic Bioassay Consulting Laboratories, Inc.,
in Ventura, CA. Upon approval of the revised CIMP, and on an annual basis thereafter, the Project
Manager and Project QA Manager will assess the laboratories' performance and ability to meet the
project reporting limits, and at that time new laboratory(ies) may be chosen.
8.7 Alternate Laboratories
In the event that the laboratories selected to perform analyses for the USCR CIMP are unable to
fulfill data quality requirements outlined herein (e.g., due to instrument malfunction), alternate
laboratories need to meet the same requirements that the primary labs have met. A qualified
laboratory may be hired or act as a substitute. The consultant may decide to use an alternative
laboratory based on data, quality, management, or performance.
Revised CIMP D-18 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
9 SAMPLING METHODS AND SAMPLE HANDLING
The following sections describe the steps to be taken to properly prepare for and initiate water
quality sampling for the USCRWMG CIMP.
9.1 Monitoring Event Preparation
Monitoring event preparation includes preparation of field equipment, placing bottle orders, and
contacting the necessary personnel regarding site access and schedule. The following steps will be
completed prior to each sampling event:
Contact laboratories to order sample containers and to coordinate sample transportation
details.
2. Confirm scheduled monitoring date with field crew(s), and set-up sampling day itinerary
including sample drop-off.
3. Prepare equipment.
4. Prepare sample container labels and apply to bottles.
Prepare the monitoring event summary and field log sheets to indicate the type of field
measurements, field observations and samples to be collected at each of the monitoring
sites.
6. Verify that field measurement equipment is operating properly (i.e., check batteries,
calibrate, etc.)
Table D-6 provides a checklist of field equipment to prepare prior to each monitoring event.
Revised CIMP D-19 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-6. Field Equipment Checklist
❑
Monitoring Plan
❑
Sample Containers plus Extras with Extra Lids
❑
Pre -Printed, Waterproof Labels (extra blank sheets)
❑
Event Summary Sheets
❑
Field Log Sheets or Electronic Device (e.g., laptop or tablet)
❑
Chain of Custody Forms
❑
Bubble Wrap
❑
Coolers with Ice
❑
Headlight
❑
Tape Measure
❑
Paper Towels or "Rags in a Box"
❑
Safety Equipment
❑
First Aid Kit
❑
Cellular Telephone
❑
Gate Keys
❑
Hip Waders
❑
Plastic Trash Bags
❑
Sealable Plastic Bags
❑
Grab Pole
❑
Maintenance hole puller
❑
Cable Ties (assorted sizes)
❑
Clean Secondary Container(s)
❑
Field Measurement Equipment
❑
Spare Batteries for Field Meters
❑
New Powder -Free Nitrile Gloves
❑
Pens and Pencils
❑
Stop Watch
❑
Blank Water
❑
Calibrated Bucket or Container
Revised CIMP D-20 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
9.1.1 Bottle Order/Preparation
Sample container orders will be placed with the appropriate analytical laboratory at least two
weeks prior to each sampling event. Containers will be ordered for all water samples, including
quality control samples, as well as extra containers in case the need arises for intermediate
containers or a replacement. The containers must be the proper type and size and contain
preservative as appropriate for the specified laboratory analytical methods (presented previously in
Table D-3). The field crew must inventory sample containers upon receipt from the laboratory to
ensure that adequate containers have been provided to meet analytical requirements for each
monitoring event. After each event, any bottles used to collect water samples will be cleaned by the
laboratory and either picked up by or shipped to the field crew for the next event, if necessary
9.1.2 Container Labeling and Sample Identification Scheme
All samples will be identified with a unique identification code to ensure that results are properly
reported and interpreted. Samples will be identified such that the site, sampling location, matrix,
sampling equipment and sample type (i.e., environmental sample or QC sample) can be
distinguished by a data reviewer or user. Sample identification codes should consist of a site
identification code, a matrix code, and a unique sample ID number. Alternative sample and data
management schemes can be used, if they provide the essential information listed here. Using the
format previously described, sample ID codes may be structured as SCR- ###.# - AAAA - XX, where:
1. SCR indicates that the sample was collected as part of the USCR CIMP.
2. ###- identifies the sequentially numbered monitoring event, and # is an optional indicator
for re -samples collected for the same event. Sample events are numbered from 001 to 999
and will not be repeated.
3. AAAA indicates the unique site identification code assigned to each site.
4. XX identifies if the sample collected at the site is a QA sample. Field duplicates are
represented as FD and field blanks are represented as FB.
Custom bottle labels should be produced using blank waterproof labels and labeling software.
Labels will be placed on the appropriate bottles in a dry environment; applying labels to wet sample
bottles should be avoided. Labels should be placed on sides of bottles rather than on bottle caps. All
sample containers will be pre -labeled before each sampling event to the extent practicable. Pre -
labeling sample containers simplifies field activities, leaving only sample collection time and date
and field crew initials to be filled out in the field. Custom labels will be produced using blank water-
proof labels. This approach will allow the site and analytical constituent information to be entered
in advance and printed as needed prior to each monitoring event. Labels should include the
following information:
Program Name Date Analytical Requirements
Station ID Collection Time Preservative Requirements
Sample ID Sampling Personnel and Agency/Firm Analytical Laboratory
Revised CIMP D-21 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
9.1.3 Field Meter Calibration
Calibration of field measurement equipment is performed as described in the owner's manuals for
each individual instrument. Each individual field crew will be responsible for calibrating their field
measurement equipment. Field monitoring equipment must meet the requirements outlined in
Table D-1 and be calibrated before field events based on manufacturer guidance, but at a minimum
prior to each event. Table D-7 outlines the typical field instrument calibration procedures for each
piece of equipment requiring calibration. All calibrations will be documented on each event's
calibration log sheet.
If calibration results do not meet manufacturer specifications, the field crew should first try to
recalibrate using fresh aliquots of calibration solution. If recalibration is unsuccessful, new
calibration solution should be used and/or maintenance should be performed. Each attempt should
be recorded on the equipment calibration log. If the calibration results cannot meet manufacturer's
specifications, the field crew should use a spare field measuring device that can be successfully
calibrated. If a spare field measuring device that can be successfully calibrated is unavailable, field
crews shall note the use of unsuccessfully calibrated equipment on each appropriate field log sheet.
Additionally, the Project Manager should be notified.
Calibration should be verified using at least one calibration fluid within the expected range of field
measurements immediately following calibration. Individual parameters should be recalibrated if
the field meters do not measure a calibration fluid within the range of accuracy presented in
Table D-7.
Revised CIMP D-22 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-7. Calibration of Field Measurement Equipment
Equipment / Calibration and Verification Description
Instrument
Calibration for pH measurement is
accomplished using standard buffer
pH Probe solutions. Analysis of a mid -range buffer will
be performed to verify successful
calibration.
Frequency Frequency of Responsible
of Calibration Party
Calibration Verification
Temperature
Temperature calibration is factory -set and
requires no subsequent calibration.
Calibration for dissolved oxygen
measurements is accomplished using a
water saturated air environment. Dissolved
Day prior toAfter each
Dissolved
oxygen (DO) measurement of water-
t day's
1 day or 1 Individual
Oxygen
saturated air will be performed and
calibration and
day of Sampling
Probe
compared to a standard table of DO
at the end of
sampling Crews
concentrations in water as a function of
the sampling
event
temperature and barometric pressure to
day
verify successful calibration.
Conductivity calibration will follow
Conductivity
manufacturer's specifications. A mid -range
conductivity standard will be analyzed to
verify successful calibration.
Turbidity calibration will follow
Turbidity
manufacturer's specifications. A mid -range
turbidity standard will be analyzed to verify
successful calibration.
9.1.4 Weather Conditions
Monitoring will occur during conditions that are defined as "dry" and "wet" Antecedent conditions
will be based on one or more of the LA County Department of Public Works (LACPW) rain gages
listed in Table D- 8. The rain gage stations are owned and operated by the County of Los Angeles.
Data can be obtained at httl2://dl2w.lacounty.gov/wrd/Precil2/index.cfm by clicking the `See Data'
link in the "Near Real -Time Precipitation Map" section. The web page displays a map showing real-
time rainfall totals (in inches) for different rain gages. Although the default precipitation period is
24 hours, the user can view rainfall totals over different durations. Data from the rain gages is
updated every 10 minutes.
Revised CIMP D-23 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-8. Real -Time Rain Gage Used to Define Weather Conditions for CIMP Monitoring'
Jurisdictional Group Rainfall Gage Gage Type
Santa Clara River Watershed 32C Newhall — Soledad Canyon
Santa Clara River Watershed 390 Bouquet Cyn @ Urbandale LACPW ALERT
Rainfall Gage
Santa Clara River Watershed 1012B Castaic Junction
1. Station information for these rain gages can be found at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Precip/alertlist.cfm
Dry weather occurs on days with less than 0.1 inch of rain as measured from the nearest Los
Angeles County controlled rain gauge within the watershed. One dry weather event will be
conducted during the historically driest month of July, which was determined by analyzing rainfall
data collected at rain gage AL390 Bouquet Canyon at Urbandale. The first significant rain event of
the storm year (first flush) will be monitored. The targeted storm events for wet weather sampling
will be selected based on a reasonable probability that the events will result in substantially
increased flows in the Santa Clara River over at least 12 hours.
Sufficient precipitation is needed to produce runoff and increase flow. The decision to sample a
storm event will be made in consultation with weather forecasting information services. All efforts
will be made to collect wet weather samples from all sites during a single targeted storm event.
However, safety or other factors may make it infeasible to collect samples from the same storm
event. For a storm to be tracked, the first flush event will have a predicted rainfall of at least one
inch or greater with a 70 percent probability of rainfall at least 24 hours prior to the event start
time. The USCR watershed has vast areas of undeveloped land and significant areas characterized
by high infiltration rates. This includes the channels and tributaries, which are mostly natural,
sandy -bottomed, and with high infiltration rates that necessitate significant rainfall to produce
sustained and measurable flows in the river and its tributaries. Also, the 85th percentile rainfall
depth in the Upper Santa Clara River Watershed ranges between 0.65 and 1.44 inches. Therefore,
the predicted one inch rainfall trigger for storm sampling coincides with the average 85th percentile
rainfall depth for the watershed. Mobilization for subsequent wet weather events will be conducted
at the discretion of the USCRWMG based on 1) soil saturation conditions, 2) the forecasted intensity
and duration of each storm, and 3) a consideration of the likelihood that additional storms of
sufficient strength will arrive later in the wet season so as to ensure that the USCRWMG mobilizes
for at least three wet weather events each water year. Wet weather sampling events will be
separated by a minimum of three days of dry conditions (<0.1 inch of rain each day).3
Publicly available meteorological forecasting systems are suggested for identifying and anticipating
storm event sampling. The sampling decision protocol begins when the sampling crew recognizes
an approaching storm through monitoring of forecasts. The National Weather Service's weather
forecast for Santa Clarita can be accessed on-line at:
3 Because a significant storm event is based on predicted rainfall, it is recognized that monitoring may be
triggered without the predicted rainfall actually occurring. In this case, the monitoring event will still qualify
as meeting this requirement provided that sufficient sample volume is collected to conduct all required
laboratory analyses.
Revised CIMP D-24 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
http://wwwwrh.noaa.gov/lox/ then click on "Santa Clarita" on the area map
From the forecast page, the link to "Quantitative Precipitation Forecast" provides forecasted
precipitation in inches for the next 24 hours, in 3-hour increments for the first 12 hours and in 6-
hour increments for the last 12 hours. The "SAUCI:SAUGUS" Los Angeles County site is located in
the City of Santa Clarita and will be used to forecast precipitation in the WMP Group area.
9.2 Sample Handling
Proper sample handling ensures that samples will comply with the monitoring methods and
required analytical hold times and that traceable documentation throughout the history of the
sample will be generated.
9.2.1 Documentation Procedures
The USCRWMG is responsible for ensuring that each field sampling team adheres to proper custody
and documentation procedures. Field logs documenting sample collection and other monitoring
activities for each site will be recorded for each event. Field personnel have the following
responsibilities:
1. Keep an accurate record of sample collection activities on the field log sheets.
2. Ensure that all field log sheet entries are legible and contain accurate and inclusive
documentation of all field activities.
Note errors or changes using a single line to cross out the entry and date and initial the
change.
4. Ensure that a label is affixed to each sample collected and that the labels uniquely identify
samples with a sample ID, site ID, date and time of sample collection and the sampling crew
initials.
5. Complete the chain of custody forms accurately and legibly.
9.2.2 Field Documentation/Field Log
Field crews will keep field logs (or electronic file(s) if tablets or laptops are used) for each sampling
event that contains a calibration log sheet, a field log sheet for each site, and appropriate contact
information. The following items should be recorded on the field log sheet for each sampling event:
1. Monitoring station location (Site ID);
2. Date and time(s) of sample collection;
3. Name(s) of sampling personnel;
4. Sample ID numbers and unique IDs for any replicate or blank samples;
5. QC sample type (if appropriate);
6. Sample type, (e.g., grab or composite);
7. The results of field measurements (e.g., flow, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
conductivity) and the time that measurements were made;
8. Qualitative descriptions of relevant water conditions (e.g., water color, flow level, clarity) or
weather (e.g., wind, rain) at the time of sample collection;
9. Trash observations (presence/absence);
Revised CIMP D-25 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
10. A description of any unusual occurrences associated with the sampling event, particularly
those that may affect sample or data quality.
The field log will be scanned into a PDF and transmitted along with the Post -Event Summary Report
to the Project Manager within one week of the conclusion of each sampling event. Appendix 1
contains an example of the field log sheet.
9.2.3 Sample Handling and Shipment
The field crews will have custody of samples during each monitoring event. Chain -of -custody (COC)
forms will accompany all samples during shipment to contract laboratories to identify the shipment
contents. All water quality samples will be transported to the analytical laboratory by the field crew
or by courier. The original COC form will accompany the shipment, and a signed copy of the COC
form will be sent, typically via email, by the laboratory to the field crew to be retained in the project
file.
While in the field, samples will be stored on ice in an insulated container. Samples shipped to
analytical laboratories must be examined to ensure that container lids are tight and placed on ice to
maintain the appropriate temperature. The ice packed with samples must be approximately 2
inches deep. The original COC form(s) will be double -bagged in re -sealable plastic bags and either
taped to the outside of the cooler or to the inside lid. Samples must be shipped to the contract
laboratory according to Department of Transportation standards. The courier name and other
pertinent information should be entered in the "Received By" or "Remarks" section of the COC form.
Coolers must be sealed with packing tape before shipping, unless transported by field or lab
personnel and must not leak. It is assumed that samples in tape -sealed ice chests are secure
whether being transported by common carrier or by commercial package delivery. The laboratory's
sample receiving department will examine the shipment of samples for correct documentation,
proper preservation, and compliance with holding times.
The following procedures are used to prevent bottle breakage and cross -contamination:
1. Bubble wrap or foam pouches are used to keep glass bottles from contacting one another to
prevent breakage, re -sealable bags may be used if available.
2. All samples are transported inside hard plastic coolers or other contamination -free shipping
containers.
3. The laboratory's sample receiving personnel must be notified prior to sample delivery or
shipment.
All samples remaining after successful completion of analyses will be disposed of properly. It is the
responsibility of the personnel of each analytical laboratory to ensure that all applicable regulations
are followed in the disposal of samples or related chemicals.
Samples will be stored and transported as noted previously in Table D-3. Samples not analyzed
locally will be sent on the same day that the sample collection process is completed, if possible. The
individual sample containers containing the water samples for chemical analysis will be shipped to
the analytical chemistry laboratory for analysis.
Revised CIMP D-26 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
9.2.4 Chain -of Custody Forms
Sample custody procedures provide a mechanism for documenting information related to sample
collection and handling. Sample custody must be traceable from the time of sample collection until
results are reported. A sample is considered under custody if:
1. It is in actual possession.
2. It is in view after in physical possession.
3. It is placed in a secure area (accessible by or under the scrutiny of authorized personnel
only after in possession).
A COC form must be completed after sample collection and prior to sample shipment or release. The
COC form, sample labels, and field documentation will be cross-checked to verify sample
identification, type of analyses, number of containers, sample volume, preservatives, and type of
containers. A complete COC form is to accompany the transfer of samples to the analyzing
laboratory. A typical COC form is illustrated in Appendix 1.
9.2.5 Laboratory Custody Procedures
Laboratories will follow sample custody procedures as outlined in the laboratory's Quality
Assurance (QA) Manual. A copy of each contract laboratory's QA Manual should be available at the
laboratory upon request. Laboratories shall maintain custody logs sufficient to track each sample
received and to analyze or preserve each sample within specified holding times. The following
sample control activities must be conducted at the laboratory:
1. Initial sample login and verification of samples received with the COC form;
2. Document any discrepancies noted during login on the COC;
3. Initiate internal laboratory custody procedures;
4. Verify sample preservation (e.g., temperature);
5. Notify the Project Manager if any problems or discrepancies are identified; and,
6. Perform proper sample storage protocols, including daily refrigerator temperature
monitoring and sample security.
Laboratories shall maintain records to document that the above procedures are followed. Once
samples have been analyzed, samples will be stored at the laboratory for at least 30 days (excluding
bacteria samples). After this period, samples may be disposed of properly.
9.3 Field Protocols
Briefly, the key aspects of quality control associated with field protocols for sample collection for
eventual chemical, microbiological, and toxicological analyses are as follows:
1. Field personnel will be thoroughly trained in the proper use of sample collection gear and
will be able to distinguish acceptable versus unacceptable water samples in accordance with
pre -established criteria.
2. Field personnel will be thoroughly trained to recognize and avoid potential sources of
sample contamination (e.g., engine exhaust, ice used for cooling, touching the inner surfaces
of sample bottles or caps).
Revised CIMP D-27 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
3. Field personnel will follow the most up-to-date health protocols for sampling determined by
the personnel's current agency or consultant firm (e.g., wearing a mask, social distancing,
washing hands).
4. Sampling gear and utensils which come in direct contact with the sample will be made of
non -contaminating materials (e.g., borosilicate glass, high -quality stainless steel and/or
Teflon T", according to protocol) and will be thoroughly cleaned between sampling stations
according to appropriate cleaning protocol (rinsing thoroughly with laboratory reagent
water at minimum).
5. Sample containers will be of the recommended type and will be free of contaminants (i.e.,
pre -cleaned and/or sterile).
6. Conditions for sample collection, preservation and holding times will be followed.
Field crews will be comprised of two people per crew, minimum. For safety reasons, sampling will
occur during daylight hours, when possible. Sampling on weekends and holidays will also be
avoided, if possible. Other constraints on sampling events include, but are not limited to, lab
closures and toxicity testing organism availability. Sampling events should proceed in the following
manner:
2. Before leaving the sampling crew base of operations, confirm number and type of sample
containers and the complete equipment list.
3. Proceed to the first sampling site.
4. Fill -out the general information on the field log sheet.
5. Collect the environmental and QA/QC samples indicated on the event summary sheet in the
manner described in the CIMP and store samples as described in the CIMP. Using the field
log sheet, confirm that all appropriate containers were filled.
6. Collect field measurements and observations, and record these on the field log sheet.
7. Repeat the procedures in steps 3, 4, and 5 for each of the remaining sampling sites.
8. Complete the COC forms using the information on the field log sheets.
9. After sample collection is completed, deliver and/or ship samples to appropriate laboratory.
9.3.1 Invasive Species
Quagga mussels were found in Lake Piru, nearby the USCRWMG area. Should the mussel infestation
spread, there is potential for field staff to come in contact with this invasive species. Field personnel
have the potential to further spread invasive species if proper precautions are not taken prior to,
during, and after a sampling event. Information and procedures for controlling the spread of these
organisms have been outlined by the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Quagga and Zebra
Mussels Invasive Species Program (https: [/wildlife.ca.gov/ConservationllnvasivesIQuagga-
Mussels) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Invasive Species Program
(https:l/fws.gov/initiative/invasive-species). The Monitoring Manager may want to consider
tracking this infestation and developing a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)
planning document specific to the CIMP.
9.3.2 Endangered Species
As previously described, the CIMP includes monitoring of receiving waters and outfalls. Monitoring
is performed under both wet and dry weather conditions. There is potential during these
monitoring activities for field staff to encounter threatened or endangered species found within the
Santa Clara River. Fish species Catostomus santanae (Santa Ana sucker) is on the federal threatened
Revised CIMP D-28 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
species list and Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni (unarmored three-spined stickleback) is
federally listed as endangered. Sampling crews may also encounter the endangered least Bell's vireo
or other species of concern while performing sampling and screening activities.
Sampling crews are least likely to encounter endangered species during wet weather monitoring.
Flows are at their peaks during storm events, allowing fish unimpeded movement in channels.
Under these conditions, it may not be safe for field staff to enter the channels and work will likely be
performed from the banks. Dry weather sampling and screening are the critical period for
endangered species consideration. Least Bell's vireo nesting and rearing of young takes place in
spring and summer. These are also the periods when channel and river flows are lowest, fish may
be confined to ponds and pools between dry river sections.
To avoid harming these sensitive species, annual training of field staff that will be performing water
sampling is recommended. Fact sheets may also be developed and provided to field staff for review
prior monitoring events. The training topics should include the importance of not harming or
harassing native wildlife or natural habitats, avoidance of any pools or ponded areas, and safety
precautions.
9.4 Sample Collection
All samples will be collected in a manner appropriate for the specific analytical methods to be used.
The proper sampling techniques, outlined in this section, will ensure that the collected samples are
representative of the water bodies sampled. Should field crews feel that it is unsafe to collect
samples for any reason, the field crews SHOULD NOT COLLECT the sample and note on the field log
the sample was not collected, why the sample was not collected, and provide photo documentation,
if possible.
9.4.1 Overview of Sampling Techniques
As described below, the method used to collect water samples is dependent on the depth, flow, and
type of outfall. Nonetheless, in all cases:
1. Throughout each sample collection event, the sampler should exercise aseptic techniques to
avoid any contamination (i.e., do not touch the inner surfaces or lip edges of the sample
bottle or cap).
2. The sampler should use clean, powder -free, nitrile gloves for each site to prevent
contamination.
3. When collecting the sample, he or she should not breathe in the direction of the container.
4. Gloves should be changed if they are soiled or if the potential for cross -contamination exists
from handling sampling materials or samples.
5. While the sample is collected, the bottle lid shall not be placed on the ground.
6. No eating or drinking during sample collection.
7. No smoking.
8. Do not breathe, sneeze, or cough in the direction of an open sample bottle.
9. Each person on the field crew will wear clean clothing that is free of dirt, grease, or other
substances that could contaminate the sampling apparatus or sample bottles.
10. To the extent practical, sampling should not occur near a running vehicle. Vehicles should
not be parked within the immediate sample collection area, even non -running vehicles.
Revised CIMP D-29 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
11. When the sample is collected leave ample air space (about 1 inch) in the bottle to facilitate
mixing by shaking for lab analysis, unless otherwise required by the method.
12. After the sample is collected and the cap is tightly screwed back on the bottle, the time of
sampling should be recorded on the field tablet or log sheet.
13. Any QA/QC samples that are collected should also be noted on the field log sheet or
electronic field recording and labeled according to the convention described in
Section 9.1.2.
14. Store samples as described previously.
15. Fill out COC form as described in Section 9.2.4 and deliver to the appropriate lab within
sufficient time for the laboratory to meet the shortest hold time of all the constituents they
are analyzing.
To prevent contamination of metals samples, clean metal sampling techniques using USEPA
protocols outlined in USEPA Method 16694 will be used throughout all phases of the metals water
sample collection. The protocol for clean metal sampling, based on USEPA Method 1669, is
summarized below:
1. Samples are collected in rigorously pre -cleaned sample bottles with any tubing specially
processed to clean sampling standards.
2. At least two persons, wearing clean, powder -free nitrile or latex gloves at all times, are
required on a sampling crew.
3. One person, referred to as "dirty hands", opens only the outer bag of all double -bagged
sample bottles.
4. The other person, referred to as "clean hands", reaches into the outer bag, opens the inner
bag and removes the clean sample bottle.
5. Clean hands rinses the bottle three times by submerging the bottle, removing the bottle lid,
filling the bottle approximately one-third full, replacing the bottle lid, gently shaking and
then emptying the bottle. Clean hands then collects the sample by submerging the bottle,
removing the lid, filling the bottle and replacing the bottle cap while the bottle is still
submerged.
6. After the sample is collected, the sample bottle is double -bagged in the opposite order from
which it was removed from the same double -bagging.
7. Clean, powder -free gloves are changed whenever something not known to be clean has been
touched.
9.5 Field Measurements and Observations
Field measurements will be collected, and observations will be made, at each sampling site after a
sample is collected. Field measurements will include the parameters identified in the CIMP for
which laboratory analysis is not required. Field monitoring equipment must meet the requirements
outlined in Table D-1. All field measurement results and field observations will be recorded on a
field log sheet (or electronic device) similar to the one presented in Appendix 1 and as described in
Section 9.2.1 of this Attachment.
4 USEPA. April 1995. Method 1669: Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria
Levels. EPA 821-R-95-034.
Revised CIMP D-30 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Measurements (except for flow) will be attained at approximately mid -stream, mid -depth at the
location of greatest flow (if feasible) with a YSI ProDSS multi -probe meter, or comparable
instrument(s). If at any time the collection of field measurements by wading appears to be unsafe,
field crews will not attempt to collect mid -stream, mid -depth measurements. Rather, field
measurements will be made either directly from a stable, unobstructed area at the channel edge, or
by using a telescoping pole and intermediate container to obtain a sample for field measurements
and for filling sample containers. For safety reasons, field staff will not enter the channel to collect
field measurements during wet weather conditions. For situations where flows are not sufficiently
deep to submerge the probes, an intermediate container will be utilized. The location of field
measurements will be documented on the field log sheet.
Flow measurements will be collected as outlined in the following subsections at receiving water and
outfall monitoring sites. Regardless of measurement technique used, the gage height will be noted if
a staff gage is present. Field crews may not be able to measure flow at several sites during wet
weather because of inaccessibility of the site. If this is the case, site inaccessibility will be
documented on the field log sheet.
The field sampling crew has the primary responsibility for responding to failures in the sampling or
measurement systems. Deviations from established monitoring protocols will be documented in the
comment section of the field log sheet and noted in the post event summaries. If monitoring
equipment fails, monitoring personnel will report the problem in the notes section of the field log
sheet and will not record data values for the variables in question. Broken equipment will be
replaced or repaired prior to the next field use, if feasible. Data collected using faulty equipment will
not be used.
9.5.1 Velocity Meter Flow Measurements
For sampling sites where water is deep enough (>0.1-foot) a velocity meter will be utilized. For
these cases, velocity will be measured at approximately equal increments across the width of the
flowing water using an appropriate velocity measurement device. A "flow pole" will be used to
measure the water depth at each measurement point and to properly align the sensor so that the
depth of each velocity measurement is 0.6 * total depth, which is representative of the average
velocity. The distance between velocity measurements taken across the stream is dependent on the
total width. No more than 10% of the flow will pass through any one cross section.
9.5.2 Shallow Sheet Flow Measurements
If the depth of flow does not allow for the measurement of flow with a velocity meter (<0.1-foot) a
"float" will be used to measure the velocity of the flowing water. The width, depth, velocity, cross
section, and corresponding flow rate will be estimated as follows:
Sheet flow width: The width (M of the flowing water (not the entire part of the channel that is
damp) is measured using a tape measure at the "top", "middle", and "bottom" of a marked -off
distance - generally 10 feet (e.g., for a 10-foot marked -off section, WTop is measured at 0-feet, Wlid
is measured at S feet, and WBottom is measured at 10 feet).
Revised CIMP D-31 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Sheet flow depth: The depth of the sheet flow is measured at the top, middle, and bottom of the
marked -off distance. Specifically, the depth (D) of the sheet flow is measured at 25%, 50%, and 75%
of the flowing width (e.g., DM'did is the depth of the water at middle of the section in the middle of
the sheet flow) at each of the width measurement locations. It is assumed that the depth at the edge
of the sheet flow (i.e., at 0% and 100% of the flowing width) is zero.
Representative cross-section: Based on the collected depth and width measurements, the
representative cross -sectional area across the marked -off sheet flow is approximated as follows:
Representative Cross Section =
(D50P + DZSP ) (DTOP + D50p)
D 50f
Average
{ [WTop X (D25� +
111 l
+ +
4 2
2 2
2
W
Mid
DMid DMid +DMid DMid +DMid DMid
25 % 50 % 25% 75 % 50% 75%)j
X
+
+ +
4
2 2
2 2
W
r Bottom
DBottom DBottom
( 25% 50%
+ DBottom DBottom + DBottom
25% 75% 50%
DBottom
75%
X
4
+
` 2
+ +
2 2
AlL
2 iJJ
Sheet flow velocity: Velocity is calculated based on the amount of time it took a float to travel the
marked -off distance (typically 10-feet or more). Floats are normally pieces of leaves, litter, or
floatables (suds, etc.). The time it takes the float to travel the marked -off distance is measured at
least three times. Then average velocity is calculated as follows:
Average Surface Velocity =
Distance Marked off for Float Measurement
Average Time for Float to Travel Marked off Distance
Flow Rate calculation: For sheet flows, based on the above measurements/estimates, the
estimated flow rate, Q is calculated by:
Q = fx (Representative Cross Section) x (Average Surface Velocity)
The coefficient f is used to account for friction effects of the channel bottom. That is, the float travels
on the water surface, which is the most rapidly traveling portion of the water column. The average
velocity, not the surface velocity, determines the flow rate, and thus f is used to "convert" surface
velocity to average velocity. In general, the value off typically ranges from 0.60 - 0.90.
9.5.3 Free -flowing outfalls
Some storm drain outfalls are free -flowing, meaning the runoff falls from an elevated outfall into the
channel, which allows for collection of the entire flowing stream of water into a container of known
volume (e.g., graduated bucket or Ziploc® bag). The time it takes to fill the known volume is
measured using a stopwatch and recorded on the field log. The time it takes to fill the container will
be measured three times and averaged to ensure that the calculated discharge is representative. In
some cases, a small portion of the runoff may flow around or under the container. For each
measurement, "percent capture", or the proportion of flow estimated to enter the bucket, will be
recorded.
For free -flowing outfalls, the estimated flow rate, Q is calculated by:
Revised CIMP D-32 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Filled container Volume Q =Average [ ]
(Time to Fill Container) x (Estimated Capture)
9.6 Sample Collection Techniques
The following subsections provide details on the various techniques that can be utilized to collect
water quality samples. Should field crews feel that it is unsafe to collect samples for any reason, the
field crews SHOULD NOT COLLECT a sample and note on the field log that the sample was not
collected, why the sample was not collected, and provide photo documentation, if feasible.
9.6.1 Direct Submersion: Hand Technique
Where practical, all grab samples will be collected by direct submersion at mid -stream, mid -depth
using the following procedures:
1. Follow the standard sampling procedures described in Section 9.4.1.
2. For sample bottles with preservatives, remove the lid and submerge the container to mid-
stream/mid-depth, let the container fill and secure the lid. In the case of mercury samples,
remove the lid underwater to reduce the potential for contamination from the air.
3. For sample bottles without preservatives, triple rinse sample bottles before collecting the
final sample.
4. Place the sample on ice.
5. Collect the remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the same
protocols described above.
6. Follow the sample handling procedures described in Section 9.2.
9.6.2 Intermediate Container Technique
Samples may be collected with the use of a specially cleaned intermediate container, if necessary,
following the steps listed below. An intermediate container may include a container that is similar
in composition, such as a pre -cleaned pitcher made of the same material as the sample container, or
a Ziploc® bag. An intermediate container should not be reused at a different site without
appropriate cleaning.
1. Follow the standard sampling procedures described in Section 9.4.1.
2. Before each sample, triple rinse the intermediate container.
3. Submerge the intermediate container to mid-stream/mid-depth (if possible), let the
container fill, and quickly transfer the sample into the individual sample container(s) and
secure the lid(s).
4. Place the sample(s) on ice.
5. Collect remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the same
protocols described above.
6. Follow the sample handling procedures described in Section 9.2.
9.6.3 Shallow sheet flows
Some flows may be too shallow to fill the bottle without using an intermediate sterile container.
When collecting samples from shallow sheet flows it is very important to not scoop up algae,
sediment, or other particulate matter on the bottom of the channel because such debris is not
representative of flowing water. To prevent scooping up such debris, either (1) find a spot where the
Revised CIMP D-33 September2023
Upper Santa Crara River Watershed Management Group
bottom is relatively clean and allow the sterile intermediate container to fill without scooping, or
(2) lay a clean sterile Ziploc® bag on the bottom and collect the water sample from on top of the
bag. A fresh sterile Ziploc® bag must be used at each site.
9.6.4 Pumping
The use of a peristaltic pump is not anticipated to be necessary at the CIMP sites; however,
information is included here in case pump use becomes necessary due to safety concerns. Samples
may be collected with the use of a peristaltic pump and specially cleaned tubing following the steps
listed below. Sample tubing should not be reused at a different site without appropriate cleaning.
1. Follow the standard sampling procedures described in Section 9.4.1.
2. Attach pre -cleaned tubing into the pump, exercising caution to avoid allowing tubing ends to
touch any surface known not to be clean.
3. Place one end of the tubing below the surface of the water. To the extent possible, avoid
placing the tubing near the bottom so that settled solids are not pumped into the sample
container.
4. Hold the other end of the tubing over the opening of the sample container, exercising care
not to touch the tubing to the sample container.
S. Pump the necessary sample volume into the sample container and secure the lid.
6. Place the sample on ice.
7. Collect remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the same
protocols described above.
8. Follow the sample handling procedures described in Section 9.2.
9.6.5 Autosamplers
Automatic sample compositors (autosamplers) are used to characterize the entire flow of a storm in
one analysis. They can be programmed to take aliquots at either time- or flow -based specified intervals.
To setup and install an autosampler it is recommended to read the manufacturer's instructions before
beginning setup in the field. The general steps to setup the autosampler are described below.
1. Connect power source to autosampler computer. This can be in the form of a battery or a
power cable.
2. Install pre -cleaned tubing into the pump. To the extent practicable, clean tubing will be used
at each site and for each event, in order to minimize contamination. For some stations, it
may be more practical to replace tubing on an annual or every other year basis. In those
instances, it may be appropriate to collect equipment blanks prior to sampling events.
Tubing that is not newly installed should be flushed with clean water prior to each sampling
event.
3. Attach strainer to intake end of the tubing and install in sampling channel.
4. If running flow -based composite samples; install flow sensor in sampling channel and
connect it to the autosampler.
5. Label and install composite bottle(s). If sampler is not refrigerated, then add enough ice to
the composite bottle chamber to keep sample cold for the duration of sampling or until such
time as ice can be refreshed. Make sure not to contaminate the inside of the composite
bottle with any of the ice.
6. Program the autosampler as to the manufacturer's instructions and make sure autosampler
is powered and running before leaving the site.
Revised CIMP D-34 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
After the sample collection is completed, the following steps must be taken to ensure proper sample
handling:
1. Upon returning to the site, check the status of the autosampler and record any missed
samples. Note on the field log the time of the last sample, as this will be used for filling out
the COCs.
2. Remove composite bottle and store on ice. If dissolved metals are required then begin the
sample filtration process outlined in the following subsection within 15 minutes of the last
composite sample, unless compositing must occur at another location, in which case the
filtration process should occur as soon as possible upon sample compositing.
3. Power down autosampler and leave sampling site.
4. The composite sample will need to be split into the separate analysis bottles before being
shipped to the laboratory. This is best done in a clean and weatherproof environment, using
clean sampling techniques.
9.6.6 Dissolved Metals Field Filtration
When feasible, samples for dissolved metals will be filtered in the field. The following describes an
appropriate dissolved field filtration method. An alternative, equivalent method may be utilized if
necessary. A 50 mL plastic syringe with a 0.45 µm filter attached would be used to collect and filter
the dissolved metals sample in the field. The apparatus would either come certified pre -cleaned
from the manufacturer and confirmed by the analytical laboratory or be pre -cleaned by and
confirmed by the analytical laboratory at least once per year. The apparatus would be double
bagged in Ziploc® plastic bags.
To collect the sample for dissolved metals in the field, first collect the total metals sample using
clean sampling techniques. The dissolved sample would be taken from this container. Immediately
prior to collecting the dissolved sample, shake the total metals sample. To collect the dissolved
metals sample using clean sampling techniques, remove the syringe from the bag and place the tip
of the syringe into the bottle containing the total metals sample and draw up 50 mL of sample into
the syringe. Next, remove the filter from the Ziploc® bag and screw it tightly into the tip of the
syringe. Then, put the tip of the syringe with the filter into the clean dissolved metals container and
push the sample through the filter taking care not to touch the inside surface of the sample
container with the apparatus. The sample volume needs to be a minimum of 20 mL. If the filter
becomes clogged prior to generating 20 mL of sample, remove and dispose of the used filter and
replace it with a new clean filter. Continue to filter the sample. When at least 20 mL has been
collected, cap the sample bottle tightly and store on ice for delivery to the laboratory.
9.7 Receiving Water Sample Collection
A grab sample is a discrete individual sample. A composite sample is mixture of grab samples
collected over a period weighted either based on time or flow. A time -weighted composite is created
by mixing multiple aliquots collected at specified time intervals. A flow -weighted composite is
created by mixing multiple aliquots collected at time intervals based on flow rate but where the
volume of the aliquot is equal. Should field crews feel that it is unsafe to collect samples for any
reason, the field crews SHOULD NOT COLLECT samples and note on the field log the sample was
not collected, why the sample was not collected, and provide photo documentation, if feasible.
Revised CIMP D-35 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Grab samples will be used for dry and wet weather sampling events at all sites except
SNTCLR_6_ME. Grab samples will be collected as described in Section 9.6. Monitoring site
configuration and consideration of safety will dictate the grab sample collection technique.
The potential exists for monitoring sites to lack discernable flow. The lack of discernable flow may
generate unrepresentative data. To address the potential confounding interference that can occur
under such conditions, sites sampled should be assessed for the following conditions and sampled
or not sampled accordingly:
1. Pools of water with no flow or visible connection to another surface water body should not
be sampled. The field log should be completed for non -water quality data (including date
and time of visit) and the site condition should be photo -documented.
2. Flowing water (i.e., based on visual observations, flow measurements, and a photo -
documented assessment of conditions immediately upstream and downstream of the
sampling site) should be sampled.
It is the combined responsibility of all members of the sampling crew to determine if the
performance requirements of the specific sampling method have been met, and to collect additional
samples if required. If the performance requirements outlined above or documented in sampling
protocols are not met, the sample will be re -collected if the data completeness objectives outlined in
Section 10 are not already being met. If contamination of the sample container is suspected, a fresh
sample container will be used. The Project Manager will be contacted if at any time the sampling
crew has questions about procedures or issues based on site -specific conditions.
9.8 Stormwater Outfall Sample Collection
Stormwater outfalls will be monitored with similar methods as discussed in the receiving water
sampling section. Sampling will not be undertaken if the outfalls are not flowing or if conditions
exist where the receiving water is back -flowing into the outfall. It is the combined responsibility of
all members of the sampling crew to determine if the performance requirements of the specific
sampling method have been met, and to collect additional samples if required. If the performance
requirements outlined above or documented in sampling protocols are not met, the sample will be
re -collected if the data completeness objectives outlined in Section 10 are not already being met. If
contamination of the sample container is suspected, a fresh sample container will be used. The
Project Manager will be contacted if at any time the sampling crew has questions about procedures
or issues based on site -specific conditions.
9.9 Non-Stormwater Outfall Sample Collection
Non-stormwater outfall water quality samples will be collected consistent with the grab sample
techniques previously described, using direct submersion, intermediate container, shallow sheet
flow, or pumping methods. The potential exists for non-stormwater outfall monitoring sites to lack
discernable flow or for flow emanating from outfalls to not be connected to a receiving water. Sites
sampled should be assessed for the following conditions and sampled or not sampled accordingly:
1. Flowing water from outfalls with no visible connection to a receiving water should not be
sampled. The field log should be completed for non -water quality data (including date and time
of visit) and the site condition should be photo -documented.
Revised CIMP D-36 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2. Flowing water within an outfall connected to a receiving water (i.e., based on visual
observations, flow measurements, and a photo -documented assessment of conditions
immediately downstream of the sampling site) should be sampled.
9.10 Quality Control Sample Collection
Quality control samples will be collected in conjunction with environmental samples to verify data
quality. Quality control samples collected in the field include field blanks and duplicates. The
frequency of quality control sample collection is presented Section 10.
Revised CIMP D-37 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
10 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
This section describes the quality assurance and quality control requirements and processes
associated with the CIMP. Quality control samples will be collected in conjunction with
environmental samples to verify data quality. Quality control samples collected in the field will
generally be collected in the same manner as environmental samples. Table D-9 presents the
quality assurance parameters that will be evaluated, associated data quality objectives, and
corrective action(s) that may be taken if data quality objectives are not met. For field measured
parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH), there are no Surface
Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) requirements for quality. However, field crews will
be required to calibrate equipment as outlined in Section 9.1.3 to meet the data quality objectives
shown in Table D-10. For aquatic toxicity samples, quality assurance/quality control will involve
evaluation against performance criteria for the reference toxicant test and sample replicates.
Table D-9. Quality Control Requirements and Data Quality Objectives for Water Samples
Quality
Control
QA Parameter
Frequency')
Data Quality Objective(2)
Corrective Action
Sample Type
Quality Control Requirements — Field
Equipment
Contamination
5% of all
< MDL
Identify equipment contamination
Blanks
samples(3)
source. Qualify data as needed.
5% of all
Examine field log. Identify
Field Blank
Contamination
samples
< MDL
contamination source. Qualify
data as needed.
Reanalyze both samples if
possible. Attempt to identify and
Field
Precision
5% of all
RPD < 25% if IDifferencel
mitigate source of variability.
Duplicate
samples
> RL(4)
Qualify data as needed.
Document if high RPD potentially
caused by sample heterogeneity.
Quality Control Requirements — Laboratory
1 per
Identify and address
Method Blank
Contamination
analytical
< MDL
contamination source. Reanalyze
batch
method blank and all samples in
batch. Qualify data as needed.
Review Laboratory Control
1 per
RPD < 25% if IDifferencel
Sample duplicate and potentially
Lab Duplicate
Precision
analytical
— > RL
recalibrate and reanalyze. Qualify
batch
results and document if high RPD
caused by matrix heterogeneity.
Revised CIMP
D-38
September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Quality
Control QA Parameter Frequency0) Data Quality Objective(') Corrective Action
Sample Type
1 per
Matrix Spike Accuracy analytical
batch
80-120% Recovery for
Conventionals (Including
Nutrients) and Solids
75-125% for Metals
50-150% Recovery for
Pesticides, Herbicides,
Volatile / Semivolatile
Organics, and PCBs(s)
Check LCS/SRM recovery.
Attempt to correct matrix problem
and reanalyze samples. Qualify
data as needed.
er
Check lab duplicate RPD. Attempt
Matrix Spike
Precision
analpytical
RPD < 30% if IDifferencel
to correct matrix problem and
Duplicate
batch
> RL
reanalyze samples. Qualify data
as needed.
80-120% Recovery for
Conventionals (Excluding
Nutrients) and Solids
Laboratory
90-110% for Nutrients
Control
1 per
Recalibrate and reanalyze LCS/
Sample (or
Accuracy
analytical
CRM and samples.
CRM or Blank
batch
75-125% for Metals
Spike)
50-150% Recovery for
Pesticides, Herbicides,
Volatile / Semivolatile
Organics, and PCBs(s)
1 per
Check lab duplicate RPD. Attempt
Blank Spike
Precision
analytical
RPD < 25% if IDifferencel
to correct matrix problem and
Duplicate
batch
> RL
reanalyze samples. Qualify data
as needed.
Surrogate
Each
Check surrogate recovery in LCS.
Spike
Accuracy
environmental
30-150% Recovery s
Attempt to correct matrix problem
(Organics
and lab QC
and reanalyze sample. Qualify
Only)
sample
data as needed.
MDL = Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit RPD = Relative Percent Difference
LCS = Laboratory Control Sample/Standard CRM = Certified/ Standard Reference Material
1. "Analytical batch" refers to a number of samples (not to exceed 20 environmental samples plus the associated quality
control samples) that are similar in matrix type and processed/prepared together under the same conditions and same
reagents (equivalent to preparation batch).
2. Data quality objectives may be substituted by those specified in the applicable analytical method.
3. Equipment blanks may be collected by the field crew before using the equipment to collect samples.
4. Data quality objective for field duplicate RPD does not apply to fecal indicator bacteria.
5. Alternatively, control limits set at + 3 standard deviations based on actual laboratory data.
Revised CIMP D-39 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-10. Data Quality Objectives for Field Parameters
Parameter
Accuracy
Precision
Water Velocity (for Flow calc.)
NA
± 10%
pH
± 0.2 pH units
± 0.2 pH units
Temperature
± 0.2 °C
± 10%
Dissolved Oxygen
± 0.5 mg/L
± 10%
Turbidity
± 1 NTU
± 10%
Conductivity
± 2 pS/cm
± 10%
10.1 QA/QC Requirements and Objectives
10.1.1 Comparability
Comparability of the data can be defined as the similarity of data generated by different monitoring
programs. For this monitoring program, this objective will be ensured mainly through use of
standardized procedures for field measurements, sample collection, sample preparation, laboratory
analysis, and site selection; adherence to quality assurance protocols and holding times; and
reporting in standard units. Additionally, comparability of analytical data will be addressed through
the use of standard operating procedures and extensive analyst training at the analyzing laboratory.
10.1.2 Representativeness
Representativeness can be defined as the degree to which the environmental data generated by the
monitoring program accurately and precisely represent actual environmental conditions. For the
CIMP, this objective will be addressed by the overall design of the program. Representativeness is
attained through the selection of sampling locations, methods, and frequencies for each parameter
of interest, and by maintaining the integrity of each sample after collection. Sampling locations were
chosen that are representative of various areas within the watershed which will allow for the
characterization of the watershed and impacts discharges may have on water quality.
10.1.3 Completeness
Data completeness is a measure of the amount of data that is successfully collected and validated by
a project relative to the amount of data planned for collection. Typically, completeness is expressed
as a percentage value and represents the percentage of samples needed for the project to reach
valid conclusions. For this project, the completeness objective is 90% for all constituents and
matrices.
Because the CIMP is intended to be a long-term monitoring program, data that are not successfully
collected during a specific sample event will not be recollected at a later date. Rather, subsequent
events conducted over the course of the monitoring program will provide robust data sets to
appropriately characterize conditions at individual sampling sites and the watershed in general.
Revised CIMP D-40 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
However, some reasonable objectives for data are desirable, if only to measure the effectiveness of
the program when conditions allow for the collection of samples (i.e., flow is present). The program
goal for data completeness, 90%, is based on the planned sampling frequency, SWAMP
recommendations, and a subjective determination of the relative importance of the monitoring
element within the CIMP. If the conditions at particular sampling sites do not allow for the collection
of enough samples to achieve the data completeness objective, alternate sites will be considered.
Data completeness will be evaluated on a yearly basis.
10.2 QA/QC Field Procedures
For basic water quality analyses, quality control samples to be prepared in the field will consist of
equipment blanks, field blanks, and field duplicates as described below.
10.2.1 Equipment Blanks
The purpose of analyzing equipment blanks is to demonstrate that sampling equipment is free from
contamination. Equipment blanks will consist of laboratory -prepared blank water (certified to be
contaminant -free by the laboratory) processed through the sampling equipment that will be used to
collect environmental samples.
Equipment blanks will be analyzed using the same analytical methods specified for environmental
samples. If any analytes of interest are detected at levels greater than the MDL, the source(s) of
contamination will be investigated and eliminated, if possible. Depending on the level of
contamination, contaminated equipment may need to be re -cleaned or replaced and/or new
equipment blanks may need to be prepared and analyzed.
10.2.2 Field Blanks
The purpose of analyzing field blanks is to demonstrate that sampling procedures do not result in
contamination of the environmental samples. Field blanks are to be collected as follows:
1. At a frequency of 5% of samples collected for the following constituents: trace metals in
water (including mercury) and VOA samples in water, and bacteria samples. At a minimum,
one bacteria field blank should be collected per sampling event, even if this leads to a
percentage of field blanks greater than 5%.
2. Field blanks for other media and analytes should be conducted upon initiation of sampling,
and if field blank performance is acceptable (as described in Table D-9), further collection
and analysis of field blanks for these other media and analytes need only be performed on
an as -needed basis, or during field performance audits. An as -needed basis for the USCR
CIMP will be annually.
Blanks will consist of laboratory -prepared blank water (certified to be contaminant -free by the
laboratory) processed through the sampling equipment using the same procedures used for
environmental samples.
If any analytes of interest are detected at levels greater than the MDL, the source(s) of
contamination should be investigated and eliminated, if possible. The sampling crew should be
notified so that the source of contamination can be identified (if possible) and corrective measures
taken prior to the next sampling event.
Revised CIMP D-41 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
10.2.3 Field Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing field duplicates is to demonstrate the precision of sampling and analytical
processes. Field duplicates will be prepared at the rate of 5% of all samples and analyzed along with
the associated environmental samples. Field duplicates will consist of two grab samples collected
simultaneously, to the extent practicable. If the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) of field duplicate
results is greater than the percentage stated in Table D-9 and the absolute difference is greater
than the RL, results should be qualified. If possible (which may not always be the case), consider
reanalyzing the samples. Document if high field duplicate RPD may be caused by matrix
heterogeneity. The sampling crew should be notified so that the source of sampling variability can
be identified (if possible) and corrective measures taken prior to the next sampling event.
10.3 QA/QC Laboratory Analyses
Quality control samples prepared in the laboratory will consist of method blanks, laboratory
duplicates, matrix spikes/duplicates, laboratory control samples (standard reference materials),
and toxicity quality controls.
10.3.1 Method Blanks
The purpose of analyzing method blanks is to demonstrate that sample preparation and analytical
procedures do not result in sample contamination. Method blanks will be prepared and analyzed by
the contract laboratory at a rate of at least one for each analytical batch. Method blanks will consist
of laboratory -prepared blank water processed along with the batch of environmental samples. If the
result for a single method blank is greater than the MDL, or if the average blank concentration plus
two standard deviations of three or more blanks is greater than the RL, the source(s) of
contamination should be corrected, and the associated samples should be reanalyzed.
10.3.2 Laboratory Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing laboratory duplicates is to demonstrate the precision of the sample
preparation and analytical methods. Laboratory duplicates will be analyzed at the rate of one pair
per sample batch. Laboratory duplicates will consist of duplicate laboratory fortified method
blanks. If the RPD for any analyte is greater than the percentage stated in Table D-9 and the
absolute difference between duplicates is greater than the RL, results should be qualified. Samples
should be reanalyzed to confirm the RPD results. If the lab duplicate RPD is high due to matrix
heterogeneity, results should be qualified and the heterogeneity should be documented.
10.3.3 Matrix Spikes and Matrix Spike Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates is to demonstrate the
performance of the sample preparation and analytical methods in a particular sample matrix.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates will be analyzed at the rate of one pair per sample batch.
Each matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate will consist of an aliquot of laboratory -fortified
environmental sample. Spike concentrations should be added at five to ten times the reporting limit
for the analyte of interest.
If the matrix spike recovery of any analyte is outside the acceptable range, potential causes of high
or low recovery should be evaluated and addressed, if possible. Recovery of laboratory control
samples should be reviewed to determine whether high or low recovery is the result of inadequate
Revised CIMP D-42 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
method performance. If recovery of laboratory control samples is outside of the acceptable range,
issues with method performance should be addressed as described in the following subsection and
matrix spike recovery should be reanalyzed, if possible. If recovery of laboratory control samples is
acceptable, high or low matrix spike recovery can most likely be attributed to the sample matrix. If
possible, the analytical laboratory will attempt to correct the problem (e.g., by dilution,
concentration, etc.), and the environmental samples and matrix spikes should be re -analyzed.
Results should be flagged as estimates if recovery issues cannot be resolved and the data quality
objective is not met.
10.3.4 Laboratory Control Samples
The purpose of analyzing laboratory control samples (or a standard reference material) is to
demonstrate the accuracy of the sample preparation and analytical methods. Laboratory control
samples will be analyzed at the rate of one per sample batch. Laboratory control samples will
consist of laboratory fortified method blanks or a standard reference material. If recovery of any
analyte does not meet the applicable data quality objective, method performance should be
reviewed for potential issues, the sample batch should be prepared again, and the laboratory
control sample should be reanalyzed.
10.3.5 Surrogate Spikes
Surrogate recovery results are used to evaluate the accuracy of analytical measurements for
organics analyses on a sample -specific basis. A surrogate is a compound (or compounds) added by
the laboratory to method blanks, samples, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates prior to
sample preparation, as specified in the analytical methodology. Surrogates are generally
brominated, fluorinated, or isotopically labeled compounds that are not usually present in
environmental media. Results are expressed as percent recovery of the surrogate spike. Surrogate
spikes are applicable for analysis of PCBs and pesticides.
10.3.6 Toxicity Quality Control
For aquatic toxicity tests, the acceptability of test results is determined primarily by performance -
based criteria for test organisms, culture and test conditions, and the results of control bioassays.
Control bioassays include monthly reference toxicant testing. Test acceptability requirements are
documented in the method documents for each bioassay method.
Revised CIMP D-43 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
11 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY
Frequencies and procedures for calibration of analytical equipment used by each contract
laboratory are documented in the QA Manual for each contract laboratory. Any deficiencies in
analytical equipment calibration should be managed in accordance with the QA Manual for each
contract laboratory. Any deficiencies that affect analysis of samples submitted through this program
must be reported to the Project Manager, or designee. Laboratory QA Manuals are available for
review at the analyzing laboratory.
Revised CIMP D-44 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
12 DATA MANAGEMENT, VALIDATION AND USABILITY
The following sections details the procedures for managing and reporting data to meet the goals
and objectives of the CIMP and in turn the Permit. The details contained herein serve as a guide for
ensuring that consistent protocols and procedures are in place for successful data management and
reporting.
12.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Requirements
The acceptability of data is determined through data verification and data validation. Both
processes are discussed in detail in the following subsections. In addition to the data quality
objectives presented in Table D-9, the standard data validation procedures documented in the
contract laboratory's QA Manual will be used to accept, reject, or qualify the data generated by the
laboratory. Each laboratory's QA Officer will be responsible for validating data generated by the
laboratory.
Once analytical results are received from the analyzing laboratory, the USCRWMG will perform an
independent review and validation of analytical results. Appendix 2 provides equations that are
used to calculate precision, accuracy, and completeness of the data. Decisions to reject or qualify
data will be made by the USCRWMG, based on the evaluation of field and laboratory quality control
data, according to procedures outlined in Section 13 of Caltrans document No. CTSW-RT-00-005,
Guidance Manual: Stormwater Monitoring Protocols, 2nd Edition. Section 13 of the Caltrans Guidance
Manual is included as Appendix 3.
12.2 Data Verification
Data verification involves verifying that required methods and procedures have been followed at all
stages of the data collection process, including sample collection, sample receipt, sample
preparation, sample analysis, and documentation review for completeness. Verified data have been
checked for a variety of factors, including transcription errors, correct application of dilution
factors, appropriate reporting of dry weight versus wet weight results, and correct application of
conversion factors. Verification of data may also include laboratory qualifiers, if assigned.
Data verification should occur in the field and the laboratory at each level (i.e., all personnel should
verify their own work) and as information is passed from one level to the next (i.e., supervisors
should verify the information produced by their staff). Records commonly examined during the
verification process include field and sample collection logs, COC forms, sample preparation logs,
instrument logs, raw data, and calculation worksheets.
In addition, laboratory personnel will verify that the measurement process was "in control" (i.e., all
specified data quality objectives were met or acceptable deviations explained) for each batch of
samples before proceeding with the analysis of a subsequent batch. Each laboratory will also
establish a system for detecting and reducing transcription and/or calculation errors prior to
reporting data.
Revised CIMP D-45 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
12.3 Data Validation
In general, data validation involves identifying project requirements, obtaining the documents and
records produced during data verification, evaluating the quality of the data generated, and
determining whether project requirements were met. The main focus of data validation is
determining data quality in terms of accomplishment of measurement quality objectives (i.e.,
meeting QC acceptance criteria). Data quality indicators, such as precision, accuracy, sensitivity,
representativeness, and completeness, are typically used as expressions of data quality. The
USCRWMG will review verified sample results for the data set as a whole, including laboratory
qualifiers, summarize data and QC deficiencies and evaluate the impact on overall data quality and
assign data validation qualifiers as necessary. The validation process applies to both field and
laboratory data.
In addition to the data quality objectives presented in Table D-9, the standard data validation
procedures documented in the analyzing laboratory's QA Manual will be used to accept, reject, or
qualify the data generated. The laboratory will submit only data that have met data quality
objectives or data that have acceptable deviations explained. When QC requirements have not been
met, the samples will be reanalyzed when possible, and only the results of the reanalysis will be
submitted, if they are acceptable. Each laboratory's QA Officer is responsible for validating the data
it generates.
12.4 Data Management
Analytical Data Reports will be sent by the laboratories and kept by the USCRWMG. Each type of
report will be stored separately. The original field logs shall be retained in paper or electronic form.
The contract laboratory shall retain original COC forms. The contract laboratory will retain copies of
the preliminary and final data reports. Concentrations of all parameters will be calculated as
described in the laboratory SOPS or referenced method document for each analyte or parameter.
The field log and analytical data generated will be converted to a standard database format. After
data entry or data transfer procedures are completed for each sample event, data will be validated.
After the final quality assurance checks for errors are completed, the data will be added to the final
database.
Revised CIMP D-46 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
13 MONITORING PROCEDURES REFERENCES
Harwood, A. D., You, J., & Lydy, M. J. (2009). Temperature as a toxicity identification evaluation tool
for pyrethroid insecticides: toxicokinetic confirmation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry:
An International Journal, 28(5), 1051-1058.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity
Identification Evaluations: Phase I. Toxicity Characterization Procedures. 2nd Edition. EPA-600-6-
91-003. National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Toxicity Identification Evaluation:
Characterization of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005E May 1992. National
Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1993a. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity
Identification Evaluations- Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute
and Chronic Toxicity. EPA-600-R-92-080. National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993b. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity
Identification Evaluations- Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute
and Chronic Toxicity. EPA-600-R-92-081. National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a. Short-term Methods for Estimating
the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition.
October. EPA-821-R-02-013.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002b. Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fifth Edition.
October. EPA-821-R-02-012.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Test of Significant Toxicity Technical Document. EPA/833-R-10-004, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.
Weston, D.P. and E.L. Amweg. 2007. Whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for
pyrethroid insecticides: II. Esterase addition. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26:2397-
2404.
Wheelock, C., Miller, J., Miller, M., Gee, S., Shan, G. and Hammock, B. 2004. Development of Toxicity
Identification Evaluation (TIE) procedures for pyrethroid detection using esterase activity.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23:2699-2708.
Revised CIMP D-47 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment E: Los Angeles County Flood Control
District Background Information
In 1915, the Los Angeles County Flood Control Act established the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District (LACFCD) and empowered it to manage flood risk and conserve stormwater for
groundwater recharge. In coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers the LACFCD
developed and constructed a comprehensive system that provides for the regulation and control of
flood waters through the use of reservoirs and flood channels. The system also controls debris,
collects surface storm water from streets, and replenishes groundwater with stormwater and
imported and recycled waters. The LACFCD covers the 2,753 square -mile portion of Los Angeles
County south of the east -west projection of Avenue S, excluding Catalina Island. It is a special
district governed by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, and its functions are carried
out by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The LACFCD service area is shown in
Figure E-1.
Unlike cities and counties, the LACFCD does not own or operate any municipal sanitary sewer
systems, public streets, roads, or highways. The LACFCD operates and maintains storm drains and
other appurtenant drainage infrastructure within its service area. The LACFCD is exempt from
implementing the Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program and Planning and Land Development
Program identified in Permit Part VIII.E and Part VIII.F. The permittees that have such land use
authority are responsible under the Permit for inspecting and controlling pollutants from industrial
and commercial facilities, development projects, and development construction sites.
As a purveyor of storm and non -storm water discharges, the LACFCD remains subject to the Public
Information and Participation Program and the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program.
Further, as the owner and operator of certain properties, facilities and infrastructure, the LACFCD
remains subject to requirements of a Public Agency Activities Program.
The [E] WMPs and CIMPs reflect the opportunities that are available for the LACFCD to collaborate
with permittees having land use authority over the subject watershed area. In some instances, the
opportunities are minimal, however the LACFCD remains responsible for compliance with certain
aspects of the MS4.
Revised CIMP E-1 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
LA COuS -ry FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BOUNDARY PahndaL
1 I
fua Pe axElossom
� Cssrxic. , A Iicle Pcmn I
� I
Val
Vexda
-Sole dad
r I
Clan>a �
VENTURA
COUNTY s
\ 6kry Kafir i6l Nle F I
�I San Fernando Las"Mgel es'Ri4er. a ;4
Son Gohriel"RirrerA.
s° 'r
VYMAV,
re
e V i- Y La C
dv Yall Y l'�
51eY
a a
*�,' AltadensJ,� l
V Nuys A� w
� � s, '`Is'8aJ � Gkridak yci Pazadena �G
4 t pp o Claremont l!
Mirth. 4d+ a
SUnld ManiCG BUT a r, i.�" " Bollono Creek Ally
•a' s' r ...A'Ian k WMA Los II VlaW l
eps
M mna }g Pomona �r
�a" ;sa Jose E3�
Monica CuhRx Av - SAN
Santo a�{�_C city u �X/himex e [�- 2Is BERNARDINC
Ve Playa Inglewood q'
Pd &l Rey & o.ssieY;�a----__---__ COUNTY
El Segundo t9 Non.rlka
Mardiattai Beach''`"' Am ny� -,p�i° ORANGE
Re dondu Beach L ak—.d COUNTY
Tnxeancer =
q
Dninguez j 'I
ChannelLA Harh�
VVPAA sr.
II yrib
Be acN
v l
ynn Ped— B y
Figure E-1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District Service Area
Revised CIMP E-2 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Appendix 1: Example Field, Calibration, and Chain -of -
Custody Forms
EXAMPLE Field Log Page 1 of 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Site ID:
GPS Coordinates: (lat) (Ion)
Date:
Sampling Personnel:
PictureNideo #:
OBSERVATIONS
Weather:
Water Color: In stream Activity:
Water Characteristics (flow type, odor, turbidity, floatables):
Other comments (trash, wildlife, recreational uses, homeless activity, etc. — Use notes section if more room is needed):
In situ WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
COLLECTED WATER QUALITY SAMPLES
Sample ID
Analysis
ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING NOTES:
Time
Temp
�
�
D.O.
m /L
D.O.
%Sat
Elec Cond.
Turbidi
NTU
uS/cm
Time
Volume
Notes
Field blank
Field duplicate
Example Field Log Page 2 of 2
FLOW MEASUREMENTS WITH VELOCITY METER
Estimated Total Width of Flowing Water (ft): Distance measured from (circle): RIGHT or LEFT
Measurement Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Distance from Bank (ft)
Depth (ft)
Velocity (ft/s)
FLOW MEASUREMENTS WITH FLOAT AND STOPWATCH Number of Flow Paths:
Fill out Path # 4 Path# Path# Path# Path# Path#
Width of Flow at TOp of Marked Section:
Width of Flow at Middle of Marked Section:
Width of Flow at Bottom of Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 0% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 25% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 50% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 75% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 100% of Top Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 0% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 25% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 50% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 75% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 100% of Middle Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 0% of Bottom Marked Section
Depth of Flow at 25% of Bottom Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 50% of Bottom Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 75% of Bottom Marked Section:
Depth of Flow at 100% of Bottom Marked Section
Distance Marked -off for Velocity:
Time 1:
Time 2:
Time 3:
Specify if measurements are in inches or feet using "in" or "ft"
FLOW MEASUREMENT WITH GRADUATED CONTAINER
Container Volume: Percent Capture:
Time to fill container:
Minutes Seconds
Timel
Time2
Time3
ADDITIONAL FLOW MEASUREMENT NOTES:
EXAMPLE Field Meter Calibration Logsheet
Field Measurement Equipment Calibration Log & Initial Calibration Verification
Date:
Calibration
Post -Cal
Calibration
Parameter
Meter ID
Standard
Measurement
Valid if:
Time
Initials
Dissolved
mmHG
mg/L
D.O. reads within
Oxygen
°C
(water-sat'd air)
10% of value from
mg/L
D.O. tables
0 uS/cm (air)
Conductivity
10,000 us/cm
(1,000 us/cm) us/cm
900-11100 us/cm
7.0 Units
pH
Units
pH 8 = 7.8 - 8.2
10.0 Units
(pH = 8.0)
(or Min manufs
specs)
0 NTU
Turbidity
3000 NTU
(1000 NTU) NTU
NTU = 900 -110
Notes:
Field Measurement Equipment Post Event Calibration Verification Log
Date:
Verification
Calibration
Parameter
Meter ID
Standard
Measurement
Valid if:
Time
Initials
Dissolved
mmHG
mg/�
D.O. reads within
Oxygen
°C
(water sat'd air)
10% of value from
mg/L ,
D.O. tables 1
Conductivity
us/cm
us/cm
EC of 1,000 std =
(1,000 us/cm)
900-11100 uS/cm
Units
pH 8.0 = 7.8 - 8.2
pH
Units
(pH = 8.0)
(or w/in manuf's
specs)
Turbidity
NTU
(1,000 NTU)NTU
NTU = 900 —1,100
Notes:
1 T.O. tables" refers to tables of dissolved oxygen in water as a function of temperature and barometric
pressure, typically found in wastewater engineering text books.
CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY RECORD Date: Lab ID:
Destination Lab:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
Container
Notes
Sampled By:
Contact:
Project:
Sample Sample Sample
Client Sample Id Date Time Matrix
#
Type
Pres.
Sender Comments:
Relinquished By (1):
Signature:
Relinquished By (2):
Print:
Organization:
Date: Time:
Date: Time:
Laboratory Comments:
Received By (1):
Signature:
Received By (2):
Print:
Organization:
Date: Time:
Date: Time:
Crew:
Appendix 2: Calculations for Data Quality
Assessment
This appendix documents the calculations used to assess precision, accuracy,
and completeness of the data.
Precision
Precision is a measure of the degree to which replicate measurements differ from
one another. Precision assessed through calculation of field and laboratory
duplicates, and matrix spike duplicates is expressed as the Relative Percent
Difference (RPD).
RPD for laboratory and field duplicates is calculated as follows:
RPD =100 x replicate 1- replicate 2
(replicate 1 + replicate 2) - 2
RPD for matrix spike duplicates is calculated as follows:
RPD =1 00 x recovery 1- recovery 2
(recovery 1 + recovery 2) - 2
where Recovery is calculated as described for matrix spikes, below.
If assessed with three or more replicate measurements, precision should be
expressed as Relative Standard Deviation (RSD). RSD is calculated as:
RSD =100 x standard deviation of replicated measurements
average of replicate measurements
Accuracy
Accuracy is the degree to which a measured value agrees with a true or
expected value for a parameter. Accuracy is typically assessed using standard
reference materials, laboratory control samples, and matrix spikes. Recovery of
laboratory control samples and standard reference materials is calculated as:
% Recovery =100 x
recovered concentration )
true spike concentration
Recovery of matrix spikes is calculated as:
% Recovery =100 x
total recovered concentration - sample concentration
true spike concentration
When sample concentrations are less than the method detection limit, a value of
"0" (zero) will be used as the sample result concentration for purposes of
calculating spike recoveries.
Completeness
Completeness may be defined as the number of valid measurements compared
to the total number of measurements collected. Completeness is calculated as:
% Completeness =100 x number of valid measurements
total number of measurements
Appendix 3: Chapter 13 QA/QC Data Evaluation from
Caltrans Guidance Manual: Stormwater Monitoring
Protocols, 2"d Edition
SECTION 13
QA/QC DATA EVAL UATION
All data reported by the analytical laboratory must be carefully reviewed to determine
whether the project's data quality acceptability limits or objectives (DQOs) have been
met. This section describes a process for evaluation of all laboratory data, including the
results of all QA/QC sample analysis.
Before any results are reported by the laboratory, the deliverable requirements should be
clearly communicated to the laboratory, as described in the "Laboratory Data Package
Deliverables" discussion in Section 12.
The current section discusses QA/QC data evaluation in the following two parts:
LREY > Initial Data Quality Screening
S > Data Quality Evaluation
The initial data quality screening identifies problems with laboratory reporting while they
may still be corrected. When the data reports are received, they should be immediately
checked for conformity to chain of custody requests to ensure that all requested analyses
have been reported. The data are then evaluated for conformity to holding time
requirements, conformity to reporting limit requests, analytical precision, analytical
accuracy, and possible contamination during sampling and analysis. The data evaluation
results in rejection, qualification, and narrative discussion of data points or the data as a
whole. Qualification of data, other than rejection, does not necessary exclude use of the
data for all applications. It is the decision of the data user, based on specifics of the data
application, whether or not to include qualified data points.
> INITIAL DATA QUALITY SCREENING
The initial screening process identifies and corrects, when possible, inadvertent
documentation or process errors introduced by the field crew or the laboratory. The
initial data quality control screening should be applied using the following three -step
process:
1. Verification check between sampling and analysis plan (SAP), chain of custody forms,
and laboratory data reports: Chain of custody records should be compared with field
logbooks and laboratory data reports to verify the accuracy of all sample
identification and to ensure that all samples submitted for analysis have a value
reported for each parameter requested. Any deviation from the SAP that has not yet
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-1 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
been documented in the field notes or project records should be recorded and corrected
if possible.
Sample representativeness should also be assessed in this step. The minimum
acceptable storm capture parameters (number of aliquots and percent storm capture)
per amount of rainfall are specified in Section 10. Samples not meeting these criteria
are generally not analyzed; however, selected analyses can be run at the Caltrans task
manager's discretion. If samples not meeting the minimum sample representativeness
criteria are analyzed, the resulting data should be rejected ("R") or qualified as
estimated ("J"), depending upon whether the analyses were approved by Caltrans.
Grab samples should be taken according to the timing protocols specified in the SAP.
Deviations from the protocols will result in the rejection of the data for these samples
or qualification of the data as estimated. The decision to reject a sample based on
sample representativeness should be made prior to the submission of the sample to
the laboratory, to avoid unnecessary analytical costs.
2. Check of laboratory data report completeness: As discussed in Section 12, the end
product of the laboratory analysis is a data report that should include a number of
QA/QC results along with the environmental results. QA/QC sample results reported
by the lab should include both analyses requested by the field crew (field blanks, field
duplicates, lab duplicates and MS/MSD analysis), as well as internal laboratory
QA/QC results (method blanks and laboratory control samples).
There are often differences among laboratories in terms of style and format of reporting.
Therefore, it is prudent to request in advance that the laboratory conform to the style and
format approved by Caltrans as shown in Section 14. The Caltrans data reviewer should
verify that the laboratory data package includes the following items:
✓ A narrative which outlines any problems, corrections, anomalies, and
conclusions.
✓ Sample identification numbers.
✓ Sample extraction and analysis dates.
✓ Reporting limits for all analyses reported.
✓ Results of method blanks.
✓ Results of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses, including
calculation of percent recovered and relative percent differences.
✓ Results of laboratory control sample analyses.
✓ Results of external reference standard analyses.
✓ Surrogate spike and blank spike analysis results for organic constituents.
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-2 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
✓ A summary of acceptable QA/QC criteria (RPD, spike recovery) used by the
laboratory.
Items missing from this list should be requested from the laboratory.
3. Check for typographical errors and apparent incongruities: The laboratory reports
should be reviewed to identify results that are outside the range of normally observed
values. Any type of suspect result or apparent typographical error should be verified
with the laboratory. An example of a unique value would be if a dissolved iron
concentration has been reported lower than 500 µg/L for every storm event monitored
at one location and then a value of 2500 µg/L is reported in a later event. This
reported concentration of 2500 µg/L should be verified with the laboratory for
correctness.
Besides apparent out -of -range values, the indicators of potential laboratory reporting
problems include:
• Significant lack of agreement between analytical results reported for
laboratory duplicates or field duplicates.
• Consistent reporting of dissolved metals results higher than total or total
recoverable metals.
• Unusual numbers of detected values reported for blank sample analyses.
• Inconsistency in sample identification/labeling.
If the laboratory confirms a problem with the reported concentration, the corrected or
recalculated result should be issued in an amended report, or if necessary the sample
should be re -analyzed. If laboratory results are changed or other corrections are made
by the laboratory, an amended laboratory report should be issued to update the
project records.
> DATA QUALITY EVALUATION
The data quality evaluation process is structured to provide systematic checks to ensure
that the reported data accurately represent the concentrations of constituents actually
present in stormwater. Data evaluation can often identify sources of contamination in the
sampling and analytical processes, as well as detect deficiencies in the laboratory analyses
or errors in data reporting. Data quality evaluation allows monitoring data to be used in
the proper context with the appropriate level of confidence.
QA/QC parameters that should be reviewed are classified into the following categories:
,V' Reporting limits
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-3 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
Holding times
Contamination check results (method, field, trip, and equipment blanks)
Precision analysis results (laboratory, field, and matrix spike duplicates)
Accuracy analysis results (matrix spikes, surrogate spikes, laboratory
control samples, and external reference standards)
Each of these QA/QC parameters should be compared to data quality acceptability
criteria, inalso known as the project's data quality objectives (DQOs). The key steps
that should be adhered to in the analysis of each of these QA/QC parameters are:
1. Compile a complete set of the QA/QC results for the parameter being analyzed.
2. Compare the laboratory QA/QC results to accepted criteria (DQOs).
3. Compile any out -of -range values and report them to the laboratory for
verification.
4. Prepare a report that tabulates the success rate for each QA/QC parameter
analyzed.
This process should be applied to each of the QA/QC parameters as discussed below.
Reporting Limits
Stormwater quality monitoring program DQOs should contain a list of acceptable
reporting limits that the lab is contractually obligated to adhere to, except in special cases
of insufficient sample volume or matrix interference problems. The reporting limits used
should ensure a high probability of detection. , Table 12-1 provides recommended
reporting limits for selected parameters.
Holding Times
Holding time represents the elapsed time between sample collection time and sample
analysis time. Calculate the elapsed time between the sampling time and start of analysis,
and compare this to the required holding time. For composite samples that are collected
within 24-hours or less, the time of the final sample aliquot is considered the "sample
collection time" for determining sample holding time. For analytes with critical holding
times (<48 hours), composite samples lasting longer than 24-hours require multiple bottle
composite samples. Each of these composite samples should represent less than 24
hours of monitored flow, and subsamples from the composites should have been poured
off and analyzed by the laboratory for those constituents with critical holding times (see
Section 12). It is important to review sample holding times to ensure that analyses
occurred within the time period that is generally accepted to maintain stable parameter
concentrations. Table 12-1 contains the holding times for selected parameters. If holding
times are exceeded, inaccurate concentrations or false negative results may be reported.
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-4 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
Samples that exceed their holding time prior to analysis are qualified as "estimated", or
may be rejected depending on the circumstances.
Contamination
Blank samples are used to identify the presence and potential source of sample
contamination and are typically one of four types:
1. Method blanks are prepared and analyzed by the laboratory to identify
laboratory contamination.
2. Field blanks are prepared by the field crew during sampling events and submitted
to the laboratory to identify contamination occurring during the collection or the
transport of environmental samples.
3. Equipment blanks are prepared by the field crew or laboratory prior to the
monitoring season and used to identify contamination coming from sampling
equipment (tubing, pumps, bailers, etc.).
4. Trip blanks are prepared by the laboratory, carried in the field, and then
submitted to the laboratory to identify contamination in the transport and
handling of volatile organics samples.
5. Filter blanks are prepared by field crew or lab technicians performing the sample
filtration. Blank water is filtered in the same manner and at the same time as other
environmental samples. Filter blanks are used to identify contamination from the
filter or filtering process.
If no contamination is present, all blanks should be reported as "not detected" or "non -
detect" (e.g., constituent concentrations should not be detected above the reporting limit).
Blanks reporting detected concentrations ("hits") should be noted in the written QA/QC
data summary prepared by the data reviewer. In the case that the laboratory reports hits
on method blanks, a detailed review of raw laboratory data and procedures should be
requested from the laboratory to identify any data reporting errors or contamination
sources. When other types of blanks are reported above the reporting limit, a similar
review should be requested along with a complete review of field procedures and sample
handling. Often times it will also be necessary to refer to historical equipment blank
results, corresponding method blank results, and field notes to identify contamination
sources. This is a corrective and documentative step that should be done as soon as the
hits are reported.
If the blank concentration exceeds the laboratory reporting limit, values reported for each
associated environmental sample must be evaluated according to USEPA guidelines for
data evaluations of organics and metals (USEPA, 1991; USEPA, 1995) as indicated in
Table 13-1.
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-5 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
Table 13-1. USEPA Guidelines for Data Evaluation
Step
Environmental
Phthalates and
Other Organics
Metals
Sample
other common
contaminants
1.
Sample > lOX
No action
No action
No action
blank concentration
2.
Sample < lOX
Report associated
No action
Results considered
blank concentration
environmental
an "upper limit" of
results as "non-
the true
detect" at the
concentration (note
reported
contamination in
environmental
data quality
concentration.
evaluation narrative).
3.
Sample < 5X blank
Report associated
Report associated
Report associated
concentration
environmental
environmental
environmental
results as "non-
results as "non-
results as "non -
detect" at the
detect" at the
detect" at the
reported
reported
reported
environmental
environmental
environmental
concentration.
concentration.
concentration.
Specifically, if the concentration in the environmental sample is less than five times the
concentration in the associated blank, the environmental sample result is considered, for
reporting purposes, "not -detected" at the environmental sample result concentration
(phthalate and other common contaminant results are considered non -detect if the
environmental sample result is less than ten times the blank concentration). The
laboratory reports are not altered in any way. The qualifications resulting from the data
evaluation are made to the evaluator's data set for reporting and analysis purposes to
account for the apparent contamination problem. For example, if dissolved copper is
reported by the laboratory at 4 µg/L and an associated blank concentration for dissolved
copper is reported at 1 µg/L, data qualification would be necessary. In the data reporting
field of the database (see Section 14), the dissolved copper result would be reported as 4
µg/L), the numerical qualifier would be reported as "<", the reporting limit would be left
as reported by the laboratory, and the value qualifier would be reported as "U" ("not
detected above the reported environmental concentration").
When reported environmental concentrations are greater than five times (ten times for
phthalates) the reported blank "hit" concentration, the environmental result is reported
unqualified at the laboratory -reported concentration. For example, if dissolved copper is
reported at 11 µg/L and an associated blank concentration for dissolved copper is
reported at 1 µg/L, the dissolved copper result would still be reported as 11 µg/L.
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-6 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Precision
Duplicate samples provide a measure of the data precision (reproducibility) attributable
to sampling and analytical procedures. Precision can be calculated as the relative percent
difference (RPD) in the following manner:
2*10i—Di xPD; _ * 100%
(Oi + Di)
where:
RPD; = Relative percent difference for compound i
Oi = Value of compound i in original sample
Di = Value of compound i in duplicate sample
The resultant RPDs should be compared to the criteria specified in the project's DQOs.
The DQO criteria shown in Table 13-2 below are based on the analytical method
specifications and laboratory -supplied values. Project -specific DQOs should be
developed with consideration to the analytical laboratory, the analytical method
specifications, and the project objective. Table 13-2 should be used as a reference point
as the least stringent set of DQO criteria for Caltrans monitoring projects.
Laboratory and Field Duplicates
Laboratory duplicates are samples that are split by the laboratory. Each half of the split
sample is then analyzed and reported by the laboratory. A pair of field duplicates is two
samples taken at the same time, in the same manner into two unique containers.
Subsampling duplicates are two unique, ostensibly identical, samples taken from one
composite bottle (see Section 10). Laboratory duplicate results provide information
regarding the variability inherent in the analytical process, and the reproducibility of
analytical results. Field duplicate analysis measures both field and laboratory precision,
therefore, it is expected that field duplicate results would exhibit greater variability than
lab duplicate results. Subsampling duplicates are used as a substitute for field duplicates
in some situations and are also an indicator of the variability introduced by the splitting
process.
The RPDs resulting from analysis of both laboratory and field duplicates should be
reviewed during data evaluation. Deviations from the specified limits, and the effect on
reported data, should be noted and commented upon by the data reviewer. Laboratories
typically have their own set of maximum allowable RPDs for laboratory duplicates based
on their analytical history. In most cases these values are more stringent than those listed
in Table 13-2. Note that the laboratory will only apply these maximum allowable RPDs
to laboratory duplicates. In most cases field duplicates are submitted "blind" (with
pseudonyms) to the laboratory.
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-7 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
Environmental samples associated with laboratory duplicate results greater than the
maximum allowable RPD (when the numerical difference is greater than the reporting
limit) are qualified as "J" (estimated). When the numerical difference is less than the RL,
no qualification is necessary. Field duplicate RPDs are compared against the maximum
allowable RPDs used for laboratory duplicates to identify any pattern of problems with
reproducibility of results. Any significant pattern of RPD exceedances for field
duplicates should be noted in the data report narrative.
Corrective action should be taken to address field or laboratory procedures that are
introducing the imprecision of results. The data reviewer can apply "J" (estimated)
qualifiers to any data points if there is clear evidence of a field or laboratory bias issue
that is not related to contamination. (Qualification based on contamination is assessed
with blank samples.)
Laboratories should provide justification for any laboratory duplicate samples with RPDs
greater than the maximum allowable value. In some cases, the laboratory will track and
document such exceedances, however; in most cases it is the job of the data reviewer to
locate these out -of -range RPDs. When asked to justify excessive RPD values for field
duplicates, laboratories most often will cite sample splitting problems in the field.
Irregularities should be included in the data reviewer's summary, and the laboratory's
response should be retained to document laboratory performance, and to track potential
chronic problems with laboratory analysis and reporting.
Accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement to an accepted reference
or true value. Accuracy is measured as the percent recovery (%R) of spike compound(s).
Percent recovery of spikes is calculated in the following manner:
%R = 100% * [(CS — C) / S]
where:
%R = percent recovery
CS = spiked sample concentration
C = sample concentration for spiked matrices
S = concentration equivalent of spike added
Accuracy (%R) criteria for spike recoveries should be compared with the limits specified
in the project DQOs. A list of typical acceptable recoveries is shown in Table 13-2. As
in the case of maximum allowable RPDs, laboratories develop acceptable criteria for an
allowable range of recovery percentages that may differ from the values listed in Table 13-
2.
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-8 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
Percent recoveries should be reviewed during data evaluation, and deviations from the
specified limits should be noted in the data reviewer's summary. Justification for out of
range recoveries should be provided by the laboratory along with the laboratory reports,
or in response to the data reviewer's summary.
Laboratory Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples
Evaluation of analytical accuracy and precision in environmental sample matrices is
obtained through the analysis of laboratory matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate
(MSD) samples. A matrix spike is an environmental sample that is spiked with a known
amount of the constituent being analyzed. A percent recovery can be calculated from the
results of the spike analysis. A MSD is a duplicate of this analysis that is performed as a
check on matrix recovery precision. MS and MSD results are used together to calculate
RPD as with the duplicate samples. When MS/MSD results (%R and RPD) are outside
the project specifications, as listed in Table 13-2, the associated environmental samples
are qualified as "estimates due to matrix interference". Surrogate standards are added to
all environmental and QC samples tested by gas chromatography (GC) or gas
chromatography -mass spectroscopy (GC -MS). Surrogates are non -target compounds
that are analytically similar to the analytes of interest. The surrogate compounds are
spiked into the sample prior to the extraction or analysis. Surrogate recoveries are
evaluated with respect to the laboratory acceptance criteria to provide information on the
extraction efficiency of every sample.
External Reference Standards
External reference standards (ERS) are artificial certified standards prepared by an external
agency and added to a batch of samples. ERS's are not required for every batch of
samples, and are often only run quarterly by laboratories. Some laboratories use ERS's in
place of laboratory control spikes with every batch of samples. ERS results are assessed
the same as laboratory control spikes for qualification purposes (see below). The external
reference standards are evaluated in terms of accuracy, expressed as the percent recovery
(comparison of the laboratory results with the certified concentrations). The laboratory
should report all out -of -range values along with the environmental sample results. ERS
values are qualified as biased high" when the ERS recovery exceeds the acceptable
recovery range and "biased low" when the ERS recovery is smaller than the recovery
range.
Laboratory Control Samples
LCS analysis is another batch check of recovery of a known standard solution that is used
to assess the accuracy of the entire recovery process. LCSs are much like ERS's except
that a certified standard is not necessarily used with LCSs, and the sample is prepared
internally by the laboratory so the cost associated with preparing a LCS sample is much
lower than the cost of ERS preparation. LCSs are reviewed for percent recovery within
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-9 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
control limits provided by the laboratory. LCS out -of -range values are treated in the same
manner as ERS out -of -range values. Because LCS and ERS analysis both check the entire
recovery process, any irregularity in these results supersedes other accuracy -related
qualification. Data are rejected due to low LCS recoveries when the associated
environmental result is below the reporting limit.
A flow chart of the data evaluation process, presented on the following pages as Figures
13-1 (lab -initiated QA/QC samples) and 13-2 (field -initiated QA/QC), can be used as a
general guideline for data evaluation. Boxes shaded black in Figures 13-1 and 13-2
designate final results of the QA/QC evaluation.
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-10 May 2000
QA/QC Data. Evaluation
Table 13-2. Typical Control Limits for Precision and Accuracy for Analytical
Constituents
Analyte
A Method Number
70prStandard Method
Maximum
AhRPD owabl e
Recovery
Upper Limit
Recovery
Lower Limit
Conventionals
BOD
405.1; SM 5210B
20%
80%
120%
COD
410.1; 410.4; SM 5220C;
SM 5220D
20%
80%
120%
Hardness
130.2; 130.1; SM 2340B
20%
80%
120%
pH
150.1
20%
NA
NA
TOC/DOC
415.1
15%
85%
115%
TDS
160.1
20%
80%
120%
TSS
160.2
20%
80%
120%
Turbidity
180.1
2001.
NA
NA
Nutrients
NH3-N
350.2; 350.3
20%
80%
120%
NO3-N
300.0
20%
80%
120%
NO2-N
300.0
20%
80%
120%
NO3/NO2-N
353.2
20%
80%
120%
P
365.2
20%
80%
120%
Ortho-P
365.2; 365.3
20%
80%
120%
TKN
351.3
20%
80%
120%
Metals
Ag
272.2; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Al
200.9; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Cd
213.2; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Cr
218.2; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Cu
220.2; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Ni
249.2; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Pb
239.2; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Zn
289.2; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
As
206.3; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Fe
200.9; SM 3500-Fe B
20%
75%
125%
Se
200.9; 270.3; 200.8
20%
75%
125%
Hg
1631
21%
79%
121%
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH (gasoline)
8015b
21%
45%
129%
TPH (diesel)
21%
45%
129%
TPH (motor oil)
21%
45%
129%
Oil & Grease
1664
18%
79%
114%
Pesticides and Herbicides
Glyphosate 547 30% 70% 130%
OP Pesticides
(esp. diazinon
and chlor rifos)
8141; ELISA
25%
see method for constituent
specific
OC Pesticides
8081
25%
Chlorinated
Herbicides
8150; 8151
25%
Carbamate
Pesticides
8321
25%
Miscellaneous Organic Constituents
Base/Neutrals
and Acids
625; 8270
30% to 50%
(analyte
dependent)
see method for constituent
specific
PAHs
8310
Purgeables
624; 8260
20%
Purgeable
Halocarbons
601
30%
see method, Table 2
Purgeable
Aromatics
602
20%
see method for constituent
specific
Miscellaneous Constituents
C anide 335.2 20% 75 125
Bacteriological
Fecal Coliform SM 9221 E -
Total Coliform SM 9221 B
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-11 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation (Revised May 2002)
Qualify results as estimated if holding
time variance allowed, or reject
results. Proceed to next step.
No qualification.
Proceed to next step.
No qualification. Qualify associated detected
Proceed to next step. 0 environmental sample results as "U".
Proceed to next step.
Qualify sample results as esti
due to analytical variability.
Proceed to next step.
If MS result is >U L,
No qualification. qualify detected associated environmental sample results as
Proceed to next ste estimates due to matrix interference.
If MS result is <LL,
qualify associated environmental sample results as estimates
due to matrix interference and consider rejecting associated
environmental sample data below detection based on other
supporting QA/QC data.
Qualify sample results as estimates
due to matrix interfernce.
Proceed to next step.
If spike recovery result is >UL,
qualify associated environmental sample results above detection levels as
estimates due to high analytical bias.
If spike recovery result is <LL or more than half of recoveries are outside
acceptability limits,
qualify associated detected environmental sample results as estimates due to low
analytical bias and reiect associated environmental sample data below detection.
No qualification.
Proceed to field -initiated QA/QC data evaluati
7• Are field blanks ND? no
m
N
Are sample results
Are sample no <1 Ox (phthalates & common contaminants) o
results ND? <5x (semi- & non-volatiles & metals*) no
blank concentration?
m
N
fD
N
EE��)
Are measured differences between samplesno less than the Reporting Limit? no
D overall QC results
9• indicate systematic yes
problems?
0
*Environmental results between 5x and 1 Ox the blank concentration are qualified as "an upper limit on the true concentration" and the data user should be cautioned.
Figure 13-2. Technical Data Evaluation for Field -Initiated QAIQC Samples
Inipleinenting the Monitoring Plan 13-13 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
j
0
PP S j,NTA
+r
CFO �5I]ECE�Bk4
Stormwater Monitoring
Program and NPDES Permit
Compliance
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
City of Son to Clorito, California
SECTION A
NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS
PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS
DOCUMENT CHECKLIST
SECTION B
SCOPE OF WORK
RESPONSE FORMAT AND SELECTION CRITERIA
SECTION C
NOTICE TO PROPOSERS REGARDING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS
DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS/SUBCONSULTANTS
REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
SECTION D
SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT- STANDARD
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT 1- MAPS OF MONITORING LOCATIONS
ATTACHMENT 2 - LIST OF MONITORING LOCATIONS
ATTACHMENT 3 - MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND TMDL CIMP REQUIREMENTS
ATTACHMENT 4 - MONITORING RESULTS - CHEMISTRY, FIELD, TOXICITY
SECTION A
RFP Information & Instructions
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Project Name: Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
Proposal #: ES-25-26-20
Dates Published: February 25, 2026
Last Day for Questions: March 11, 2026 before 11:00 AM (PT)
Proposal Closing: March 26, 2026 before 11:00 AM (PT)
Estimated Contract $1,080,000
Value for 3-year:
Project Description: Storm water runoff testing program and program assistance to meet the
requirements of the state -issued Storm Water Permit which regulates
pollutants from the City's storm drain.
Prevailing Wage: Yes
Bond Requirements: No
Contact Information: Michele Arima 1 (661) 286-4066 1 marima@santaclarita.gov
Prevailing Wage Monitoring: This Project is subject to prevailing wage compliance monitoring and
enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
Required Contractor & Subcontractor Registration: Only proposals submitted by proposers (along with
all listed subcontractors) that are currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to
Labor Code Section 1725.5 will be accepted.
Specifications for this request for proposals (RFP) may be downloaded from the City's Purchasing website
at: www.bidnetdirect.com//cityofsantaclarita. Please refer to specifications for complete details and RFP
requirements. The specifications in this notice shall be considered a part of any contract made pursuant
thereto. A paper copy of the RFP documents is available upon request in the City Clerk's office, suite 120.
RFP Questions must be submitted electronically via the BidNet "Question and Answer" tab.
Addenda, if issued by the CITY, will be transmitted on BidNet. Addenda must be digitally acknowledged
via BidNet in addition to a printed and signed version submitted with the proposal response. If addenda
are not signed and submitted with the proposal response, the submission may be deemed non-
responsive and rejected.
PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program And Npdes Permit Compliance
City of Son to Clorito, California
1. SUBMITTING PROPOSALS.
1.1. The response must be submitted on this form and include all forms provided or information
requested or required by the scope of work or specifications, (uploaded via BidNet).
1.2. All documentation of unit pricing or other cost breakdowns as outlined in this proposal must be
submitted to support the total proposed price.
1.3. Proposals/corrections received after the closing time will not be accepted. The City will not be
responsible for proposals not properly or timely, uploaded. Upon award, all submissions become
a matter of public record.
2. ADDENDA. The City will not accept responsibility for incomplete packages or missing addenda. It is
the vendor's responsibility to monitor BidNet for release of the addenda prior to submission of the
quote to make certain the package is complete and all required addenda are included. This
information will be available via BidNet. Vendors are cautioned against relying on verbal information
in the preparation of proposal responses. All official information and guidance will be provided as
part of this solicitation or written addenda. Addenda, if issued by the Agency, will be transmitted via
BidNet. Addenda must be digitally acknowledged through BidNet in addition to a printed and signed
version submitted with the proposal. If addenda are not signed and submitted with the proposal
response, the proposal may be deemed non -responsive and rejected.
3. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL QUESTIONS. Questions shall be submitted and responses provided
electronically through the BidNet platform in accordance with the date and time shown on the "CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS."
4. AWARDS.
4.1. The City reserves the right to waive any irregularity in any proposal.
4.2. This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, or to pay any amount incurred in the
preparation of the proposal. The City reserves the right to accept or reject all proposals received
as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified consultant, or to cancel this RFP in part
or in its entirety. The City may require the selected consultant to participate in negotiations and
to submit such technical, price, or other revisions of the proposal as may result from negotiations.
The City reserves the right to extend the time allotted for the proposal, and to request a best and
final offer, should it be in its best interest to do so.
4.3. The proposal may be awarded in its entirety as proposed; however, the City reserves the right to
award elements of the work, independently, and to do portions "in-house." Additionally, the City
reserves the right to award subsequent work on this project based on information presented in
this proposal, without recourse to a separate or subsequent RFP process, should it be in its best
interest to do so.
4.4. The City may make an award based on partial items unless the proposal submitted is marked "All
or none." Where detailed specifications and/or standards are provided the City considers them
to be material and may accept or reject deviations. The list of proposals submitted will be posted
on BidNet, normally within 24 hours.
4.5. Proposals and subsequent offers shall be effective/valid for a period of 120 days after the RFP
due date. The City of Santa Clarita may request Proposers to extend the validity of proposals and
offers for the City's acceptance beyond the specified time period.
5. BRAND NAMES, ALTERNATIVES, OR EQUIVALENTS.
5.1. In the bid documents, the use of a specific manufacturer, brand or make does not restrict
Bidders in their proposed solution. When brand names are used, it indicates the quality and
utility of the article desired; thus, the bids submittal shall in all cases propose goods equal in
quality and utility.
5.2. If Materials differing from stated specifications may be considered, provided such differences
are clearly noted and described. The City shall make the final determination of compliance with
the specifications. If proposing an alternative or equivalent product, the Bidder shall provide the
cut sheet/spec sheet or detailed product description for the proposed product via email to
purchasing@santa-clarita.com prior to the last day for questions. For each product proposed
documentation provided must include a description reflecting to characteristics and level of
quality that will satisfy the salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of "equal"
products specified in the solicitation. The proposal must clearly identify the item by brand name
(if any), and make/model number, and may include descriptive literature such as illustrations,
drawings, or a clear reference to previously furnished descriptive data or information available
to the City. The proposal shall clearly describe any modifications the Bidder plans to make in a
product to make it conform to the solicitation requirements.
5.3. The City has the option of accepting or rejecting any alternative or equivalent product. Exception
is made on those items wherein identical supply has been determined a necessity and the
notation NO SUBSTITUTE has been used in the specification section.
6. COOPERATIVE BIDDING. Other public agencies may be extended the opportunity to purchase off this
solicitation with the agreement of the successful vendor(s) and the City. The lack of exception to this
clause in vendor's response will be considered agreement. However, the City is not an agent of,
partner to or representative of these outside agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action or
debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated "piggy -back" procurements.
7. DELIVERY. Unless otherwise specified, delivery shall be D.D.P., the City of Santa Clarita, site of user
division and contract delivery may begin no later than fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of order.
8. INVOICES. Invoices will be forwarded to:
City of Santa Clarita
NS - Environmental Services
Attn: Oliver Cramer
23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 295
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196
Invoices will reflect the purchase order # and goods or service delivered in accordance with the terms
of the contract. Invoice processing begins on receipt of the material or invoice, whichever is later.
9. PREPARATION. All proposals and required forms must be uploaded as laid out in the BidNet General
Attachments Section.
10. REJECTION. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to waive any informality in
any proposal. The City may reject the proposal of any vendor who has previously failed to perform
properly, or complete on time, contracts of a similar nature, or to reject the proposal of a vendor who
is not in a position to perform such a contract satisfactorily. The City may reject the proposal of any
vendor who is in default of the payment of taxes, licenses or other monies due to the City of Santa
Clarita.
11. PROPOSAL VALIDITY. All proposals, including all pricing, shall be effective/valid for a minimum
period of 120 calendar days after the date of RFP closing. In the event a final contract has not been
awarded within this period, the City reserves the right to negotiate extensions to this period.
12. RENEWAL AND PRICING ADJUSTMENT. The initial contract term shall be for three (3) years. Contracts
entered into pursuant to this RFP may be renewed annually, up to two times, in accordance with the
terms of the contract. If not otherwise stated, the contract may be renewed if the new pricing of the
contract does not change more than the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (not seasonally
adjusted), Los Angeles Area -Riverside -Orange county area and prevailing wage rates, if applicable.
The index level for the month preceding the month of solicitation advertisement will become the
beginning index. The price adjustment limit will be the percentage change based on the difference
between the beginning level or the adjustment level last used and the index level for the period 90
days priorto the award anniversary. The final adjusted amount will be determined by Purchasing staff.
If a price adjustment is not requested prior to the award anniversary date, the previous year's rates
will apply. Proposer shall honor proposal prices for One -Hundred and Twenty Days (120 days) or for
the stated contract period, whichever is longer.
13. LITIGATION WARRANTY. The bidding vendor, by bidding, warrants that the vendor is not currently
involved in litigation or arbitration concerning the vendor's performance concerning the same or
similar service to be supplied pursuant to this RFP and that no judgments or awards have been made
against bidding vendor on the basis of vendor's performance in supplying the same or similar service,
unless such fact is disclosed to the City in the responding proposal. Disclosure may not disqualify the
bidding vendor. The City reserves the right to evaluate proposals on the basis of the facts surrounding
such litigation or arbitration and to require the selected vendor to furnish the City with a surety bond
executed by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of California and approved by
the City of Santa Clarita in a sum equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price
conditional on the faithful performance by selected vendor of the contract in the event the contract
is awarded to selected vendor, notwithstanding the litigation or arbitration.
14. BEST AND FINAL OFFER. The City may request Best and Final offers based upon improved
understanding of the offers or changed Scope of Work. Based on the initial proposals, the pre -
proposal meeting, and Best and Final offers, if requested, the panel will select the proposal which best
fulfills the requirements and is the best value to the City. The City will negotiate with that seller to
determine final pricing, and contract form. Because this proposal is negotiable, all pricing data will
remain confidential until after award is made, and there will be no public opening and reading of
Proposals. Overall responsiveness to the Request for Proposals is an important factor in the evaluation
process.
15. PREVAILING WAGES. This contract is subject to the State prevailing wage requirements of the
California Labor Code including, but not limited to, Sections 1770, 1771.5, 1773, 1776 and 1777.5.
Contractor shall comply with California prevailing wage laws including, to the extent applicable, Labor
Code Section 1720.9. Pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code, the general prevailing wage rates
in the county, or counties, in which the work is to be done have been determined by the Director of
the California Department of Industrial Relations. These wages are set forth in the General Prevailing
Wage Rates for this project, available from the California Department of Industrial Relations' Internet
web site at http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm. Future effective general
prevailing wage rates which have been predetermined and are on file with the California Department
of Industrial Relations are referenced but not printed in the general prevailing wage rates. A copy of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages shall be posted at the job site. The Contractor is responsible for
obtaining a current edition of all California statutes and regulations, and adhering to the latest editions
of such.
16. SUBCONTRACTORS. For all projects, the vendor must list any subcontractors/subconsultants that will
be used, the work to be performed by them, and total number of hours or percentage of time they
will spend on the project.
Each proposer must submit with their proposal the following:
• The Full name of each subcontracting firm as required by Government Code, Sec. 4201, typed or
legibly printed.
• The address of each firm.
• The telephone number at the place of business.
• Work to be performed by each subcontracting firm.
• Total approximate dollar amount of each subcontract.
Copies of subcontracts will be provided to the City Engineer upon their request.
17. TERMINATION. The City may terminate any purchase, service or contract with or without cause either
verbally or in writing at any time without penalty.
The City of Santa Clarita's "Terms and Conditions" is found on a separate attachment in BidNet.
DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program And Npdes Permit Compliance
City of Son to Clorito, California
In addition to the items requested for the proposal the following documents are required to be
completed and submitted by the proposer.
The following documents must be provided by ALL proposers:
Uploaded via BidNet (see Section C)
❑ Response File
❑ Cost File (to be submitted separately from Response File)
❑ Notice to Proposers Regarding Contractual Requirements
❑ Designation of Subcontractors/Subconsultants
❑ References
❑ Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Scope of Work
❑ City of Santa Clarita Disclosure Statement
❑ All signed addendums (if any)
The following documents must be provided by the AWARDEE ONLY (With Agreement)
Delivered to City Hall, Attn: Oliver Cramer
❑ Professional Services Agreement
❑ Insurance Required by Contract
❑ W-9 Form
SECTION B
Solicitation Information
SCOPE OF WORK
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
City of Son to Clorito, California
EVENT DATE
Solicitation advertisement February 25, 2026
Last day for questions March 11, 2026
Return of proposals March 26, 2026
*Dates are subject to change at the City's discretion*
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. The Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) is a part of the compliance with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) Permit (Permit), issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Regional Board). The current Permit is Order No. R4-2021-0105, which was adopted on July 23,
2021 by the Regional Board and became effective September 11, 2021. Geographically, the CIMP
covers the portion of the Upper Santa Clara River in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County
Flood Control District and the City of Santa Clarita that is regulated by the Permit. This Upper
Santa Clara River area encompasses approximately 121,423 acres.
1.2. The City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and Los Angeles County
Flood Control District (CIMP Group) collaborates through Memorandum of Agreement on the
implementation of the CIMP. In that agreement, the City of Santa Clarita performs project
management duties on behalf of the CIMP Group.
1.3. The CIMP Group and the existing firm perform water quality monitoring at three receiving water
monitoring locations, seven land use outfall monitoring locations, two significant dry weather
flow outfall monitoring locations (dry weather only). There is one location at Lake Elizabeth,
which is about 30 miles (45 minutes' drive) away from the main Santa Clara River.
1.4. The City's contract with the existing firm will expire on June 30, 2026. The CIMP Group requires
a new contract to fully implement the CIMP for a three-year contract with two annual renewals
available.
2. OBJECTIVES
2.1. The CIMP Group requires anew contractor to fully implement the CIMP for a three-year contract
with two annual renewals available. Additional special studies and monitoring may be necessary
should a new NPDES Permit become adopted during the contract term.
2.2. Sampling will include all pollutants in Attachment 3. This list may expand or contract with a new
NPDES Permit.
2.3. All samples are grab samples.
2.4. The selected contractor will provide implementation of the Upper Santa Clara River CIMP
through the following elements.
2.4.1. Program management
2.4.2. Dry Weather Monitoring
2.4.3. Dry Weather Monitoring — Monthly Bacteria TMDL Monitoring
2.4.4. Wet Weather Monitoring
2.4.5. Source Identification Additional Monitoring
2.4.6. Reporting and Analysis
2.4.7. QAPP, Health and Safety
2.4.8. Laboratory Analysis
2.4.9. Toxicity
2.4.10. Optional Special Studies
2.4.11. New NPDES Permit Requirements
2.4.12. Optional BMP Monitoring
3. DEFINITIONS
3.1. CIMP — Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program for Upper Santa Clara River
3.2. CIMP Group — City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and Los
Angeles County Flood Control District
3.3. City — City of Santa Clarita
3.4. County — County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
3.5. County FCD — Los Angeles County Flood Control District
3.6. MS4 — Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
3.7. Mass Emissions Site (MES) — monitoring location at the end of Reach 6 that is typically sampled
by County FCD denoted as SNT CLR 6 ME in Attachments 1 and 2
3.8. NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
3.9. New NPDES Permit— a revised regional NPDES MS4 Permit that maybe adopted by the Regional
Board during the contract term
3.10 Permit — NPDES MS4 Permit Order No. R4-2021-0105 which was adopted on July 23, 2021 by the
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
3.11 Regional Board - Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
3.12 TMDL—Total Maximum Daily Loads
4. SUPPLIER RESPONSIBILITIES
4.1. Program Management. The selected firm will be required to act independently and with
monthly oversight from the CIMP Group, with the City acting as primary contract manager
for the project.
4.1.1. Monthly reports — Along with monthly invoice, selected contractor shall submit
monthly reports outlining deliverables and work completed for that month. Invoice
shall have itemized work efforts consistent with the submitted costs, staff with rates
and hours worked, and budget tracking by category.
4.1.2. Monthly check in calls— Selected contractor shall work with CIMP Group to establish
an acceptable regular call in (currently 3rd Monday afternoon of each month) to go over
work, issues, and status. Selected contractor will develop and distribute agenda and
previous meeting summary in a timeline manner for the next meeting; take meeting
notes; develop online meeting space; provide project tracking during meeting.
4.1.3. Coordination with County — In order to meet the sampling schedule required by the
Permit, selected contractor shall designate a point person to coordinate receiving water
and outfall samples with County monitoring staff. This includes tracking storms,
coordination of deployment times, and collaborating post event to collect data.
4.1.4. Coordination with Los Angeles County Sanitation District for dry weather samples —
As a cost -saving measure, the CIMP Group works with Los Angeles County Sanitation
District for January and July dry weather samples. During this event, the CIMP Group
defers to Los Angeles County Sanitation District for their sample date and takes outfall
samples only. The County still takes their sample at their MES Site.
4.1.5. Monitoring regulatory requirement changes for any newly adopted NPDES Permit,
and determining necessary program adjustments as a result.
4.1.6. Permission coordination with Five Point (formerly known as Newhall Ranch) for
permission to access Reach 5 monitoring (entire reach is privately owned).
4.1.7. Conduct water quality monitoring as required in the CIMP and by the Permit as
detailed below.
4.2. Dry Weather Monitoring
4.2.1. Dry weather monitoring shall occur at all outfalls denoted in Attachments land 2 and
at the outfalls with significant dry weather flow in Attachment 2.
4.2.2. On a date in January and July each year that is outside of 72 hours of any rain event
normally determined by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District.
4.2.3. Coordinated with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District monitoring so that their
sampling is done concurrently with the outfall sampling and Los Angeles County's Mass
Emissions Site monitoring.
4.2.4.The Mass Emission Site is coordinated with Los Angeles County for monitoring and rainfall
deployment. County will share the data with the selected firm for reporting and assessment
purposes once quality assurance is completed.
4.2.5. As a result of this coordination, typically the two dry weather sample events only
include the land use outfalls and the significant non-stormwater flow outfalls and not
the receiving water locations.
4.2.6. A new NPDES Permit generally requires a much longer list of pollutants to be
monitored for the first dry and wet weather samples. Non -detected or compliant
pollutants are not required to be monitored further. Therefore, the first dry weather
samples of the large list may require firm to collect those samples at all sites instead of
Los Angeles County Sanitation District coordination.
4.3. Dry Weather Monitoring — Monthly Bacteria TMDL Monitoring
4.3.1.Conducted at receiving water monitoring locations.
4.3.2.Consistent with the Bacteria TMDL for the Santa Clara River, the CIMP Group requires
monthly E. coli bacteria samples for TMDL 30-day geometric mean monitoring.
4.3.2.1. The tracking will need to discern between dry and wet weather samples to
calculate separate 30-day geometric mean.
4.3.3.The CIMP Group requires the firm to take a water of sufficient volume to conduct a DNA
and/or RNA test, but testing is not necessarily required unless the source of an exceedance
must be determined.
4.4. Wet Weather Monitoring
4.4.1.Samples taken at three receiving water locations and four land -use outfall monitoring
locations, but not the significant non-stormwater outfalls. See locations in Attachments 1
and 2.
4.4.2.Coordinated with County for Mass Emissions Site monitoring, rainfall deployment, and post -
event data sharing and analysis.
4.4.3.The CIMP sets the wet weather standards for 70% chance of a 1-inch storm or greater. This
threshold is modified when dry winters preclude the meeting of the 1-inch storm threshold.
This is typically discussed at the monthly meetings.
4.5. Source ID Additional Monitoring
4.5.1.Required when exceedances found in dry weather flow to determine potential sources of
flow.
4.5.2.Goal is to identify as permitted or to identify and quantify the source of flow and pollutant
so that monitoring can cease and pollutant is abated. This may include studies of air
deposition, groundwater plume, and soil.
4.5.3.Genera Ily, occurs during dry weather monitoring.
4.5.4.Requires coordination with City or County staff for field operations, potentially traffic safety
plans, permits from Los Angeles County to enter their storm drains, pop manholes, etc.
4.5.5.Non-stormwater outfall screening (may be required under new Permit).
4.6. Reporting
4.6.1.Selected consultant should be able to coordinate and compliment CIMP Group staff and
processes to write, adjust, and submit to both CIMP Group and Regional Board various
reports currently required and additional work that a new NPDES Permit may require.
4.6.2.All reporting of water quality data required by the bacteria TMDL, NPDES Permit, source
identification or enforcement action which will include but is not limited to:
4.6.2.1. Technical memos after each monitoring event
4.6.2.2. Annual Report support for NPDES Permit — water quality and watershed analysis
sections
4.6.2.3. Semi Annual Report support for NPDES Permit — water quality and watershed
analysis
4.6.2.4. TMDL compliance tracking of data, broken down monthly by wet and dry weather
4.6.2.5. Exceedances of water quality standards
4.6.2.6. Potential additional need of entering water quality data into CEDEN if required
4.6.2.7. Conduct data analysis and compare the lab data with the applicable water quality
standards.
4.7. QAPP, Health and Safety Plan required
4.7.1. QAPP consistent with NPDES Permit and any adjustments to comply with a new NPDES
Permit and standard practices
4.7.2. QAPP review of laboratory analysis to determine efficacy of testing methods and results.
4.7.3. Quagga mussel spread prevention (dedicated equipment and shoe wear for each site)
4.8. Laboratory Analysis
4.8.1. Costs related to a first -round testing from the large list of pollutants to be monitored,
currently anticipated to be similar or consistent with Attachment E of the NPDES Permit
4.8.2. Identify any and all laboratories to be used for testing that would be consistent with NPDES
Permit and a new NPDES Permit, if applicable
4.8.3. Coordination with other backup labs if quality control starts to wane
4.8.4. DNA/RNA test lab
4.9. Toxicity
4.9.1. Toxicity monitoring consistent with Attachment E and Attachment G of the NPDES Permit
4.9.2. Per Attachment G of the NPDES Permit, outfall aquatic toxicity monitoring may be required.
If triggered, outfall aquatictoxicity monitoring will be conducted concurrently with receiving
water aquatic toxicity monitoring. The monitoring frequency for E. coli at the stormwater
outfall sites will change to weekly in November 2028 to evaluate attainment of the
geometric mean WQBELs.
4.9.3. Dry weather toxicity monitoring will be conducted using Chironomus dilutes and wet
weather toxicity monitoring will be conducted using Hyalella azteca.
4.9.4. Coordination with County FCD will be required. Current effort requires County FCD to get
the toxicity results, with consultant working to interpret them and take follow-up samples
at other receiving water and outfall sites.
4.9.5. Potential Special studies (optional) — The CIMP Group may require more robust study and
analysis of water quality topics depending on compliance issues and data needs. Currently,
the pollutant studies that are most viable include:
4.9.6. If required by a new Permit issued during the contract term, monitoring the full array of
pollutants at least once at five designated outfalls and the three Receiving Water locations
within the watershed
4.9.7. Iron study for the purposed of delisted during the next 303(d) list process (TDS and other
groundwater issues east side coordination)
4.9.8. LREC 1
4.9.9. Natural Source Exclusion
4.9.10. DNA biomarker for bacteria source identification
4.9.11. Mercury source study
4.9.12. Pesticide study
5. DELIVERABLES
5.1. All reporting of water quality data required by the bacteria TMDL, NPDES Permit, source
identification or enforcement action. These will be required to which will include but is not
limited to
5.1.1.TMDL compliance tracking of data broken down monthly by wet and dry weather
5.1.2.Regular reporting of constituents that are exceeding water quality standards and which
water quality standards are being met
5.1.3.Formatting and entering water quality data into CEDEN format as required by the NPDES
Permit
5.1.4.Conduct data analysis and compare the lab data with the applicable water quality
standards.
5.1.5.Maps on non-stormwater discharge screening if needed
5.1.6.NPDES Permit Annual Report Watershed monitoring section and Monitoring Report
5.1.7.Sampling event reports and images
6. DUE DATES/SCHEDULES/TIMELINES
6.1. Provide all due dates, schedules of performance or timelines applicable to supplier
responsibilities and deliverables related to this scope of work for the term of the contract.
6.1.1.1. All reporting and scheduling
6.2. Currently, the NPDES Permit Annual Report is due December 15 of each year
6.3. Currently, the NPDES Semi -Annual report is due June 15 each year
6.4. Bacteria TMDL Dry Weather Receiving Water Limitations and Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitations became effective on March 21, 2023.
6.5. Bacteria TMDL Wet Weather Receiving Water Limitations and Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitations will become effective on March 21, 2029. Additionally, the 30-day rolling geometric
mean will be in effect on March 21, 2029.
7. REPORTS AND MEETINGS
7.1. Monthly status reports and invoicing
7.2. Agendas and minutes for monthly check in calls
7.3. Monitoring data and analysis of exceedances
7.4. Technical memos after each monitoring event
7.5. Annual Report
7.6. Semi Annual Report "data dump"
7.7 QAPP, Health and Safety Plan
7.7.1 QAPP Approval consistent with NPDES Permit
7.7.2 Quagga mussel prevention
7.7.3 COVID
8. CITY AND COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
8.1. City responsibilities
8.1.1. City is CIMP Group contract manager dealing with contract issues, issuing and
payment of invoices.
8.1.2. City assures that the reporting is submitted on time to Regional Board and other
regulators
8.1.3. Ensure consultant has acquired the appropriate access permit from County, County
FCD or others to access locations
8.2. Describe each specific element that the County and County FCD is responsible for as it relates
to this project.
8.2.1.The Mass Emission Site is coordinated with County and County FCD for monitoring and
rainfall deployment. County and County FCD will share the data with the selected firm for
reporting and assessment purposes once quality assurance is completed.
8.2.2.To provide monitoring data from the existing Mass Emission Site owned and operated by
the County FCD. Data shall be limited to water column chemistry and aquatic toxicity, or any
additional monitoring required. Available information for the Mass Emission Site will be
provided to the City and consultant as needed to complete the required reporting.
8.2.3.Assist the City and consultant in obtaining any necessary permits from County FCD for access
to and construction within County FCD storm drains, channels, catch basins, and similar
properties and to grant access for water quality monitoring and assessment purposes
8.2.4.Submit the data from the Mass Emissions Site data to the consultant and City to be
incorporated and submitted to the Regional Board. This data will be transmitted
electronically in a format that is needed for the report.
9. ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1— MAPS OF MONITORING LOCATIONS
ATTACHMENT 2 — LIST OF MONITORING LOCATIONS
ATTACHMENT 3 — MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND TMDL CIMP REQUIREMENTS
ATTACHMENT 4—MONITORING RESULTS —CHEMISTRY, FIELD, TOXICITY
RESPONSE FORMAT AND SELECTION CRITERIA
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
City of Son to Clorito, California
1. RESPONSE FORMAT -The organization of the response and cost files is described in this section of the
RFP. All potential vendors must follow this format.
1.1. RESPONSE FILE:
1.1.1.Introduction - A general introduction and description of the proposal shall be provided. The
format of the introduction is at the discretion of the consultant.
1.1.2.References - The consultant shall provide a brief summary of any relevant experience
working in and familiarity with the Upper Santa Clara River watershed. This includes storm
water quality monitoring, storm water infiltration projects, or studies of storm water runoff.
The consultant shall also describe successful completion of projects meeting applicable state
regulatory requirements, including coordination with multiple entities and the ability to
independently track wet weather events and obtain required samples.
1.1.3.Plan of Study/Scope of Work - Describe the work program in implementation of Upper Santa
Clara Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) with the City of Santa Clarita, Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works and/or Los Angeles County Flood Control
District (CIMP Group). Explain the proposed technical approach that addresses the specific
issues identified in this RFP. Provide a description of the relationships between these
activities. Include an explanation of any division of work proposed between the consultant
and individual members of or collectively with the CIMP Group. The organization of the plan
of study should be as follows:
1.1.3.1. TASK - A one or two sentence overviews of a related group of subtasks or
activities.
1.1.3.2. SUB -TASK - A detailed description of the work, including the methodology to be
performed, standards used or quality assurance process utilized. Generally, one to ten
paragraphs depending upon the complexity of the activities described in the subtask.
1.1.3.3. OUTPUT - A description of the result of this particular activity or sub -task.
1.1.3.4. The task, sub -task, and output format should be repeated throughout the plan of
study until all proposed work has been described.
1.1.4.Schedule - Describe the time schedule for each proposed task and subtask described in
Section B — Scope of Work. Proposed work periods and completion dates, as well as the
anticipated meeting dates, should also be identified.
1.1.5.Program Management - Indicate which method of program management will be used to
internally manage and direct this project. Provide the proposed project schedule on a time
line chart according to the selected system.
1.1.6.Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities - Describe the activities of the designated Project
Manager and lead/support personnel. Provide a resume for each person named, including
their qualifications (education and experience), as well as their relationship and cost to the
proposed project activities.
1.1.7.Sub-Consultants - List all sub -consultants proposed for this project and include their
qualifications and specific responsibilities.
1.1.8.Optional Special Studies — Please provide assumptions, approach, and how these studies
would coordinate with other required elements and in addition to the above items.
1.2. COST FILE — Statement of Offer and Signature - The proposal shall be signed by an individual
authorized to bind the consultant, shall contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a
firm offer for a 120-day period, and shall contain a statement that the proposed work will be
performed at the "not -to -exceed" price with the hour's breakdown by Task for each Member.
This will include all deliverables and meeting attendance as laid out in the scope of work.
2. SELECTION CRITERIA - The overall criteria are listed below. An evaluation panel comprised of
representatives from the requesting department will evaluate all proposals to determine
responsiveness to the RFP. As proposals are considered by the City to be more equal in their technical
merit, the evaluated cost or price becomes more important so that when technical proposals are
evaluated as essentially equal, cost or price may be the deciding factor.
2.1. SCORING CRITERIA (100 Points Total):
2.1.1.Contractor qualifications, Plan of Study/Scope of Work, Program Management (20 points)
2.1.2.Relevant experience on similar projects and references (15 points)
2.1.3.Thoroughness of proposal, approach to providing sound services, and ability to provide
services to meet objectives and standards (20 points)
2.1.4.Cost of materials and services provided as well as discounts offered (15 points)
2.1.5.Successful completion of similar projects meeting applicable state regulatory requirements,
including demonstrated coordination with multiple entities and the ability to independently
track wet weather events and obtain required samples. (10 points)
2.1.6.Ability to creatively modify programming, reporting, and adaptive management process to
adjust to possible shifting regulations and policies from the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board and State Water Resources Control Board. (20 points)
During the selection process, the evaluation panel may wish to interview bidders with scores
above a natural break. Should an interview process take place, the results of the interview will
carry greater weight in the selection process. The City reserves the right to select a consultant
solely on the basis of the proposals without further contact.
SECTION C
Form
NOTICE TO PROPOSERS REGARDING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
City of Son to Clorito, California
1. SUMMARY OF CONTRACTUAL REQUIRMENTS
a. A contract is required for any service performed on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita (City).
b. By submitting a proposal, you have reviewed the sample contract documents contained within this
request for proposals and agree to be bound by the requirements set forth.
c. Questions and requests for modification of these terms must be negotiated and approved prior to
proposal submission and are at the full discretion of the City.
2. SUMMARY OF INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
a. These are the Indemnity and Insurance Requirements for Contractors providing services or supplies to
City of Santa Clarita (City). By agreeing to perform the work or submitting a proposal, you verify that you
comply with and agree to be bound by these requirements. If any additional Contract documents are
executed, the actual Indemnity language and Insurance Requirements may include additional provisions
as deemed appropriate by City's Purchasing Agent.
b. You should check with your Insurance advisors to verify compliance and determine if additional
coverage or limits may be needed to adequately insure your obligations under this agreement. These are
the minimum required and do not in any way represent or imply that such coverage is sufficient to
adequately cover the Contractor's liability under this agreement. The full coverage and limits afforded
under Contractor's policies of Insurance shall be available to Buyer and these Insurance Requirements
shall not in any way act to reduce coverage that is broader or includes higher limits than those required.
The Insurance obligations under this agreement shall be: 1—all the Insurance coverage and limits carried
by or available to the Contractor; or 2—the minimum Insurance requirements shown in this agreement,
whichever is greater. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits and coverage
required, which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to City.
c. Contractor shall furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory
endorsements and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy
endorsements to City before work begins. City reserves the right to require full -certified copies of all
Insurance coverage and endorsements.
3. INDEMNIFICATION
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend (with legal counsel reasonably
acceptable to CITY), indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, departments, officials,
representatives and employees (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any and all claims, loss, cost,
damage, injury (including, without limitation, economic harm, injury to or death of an employee of
CONSULTANT or its subconsultants), expense and liability of every kind, nature and description that arise
from or relate to (including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in
connection therewith and costs of investigation) that arise from or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole
or in part, from: (1) CONSULTANT's performance of Services under this Agreement, or any part thereof,
(2) any negligent act or omission of CONSULTANT, any subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly
employed by them, or anyone that they control; (3) any actual or alleged infringement of the patent rights,
copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, service mark or any other intellectual or proprietary right
of any person or persons in consequence of the use by CITY, or any other Indemnitee, of articles or
Services to be supplied in the performance of this Agreement; or (4) any breach of this Agreement
(collectively "Liabilities"). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and indemnify any Indemnitee shall
not apply to the extent such Liabilities are caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of such
Indemnitee, but shall apply to all other Liabilities. The foregoing shall be subject to the limitations of
California Civil Code section 2782.8 as to any design professional services performed by CONSULTANT and
in particular the limitation on CONSULTANT's duty to defend whereby such duty only arises for claims
relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT as well as the limitation on
the cost to defend whereby CONSULTANT will only bear such cost in proportion to CONSULTANT's
proportionate percentage of fault (except as otherwise provided in section 2782.8).
b. The foregoing indemnification provisions will not reduce or affect other rights or obligations which
would otherwise exist in favor of the CITY and other Indemnitees.
c. CONSULTANT shall place in its subconsulting agreements and cause its subconsultants to agree to
indemnities and insurance obligations in favor of CITY and other Indemnitees in the exact form and
substance of those contained in this Agreement.
4. INSURANCE
a. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this Agreement is
effective, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following types of insurance with coverage limits
complying, at a minimum, with the limits set forth below:
Type of Insurance Limits
Commercial general liability: $1,000,000
Professional liability $1,000,000
Business automobile liability $1,000,000
Workers compensation Statutory requirement
b. Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of ISO-CGL Form No. CG
00 011185 or 88. The amount of insurance set forth above will be a combined single limit per occurrence
for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy coverage. Automobile coverage will
be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 0106 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto). Liability
policies will be endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and employees as "additional insureds" under said
insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed "primary" such that any other
insurance that may be carried by CITY will be excess thereto. Such endorsement must be reflected on ISO
Form No. CG 20 10 1185 or 88, or equivalent. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence," not a "claims
made," basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except upon thirty (30) days prior written
notice to CITY.
c. Professional liability coverage will be on an "occurrence basis" if such coverage is available, or on a
"claims made" basis if not available. When coverage is provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT
will continue to renew the insurance for a period of at least three (3) years after this Agreement expires
or is terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect
during the term of this Agreement, and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of
any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time this
Agreement was in effect.
d. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance evidencing maintenance
of the insurance required under this Agreement, including endorsements, and such other evidence of
insurance or copies of policies as may be reasonably required by CITY from time to time. Insurance must
be placed with California -admitted insurers with (other than workers compensation) a current A.M. Best
Company Rating of at least "A:VII."
e. Waiver of Subrogation: The insurer(s) agree to waive all rights of subrogation against CITY, its elected
or appointed officers, officials, agents, volunteers and employees for losses paid under the terms of the
workers compensation policy which arise from work performed by CONSULTANT for CITY.
f. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this
Agreement, CITY may obtain such coverage at CONSULTANT's expense and deduct the cost of such
insurance from payments due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or terminate pursuant to
TERMINATION section. In the alternative, should CONSULTANT fail to meet any of the insurance
requirements under this Agreement, City may terminate this Agreement immediately with no penalty.
g. Should CONSULTANT'S insurance required by this Agreement be cancelled at any point prior to
expiration of the policy, CONSULTANT must notify City within 24 hours of receipt of notice of cancellation.
Furthermore, CONSULTANT must obtain replacement coverage that meets all contractual requirements
within 10 days of the prior insurer's issuance of notice of cancellation. CONSULTANT must ensure that
there is no lapse in coverage.
h. The CITY shall be entitled to any coverage in excess of the minimums required herein.
I have read and understand the above requirements and agree to be bound by them for any work
performed for the City.
Authorized Signature:
Printed Name:
Date:
DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS/SUBCONSULTANTS
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
City of Son to Clorito, California
Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor
or render service in excess of/: of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be
used fill out the form with NA. Please add additional sheets if needed.
Subcontractor
DIR Registration No.
Dollar Value of Work
Location and Place of Business
Bid Schedule Item No's:
Description of Work
License No.
Exp. Date: / /
Phone ( )
Subcontractor DI Registration No.
Dollar Value of Work
Location and Place of Business
Bid Schedule Item No's:
Description of Work
License No.
Exp. Date: / /
Phone ( )
Subcontractor
DI Registration No.
Dollar Value of Work
Location and Place of Business
Bid Schedule Item No's:
Description of Work
License No.
Exp. Date: / /
Phone ( )
NOTE: A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to propose on, be listed in a proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of
the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered
and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered
contractor to submit a proposal that is authorized by Section 7029.1 ofthe Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 ofthe
Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 ofthe Labor Code at the time the
contract is awarded.
REFERENCES
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
City of Son to Clorito, California
The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of three public agencies for which proposer
has performed work of a similar scope and size within the past 3 years. If the instructions on this form conflict
with the references requested in the scope of work, the scope of work shall govern. Complete this form out
accordingly. Fill out this form completely and upload it with your proposal.
1.
Name and Address of Owner / Agency
Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project
Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed
2.
Name and Address of Owner / Agency
Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project
Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed
3.
Name and Address of Owner / Agency
Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project
Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & ACCEPTANCE OF SCOPE OF WORK
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
City of Santa Clorito, California
By providing the three (3) required signatures below, the Contractor acknowledges full understanding,
complete agreement to, and accepts in its entirety, all Scope of Work for the Stormwater Monitoring
Program and NPDES Permit Compliance. The Contractor will be expected to perform maintenance
practices and uphold the standards herein to the established Scope of Work throughout the length of the
contract.
*Supervisor's Signature: Date:
*Estimator's Signature: Date:
*Owner's Signature: Date:
*All three signatures required
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
PROPOSAL # ES-25-26-20
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
City of Santa Clarita, California
The following information must be disclosed:
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the Request for Proposals.
If any person identified pursuant to No. 1 above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than ten percent of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
If any person identified pursuant to No. 1 above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any persons serving as a director of the non-profit organization or as a trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
4. Has the offeror had more than $250.00 worth of business transacted with any member of the City of
Santa Clarita staff, boards, commissions, committees, and Council within the past twelve months? If
yes, please indicate the person(s) with whom you have conducted business.
NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.
Signature of Offeror
Print or Type Name of Offeror
Date
SECTION D
Sample Contract
STANDARD AGREEMENT —SAMPLE ONLY
CON-6
Council Approval Date:
Agenda Item:
Contract Amount:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AND
FOR
This AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, a municipal
corporation and general law city ("CITY") and ,
a
is dated
CONSIDERATION.
("CONSULTANT"), and
As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the Services listed in the
SCOPE OF SERVICES, below; and
As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and
conditions contained in this Agreement; and
As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a sum not to exceed
dollars ($ ) for
CONSULTANT's Services. CITY may modify this amount as set forth below.
Unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this Agreement, CITY will
pay this sum as specified in the attached Exhibit(s) " " which is/are
incorporated by reference.
SCOPE OF SERVICES.
CONSULTANT will perform Services listed in the attached Exhibit(s) " " which
is/are incorporated by reference.
CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical,
administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials,
equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all
tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as
herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper
to perform and complete the Services and provide the professional Services
required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated
trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the
Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its
financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience,
completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private
consultants, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that
CONSULTANT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a
demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfy a public
CITY.
CONSULTANT will perform its Services in a skillful manner, comply fully with all City
established criteria, and with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, and
professional standards.
CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all applicable federal and state employment laws
regulations and rules including those that relate to minimum hours and wages,
occupational health and safety, workers compensation insurance and state, county
and local orders.
CONSULTANT will staff this Agreement with personnel qualified to adequately and
professionally perform the Services.
CONSULTANT will not subcontract any portion of these Services without the CITY's
prior written approval.
CITY's approval of any payment, or conducting of any inspection, reviews, approvals, or
oral statements, or any governmental entity's certification, will in no way limit the
CONSULTANT's obligations under this Agreement or CONSULTANT's
complete responsibility for all Services hereunder.
PAYMENTS.
For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement and as provided in
attached Exhibit(s) " CONSULTANT must submit a detailed invoice
to CITY which lists the hours worked and hourly rates for each personnel category
and reimbursable costs (all as set forth in Exhibit(s) " " ) the tasks
performed, the percentage of the task completed during the billing period, the
cumulative percentage completed for each task, the total cost of that Services during
the preceding billing month and a cumulative cash flow curve showing projected
and actual expenditures versus time to date.
CITY may withhold all or a portion of payment otherwise due in the event that Services
are either improperly or not performed.
PROJECT COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION.
CONSULTANT will assign as CONSULTANT's
Project Manager and will be responsible for job performance, negotiations,
contractual matters, and coordination with CITY's Project Manager.
CONSULTANT may change its Project Manager only with CITY consent.
CITY will assign as CITY's Project Manager, will
be personally in charge of and personally supervise or perform the technical
execution of the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of CITY, and will maintain
direct communication with CONSULTANT's Proj ect Manager. CITY may change
its Project Manager at any time with notice to CONSULTANT.
NON -APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. Payments due and payable to CONSULTANT for
current Services are within the current budget and within an available, unexhausted and
unencumbered appropriation of the CITY. In the event the CITY has not appropriated sufficient
funds for payment of CONSULTANT Services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement will
cover only those costs incurred up to the conclusion of the current fiscal year.
FAMILIARITY WITH SERVICES AND SITE.
By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has:
i. Carefully investigated and considered the scope of Services to be
performed; and
ii. Carefully considered how the Services should be performed; and
iii. Understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending
performance of the Services under this Agreement.
B. If the Services under this Agreement are to be performed upon any site, or
otherwise require CONSULTANT to access a site, by executing this Agreement
CONSULTANT represents that it has or will investigate the site and is or will be
fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, before commencing the
Services under this Agreement.
TERM.
L
The term of this Agreement will be from to
Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties,
Agreement will terminate in the following instances:
Completion of the Services specified in Exhibit(s) " or
this
ii. Termination pursuant to Section 17 TERMINATION.
C. Except as otherwise separately and expressly provided by the CITY in writing, the
provisions of this Agreement shall survive any expiration, breach, or termination
of this Agreement, and any completion of the Services.
TIME FOR PERFORMANCE. CONSULTANT will not perform any Services under this
Agreement until:
D. CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required under Section 24
INSURANCE; and
E. CITY gives CONSULTANT a written notice to proceed.
Should CONSULTANT begin Services on any phase in advance of receiving written authorization
to proceed, any such professional Services are at CONSULTANT's own risk.
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE AND EXTENSIONS.
F. Should the progress of the Services under this Agreement at any time fall behind
schedule for any reason other than excusable delays CONSULTANT shall apply
such additional manpower and resources as necessary to bring progress of the
Services under this Agreement back on schedule and consistent with the standard
of professional skill and care required by this Agreement. Time is of the essence
in the performance of this Agreement.
G. Should CONSULTANT be delayed by causes beyond CONSULTANT's control,
CITY may grant a time extension for the completion of the contracted Services. If
delay occurs, CONSULTANT must notify the CITY's designated representative
within forty-eight hours (48 hours), in writing, of the cause and the extent of the
delay and how such delay interferes with the Agreement's schedule. The CITY
will extend the completion time, when appropriate, for the completion of the
contracted Services.
CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the Services within the general scope of this Agreement,
consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the contract time
will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing, executed by
CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting from changes in the Services
will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES.
H. The CITY may request CONSULTANT to provide Services in addition to Scope
of Services, called "Additional Services". Additional Services that incur additional
costs (contingency) of up to 15% of the total contract amount must be authorized
by CITY by change order or other documented means. Costs beyond this amount
must first be approved by CITY in accordance with applicable thresholds and
procedures. Additional Services must be authorized by CITY in writing prior to
performance. CONSULTANT shall be compensated for Additional Services as set
forth in Exhibit(s) " " or as specified in the written authorization.
I. If CONSULTANT believes Additional Services are needed to complete the Scope
of Services, CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with written notification that
contains a specific description of the proposed additional Services, reasons for such
additional Services, and a detailed proposal regarding cost. CITY is under no
obligation to approve any increase in the agreed -upon costs for the performance of
this Agreement.
PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, will obtain and maintain
during the term of this Agreement, all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that may be
required in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement.
SITE INSPECTION; DISCOVERY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR LATENT
CONDITIONS. The discovery, presence, handling or removal of hazardous substances is outside
of CONSULTANT's expertise, unless otherwise specified in Exhibit(s) " and is not
included in the scope of Services. Should CONSULTANT discover any hazardous material, or
latent or unknown conditions that may materially affect the performance of the Services,
CONSULTANT will immediately inform CITY of such fact and will not proceed except at
CONSULTANT's own risk until written instructions are received from CITY.
PREVAILING WAGES. CONSULTANT shall comply with the California Prevailing Wage
Law to the extent it applies to work performed under this Agreement. If applicable,
CONSULTANT shall pay prevailing wages to its employees and shall comply with the additional
provisions set forth below:
CONSULTANT shall pay prevailing wages to its employees on any agreement when
required by applicable law. Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem
wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the
Agreement, as determined by the Director of the State of California Department of
Industrial Relations, are on file at the County's Capital Projects Office and may be
obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations website
http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetennination.htm. CONSULTANT
shall comply with the 8-hours per day/40 hours per week/overtime/working hours
restrictions for all employees, pursuant to the California Labor
Code. CONSULTANT and all subconsultants shall keep and maintain accurate
employee payroll records for Work performed under the Agreement. The payroll
records shall be certified and submitted as required by law, including Labor Code
Sections 1771.4 (if applicable) and 1776, including to the Labor Commissioner no
less frequently than monthly. CONSULTANT shall comply fully with Labor Code
Section 1777.5 in the hiring of apprentices for work relating to the Agreement.
CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that it will comply with AB 1768 (effective
January 1, 2020), which amended and expanded the definition of "construction" for
which prevailing wages must be paid to include "work performed during the
design, site assessment, feasibility study, and other pre -construction phases of
construction ... regardless of whether any further construction work is
conducted... "
CONSULTANT shall forfeit, as a penalty to Owner, the penalty or penalties as provided
by the California Labor Code, for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed
in performing labor in and about the Work provided for in the Agreement for each
day, or portion thereof, that such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than
the said stipulated rates for any work done under the Agreement by him or her or
by any Subconsultant under him or her, in violation of Articles 1 and 2 of Chapter
1 of Part 7 of Division 11 of the California Labor Code. The sums and amounts
which shall be forfeited pursuant to this Paragraph and the terms of the California
Labor Code shall be withheld and retained from payments due to CONSULTANT
the California Labor Code, but no sum shall be so withheld, retained or forfeited
except from the final payment without a full investigation by either the State
Department of Industrial Relations or by Owner. The Labor Commissioner
pursuant to California Labor Code § 1775 shall determine the final amount of
forfeiture.
CONSULTANT shall insert in every subcontract or other arrangement which
CONSULTANT may make for performance of Work or labor on Work provided
for in the Agreement provision that Subconsultant shall pay persons performing
labor or rendering service under subcontract or other arrangement not less than the
general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the
locality in which the Work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing
rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work fixed in the California Labor
Code.
CONSULTANT and Subconsultants must keep accurate payroll records, showing the
name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and
overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to
each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by him or her
in connection with the Work of the Agreement Documents. Each payroll record
shall contain or be verified by a written declaration as required by Labor Code
Section 1776. The payroll records enumerated above must be certified and shall be
available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of
CONSULTANT as required by Labor Code Section 1776. This Project is subject
to prevailing wage compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of
Industrial Relations.
WAIVER. CITY's review or acceptance of, or payment for, Services or product prepared by
CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
CITY may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from CONSULTANT's
performance. A waiver by CITY of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in
this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different
character.
TERMINATION.
Termination for Convenience. CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time with or
without cause by written notice to CONSULTANT.
CONSULTANT will be entitled to recover its costs expended up to the
termination plus reasonable profit thereon to the termination date not to
exceed the total costs under Section I(C), but may recover no other loss,
cost, damage, or expense.
Termination for Cause. CITY may terminate this Agreement in whole or part for default
should CONSULTANT commit a material breach of this Agreement, and such
breach has not been cured within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of CITY's
written notice to CONSULTANT demanding such cure. In the event CITY
terminates this Agreement for default, CONSULTANT will be liable to CITY for
all costs to cure the deficiencies, and all loss, cost, expense, damage, and liability
resulting from such breach and termination.
Upon receiving a termination notice, CONSULTANT will immediately cease performance
under this Agreement unless otherwise provided in the termination notice. Except
as otherwise provided in the termination notice, any Services performed by
CONSULTANT after receiving a termination notice will be performed at
CONSULTANT'S own cost; CITY will not be obligated to compensate
CONSULTANT for such Services.
Upon a termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings,
maps, reports and other materials prepared by CONSULTANT will become
CITY's property and CONSULTANT will deliver any such items in its possession
to CITY within thirty (30) days of termination.
Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure on its
own terms Services similar to those terminated.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models,
photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement are CITY's property.
CONSULTANT may retain copies of said documents and materials as desired, but will deliver all
original materials to CITY upon CITY's written notice. CITY agrees that use of
CONSULTANT's documents and/or materials for purposes other than identified in this Agreement
is at CITY's own risk.
PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS. Except as necessary for performance under this
Agreement, CONSULTANT will not release copies, sketches, or graphs of materials, including
graphic art services, prepared pursuant to this Agreement to any other person or public entity
without CITY's prior written approval. All press releases, including graphic display information
to be published in newspapers or magazines, will be approved and distributed solely by CITY,
unless otherwise provided by written agreement between the parties.
INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend (with legal counsel
reasonably acceptable to CITY), indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its
officers, agents, departments, officials, representatives and employees (collectively
"Indemnitees") from and against any and all claims, loss, cost, damage, injury
(including, without limitation, economic harm, injury to or death of an employee
of CONSULTANT or its sub consultants), expense and liability of every kind,
nature and description that arise from or relate to (including, without limitation,
incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection
therewith and costs of investigation) that arise from or relate to, directly or
indirectly, in whole or in part, from: (1) CONSULTANT's performance of
Services under this Agreement, or any part thereof, (including any additional
services authorized by CITY in writing) (2) any negligent act or omission of
CONSULTANT, any subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed by
them, or anyone that they control; (3) any actual or alleged infringement of the
patent rights, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, service mark or any
other intellectual or proprietary right of any person or persons in consequence of
the use by CITY, or any other Indemnitee, of articles or Services to be supplied in
the performance of this Agreement; or (4) any breach of this Agreement
(collectively "Liabilities"). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and
indemnify any Indemnitee shall not apply to the extent such Liabilities are caused
by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee, but shall apply to
all other Liabilities. The foregoing shall be subject to the limitations of California
Civil Code section 2782.8 as to any design professional services performed by
CONSULTANT and in particular the limitation on CONSULTANT's duty to
defend whereby such duty only arises for claims relating to the negligence,
recklessness or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT as well as the limitation on
the cost to defend whereby CONSULTANT will only bear such cost in proportion
to CONSULTANT's proportionate percentage of fault (except as otherwise
provided in section 2782.8).
The foregoing indemnification provisions will not reduce or affect other rights or
obligations which would otherwise exist in favor of the CITY and other
Indemnitees.
CONSULTANT shall place in its subconsulting agreements and cause its subconsultants
to agree to indemnities and insurance obligations in favor of CITY and other
Indemnitees in the exact form and substance of those contained in this Agreement.
ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT's professional services.
CONSULTANT or any subconsultant's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this
Agreement without CITY's written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT shall at all times be deemed an
independent contractor wholly responsible for the manner in which it performs the Services, and
fully liable for the acts and omissions of its employees, subconsultants and agents. Under no
circumstances shall this Agreement be construed as creating an employment, agency, joint venture
or partnership relationship between CITY and CONSULTANT, and no such relationship shall be
implied from performance of this Agreement. Terms in this Agreement referring to direction from
CITY shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of Services only, and
not as to means and methods by which such a result is obtained. CONSULTANT shall pay all
taxes (including California sales and use taxes) levied upon this Agreement, the transaction, or the
Services and/or goods delivered pursuant hereto without additional compensation, regardless of
which parry has liability for such tax under applicable law, and any deficiency, interest or penalty
asserted with respect thereto. CONSULTANT shall pay all other taxes including but not limited
to any applicable City business tax, not explicitly assumed in writing by CITY hereunder.
CONSULTANT shall comply with all valid administrative regulations respecting the assumption
of liability for the payment of payroll taxes and contributions as above described and to provide
any necessary information with respect thereto to proper authorities. CONSULTANT has no
authority to bind the CITY.
AUDIT OF RECORDS. CONSULTANT will maintain full and accurate records with respect to
all Services and matters covered under this Agreement. Those records include, without limitation,
correspondence, internal memoranda, calculations, books and accounts, accounting records
documenting its services under its Agreement, and invoices, payrolls, records and all other data
related to matters covered by this Agreement. CITY and its designees will have free access at all
reasonable times to such records, including the right to audit, examine, and make copies, excerpts,
and transcripts from such records, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and
activities. If CITY receives funds from another governmental entity for the payment in whole or
part of the Services, that governmental entity will have all rights the CITY has under this Section.
CONSULTANT will retain all records subject to this Section for at least three (3) years after
termination or final payment under this Agreement.
INSURANCE. [All insurance terms subject to review and approval of* City Risk Manager]
Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this
Agreement is effective, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following
types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits
set forth below:
Type of Insurance Limits
Commercial general liability: $1,000,000/$2,000,000 (aggregate)
Professional liability $1, 000, 000
Business automobile liability $1,000,000
Workers compensation Statutory requirement
Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of ISO-CGL
Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. The amount of insurance set forth above will be
a combined single limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general
aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy
coverage. Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage
Form CA 00 01 06 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto). Liability policies will be
endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and employees as "additional insureds"
under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed
"primary" such that any other insurance that may be carried by CITY will be
excess thereto. Such endorsement must be reflected on ISO Form No. CG 20 10
11 85 or 88, or equivalent. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence," not a
"claims made," basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except
upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY.
Professional liability coverage will be on an "occurrence basis" if such coverage is
available, or on a "claims made" basis if not available. When coverage is
provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to renew the
insurance for a period of at least three (3) years after this Agreement expires or is
terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy
that was in effect during the term of this Agreement, and will cover
CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any errors or
omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time
this Agreement was in effect.
CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance
evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement,
including endorsements, and such other evidence of insurance or copies of
policies as may be reasonably required by CITY from time to time. Insurance
must be placed with California -admitted insurers with (other than workers
compensation) a current A.M. Best Company Rating of at least "A: VII."
Waiver of Subrogation: The insurer(s) agree to waive all rights of subrogation against
CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, agents, volunteers and
employees for losses paid under the terms of the workers compensation policy
which arise from work performed by CONSULTANT for CITY.
Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance
required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain such coverage at
CONSULTANT's expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments
due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or terminate pursuant to contract
language. In the alternative, should CONSULTANT fail to meet any of the
insurance requirements under the Agreement, City may terminate this Agreement
immediately with no penalty.
Should CONSULTANT'S insurance required by this Agreement be cancelled at any
point prior to expiration of the policy, CONSULTANT must notify City within 24
hours of receipt of notice of cancellation. Furthermore, CONSULTANT must
obtain replacement coverage that meets all contractual requirements within 10
days of the prior insurer's issuance of notice of cancellation. CONSULTANT
must ensure that there is no lapse in coverage.
The CITY shall be entitled to any coverage in excess of the minimums required herein.
Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by CONSULTANT shall be primary and
any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by CITY shall not be
required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be
satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any
umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision
that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for
the benefit of CITY before the CITY' S own insurance or self- insurance shall be
called upon to protect it as a named insured.
Additional insured status. General liability, automobile liability, and umbrella/excess
liability insurance policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that CITY and
its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be additional
insureds under such policies.
INCIDENTAL TASKS. CONSULTANT will meet with CITY monthly to provide the status on
the Services, which will include a schedule update and a short narrative description of progress
during the past month for each major task, a description of the Services remaining and a description
of the Services to be done before the next schedule update.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
In the event of any dispute between CONSULTANT and CITY regarding any claim,
demand or request by CONSULTANT for time, money, or additional compensation
for any reason whatsoever CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY, within 21 days
of CONSULTANT's first knowledge of the dispute, a written description of
CONSULTANT's claim, demand or request that provides a narrative of the
pertinent events, the contractual basis of the CONSULTANT's position, pricing
calculations (if applicable) and attaches supporting documentation. CITY will then
review the issue and make a decision thereon. If CONSULTANT shall fail to
provide timely notice of any such claim, demand or request, then CONSULTANT
shall waive is rights to such claim, demand or request, unless CONSULTANT can
demonstrate a manifest lack of prejudice to CITY resulting from such late notice.
CONSULTANT shall continue its work throughout the course of any dispute, and
CONSULTANT's failure to continue work during a dispute shall be a material
breach of this Agreement.
If the CITY denies CONSULTANT's claim, demand, or request in whole or part and
CONSULTANT disagrees, and the claim, demand or request exceeds $50,000 then
the parties shall, as a precondition to initiating litigation, submit the dispute claim,
demand, or request to the Los Angeles JAMS office for non -binding mediation
under the appropriate rules. The parties may agree to any other dispute resolution
process. Nothing herein will limit CONSULTANT's obligation to timely submit
to CITY a statutory Government Code Claim, in accordance with Government
Code sections 910 et seq.
NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when
received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:
If to CONSULTANT: If to CITY:
ATTN:
City of Santa Clarita
ATTN: Kenneth W. Striplin, City Manager
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by
the addressee three days after deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid and
properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time
of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices
are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this Section.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest laws and
regulations including, without limitation, CITY's Conflict of Interest Code (on file in the City
Clerk's Office). It is incumbent upon the CONSULTANT or CONSULTING FIRM to notify the
CITY pursuant to Section 27 NOTICES of any staff changes relating to this Agreement.
J. In accomplishing the Scope of Services of this Agreement, all officers, employees
and/or agents of CONSULTANT(S), unless as indicated in Subsection (B), will be
performing a very limited and closely supervised function, and, therefore, unlikely
to have a conflict of interest arise. No disclosures are required for any officers,
employees, and/or agents of CONSULTANT, except as indicated in Subsection
(B).
Initials of Consultant
In accomplishing the Scope of Services of this Agreement, CONSULTANT will be
performing a specialized or general service for the CITY, and there is substantial
likelihood that the CONSULTANT's Services product will be presented, either
written or orally, for the purpose of influencing a governmental decision. As a
result, the following CONSULTANT personnel shall be subject to the Disclosure
Category "I" of the CITY's Conflict of Interest Code:
SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained
any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, to solicit or secure this
Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any
company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, any fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award
or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this warranty, CITY may
rescind this Agreement without liability.
THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. CONSULTANT's subconsultants shall agree to be bound
to the terms of the Agreement to the extent of their scope of services, including but not limited to,
terms regarding indemnity and dispute resolution, and shall agree that CITY is deemed an express
third party beneficiaries of their subconsultant agreement. Nothing in this Agreement, however,
shall operate to confer such or similar rights or benefits on persons or entities not party to this
Agreement.
INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of California. The exclusive venue for any action involving this Agreement
will be in Los Angeles County.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire
understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no other
understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written.
There is/are ( ) Exhibits (s) to this Agreement. To the extent of a conflict between this
Agreement and one of the Exhibits, the terms of the Agreement shall take precedence. This
Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent
successors and assigns.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each party had the opportunity to independently review this
Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole,
and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either party.
SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent
necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so modified, such
portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.
AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The parties represent and warrant that all necessary action
has been taken by the parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage
in the actions described herein. To the extent of any contingency above the original Agreement
amount previously approved by the CITY's City Council, additional Services may be added to this
Agreement by an additional authorization executed by both parties. This Agreement may be
otherwise modified by written amendment, which generally requires approval of the CITY's City
Council. CITY's City Manager, or designee, may execute any such authorization or amendment
on behalf of CITY.
CAPTIONS. The captions of the sections and paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience
of reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.
TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.
DELAY. CONSULTANT shall complete all Services required by this Agreement within the times
specified in the Agreement, except where (1) an event outside of CONSULTANT's reasonable
control causes a delay and (2) CONSULTANT promptly advises CITY of such delay (such prompt
notice to occur no more than 15 days after the first occurrence of the delay). Such events shall be
limited to: acts of neglect by CITY or CITY's agents or by consultants when acting at CITY's
direction; breaches of this Agreement by CITY; Acts of God such as fire and flood; explosion,
acts of terrorism, war and embargo; and other similar causes beyond the Parties' reasonable
control. In the event of an excusable delay the City may elect whether to terminate this Agreement
or extend the time for performance.
FORCE MAJEURE. Except for defaults of subcontractors at any tier, CONSULTANT shall not
be liable for any excess costs if the failure to perform the Agreement arises from causes beyond
the control and without the fault or negligence of CONSULTANT, including without limitation
failure to reasonably mitigate any adverse impacts (Force Maj eure).
Force Majeure events include the following: Acts of God, fires, floods, earthquake, other natural
disasters, epidemics and pandemics, abnormal weather conditions beyond the parameters
otherwise set forth in this Article, nuclear accidents, strikes, lockouts, freight embargos,
interruptions in service by a regulated utility, or governmental statutes or regulations enacted or
imposed after the fact (together, "force majeure events").
PROTECTION OF RESIDENT WORKERS. The CITY actively supports the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) which includes provisions addressing employment eligibility, employment
verification, and nondiscrimination. Under the INA, employers may hire only persons who may
legally work in the United States (i.e., citizens and nationals of the U.S., and aliens authorized to
work in the U.S.). The employer must verify the identity and employment eligibility of anyone to
be hired, which includes completing the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9),
reviewing required proofs of both identify and employment authorization, and retaining the Form
I-9 for the required period. Updated form I-9 information is available at www.uscis.gov. The
CONSULTANT shall establish appropriate procedures and controls so no Services or products
under the Agreement will be performed or manufactured by any worker who is not legally eligible
to perform such Services or employment.
2. SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY. SAFETY OF PERSONS AND
PROPERTY. CONSULTANT shall comply with, and give notices required by applicable laws,
statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, and lawful orders of public authorities, bearing
on safety of persons or property or their protection from damage, injury, or loss, all as may be
amended from time to time.
FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF CONTRACT AND SIGNATURE.
The parties agree that this Agreement may be transmitted and signed by facsimile or electronic
mail by either/any or both/all parties, and that such signatures shall have the same force and
effect as original signatures, in accordance with California Government Code section 16.5 and
Civil Code section 1633.7.
STANDARD SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS. Notwithstanding Section 32 ENTIRE
AGREEMENT above, the following Standard Supplemental Provision(s), attached to this
Agreement, is(are) incorporated herein by this reference and takes precedence over any conflicting
provision of this Agreement: [Insert name of* any applicable SSP(s), and attach only that
SSP(s)—omit remaining SSP(s). Insert "None" if *applicable.)
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract on the date set forth
below.
FOR CONSULTANT:
I0
Print Name & Title
Date:
FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA:
KENNETH W. STRIPLIN, CITY MANAGER
I0
City Manager
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JOSEPH M. MONTES, CITY ATTORNEY
M.
City Attorney
Date:
IF CORPORATION:
Print Name & Title
Date:
EXHIBIT A
Attachments 1-4
Overview of Receiving Water Monitoring Sites
Overview of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
5
SCR Reach
ME
�O�
Gam `
lee
SCR Reach 7
Fork O
R � f.T.�/,yY.y�
�' t�r�Jl�a�ii7
P7
1
00.51 2 3
4
Miles
� 41 �-c N"-
USCR WMP Group Boundary
Los Angeles County
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site
Overview of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
Elizabeth
Reservoir
Castaic
GTLake—
io
d �
+a . o\* C
� ej Gap`I boo
c . a yea et Gao
SCR•Reach 5
SCR Reach 6� SCR Reach 7
South Fork'
SCR
J
v ✓
x
USCR WMP Group Boundary
Los Angeles County
6,
City of Santa Clarita
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site
Miles
Receiving Water Monitoring Locations
Site ID
Water Body
Coordinates
Latitude Longitude
Monitoring
Type
ME TMOL
SNTCLR R-E
SCR Reach 5
34.41856
-118.63569
X
SNTCLR 6 ME
SCR Reach 6
34.42611
-118.58583
X X
SNTCLR 7 R-A
SCR Reach 7
34.42403
-118.53956
X
Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
Site ID I Drain
Narne
Jurisdiction
the Outfall is
Located in
Owned
Operator of
the Outfall
Site la of
Downstream
RW Location
Latitude
Longitude
PD 2443
County
LACFCD
SNTCLR 5 R-E
34.49705
-118.61262
PD 0717
city
LACFCD
SNTCLR 6 ME
34.38176
-118.55110
PD 0494
city
LACFCD
SNTCLR- 7 R-A,
34.406088
-118.470119
Lake Elizabeth East
County
LACFCD
N/At
34.66196
-118. ,8712
1. Lake Elizabeth outfwl site will only be sampled to determine whether the County's discharge to Lake Elizabeth is attaining
applicable VVQBELs inAttachment M ofthe Permitfar the Sancta Clara River Lakes Nudrient TMDL.
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites
Jurlsdictlon
time Outfall Site 'ID of
Site ID Mrain is Located OwnerlOperator of Downstream RW
Dame In the Outfall Location Latitude Longitude
PD 2507 City city SNTCLR_6_ME 34.46467-119-5-5839
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE
LOS ANGELES REGION
ORDER R4-2021-0105
NPDES NO. CAS004004
Table E-6. Core Monitoring Constituents and their Associated Recommended Reporting
Levels (RLs)'
CONSTITUENTS
Recommended
RLs
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
m /L
Oil and Grease
5
Total Phenols
0.1
Cyanide
0.005
H
0-14 units
Temperature
N/A
Dissolved Oxygen
N/A
BACTERIA
MPN/100ml
Enterococcus marine waters
30
Fecal coliform ocean waters
200
E. coli freshwater
100
GENERAL
m /L
Orthophosphate as P Dissolved
0.05
Total Phosphorus
0.05
Turbidity
0.1 NTU
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
2
Total Dissolved Solids (TIDS)
2
Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC)
5
Total Organic Carbon TOC
1
Dissolved Organic Carbon DOC
0.2
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
2
Chemical Oxygen Demand COD
20
Total Ammonia -Nitrogen
0.1
Total K'eldahl Nitrogen
0.1
Nitrate+Nitrite
0.1
Alkalinity
2
Specific Conductance
1 umho/cm
Total Hardness
2
M BAS
0.5
Chloride
2
Fluoride
0.1
Methyl tertiary butyl ether MTBE
0.013
Perchlorate
0.006
METALS Dissolved & Total
/L
Aluminum
87
Antimony
0.5
Arsenic
1
Beryllium
0.5
Cadmium
0.25
Chromium total
0.5
Chromium Hexavalent
2
Copper
0.5
' See Attachment A for RLs, MLs, and MDLs definition.
$ See Attachment A for definitions of freshwater, marine waters, and ocean waters.
ATTACHMENT E — MRP E-20
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE
LOS ANGELES REGION
ORDER R4-2021-0105
NPDES NO. CAS004004
CONSTITUENTS
Recommended
RLs
Iron
100
Lead
0.5
Mercury
0.04
Nickel
1
Selenium
1
Silver
0.25
Thallium
0.24
Zinc
1
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS - ACIDS
/L
2-Chloro henol
1
4-Chloro-3-meth I phenol 3-Meth I-4-Chloro henol
1
2,4-Dichloro henol
1
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
2
2,4-Dinitro henol
4
2-Nitrophenol
10
4-Nitrophenol
5
Pentachloro phenol
1
Phenol
1
2,4,6-Trichloro henol
1
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS -
BASE/NEUTRAL
pg/L
Acenaphthene
1
Acena hth lene
1
Anthracene
1
Benzidine
5
1,2 Benzanthracene benzo a anthracene
1
Benzo a rene
1
Benzo ,h,i a lene 1,12-benzo er lene
2
3,4 Benzofluoranthene benzo b fluoranthene
1
Benzo k fluoranthene
1
Bis 2-Chloroethox methane
4.4
Bis 2-Chloroiso ro I ether
2
Bis 2-Chloroeth I ether
1
Bis 2-Eth Ihex Iphthalate
5
4-Bromo hen I phenyl ether
5
Butyl Benz I phthalate Benz I butylphthalate)
1
2-Chloroeth I vinyl ether Chloroeth I Vinyl Ether, 2
1
2-Chlorona hthalene
7.5
4-Chloro hen I phenyl ether
5
Chrysene
1
Dibenzo a,h anthracene
0.1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
1
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
5
Diethyl phthalate
2
Dimeth I phthalate
2
di-n-But I phthalate
3
ATTACHMENT E — MRP E-21
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE
LOS ANGELES REGION
ORDER R4-2021-0105
NPDES NO. CAS004004
CONSTITUENTS
Recommended
RLs
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
5
4,6 Din itro-2-methylphenol (2-Methyl-4,6-
dinitro henol)5
1,2-Di hen Ih drazine
1
di-n-Oct I phthalate
3
Fluoranthene
0.05
Fluorene
0.1
Hexachlorobenzene
1
Hexachlorobutadiene
1
Hexachloro-c clo entadiene
1
Hexachloroethane
1
Indeno 1,2,3-c,d rene
0.05
Iso horone
1
Naphthalene
0.2
Nitrobenzene
1
N-Nitrosodimeth I amine
1
N-Nitrosodi hen I amine
1
N-Nitrosodi-n-propyl amine
1
Phenanthrene
0.05
P rene
0.05
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1
CHLORINATED PESTICIDES
/L
Aldrin
0.005
al ha-BHC al ha-HCH
0.01
beta-BHC beta-HCH
0.005
delta-BHC delta-HCH
0.005
gamma-BHC lindane(gamma-HCH
0.01
al ha -chlordane
0.025
gamma -chlordane
0.025
4,4'-DDD
0.025
4,4'-DDE
0.025
4,4'-DDT
0.005
Dieldrin
0.005
al ha-Endosulfan
0.02
beta-Endosulfan
0.01
Endosulfan sulfate
0.01
Endrin
0.005
Endrin aldehyde
0.01
Heptachlor
0.01
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.01
Toxa hene
0.5
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs)',
p /L
s For subsequent monitoring after the first water year, PCBs may be monitored once during wet weather and once
during dry weather for monitoring locations that are not subject to Toxics TMDLs.
10 Analysis should include at a minimum, all 55 PCB congeners listed in Table A-7 of the Water Quality Control Plan
for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries — Part 1, Sediment Quality Provisions.
ATTACHMENT E — MRP E-22
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE
LOS ANGELES REGION
ORDER R4-2021-0105
NPDES NO. CAS004004
CONSTITUENTS
Recommended
RLs
Congeners ocean waters
20
Congeners non -ocean marine waters & freshwater)"
170
ORGANOPHOSPHATE PESTICIDES
/L
Atrazine
1
Chlorpyrifos
0.01
C anazine
2
Diazinon
0.01
Malathion
0.1
Prometryn
2
Simazine
2
HERBICIDES
/L
2,4-D
10
Glyphosate
5
Dacthal (DCPA)
0.1
2,4,5-TP SILVEX
0.5
PYRETHROIDS
/L
Bifenthrin
0.002
C fluthrin
0.002
Cypermethrin
0.002
Esfenvalerate
0.002
Lambda-c halothrin
0.002
Permethrin
0.005
FIPRINOL AND ITS DEGRADATES
p /L
Fi ronil
0.002
Fi ronil Sulfide
0.002
Fi ronil Sulfone
0.002
Fi ronil Desulfin I
0.002
NEONICOTINOIDS
/L
Imidaclo rid
0.5
VI. STORMWATER OUTFALL-BASED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Minimum Wet Weather Stormwater Outfall-based Monitoring Requirements
All Permittees shall incorporate in their monitoring program the following minimum requirements
for monitoring stormwater at outfalls:
1. Unless required more frequently by an applicable TMDL, stormwater discharges shall be
monitored a minimum of three times per water year for all parameters except aquatic
toxicity.
2. Monitoring shall be performed at the outfalls during wet weather conditions, defined for the
purposes of this monitoring program as follows:
a. Monitoring shall occur during wet weather conditions, including targeting the first
significant rain event of the water year following the criteria below, and at least two
additional wet weather events within the same wet season.
" Non -ocean marine waters include enclosed bay, estuarine, and coastal lagoon waters.
ATTACHMENT E — MRP E-23
2 TMDL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Historical watershed monitoring programs provided data and information used to support site
selection and identification of constituents for monitoring during the development of the 2015
CIMP. Such programs included MS4 Permit monitoring (Mass Emission monitoring), monitoring
conducted by LACSD, the Santa Clara River Watershed -Wide Monitoring Program, the Newhall
Ranch Water Quality Monitoring Program, and the TMDL Monitoring Plans. Elements of these
monitoring programs were incorporated into the 2015 CIMP.
One primary objective of CIMP monitoring is fulfilling the monitoring requirements established in
TMDL Basin Plan Amendments (BPAs) and/or in Part XV of the MRP, which establishes reporting
requirements and associated monitoring requirements in association with adopted TMDLs in the
region. Attachment M to the Permit lists the TMDLs directly applicable in the WMP area. The
applicable TMDLs are listed in Table A-2. The water bodies within the WMP area with established
TMDLs are highlighted in Figure A-5.
Revised CIMP A-7 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-2. TMDLs Applicable to the WMP Area.
Effective Date or
Regional Board
TMDL
EPA Approval Date
Resolution Number
Santa Clara River Nitrogen Compounds TMDL
3/23/2004
2003-011
(Nitrogen TMDL)
5/4/2005
2004-004
TMDL for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River
6/12/2008
2006-016
(Chloride TMDL)
4/6/2010
2008-012
4/28/2015
R14-010
Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash
3/6/2008
2007-009
TMDL (Trash TMDL)
6/1/2022
R19-005
TMDL for Indicator Bacteria in the Santa Clara River
3/21/2012
R10-006
Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 (Bacteria TMDL)
TMDL for Nutrients in the Santa Clara River Lakes
(Elizabeth Lake, Lake Hughes, and Munz Lake)
6/27/2017
R16-006
(Lakes Nutrients TMDL)
Revised CIMP A-8 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Kern County
--------------------- LosAngelesCounty
--------------------------------
aa—
Ventura County
SCR ar
�eac�5 Reach �R..rh
S G;SCR 7
a
a
as
a
i
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
La
<2-
Bouquet
Reservoir
USCR WMP Group Impaired Waters
SCR Watershed Management Area
USCRWMG Boundary
City of Santa Clarita
Los Angeles County
- - - - County Boundary
USCR WMA MS4 ME Site
® TMDL Waterbody
Figure A-5. TMDLs Within the WMP Area
Revised CIMP A-9 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2.1 Santa Clara River Nitrogen Compounds TMDL
The Permit includes WQBELs for discharges to Santa Clara River Reach 5 (Los Angeles Regional
Basin Plan Reach Designation) for Total Ammonia and Nitrate-N plus Nitrite-N. Allocations and
monitoring requirements are included for other reaches in the TMDL, but wasteload allocations and
WQBELs only apply to Reach S. A summary of the monitoring requirements identified in the TMDL
BPA is presented in Table A-3. Compliance with the Nitrogen TMDL has been achieved in the Santa
Clara River since the addition of nitrification/denitrification processes at the Saugus and Valencia
Water Reclamation Plants. Per the TMDL Staff Report, the MS4 is considered a minor source of
nitrogen compounds.
Table A-3. Summary of Nitrogen TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the USCRWMG
Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location
Total Ammonia, Not SpecifiedDry Weather
Water Santa Clara River Reach 5
Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N Wet Weather
2.2 TMDL for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River
The Chloride TMDL applies to Reaches 413, 5, 6, and 7, but the Permit only lists reach specific
WQBELs for chloride in Reach 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. In addition to chloride, the TMDL
also requires monitoring of total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfate. A summary of the monitoring
requirements identified in the TMDL is presented in Table A-4.
Table A-4. Summary of Chloride TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the USCRWMG
Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location(s)
Chloride, TDS, Not Specified Dry weather Water Santa Clara River
and Sulfate Reach 5 and 6
2.3 Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Nutrients TMDL
For the Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Nutrients TMDL, the only TMDL waterbody to
which USCRWMG members discharge is Lake Elizabeth. The Permit includes WQBELs for
discharges to Lake Elizabeth for total nitrogen and phosphorus. A summary of the monitoring
requirements identified in the TMDL BPA is presented in Table A-5.
Table A-5. Summary of Lake Nutrients TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the
USCRWMG
Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location
Total Nitrogen Dry Weather
Total Phosphorus Not Specified Water Lake Elizabeth
Wet Weather
Revised CIMP A-10 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2.4 Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDLs
For the Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDLs, the only TMDL waterbody to
which USCRWMG members discharge is Lake Elizabeth. Compliance with the Lake Elizabeth Trash
TMDL has been met through the installation of full capture devices on all conveyances that
discharge to Lake Elizabeth at the MS4 catch basins.
2.5 Santa Clara River Indicator Bacteria TMDL
The Bacteria TMDL states that compliance with interim WLAs must be assessed using in -stream
monitoring while compliance with final WLAs must be assessed using in -stream and outfall
monitoring. A summary of monitoring requirements is presented in Table A-6.
Table A-6. Summary of Bacteria TMDL Monitoring Requirements applicable to the USCRWMG
Constituent Frequency Condition Matrix Location(s)
Adequate to assess Dry Weather
Santa Clara River
E. coli compliance with the 30-day Water
geometric mean objectives Wet Weather Reach 5, 6, and 7
2.6 Summary of TMDL Compliance Points
The City of Santa Clarita is identified in Attachment J of the Permit as being a responsible party for
the Los Angeles River Bacteria TMDL. However, as discussed in the geographic scope, the City has
no MS4 discharges to the Los Angeles River. Table A-7 lists the schedule and applicable final
WQBELs and RWLs established by TMDLs and identified Attachment M of the Permit.
Revised CIMP A-11 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-7. Summary of TMDLs for the USCRWMG
Weather
Schedule
TMDL
Waterbody
Constituent
Final WQBEL
2021
2023
2029
2032
Condition
Salts
Santa Clara River
Chloride
Dry
Finalz
100 mg/L
Reaches 5 and 6
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 5 exceedance days
Dry
Final
(daily sampling), 1 exceedance day (weekly
sampling)
Bacteria
Santa Clara River
E. coli
Reaches 5, 6, 7
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 126 MPN/100 mL
Wet
Final
geomean WQBEL, 16 exceedance days (daily
sampling), 3 exceedance days (weekly sampling),
126 geomean RWL
1-hr average 5.2 mg/L
Ammonia
Finalz
Santa Clara River
30-day average 1.75 mg/L
Nitrogen
Reaches 53
Nitrate and
Finalz
30-day average 6.8 mg/L
Nitrite
Total
Final
2,536.8 Ib-N/yr
Lake
Nitrogen
Lake Elizabeth
Total
Nutrients
Final
436.7 lb-P/yr
phosphorus
Trash
Lake Elizabeth
Trash
Finalz
Zero trash discharged
1. TMDL applies to Reaches 413, 5, and 6, but only WQBELs for Reaches 5 and 6 apply to the USCR WMP Group per Part I II of Attachment M of the Permit.
2. Final applicable on Effective Date of Permit.
3. TMDL includes load allocations and monitoring requirements for other reaches, but wasteload allocations and WQBELs only apply to Reach 5.
Revised CIMP A-12 September2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
..... ........................ .................
.. mn .. n n - - ... ... ....... .................................
MMM —Hpp —pppp —Ppppppp — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
............
............. ......... ................ -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- .......... ................
............. ...............
.................................................
......................................................................................
............ . ..................................................................................... . — ........................ ............ . ........................aaaaaaaaaaa
........... ........
....................................................................................................................... . .................
............... ....................................................................... ........................................................... --------
............... ............................. ............
.................................................
.......... .................................
............................................................. ---- ............................. "I'll" -------------------------------- - ---------------------------------
.................................................. ---------------------------------
---- ----------
. . . . . . . . . .
..............
.......................... .. . ..........
.................. . ...... . .......................... ............... .. . . . . . 2� ...... A
................ ............................................ .................... ------- ..........................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.-m u i i i u uL u i i i ii i i i i i i i i i i i i g!
FF rrj.� FF F F F H F F F F- F F F F FE wo
2g 2..... -SS2g.
....... ... 99
............................... Bekaa
.................................................. .............................................................
............. ............
.. ........................................................................... ............................ — .... ..... . . . . . nnnnnt
............
............. g�s ...................... . . H H .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.............. ...............
.............................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................... ....... ........
..................... -------
---------------- -------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
........................................ — ....................
......................................................................................................................................
. ............................................................................................................................. ------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.................... .............. ............
------ -------- ..............................
--------------- -------------- --- ................. ........... -------------
............
------ --------------- -------------- ----------- --------
......... ..... .......
............... .......... ........
.................................................................
----------------------------------------------------- ......... .......
............ ........ --------
....... ....
----------- ..................................
--------------------------------------------------
.................................................................................. —
------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
....... Mimi
............ ................................................................ ......
...............
............ .................................................................... ....... ............ ................................................. ................................ .. ...... .........
.............. — -- .... I . ... .................................................................
.... ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . . .. . . . . . .
:Se nSSo...... 8.M i Hl—
------------------------
................... ......................................
....................................... . . . . . . . .
....................................................... . .... ...................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................................................................................................................ ...........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......................................................................................................... .......... .................
...................................................................................................... . . .......
............ -------------------------- ---------
. . . . . . . . . . . . .........
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......................... .......... .. .......................................... --------------
............... ..........
............ ........................ ...................................
-------------------
..........................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
2
.................. ...............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
mommogm Him
"
. ." ................ "..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::::::::
- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------- ------------------
�� �� a � � : a ass o�. �g �a.-� � � � � � _ � ��m�E°a�� °°gg °°➢➢----" °° -
0o
---- ---------- aaaannnn°°°°°
`nSSo=°geeeekk`.
R amm.n Eg eee o
n
.....ee00000099=
e ..m..mmmmmmmmmm°°°°°°°°°°eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
�������������HHHHHHHHH.................��������������HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH������������������HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-------------------
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm���������������
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeMMMMMMM
----------------------------------
..................................
..................................
..................................
«««««««««««««««««
a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_eem„ananaanananana
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn sans nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... ...... a . ......aaaaaa
a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
________________
......................................................................................................................................................................................
--------------- ------------------ -- !
......... .............. ................. .............................. ........... --
......... ............. ................................................. .............. ................................................. .............. ......................
--------- --
...... ........
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............................
@@@@@@@@@ @ @@@@@@@ @ @@@@@ @ @@@@
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
s ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
................................................................................................................................................................................. HH.
......... bbbbbbbbbbbbHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH--
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
s ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
---------------------------------------------------------------
��-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ss...........����������������......ss.................................... ������
-- - --- gyv xiii --"ll -- --ee�'�' - -- --- - --
-
- -- - - - -- -- - - ea�ess�eemos���-Po
------ -- ----------- -- -- ----------- -- E EE .:FF==":: AAN cases ..�aa-„ zz' zzee�� sseeeeeeeeeeeeaa"
nnnn nnEExmmnxmmn..
L$�
seas. ¢„„..eeeeeeeeeeeeaa„o
xnnFFgge°aa-" d.F___a..„flx5 .e .e..EE^^ "e= EE^a88EE............eva ..s_..ss_&Sa
e»»___.�—.. ...ee �.
000 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... .... ..« .� .... m.... ««
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------- -----------------------------
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
s ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
-------------------------
-------------------------
uuuuuuuuu
mmt . . . ...
,,',,,,,"",m,',,,"",,""""""""""""""""''`'l°`.
""""""""""""""""""x'v!"'v
` /'* * ^
- - ------
---------------------------------------------------------------
::::::::::::::::::::::::::onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnMMMMM|
vvvvvvvvv
|<!i|HK.K� ! i �
MmMm
mmmmmmmmmmm/ mx||||||mm/
.............
..................
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............... ........... .............. WWWWWWWO I MINN.
U���« « « « «
h
wwwww
xxxxxxxxxxx--------------
///////xxxxxxxxxxxxx////////xxxxxxxxxxxxx/////////xxxxxxxxxxxxx///////xxxxxxxxxxxxx////////xxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,JUUUU|,,,,,,000000,,,,,o|||����,,,,,,,,,,000000|||||||||||||||||||,,,,,,,,
!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!����
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````"""""````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````"""""""""
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm/ mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm/
i, i, i, i, i i, i i, H H HHHHHM M H M M M M M M M M H i H H H H H H i i i, i, i, i, i, i, i, i, i, H H H H H H H H H H i i i, i, i, i i, i, i, i, i, H H H H H H i i i i i i � i, i, i, i, i, H����i
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""mmmmmm/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...................................................................................................................................................................................... .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
e e e e e e e e e e e e ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
�.�����ww �ss999s99s9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
...................
EEBBBggg;,,====BBgg„== Egg°
.eeeeeeeee..eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeee���e��ee
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE__EEE�������������������������������������������������������������������������������
................ ............... ...............
.............. .............
linin . ... .. . ..... ..
- -------------
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»>»»»»>e»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»>»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»>»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»»»
eE eE eE eE eE eE eE eE eE eE eE eE eEe B
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
0000000000000000000000000000000000
3333333333333333333333333333333333
---------------------------------------------------------------
...............................................................
_________________----------------------------------
..................................
.................................. ..................................
..................................
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
................................
................................
................................ ................................
................................
— — — — — — — — — —
--------------------------------------------------
..................................................
....... ............................ . ............................... .
PUMP ............................ . ��NNNNN— ....................
........... .................... RPRPR .......... ...... ..............................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .......................................................................... ... .
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------------
---- - -------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------- --------------------
............................. ----------
........ . . .........
.........................................................................
��fffff .........................................................................
........... ------------- ----------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
.... .. . . . . .. . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- -----------
u Hlu MN;z-
ng
MvI ffl---" H—M . .HH2p,—M ii .
hi
AzMgl�—� 12
.......
...................
1222222 ........................................ .....................
Ml
--------------- ........
................................................................. ........... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............... ........................................................................................................................................................
. . . . ............. ..... ...... ..... ...... ......
............... ..........
--- .............. .....................
........................... .... --------------------------------------
-. .------- -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
m zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............sssssssxsss
..........................................................................................................................................................
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...................................................................................................................................................................................... .
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
-- - - ------------------------------------------------ - ----- -----------------
wg§ __w _w _wg§ ----------- ----- ..... ......
BBB= BBB= BBB= �BB=B== _ _ _ _ _ _ .g'.g'�g'�g'�g'�g'�ga wgwg� wgwgw
HMMMz ee��ee�ee�ee�e`---------------- """"=eeeeeee============n een eeeen
�ggmmw%BB=w%BBmwmggPsg;mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm;;;;=°=m=mmmmmm44444mmmm� �g=g=g=g=g=g=gpg�gp %g%g®
mBB eBB eBB eBB eB - B B .BBB B "B B nB B BB
m mmmmmmmmmmmmm
k %kk% kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkk kkkk
�d �d
.. ^gexx ..... `ssss eee ➢' .. ..... >ecaee »veecaagee :gee q,y„
SS-5S `s s3ssrrrsRssssssssssssssssEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSsssssssssssssssssssssssss ss rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS5555555555333333SSSSSSS333333333333SSSSSSSSSSSSSS555555SSSSSSSSSS
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
��GGGGGGGGG3Y333NNyyNNyNNyNN3b33333333333333333333333333333NNNNyyNNNNyNNNNyNNNNyNN3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333iiiiiiNN_____ ______________________________
............................. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
............................. sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
............................................................................................................................................................................
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...................................................................................................................................................................................... .
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 pHs
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
r se E ens g sas
BB°BnnBnBwwgmngss gaBnB�e&nBnB�nnxx........................... .
eee e eeee eeee - - - - - -
`xw.3.r`ss„sa..................®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaa--------------------------------�� _seer -
g gggn
BBw nBgBgpBgnBgn nBgBgn nBgBg xi
xx.
a a a
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
........................................................................z zz= zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz=zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
.....
__ __ _____
- . . . . . nn eeggna__ _
.............::zz....::zz
......
.- .. ...
""S aee$$aaxx::--.:--::°°°€€ SSSS"-:--::
flfl:::::€e..flflccss. . .
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
..........................................................................................................................................................
&&33333&&&&zz33zzz33zzgzz z,�,�zzzzzgzzzz&&&&&&&&&&&&?3,�&&&&&&&&&&&&3;xxxx z,�?,�,�,�,�?,�?��e3z3z3z3z3z3z3zzgg33,�33zzz z,�?,�?,�,�,�,�,�?,�?��zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzggzzgz z,�
e °°eeee _,:,: ,:,:____,. _,:__. .:.:........................ .................... ........ .: .. __"_"__ ,. ,. ,. ,. _,. _,. _,. ,.,. _,.,.___ ,. ,._____,. _,. ________ __,.,.__,.___
....tttt R R R.... R R R R RR R R RR R R R R R R R R R R R
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ee e e ee e e e e e e e e e e etttttt
m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
..........................................................................................................................................................
s sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
..........................................................................................................................................................
N NNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G GG
H HHHHHHzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
............................................................................................................................................................... .
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
ee__ee n oo eeee ,n
------ - - --------- -------------------------------------------------- - - - ------------ -- -- ---- --- -
"sss§s
______________ wgwgwgwggaaaaaaa qq ngnngngngngngngng "n gmdd¢¢®'n%n%n%n%n%nn%_
MUNN
_____ _ _ _ _ _ _
_______ ew®®®ewGeemmwwwwww
p%p%p%p%nnnnnnnn"nw'%nrr"-%"-%"-%"-%"-%"-%"-%"-%nnnvvv
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmmnnnn %�%�%�%�rrrrrrrrr%�a%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%�rrrrrr%�%�%�%�%tee%� n%�errrrr%n%�%�rrr%�%�%%��rrr%nrrr%nn%%��000000
____________��@@@@@@@@@�@@aaaaaaaa@eeee@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa@@@@@@
k kkk k k k
MII
-------------- a„„„ee-------------- a ----------------------------- _____________________________----------------------------------------
__________________
ILL,
i
g@@
"3WMA161
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
33z�3,�?3333sss333�??,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�3zzzzzzz3333zzzzzzzzzzzzzz33zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz3333333333333333333333���
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
___ssssss sssssssss sssssssss sssssssss sssssssss sssssssss sssssssss sssssssss sssssssss sssssssssssss
.................................. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
...................................................................................................................................
s ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
...................................................................................................................................
NNNN-y,NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN333333
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
s ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
.............................................................................................................................
E
E
E
0
o
-
o
E
E
m
E
S
m
_
E
�;
o
o
E
E
z
E
-
E
E
-
E
-
5
x
o
K
E
-
-
K
-
-
-
Ta
£
£
K
K
Q
Lake Elrzabe11 East
1]/Ju12024 USCR_GMP WQ
Uryl
Not Recorded TehaTech 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
10.35
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
amplewffier oaty
S,rface No connects -to Samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fus
1
NR
FDR
Com
NR
Ury
15/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
09.55
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
261=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/195079 DegF Dry
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
09.55
Feld
1 Not Recorded
-88 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
111.
1
8.01 =
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
17/Ju12024 USCR_CIMP
WQ
Not Hecorded LACSD 2024202S Ury1
Not Hecorded 1-t
09 bb
Field
1111 Hecorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier Field-s- O;ygen, Dissolved
total
mg/L
1
bb
NH
Com
NH
01/Jan/1950 Ury
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
09.55
Feld
1 Not Recorded
-88 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
Total
msh-
1
1.060=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
09.55
Feld
1 Not Recorded
-88 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fus
1
NR
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_]_R-A
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
08.39
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
198=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950677 DegF Dry
SNTCLR_]_R-A
17/Ju12024 USCR_CIMP
WQ
Not Hecorded LACSD 2024202S Ury1
Not Hecorded 1-t
08. 19
Field
1111 Hecorded
-88m
S"fi-
amplewffier Field-s- pH
None
111.
1
118=
NH
Com
NH
01/Jan/1950 Ury
SNTCLR_]_R-A
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
08.39
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure O;ygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
1
73=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_]_R-A
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
08.39
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
Total
,Shm
1
0994=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_]_R-A
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dry1
Not Recorded Point
08.39
Feld
1 Not Recorded
-88 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fus
1
NR
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.08
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
229=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.08
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
111.
1
]]=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.08
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
1
746=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.08
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
Total
,Shm
1
1.088=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.08
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Turbidity
Total
NTU
1
-347=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.08
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Salinity
Total
ug/L
1
054=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.12
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
2
23=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_CIMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 2024202S Ury1
Midchannel "I't
11.12
Field
2 VSI ProDSS
9US iii
S fi-
samplewffier Field-s- pH
None
2
11 =
None
Com
NH
17/Ju1/2024 Ury
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.12
Feld
2 VSI ProDSS
005 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
2
7,14 =
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.12
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
Total
,Shm
2
1.088=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry1
Midchannel Point
11.12
Feld
2 VSI ProDSS
005 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Turbidity
Total
NTU
2
NR
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
17/Ju12024 USCR_CIMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 2024202S Ury1
Midchannel "I't
11.12
Field
2VSI ProDSS
9US iii
Sfi-
Samplewffier Field -sure Salinity
Iota1
ug/L
2
OS4=
None
Com
NR
17/Ju1/2024 Ury
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.32
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
126=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.32
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
111.
1
799=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.32
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
1
847=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel "I't
08.32
Field
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FleldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
total
,Shm
1
1255=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Ury
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.32
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Turbidity
Total
NTU
1
-045=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.32
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Salinity
Total
ug/L
1
0.63=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.38
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
2
126=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.38
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
111.
2
8.02=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.38
Feld
2 VSI ProDSS
005 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
2
848 =
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.38
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
Total
,Shm
2
124=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_CIMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 2024202S Un,2
Midchannel "I't
98. 38
Field
2VSI ProDSS
9US iii
Sfi-
Samplewffier Field -sure Iurbldlty
Iota1
NIU
2
u2S=
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Ury
SNTCLR_6_ME
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Dry2
Midchannel Point
08.38
Feld
2 VSI ProDSS
005 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Salinity
Total
ug/L
2
0.63 =
None
Com
NR
14/Jan/2025 Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.57
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
12=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.57
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
111.
1
8.02=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 2024202S VVet1
Midchannel "I't
0W5/
Held
1 VSI ProDSS
0US ui
S"fi-
samplewffier Field-s- Oxygen, Dissolved
I-
mg/L
1
10.91 =
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 VVet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.57
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
Total
,Shm
1
295=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.57
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Turbidity
Total
NTU
1
1648=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.57
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Salinity
Total
ug/L
1
0.14=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_CIMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 2024202S VVet1
Midchannel "I't
OW. S8
FIeId
2VSI ProDSS
OUSm
S"fi-
Samplewffier Field -sure temperature
None
DegC
2
12=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 VVet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.58
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
111.
2
795=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.58
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
2
10.02=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.58
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
Total
,Shm
2
293=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.58
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Turbidity
Total
NTU
2
1697=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet1
Midchannel Point
09.58
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Salinity
Total
ug/L
2
0.14=
None
Com
NR
121Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.40
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
122=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.40
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
111.
1
758=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.40
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
1
1028=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.40
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
Total
,Shm
1
498=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.40
Feld
1VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Turbidity
Total
NTU
1
19031=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 2024202S VVeC2
Midchannel "I't
10.40
FIeId
1VSI ProDSS
OUS ui
S"fi-
Samplewffier Field -sure Salinity
Iota1
ug/L
1
024=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 VVet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.42
Feld
2 VSI ProDSS
005 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
2
121 =
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.42
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
111.
2
]T/=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.42
Feld
2 VSI ProDSS
005 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
2
10.08 =
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 2024202S VVeC2
Midchannel "I't
1U42
FIeId
2VSI ProDSS
0US ui
S"fi-
samplewffier FleldMeasure Specifi,ConducOvity
total
,Shm
2
496=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 VVet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.42
Feld
2 VSI ProDSS
005 m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Turbidity
Total
NTU
2
17441 =
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded LACFCD 20242025 Wet2
Midchannel Point
10.42
Feld
2VSI ProDSS
005m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Salinity
Total
ug/L
2
024=
None
Com
NR
121Mar/2025 Wet
Lake Eli-b.th East
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Dry2
Not Recorded Point
10.10
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
SLrf- Outfall not
flowing Samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fus
1
0=
FDR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
PD 2507
15/Jm2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded lets l ech 20242025 Dry2
Not Recorded Point
11.05
FIeId
1Mt Recorded
-88m
SLrf- Outfall flowing
but Samplewffier FIeldMeasure Ve111ty
None
fus
1
0=
FUR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Ury
Lake Elf'abettFEast
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W(t
Not Recorded TetraTech 20212025 Wet2
Not Recorded Point
0615
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
59=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
Lake Elrzabe[YFEast
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Wet2
NRecorded Point
ot
0615
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
1
76=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
Lake Elfllbl h East
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Wet2
Not Recorded Point
0615
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
1
1053=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
Lake Elf'ab.tth East
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025Wet2
Not Recorded Point
0615
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specif,Cond-vity
Total
mS/cm
1
03694=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
Lake Eli-b.th East
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Wet2
Not Recorded Point
0615
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fus
1
0.11=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Average velc Wet
PD 0494
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Wet2
Not Recorded Point
08.40
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
112=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
1'U 0494
13/Mar2025 USCR_CIMP
W�
Not Recorded lets l ech 2-2-VVeC2
Not Recorded Point
98.49
Held
1111 Recorded
-88m
Sfi-
amplewffier Field-s- pH
None
1
8.0/=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 VVet
PD 0494
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025Wet2
Not Recorded Point
08.40
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S"fi-
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
1
10.60=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
PD 0494
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
No[Recorded TetraTech 20242025Wet2
Not Recorded Point
08.40
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeasure Specif,Cond-vity
Total
mS/cm
1
0.890=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
PD 0494
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025Wet2
Not Recorded Point
08.40
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fus
1
255=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
1'U 9/1/
13/Mar2025 USCR_CIMP
WQ
Not Recorded lehal ech 2024202S VVeC2
Not Recorded Point
0W.4S
Held
1111 Recorded
-88m
SLrface
amplewffier FIeldMeasu,e temperature
None
DegC
1
111=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 VVet
PD 0717
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Wet2
Not Recorded Point
09.45
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
1
821=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
PD 0717
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Wet2
Not Recorded Point
09.45
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L
1
1059=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
PD 0]1]
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
No[Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Wet2
No[Recorded Point
09.45
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SLrtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure SpecificConducOviry
Total
mS/cm
1
O55]=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 We[
NU0/1/
13/Mar2025 USCR_CIMP
WQ
No[Recotded tetra l ech 224202S VVeC2
Not Recorded Point
0W.4S
Held
1No[Hecorded
-88m
SLrface
amplewffier FIeIOMeasure Velocy
None
fus
1
128=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Average velc VVet
PD 2443
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded TetraTech 20242025 Wet2
Not Recorded Point
0755
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeasure Temperature
None
DegC
1
11]=
None
Com
NR
OS/Ma"2025 Wet
PD 2443
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
No[Recorded Tehai 20242025Wet2
Not Recorded Point
0755
Field
1No[Re11 ded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
1
839=
None
Com
AR
MMar/2025 Wet
PD2443
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 Wet2
No[Recorded Poin[
0].55
Feld
1No[R...rdd
-88m
SLrtace
samplewffier FieldMeas'r. Oxygen, Dissolved
To[al
mg/L 1
10.86=
None
Com
AR
OS/Mar/2025 We[
PD 2443
13/Ma,2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025Wet2
Not Recorded Point
0755
Feld
1Not Re corded
-88m
S, rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure SpecificConductiviry
Total
mS/cm 1
1.041=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
PD 2443
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
WQ
No[Recordi Tehai 20242025 Wet2
Not Recorded Point
0755
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewa FieldMeasure Velocity
None
ff/s 1
058=
None
Com
AR
0Za`ar/2025 Average ad, Wet
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet2
Bank, Right Point
0600
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S, rtace
samplewffier FieldMeai. TemperaWre
None
DiC 1
106=
None
CRT
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet2
Bank, Right Point
0600
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewffier FieldMeai pH
None
1
831=
None
Com
AR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet2
Bank, Right Point
0600
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S, rtace
samplewffier Field[sai, O;ygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L 1
1044=
None
CRT
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Mar2025 USCR_CAP
W�
Not Recorded ILa l ech 2024202SVvIt
dank, Right Point
Ub 00
Field
1No[Hecorded
-88 iii
S, rtace
amplewffier FielOMeas'r. SpecificConducOviry
local
mS/cm 1
0.19/1=
None
Com
NH
OS/Mar/2025 VVe[
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Mar2025 USCR_CAP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet2
Bank, Righ[ Point
0600
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier Field[sas'' Velocity
None
fus 1
1.11 JF
J
CRT
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Average vd, Wet
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
No[Recorded Te[raTech 20242025 Wet2
Bank, Left Poin[
0].10
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
99=
None
Com
AR
OS/Mar/2025 We[
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet2
Bank Leff Point
0710
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
sample'a., FiddMeas, pH
None
1
778=
None
Com
AR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Mar2025 USCR_CAP
W�
Not Recorded lehalech 2024202SVVeCL
Bank, Leff I'olnt
0/.10
Field
1No[Hecorded
-88m
S, rtace
amplewffier FleldMeasure O;ygen, Dissolved
total
mg/L 1
1133
None
Com
NI
OS/ 12025 VVet
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet2
Bank Leff Point
0710
Feld
1Not Re corded
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier FieldMeai SpecificConducOviry
Total
mS/cm 1
03133=
None
Com
NR
OS/Mar/2025 Wet
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Mar2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet2
Bank Leff Point
0710
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fls 1
1.83=
None
Com
AR
OS/Mar/2025 Average ad, Wet
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
No[Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dn,2
No[Recorded Poin[
11.25
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
1]S=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950635DegF Dry
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dn
Not Recorded Point
11.25
Feld
1 No[Recorass
-88 ht
SL rtace
sample-, Fieldm.asure pH
None
1
].81 =
NR
Com
AR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Di
Not Recorded Point
11.25
Feld
1Not Re corded
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier FieldMeai O;ygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L 1
94=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Di
Not Recorded Point
11.25
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier FieldMeasure SpeficCond-wiry
Total
mS/cm 1
1.150=
NR
Com
AR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_5_R-E_ALT
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
No[Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dn,2
No[Recorded Poin[
11.25
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
ftls 1
NR
NR
Com
AR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_]_R-A
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dnas
Not Recorded Point
10. 19
Feld
1No[Re..rded
-88m
S, rtace
sampl'-- FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
146=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950583 Deg F Dry
SNTCLR_]_R-A
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
No[Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dn,2
No[Recorded Poin[
10.19
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
1
824=
NR
Com
AR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_]_R-A
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
No[Recorded LACSD 20242025 Dn,2
No[Recorded Poin[
10.19
Feld
1Not Re corded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure O;ygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L 1
99=
NR
Com
AR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
SNTCLR_]_R-A
15/Jan2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded LACSD 2024202S 1nas
Not Recorded "I't
10.19
1Ie1d
1No[Recorded
-88
SL rtace
amplewffier FleldMeasure SpecificConducOviry
Ital
mS/cm 1
1.1/0=
NR
Com
NR
01/Jan/1950 Ury
SNTCLR_]_R-A
15/Jan2025 USCR_CAP
W�
Not Recorded LACSD 20242025 D,2
Not Recorded Point
10. 19
Feld
1Not Re corded
ht
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier Field[sasure Velocity
None
fus 1
NR
NR
Com
AR
01/Jan/1950 Dry
Lake Elrzabe[YFEast
13/Fe12025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
No[Recorded Poin[
14.02
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
154=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 We[
Lake El'ab. East
13/Feb2025 USCR_CAP
WQ
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025We[1
Not Recorded Point
14. 02
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
slnace
samplewffier FieldMeasu '.pH
None
1
698=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
Lake tlrzabe[M1tast
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
Not Recorded ILa l ech 2924292VVet1
Not Recorded I'oI't
14. [YL
Held
1Not Recorded
-88 ii1
SL rtace
amplewffier F1eldm.asure Oxygen, Dissolved
Iota1
mg/L 1
94/=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 VVe[
Lake Elrzabe[YFEast
13/Feb2025 USCR_CAP
W(]
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Not Recorded Point
14. 02
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure SpecificConductiviry
Total
mS/cm 1
14.000=
VFIF,VR
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Rejecting col Wet
Lake ElrzabettFEast
13/Feb2025 USCR_CAP
WQ
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025Wet1
Not Recorded Point
14. 02
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fls 1
325 JF
J
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
PD 0494
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
No[Recorded Poin[
1].05
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
119=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 We[
PD 0494
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
Not Recorded leha l ech 20242025 Wet1
No[Recorded I'olnt
1705
11e1d
1No[Hecorded
-88m
S, rtace
sample-, FleldMeasure pH
None
1
].81=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 VVet
PD 0494
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
No[Recorded Poin[
1].05
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
To[al
mg/L 1
10.84=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 We[
PD 0494
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
AG
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Not Recorded Point
1705
Feld
1Not Recorded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeasure SpecificCond-wiry
Total
mS/cm 1
0E47
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
PD 0494
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
No[Recorded Poin[
1].05
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
ff/s 1
38=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 We[
PD 0]1]
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
Not Recorded Point
1830
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S, rtace
sample-, FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
116=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 Wet
PD 0]1]
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
No[Recorded Poin[
1830
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
1
]91=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 We[
PD 0]1]
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
AG
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Not Recorded Point
1830
Feld
1Not Re corded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeai Oxvgen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L 1
1090=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
PD 0]1]
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
No[Recorded Poin[
1830
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure SpecificConductiviry
Total
mS/cm 1
0.62]=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 We[
PD 0]1]
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
Not Recorded Point
1830
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S, rtace
sample-, FieldMeasure Velocity
None
ff/s 1
36=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
PD2443
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Recorded TehaTech 20242025 We[1
No[Recorded Poin[
1600
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
126=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 We[
RD2443
13/Feb2025 USCR_CIMP
WE
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Not Recorded Point
1600
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
slnace
sample'a. FieldMeasure pH
None
1
846=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 pH of 1846, Wet
I'U 2443
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W(]
No[Hecorded lehalech 2024202S VVe[1
No[Hecorded I'o1n[
16.00
Held
1No[Hecorded
-88 ii1
SL rtace
amplewffier F1elOMeasure Oxygen, Dissolved
total
mg/L 1
19.62=
None
Com
NH
06/Feb2025 VVe[
PD 2443
13/Feb2025 USCR_CIMP
WE
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Not Recorded Point
1600
Feld
1No[Re..rded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeai SpecificCondu tally
Total
mS/cm 1
0510=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 Wet
PD 2443
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
AG
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025Wet1
Not Recorded Point
1600
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rface
samplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
fls 1
4JF
J
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
No[Recorded Te[raTech 20242025 We[1
Bank, Righ[ Poin[
1435
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SL rtace
sampl"a FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
13]=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 We[
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded leha l ech 2024202S VVet1
dank, Rlgh[ 1'olnt
14.35
11e1d
1No[Hecorded
-88m
SL rtace
amplewffier F1eldMeasure pH
None
1
8.00=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 VVet
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Bank, Right Point
1435
Feld
1Not Re corded
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier FieldMeai O;ygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L 1
973=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Bank, Right Point
1435
Feld
1Not Re corded
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier FieldMeasure SpecificCond-wiry
Total
mS/cm 1
07063
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_5_R-E
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
No[Recorded Te[raTech 20242025 We[1
Bank, Righ[ Poin[
1435
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SL rtace Too deepandacsamplewffier FieldMeasure Velocity
None
ftls 1
6JF
J
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 We[
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 202'T Wet1
Bank, Righ[ Point
1600
Feld
1No[Recorass
-88m
SL rtace
sample-, FieldMeasure TemperaWre
None
DegC 1
133=
None
Com
NR
06/Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
No[Recorded Te[raTech 20242025 We[1
Bank, Right Poin[
1600
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
S,rtace
samplewffier FieldMeasure pH
None
1
8.02=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 We[
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Bank, Right Point
1600
Feld
1No[Recorded
-88m
SLrface
samplewffier FieldMeasure O;ygen, Dissolved
Total
mg/L 1
999=
None
Com
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
SNTCLR_]_R-A
SNTCLR_]_R-A
13/Feb2025 USCR_CAP
13/Feb2025 USCR_GMP
W�
WQ
Not Recorded Tehai 20242025 Wet1
Not Recorded Tehai 202'T Wet1
Bank, Right Point
Bank, Righ[ Point
1600
1600
Feld
Feld
1Not Recorded
1No[Recorass
-88m
-88m
SL rtace
SL rtace
sampl"a., FieldMeasure SpecificConductiviry
sample-, FieldMeasure Velocity
Total
None
mS/cm 1
fus 1
0571=
847
None
None
Com
cm
AR
AR
06/Feb2025 Wet
06/Feb2025 Wet
S
�
�
�
9`
6&
x 6
6
�
6
6
z
�
t
�
oe
-
9`
x L
% %
q
�
E
� %
�
c
�
�
�
w s
�
9
� 8
8
�
x 8
9 'S
s
_
�
f
f
F5�'-
o
_
�
�
d`
'S e
¢
@
i
j
- &
f c
_
.. �
¢
¢
_
� s
f .,
F
�
-
LARRY WALKER
Lwo ASSOCIATES
March 26, 2026
Michele Arima
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 295
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
marimaCcDsantaclarita.gov
2525 Ocean Park Blvd 310.394.1036
Suite 216 www.lwa.com
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Subject: Larry Walker Associates Response to Proposal # ES-25-26-20 for Stormwater Monitoring
Program and NPDES Permit Compliance
Dear Ms. Arima,
Larry Walker Associates (LWA) is pleased to provide the enclosed proposal to provide program
implementation monitoring services for the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the
Upper Santa Clara River (USCR).
LWA and its team of skilled partners (LWA Team) bring deep familiarity with the regulatory framework
governing this program, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Order No. R4-2021-0105, the applicable total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs), and the multi -agency coordination requirements that make this program uniquely complex.
The LWA Team has a proven record of implementing watershed -scale monitoring programs that meet the
technical rigor, scheduling demands, and reporting requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board. We understand the critical importance of independent wet weather event tracking,
real-time sampling coordination with Los Angeles County, and delivering defensible data that supports
both TMDL compliance tracking and Annual Report obligations.
Our proposal addresses all twelve scope elements from dry and wet weather monitoring and bacteria
TMDL sampling to laboratory analysis, toxicity testing, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
development, and reporting and includes our approach to managing potential new NPDES Permit
requirements that may arise during the contract term.
As Vice President of LWA, I am legally authorized to bind the proposal and will represent the LWA Team
during the selection process. I appreciate your consideration of our proposal and welcome the opportunity
to discuss our approach and experience. This proposal represents a firm offer valid for 120 days from the
date of submission.
Please feel free to contact me at (310) 743-6235 or chrism@lwa.com with any questions or information
concerning this proposal.
Sincerely,
Chris Minton, Vice President
Larry Walker Associates, Inc.
RESPONSE FILE
Stormwater Monitoring Program
and NPDES Permit Compliance
(ES-25-26-20)
Prepared for:
City of Santa Clarita
OTETRA TECH
Prepared by:
Larry Walker Associates, Inc
in Association with Tetra Tech
*Cost File provided in separate submittal
Lwo
1 INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 LWA Background 3
1.2 LWA Team Overview 4
1.3 History of Collaboration 5
2 REFERENCES 5
3 PLAN OF STUDY/SCOPE OF WORK
16
4 SCHEDULE
33
5 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
38
5.1 Communication
38
5.2 Schedule Compliance
38
5.3 Budget and Project Staffing
39
5.4 Subconsultant Coordination
39
5.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
39
6 PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
41
7 SUB -CONSULTANTS
45
7.1 Subconsultant Project Experience
46
7.2 Subconsultant Staff Qualifications
48
8 OPTIONAL SPECIAL STUDIES
51
8.1 New NPDES Permit Requirements and Optional BMP Monitoring
53
8.2 Iron Study
53
8.3 LREC 1
53
8.4 Natural Source Exclusion
55
8.5 DNA/RNA Test Lab
56
8.6 Mercury Source Study
56
8.7 Pesticide Study
57
Attachments
Attachment A. Resumes
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 1
Lwo
Introduction
Larry Walker Associates, Inc. (LWA) and our partners (the LWA Team or Team) are pleased to submit our
response to the City of Santa Clarita (City) Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program (CIMP) Implementation (Proposal # ES-20-21-30). The LWA Team is composed of
program service providers LWA and Tetra Tech, with laboratory services provided by Eurofins, Physis,
Nautilus Environmental, Pat -Chem Laboratories, Enthalpy Analytical, and LuminUltra Technologies. LWA
Team key personnel and roles are provided in Section 6, and descriptions of the LWA Team subconsultants,
including their services and expertise, are presented in Section 7. Members of the LWA Team have
provided watershed monitoring services for over 20 years in Southern California, including the Upper
Santa Clara River (USCR) watershed. LWA has assembled a project team with the breadth of knowledge
and experience necessary to provide the requested services to:
1. Address the requirements of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit.
2. Provide analysis and reporting to support effective implementation to achieve the goals of the
Watershed Management Program (WMP) and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
3. Utilize regulatory and technical approaches to develop and implement special studies that address the
underlying regulations driving WMP projects and challenges associated with compliance.
LWA has an established record of implementing complex watershed monitoring programs and brings a
proven approach to cost-effectively supporting our clients' needs. Experience leading and managing these
programs is imperative to the successful implementation of the CIMP; however, understanding why the
data are being collected and how they can be used is equally crucial.
The LWA Team has completed numerous projects, including for the City and County of Los Angeles
(County), that 1) demonstrate our qualifications and experience, 2) provide a record of past
performance, and 3) highlight our ability to deliver on monitoring and reporting projects of various
sizes/complexities. As highlighted in Section 2.0, the LWA Team brings unique qualifications that include:
• Utilizing our comprehensive understanding of the MS4 Permit and watershed -specific history to
develop numerous CIMPs (including the USCR CIMP and USCR CIMP Update), creating approaches
for key components of CIMPs adopted countywide, and leading monitoring and reporting for
numerous CIMP groups.
• Developing the 2016 EWMP and 2021 WMP, including creating approaches to gain deemed
compliance status based on the 2020 State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) Order.
• Detailed knowledge of TMDLs gained by supporting our client's engagement with Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) staff on the development or amendment of TMDLs in the region over the past 20
years.
• Fluency with the MS4 Permit requirements gained through our support to Permittees during MS4
Permit negotiations.
• Long-standing relationships with the Regional Board and State Board that earned the LWA Team a
reputation for unbiased and technically astute work and gained the trust of the regulators.
A hallmark of LWA's work includes bringing regulatory expertise to monitoring programs and special study
design and implementation. The CIMP and associated contract provide an important vehicle that the City
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 2
Lwo
and County can utilize to build the technical and regulatory justification to revise underlying regulations
that drive the projects and costs associated with the WMP. The LWA Team will identify specific options for
special studies, the anticipated benefits, and associated implementation and acceptance challenges and
work with the CIMP Group to select studies for implementation. In identifying and selecting studies, it is
imperative to fully understand the end goals to avoid spending resources on science for the sake of
science. As such, the cornerstone of our Team's approach is to start by clearly identifying the issues being
addressed and the intended application and goals of the study. As demonstrated in our references
(Section 2), detailed special study approach (Section 8), and resumes (Attachment A), our Team has
conducted numerous special studies in the Los Angeles region related to bacteria, metals, and ammonia.
Our Team's study approach generally consists of:
Working with the USCR CIMP Group to identify opportunities to develop and implement studies that will
clearly support regulatory relief from inappropriate water quality standards (WQSs) and/or directly
support TMDL implementation efforts (e.g., re-evaluation of WQSs and development of site -specific
objectives [SSOs], bacteria source tracking and utilization of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment
[QMRA]/natural source exclusion [NSE]):
• Building upon previous work conducted by the Group and other stakeholders.
• Where available, using established regulatory guidance to inform study design.
• Developing work plans to identify the study's purpose, hypotheses to be tested, study approach and
methods, specific tasks, limitations of the study, and a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC),
data analysis, and reporting plan.
• For highly specialized or controversial work, identifying and utilizing an independent technical
advisory committee (TAC) to review the work plan and subsequent work products, as needed.
• Working with regulatory agencies to navigate the regulatory process to ensure the appropriate use
of the generated information to revise the Basin Plan and/or justify TMDL revisions.
• Conducting meetings to provide presentations and progress to the USCR CIMP Group, regulators,
and other stakeholders and incorporate comments into the special studies.
For each of our Team's completed special studies, relationships with staff in regulatory agencies and
leading scientific and policy experts were critical to success. While our Team's special studies employed
innovative approaches, the most important outcome is that they have assisted municipalities in
achieving their ultimate goal — regulatory compliance. From the onset of study development, critical
policy considerations are examined, including the underlying Basin Plan provisions, the dynamics of the
Regional Board, potential constraints that may affect USEPA approval (if needed), and precedent. This
approach has led to special studies that successfully resulted in Basin Plan Amendments (BPA) adopting
SSOs for the Santa Clara River, Calleguas Creek, and Los Angeles River watersheds. The studies conducted
by LWA form the basis for the only SSOs incorporated into the Basin Plan and TMDLs. While many firms
can demonstrate experience with studies, no other team can match our record of changing regulations
through studies.
1.1 LWA Background
LWA is a privately owned California corporation and a certified Women -Owned Business Enterprise,
providing consulting services ranging from highly specialized water quality, stormwater, and watershed
management to traditional wastewater engineering. As a firm of engineers, scientists, and experts in
water quality science and regulation, we have the insight and foresight that comes only with years of
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 3
Lwo
experience implementing local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations. Headquartered in
Davis, LWA currently has over 80 professional and support staff, with regional offices located in Santa
Monica, San Diego, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Berkeley, and Yreka, as well as Seattle, Washington. Over the
past 46 years, LWA has leveraged our expertise in environmental permit compliance to assist municipal
clients with developing solutions to complex regulatory challenges that meet their needs and are
approvable by Regional Water Boards, the State Board, and the USEPA. We have developed stormwater
solutions for multiple Southern California cities and counties, including, but not limited to, the cities of
Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, San Diego, and the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura,
San Diego, and Riverside; as well as local Watershed Management Groups (WMGs), including the Malibu
Creek and Calleguas Creek watersheds. Additionally, LWA staff fill several leadership roles in the California
Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), and the
California Water Environment Association (CWEA). Specific experience and qualifications supporting this
effort include:
• Water Quality Monitoring. LWA merges real -world monitoring experience with our in-depth
knowledge of the MS4 Permit and TMDLs to craft and implement effective, efficient monitoring
programs that support agencies in answering key management questions. LWA's monitoring
experience is extensive and includes managing programs for stormwater agencies, watershed
groups, and agricultural coalitions throughout California.
• Regulatory Assistance. LWA supports stormwater, wastewater, and agricultural clients in evaluating,
interpreting, and developing regulatory solutions for complex water quality issues. LWA is
recognized in the region and across California as a leader in supporting clients negotiating their MS4
Permits and TMDLs. We have worked with staff from the USEPA, State Board, and various Regional
Water Boards to effect changes in regulatory outcomes.
• Pollutant -Based Programs. LWA's pollutant -based work includes the development of targeted
management approaches and programs for bacteria, trash, nutrients, toxicity, organophosphate and
organochlorine pesticides, pyrethroids, metals, mercury, and sediments.
• Stormwater Program Management and Implementation. LWA's range of expertise to assist our
clients with the development and implementation of stormwater programs includes overall
program management and tracking, education and outreach, illicit discharge detection and
elimination, construction, pollution prevention/good housekeeping, post -construction, green
infrastructure standards, monitoring, program assessment, financial analyses and fee development,
and reporting. LWA's guidance and implementation tools and templates reflect our real -world
practical experience.
1.2 LWA Team Overview
Implementing the CIMP requires effective management of diverse challenges. Our proposed approach to
implementing the scope of services, detailed in Section 3, is intended to actively address those challenges.
The LWA Team understands the cost-effective objectives of this project and will implement the CIMP to
gather high -quality monitoring data to: (1) address the requirements of the Los Angeles Regional MS4
Permit embodied in the USCR CIMP; (2) provide analysis of the data to support effective planning and
implementation to achieve the goals of the WMP and TMDLs; and (3) capitalize on opportunities to
effect meaningful regulatory changes. The team will be led by LWA, which has provided monitoring,
regulatory, and technical services in support of stormwater programs for decades.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 4
Lwo
1.3 History of Collaboration
LWA and Tetra Tech share a proven track record of successful collaboration
on complex stormwater monitoring programs in the Los Angeles region. LWA and Tetra Tech
Most notably, the two firms have worked together on both the Upper Los have a history of
Angeles River (ULAR) CIMP and the USCR CIMP, demonstrating a well -
established working relationship built on coordination, reliability, and successful collaboration
technical expertise. in Region 4
On the ULAR CIMP, Tetra Tech provided comprehensive monitoring support
to the City of Los Angeles and the Upper Los Angeles River WMG with the implementation of the
approved program. This included conducting stormwater sampling across outfall and receiving water sites,
accommodating a variety of sampling needs, including three-hour composite samples, grab samples, and
Isco autosamplers. Tetra Tech coordinated directly with LWA to fulfill sampling personnel needs, including
nighttime sampling events required to meet monitoring deadlines and capture first -flush events and
worked closely with laboratories to ensure sample hold times were met.
This same collaborative model was carried forward on the USCR CIMP, where Tetra Tech again provided
monitoring support to the City and the USCR WMG. The scope included dry- and wet -weather sampling at
13 outfall and receiving water sites, using the same range of sampling methodologies. For this effort, Tetra
Tech expanded coordination to include additional subconsultants alongside LWA to meet sampling
personnel demands. Together, these projects reflect LWA's and Tetra Tech's ability to function as a
cohesive, responsive team under demanding field conditions, a foundation that positions the team for
continued success on future monitoring efforts.
2 References
Our Team's reputation is a direct result of our professional and qualified staff and our commitment to
fostering long-term relationships built on trust with our clients. We have completed numerous relevant
projects for local governments, including the City and the County, that demonstrate our qualifications
and experience, provide a record of past performance, and highlight our ability to deliver monitoring
and reporting projects of various sizes/complexities. The LWA Team's highly relevant Southern California
projects are listed in Table 1, with detailed project descriptions following the table. We can readily provide
references attesting to our expertise, professional commitment, and proven processes for delivering
projects on time and on budget, and to the complete satisfaction of our clients.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 5
Lwo
Table 1. LWA Team Relevant Project Experience Summary
Scope
Experience
MC
■ r
oCI
a
a
41
L
o
L
41
U_
X
to
O
Q
(6
O
C
0
C
f6
H
U
Q
VJ1
CA
Z6
Projecta
0C:
.L
o
ti
a-C�AC
C O
C
O
U
ULWA
•- • •
- •
C
O
c
O
f6
OProjectdescriptionsprovided
d
NTetra
C
Tech
L
U
C
0
N U
f6
0
U
C
%`
U
M
C
N
bio
3 aC:
0
o
aC°
Q
`O
v�
a)
a-
`O
L N
J
p
(% U
O
fL6
O
f6
'U
M
U)f6
LU
O U
ci
Z voi
Q
M
C7
-0
�
O
CL
Ln
N
U
Z
1. CIMP Implementation and Reporting Services
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LWA
LWA &
2. LA Region CIMP Development Services
• •
•
.
.
0
0
Tetra Tech
LWA &
3. Malibu Creek Watershed CIMP
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tetra Tech
4. Calleguas Creek Watershed TMDL Monitoring
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• LWA
and Special Studies
5. LA River Bacteria Source Investigation Study
and Bacteria TMDL Development and • •
Implementation
6. LA Region Site -Specific Objective Special
Studies 0 0
7. LA Countywide MS4 NPDES Permit Renewal
Support 0
8. On -Call Specialized and Expert Services for
TMDLs and Regulatory Support
9. Ventura County Conditional Waiver & TMDL
Compliance
10. Coordinated Monitoring Program for
Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury TMDL
11. North Santa Monica Bay Coastal
Watersheds CIMP Implementation
12. Central Coast Region Conditional Waiver
Cooperative Monitoring Program
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance
• • • • • • • • LWA
• • • • • • LWA
• • • • LWA
• • • • • LWA
• • • • • LWA
• • • • • • Tetra Tech
• • • • • • Tetra Tech
• • • • • • Tetra Tech
March 2026 1 6
Lwo
1. CIMP Implementation and Reporting Services '
Clie Upper Santa Clara River, City of LA on behalf of multiple WMGs, Malibu Creek
Watershed, and Upper San Gabriel River
Dates of Service 2015-Present
Relevance to RFP Demonstrates experience implementing CIMP monitoring requirements in a relevant
watershed and providing value added services related to Permit compliance.
LWA has supported CIMP implementation and reporting for the USCR, ULAR, Ballona Creek, Dominguez
Channel, Santa Monica Bay J2/3, Santa Monica Bay J7, Malibu Creek Watershed (MCW), and Upper San
Gabriel River (USGR) WMGs. The following highlights efforts provided for one or more clients:
Monitoring tasks have included:
• Prepared receiving water and outfall monitoring sites in advance of the upcoming wet weather events.
Coordinated and conducted monitoring during wet weather events by reviewing responsibilities with
field crews and discussing any modifications to the approach taken during previous events to
incorporate lessons learned and characteristics of the storm. Communicated with municipal staff
regarding timing of sample collection and delivery during wet weather events.
• Conducted non-stormwater (NSW) outfall screening. Outlined approach for conducting NSW source
investigations and conducted source investigations for outfalls with significant NSW discharges.
Developed technical memoranda detailing the results of the source investigations.
• Developed C1APP and Health and Safety Plan for Field Activities for monitoring activities and related
data quality assessments.
• Created a database that produces all the paperwork required for a monitoring event, including Chains
of Custody (COCs), Field Logbooks, Bottle Labels, Bottle Order Report, and Site Report, reducing event
preparation costs.
• Creating a user-friendly database that houses all water quality data and allows clients to run custom
queries and export data into a California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) compatible
MS Excel file.
• Communicated with Regional Board staff regarding implications of the 2018 Woolsey Fire.
Reporting tasks have included:
• Conducting data analysis to determine if water quality objectives and TMDL limits are exceeded using a
custom-made tool. These analyses form the basis for the semi-annual and annual data deliverables.
• Annual reporting related to monitoring includes summarizing monitoring completed in the year;
conducting trends analysis; identifying QA/QC issues and corrective actions; presenting source
investigation results; determining if TMDLs are attained; summarizing exceedances and assessing the
impacts of MS4 discharges; and developing modifications to the CIMP.
• Annual reporting related to program implementation include: summarizing stormwater and non-
stormwater control measure implementation in the reporting year; calculating control measure
capacity and comparing to the WMP goals; and summarizing proposed modifications to the WMP.
• Completing a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD), which included: a history of the stormwater
programs; summarizing control measures; presenting potential future control measures; and compiling
non-MS4 water quality data and conducting data analysis to determine if water quality priorities had
changed.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 7
Lwo
Client USCR, ULAR, BC, USGR, RH/SGR, and ESGR WMGs and City of LA
Dates of Service 2013-2016 and 2022-Present
Relevance to RFP NPDES Permit Requirements
LWA led the development of multiple CIMPs, which required monitoring in freshwater and saltwater
environments, across water, sediment, and tissue matrices, and covered the range from standard pollutants
to highly complex assessments of concentrations of historical pesticides and PCBs in storm -borne sediment.
Approaches developed by LWA for key components of the CIMPs were adopted countywide. LWA's
comprehensive understanding of the MS4 Permit, watershed -specific history and issues, and the goals of the
Regional Water Board were critical in designing approaches tailored to each watershed that reduced the
monitoring burden from the baseline MS4 Permit requirements. This included a tailored higher rainfall
trigger for conducting stormwater monitoring in the USCR to minimize the likelihood of costly false starts.
Tetra Tech provides support to the City of Santa Clarita, the Los Angeles County Unincorporated Areas, and
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District in implementing the approved CIMP for the Upper Santa Clara
River watershed. In accordance with CIMP requirements, Tetra Tech conducts outfall and receiving water
monitoring under dry and wet weather conditions and assesses compliance with water quality limits from
TMDLs, the California Toxics Rule, the Basin Plan, and more. We prepare and submit post -event monitoring
reports, Semi -Annual Reports, and Annual Reports in accordance with MS4 Permit requirements. We have
also developed web -based databases to store, visualize, analyze, and share data. Tetra Tech previously
conducted weekly sampling at select sites in accordance with the Bacteria TMDL and now conducts monthly
sampling at the receiving water sites in accordance with CIMP requirements.
Tetra Tech leveraged a previously built water -quality database to reduce data management costs for the
USCR WMG. Referred to as EnDAR, the custom database has the following features:
• A website using Azure single sign -on for secure client access to reports. Reports provide access to all
data (chemistry, field parameters, habitat, toxicology, and bacteria). Weather conditions during
sampling (dry vs. wet) are associated with the chemistry results used for report filtering.
• A data manager for such tasks as planning sampling events and uploading Electronic Data Deliverables
(EDDs) for reference, laboratory, and other data.
• A notification system that emails users about system events such as data uploads, upload errors, and
criteria exceedances.
• A SQL Server database for secure storage of all data.
• Complete data traceability, including tracking of who uploaded data and when, maintaining a history of
all changes, and archiving of all EDDs. Immediate, interactive feedback on upload status and error
identification is also provided.
Imports and exports of data in CEDEN formats, as these CIMP Groups are required to report all their data to
the Water Board every six months according to EDD templates developed by CEDEN.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 8
Lwo
Client Malibu Creek Watershed WMP Group
Dates of Service 2015-Present
Relevance to RFP Wet Weather Monitoring, NPDES Permit Requirements
Since 2015, LWA has provided monitoring, reporting, data management, and regulator assistance to the MS4
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permittees in the Malibu Creek Watershed: cities of
Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, and Westlake Village and the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles
County Flood Control District (Group).
Primarily, LWA has been overseeing the duties laid out in the CIMP for the Malibu Creek Watershed. The
CIMP includes both wet and dry weather monitoring at 10 receiving water sites, wet weather monitoring at
four outfall sites, and dry weather monitoring at three non-stormwater outfall sites. The CIMP also includes
weekly bacteria monitoring and bimonthly trash monitoring.
Monitoring Tasks Included:
• Developing a QAPP and a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to meet the requirements called out in the
CIMP.
• Monitoring at 10 receiving water sites during three wet weather and two dry weather events
annually for toxicity, bacteria, nutrients, metals, historical pesticides (including storm -borne
sediment analysis), and general water quality parameters.
• Oversight of subcontractor conducting weekly bacteria monitoring at 10 sites throughout the
watershed and bimonthly trash monitoring that follows the Trash Monitoring and Reporting Program
(TMRP) that is included within the CIMP.
• Conducting non-stormwater outfall screens, which included working with the County's GIS layers to
locate all the MS4 catch basins that drain to the outfall and map out a visitation route; visiting all the
catch basins multiple times on varying schedules to determine the source of water at the MS4
outfalls. Screenings were scheduled for three times of day (early morning, midday, and afternoon).
Summary memoranda were developed detailing the process and findings.
• Creating a Microsoft Access database that produces all the paperwork required for a monitoring
event, including COCs, Field Logbooks, Bottle Labels, Bottle Order Report, and Site Report, which
reduces event preparation time and costs.
• Creating a user-friendly MS Assess database that houses all the water quality data. The database
allows the user to run custom queries and export them to a CEDE N-compatible MS Excel file. The
database has exceedances flagged.
• Contracted with an engineering company to design and construct autosampler sites that are used for
collecting composites during wet weather events.
• Reporting Tasks Included:
• Conducting analysis on newly acquired data to determine if water quality objectives and TMDL limits
are exceeded using a custom-made MS Excel tool. These analyses form the basis for both the 6-
month and the annual data deliverables required by the MS4 Permit.
• Annual reporting to meet MS4 Permit requirements related to monitoring includes: summarizing the
monitoring completed in the reporting year; conducting dry and wet weather trends analysis to
evaluate if conditions are improving, declining, or staying the same; identifying QA/QC issues and
associated corrective actions; presenting source investigation results; conducting calculations to
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 9
Lwo
determine if TMDL mass based, seasonal average, annual average, and allowable exceedance day
limits are attained; summarizing exceedances of relevant limits and assessing whether or not the
MS4 Permittees caused or contributed to observed exceedances; and developing modifications to
the CIMP.
Annual reporting to meet MS4 Permit requirements related to program implementation includes:
summarizing stormwater and non-stormwater control measures implemented in the reporting year;
calculating control measure capacity and comparing to the WMP goals; and summarizing proposed
modifications to the WMP.
• Completing a ROWD, which included: providing a history of the stormwater programs implemented
by the MS4 Permittees; summarizing control measures implemented during the current permit term;
presenting potential future control measures; and compiling non-MS4 water quality data and
conducting data analysis to determine if water quality priorities had changed since development of
the WMP.
Client
Dates of Service
Relevance to RFP
Stakeholders Implementing TMDLs in the Calleguas Creek Watershed (CCW)
2006-Present
Wet Weather Monitoring, Reporting and Analysis, NPDES Permit Requirements
LWA has provided regulatory and technical water -quality support to the CCW
since 1998 and has assisted with watershed planning, monitoring, policy review,
and management activities. LWA assisted stakeholders with the development of
Third -Party TMDLs for nitrogen, salts, metals, toxicity, organochlorine pesticides,
and PCBs and provided support for the Regional Board -developed TMDLs for
trash and sediment. Since 2006, LWA has been coordinating the implementation
of all TMDLs in the CCW. LWA is responsible for tracking and conducting special
studies, monitoring, and reporting requirements under the TMDLs.
LWA developed and is currently implementing a multi -pollutant TMDL monitoring program in support of the
CCW Stakeholders. The approach represented a first -of -its -kind in Southern California, integrating multiple
TMDL monitoring requirements into a single, cohesive program. LWA identified opportunities to consolidate
efforts and worked with the CCW stakeholders to gain Regional Board support for the integrated approach.
Monitoring is coordinated among MS4 permittees, wastewater plants, and irrigated agricultural operations.
LWA completed a CAPP to meet the requirements of all six TMDLs in the watershed. Analyses conducted
under the CtAPP and managed by LWA include: toxicity testing in water and sediment; current and historic
pesticides; PCBs and metals in water, sediment, and tissue; nutrients and salts in water; various field
measurements; and estuary benthic invertebrate evaluations. Monitoring is conducted at freshwater
receiving water sites, urban and agricultural land use sites, and Mugu Lagoon. To track and manage the
complexities of this monitoring program, LWA developed a field preparation database tool that cost-
effectively generates sample labels, field logs, COCs, and checklists for each site. LWA produces an Annual
Monitoring Report each year to document its monitoring efforts and results.
In support of the CCW, LWA has led 13 special studies. Key special studies LWA has led or is in progress
include Microbial Source Tracking, Sedimentation and Sediment Transport, Copper Water Effect Ratio (WER)
and Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) SSO/Basin Plan Amendments, Natural Attenuation Rates and Attainability of
Organochlorine Pesticide Allocations, and USEPA selenium criteria implementation and TMDL update Studies.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 10
Lwo
Client City of Los Angeles Watershed Protection Division (WPD) and multiple cities
Dates of Service 2006-Present
Relevance to RFP Dry Weather Monitoring — Monthly Bacteria TMDL Monitoring, Optional Special
Studies
As part of the Cleaner Rivers through Effective Stakeholder
TMDLs (CREST) stakeholder process and to support the
development of the LA River Bacteria TMDL, WPD funded as „
Bacteria Source Investigation (BSI) Study of the LA River. The m
overall goal of the study was to quantify the relative loading
rates of bacteria sources, particularly urban runoff, and
uncontrollable sources (e.g., birds or regrowth) along the
most -impacted reaches of the LA River. The array of bacteria
measurements was synthesized using a Weight -of -Evidence
Approach and Monte Carlo analysis to highlight priority outfalls for TMDL implementation and to quantify
the expected effects of implementation actions. Subsequent to the BSI Study, LASAN funded the
development of the LA River Bacteria TMDL through a stakeholder process. Team members authored TMDL
sections for the source assessment, targets, linkage analysis, allocations, and a dry weather implementation
strategy. Development of each of these sections was coordinated with the diverse CREST stakeholder group
(MS4s, Heal the Bay, Caltrans, the Regional Water Board, and USEPA), including a variety of meetings and a
lengthy series of presentations. The TMDL ultimately adopted by the Regional Board has a 25-year dry
weather schedule, the longest dry weather schedule in the region. Paradigm and LWA have led the
development of multiple Load Reduction Strategies (LRSs) for LASAN to help the City of Los Angeles comply
with the LA River Bacteria TMDL. LWA served as a lead author for the LRS reports, coordinating meetings
with other cities that are members of the LRS groups, and led several meetings with Regional Water Board
staff.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 11
Lwo
Client Multiple Los Angeles -Region Agencies
Dates of Service 1999-Present
Relevance to RFP Optional Special Studies
LWA developed and implemented SSO studies for multiple agencies
within the LA Region, including the City of LA, City of Burbank, LA
County Sanitation Districts, and stakeholders in the Calleguas Creek
and LA River watersheds. The SSOs were focused on copper, lead, and
ammonia and were the first and only SSOs adopted by the Los Angeles
Regional Water Board. LWA developed and implemented work plans to
develop copper WERs in support of TMDL implementation in both the
LA River and Calleguas Creek watersheds. The copper WER studies in
the LA River watershed evolved through two phases. Phase I was
conducted in support of three Water Reclamation Plants operated by
F '
LA River at Wardlow—January 2011 jury)
the cities of LA and Burbank. Phase II focused on developing both copper and lead SSOs to support
stormwater compliance with the LA River Metals TMDL. Both studies were conducted through a stakeholder
process that included the Regional Water Board and USEPA staff, multiple cities, and NGOs.
Additionally, LWA provided support to participating agencies, including those representing Disadvantaged
Communities (DACs), in garnering support from elected officials and senior public works management. The
Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for permittees in the LA River Metals TMDL were increased as a result of the
Phase I and II work. LWA supported MS4 Permittees during negotiations with the Regional Board to
incorporate the results into the Basin Plan and the TMDL. LA River MS4 Permittees have not had a single
exceedance of copper or lead in the study area since the amended TMDL was approved.
LWA recently completed preliminary work on zinc utilizing the WER and recalculation procedures. The
preliminary work included analyzing watershed data, using previous studies and the zinc Biotic Ligand Model
(BLM) to predict potential SSOs, and implementing a pilot study. The pilot study included collecting and
analyzing WER samples, recalculating the criteria, and estimating the reduction in best management practice
(BMP) costs based on potential SSOs.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 12
Lwo
Client City of LA, LA County DPW, Ventura County Watershed Protection District
Dates of Service 2010-2012 and 2019-Present
Relevance to RFP Wet Weather Monitoring, Reporting and Analysis, NPDES Permit Requirements
During the development of the LA Regional MS4 Permit, LWA provided regulatory support to MS4 Permittees
via contracts with the City of LA, the County, and Ventura County. LWA assisted these entities in developing
comments on key issues in the Working Proposal (December 2019) and the Tentative Order (August 2020),
including the incorporation of TMDLs into the Permit, monitoring requirements, BMP-based compliance
mechanisms, and monitoring and reporting requirements. LWA has participated in meetings with Regional
Board staff and NGOs to protect several key elements of the current Permit, which were developed by LWA
as part of the 2012 MS4 Permit and utilized by the Regional Board as the basis for key permit sections,
including the watershed -based permit structure, CIMP flexibility, and utilizing Watershed Management
Plans/BMP-based compliance options. As part of the 2012 re -issuance process, LWA identified modifications
to current programs, developed the suggested framework and content for the watershed programs, and
provided justification for modifying the previous permit structure to accommodate the proposed approach
through modifiable minimum control measures and monitoring requirements.
Client City of LA and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Dates of Service 2008-Present
Relevance to RFP Program Management, Reporting and Analysis, NPDES Permit Requirements
LWA has supported the City of LA's efforts to effectively engage in TMDL development and subsequent
amendments. During TMDL development, LWA reviewed, commented, and supported negotiations on the
following TMDLs developed by the Regional Board and/or USEPA: Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs, Santa
Monica Bay Marine Debris, LA River Metals, LA River Nitrogen Compounds, LA River Trash, Ballona Creek
Metals, Ballona Creek Estuary Toxics, Ballona Creek Trash, Machado Lake Toxics, and LA Area Lakes TMDLs.
Subsequent to TMDL adoption, reopeners provide opportunities to improve the TMDLs based on new
information. LWA and Paradigm supported the City of LA with analyses and comments for a number of
metals and toxics TMDLs and multiple bacteria TMDL reopeners (Santa Monica Bay, Marina del Rey, Cabrillo
Beach, and Ballona Creek bacteria TMDLs). A variety of alternative approaches were evaluated for 1)
calculating geometric mean concentrations for determining compliance and 2) revising the allowable
exceedance rate based on more recent "point zero" data. These analyses were conducted in close
coordination with Regional Board staff before the draft Basin Plan Amendments were released for public
comment. Key outcomes included revised wet weather milestones for Santa Monica Bay, revised final WLAs
for Ballona Creek, removal of geomean compliance requirements until 2021, and replacement of intensive
follow-up monitoring in Ballona Creek with a more reasonable and valuable outfall monitoring program.
LWA has provided specialized regulatory and technical services related to addressing a range of regulations
with the potential to impact multiple MS4 Permittees, including, but not limited to:
• Developed comments on the 2018 Statewide Bacteria Recreational Water Quality Objectives.
Additionally, drafted comments during the Regional Board's incorporation of the statewide objectives
into the LA Basin Plan. Comments resulted in changes to the adopted objectives to ensure
dischargers could utilize the flexibility provided in the statewide objectives, including allowance for
the application of the exceedance day approach for the geometric mean and seasonal suspensions.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 13
Lwo
• Developed comments on the State Board's 2019 Proposed Order related to the approval of E/WMPs
submitted pursuant to the 2012 MS4 Permit. The comments primarily focused on supporting the
approaches taken in the existing E/WMPs related to the Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), source
assessment, and compliance.
Developed comments on the Regional Board's 2020 Tentative Conditional Waiver for Non -Point
Sources of Trash (Tentative Waiver). The primary focus was on ensuring consistency between
requirements identified in the Tentative Waiver and those identified in the TMDLs.
Client Ventura County Farm Bureau, on behalf of the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated
Lands Group (VCAILG)
Dates of Service 2004-Present
Relevance to RFP Program Management, Dry Weather Monitoring, Wet Weather Monitoring,
Reporting and Analysis, NPDES Permit Requirements
Since 2004, LWA has provided regulatory assistance to the Ventura County agricultural community through
the local Farm Bureau for compliance with the Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges from Irrigated Lands (Conditional Ag Waiver). LWA assisted in negotiating the terms of all three
Conditional Ag Waivers adopted by the Regional Board. Following the adoption of the first Conditional Ag
Waiver, LWA coordinated the formation of the discharger group (VCAILG) and developed a membership
database, which is currently maintained for over 1,400 enrollees, over 3,200 parcels, and more than 81,000
irrigated acres. Upon adoption of each Conditional Ag Waiver, LWA compiled membership statistics and
information regarding cultural practices to complete VCAILG's Notices of Intent (NOI). Included in the NOI
submittals to the Regional Board were the QAPP and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) Plan. LWA
developed the monitoring strategy to meet the requirements of the Conditional Ag Waiver, TMDLs, which
were incorporated into the Waiver, and also coordinated with other applicable monitoring programs to
leverage those efforts and data. Additionally, LWA contributes to education meetings, informing farmers of
their responsibilities for Conditional Ag Waiver compliance and summarizing water quality monitoring data.
Finally, LWA plans, executes, and reports on special studies required by the Conditional Ag Waiver.
Tasks Included:
In developing the QAPP and MRP Plan, LWA assisted with the selection of all monitoring sites within the 3
major Ventura County watersheds and conducted site assessments to verify relevance to the monitoring
program and safe access. LWA has led the Conditional Ag Waiver monitoring effort since its commencement
in 2007, while specific requirements have changed over the iterations of the Conditional Ag Waiver; in
general, this involved two wet weather and two dry weather events at up to 24 sites every year for toxicity,
pesticides, nutrients, salts, copper, bacteria and general water chemistry parameters. LWA developed and
maintains the monitoring database of all water, sediment, and fish tissue. Monitoring data is then compiled
and presented in the VCAILG Annual Monitoring Report, produced by LWA.
• LWA developed and maintains a database for enrollment, parcel, ownership, grower records,
education credits and the results of farm management practice surveys regarding agricultural BMP
implementation. Websites have been designed and used for farmers to enroll in VCAILG and complete
the BMP survey. Plans are underway to utilize the website for outreach and education purposes
specific to farm location and assist in implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan.
• LWA is responsible for the development of Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) triggered by
exceedances of water quality "benchmarks" and now required on a set schedule. Implementation of
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 14
Lwo
Client Ventura County Farm Bureau, on behalf of the Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated
Lands Group (VCAILG)
Dates of Service 2004-Present
Relevance to RFP Program Management, Dry Weather Monitoring, Wet Weather Monitoring,
Reporting and Analysis, NPDES Permit Requirements
the WQMP began in 2008; this process includes surveying growers to identify current BMP
implementation and to provide outreach and guidance in areas that could be improved in order for
agriculture to meet Conditional Waiver water quality benchmarks and TMDL load allocations.
• Additionally, LWA is assisting the agricultural community with effective TMDL compliance and the
review and comment process during new TMDL development. At present there are seventeen TMDLs
with load allocations incorporated in the Conditional Ag Waiver as benchmarks.
Separate from compliance monitoring, LWA wrote a Bacteria Special Study Work Plan to fulfill a
requirement of the 2010 Conditional Ag Waiver. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of
agricultural discharges with respect to bacteria during wet and dry weather conditions. Samples for
this study were collected from edge -of -field runoff, file drain discharges, and in agricultural drainage
ditches conveying communal discharge from multiple farm properties. The final report for this effort
was submitted in 2016.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 15
Lwo
3 Plan of Study/Scope of Work
The LWA Team's ongoing support to the City and the USCR WMG with implementation of the USCR CIMP
provides us with an exceptional understanding of the Watershed Management Area's (WMA) unique
setting, as well as its regulatory challenges associated with the MS4 Permit and regular changes to the
Basin Plan, 303(d) list, and TMDLs. As regulations continue to evolve, the USCR WMG can continue to
count on LWA Team to provide innovative approaches that are measurable, meaningful, and achievable
for demonstrating compliance. LWA and Tetra Tech have worked alongside the City and other local and
regional partners to navigate complex permitting and regulatory challenges for many years.
Our Team's approach to USCR CIMP implementation will be consistent with past practice and will
emphasize clear and regular communication; appropriate staffing of technical tasks; use of technical
experts on topics with compliance implications; production of high -quality data and work products that
require limited to no rework; responsiveness for wet weather monitoring; and leveraging existing data to
make informed decision -making. Greater detail regarding the LWA Team's approach to implementing the
USCR CIMP is provided in the following sections.
3.1 Program Management
The overarching goal of the LWA Team project management approach is to implement an efficient and
effective system for achieving project transparency, in particular: a shared understanding of the status of
tasks, monitoring schedules, and reporting deliverables. To effectively manage the project and
communicate with the Group, the LWA Team will utilize a combination of a monitoring/reporting schedule
as well as meetings and email updates to keep in touch. Clear expectations regarding frequency and lines
of communication will be established during the first monthly check -in call. LWA will work with the City to
ensure the LWA Team meets the expectations of the CIMP Group, and work through issues of project
implementation as they arise.
3.1.1 Monthly Reports
The LWA Team manager will submit monthly invoices and reports outlining the deliverables and work
completed for that month. The invoice and monthly report will include itemized work efforts consistent
with submitted costs, staff with rates and hours worked, and budget tracking by task. In addition, the
Team will provide a central repository for all regulatory information, data, reviews, and analyses, and
establish a SharePoint site for the City and the WMG.
3.1.2 Monthly Check -In Calls
To effectively manage the project and communicate with the CIMP Group, the LWA Team will utilize a
combination of meetings and email updates to communicate the status of the project. The LWA Team will
conduct monthly meetings during project implementation, including presentations to the WMG on the
status of monitoring, data analysis, special studies, and the draft semi-annual and annual reports.
The LWA Team currently meets with the USCR WMG on the 3rd Tuesday of each month. The Team
proposes this same schedule for monthly coordination meetings, which are critical to CIMP
implementation. The Team will continue to distribute a meeting agenda in advance and follow each
meeting with minutes. Each meeting will address the status of work products, sampling events, action
items, WMP projects, project tracking, and other topics of interest to the WMG. Meetings will be
conducted virtually to facilitate participation among WMG members for project efficiency. The Team will
be available for in -person meetings as requested.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 16
Lwo
3.1.3 Coordination with the County
The LWA Team will continue coordinating with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD)
and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) prior to dry- and wet -weather events, as
necessary. During wet -weather sampling events, the LACFCD performs sampling at the Santa Clara River
mass emission station (CIMP site SNTCLR_6_ME), while the Team samples at all other CIMP sites. During
dry weather sampling events, the LACFCD samples at SNTCLR_6_ME, the LACSD samples at the Reach 5
(SNTCLR_5_R-E) and Reach 7 (SNTCLR_7_R-A) sites, and Team member Tetra Tech samples at outfall sites.
Following all sampling events, the Team will correspond with the LACFCD and LACSD to obtain data. In
addition, we will coordinate with the LACFCD to obtain access permits for the monitoring locations as
needed.
3.1.4 Coordination with LACSD for Dry Weather Samples
The Team currently collaborates with the LACSD on the timing of the critical dry weather event in July and
the second dry weather event (typically in January). Following sampling events, the Team will correspond
with the LACSD to obtain data.
3.1.5 Tracking Changes with New NDPES Permit
The LWA Team has worked with the WMG to identify new program requirements during the last MS4
Permit renewal, such as adjustments to the Semi -Annual and Annual Report contents and lower reporting
limits for monitoring constituents. The Team will continue to track any updates that come with the next
MS4 Permit and will propose program adjustments as needed.
3.1.6 Permission Coordination with Five Points
The LWA Team will continue coordinating with Five Points to obtain access to the Reach 5 monitoring site
(SNTCLR_5_R-E). To access SNTCLR_5_R-E, the LWA Team opens a combination lock on a gate and
provides a text alert to Five Points about entering as well as leaving. The LWA Team will also coordinate
with Five Points on the QAPP and liability insurance.
3.1.7 Conduct Water Quality Monitoring
The proposed LWA Team currently conducts Water Quality Monitoring for the CIMP program. Please see
sections 3.2 through 3.4 below, for details on conducting program -related Water Quality Monitoring.
Program Management Outputs
Effective program management by the LWA Team will ensure smooth implementation of the CIMP, with all
requirements being met in an efficient and timely manner. The Program Management outputs serve as an
umbrella for subsequent tasks and provide a bridge for efficient interfacing among the LWA Team, WMG,
and LACSD. Specific deliverables/outputs include:
Monthly invoices and progress report, which include a task breakdown summary, presented
expended budget, remaining budget, an explanation of the work completed, and work percent
complete.
Meeting agendas, meeting summary notes, and action items.
LACFCD access permits.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 17
Lwo
3.2 Dry Weather Monitoring
The MS4 Permit and USCR CIMP require two dry weather monitoring events per monitoring year. For the
USCR WMA, the critical dry -weather event occurs in July, the historically driest month, and the second
dry -weather event typically occurs in January. Dry weather events are performed at least 72 hours after a
rain event of 0.1-inch or greater.
3.2.1 Dry Weather Monitoring at Outfalls
The LWA Team will perform dry weather monitoring for the two outfalls listed below and in Attachment 2
of the RFP. The outfalls were identified in the current CIMP and one outfall, PD 2507, was added to the
dry weather outfall monitoring program after non-stormwater outfall screenings found that they had
significant dry weather flow.
• PD 2507 (significant dry weather flow).
• Lake Elizabeth (East) outfall.
Monitoring of the outfalls will be conducted in accordance with the guidance in the CIMP and lessons
learned during the past ten years of CIMP implementation.
3.2.2 Annual Monitoring for LACSD in January and July
The Team currently collaborates with the LACSD on the timing of the critical dry weather event in July and
the second dry weather event (typically in January). Following the sampling events, the Team will
correspond with the LACSD to obtain the data.
3.2.3 Coordinate with LACSD Monitoring
The LWA Team will coordinate with the LACSD on dry -weather monitoring dates to ensure watershed -
wide consistency and efficiency. The LACSD samples the Reach 5 receiving water site (SNTCLR_5_R-E) and
the Reach 7 receiving water site (SNTCLR_7_R-A). As a result of this interagency collaboration, dry -
weather sampling is only needed at the outfalls listed in Subtask 3.2.1.
3.2.4 Mass Emission Site Coordination
The LWA Team will coordinate with the LACFCD on dates for dry weather monitoring to ensure
watershed -wide consistency and efficiency. The LACFCD samples the Reach 6 receiving water site/Santa
Clara River mass emission station (SNTCLR_6_ME). As a result of this interagency collaboration, dry
weather sampling only needs to be conducted at the outfalls listed in Subtask 3.2.1.
3.2.5 Land Use/Significant NSW Discharge Outfall Monitoring
Please see Section 3.2.1 for a description of the non-stormwater outfall monitoring, which will be
conducted by the LWA Team.
3.2.6 NPDES Permit List
Once a new MS4 Permit comes into effect, the WMG will be required to monitor the full list of
constituents in Table E-6 of the Monitoring and Reporting Program of the MS4 Permit for the critical dry
weather event of the first monitoring year under the new MS4 Permit. Any constituents that are either
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 18
Lwo
non -detect or do not have water quality objectives or have concentrations below applicable water quality
objectives are not required to be monitored further. Since the critical dry weather event of the first
monitoring year will require more constituents than the LACSD currently samples, the LWA Team will
complete sampling at Reach 5 receiving water site (SNTCLR_5_R-E) and Reach 7 receiving water site
(SNTCLR_7_R-A) for that event, if necessary.
Dry Weather Monitoring Outputs
Dry weather samples and associated Chain -of -Custody.
Complete and accurate field logs.
3.3 Dry Weather Monitoring —Monthly Bacteria TMDL Monitoring
Pursuant to the CIMP, the LWA Team will perform monthly bacteria monitoring at select receiving water
sites. Samples will only be analyzed for E. coli.
3.3.1 Receiving Water Monitoring Locations
The LWA Team will be monitoring three sites each month of the monitoring year: 1) Reach 5 receiving
water site, SNTCLR_5_R-E; 2) Reach 6 receiving water site, SNTCLR_6_ME; and 3). Reach 7 monitoring site,
SNTCLR_7_R-A, during dry weather conditions.
3.3.2 Monthly E. coli Bacteria Samples
Monitoring will be performed on the same day each week as much as possible for consistency in
reporting. The Team will document weather conditions (e.g., dry) at the time of sample collection and all
other observations and water quality measurements stipulated in the USCR CIMP. The collected samples
will be analyzed for E. coli.
3.3.3 Sample for DNA and/or RNA
If desired by the WMG, the Team is prepared to collect additional samples for DNA and/or RNA testing to
identify sources of elevated E. coli results. The LWA Team has conducted multiple microbial source
tracking (MST) studies throughout Southern California and has been engaged in ongoing conversations
with the City to conduct source investigations and DNA testing for MTD 1643 and PD 0717 following
consistently elevated bacterial results. In 2019, DNA was analyzed for bird, horse, dog, human, and
general fecal pollution sampling after weekly Bacteria TMDL sampling results showed consistently high
results. In addition, the LWA Team is prepared to address the WMG's concern regarding the potential
presence of high HF183 concentrations in receiving water resulting from treated effluent from the LACSD
water reclamation plants and has provided similar investigative support for other clients in the Los
Angeles region.
Dry Weather Monitoring Outputs
• Monthly E. coli samples and associated Chain -of -Custody.
• Complete and accurate field logs.
3.4 Wet Weather Monitoring
The MS4 Permit and USCR CIMP require three wet -weather monitoring events per monitoring year, one
of which should be conducted during the first -flush storm event of the season. At the onset of the wet
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 19
Lwo
weather season (October 1 to April 15), the LWA Team will hold an internal stormwater monitoring and
sampling kick-off meeting, during which sampling personnel are trained and refreshed on the appropriate
procedures and processes for monitoring in accordance with USEPA, Standard Methods, and CIMP
requirements. The monitoring manager will coordinate with the City and the USCR WMG at the beginning
of the storm season, and our Monitoring Lead will update the WMG of any potential events and provide
updates.
3.4.1 Collect Samples at Two Receiving Water and Four Stormwater Outfall
Monitoring Locations
The monitoring manager and/or monitoring lead will coordinate with the City prior to mobilization and
notify the City and the WMG via email 24 hours prior to and upon activation of the sampling teams. The
notification will include the following information:
• Anticipated start time and date of the storm event.
• Anticipated highest total amount of rain during any given 24-hour period during the storm.
• Probability of precipitation.
• Confirmation that the laboratory has been notified to expect samples.
• Any planned deviations from the established monitoring plan.
• Name and cell phone number of the storm event coordinator.
The monitoring team will document dates and times associated with field mobilization and
demobilization, and sample delivery to the laboratory. Following completion of the monitoring event, the
monitoring manager or monitoring lead will email the WMG with a brief summary of the sampling event,
including sites that were sampled, date sampled, and issues encountered, if any.
The monitoring team will collect and submit wet weather samples for analysis from the four outfall
monitoring sites and two receiving water sites, as listed below:
• Reach 5
o SNTCLR_5_R-E
o Outfall
■ PD 2443
• Reach 6
o SNTCLR_6_ME monitored by the LACFCD (i.e., will not be monitored by LWA Team)
o Outfall
■ PD 0717
• Reach 7
o SNTCLR_7_R-A
o Outfall
■ PD 0494
• Lake Elizabeth (East) outfall
Monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the guidance in the CIMP and lessons learned during the
past ten years of CIMP implementation.
The Team will collect samples and have them analyzed according to the list of constituents and
frequencies presented in USCR CIMP (or any subsequent revisions after approval).
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 20
Lwo
After the Regional Board adopts a new MS4 Permit, the WMG may be required to monitor the full list of
constituents in the current Table E-6 of the Monitoring and Reporting Program of the MS4 Permit for the
first wet weather event of the first monitoring year. The LWA Team is prepared to conduct this
monitoring, if required, and assist with the interpretation of the results in accordance with the USCR
CIMP.
The monitoring frequency for E. coli at the Reach 5, Reach 6, and Reach 7 stormwater outfall sites will
change to weekly in November 2028 to evaluate attainment of the geometric mean water quality -based
effluent limitations (WQBELs).
3.4.2 Coordinate with County for Mass Emissions Site Monitoring and
Rainfall Deployment
To ensure watershed -wide consistency and efficiency, the monitoring team will coordinate with the
LACFCD when triggers indicate that wet weather monitoring should occur (see Subtask 3.4.3). The LACFCD
samples the Reach 6 receiving water site/Santa Clara River mass emission station (SNTCLR_6_ME).
3.4.3 Evaluate Wet Weather Monitoring Mobilization Criteria Identified in
CIMP
Once the wet weather season starts on
October 1ST, the monitoring manager, with the
support of the monitoring lead, will be
responsible for monitoring the weather
conditions. Weather forecasting will be based
on the predictions of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Weather Service for the following weather
stations:
• Bouquet Canyon @ Urbandale (Auto
Rain Gage Ref. ID AL390).
Castaic Junction (Auto Rain Gage Ref. ID
1012B).
�✓ M�'oLos AngelesfOxna
Local weather conditions will be monitored from the NOAA
rain gages at Bouquet Canyon @ Urbandale, Castaic
Junction, and Newhall — Soledad Canyon.
• Newhall — Soledad Canyon (Auto Rain Gage Ref. ID 32C).
Staff mobilization for the first significant storm event of the year will be triggered when forecasts for two
of the three weather stations predict a 24-hour rainfall depth of at least 1 inch at a 70% probability the
day before the start of the storm event. Further, mobilization will only be triggered if the predicted storm
event is preceded by at least three days of dry conditions (less than 0.1 inch of rainfall each day). For
subsequent storm events, wet weather monitoring will target those forecasted to produce sufficient
rainfall and runoff to meet program objectives; the appropriate timing of staff mobilization will be
coordinated with the City and the USCR WMG. Sampling mobilization triggers may be modified as needed
with the approval of the City and the WMG. Because a significant storm event is based on predicted
rainfall, it is recognized that monitoring may be triggered even if less than one inch of rainfall occurs. In
this case, the monitoring event will still qualify as meeting this requirement provided that sufficient
sample volume is collected to perform the required laboratory analyses. Documentation will be provided
showing the predicted rainfall rate.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 21
Local weather conditions will be monitored from the NOAA
rain gages at Bouquet Canyon @ Urbandale, Castaic
Junction, and Newhall — Soledad Canyon.
• Newhall — Soledad Canyon (Auto Rain Gage Ref. ID 32C).
Staff mobilization for the first significant storm event of the year will be triggered when forecasts for two
of the three weather stations predict a 24-hour rainfall depth of at least 1 inch at a 70% probability the
day before the start of the storm event. Further, mobilization will only be triggered if the predicted storm
event is preceded by at least three days of dry conditions (less than 0.1 inch of rainfall each day). For
subsequent storm events, wet weather monitoring will target those forecasted to produce sufficient
rainfall and runoff to meet program objectives; the appropriate timing of staff mobilization will be
coordinated with the City and the USCR WMG. Sampling mobilization triggers may be modified as needed
with the approval of the City and the WMG. Because a significant storm event is based on predicted
rainfall, it is recognized that monitoring may be triggered even if less than one inch of rainfall occurs. In
this case, the monitoring event will still qualify as meeting this requirement provided that sufficient
sample volume is collected to perform the required laboratory analyses. Documentation will be provided
showing the predicted rainfall rate.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 21
Lwo
Wet Weather Monitoring Outputs
• Wet weather samples and associated Chain -of -Custody.
• Complete and accurate field logs.
3.5 Source ID Additional Monitoring
The LWA Team will perform source identification and additional monitoring tasks pursuant to the MS4
Permit, CIMP, and WMG needs. We anticipate this task will largely consist of support to the City and the
WMG for NSW outfall screening; significant NSW discharge source identification and associated outfall
monitoring; and dry -weather outfall pollutant source investigations.
3.5.1 Exceedances Found in Dry Weather Flow
When dry weather exceedances of water quality objectives are observed, source identification evaluations
are performed. The LWA Team will develop a plan to investigate the source of flow to the outfall in non-
stormwater conditions. The specific outfall and contributing area will be assessed to develop an
appropriate approach to determine if the observed flow is permitted or requires abatement. Depending
on the pollutant, air deposition, groundwater plume, or soil sampling may be pertinent in addition to or in
place of upstream tracking. Depending on the location and planned activities, the LWA Team will
coordinate with City or County staff to obtain field investigation approvals, traffic safety plans, and access
permits.
The LWA Team is ready to implement source identification if a significant NSW discharge is identified in the
future. The scale of the effort can span from a simple desktop exercise to an extensive study. However, the
effort required to meet the Permit requirements is on the lower end of the spectrum. Prior to developing
a source identification approach, the LWA Team will outline options for the scope and scale of the process
to ensure CIMP requirements are met, the desired information is collected, and the costs match the
Group's expectations. However, the most cost-effective approach we have utilized to date is a visual
assessment of the outfall and the surrounding drainage shed to identify flows leading to the outfall and to
catch basins. As the LWA Team has facilitated a similar process with other CIMP groups, we can provide
insights into the pros and cons of approaches and support the Group's selection of a preferred approach.
NSW outfall monitoring will consist of sampling at outfalls with significant NSW discharges identified
during the source identification process as having sources attributed to illicit discharges, non -essential
conditionally exempt discharges, or unknown sources. The outfalls will be monitored during regularly
scheduled dry -weather receiving water events to support the evaluation of potential connections between
discharge and receiving water quality and to maintain a cost-effective approach. NSW outfall monitoring
will be dynamic as monitoring will cease if the discharge is addressed or if it is demonstrated the discharge
does not exceed any WQBELs or water quality standards for constituents on the 303(d) list.
3.5.2 Flow and Source Identification for Pollutant Abatement
Where bacterial indicator exceedances are observed, the E. coli analysis will be supplemented with MST
assays. On the authorization of the City, the LWA Team will initiate sampling with the reserved sample
collected during the regular TMDL event. With MST testing, the relative impact of human versus non-
human sources can be quantified, which is relevant to multiple aspects of TMDL implementation,
including the following:
• Source identification (i.e., determining whether sewage or non -sewage sources are responsible for
elevated E. coli levels).
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 22
Lwo
• Source abatement (e.g., eliminating identified sewage sources and reducing the need for
downstream structural BMPs).
• Basin Plan amendments (e.g., pursuing NSE provisions if non -human sources are predominantly
responsible for exceedances).
• Risk assessment (e.g., prioritizing human sources for early implementation actions due to
potentially increased human health risks).
The LWA Team has successfully led some of the most advanced MST studies in the LA region, including the
Calleguas Creek Quantitative Microbial Source Tracking Study and the Los Angeles River Bacteria Source
Identification Study. LWA is also currently leading efforts in San Diego County to use the results of a QMRA
study in the San Diego region to inform implementation and ensure compliance with interim TMDL
requirements. The San Diego study is the first in the nation to attempt to develop SSOs for bacteria using
MST and pathogen testing. However, adopting new criteria, such as SSOs, is fraught with regulatory and
technical issues. Avoiding these issues through alternative approaches to demonstrating compliance
potentially provides a more viable solution. LWA has also been engaged in developing an MST special
study in the Newport Bay watershed to comply with a Bacteria TMDL Time Schedule Order (TSO). In
Northern California, LWA is leading a multi -year study to identify sources of bacteria in the Lower
American River for a group of stakeholders that includes the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board and Sacramento stormwater permittees.
3.5.3 Source ID Additional Monitoring Frequency
Should routine dry -weather outfall monitoring indicate that the USCR WMG is causing or contributing to
exceedances of receiving water limitations (RWLs), the Team will assist the WMG with dry -weather
pollutant source investigations. These investigations will begin with a coordination meeting with the
WMG and, if applicable, other stakeholders. Upon agreeing on the scope of the investigation, the LWA
Team will perform systematic tracing of pollutants within targeted outfall catchments/drainage areas. The
Team has partnered with a range of labs to facilitate source tracking, including analysis of human
biomarker samples (e.g., HF183).
The LWA Team has assumed that one dry -weather pollutant source investigation will be conducted per
monitoring year, for a total of three investigations over the course of this contract. The costing for this
Subtask assumes each investigation will span two days, with two staff per day, and that approximately 20
samples each of HF183 and E. coli will be collected from the outfall and its manholes for investigation and
analysis. The cost also includes LACFCD access permits and traffic control.
3.5.4 Field Operation Coordination
The LWA Team will coordinate with the WMG to obtain access permits from the County, LACFCD, and
other agencies to perform monitoring -related activities. The LWA Project Manager and Task Leads will
maintain regular communication to effectively prepare for monitoring events, closely follow the progress
of laboratory analyses, and track storms when needed. Updates will be provided during the monthly
check -in calls to summarize completed and ongoing activities. Monitoring Coordination typically includes:
Coordination with the LACFCD for sample schedule, storm tracking, coordination of deployment
times, and collaborating post -event to collect data.
Coordination with LACSD for dry weather in January and July, where sampling occurs as indicated by
the LACSD receiving water monitoring schedule. The County collects mass emission site samples,
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 23
Lwo
and the LWA Team will collect other receiving water samples and an outfall sample if flow is
observed from the outfall and observed to be connected to the receiving water.
Coordination with Five Points for access permission to the Reach 5 monitoring locations. The LWA
Team currently coordinates with Five Points for monitoring access permissions to this site.
3.5.5 Non-Stormwater Outfall Screening
Non-stormwater outfall screening and source identification are intended to identify and abate sources of
persistent, significant dry -weather discharges and associated pollutants. NSW outfall screening was
performed under the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and may be required under a new Los Angeles
Regional MS4 Permit (when adopted). The LWA Team will conduct NSW outfall screening at major
outfalls, as defined by the USCR WMG's outfall inventory. The LWA Team will coordinate with the City and
LACFCD staff prior to conducting any screening events to ensure appropriate access permits and traffic
control have been obtained. All outfall screenings will be performed during dry weather, at least 72 hours
after a rain event of 0.1-inch or greater.
One initial outfall screening event will be performed to assess whether any outfalls are potentially
contributing significant NSW discharges. Field technicians will record the following information:
• Date, time, weather.
• Photos of outfall and receiving water using a GPS-enabled camera.
• Coordinates of outfall.
• Physical descriptions of outfall, site condition, and accessibility.
• Discharge characteristics, such as odor and color.
• Presence of flow greater than trickle or no flow.
• Receiving water characteristics.
The LWA Team will conclude 'no further assessment' is needed due to one or more of the following
findings:
• No flow is observed from the outfall.
The source is confirmed to be from NPDES permitted, categorically exempt essential flow or
natural flow.
• Flow is categorized as not significant.
For all outfalls with potentially significant NSW discharges, a second and third screening event may be
conducted to validate findings during the initial screening event. During the second and third outfall
screening events, field technicians will record the following information:
• Date and time of last visual observation or inspection.
• Outfall alpha -numeric identifier.
• Description of outfall structure, including size (e.g., diameter and shape).
• Description of receiving water at the point of discharge (e.g., natural, soft -bottom with armored
sides, trapezoidal, concrete channel).
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 24
Lwo
• Latitude and longitude coordinates.
• Nearest street address.
• Parking, access, and safety considerations.
• Photographs of outfall condition.
• Photographs of significant NSW discharge or indicators of discharge, unless safety considerations
preclude obtaining photographs.
• Estimation of discharge rate.
• All diversions, either upstream or downstream of the outfall.
• Observations regarding discharge characteristics such as odor, color, presence of debris,
floatables, or characteristics that could aid in pollutant source identification.
• Water flow conditions in the receiving water at the point of discharge (dry, ponding, or flowing).
The field team will take photographs of each outfall and the receiving water with a GPS-enabled camera.
The USCR WMG will be notified as soon as practical if any potentially illicit discharge, as defined in the
MS4 Permit, is observed during the field screening activities.
After completing each screening, the LWA Team will prepare and submit progress reports, all field logs,
and photo -documentation within 30 days of each event. The photographs will be submitted in an
electronic format and will show, at a minimum, outfall condition, NSW discharge, and upstream and
downstream receiving water conditions.
The LWA Team has assumed that 60 outfalls will be screened, the same number as in the initial
screenings. After the three screening events, three outfalls are assumed to exhibit significant NSW
discharge and will need to be further investigated.
Source ID Additional Tracking Outputs
• Draft and final NSW outfall screening work plan.
• NSW outfall screening summary memo with prioritized list of significant NSW outfalls.
• Draft and final NSW discharge source investigation work plans.
• Brief technical memorandums summarizing the results of NSW discharge investigations.
• Draft and final Dry Weather Pollutant Source Investigation work plan.
• Brief technical memorandums summarizing the results of Dry Weather Pollutant Source
Investigations.
3.6 Reporting
Each monitoring year, the LWA Team will prepare five post -event monitoring reports upon completing
routine CIMP monitoring, 12 monthly bacteria TMDL reports, two semi-annual reports, and one annual
report. The LWA Team will validate and evaluate all field and laboratory data, upload it to the CIMP
database, perform QA/QC checks on the data, and prepare exceedance analysis reports.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 25
Lwo
3.6.1 Coordinate with CIMP Group
The LWA Team will lead the development of information used to convey the status of the USCR area to the
CIMP Group and the Regional Board. We will coordinate as appropriate with the CIMP Group to create and
complement the writing, revision, and submittal of work products. Additionally, the LWA Team will lead
the preparation of data for the bacteria TMDL, NPDES Permit, source identification, or data collected as
part of an enforcement action. The LWA Team will coordinate with the LACFCD to receive the MES
monitoring data (after quality assurance checks have passed) and with LACSD to receive the receiving
water monitoring data for the event.
3.6.2 Reporting of Water Quality Data
The LWA Team will prepare reports following each field event and summarize results semi-annually, as
described below.
3.6.2.1. Technical Memos After Each Monitoring Event
The LWA Team will continue to prepare and submit post -monitoring event technical memorandums to
the USCR WMG for each CIMP monitoring event, with a total of five post -monitoring event technical
memorandums per monitoring year. Following receipt of laboratory data and data from the LACFCD and
LACSD (as needed) for a monitoring event, the Team will create a post -event monitoring report that
includes a description of the monitoring event (including which sites experienced flow/discharge), field
measurement results for each site, analytical laboratory results for each site, discussion of water quality
objectives compliance, summary and analysis of toxicity testing (if applicable to the event), and summary
of QA/QC data. Completed field logs, site photographs, and analytical laboratory reports are also
included. A draft of the post -monitoring event technical memorandum will be submitted for WMG review,
and after receiving any comments or edits, a final post -monitoring event technical memorandum will be
provided to the USCR WMG.
Additionally, the LWA Team will prepare a monthly Bacteria TMDL Status Report that summarizes single -
sample results for the three sites noted in Task 3 above. The report will reference the Santa Clara River
Bacterial TMDL for pertinent water -quality objectives and Waste -Load Allocations. Results that exceed
either the single -sample or geometric -mean water quality objectives will be highlighted. The report will
also clearly summarize the number of days during which exceedances were observed relative to the
number of allowable exceedance days identified in the MS4 Permit.
3.6.2.2. Annual Report
LWA will continue to lead the water quality and watershed analysis chapters of the Annual Report. The
LWA Team will leverage our detailed understanding of TMDLs and the Basin Plan to appropriately highlight
exceedances of WQBELs, RWLs, and/or aquatic toxicity thresholds. In addition to highlighting
exceedances, the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) will provide an opportunity to understand the full
breadth of monitoring results. The LWA Team will present key aspects of the Draft Annual Report during
the monthly USCR WMG meetings and will make any revisions based on comments from the USCR WMG,
with sufficient time to obtain necessary signatures and submit the complete Annual Report package to the
Regional Board by December 151h each year.
3.6.2.3. Semi -Annual Report
As required by the MS4 Permit and outlined in the CIMP, reporting requirements include semi-annual
electronic data submittals in mid -June and mid -December (submitted with the Annual Report). LWA has
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 26
Lwo
developed an exceedance analysis tool to support reporting. The QA/QC'd data are uploaded to the tool,
which contains all applicable limitations (including RWLs and TMDL targets), summed values are calculated
where needed (e.g., total PCBs) and the exceedances are identified. Subsequently, LWA senior staff review
the exceedance analysis to ensure the analysis results are entirely accurate. Complete drafts of the dataset
will be provided in advance per the approved schedule and revised based on comments. In addition, the
WMP Progress Report Forms are required to be submitted on a semi-annual basis. The LWA Team will
evaluate the attainment of WMP milestones and compile programmatic and project implementation
information associated with the semi-annual reporting period to meet the WMP Progress Report Form
requirements in the MS4 Permit.
3.6.2.4. TMDL Compliance
TMDL compliance tracking will be ongoing and summarized as part of the reporting process. Please see
Section 3.6.2.1 for a description of TMDL compliance tracking for the monitoring events.
3.6.2.5 Exceedances of Water Quality Standards
LWA has developed an exceedance analysis tool to support reporting. The QA/QC'd data are uploaded to
the tool, which contains all applicable limitations (including RWLs and TMDL targets), summed values are
calculated where needed (e.g., total PCBs), and the exceedances are identified. Subsequently, LWA senior
staff review the exceedance analysis to ensure the analysis results are entirely accurate.
3.6.2.6 Entering Water Quality Data into CEDEN
The data will be compiled in a format comparable to the requirements of the CEDEN database and
uploaded to CEDEN if required by the new MS4 Permit or as requested by the USCR WMG.
3.6.2.7 Conduct Data Analysis and Lab Data Comparison
To aid with reporting and analysis, the LWA
Team will continue to use its custom-built
Environmental Data Acquisition and Reporting
(EnDAR) system to store and report CIMP data.
EnDAR currently houses all water -quality data
relevant to the USCR WMG, including CIMP
monitoring results, toxicity data, and monthly
TMDL monitoring data for bacteria. Key features
of EnDAR include:
A dedicated website using Microsoft
Azure single sign -on technology for simple
and secure access to the system, with the
ability to define permissions (e.g., view
only, view and edit) by user.
• A Microsoft Power BI "dashboard" that
allows users to visualize data through
interaction with a map of site locations,
. L yc, 1 — u 1 kk Clmi L- �uv tm7 1,L,,-.[ ... O 0 ❑
0
Customized EnDAR system stores, exports, and displays
all USCR CIMP chemistry, field, microbiological, and
toxicity data in tabular and geospatial formats.
time series graphs, bar graphs, data
tables, summary statistics, exceedances, and other reporting metrics. Dashboard elements can be
exported for use in reports or in other software for further analysis. Currently, EnDAR has four
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance
March 2026 1 27
Lwo
dashboards: (1) field measurements and general chemistry data, including summary statistics and
time series plots; (2) toxicity data; (3) single -sample water quality objective summary for the Santa
Clara River Bacteria TMDL; and (4) geometric mean water quality objective summary for the Santa
Clara River Bacteria TMDL. These dashboards could be used to explore outfall and receiving water
trends, investigate pollutant sources, and complete reporting associated with the MS4 Permit and
relevant TMDLs.
• Customizable data reports to provide access to all data types -chemistry, field parameters, habitat,
toxicity, and bacteria. Weather conditions during sampling (i.e., dry or wet) are associated with all
results for relevant report filtering. Reports can provide more in-depth data views and querying
than are practical for dashboards, and the output may be exported to Excel or PDF.
• Allows authorized users to browse reference data tables and add/edit data.
EnDAR is hosted in cloud infrastructure for secure storage of all data. EnDAR also includes features
for streamlining the sample collection process, which will be used by the LWA Team for sampling
events, including:
■ A data manager for such tasks as planning sampling events and uploading EDDs, including import
and export of data according to CEDEN format.
■ A notification system that emails users about system events such as data uploads, upload errors,
and exceedances.
• Complete data traceability, including tracking of who uploaded data and when, maintaining a
history of all changes, and archiving of all EDDs.
• Immediate, interactive feedback on the status of uploads and identification of errors.
• A mobile data collection application with cloud -based storage of data that allows tracking of sample
collection, entering weather and field parameter data, and taking site photos during sampling. Using
this mobile data collection application improves data quality and reduces costs associated with
transcribing field data from field forms to EDDs. The application runs on both iOS and Android
devices and is easily customized.
• Customizable chain -of -custody format tailored to each laboratory.
The LWA Team will maintain its stringent QA/QC system, in accordance with CIMP-defined data quality
objectives, when reviewing all field and laboratory data. Data is not uploaded into EnDAR until QA/QC
validation and evaluation are complete. The LWA Team will maintain copies and provide the USCR WMG
with all field logs and photo documentation in accordance with the requirements of the MS4 Permit and
the approved CIMP.
Reporting Outputs
• Draft and Final Post -Event Monitoring Reports.
• Monthly Bacteria TMDL Status Reports.
• Draft and Final Semi -Annual Reports.
• Draft and Final Annual Reports.
• Database of all CIMP information.
3.7 QAPP, Health and Safety Plan
The LWA Team will prepare updates to the QAPP and the HASP, as necessary.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 28
Lwo
3.7.1 Quality Assurance Project Plan Development
The LWA Team will update the USCR CIMP's current QAPP to address any new requirements in the
anticipated revised MS4 Permit. The Team will ensure the QAPP thoroughly covers:
• Sampling locations and frequency.
• Sample handling and storage procedures.
• Laboratories that will be used for the monitoring program.
• Analytical methods.
• Data processing procedures.
• Specific data quality objectives and data quality reporting.
• QA/QC.
As part of the QAPP development process, the LWA Team will review and as needed, update the HASP.
The Team always prioritizes health and safety when performing field work. All field personnel will comply
with the California Occupational Health & Safety (Cal -OSHA) requirements and any other Federal
Occupational Health and Safety Administration requirements. The LWA Team will implement a HASP that
includes information on potential chemical, physical, and biological job hazards associated with the
proposed field activities; field monitoring equipment; personal protective equipment (PPE); work zone
delineation and decontamination; emergency plan and hospital direction; and medical surveillance. The
HASP will also address site -specific safety concerns at all sites, such as vandalism, site accessibility, lane
closures, storm drain laterals, and other environmental hazards.
The HASP will also include additional safety precautions for conducting fieldwork during poor air quality
resulting from seasonal wildfires. Our teams have been implementing these practices for ten years and
are adept at taking additional precautions and truly prioritizing health and safety.
Before the initial start of field activities, the HASP will be reviewed by all field personnel. A tailgate safety
meeting will be conducted for each field crew at the beginning of each workday; a Tailgate Safety Meeting
log will be used to record all safety issues that are discussed by the Site Safety Officer with personnel prior
to starting work.
3.7.2 Quality Assurance Project Plan Review of Laboratory Analysis
The LWA Team will collect, validate, and manage all data produced by the analytical laboratories. If a
component of the analysis does not meet the CIMP requirements, the LWA Team will work with the
laboratory to correct the issue. If the correction is inadequate, the LWA Team will identify an alternative
laboratory, inform the USCR WMG, and based on input, transition to a different laboratory. On large
projects such as these, issues will come up. Having a robust QA/QC process in place allows for quick
identification and correction of the problem, and if necessary, replacement of the laboratory. The labs
included on the LWA Team were selected, in part, because of their data quality and their responsiveness
to identified issues.
3.7.3 Quagga Mussel Spread Prevention Plan
Either in the HASP or in a separate Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning
document, the LWA Team will detail the measures to prevent the spread of Quagga mussels. Quagga
mussels are an invasive species present in and near the USCR WMA. Field personnel can further spread it
if proper precautions are not taken before, during, and after a sampling event. After sampling each site,
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 29
Lwo
field personnel will ensure that equipment and PPE (i.e., field boots, waders, etc.) are thoroughly
decontaminated and scrubbed with a stiff -bristle brush to prevent potential spread between sites. At the
completion of a sampling event, field personnel will decontaminate and scrub gear and equipment again
with a stiff -bristled brush and allow the equipment to dry thoroughly to ensure any organisms are
desiccated.
QAPP, Health and Safety Plan Outputs
• Revised QAPP.
• Revised HASP.
• Quagga Mussel Spread Prevention Plan.
3.8 Laboratory Review and Analysis
The LWA Team has selected certified laboratories capable of performing water quality analyses that meet
the minimum levels identified in the USCR CIMP and the MS4 Permit. The LWA Team will coordinate with
the laboratories to collect, validate, and manage all data produced by the certified laboratories prior to
reporting activities.
3.8.1 Costs Related to First -Year Testing
Table E-6 of the MS4 Permit Monitoring and Reporting Program indicates that MS4 Permit screening is
historically performed at the Reach 6 receiving water site, the mass emission station (MES). This MES is
always monitored by LACFCD. The LWA Team does not expect to need to sample the Table E-6
parameters under a new MS4 Permit, as that sampling is conducted at the MES by LACFCD. Should it be
necessary, the LWA Team will support the LACFCD with pre -event coordination and planning.
3.8.2 Identify Labs
The labs used for the routine CIMP monitoring would be State Water Resource Control Board ELAP-
certified labs that are able to meet the project reporting limits as stated in the CIMP. The labs we have
selected for testing to be consistent with the NPDES Permit and a potential new NPDES Permit are:
• Eurofins Environment Testing — General Chemistry.
• Enthalpy Analytical — General Chemistry and Permit Table E-6 Screening (if needed).
• Pat -Chem Laboratories —Bacteria Testing.
• LuminUltra — DNA/RNA Testing.
• Nautilus Environmental —Toxicity Testing.
3.8.3 Coordination with Other Backup Labs
The LWA Team has identified a group of labs with redundant capabilities to allow for contingency
reassignment of analysis in the event that any of the labs cannot meet CIMP reporting limits. In addition,
the Team has identified additional labs with similar capabilities that can be contracted and assigned to
analysis tasks on short notice. The Team will validate all field and laboratory data according to the data
quality objectives described in the CIMP. If there are persistent quality control issues, we will coordinate
on shifting analyses from one lab to another, given that there is sufficient redundancy among the labs
selected.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 30
Lwo
3.8.4 DNA/RNA Test Lab
The DNA/RNA specialty lab selected for this program is LuminUltra. The Team has been working with this
lab since 2018 across Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties.
Laboratory Outputs
• Test laboratory certificate of qualifications to meet the approved/modified laboratory detection and
reporting limits identified in the USCR CIMP.
• Laboratory analytical reports.
• EDDs.
3.9 Toxicity
The LACFCD currently performs toxicity monitoring at the Reach 6 receiving water site (SNTCLR_6_ME),
but not at the other two receiving water sites (SNTCLR_5_R-E and SNTCLR_7_R-A).
3.9.1 Toxicity Monitoring Consistent with Attachment E and Attachment G
of the Permit
Attachment G of the MS4 Permit provides clarification regarding triggers for additional toxicity monitoring
at upstream receiving water. For example, if toxicity is present at SNTCLR_6_ME, as determined by a
failed Test of Significant Toxicity (TST) t-test, but not above the toxicity identification evaluation (TIE)
trigger, then toxicity sampling will be included at the upstream receiving water site(s) during the next
monitoring event of the same weather condition (wet or dry weather) for which toxicity was determined
to be present at SNTCLR_6_ME. Monitoring for toxicity during the subsequent upstream receiving water
site(s) will occur at least 45 days following the date of sample collection, which led to a failed TST t-test.
Toxicity monitoring at upstream receiving water sites will continue until (1) the deactivation criterion (i.e.,
two consecutive samples that pass the TST t-test during the same weather condition) is met at
SNTCLR_6_ME, or (2) a TIE is triggered and conclusively identifies the constituent or class of constituents
causing toxicity.
The Team assumes two toxicity analyses may be needed at SNTCLR_7_R-A per year in the event that
SNTCLR_6_ME fails a toxicity test. A cost is not included for a TIE because one has never been triggered. If
a TIE is triggered based on the results of SNTCLR_6_ME, the Team will evaluate ways to accommodate
additional costs, which may include needing to use contingency funds, given that the cost of conducting
TIES is significant (i.e., greater than $10,000 each).
3.9.2 Outfall Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
Attachment G of the MS4 Permit provides clarification regarding triggers for additional toxicity monitoring
at upstream outfall locations (i.e., (1) outfall sites located between the receiving water site and the
nearest upstream receiving water site located on the same waterbody and (2) outfall sites located on
tributaries that have a confluence with the waterbody where the confluence is located between the
receiving water site and the nearest upstream receiving water site located on the same waterbody). For
example, if toxicity is present at SNTCLR_6_ME, as determined by a failed Test of Significant Toxicity (TST)
t-test, and above the toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) trigger, then toxicity sampling will be included
at the upstream outfall site(s) during the next monitoring event of the same weather condition (wet or
dry weather) for which toxicity was determined to be present at SNTCLR_6_ME if the TIE results do not
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 31
Lwo
conclusively identified the constituent or class of constituents causing toxicity. Monitoring for toxicity
during the subsequent upstream outfall site(s) will occur at least 45 days following the date of sample
collection, which led to a failed TST t-test. Toxicity monitoring at upstream outfall sites will continue until
(1) the deactivation criterion (i.e., two consecutive samples that pass the TST t-test during the same
weather condition) is met at SNTCLR_6_ME, or (2) a TIE conducted at the downstream receiving water
site conclusively identifies the constituent or class of constituents causing toxicity, or (3) the discharge is
eliminated.
3.9.3 Toxicity Species Testing Requirements
The LWA Team confirms that dry -weather toxicity monitoring will be conducted using Chironomus dilutus,
and wet -weather toxicity monitoring will be conducted using Hyalella azteca.
3.9.4 Coordination with County
Following dry and wet weather monitoring events, the LWA Team will coordinate with the LACFCD to
receive their toxicity data and determine if additional toxicity monitoring is required at upstream
receiving water or outfall sites.
Toxicity Outputs
• Toxicity reports produced by a qualified laboratory
• CEDEN formatted EDDs with bioassay data
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 32
Lwo
4 Schedule
Table 2 presents the schedule for the proposed tasks based on the RFP, required deliverables, and
regulatory deadlines. Adjustments can be made as requested by the City. The LWA Team currently meets
with the USCR WMG on the 3rd Tuesday of each month. The Team proposes this same schedule for
monthly coordination meetings, which are critical to CIMP implementation. Staffing hours are provided in
the Cost Attachment, and roles are described in Section 6.
Table 2. Proposed Schedule for USCR CIMP Implementation
3.1 Program Management
Invoice and
Monthly; Mid -
backup sent
Month
mid -month and
3.1.1 Monthly reports
capturing work
related to the
prior calendar
month.
3.1.2 Monthly check -in calls
Ongoing
Monthly
3.1.3. Coordination with County
Ongoing
Monthly
3.1.4. Coordination with Los Angeles County Sanitation District
Ongoing
Monthly
for dry weather samples
Current MS4
Permit expires in
September
2026.
Automatically
3.1.5 Monitoring regulatory requirement changes for newly
extended.
To Be
adopted NPDES Permit
Working
Proposal/Draft
Determined
Tentative Order
for new MS4
Permit
anticipated in
2027-2028
3.1.6. Permission coordination with Five Point
Ongoing
Monthly
3.1.7 Conduct water quality monitoring as required by CIMP
Ongoing
Monthly
3.2 Dry Weather Monitoring
3.2.1. Dry weather monitoring at Outfalls
Ongoing
January and
July, annually
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 33
Lwo
3.2.2 Single Instance during January and July each year (3 years)
Ongoing
January andJuly,
annually
3.2.3 Coordinate with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District
Ongoing
January and
monitoring
July, annually
3.2.4 Coordinate on Mass Emission Site with Los Angeles County
Ongoing
January and
for monitoring
July, annually
3.2.5 Typically, the two dry weather sample events only include
January and
the land use outfalls and the significant non-stormwater flow
Ongoing
July, annually
outfalls and not the receiving water locations
Not currently
required. Will be
conducted as
To Be
3.2.6 First dry weather samples at all sites (TBD)
necessary based
Determined
on requirements
of the new MS4
Permit
3.3 Dry Weather Monitoring— Monthly Bacteria TMDL
Monitoring
3.3.1 Conduct dry weather monitoring at receiving water
Ongoing
Monthly
monitoring locations
3.3.2 Monthly E. coli bacteria samples for TMDL 30-day
Ongoing
Monthly
geometric mean monitoring
Ongoing
(Sufficient
volume to be
continued to be
collected.
3.3.3 Sample for DNA and/or RNA
Potential benefit
Monthly
of DNA/RNA
analysis to be
evaluated on a
case -by -case
basis.)
3.4. Wet Weather Monitoring
3.4.1 Samples taken at two receiving water locations and four
Wet Season
Three storms
outfall monitoring locations
(October-April)
annually
Annually
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 34
Lwo
�1
3.4.2 Coordinate with County for Mass Emissions Site
monitoring, rainfall deployment, and post event data sharing Ongoing
and analysis
3.4.3 Evaluate wet weather monitoring mobilization criteria Wet (October- Seas
onApril)
identified in CIMP
Annually
3.5. Source Identification Additional Monitoring
3.5.1. Required when exceedances found in dry weather flow to
Ongoing
determine potential sources of flow
3.5.2. Goal is to identify as permitted or to identify and quantify
the source of flow and pollutant so that monitoring can cease
Ongoing
and pollutant is abated
3.5.3. Occurs during dry weather monitoring
Ongoing
3.5.4. Coordination with City or County staff for field operations
Ongoing
Not currently
required. Will be
conducted as
3.5.5. Non-stormwater outfall screening
necessary based
on requirements
of the new MS4
Permit
3.6. Reporting
3.6.2.1. Technical memos after each monitoring event Ongoing
As needed
based on
weather
forecast and
data availability
As needed
based on
weather
forecast
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
To Be
Determined
Submittal for
each monitoring
event
dependenton
timing of event
and obtaining
all necessary
data
3.6.2.2. Annual Report support for NPDES Permit —water quality July -December, December 15'n
and watershed analysis sections annually annually
Ongoing review June 15'h and
3.6.2.3. Semi Annual Report support for NPDES Permit— water and compilation December 15'n
quality and watershed analysis of data as
received
annually
3.6.2.4. TMDL compliance tracking of data, broken down Ongoing Monthly
monthly by wet and dry weather
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 35
Lwo
3.6.2.5. Exceedances of water quality standards Ongoing
Not currently
required. Will be
3.6.2.6. Potential additional need of entering water quality data
conducted as
into CEDEN if required necessary based
on requirements
of the new MS4
Permit
3.6.2.7. Conduct data analysis and compare the lab data with the
applicable water quality standards. Ongoing
3.7 QAPP, Health and Safety Plan Required
3.7.1. CAPP consistent with NPDES Permit and any adjustments
to comply with a new NPDES Permit and standard practices
3.7.2. CAPP review of laboratory analysis to determine efficacy
of testing methods and results.
3.7.3. Quagga mussel spread prevention
As part of CIMP
update based on
requirements of
the new MS4
Permit
Ongoing
Ongoing
Submittal for
each monitoring
event
dependenton
timing of event
and obtaining
all necessary
data
To Be
Determined
Submittal for
each monitoring
event
dependenton
timing of event
and obtaining
all necessary
data
To Be
Determined
Dependent on
timing of event
and obtaining
all necessary
data
Monthly
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 36
Lwo
3.8 Laboratory Analysis
Not currently
required. Will be
3.8.1. Costs related to a first -round testing from the large list of conducted as To Be
pollutants to be monitored, currently anticipated to be similar or necessary based
Determined
consistent with Attachment E of the NPDES Permit on requirements
of the new MS4
Permit
3.8.2. Identify any and all laboratories to be used for testing
that would be consistent with NPDES Permit and a new NPDES Completed N/A
Permit, if applicable
3.8.3. Coordination with other backup labs if quality control
Ongoing As needed
starts to wane
Ongoing
(Potential
benefit of
3.8.4. DNA/RNA test lab DNA/RNA Monthly
analysis to be
evaluated on a
case -by -case
basis.)
3.9 Toxicity
3.9.1. Toxicity monitoring Ongoing As needed
3.9.2. Outfall aquatic toxicity monitoring may be required Ongoing
3.9.3. Dry weather toxicity monitoring will be conducted using
Chironomus dilutus and wet weather toxicity monitoring will be Ongoing
conducted using Hyalella azteca
3.9.4. Coordination with County FCD will be required. Current
effort requires County FCD to get the toxicity results, with
Ongoing
consultant working to interpret them and take follow-up
samples at other receiving water and outfall sites.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance
As needed
As needed
Dependent on
timing of event
and obtaining
all necessary
data
March 2026 1 37
Lwo
5 Program Management
The LWA Team's overall approach for project management and successfully completing the project
entails 1) Effective Communication: providing the necessary communication mechanisms and check -in
points with the City to ensure the project is meeting expectations; 2) Schedule Compliance: completing
tasks on schedule; and 3) Budgetary Constraints: completing the project within the agreed -upon budget.
Through our Subconsultant Coordination method, we operate as a single unified consultant. Our high
standard of work products and services is maintained by our Quality Assurance and Quality Control
procedures. We have implemented the same management techniques on multiple similar large-scale
monitoring projects to successfully meet our clients' needs and deliver high -quality products. By
selecting the LWA Team, the USCR CIMP Group is assured that an experienced team of professionals with
proven project management experience and unique subject matter and technical expertise will
successfully complete the tasks and ultimately achieve the project's end goals. LWA's proposed schedule
is presented on a timeline chart in Figure 1.
5.1 Communication
In addition to the CIMP Group monthly check -in calls, the LWA Team will conduct internal team meetings
at the project's onset and then have key check -ins during project implementation. Monthly meetings
with the CIMP Group, along with Monthly Reports and monthly Post Event Reports, including
presentations after submittal of the draft semi-annual and annual reports, all ensure that the LWA Team
is not only keeping up with executing the monitoring itself but also data review and evaluation for water
quality exceedances that require decision or action on the part of the CIMP Group. The LWA Team will
develop standardized templates for meeting materials to minimize effort in developing agendas, meeting
minutes, and progress reports. Agendas will be prepared and distributed at least two business days prior
to the meeting, and meeting summaries will be submitted electronically within five business days after
the meeting date.
Additionally, the LWA Team can establish and maintain (or utilize an existing) a secure file -sharing site
(e.g., Dropbox or SharePoint) to be used for the exchange of information and as a repository for the
meeting materials (i.e., agenda, summaries, and presentations), project schedule, laboratory results,
compiled data, and reporting materials. This approach, combined with our organizational structure and
experience working together as a team, will minimize project management time and costs and maximize
coordination of the project. Lastly, monthly invoices will be submitted with a cover letter clearly
explaining the work completed associated with that invoice as well as a summary table of the month's
invoice, total invoice to date, remaining budget, and percent complete. Detailed invoices showing the
total number of hours worked by each staff member of the LWA Team will be attached to the cover
letter.
5.2 Schedule Compliance
The LWA Team will utilize several mechanisms to track program implementation and ensure successful
completion of work products on schedule. The LWA Team understands the project needs and will
identify upcoming work that is certain and tasks that are fluid but require advance preparation (e.g., wet
weather monitoring). LWA goes through a monthly resource allocation process to ensure project needs
are properly staffed. We regularly coordinate with the LWA Team members, coordinating agencies, and
contracted laboratories to ensure everyone is prepared for upcoming monitoring events. The LWA
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 38
Lwo
Project Manager and lead staff from sub -consultants are in regular communication regarding upcoming
sampling events and have already defined roles in working together on a number of projects — this
includes processes for:
• Generating sampling paperwork, which is programmed so everything matches: bottle orders by
laboratory, bottle labels, field logs, chain -of -custody forms, constituent/bottle lists by site,
constituent/bottle lists by lab.
• Contacting labs and coordinating bottle receipt, sample pickups, or delivery times.
• Preparing sampling equipment.
• Tracking forecasts.
• Maintaining communication during the sampling event and having in -office support for questions
or any unforeseen circumstances.
• Duplicate data quality review of lab data.
Furthermore, LWA maintains an internal Quality Review Process for all work products generated by LWA.
These procedures will be adhered to for all work produced under this contract, and the same standards
will be required of all sub -consultants. Work products will also be reviewed by the Principal in Charge.
5.3 Budget and Project Staffing
The LWA Team will utilize several mechanisms to track program implementation and ensure successful
completion of work products on budget. A key component of the management of the project is the
identification of our core project team developed as part of this proposal. We developed detailed
estimates of labor hours and corresponding budgets. These efforts resulted in our project staffing plan
that supports project tracking that enhances our ability to work across our individual firms giving us the
ability to work "in one office." Maintaining the schedules with proper staffing allows our team to adhere
to our proposed budget.
5.4 Subconsultant Coordination
One of the critical aspects of project management is the assembly of a team of subconsultants that have
a shared interest in working together and a common understanding of the project scope and their
role(s). Developing the team requires understanding the skills, expertise, and availability of team
member staff. With the proposed team and key personnel, along with our deep bench of highly qualified
individuals, we can ensure that this project receives appropriate staffing and technical resources. We
take great care in developing realistic staffing plans that account for both planned and unplanned
absences that may require backup coverage. The firms that make up our team each understand their
role and the commitment expected of them. LWA has worked with each of our subconsultants on similar
projects for over five years.
5.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The LWA Team has established procedures to ensure work products are of high quality. LWA maintains an
internal Quality Review Process for all work products generated by LWA. These procedures will be
adhered to for all work produced under this contract and the same standards will be required of all sub -
consultants. Work products will also be reviewed by the Principal in Charge.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 39
Lwo
2026.2027
2027.2029
2028.2029
Program Management
Monthly Meetings and Coordination
Monthly Meetings
Monthly Reports
Monitoring Coordination
CIMP Coordination for New Permit Changes
DryWeather, Bacteria TMDL, Wet Weather, Source
ID, and Toxicity Monitoring
Health and Safety Plan
Laboratory ReviewSource
.......................
weather Monitoring
113�.dditional Monitoring
Toxicitywet
• •
Data Management and Reporting
• l ' .
............■
.......................
Post -Event Reports
Utilizing Data to Recommend Program Improvements
C
WMWWMMWMMWW
i MMMMMM
New NPDES, Permit Requirements
Potential
BMP Monitoring As -Requested
Figure 1. Proposed Project Schedule
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 40
Lwo
6 Personnel, Equipment and Facilities
The LWA Team offers highly capable managers and experts with experience on similar contracts. The
LWA Team is built around Key Personnel with experience conducting monitoring, developing CIMPs,
reporting monitoring results, and using those results to achieve compliance and effect regulatory
change. Roles have been assigned based on experience and availability throughout the term of the
contract. The following provides a brief description of the proposed roles within our Team's structure,
followed by an organizational chart (Figure 2) and brief biographies of key personnel (Table 3).
Attachment A presents resumes for all personnel listed in Figure 2. Our team is structured as follows:
Principal in charge: Chris Minton (LWA) will serve as our Principal -in -Charge and is responsible for
executing the contract. Additionally, he will assist with technical work related to regulatory and special
study support. Mr. Minton has supported clients in the SCR watershed for over 15 years and has
significant experience working with the LWA Team members to implement complex projects.
Project Manager: David Vilas will be responsible for day-to-day project management and overseeing
technical work. He will help ensure monitoring is conducted consistently with the CIMP's schedule and
requirements.
Senior Advisor and Regulatory Support: In addition to staff executing the CIMP, additional highly
experienced Key Personnel who are experts in various technical areas (e.g., TMDLs, WMPs, bacteria,
metals, etc.) were identified. These Key Personnel (Bryant Alvarado [LWA] and Aric Torreyson [Tetra
Tech]) are available to assist the USCR WMG, Mr. Vilas, and Mr. Minton with specialized issues that arise
during implementation of the contract.
Task Leads: The Task Leads (Bryant Alvarado [LWA] and Tim Tringali [Tetra Tech]) are experienced
professionals with a unique combination of technical and regulatory expertise. These individuals were
selected to successfully lead the major components of the scope of work outlined in the RFP, given their
experience with these scope items on previous projects and their commitment to this project for the
duration of the contract. The Task Leads will work closely with Mr. Vilas to deliver work products.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 41
Lwo
city of
SANTA CLARITA
Chris Minton, LWA
Chas Minton, LWA
PROJECT MANAGER David Vilas, LWA
Bryant Alvarado, LWA
Task leads in Blue Box David Vilas, LWA Arc Torreyson, Tetra Tech
Alvarado,Bryant LWA Tim Tfingali,
Monitoring and Data Management
Bryant Alvarado, LWA
Adriel Leon, LWA Lauro Alvarado, Tetra Tech Lauro Alvarado, Tetra Tech
Sebastian Bognar, LWA Jack Weil, Tetra Tech Jack Weil, Tetra Tech
Gary Wortham, Tetra Tech Gary Wortham, Tetra Tech
David Viilas, LWA
Bryant Alvarado, LWA
Aric Torreyson, Tetra Tech
Tim Tringali, Tetra Tech
Eurofins Environmental Testing
Enthalpy Analytical
Pat -Chem Laboratories
Lumi ntlltra
Nautilus Environmental
Physls Environmental Lab'
'Contingent on Ahysis confirmation of EL P certifkation and with the approval of the USCR 6WMG.
Figure 2. Organizational Chart for the LWA Team
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 42
Lwo
Table 3. Biographies for LWA Team Management and Key Staff
Chris Minton has over 20 years of professional experience,
including serving as LWA's Project Manager on numerous
contracts for monitoring, regulatory support, and special
studies. He has supported municipal clients in LA County with
the renewal of NPDES permits, including supporting efforts on
the 2012 and current LA Regional MS4 Permit renewal process.
Mr. Minton led efforts related to the development,
implementation, and adaptive management of multiple CIMPs.
Mr. Minton has worked closely with clients to engage on
TMDLs: USEPA-led TMDLs (Santa Monica Bay PCBs and DDTs),
third -party TMDLs (LA River Bacteria), and amended TMDLs
(bacteria TMDLs in Ballona Creek). Additionally, Mr. Minton has led special studies related to bacteria and
metals, which were incorporated into the LA Basin Plan as site -specific objectives and TMDL provisions.
David Vilas has more than 40 years of experience in freshwater
and marine biology, with particular expertise in watershed -scale
TMDL monitoring programs, multi -agency regulatory
compliance, and water -quality and biological community
assessments. He has extensive experience implementing
coordinated monitoring programs in Southern California
watersheds, including the Santa Clara River, San Gabriel River,
Calleguas Creek, Ballona Creek, and Santa Ana River,
encompassing water -quality sampling, analysis of aquatic
invertebrate and vertebrate communities, and sediment -quality
assessments. At his previous employer, Mr. Vilas has served as
Project Manager for the Calleguas Creek Watershed TMDL Monitoring Program since 2003, coordinating
multi -media sampling (water, sediment, and tissue) and biological community evaluations in support of
regulatory compliance — directly analogous to the multi -constituent, multi -agency structure of the Upper
Santa Clara River CIMP. He is the Project Manager for the Upper Santa Clara River CIMP for LWA and leads
the production of the Calleguas Creek Watershed TMDL Annual Report, managing a team delivering
compliance reporting across five TMDLs simultaneously.
Bryant Alvarado has 14 years of experience developing site -
specific objectives (SSOs), TMDLs, NPDES permit renewals and
implementation, WMP adaptive management, and regulatory
compliance. Mr. Alvarado leads the development of Semi -
Annual WMP Progress Reports, Annual Monitoring Reports, and
certain sections of Annual Report Forms for multiple Watershed
Management Groups throughout Los Angeles County. He
assisted with the review and commented on the 2021 Los
Angeles Regional MS4 Permit, with an emphasis on the
monitoring, reporting, and TMDL provisions. Mr. Alvarado also
supported the development of multiple aspects of WMPs,
including identifying water quality priorities and integrating WMP approaches to demonstrate compliance
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 43
Lwo
with MS4 Permit requirements. Mr. Alvarado coordinates large monitoring projects; develops monitoring
programs; works to develop SSOs; develops and implements TMDLs; and adaptively manages WMPs.
Michael Marson brings over 15 years of experience in the
environmental field and specializes in running watershed -based
monitoring programs and data management. For these
programs, he manages all elements of the process, including
field crew and laboratory oversight; sub -consultant
management; database design and maintenance; equipment
installation and maintenance; sampling event preparation and
paperwork; and post -event data QA/QC review, processing, and
reporting. In addition to managing monitoring programs, Mr.
Marson also develops database tools to support increased
efficiency and quality control. He has managed the monitoring activities and databases for the Malibu
Creek Watershed CIMP, Calleguas Creek Watershed TMDL program, and the VCAILG monitoring program.
Sebastian Bognar supports clients with MS4 Permit and TMDL
compliance, water quality monitoring, hydrology, data
visualization, and data analysis. Sebastian has served as an
assistant task manager for LASAN's Street Sweeping Study,
where his responsibilities have spanned Work Plan development
and sampling design, vendor and laboratory coordination,
simulated street dirt preparation, and management of
controlled environment sweeper testing and street dirt
characterization sampling. Sebastian serves as a task leader for
CIMP implementation and annual reporting across multiple City
watersheds.
Adriel Leon has nine years of specific experience in stormwater
management, watershed management, permit compliance,
policy analysis, water quality data analysis, and water quality
monitoring. Mr. Leon organizes and manages the day-to-day
efforts of LWA's LA Region MS4 Permit Reporting Team. He is
responsible for coordinating the day-to-day activities of each
team member as they work to complete the data analysis
components of the Annual Report (e.g., exceedances, trends,
TMDL attainment) and compilation of the Watershed Form
using the Watershed Reporting, Adaptive Management and
Planning System (WRAMPS). Prior to joining LWA, Mr. Leon
gained experience in water quality trading, regulatory factors influencing water market structure and
viability, irrigated agriculture valuation, water valuation techniques, and water rights.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 44
Lwo
7 Sub -Consultants
The LWA Team sub -consultant proposed forth is project is Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech has more than 25 years
of experience supporting stormwater management and regulatory compliance programs within Los
Angeles County. This experience includes direct involvement in the development and implementation of
CIMPs, including ongoing work in the USCR WMA.
Tetra Tech is currently implementing multiple CUPS across the region, including the USCR CIMP, and has
conducted more than 22 dry -weather and 41 wet -weather monitoring events at over 33 monitoring
stations. These efforts are supported by a team of more than 35 qualified local staff, providing the
capacity to efficiently mobilize and execute time -sensitive wet weather monitoring.
The team has a strong working knowledge of the USCR WMA, including the WMP and Reasonable
Assurance Analysis (RAA), and understands how monitoring programs integrate with watershed -scale
planning and compliance strategies. This experience is complemented by a thorough understanding of
the current and tentative Regional MS4 Permit requirements and the TMDLs applicable to the USCR
WMG.
In addition to core monitoring program implementation, Tetra Tech has planned and conducted targeted
special studies, such as recreational beneficial use assessments and natural background source
investigations to support adaptive management and refine watershed strategies.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 45
Lwo
7.1 Subconsultant Project Experience
Examples of relevant projects led by Tetra Tech are provided below.
Client City of Malibu
Dates of Service 2015-Present
Relevance to RFP Dry Weather Monitoring, Dry Weather Monitoring— Monthly Bacteria TMDL
Monitoring, Wet Weather Monitoring, Source Identification, Additional Monitoring
Tetra Tech is currently under contract with the City of Malibu to implement the North Santa Monica Bay
Coastal Watersheds CIMP on behalf of the City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, and the LACFCD. The
implementation of the CIMP includes stormwater outfall monitoring (wet and dry weather), receiving water
monitoring (wet and dry weather), monthly and annual reporting, and consultation regarding other matters
pertaining to the LA County MS4 Permit (e.g., Report of Waste Discharge, TMDLs, etc.).
Tetra Tech has been working closely with the NSMBCW WMG to track rain events and coordinate the
activation of field sampling teams. Tetra Tech has successfully completed the first five years of wet -weather
and dry -weather monitoring at the designated outfalls (2 total) and receiving water (3 total) sites.
In addition, Tetra Tech has been supporting the WMG with TMDL compliance monitoring and reporting for
three TMDLs in the WMA. For implementation of the Malibu Creek and Lagoon Bacteria TMDL Compliance
Monitoring Plan and the Malibu Creek Trash TMDL Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Tetra Tech partners with
Clean Lakes, Inc. to monitor bacteria sites weekly and trash sites biweekly, respectively. Tetra Tech also
coordinates with the City of Los Angeles monthly to obtain daily and weekly shoreline bacteria data for sites
in the WMA, pursuant to the Santa Monica Bay Beaches (SMBB) Bacteria TMDLs Coordinated Shoreline
Monitoring Plan. For all of these TMDLs, Tetra Tech prepares reports and submits them to the WMG monthly.
Tetra Tech leveraged a previously built water -quality database to reduce data management costs for the
NSMBCW WMG. Referred to as EnDAR, the custom database has the following features:
• A website using Azure single sign -on for secure client access to reports. Reports provide access to all
data (chemistry, field parameters, habitat, toxicology, and bacteria). Weather conditions during
sampling (dry vs. wet) are associated with chemistry results for report filtering.
• A data manager for such tasks as planning sampling events and uploading EDDs for reference,
laboratory, and other data.
• A notification system that emails users about system events such as data uploads, upload errors, and
criteria exceedances.
• A SQL Server database for secure storage of all data.
• Complete data traceability, including tracking of who uploaded data and when, maintaining a history of
all changes, and archiving of all EDDs. Immediate, interactive feedback on upload status and error
identification is also provided.
• Imports and exports of data in CEDEN formats, as these CIMP Groups are required to report all their
data to the Water Board every six months according to EDD templates developed by CEDEN.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 46
Lwo
1 11. Central Coast Region Conditional Waiver Cooperative Monitoring Program
Client Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc. (CCWQP)
Dates of Service 2012-Present
Relevance to RFP Dry Weather Monitoring, Wet Weather Monitoring, Reporting and Analysis, Toxicity,
Source Identification, Special Studies
TCCWQP manages the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) on behalf of the irrigated agriculture industry
on the Central Coast. The CMP is a surface water quality monitoring program that fulfills a monitoring
requirement for growers enrolled in the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's (CCRWQCB)
Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands ("Ag Waiver"). The
CMP is intended to track changes in surface water quality and Beneficial Use support over time. The CMP
comprises approximately 50 monthly monitoring sites located in seven Central Coast hydrologic units.
Monitoring includes chemical, physical, toxicological, and biological elements.
Since 2012, Tetra Tech has been implementing the monitoring and reporting program for CCWQP in
accordance with an approved Sampling and Analysis Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan. A highly
qualified team of scientists, toxicologists, and a data manager performs day-to-day support to CCWQP,
including field sampling, data validation, and EDD preparation.
Given the spatial breadth of the monitoring program, Tetra Tech uses experienced sampling technicians
based in three offices across the Central Coast to conduct monthly sampling safely and cost-effectively.
Furthermore, Tetra Tech underwent a competitive bid process to select qualified laboratories for chemical,
toxicological, and biological analyses. Tetra Tech uses a highly refined process to prepare monthly field
sampling plans, ensuring clear communication of monitoring site requirements that vary monthly. All field
and lab data are compiled quarterly into a CEDEN-compliant EDD. All compiled data is validated by a Senior
Environmental Scientist in accordance with the QAPP and a 10-point Quality Assurance Review protocol.
Since 2012, Tetra Tech has performed a variety of special studies and projects including, but not limited to
geospatial analysis of agriculture impacted by proposed stream buffer regulations; statistical analysis related
to pesticides occurrence within central coast watersheds, co -occurrence of toxicants and measured toxic
effects, and many others; database development; interpretation of regulations and assistance with
stakeholder comment letters; and sample frequency reduction analysis.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 47
Lwo
Client Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water)
Dates of Service 2018-2024
Relevance to RFP Dry Weather Monitoring, Wet Weather Monitoring, Toxicity, Source Identification
Tetra Tech implemented a five-year program to conduct monitoring and reporting in accordance with San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements for the Guadalupe River
Watershed Mercury TMDL. The Guadalupe River watershed lies within a region naturally enriched in mercury
and covers approximately 170 square miles, draining portions of the eastern Santa Cruz Mountains to San
Francisco Bay, and contains numerous tributary creeks and several reservoirs. The primary goals were to
estimate mercury transport in the Guadalupe River during storms and to estimate total mercury loads to San
Francisco Bay resulting from historic mercury mining activities in the watershed. Multiple mobilization
criteria, including cumulative annual rainfall, reservoir status, predicted rainfall intensity, and peak flows,
were established to ensure that sediment mercury was mobilized and transported. Tetra Tech collected
depth -integrated water samples throughout the storm hydrograph during two major (>2000 cfs) storms in
each of two years. The program also included the determination of mercury and methylmercury
concentrations in fish from tributary streams and reservoirs.
7.2 Subconsultant Staff Qualifications
Table 4. Tetra Tech Key Staff
Aric Torreyson, PE, ENV SP, serves as Technical Advisor and
provides executive oversight and strategic guidance for the
implementation of complex stormwater and watershed
management programs. Mr. Torreyson has more than 24 years
of experience in water resources engineering, environmental
engineering, and infrastructure planning, including stormwater
capture, watershed analysis, and regulatory compliance. He
currently manages large multidisciplinary programs for federal,
state, and local agencies. Mr. Torreyson has extensive
experience supporting stormwater programs and regulatory
compliance initiatives throughout Southern California. His work
includes stormwater monitoring and reporting for Caltrans
NPDES permit compliance, watershed modeling and pollutant loading analyses for regional stormwater
capture projects, and the design of BMPs to address water -quality impairments. He has managed
numerous multi -benefit stormwater capture projects for Los Angeles County and municipal agencies,
integrating hydrology and hydraulic analysis, water quality modeling, and regulatory coordination to
reduce pollutant loading to impaired waterways.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 48
Lwo
Tim Tringali has more than 18 years of experience assisting
federal, state, and local entities to develop, implement and
manage a variety of water resource programs. Much of his
experience includes management of multi -disciplined teams to
execute stormwater compliance programs for municipalities,
the U.S. Air Force, and industry. Tim has provided technical
support to multiple municipalities in Southern California with
the development and implementation of their watershed
management plans and associated monitoring and assessment
plans. Tim has managed multiple large-scale monitoring and
reporting programs including for wastewater, stormwater, surface water, and discharges from irrigated
agriculture. He has a strong understanding of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, TMDLs within LA
County, and other related federal and state regulations. He's knowledgeable of monitoring design and
implementation strategies; defining appropriate data quality objectives; and developing and managing
water quality databases. His recent experience includes managing implementation of USCR and NSMBCW
CIMPs, as well as designing and implementing monitoring programs for the Port of San Diego, Upper Los
Angeles River WMG, and South Orange County.
Lauro Alvarado, EIT, is a water resources engineer with
experience supporting stormwater monitoring programs, field
sampling, and data management for municipal watershed
monitoring initiatives. He has participated in the
implementation of several Coordinated Integrated Monitoring
Programs in Southern California, including the Upper Santa
Clara River CIMP and the North Santa Monica Bay Coastal
Watersheds CIMP. Mr. Alvarado has extensive experience preparing and deploying monitoring equipment,
conducting stormwater and receiving water sampling during wet and dry weather events, and
documenting field observations to support regulatory monitoring programs. He also provides data review
and reporting support to ensure monitoring results meet MS4 permit and TMDL compliance
requirements. In addition to field monitoring activities, Mr. Alvarado supports monitoring database
management and reporting, and has assisted in preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for stormwater
monitoring projects.
Gary Wortham is a Senior Environmental Scientist and aquatic
toxicologist with more than 30 years of experience supporting
stormwater, surface water, and sediment monitoring programs.
He specializes in quality assurance and quality control for
environmental monitoring programs, including development of
Quality Assurance Project Plans, Health and Safety Plans,
sampling plans, and data validation procedures. Mr. Wortham
has extensive experience implementing and reviewing
monitoring programs for municipal stormwater permits and
watershed monitoring programs throughout California. He currently supports multiple Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Programs, including the Upper Santa Clara River and North Santa Monica Bay CIMP
programs, where he manages CA/QC reviews of field sampling and data reporting and validates electronic
data deliverables submitted to CEDEN. His experience includes stormwater outfall monitoring, receiving
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 49
Lwo
water monitoring, toxicity testing, and trace metals sampling using EPA ultra -clean techniques. Mr.
Wortham also has extensive experience supporting TMDL investigations, watershed monitoring programs,
and MS4 storm drain characterization studies. For this project, he will lead QA/QC oversight, support data
validation and reporting, and ensure monitoring data and analytical results meet all regulatory and permit
requirements.
Jack Weil is an environmental scientist with experience
supporting stormwater monitoring programs, regulatory
compliance efforts, and environmental data analysis. His work
focuses on field monitoring and sampling, stormwater pollution
prevention, and analysis of water quality data to support MS4
permit compliance and watershed management programs. Mr.
Weil has conducted stormwater monitoring for multiple
municipal programs, including the Upper Santa Clara River
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program and the Port of San Diego's stormwater monitoring programs.
His responsibilities have included stormwater sampling during wet and dry weather events, sample
logging and chain -of -custody documentation, and coordination with laboratory staff to ensure proper
analysis of collected samples.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 50
Lwo
8 Optional Special Studies
Often, special studies ultimately lead to a scientific data collection effort. Our Team, however, designs
special studies to affect policy. The LWA Team takes pride in the ability to develop and conduct special
studies that result in revisions to the Basin Plan and TMDLs and ultimately support more reasonable
implementation at a lower cost. From the outset, critical policy considerations are examined, including
the underlying Basin Plan provisions, the dynamics of the Regional Board, potential constraints that may
affect USEPA approval (if needed), and precedent regarding other TMDLs and BPAs. This approach has
led to special studies that successfully resulted in BPAs adopting SSOs developed by LWA for the Santa
Clara River, Calleguas Creek, and Los Angeles River watersheds. No other team can match our track
record of successful regulatory change driven by special studies.
LWA is committed to advocating on behalf of our municipal clients for fair and effective environmental
regulation. Our staff actively participates in CASQA, CASA, and CWEA. These agencies focus on advancing
regulatory and legal issues faced by their members. In each of these organizations, LWA staff perform
leadership roles from chairing committees to serving on their governing boards. Through these agencies,
LWA works to address new regulations as they are developed, giving regulators context on whether the
proposed actions are implementable. Using our established relationships, we negotiate with regulators
to craft regulations that achieve their objectives while also providing thoughtful pathways to compliance.
Our ability to keep ahead of the curve on regulatory requirements provides a valuable perspective in
the design and implementation of special studies.
Our Team understands there could be a broad range of special study -related services to support the
Group's efforts to comply with TMDLs and water quality regulations. Special studies can help ensure
long-term compliance with the Bacteria TMDL and address other RWL exceedances identified in the
WMP (e.g., zinc, iron, mercury, and pesticides). Understanding the regulatory context allows our Team to
recommend the appropriate scope and timing for studies and to identify future opportunities as
regulatory conditions change. For example, the Regional Board's 2020-2022 Triennial Review includes
relevant priorities related to the continued development of tools to address natural sources of pollutants
and updates to zinc criteria (also being considered by the State Board, which LWA has provided input
on). Additionally, the evolution of bacteria water quality objectives (WQOs) at the federal and state
levels provides an opportunity to apply the state of the science to move from an indicator to a risk -based
framework that will result in more appropriate and effective use of limited public resources.
Our Team will utilize the combined experience of multiple firms to implement these studies or any
others that become a priority. It is imperative when developing special studies to understand the end
goal fully and to avoid spending resources on science for the sake of science. As such, the cornerstone of
our Team's approach to supporting special studies is to start with determining the issues being
addressed and the intended application of the study results. As demonstrated in the project descriptions
and resumes, our Team has conducted numerous special studies in the Los Angeles region on bacteria,
metals, and ammonia, including the only SSO studies that resulted in amendments to the Basin Plan
and TMDLs. Our Team's approach to conducting special studies will generally consist of the following
elements:
• Working with the USCR CIMP Group to identify opportunities to develop and implement studies
that will clearly support regulatory relief from inappropriate WQSs and/or directly support TMDL
implementation efforts (e.g., re-evaluation of WQSs and development of SSOs, bacteria source
tracking, and utilization of QMRA/NSE, etc.);.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 51
Lwo
• Building upon previous work conducted by the Group and other stakeholders.
• Where available, using established regulatory guidance to inform the design of the study.
• Developing work plans to identify the study's purpose, hypotheses to be tested, study approach
and methods, specific tasks, limitations of the study, and a QA/QC, data analysis, and reporting
plan.
• For highly specialized or controversial work, identifying and utilizing a TAC to review the work plan
and subsequent work products, as needed.
• Working with regulatory agencies to navigate the regulatory process to ensure the appropriate use
of the generated information to revise the Basin Plan and/or justify TMDL revisions.
• Conducting meetings to provide presentations and progress to the USCR CIMP Group, regulators,
and other stakeholders and incorporate comments into the special studies.
For each of our Team's completed special study projects, establishing relationships with regulatory
agencies and leading scientific and policy experts was critical to success. While our Team's special
studies employed innovative approaches, the most important outcome is that they have assisted
municipalities in achieving their ultimate goal — regulatory compliance. Four categories of special
studies highlight the types of experience the LWA Team brings to the USCR CIMP Group:
Studies to address water quality objectives: Our Team has significant experience with innovative
special studies. Our Team members led efforts on both the technical and policy aspects of special
studies that form the basis for the only SSOs adopted by the Regional Board as BPAs: Los Angeles
Region ammonia SSOs, Calleguas Creek Watershed copper SSOs, and LA River copper and lead SSOs.
The BPAs demonstrate our Team's ability to identify opportunities to address inappropriate WQOs,
develop and implement a technically sound approach, engage stakeholders, and see the project
results through the regional, state, and federal regulatory processes.
2. Studies to address beneficial uses: Our Team not only uses existing and current regulatory guidance,
but we also identify creative approaches to effect change. For example, our Team members worked
with Regional Board staff to utilize Basin Plan implementation provisions to support a beneficial
use change in the Santa Clara River using a streamlined approach to a Use Attainability Analysis.
This was the first time such an approach was used, saving the client millions of dollars in
wastewater operational costs.
Studies to characterize sources: We have developed some of the most advanced studies in the
Region. The LA River BSI Study provides an excellent example of our Team's approach in developing
characterization studies. Working with City of LA staff, LWA Team members identified a need to
characterize the contribution of bacteria to the LA River from the City's water reclamation plants and
MS4 system to support alternative approaches to allocations, implementation, and compliance. In
the end, the BSI Study greatly influenced the LA River Bacteria TMDL and served as the scientific
foundation for the development and implementation of the dry weather components and schedules.
Studies to support WMP/TMDL implementation: The LA River BSI Study set the foundation for the
innovative dry weather load reduction strategy (LRS) compliance concept in the LA River Bacteria
TMDL. The LWA Team has supported the development of LRSs for multiple waterbodies in the LA
River. Services have included developing and implementing the monitoring component of the LRS,
conducting statistical modeling to identify outfalls for implementation actions, and designing control
options, including low -flow diversions and green infrastructure.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 52
Lwo
8.1 New NPDES Permit Requirements and Optional BMP Monitoring
The LWA Team's expertise includes assistance with NPDES permit compliance, analysis of State and
Federal water quality policies, implementation of watershed studies, and monitoring of surface waters,
groundwaters, and waste streams. Our experience is directly applicable to incorporating new Permit
requirements into the CIMP and its implementation, designing and performing special studies, and
designing and implementing BMP monitoring. The data collected will help inform adjustments to the
program to match new requirements in the future NPDES Permit, decide whether special studies may be
beneficial to perform, and highlight BMP monitoring to enhance our understanding of progress toward
compliance. The future MS4 Permit requirements may result in revisions to the monitoring requirements
related to the standard receiving water and outfall monitoring, as well as TMDL monitoring
requirements. The LWA Team has included an optional task in our budget to update the CIMP if the USCR
Group chooses to utilize this contract to do so.
8.2 Iron Study
Santa Clara River Reach 5 is currently on the 303(d) List for iron. The County evaluated wet- and dry -
weather iron data generated by CIMP implementation and LACSD effluent monitoring. The County
determined the available data did not support delisting; however, the USCR WMG believes there are
natural/background sources of iron within the WMA. Examples of potential natural/background sources
include aerial deposition and erosion from surrounding open space. The latter is likely exacerbated due
to the frequent wildfires.
In advance of the 2030 Integrated Report cycle, the LWA Team would be available to perform an iron
source investigation to identify and characterize potential sources and concentrations of iron in surface
waters within the WMA. Beyond sample collection at targeted locations throughout the WMA, the study
would employ an escalating, multiple line -of -evidence approach, including investigation of geologic
information such as pyrite -bearing formations, well records for high -iron groundwater, and
visual/microbial cues for the presence of iron in resurfacing groundwater. This approach will also
support NSE if natural sources are determined to cause elevated concentrations. If the results of the
study do not support delisting, developing an SSO may be warranted.
8.3 LREC 1
Use related studies would support the potential adoption of LREC-1, HFS, and/or a seasonal suspension.
A common theme across these regulatory options is flow conditions (LREC-1 and seasonal suspension
are related to low flows and HFS is related to high flows). The Statewide Bacteria Provisions do not
provide specific guidance or definitions for what flows are too high or too low to recreate in and the
application of these approaches across the Regional Boards are not consistent. As such, there is an
opportunity to develop and utilize an approach to determine when water depth is likely to be too low or
too high to support REC-1 uses.
An approach that could be used (and has been used for HFS) to identify conditions that could reasonably
correspond to low or high flow conditions could be based on the research conducted by the Instream
Flow Group (IFG), which was formed under the sponsorship of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
funded by the USEPA. The IFG's work evaluated methods of quantifying instream flow needs for fish,
wildlife, and recreation. The details of the REC research and findings were published in 1976 in Instream
Flow Information Paper: No. 6 (Methods of Assessing Instream Flows for Recreation). The analysis
recommends minimum and maximum depth and velocity conditions to support REC activities.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 53
Lwo
The IFG's REC research resulted in depth and velocity criteria for supporting a variety of REC uses,
including swimming, skiing, boating, and wading. Of the REC-1 uses analyzed by the IFG, Water Contact
Wading is the "critical activity" because it requires the least amount of water depth, 3 inches, in order to
support its users and sets safety criteria in terms of depth and velocity (see Figure 4). This information
can be used to establish minimum and maximum thresholds. A critical aspect of our approach is the use
of watershed models for the following components:
1. Supplement available flow and rainfall data: analyses of the ability to recreate in low flows or the
safety of recreation during high flows are based on water depth and velocity. Without a continuous
flow model, these parameters must be estimated using existing LA County flow gages, which limits
the number of locations that can be evaluated. The model can be used to assess conditions at any
location in Reach 5, 6, or 7 and even the tributaries. In addition, the model will significantly simplify
analyses of alternative rainfall triggers for the HFS (other than the 0.5 inches utilized in the existing
HFS).
2. Quantify the economic impacts of the HFS: use of the existing WMP/RAA model will allow us to
quantify the cost benefits of a regulatory change. The sizing and number of BMPs required to meet
the TMDL with the HFS could be much less. These relate to costs which can be demonstrated to
the Regional Board to support its adoption. These cost estimates can be used to encourage the
Regional Board to extend the HFS to waterbodies that are not concrete -lined, a critical issue for
the Santa Clara River.
In addition, one must consider the interplay between the HFS and the number of allowable wet weather
exceedance days. In the Ballona Creek Bacteria TMDL, each HFS day reduced the number of allowable
exceedance days. The LWA Team was able to revise the approach for the LA River Bacteria TMDL so that
HFS days did not count against the number of allowable exceedance days.
As with special studies such as these, it is advantageous to first conduct an initial evaluation to
determine if the study results support a meaningful regulatory change. If the benefit of the initial results
warrants further pursuing a regulatory change, the next step is engagement with the Regional Board and
stakeholders to develop an understanding of the technical and regulatory basis and start the process of
incorporation into the Basin Plan.
These types of studies can often be completed primarily as a "desktop" exercise, given their reliance of
historical flow and rainfall records as well as modeling. As such, there is likely limited integration with the
other required elements of the scope of work.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 54
Lwo
aH>«ICA.
5,7Y ? GPTImum
C£PTH
`j 25 r"_
0.S It
rn:nImum
E -.•"• f`
3.'� rt
maxi.mur
TC
--i i rnu m
Naxi:num
2 fo,
C0MkAENTS: CC-P-h 1.". Taar t
cch le,';h a'ld Heigh: c 1r: ivl_4d. a5 .ae 1
:EGENu
- -
Optimum
s
acceptaele
-
.... -
• :.T.•.•.•.�
rear
�;:;�.
unacYerta�,e
i 2 4 5
YE40C1 T Y
Figure 3. IFG Depth and Velocity Criteria for Supporting Water Contact Wading REC Uses
8.4 Natural Source Exclusion
The NSE approach may be utilized after all anthropogenic sources of bacteria are identified, quantified,
and controlled. If applicable, the NSE, either incorporated directly into a TMDL or through a separate
Basin Plan Amendment, would likely include a certain frequency of exceedance of the applicable
bacteria water objectives based on the observed exceedance frequency of the identified and quantified
natural sources of bacteria of the targeted waterbody. One potential approach to supporting an NSE is to
utilize microbial source tracking methods (RNA/DNA methods) to evaluate the magnitude of human
sources in a waterbody. One key challenge with the application of the approach is establishing a
threshold for the level of human markers present in a waterbody, given the ubiquitous nature of human
markers in the environment (including in recycled water runoff). For example, San Diego Regional Board
staff proposed establishing a threshold through a TSO to support the potential application of the NSE
approach.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 55
Lwo
8.5 DNA/RNA Test Lab
Other applications of RNA/DNA testing are to 1) support implementation by focusing resources and
targeting sources that pose the greatest risk (i.e., human sources), and 2) provide information to support
a fundamental regulatory change in how we assess attainment of recreational beneficial uses. RNA/DNA
testing supporting implementation has been applied in multiple locations, including by the LWA Team in
the LA River watershed. The most straightforward application is to collect human marker data in multiple
locations within the target waterbody, as well as from outfalls over the course of multiple sampling
events. This "synoptic" survey approach provides a robust dataset by which to conduct an assessment of
potentially problematic areas and/or outfalls to focus implementation efforts or prioritize for a later date
if human markers are not present or at extremely low levels. Further, the collection of these data can be
used to support alternative BMPs, such as a human source reduction approach that is focused on known
sources within a drainage area rather than large BMP networks. Our Team has been working with
permittees in the San Diego Region to utilize special study data to incorporate a human source reduction
approach as the mechanism for demonstrating compliance with bacteria TMDL requirements in the San
Diego Region's MS4 permit.
Applying RNA/DNA testing to provide information to support a fundamental regulatory change in
assessing attainment of recreational beneficial uses is a vastly more complex challenge. Historically
RNA/DNA testing has been utilized to demonstrate that other sources are present and causing or
contributing to exceedances of traditional fecal bacteria indicators (FIB). While such testing has
successfully shown that raccoons, birds, dogs, etc., are defecating in or near our MS4, these studies have
not led to regulatory changes. Collection of human marker data (e.g., HF183) has also not, and is unlikely
to, lead to the needed changes. Ultimately, it will take a more robust approach to data collection and
analysis to support a move away from the current approach of solely relying on traditional FIB to a risk -
based framework.
The potential approaches to address this issue can vary significantly in terms of the level of effort and
costs. At the simplest end is the collection of human marker data to build a dataset that could in the
future support discussions if the regulatory agencies, through some other means, come to accept such
an approach. On the other end of the spectrum is conducting an assessment of the potential health risks
to recreators through the collection of both human marker data and pathogens that would allow for the
quantification of risk levels.
Source -related studies can be resource -intensive, with two of the most extensive costs associated with
sampling labor and laboratory analysis. Current field efforts and laboratory analysis could be leveraged
to piggyback special study efforts with existing efforts.
8.6 Mercury Source Study
The LWA Team recently completed a preliminary assessment of total mercury for both outfall and
receiving water sites and found that results higher than water quality objectives occurred
overwhelmingly during wet weather events and at receiving water sites, with increasing trends for the
Reach 5 and Reach 6 receiving water sites. The averages and medians for all sites are higher than the
total mercury water quality objective. During a preliminary investigation into potential sources of
mercury in the WMA, it was found that atmospheric deposition and wildfires could be large
contributors, especially with an increase in wildfires in and near the WMA in recent years.
On request, the LWA Team will conduct an in-depth assessment of mercury in the WMA to provide
supporting data and information identifying the prevalence of natural and/or background sources in
receiving waters within the WMA. The Team has experience performing mercury studies for the USEPA
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 56
Lwo
Region 10 and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), among others. For USEPA and
Oregon DEQ, the LWA Team developed a new Mercury TMDL for the Willamette River. The effort
involved rigorous analysis of existing data to improve the analytical approach, as well as the
development and implementation of a modeling framework that demonstrated that achieving lower
methyl mercury tissue criteria in top-trophic-level fish would require substantial reductions in
atmospheric deposition from global sources. Using the methylmercury criterion, scientists and engineers
determined a total mercury target using a translator model. The TMDL underwent rigorous public and
regulatory scrutiny and received final approval in early 2021. Depending on the results of the USCR
assessment, a similar modeling approach could be used to identify a revised mercury target.
8.7 Pesticide Study
While pesticides can be a source of toxicity in receiving waters, municipalities have limited ability to
control pesticide discharges. Pesticide use is regulated by the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR), and municipalities are legally prohibited from implementing measures that would
limit its use. From a regulatory perspective, many pesticides lack established water -quality standards.
Therefore, special studies to support implementation or to modify water quality standards are unlikely to
provide significant benefit.
The State Board is working on an alternative approach to addressing pesticides (Urban Pesticides
Provisions Project) that leverages CDPR's legal authorities to modify the allowable uses and registrations
of pesticides that have the potential to cause toxicity in receiving waters. To exercise their legal
authorities, CDPR must have sufficient data demonstrating that pesticides are causing toxicity in
receiving waters and identify the uses contributing to that toxicity to inform appropriate label changes.
The LWA Team is working with CASQA and the State Board on the development of the Urban Pesticides
Provisions Project and has a strong understanding of both the regulatory approach and the monitoring
proposed. Our Team would support the USCR WMG by coordinating with CDPR, as needed, to
implement special studies that address CDPR's data needs and support modifications to labels or
registration status for problematic pesticides.
If the USCR WMG would still like to pursue a special study focused on pesticides, the LWA Team has
experience in monitoring and assessing pesticide risk and setting pesticide standards at the federal,
state, and local levels. Previously, the LWA Team provided technical assistance to the USEPA to develop
the Pesticide General Permit. To help support the City of San Diego with Sediment Investigative Orders in
San Diego Bay, the Team developed and implemented a sampling Work Plan that includes water and
sediment sample analysis for pesticides. In addition, the LWA Team conducted a review and analysis of
long-term data, which identified pyrethroid pesticides as a likely cause of biological impairment. A rapid
causal assessment tool, customized for the Southern California region, has also been developed to
quickly and cost-effectively screen sites and identify stressors, such as pesticides, for further
investigation. Ecotoxicology experts are also reviewing USEPA's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act pesticide risk assessments and toxicity data. The LWA Team's experience in pesticide
monitoring, assessment, and regulatory support will ensure that pesticide source investigations for
Bouquet Canyon meet the highest quality standards and that data effectively translates to inform
management decisions.
Special Studies Outputs
• Special study work plans.
• Technical memorandums.
• Laboratory analytical data reports and EDDs.
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program and NPDES Compliance March 2026 1 57
Lwo
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Monitoring Program
and NPDES Permit Compliance
Education
Graduate Studies, 1983-
1986, Moss Landing Marine
Laboratories
B.A., Biology, 1983,
University of California,
Santa Cruz,
Santa Cruz, CA
Years of Experience
With LWA: 4
With Other Firms: >40
Professional Affiliations
Southern California
Association of Marine
Invertebrate Taxonomists
(SCAMIT), Member
David Vilas
Senior Scientist
Professional Experience
Mr. Vilas has more than 40 years of experience in freshwater and marine biology, with
particular expertise in watershed -scale TMDL monitoring programs, multi -agency regulatory
compliance, and water -quality and biological community assessments. He has extensive
experience implementing coordinated monitoring programs in Southern California
watersheds, including the Santa Clara River, San Gabriel River, Calleguas Creek, Ballona
Creek, and Santa Ana River, encompassing water -quality sampling, analysis of aquatic
invertebrate and vertebrate communities, and sediment -quality assessments. At his
previous employer, Mr. Vilas has served as Project Manager for the Calleguas Creek
Watershed TMDL Monitoring Program since 2003, coordinating multi -media sampling
(water, sediment, and tissue) and biological community evaluations in support of regulatory
compliance — directly analogous to the multi -constituent, multi -agency structure of the
Upper Santa Clara River CIMP. He is the Project Manager for the Upper Santa Clara River
CIMP for LWA and leads the production of the Calleguas Creek Watershed TMDL Annual
Report, managing a team delivering compliance reporting across five TMDLs
simultaneously.
Upper Santa Clara River Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program. 2022-Present
Project Manager leading a team providing support to the City of Santa Clarita and the
Orange County Marine County of Los Angeles for the Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Program
Protected Area Council Group, with annual reporting and CIMP implementation support. Prepared Annual Reports
(OCMPAC), Member containing the elements described in the CIMP and the requirements of the MS4 Permit,
including descriptions of implementation and monitoring efforts completed during the
reporting year. Prepared Semi -Annual Data Reports in accordance with the requirements of
the MS4 Permit. Analyzed monitoring data collected by all CIMP participants.
Calleguas Creek Watershed TMDL Monitoring Program. 2003-2022
Project Manager. Assisted in the development of the monitoring program to evaluate
nutrients and contaminants in water, sediment and tissue of resident species in Mugu
Lagoon, at the mouth of Calleguas Creek. Coordinated quarterly water sampling and
analysis in the lagoon, and tri-annual collection of sediment and fish and mussel tissue
samples for analysis. Analyzed benthic infauna samples and evaluated biological
community parameters as part of the sediment quality objective (SQO) sampling triad.
Maintains necessary clearances to access the lagoon within the Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station,
and works closely with base biologists to minimize disturbance of protected species during
sampling. 2003 through 2022.
Watershed Program Compliance Monitoring and Regulatory Support, Calleguas
Creek Watershed. 2024-Present. CA.
Assistant Project Manager and contributor in providing program and regulatory support for
the Participating Agencies implementing TMDLs in the Calleguas Creek Watershed.
Facilitated, managed, and overseen the production of the TMDL Annual Report for the
Calleguas Creek Watershed group. To support this effort, organized and led a team to
complete an annual monitoring report for compliance with 5 TMDLs: Salts TMDL, OC
Pesticides TMDL, Nutrients TMDL, Toxicity TMDL, and Metals TMDL. Example tasks
include: project management, document preparation, participation in meetings, analyzing
annual monitoring data and developing relevant supporting figures and tables for all
constituents as required
LwoDavid Vilas
Project Experience
Los Angeles River Temperature Study. 2023 — Present. Los Angeles County
Assistant Project Manager assisting the Cities of Los Angeles and Burbank in responding to a new water quality
objective for temperature. LWA is assisting the cities in developing and implementing a temperature study to better
understand the temperature range protective of the WARM beneficial use. To do this, LWA and the Cities, in
consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee, are evaluating aquatic life uses in each waterbody to characterize
the relationship between water temperature and the ability of each waterbody to support warm -water aquatic life. LWA
developed and is implementing a Workplan designed to fill data gaps identified as critical to addressing study goals.
Ongoing.
Recalculation of the Acute Zinc Criterion in the Los Angeles River, Ballona Creek, and Dominguez Channel
Watersheds. 2022 — Present. Los Angeles County.
Project Scientist assisting the City of Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment by providing a summary of the
occurrence of aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species in the Los Angeles River, Ballona Creek, and Dominguez
Channel Watersheds, locations within three watersheds in the Los Angeles region. Utilizing updated information since
the existing Total Maximum Daily Loads were developed, the study will update zinc criterion, if appropriate, to develop
site -specific objectives (SSOs) for zinc based on the most recent available toxicity data and site -specific
considerations.
San Gabriel River Temperature Study. 2022 — Present. Los Angeles County.
Assistant Project Manager assisting the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (in developing Districts) respond to a
new water quality objective for temperature. LWA is assisting the Districts in developing and implementing a
temperature study to better understand the temperature range protective of the WARM beneficial use. To do this, LWA
and the Districts, in consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee, are evaluating aquatic life uses in each
waterbody to characterize the relationship between water temperature and the ability of each waterbody to support
warm -water aquatic life. LWA developed a work plan which outlined technical studies designed to fill data gaps
identified as critical to addressing these study goals.
Los Angeles River Watershed Copper Water -Effects Ratio and Lead Recalculation Study.
Project Manager, alongside Larry Walker Associates under contract to a consortium of Los Angeles River dischargers,
provided specialized and expert services to support the implementation of the Los Angeles River and Tributaries
Metals Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) work plan. MBC was selected to provide support services to LWA in the
collection and processing of field and analytical chemistry data for Water -Effects Ratio (WER) determinations for the
Los Angeles River and tributaries. The study included dry weather and stormwater collection events at multiple sites
along the Los Angeles River and tributaries. MBC provided additional support by compiling information on biological
organisms present in the Los Angeles River and its tributaries to assist in developing WERs based upon the California
Toxics Rule criteria for copper and lead.
Ballona Creek Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Project Manager. Analyzed potential impacts to the biological communities and sensitive species in the creek as a
result of the project proposed a suite of three projects to reduce bacteria in the Ballona Creek Watershed, and its
alternatives. Attended public meetings at the initiation of the EIR process to listen to questions and concerns from the
public and inform the community of project aspects. Another public meeting was attended when the draft EIR was
released to discuss the analysis results and answer questions from the engaged participants. The final EIR was
adopted by the Board of Public Works in April 2018.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Preparation.
Responsible for preparing marine biological and oceanographic sections and technical documents for EIRs and EISs to
evaluate potential environmental effects from multiple projects. Examples of projects include the Long Beach Naval
Station EIS, the LA-3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation EIS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Project,
the LA Co. Sanitation District Clearwater Program EIR/EIS (Project Manager), the Port of Los Angeles APL Terminal
EIS/EIR, the Port of Los Angeles Al Larson Boat Shop EIR, Port of Los Angeles YTI Terminal Project (Project
Manager), Port of Long Beach Fireboat 20 IS/MND (Project Manager), Port of Los Angeles Pier 400 Railyard
Extension IS/MND (Project Manager), Port of Los Angeles Star-Kist Cannery Facility Project IS/MND (Project
Manager), and for desalination projects at Santa Monica Bay, Long Beach, Huntington Beach and Encina (Project
Manager). 2002 through 2022. Also provided third -party reviews of several EIRs and EISs since 2000.
Lwo
David Vilas
Project Experience
Chris Minton
Vice President
Professional Experience
Education
Mr. Minton has supported clients with negotiations on National Pollutant Discharge
M.S., Environmental
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for both stormwater and wastewater
Science & Management,
programs, development and implementation of monitoring programs to address NPDES
2002,
permit requirements for both stormwater and wastewater; as well as to conduct special
Bren School of
studies; manage, develop and implement Watershed Management Program and Total
Environmental Science and
Management, University of
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation planning processes and monitoring
California, Santa Barbara
programs; site -specific objectives studies; and field investigation studies.
Mr. Minton has supported clients with negotiations on National Pollutant Discharge
B.S., Geology,
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for both stormwater and wastewater; managed, led
University of Washington,
Seattle
development of Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) and Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Programs (CIMPs); led development of special studies using USEPA's Water -
Years of Experience
Effect Ratio (WER) and Recalculation procedures; and supported clients develop and
With LWA: 18
negotiate Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
With Other Firms: 2
City of Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment (LASAN) On -Call Planning and
Technical Support for the Clean Water (Wastewater), Environmental Quality, Solid
Resources, and Watershed Protection Programs. 2014-Present
LWA Project Manager for the LASAN On -Call Personal Services Contracts. As the prime
contractor, successfully led consultant teams provide a range of stormwater and
wastewater related regulatory and monitoring services to LASAN under TOSs SN-21, 34,
44, 84, 95, 110, 124, 130, 140, 141, 142, and S-004A, B, and C. LWA Project Manager as
a subconsultant on TOSs SN-53, 61, 102, 119, 135, and 171.
LASAN Watershed Protection Division (WPD): Monitoring, Reporting, Regulatory and
Study Support. 2008-Present
Project Manager for over 16 years on multiple WPD on -call services contracts related to
addressing technical and regulatory challenges associated with TMDLs, MS4 Permit, water
quality criteria, and monitoring. Responsibilities include identifying developing and
implementing project approaches and managing individual project efforts. Specific relevant
projects include:
• Project Manager for providing as -needed monitoring and reporting services to the
ULAR, BC, SMB J2/3, and DC Watershed Management Groups (WMP) Groups. Monitoring
support has included load reduction strategy monitoring, wet and dry weather monitoring,
identification of significant non-stormwater discharges, and non-stormwater source
investigations. Support reporting in various capacities for all four WMP Groups with a
primary focus on reporting monitoring results.
• Developed strategy and conducted technical analysis in support of TMDL revisions for
the BC Toxics, Metals, and Bacteria TMDL and the Santa Monica Bay Dry and Weather
Bacteria TMDLs and the Marina del Rey Bacteria TMDL that resulted in changes to
allocations and compliance schedules.
• Reviewed, commented, and supported negotiations on the following TMDLs
developed by the Regional Board and/or USEPA: Dominguez Channel and LA/Long Beach
Harbors Toxics TMDLs, Machado Lake Toxics, Santa Monica Bay Marine Debris, Los
Angeles Area Lakes, Los Cerritos Channel Bacteria.
• Developed comments on regulatory requirements including: updates and revisions to
the 303(d) List; Los Angeles Region Triennial Review; California's Water Quality
LwoProject Experience
Enforcement Policy; Sediment Quality Objectives; California's General Permits for Industrial Discharges,
Construction Discharges, and Phase II Dischargers; MS4 Permit Reporting Policy; and Los Angeles Region Copper
Biotic Ligand Model Implementation Report.
LASAN Regulatory Affairs Division (RAD). On -Call Services. 2008-Present
Project Manager for multiple RAD contracts providing on -call services to address regulatory challenges related to
various City operations, including the four water reclamation plants (WRPs). Managed a team of over 30
subcontractors with wide-ranging capabilities to provide support for short and long term projects. Directly managed and
provided technical support including: review and negotiation support on the reissuance of NPDES permits for all City
WRPs, Basin Plan Triennial review, 303(d) listings, field investigation of NDMA, reasonable potential analysis.
Site Specific Objective Special Studies. 2002-Present
Assisted multiple clients with special studies in support of the TMDLs in the LA Region. Worked on all four site -specific
objective (SSO) special studies that formed the basis for revisions to the Basin Plan, TMDLs and NPDES Permits.
Performed a lead role related to monitoring implementation and data analysis for the LA Region Ammonia SSO Study
and the Calleguas Creek and Mugu Lagoon Copper WER, and LA River Copper WER for City of LA and Burbank
WRPs. Lead the LA River Copper WER and Lead Recalculation Study for stormwater agencies representing over 35
cities, LA County, and Caltrans. Evaluated water quality data to assess compliance with the TMDL and development of
the Preliminary Work Plan to evaluate how USEPA's WER and Recalculation Procedure could be utilized. Developed a
watershed wide SSO Work Plan. Negotiated the requirements with the Regional Board and an independent Technical
Advisory Committee JAC). Managed implementation of the approved Work Plan comprised of 1) WER monitoring in
the LA River and major tributaries, critical conditions analysis, WER calculation, and report development; and 2)
engagement with USEPA to obtain an approved updated lead toxicity dataset, data evaluation, criteria calculation,
sensitive species identification and analysis, and report development. Developed an implementation report outlining
how the SSOs should be incorporated into the Basin Plan and the TMDL and addressed requirements related to
antidegradation, anti -backsliding, and future monitoring. Responsible for negotiating utilization of results of the studies
into the TMDL and NPDES permits leading to compliance with the copper and lead limits for MS4 Permittees. Currently
leading the implementation of a Safe, Clean Water Program special study to recalculate the aquatic life criterion for
zinc in the LA River, BC, and DC watersheds.
Safe, Clean Water Program (SCWP) Scientific Study Support. 2021-Present
Assisted LASAN WPD with the development of Scientific Study applications for submittal to the SCWP: Zinc Criteria
Recalculation, Street Sweeping, and Land Use. Managed implementation of the Zinc Criteria Recalculation Study,
including supporting LASAN meet SCWP reporting requirements. Managed implementation of Phase I of the Street
Sweeping Study to complete testing of multiple street sweeping technologies (i.e., mechanical broom versus
regenerative air) to evaluate efficacy and position LASAN to quickly transition to Phase II of the study using SCWP
funding.
Los Angeles Region MS4 Permit Renewal. 2011-2012 and 2019-2021
Project Manager responsible for assisting LASAN on the MS4 permit renewal process for the 2012 and 2021 permits.
Support included meeting consistently with LASAN and Regional Board staff to negotiate the Permits, developing
detailed technical and regulatory comments, and supporting the City at Regional Board workshops and adoption
hearings. Developed several approaches that were utilized by the Regional Board as the basis for key permit sections,
including (1) watershed -based permit structure, (2) BMP-based compliance options, (3) utilizing the WMPs as a
compliance option for the Receiving Water Limitations provisions, (4) development of the WMP that incorporates all
elements of the Permit, but allows Permittees to focus efforts on identified water quality issues, and (5) development of
alternatives to the MS4 monitoring program resulting in flexibility with monitoring implementation. Key outcomes of the
2021 renewal process were the maintenance of implementation -based compliance for interim TMDL limits and
receiving water limitations and minimizing changes to monitoring and reporting requirements.
Lwo Project Experience
Bryant Alvarado
Associate
Professional Experience
Education
Mr. Alvarado is an Associate and has experience in multiple water quality service areas,
M.S., Civil and
including the development of stormwater watershed management programs (WMPs);
Environmental Engineering,
coordinated integrated monitoring programs (CIMPs); stormwater annual reporting; ambient
2011,
and agricultural water quality monitoring; Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development
Stanford University,
and implementation; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
Stanford, CA
renewals and implementation; and site -specific objectives (SSOs).
B.S., Environmental
Upper Santa Clara River Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program. 2021-Present
Engineering, 2009,
Florida International
Assistant Project Manager leading a team providing support to the City of Santa Clarita and
University, Miami, FL
the County of Los Angeles for the Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management
Program Group, with annual reporting and CIMP implementation support. Prepared Annual
Reports containing the elements described in the CIMP and the requirements of the MS4
Years of Experience
Permit, including descriptions of implementation and monitoring efforts completed during the
With LWA: 14
reporting year. Prepared Semi -Annual Data Reports in accordance with the requirements of
the MS4 Permit. Analyzed monitoring data collected by all CIMP participants.
Upper San Gabriel River Watershed Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program: As -
Needed Consultant Services and Annual Reporting. 2019-Present
Assistant Project Manager leading a team providing support to the Los Angeles County
Public Works to provide the Upper San Gabriel River Watershed Management Program
Group with annual reporting and CIMP implementation support. Prepared Annual Reports
containing the elements described in the CIMP and the requirements of the MS4 Permit,
including descriptions of implementation and monitoring efforts completed during the
reporting year. Prepared Semi -Annual Data Reports in accordance with the requirements of
the MS4 Permit. Installed equipment and conducted monitoring. Analyzed readily available
monitoring data collected by the LACFCD, other watershed management program groups,
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program,
and relevant special studies.
Los Angeles Region CIMP Development. 2013-2015 and 2021-Present
Led the development of multiple aspects of the original CIMPs for six Watershed
Management Groups (WMGs) and led the update to all five of the City of Los Angeles -led
CIMPs as well as four other CIMPs across Los Angeles County. The aspects of the CIMPs
that were led include developing a receiving water monitoring approach that integrates
TMDL and MS4 Permit receiving water monitoring requirements and identifying outfall and
receiving water monitoring sites. Regarding site selection, selected sites that utilize the
criteria outlined in the receiving water monitoring approach and separately developed
stormwater outfall monitoring approach, while ensuring that all proposed sites are safe and
accessible. Responded to comments made by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Regional Board), met with Regional Board staff to discuss proposed
revisions, and revised the CIMP to obtain approval.
CIMP Annual Reporting. 2015-Present
Coordinated responses for all monitoring -related questions for five City of Los Angeles -led
WMGs. Led the development of the sections of the annual report providing the assessment
results of whether the receiving water quality is improving, declining, or staying the same.
Evaluated receiving water, stormwater outfall, and non-stormwater outfall data for
exceedances.
LwoProject Experience
City of Los Angeles WMAs Wet Weather Monitoring Programs. 2015-Present
Coordinated wet weather events by reviewing responsibilities with field crews and discussing any modifications to the
approach taken during previous events to incorporate lessons learned and storm characteristics. Provided direction to
subcontractors for supporting monitoring of their respective sites and communicated with LASAN staff regarding timing
of sample collection and delivery during wet weather events. Gathered field logs and photographs from subcontractors,
requested necessary revisions/corrections, and sent them to LASAN. Coordinated the preparation of receiving water
and outfall monitoring sites in advance of the upcoming wet weather events. After the events were completed,
recommendations were provided to LASAN regarding QA/QC validation and reporting.
Ballona Creek and Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Development. 2013-2016
Supported the development of multiple aspects of the original EWMPs for the Ballona Creek and Upper Los Angeles
River WMGs. Supported the identification of water quality priorities and integration of the EWMP approaches to
demonstrate compliance with MS4 Permit requirements.
City of Los Angeles WMAs Non-Stormwater Outfall Source Identifications and Investigations. 2015-2017
Led multi -team non-stormwater (NSW) screening events for Arroyo Seco and coordinated NSW screening events for
Los Angeles River Segment E and Compton Creek. Led the development of technical memoranda identifying outfalls
with significant NSW discharges, utilizing innovative approaches consistent with the CIMP. Outlined an approach for
conducting NSW source investigations. Incorporated comments from the City of LA into the source investigation
approach and coordinated source investigations within the Ballona Creek, Dominguez Channel, Los Angeles River,
and Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Group 2/3 watersheds to identify the source for outfalls with significant NSW
discharges. Led the development of technical memoranda detailing the results of the source investigations and
incorporated comments from City of Los Angeles prior to finalizing.
Ballona Creek Watershed TMDL Reopeners. 2012-2013
Assisted with the review of and commenting on the Tentative Basin Plan Amendments for the Ballona Creek Metals
TMDL and the Ballona Creek Estuary Toxic Pollutants TMDL. Provided technical support for the successful negotiation
of revised TMDL compliance options and implementation schedules.
Santa Clara River Chloride Site -Specific Objectives and Antidegradation Analysis. 2012
To reflect modifications to the implementation strategy, updated an SSO and antidegradation analysis report for the
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, which provided the technical and regulatory basis for consideration of
SSOs for surface water in Reaches 4B, 5, and 6 of the Santa Clara River.
Third -Party Selenium TMDLs for the Newport Bay Watershed. 2014
Prepared the initial drafts of multiple sections of a third -party TMDL written to address selenium impairments in the
Newport Bay watershed. Drafted TMDL sections include the problem statement, numeric targets, and the monitoring
portion of the implementation plan. Led the development and incorporation of all TMDL appendices and supported the
incorporation of all comments on the initial and revised drafts of the TMDL to produce draft final versions of the TMDL.
San Diego Region Phase I Bacteria TMDL Reopener Support & Reporting. 2015-2017
Supported the development of a Preliminary Technical Report document, which presented potential concepts for
regulatory updates (while also providing the technical foundation to evaluate potential revisions) to the Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, as well as the Revised Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria, Project
1.
Twenty Beaches and Creeks in the San Diego Region (Including Tecolote Creek). 2017
Served as the primary author on (or oversaw the development of) sections related to the TMDL current conditions
analysis, potential revisions to REC-2 objectives, and implementation provisions associated with the reference
system/antidegradation approach, temporary suspension of uses, and variances. As applicable, provided potential
language to incorporate these concepts into the Basin Plan.
Lwo Project Experience
Adriel Leon
Senior Scientist
Professional Experience
Education
Mr. Adriel Leon is a Project Scientist at LWA and has professional experience in multiple
M.S., Environmental Science
water quality service areas, including stormwater management and monitoring programs,
and Management, Water
watershed management, agricultural water quality, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Resources Concentration,
implementation, stormwater reporting, watershed management, permit compliance, policy
2016, Bren School of
analysis, water quality data analysis, and water quality monitoring. Mr. Leon joined LWA
Environmental Science &
Management, University of
after completing his graduate degree at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
California, Santa Barbara,
Upper San Gabriel River Watershed Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
CA
(CIMP) As -Needed Consultant Services, County of Los Angeles. 2019-Present. Los
Angeles County, CA.
B.S., Biology, 2010, Loyola
Marymount University, Los
Project Manager responsible for supporting the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Angeles, CA
Works to provide the Upper San Gabriel River Enhanced Watershed Management Program
Years of Experience
Group (USGREWMP Group) with annual reporting and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring
With LWA: 7
Program (CIMP) implementation support. Responsibilities include preparing Annual
With Other Firms: 0
Monitoring Reports, Semi -Annual Reports, and Watershed Management Program Progress
Report forms. These deliverables include elements described in the CIMP and the
Professional Affiliations
requirements of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit, for submittal to
California Stormwater
the Los Angeles Regional Water Board, including descriptions of implementation and
Quality Association
monitoring efforts completed during the reporting year.
(CASQA), Member
Ventura Countywide Stormwater Management Program Coordinated Integrated
Work Tools
Monitoring Program (CIMP) Support, Ventura County Watershed Protection District.
ESRI ArcGIS
2022-Present. Ventura County, CA.
R/Rstudio
Project Manager responsible for supporting the development of the Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program (CIMP). Responsibilities include supporting the integration of TMDL
monitoring requirements into the CIMP, providing regulatory interpretation support for
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits, and providing technical support to
develop approaches for specific CIMP elements.
Malibu Creek Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) Annual Reporting,
City of Agoura Hills. 2016-Present. Agoura Hills, CA.
Assistant Project Manager responsible for compiling stormwater program activities, data,
and data analysis results to complete Annual Monitoring Reports, Semi -Annual Reports,
and Watershed Management Program Progress Report form as part of municipal separate
storm sewer system (MS4) permit monitoring and reporting requirements. Completion of this
report includes compliance evaluations of TMDLs, hydrologic condition summaries, and
constituent trend analyses.
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) Wet Weather Monitoring
Programs, City of Los Angeles. 2016-Present. Los Angeles, CA.
Assistant Project Manager responsible for coordination of receiving water and storm water
outfall sampling in accordance with the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP)
for the Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictions 2 and 3, Upper Los Angeles River, and Dominguez
Channel watersheds. Responsibilities include coordinating with City staff to collect and
distribute monitoring equipment and paperwork as well as overseeing completion of
monitoring photos and field log deliverables.
LwoProject Experience
Malibu Creek Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) Monitoring and Screening, City of Agoura
Hills. 2016-Present. Agoura Hills, CA.
Field Lead responsible for conducting non-stormwater and wet weather preparation and monitoring of receiving waters
and outfalls in accordance with the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the Malibu Creek
watershed. Conducted non-stormwater source investigations for significant discharges to outfalls.
Upper San Gabriel River Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) Monitoring, County of Los
Angeles. 2019-2021. Los Angeles, CA.
Field Lead responsible for conducting wet weather preparation and monitoring of receiving waters and outfalls in
accordance with the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the Upper San Gabriel River watershed.
Regulatory Support, Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group (VCAILG). 2016-Present. Ventura
County, CA.
Project Manager responsible for the completion of the Annual Monitoring Report summarizing monitoring activities
required by the Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands within the
Los Angeles Region (Conditional Waiver).Conducted exceedance evaluations of monitoring data for receiving waters
and agricultural drains in accordance with Conditional Waiver water quality benchmarks and TMDL allocations as part
of three iterations of Water Quality Management Plans in 2016, 2017, and 2020. Additional support includes preparing
comment letters on proposed regulatory policies; developing comments on the 2023 General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Agricultural Land within the Los Angeles Region (Ag Order); and providing
development, implementation, and monitoring assistance for all Ventura County TMDLs in which agriculture is a
responsible party.
Stormwater Reporting Support, City of Los Angeles. 2016-Present. Los Angeles, CA.
Assistant Project Manager responsible for compiling stormwater program activities, data, and data analysis results to
complete Annual Monitoring Reports, Semi -Annual Reports, and Watershed Management Program Progress Report
form for the Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictions 2 and 3, Santa Monica Bay Jurisdiction 7, Upper Los Angeles River,
Ballona Creek, and Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Areas (WMAs) as part of municipal separate storm
sewer system (MS4) permit monitoring and reporting requirements. Completion of these reports includes compliance
evaluations of watershed -specific TMDLs, hydrologic condition summaries, and constituent trend analyses. Mr. Leon
assists with additional technical support requests such as permit compliance analyses, policy evaluations,
development of comment letters, and water quality data analysis training.
As -Needed Regulatory Support, City of Los Angeles. 2016-Present. Los Angeles, CA.
Assistant Project Manager responsible for as -needed regulatory support. Provides review of policy documents,
including draft municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits, TMDL Basin Plan amendments, and the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. Prepares Semi -Annual Data Reports, including comparison of
data to water quality objectives in accordance with the requirements of the MS4 Permit for submittal to the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board).
Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan TMDL Implementation, Stakeholders Implementing TMDLs in
the Calleguas Creek Watershed. 2016—Present. Ventura County, CA.
Contributes to the production of the Annual Monitoring Report summarizing monitoring activities conducted for the
effective TMDLs for toxicity, organochlorine (OC) pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and sediment, metals
and selenium, and salts in the Calleguas Creek watershed. Completion of this report includes extensive review and
preparation of water quality, toxicity, sediment, and fish tissue data, including the analysis of data in comparison to the
applicable compliance targets or allocations. Additional support includes preparing comment letters on proposed
regulatory policies, conducting data analysis and reporting, and evaluating compliance with TMDL allocations.
Upper Santa Clara River Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Revisions, County of Los
Angeles. 2021. Los Angeles County, CA.
Assistant Project Manager responsible for day-to-day completion of data analysis tasks conducted in support of
revisions to the North Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds (NSMBCW) Enhanced Watershed Management
Program (EWMP). Aggregated available and relevant data from various sources. Reviewed appropriate water quality
objectives and completed comparison of watershed data to applicable objectives to guide the development of water
quality priorities. Completed literature review and compilation for source assessment of water quality priorities.
Lwo Project Experience
Michael Marson
Senior Scientist
Professional Experience
Education
Mr. Marson is a Senior Scientist and serves as a database administrator and software
B.S., Computer Science,
developer for LWA. He has extensive experience in the design, development,
College of Engineering,
implementation, and management of databases in Microsoft Access and Oracle. He has
1988,
over 35 years of computer programming experience in both government and commercial
University of California,
fields.
Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA
Upper Santa Clara River Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program. 2021-Present.
Santa Clarita, CA.
Years of Experience
With LWA: 20
Mr. Marson acts as the data quality assurance officer (QA/QC) of this project. He performs
With Other Firms: 15
several data checks on the stormwater data that is collected under the Upper Santa Clara
River Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (USCR CIMP). He has created and
Specialized Tools
VB programming in MS
implemented an Access database that imports the data through several import queries.
Access
Once in the database, there are custom queries that ensure completeness of the data and
QC checks are done on the data in an efficient way, saving hours per event.
Additional Training
HP Unix (HPUX-10) Admin
Malibu Creek Watershed CIMP Implementation, City of Agoura Hills. 2016-Present.
Classes (total 3 weeks),
Malibu Creek Watershed, CA.
1997
Mr. Marson serves as the project manager for this project and ensures the monthly reports,
semi-annual reports, and annual reports are all delivered in a timely manner. He oversees
Siebel Sales Force
Development Classes, 2001
sub -contractors and laboratory invoicing,companyinvoicing,and post -event reporting. He
p p g'
oversees the field crews and laboratory scheduling, bottle delivery and pickups. This
Actuate Report Writer
includes all elements of the monitoring process, from autosampler installations, event
classes, 2001
preparation, coordinating with all crews, and paperwork generation. He worked
independently to design and implement an MS Access database to house the data currently
Many on-line Computer
collected under this contract. It has a user-friendly interface that allows the user to build and
Based Training (CBT)
run ad -hoc queries of the data. The client could then export the data into a CEDEN
classes offered by Microsoft
compatible Excel file. The database also has the ability to import electronic data deliverable
(EDD) files from several different laboratories and many pre -defined queries that are used to
quickly run completeness and QA/QC checks of the data. Mr. Marson developed a custom
Field Monitoring Preparation Application that the monitoring lead uses to efficiently produce
all the monitoring paperwork for the sampling crews. This includes the bottle orders prior to
any event and the COCs, bottle labels, and field logs that are used during the events.
Calleguas Creek Watershed (TMDL program), Calleguas Municipal Water District.
2005-Present. Camarillo, CA.
Mr. Marson acts as the project manager for the monitoring activities for the Calleguas Creek
Watershed TMDL program. This includes all elements of the monitoring process from
database design and upkeep, equipment installation and maintenance, event preparation
and paperwork, field crew and laboratory oversight, data quality review, sub -invoicing, and
post -event reporting. With the new Ventura County Stormwater Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program (CIMP) approval, Mr. Marson now coordinates with the County of
Ventura stormwater team, the VCAILG program team, and subcontractors to ensure all data
covered under all three projects are collected in coordination with each other. He must also
coordinate with the labs to ensure samples are picked up/delivered in a timely manner for
two dry -weather and two wet -weather monitoring events. Mr. Marson is the sole contact for
the field crews in case of any questions that may arise. Mr. Marson uses a separate custom-
made Field Monitoring Preparation Application for this project to efficiently produce all the
monitoring paperwork for the sampling crews. He manages all of the data that gets
LwoProject
Experience
generated from these events in a custom MS Access database that he designed and implemented. This ever-growing
database houses over 825,000 data records and can import electronic data deliverable (EDD) files from several
different laboratories and quickly run completeness and QA/QC checks, saving time during the data quality analysis
phase. Mr. Marson also is the lead on the continuous salts sensors that are installed in Calleguas Creek at five
different locations. He oversees and collects the monthly salt's data needed to ensure the sensors are working and
calibrated correctly. If a sensor goes bad or has malfunctions, he is the lead repair technician that corrects the issue or
replaces the bad sensor.
Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group (VCAILG), Farm Bureau of Ventura. 2008-Present. Ventura,
CA.
Mr. Marson acts as the project manager for the monitoring portion of this project. Mr. Marson leads all the monitoring
activities for the Ventura County Agriculture Irrigated Lands Group (VCAILG) monitoring program. This project is
unique in that two teams of one LWA person and one subcontractor are used to monitor all the sites. Mr. Marson
oversees coordinating the subcontractor, LWA employees, and three different laboratories, to ensure samples are
picked up and delivered on time, for two wet and two dry monitoring events. He uses a separate custom-built Field
Monitoring Preparation Application for this project to efficiently produce all the monitoring paperwork used during the
events, including field logs, COCs, bottle labels, and bottle order forms. He manages all the data that gets generated
during these events. He has designed, developed, and implemented three different MS Access databases used to
store water quality data, membership information, and agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) survey results
for VCAILG. Each database was designed and developed by LWA to accommodate the needs of VCAILG. The water
quality data files continue to grow as we collect more data each year. This database currently houses over 193,000
data records. It can import electronic data deliverable (EDD) files from multiple laboratories and quickly run
completeness and QA/QC checks, saving time during data quality analysis. This data is used in establishing trends
with constituents in Ventura County and is reported each year to the Regional Control Board during the annual report
process. Custom export queries have been created to support the annual monitoring report creation along with a
CEDEN export to allow the VCAILG data to be exported then submitted to CEDEN. The membership and BMP results
databases have now been replaced with a web -based database where Mr. Marson continues to provide historical
support.
Field Monitoring Preparation Application, Multiple Clients. 2008-Present. Ventura, CA
Mr. Marson designed, developed, and implemented several user-friendly database applications that significantly
reduce field preparation time prior to carrying out a field monitoring event. The "Field Prep" application is/was currently
used for several LWA projects, including Malibu CIMP, Mojave River Characterization Study, Calleguas Creek — TMDL
and Salts programs, VCAILG — Ag Waiver Program, Malibu Nutrients Special Studies program, and Echo Park Lake
Bacteria program. The application produces all the required paperwork for an event, including field logs, bottle labels,
bottle orders, field logbook reports, and COC documents for any given monitoring event. Once the required data is
input into the application, the user can produce all the materials for the event with a few clicks of a button. Typical
errors encountered when creating COCs, bottle labels, field logbooks, etc., are eliminated because all monitoring
materials are produced from a single database table. This application is constantly being updated to include new
features as needed. It has saved many hours of staff time during monitoring event preparation.
LA River Temperature Study, Los Angeles County. May 2024-October 2024. Los Angeles, CA.
Mr. Marson created a custom Access database to import and house the temperature data collected from HOBO
loggers installed in the Los Angeles River (LAR). Temperature data was collected every half hour at 22 stations in the
LAR from May 2024 to October 2024. The loggers recorded temperature and if the logger was `in' or `out' of the water,
along with location. Once the data file was downloaded from the data logger, it could be imported into the database for
processing. The data was then processed to attach an `In/Out' flag to each data row. The data was then exported into
a usable format for analysis. This database houses over 150,000 data rows.
Lwo Project Experience
Sebastian Bognar
Project Scientist II -A
Professional Experience
Education Mr. Bognar is a Project Scientist with LWA and has professional experience in water quality
M.E.M., Water Resources monitoring, water quality data analysis, hydrology, and stormwater management. He joined
Management, 2019, Duke LWA after completing his graduate degree at Duke University. Since joining LWA, he has
University, Durham, NC been involved in water quality analysis, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance,
B.Watershed Management Plan (WMP) and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
University of California, Aquatic Biology, 2015, (CIMP) implementation, and regulatory assistance.
Uni
Santa Barbara Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 2021-
Santa Barbara, CA Present. Santa Clarita, CA.
Task Lead responsible for compiling stormwater program activities, data, and data analysis
Years of Experience
results to complete the annual report for the Upper Santa Clara River watershed. Work
With LWA: 5.5
efforts included conducting trend analysis, exceedance analysis, TMDL analyses, and
Professional Affiliations
cause -and -contribution analysis of water quality data for the Upper Santa Clara River
CASQA, Member
watershed to address the requirements of the MS4 permit. Task lead responsible for
updating the Upper Santa Clara River Watershed CIMP to align with the MS4 Permit
Registrations
requirements. Responsibilities included updating constituents, regulatory language, and
Certificate of Geospatial
monitoring locations to meet the MS4 Permit requirements.
Analysis, Duke University,
NC
City of Los Angeles Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program & Annual Reporting.
2019
2019-Present. City of Los Angeles, CA.
Specialized Tools
Task Lead responsible for compiling stormwater program activities, data, data analysis
ArcGIS
results to complete annual reports for Ballona Creek, Dominguez channel, Santa Monica
R/RStudio
Bay Jurisdictions 2 and 3, Santa Monica Bay Jurisdiction 7, and the Upper Los Angeles
River. Work efforts included conducting trend analyses, TMDL analyses, and exceedance
analyses of water quality data for Ballona Creek, Dominguez Channel, Upper Los Angeles
River, and Santa Monica Bay watershed management areas as part of the MS4 permit
requirements. Responsibilities also included overseeing staff, reviewing work products, and
developing schedules to meet client and regulatory deadlines. Task lead responsible for
updating the Ballona Creek, Dominguez channel, Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictions 2 and 3,
Santa Monica Bay Jurisdiction 7, and the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed CIMPs to
align with the MS4 Permit. Responsibilities included updating constituents and regulatory
language, and monitoring locations to meet MS4 Permit requirements.
Upper San Gabriel River Watershed Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program: As -
Needed Consultant Services and Annual Reporting, Los Angeles County. 2020-
Present. Los Angeles County, CA.
Task Lead responsible for compiling stormwater program activities, data, data analysis
results to complete the annual report for the Upper San Gabriel River Watershed to address
the requirements of the MS4 permit. Task lead responsible for updating the Upper San
Gabriel River Watershed CIMP to align with the MS4 Permit requirements. Responsibilities
included updating constituents, regulatory language, and monitoring locations to meet the
MS4 Permit requirements.
Malibu Creek Watershed Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program, City of Malibu,
CA. 2019-Present. Malibu, CA.
Task Lead responsible for compiling stormwater program activities, data, data analysis
results to complete the annual report for the Malibu Creek watershed. Work efforts included
conducting the trend analysis, exceedance analysis, TMDL analyses, and cause and
LwoProject Experience
contribution analysis of water quality data for the Malibu Creek watershed to address the requirements of the MS4
permit. Task Lead responsible for updating the Malibu Creek Watershed CIMP to align with the MS4 Permit
requirements. Responsibilities included updating constituents, regulatory language, and monitoring locations to meet
the MS4 Permit requirements.
City of Los Angeles Regulatory Assessment Support, City of Los Angeles. 2020-Present. City of Los Angeles,
CA.
Task Lead responsible for conducting analyses associated with TMDL compliance, 303(d) listings, Time Schedule
Orders (TSOs), Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs), and re-evaluations of waterbody pollutant combinations for
various watersheds in the Los Angeles Region. Assisted with additional technical support requests such as permit
compliance analyses, alternative TMDL compliance, comment letters, and regulatory assistance.
Street Sweeping Special Study, City of Los Angeles. 2023-Present. City of Los Angeles, CA.
Task Lead responsible for the development of the City of Los Angeles' Street Sweeping Special Study that is focused
on quantifying the effect of street sweeping on removing street dirt and associated pollutants from entering waterways.
Responsibilities included developing the workplan and monitoring plan for the street sweeping study, creating
simulated street dirt, and managing controlled street sweeping testing.
Los Angeles River Temperature Study, City of Los Angeles. 2024-Present. City of Los Angeles, CA.
Technical Lead responsible for creating HEC-RAS model for the Burbank Western Channel and associated
wastewater outfalls in the Los Angeles River watershed. The HEC-RAS model was used to simulate various flow and
temperature scenarios for future BMP and climate -related implementation in the Los Angeles watershed.
Trash Daily Generation Rate Study, City of Los Angeles. 2023. County of Los Angeles, CA.
Task Lead who participated in the trash Daily Generation Rate (DGR) Study to assess compliance with Los Angeles
River Watershed Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for areas using partial capture systems and institutional
measures. Responsibilities included trash collection and monitoring at ten sites over the eight -week study period, trash
characterization, and quantification activities.
Stormwater Program Support, City of Redondo Beach, CA. 2020-2022. Redondo Beach, CA.
Task Lead responsible for the development of website content and public education materials, and other, as needed
services to address the requirements of the MS4 permit.
Malibu Creek Watershed Management Group EWMP Update, Los Angeles County, CA. 2020. Los Angeles
County, CA.
Technical Task Lead responsible for drafting the source assessment appendix for the Malibu Creek Watershed EWMP
Update. Tasks included performing the exceedance analyses, analyzing results from various agencies, reviewing
TMDLs, special studies, and scientific literature.
Upper Santa Clara River EWMP Update, City of Santa Clarita, CA. 2021. Santa Clarita, CA.
Technical Task Lead responsible for supporting updates to the Upper Santa Clara River Enhanced Watershed
Management Plan (EWMP), including reevaluation of water quality priorities, as required by the 2021 Los Angeles
Regional MS4 Permit.
North Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds EWMP Update, City of Malibu, CA. 2021. Malibu, CA.
Technical Task Lead responsible for supporting updates to the North Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds
Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP), including reevaluation of water quality priorities, as required by the
2021 Los Angeles Regional MS4 Permit.
Ventura County Regulatory Support, Ventura County, CA. 2020. Ventura County, CA.
Task Lead responsible for the development of several comment letters for Permittees in Ventura County in response to
the Basin Plan Amendment on Final TMDL Implementation Deadline Extensions in the Los Angeles Region.
Lwo Project Experience
N TETRA TECH
Aric Torreyson, PE, ENV SP
Project Manager
Mr. Torreyson has over 24 years of experience in water resources engineering,
EDUCATION
environmental engineering, and infrastructure assessment and master planning.
BS Civil Engineering, California State
He serves as Program Manager for Tetra Tech's USACE Los Angeles District
Polytechnic University, Pomona
Design IDIQ contract. His expertise spans surface water hydrology, sediment
(2000)
transport, stormwater runoff, and hydraulic and hydrodynamic modeling.
REGISTRATION/CERTIFICATION
Professional Engineer, Civil: CA
He has managed numerous large-scale flood control projects involving complex
License No. 66068
permitting (including UPRR), right-of-way mapping and acquisition, geotechnical
Envision Sustainability Professional
engineering, structural analysis, and environmental compliance. Mr. Torreyson
(5/2022)
has also led multiple Value Engineering studies for the Los Angeles and San
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
Francisco Districts, resulting in significant cost savings. His experience includes
delivering multidisciplinary civil works projects from planning through
American Society of Civil Engineers
construction, with a focus on resilient and effective flood risk reduction solutions.
Association of state Dam safety
Officials
Association of State Floodplain
TETRA TECH PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Managers
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Adventure Park and Alondra Park Multi -Benefit Waste Load Allocation (WLA)
Analysis, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County,
25 Years
CA
YEARS WITH TETRA TECH
Project Manager. Managed the WLA analysis for both park projects to prepare a
17 Years
credit memorandum for Caltrans based on wet and dry weather conditions for the
long-term and 85th percentile. The analysis included land use characteristics of
OFFICE LOCATION
the contributing drainage area, Annual average pollutant loading (based on the
Irvine. CA
most recent 10 years of the WMMS model), and 85th percentile 24-hour storm
runoff for sediment, nutrients, ts, metals, bacteria, and trash. The analysis was
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
performed for Caltrans and non-Caltrans land uses to determine the contribution
Project Management
level and reduction of these pollutant constituents in combination with the
Complete Streets
project funding. The Team worked with LACDPW and Caltrans on the modeling
StormwaterCapture/Reuse
and approval of the credit memorandum. Managing the final design services for
Roadway Improvements
Los Angeles County Public Works to monitor the baseline flow conditions,
Water Quality
optimize the regional system inflow, storage, and outflow, and develop design
Storm Drain Improvements
plans for the 21.5-acre-foot regional stormwater capture facility. The project aims
Utility Relocations
to reduce long-term annual pollutant loading to the Upper San Gabriel River
CEQA/NEPA Permitting
waterways by implementing watershed control measures and structural BMPs
while incorporating additional project benefits such as LID measures and
Caltrans Permitting
sustainable landscaping in the park. The project includes a channel diversion
Right -of -Way Acquisition
system, a pretreatment unit, underground storage, and a post -treatment filtration
USACE 408 Permitting
unit.
Aliso Creek Mainstem Ecosystem Restoration; USACE, Los Angeles District
Design Manager. Managed the design aspect of the multi -disciplinary project;
coordinated with USACE to develop various design alternatives and determine a
preferred solution. The project included the preparation of a feasibility -level
Page 1
Aric Torreyson, PE, ENV SIP
design plan, basis of design report, quantity calculations, and cost estimate to improve Aliso Creek between the
treatment plant owned by the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) and Pacific Park Drive. The design
includes four design alternatives including a no -action plan. Each alternative consists of baseline condition design
(channel grading and riffle structures) and multiple design options (addition measures) that can be incorporated into
the alternative formulation. The design would provide channel stability and aquatic connectivity for selected species
within the project limits. Tetra Tech has been selected to continue the next phase of the project which involves further
development of the USACE's preferred alternative.
City Of Anaheim NPDES Compliance Support Services, City of Anaheim, Anaheim, CA
Principal. The project, commissioned by the City of Anaheim, aimed to model the storm drain system for District 27 as
part of the master drainage plan for the North and South Santa Ana River Tributary Area. The project was executed by
Tetra Tech, who refined the modeling efforts from FY22-23 to identify and address deficiencies within District 27.
The project was divided into five tasks:
1. District 27 Drainage Study: This involved revising hydrology as per Orange County standards, updating H&H to
include BMPs within the watershed, preparing an H&H report, and creating concept drawings to address
existing deficiencies. The goal was to provide a hydrology analysis conforming to the Orange County Hydrology
Manual for potential future submittals requiring Orange County Public Works approval.
2. Revised Hydrology Per Orange County Standards: Tetra Tech coordinated with Orange County to discuss the
methodology for this project. They developed site hydrology using the rational method to calculate peak flow
rates tributary to and conveyed in the State College Storm Drain, County E12 Facility, and ultimately
discharging to the Santa Ana River.
3. Update H&H to include BMPs within the Watershed: The existing hydrology was refined to include existing and
possible proposed BMPs within the watershed. Unit hydrographs were adjusted to account for any flow
diversion to BMPs.
4. Prepare H&H Report: A report was prepared summarizing findings from updated hydrology and hydraulic
findings.
5. Prepare Concept Drawings: Alternatives for diverting flow from the pipe network were determined to reduce
flow to the County E12 Facility.
The project also included management tasks such as providing bi-weekly project updates to the city and facilitating
coordination with OCPW and other agencies as necessary.
Sunset Crossing Park Feasibility Study, County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Alhambra, CA
Project Manager, Senior Engineer. Currently managing the feasibility for the Sunset Crossing Multi -Benefit Storm Water
Capture Feasibility Study. The project is adjacent to Diamond Bar Channel, which drains to San Jose Creek South Fork,
San Jose Creek, and ultimately to the San Gabriel River. San Jose Creek is impaired by ammonia, bacteria, pH, TSS, and
toxicity. San Gabriel River is also impaired and is under TMDLs for metals and selenium. The project is an important
component in treating drainage consisting of approximately 1625 acres of industrial, commercial, and residential
development for zinc and bacteria. In addition to treating stormwater, the project will provide critical park space to the
residents of Diamond Bar and the surrounding DAC directly adjacent to the site. Tetra Tech is responsible for the H&H,
water quality analysis, conceptual design, environmental review, community outreach, and landscape architecture.
OTETRA TECH Page 2
TETRA TECH Timothy P. Tringali, CPESC, QISP, QSD/P
Project Manager/Senior Environmental Scientist
Mr. Tim Tringali is a Senior Environmental Scientist and Project Manager with
EDUCATION
more than 21 years of experience assisting federal, state, and local entities
develop, implement and manage a variety of water resource programs. Much of
B-S-, Ecology and Systematic Biology,
California Polytechnic State
his experience includes management of multi -disciplined teams and execution of
University, 2001
storm water management and compliance programs for the U.S. Air Force,
REGISTRATION/CERTIFICATION
municipalities, coastal ports, and private industry. Mr. Tringali has a strong
understanding of the Clean Water Act, as well related federal and state adopted
Cert- Professional in Erosion and
Sediment Control (#5929)
regulations.
CA Qualified SWPPP
Developer/Practitioner
Mr. Tringali's experience includes assisting clients identify waters protected
CA Qualified Industrial SWPPP
under the CWA; interpret water quality standards-, apply for and comply with
Practitioner (QISP)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits-, and comply with
HAZWOPER -40-hour w/ current 8-
national and local wastewater pretreatment regulations. Mr. Tringali also has a
hour refresher
broad understanding of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
Water Quality Monitoring Design, UC
Berkeley (2012)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Mr. Tringali's noteworthy technical
NEPA (2020)
accomplishments include: previously serving as a U.S. EPA contract inspector for
California -Wide Phase I Municipal and Industrial Storm Water Audits-, managing
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
NPDES compliance for Aera Energy, LLC, which produces oil and gas across a
California Storm Water Quality
4,000 acre lease in Ventura County-, managing monitoring and assessment
Association
programs across San Diego and LA County pursuant to complex regional MS4
Society of American Military
Engineers 1430 (1987)
Permits-, aiding private and municipal clients strategize solutions to complying
with the increasingly complex Industrial General Permit-, and managing the
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Central Coast Cooperative Monitoring Program, which is a large surface water
23 Years
quality monitoring program that fulfills grower requirements enrolled in a regional
YEARS WITH TETRA TECH
waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands.
22 Years
TETRA TECH PROJECT EXPERIENCE OFFICE LOCATION
City of Santa Clarita, Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the Santa Maria, California
Upper Santa Clara River (USCR) Watershed, 2015-Present. As Project Manager, AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Mr. Tringali leads a team of technicians, scientists, and engineers to implement
the USCR CIMP on behalf of the USCR Watershed Management Group (i.e., the
Stormwater permitting, compliance,
planning, and monitoring
City of Santa Clarita, the County of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District). The USCR CIMP monitoring locations consist of both receiving
TMDL planning and implementation
water and outfall monitoring locations, which are sampled during both dry and
Surface water monitoring
wet weather conditions. Monitoring satisfies LA Regional MS4 Permit
Water quality assessment
requirements, including compliance and reporting for TMDLs related to bacteria,
Wastewater discharge permitting,
nitrogen, chloride, and trash. USCR CIMP reporting includes data analysis and
compliance, and pretreatment
development of regular post -event monitoring reports, semi-annual reports using
Erosion/ sediment control
specified CEDEN templates, and Annual Reports according to Los Angeles
BMP selection/evaluation
RWQCB templates. Mr. Tringali frequently supports discussions related to TMDL
NEPA
attainment.
City of Malibu, Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the North
Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds (NSMBCW), 2016-Present. As Project
Manager, Mr. Tringali leads a team of technicians, scientists, and engineers to
Page 1
Timothy P. Tringali, CPESC, QISP, QSD/P
implement the NSMBCW CIMP on behalf of the NSMBCW Watershed Management Group (i.e., the City of Malibu, the
County of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District). The NSMBCW CIMP monitoring locations
consist of both receiving water and outfall monitoring locations, which are sampled during both dry and wet weather
conditions. Monitoring satisfies LA Regional MS4 Permit requirements, including compliance with adopted TMDLs for
bacteria, PCBs/DDT, and trash. NSMBCW CIMP reporting includes data analysis and development of regular post -event
monitoring reports, TMDL reporting, semi-annual reports using specified CEDEN templates, and Annual Reports
according to Los Angeles RWQCB templates. Mr. Tringali frequently supports discussions related to TMDL attainment.
5-year Progress Review & Adaptive Management Recommendations for Middle Santa Margarita River, Riverside County
Flood Control District, Riverside County, CA, 2024. Mr. Tringali led a progress review and assessment of Riverside
County Copermittees' Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) implementation efforts for the 2018-2023 period. He
managed scientists and engineers evaluate dry weather flow and nutrient loading trends at -source, in -stream, and
delivered to the Santa Margarita River and Estuary. He also contributed to Tetra Tech's assessment of Riverside
County Copermittees compliance with WQIP requirements, progress to goals outlined in the WQIP, and strategy
implementation effectiveness based on this data. Finally, Mr. Tringali led a review of the Riverside County Copermittees'
strategy for achieving the proposed TMDLs for the River and Estuary including numeric targets, and the reduction in
pollutant loadings necessary to restore beneficial uses of the Estuary.
Upper Los Angeles River Bacteria Load Reduction Strategy Adaptation Human Waste Source Investigations, 2021
2025. Mr. Tringali is leading human waste source investigations across multiple "areas of investigation" within the
Upper Los Angeles River watershed. Human waste source investigations comprise planning and implementation of
multi -day, synoptic sampling events to characterize E. coli and HF183 (a human -associated biomarker that can be used
for microbial source tracking) in the receiving water, at outfalls, and within outfall catchments. Due to very short
method hold -times and a limited number of commercial labs capable of analyzing for HF183, samples are field -filtered
and placed on dry ice which significantly extends the hold -time of the filters for subsequent analysis. Results are
validated and regularly presented to a Technical Advisory Committee, which `steers' the direction of the human waste
source investigations.
Upper Los Angeles River (ULAR) Bacteria Load Reduction Strategy(LRS) Adaptation, 2020-2021. The ULAR LRS was
developed to guide the ULAR Watershed Management Group's efforts to address the Los Angeles River Bacteria TMDL.
However, to address the challenges encountered during implementation of the original LRS, it was adapted towards a
more efficient and effective strategy that relies on targeting controllable, human fecal sources. Mr. Tringali assisted
with the update of the ULAR LRS, specifically as it related to incorporation of scientific advancements that better
address methods for characterizing human -health risk based on the source of bacteria in a receiving water. Mr. Tringali
collaborated with a team of engineers and scientists to define a framework and methods for performing human waste
source investigations based on predicted risk of outfall catchments. A primary tool proposed in the ULAR LRS
Adaptation Plan was sampling and analysis for HF183, a human -associated biomarker that can be used for microbial
source tracking.
Quincy Jones and Central Jefferson BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Plans and Implementation, 2020-Present. Mr.
Tringali was the Principal Scientist for development of a Sampling and Analysis Plan and Quality Assurance Program
Plan which describes the approach to evaluating performance of two recently constructed green alleys. The plans
describe methods for characterizing untreated and treated pollutant loading; therefore, a combination of flow and
water quality sensors will be used. Monitoring according to the plans will begin mid-2023.
Marine Terminal Stormwater Monitoring Program, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego, CA, 2019-2023. 1 n
response to a Settlement Agreement, Mr. Tringali led development and implementation of a strategic stormwater
monitoring program, which was intended to assess the effectiveness of the Port's Stormwater Management Program
according to effectiveness requirements of the San Diego Water Board's Regional MS4 Permit. The monitoring plan
developed by Mr. Tringali and supporting staff included multiple sample collection methods (grab, composite,
pollutographs) to address a range of objectives.
OTETRA TECH Page 2
TETRA TECH
Lauro Alvarado is a water resources engineer with experience in construction
oversight, stormwater sampling, and database management. He has been
involved in various significant projects, including the implementation of the
NSMBCW CIMP and the USCR CIMP, where he prepared field equipment,
organized sample bottles, and collected stormwater samples. Lauro has also
contributed to the preparation of detailed reports and technical memoranda,
ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. His expertise includes using
ArcMap for flood control work and updating inventories, as well as providing data
review and reporting services.
TETRA TECH PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Upper Santa Clara River Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program, City of
Santa Clarita, CA(2021-2024)
Water Resources Engineer. Work has included preparing field equipment before
stormwater sampling, labeling and organizing sample bottles, and going out into
the field for collection of stormwater samples and measurement of water quality
characteristics as well as documentation of observations. General staff
coordination and project management. Also provided data review and reporting.
Upper Los Angeles River CIMP, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA (2020-
Ongoing)
Stormwater Monitoring. Work has included preparing field equipment before
stormwater sampling, labeling and organizing sample bottles, and going out into
the field for collection of stormwater samples and measurement of water quality
characteristics. Data review, reporting.
Lauro Alvarado, EIT
Water Resources Engineer
EDUCATION
BSCivil Engineering, University of
California, Los Angeles (2019)
REG ISTRATION/CERTI FICATION
Engineer -in -Training: CA License No.
168933 (2019)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
American Society of Civil Engineers
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
5 Years
YEARS WITH TETRA TECH
5 Years
OFFICE LOCATION
Pasadena, CA
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Construction Oversight
Stormwater Sampling
Database Management
Technical Reporting
GIS and ArcMap
Monitoring
Fieldwork
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the North Santa Monica Data Review
Bay Coastal Watersheds (NSMBCW), City of Malibu, Malibu, CA (2020-Ongoing)
Database Management. Implementation of the NSMBCW CIMP on behalf of the
NSMBCW Watershed Management Group (i.e., the City of Malibu, the County of
Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District). The NSMBCW
CIMP monitoring locations consist of both receiving water and outfall monitoring
locations, which are sampled during both dry and wet weather conditions.
Monitoring satisfies Los Angeles Regional MS4 Permit requirements, including
compliance with adopted TMDLs for bacteria, PCBs/DDT, and trash. Work has
included preparing field equipment before stormwater sampling, labeling and
organizing sample bottles, and going out into the field for collection of stormwater
samples and measurement of water quality characteristics. Data review,
reporting.
Page 1
Lauro Alvarado, EIT
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (LIMP) for the Upper Santa Clara River (USCR) Watershed, City of Santa
Clarita, Santa Clarita, CA(2020-Ongoing)
Database Management. Involved in the implementation of the USCR CIMP on behalf of the USCR Watershed
Management Group, which includes the City of Santa Clarita, the County of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County
Flood Control District. The monitoring locations for the USCR CIMP consist of both receiving water and outfall sites,
sampled during both dry and wet weather conditions. This monitoring satisfies the Los Angeles Regional MS4 Permit
requirements, including compliance with adopted TMDLs for bacteria, nitrogen, chloride, and trash. His work has
involved preparing field equipment before stormwater sampling, labeling and organizing sample bottles, and going out
into the field to collect stormwater samples and measure water quality characteristics. Additionally, he has provided
data review and reporting.
Culver Boulevard Stormwater Infiltration and Retention. The City of Culver City, CA (2018-2021)
Water Resources Engineer. Prepared the QAPP for this project including addressing comments from the client.
Specialized Services for CIMP Data Generation, Automated Monitoring Stations, City of Los Angeles, CA (2020 -
Ongoing)
Construction Oversight. Installation of automated monitoring stations for the City. Provided construction oversight that
included photographing work, being on -site during construction, attending pre -construction meetings, and filling out
daily work logs.
OTETRA TECH Page 2
TETRA TECH
Mr. Jack Weil is an environmental scientist with a wide range of experience in
data analysis, GIS mapping, environmental regulatory compliance, field
monitoring and sampling, sustainability, and stakeholder outreach. His expertise
in collecting and analyzing environmental data and his experience within public
regulatory environments make him highly knowledgeable in many different areas
of environmental compliance. His educational background in earth sciences and
engineering showcases the breadth of his expertise and ability to apply a range of
knowledge and experience to complex problems. Jack has provided expertise for
environmental monitoring efforts, commercial and industrial stormwater
compliance, bacteria load reduction assessment, and GIS mapping.
TETRA TECH PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Upper Santa Clara River Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP), City
of Santa Clarita, CA(2023)
Conducted stormwater outfall field sampling during dry weather to monitor
pollution levels in the Upper Santa Clara River through their Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Program. Organized and logged field samples and
completed Chain of Custody forms for delivery to lab facilities.
Marine Terminal Stormwater Monitoring, Port of San Diego, CA (2022-2023)
Conducted stormwater field sampling during storm events to monitor pollution
levels before and after treatment by stormwater BMP facilities. Organized and
logged field samples and completed Chain of Custody forms for delivery to lab
facilities.
Outfall Drainage Field Surveys, County of San Diego Department of Public Works
(2023-present)
Project Manager. Led team to conduct field investigations for the County of San
Diego outfall monitoring program. Coordinating drainage area investigations for
identification and reporting of residential over -irrigation. Creating and sending
educational outreach letters as well as inspection reports for residences where
over -irrigation is detected. Developed field procedures and health and safety
plans for the field team and coordinated the development of field driving routes.
Analyzing data, conducting quality assurance reviews, and developing data
summaries for the County.
Santa Margarita River (SMR) 5-Year Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP)
Progress Review, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(2023-present)
Environmental Scientist. Reviewing water quality data and modeling
methodologies for the SMR to conduct a 5-year progress review for the Riverside
County MS4 Permit Copermittees to show progress toward goals for nutrient
reduction within the Middle SMR subwatershed. Providing water quality
Jack Weil
Environmental Scientist
EDUCATION
MS Earth Sciences, University of
California, San Diego (2022)
BS Civil Engineering, Loyola
Marymount University (2019)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
California Stormwater Quality
Association (CASQA)
Tao Beta Pi Engineering Honor
Society
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
5 Years
YEARS WITH TETRA TECH
1 Years
OFFICE LOCATION
San Diego, CA
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
GIS Mapping
Data Processing and Analysis
Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Regulatory Compliance
Field Monitoring and Sampling -
Stormwater, Soil, Groundwater, and
Surface Water
Stakeholder Outreach
Environmental Compliance
Sustainability Practice
Implementation
Page 1
IMt 1%TITIMI
recommendations and nutrient modeling updates based on a review of data. Conducted MS4 Permit and WQIP review
to establish regulatory context for the 5-year review; reviewed existing water quality data from 2018-2022 and
determined progress evaluation approach for 6 compliance pathways outlined by the 2018 SMR WQIP.
Existing Structural BMP Verification for Trash Devices, County of San Diego Department of Public Works, San Diego, CA
(6/2024-8/2024)
Project Manager. Managed project supporting the County of San Diego with inspections and verifications of stormwater
structural BMPs and determination of device trash capture capacities. Led field team in conducting inspections,
developed health and safety plans, and assessed device condition and recommended maintenance. Communicated
with device manufacturers and the CA Water Board to obtain information needed in trash capture equivalency
research. Conducted hydraulic analyses to determine maximum flow to each device from a 1-yr, 1-hr storm event (as
required by the 2015 Trash Amendments). Calculated BMP device treatment capacity from in -field measurements to
determine trash capture equivalency. Analyzed data, conducted quality assurance reviews, and developed final
summary spreadsheets for the client. The project supported the County's goals of maintaining compliance with state
regulations and MS4 Permit requirements. Although the Trash Amendments have yet to be incorporated into the San
Diego Regional MS4 Permit, this project ensures that the County is prepared for conversations relating to full trash
capture in the future. It also ensures that there is adequate documentation about the type, condition, and trash capture
status for all BMPs that were part of this project.
Rainbow Creek TMDL/TSO Support, City of San Diego, CA (2023-2024)
Project Manager. Reviewed and summarized regional regulatory documents and previous Rainbow Creek studies.
Created a report inventory listing and summarizing previous Rainbow Creek studies. Created an Executive Summary
document outlining relevant information about the watershed and previous work completed. Reviewed management
briefing sheets related to Rainbow Creek and the Santa Margarita River. A significant challenge was piecing together a
wide range of information related to the watershed. Many different studies had been performed with different project
teams, so information had to be gleaned after the fact through a review of previous reports. The solution to this was to
create an Executive Summary for the watershed so that all previous work could be synthesized into an easy -to -
understand document. This solution benefited the client by saving time for future team members; anyone doing work in
the watershed can review the Executive Summary to get up to speed on the work previously completed. The project
supported the client's ability to communicate with the Regional Water Board about the Rainbow Creek TMDL and TSO.
No additional tasks. The project was completed on schedule and within budget.
Virgnia Beach Bacterial TMDL Strategy, City of Virginia Beach, VA (2023-Ongoing)
Data processing and analysis and GIS mapping support for an assessment of the City of Virginia Beach's bacteria
reduction strategy. Gathered available water quality data to conduct a bacteria threshold exceedance assessment to
determine the effectiveness of bacteria reduction strategies within the City. Providing support in identifying gaps in
existing data collection and providing recommendations on improvements to better assess the City's reduction
strategies. Also creating GIS maps and figures to visualize these assessments.
Asset Management GIS Support, City of San Diego, CA (2022- Ongoing)
Supporting GIS digitization of City of San Diego stormwater assets. Reviewed construction As-Builts and identified
installation and removal of stormwater assets to update the City GIS database. Performed georeferencing of
construction As-Builts to identify stormwater asset locations within the City GIS database. Also performing confirmation
of existing database assets through As -Built review, online street view and aerial imagery, and field investigations.
OTETRA TECH Page 2
TETRA TECH Gary G. Wortham
Senior Environmental Scientist/Aquatic Toxicologist
Mr. Wortham has more than 30 years of experience in the environmental
EDUCATION
sciences, with expertise in stormwater, surface water and sediment quality
analytical and field sampling methodologies and project design as well as project
B-S-, Oceanography, California State
University Humboldt, 1987
QA/QC; QAPP development; Health and Safety Plan (HASP) development and
implementation; sampling plan development and implementation and data
REGISTRATION/CERTIFICATION
interpretation; analytical chemical laboratory management; project design;
40 Hour HAZWOPER
aquatic system data analyses; federal and state water quality regulations; field
[29 CFR 1910-1209(e)]-
monitoring (including training field staff on the proper application of the USEPAs
First Aid/CPR
ultra -clean sampling method for low-level mercury and water, sediment and
Active Shooter Response Training
habitat assessments) and marine and freshwater systems aquatic toxicity
methods development.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
34 Years
Mr. Wortham has developed project -specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) for
YEARS WITH TETRA TECH
Chevron, Stringfellow and various other internal and external projects as well as
lead the field sampling, QA/QC and health and safety components of several
26 Years
projects including the California Ocean Plan Compliance study at Pillar Point AFS,
OFFICE LOCATION
Central Coast Monitoring Program, Torres -Martinez Cahuilla Desert Indians
Lafayette, CA
CWA106 and Salton Sea Wetlands Water Quality Plan implementation, Shallow
Habitat management of a wetlands adjacent to the Salton Sea, CA, the New and
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Alamo River Wetlands Salton Sea selenium assessment projects, Pillar Point Air
Stormwater, surface water and
Force Station COP compliance, Central Coast Cooperative Monitoring Program,
sediment quality
San Francisco Bay Selenium Study, San Francisco Bay Tributary Mercury Study
Data QA/QC Assessments
(assisting Regional Water Board 2 staff); City of San Diego Storm Drain
Ultra -clean sampling techniques for
Characterization; Guadalupe River Mercury TMDL, the City of San Jose
low-level metals
Streamflow Augmentation, the Calaveras River Watershed Baseline study, the
Health & Safety
Monterey Harbor Sediment Lead study, the Eureka Waterfront ERA, and has
provided QA/QC review.
TETRA TECH PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program, City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles, CA.
Managed QA/QC assessments of the field and data components of this project,
data validation of CEDEN semi-annual and annual EDDs, and preparation of
summary QA/QC reports. On behalf of the City of Santa Clarita and the County of
Los Angeles, and according to a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program,
Tetra Tech is conducting receiving water monitoring at two sites, stormwater
outfall monitoring at seven sites, and non-stormwater outfall monitoring at nine
sites in the Santa Clara River Watershed. In addition, Tetra Tech is conducting a
special study monitoring fecal indicator bacteria at select stormwater outfalls and
receiving water locations.
North Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds Coordinated Integrated Monitoring
Program, City of Malibu and County of Los Angeles, CA. Managed QA/QC
assessments of the field and data components of this project, data validation of
CEDEN semi-annual and annual EDDs, and preparation of summary QA/QC
Page 1
Gary G. Wortham
reports. On behalf of the City of Malibu and the County of Los Angeles, and according to a Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program, Tetra Tech is conducting stormwater outfall monitoring at two sites and receiving water monitoring
at three sites in the North Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds.
Central Coast Cooperative Monitoring Program. Field and QA/QC Lead, Health and Safety Plan consultant. The overall
goals of the monitoring are to characterize the water quality conditions in watersheds from the Pajaro hydrologic unit in
the north to the South Coast hydrologic unit near Santa Barbara, to understand long-term water quality trends in
agricultural areas, and to meet the requirements specified in the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) for the
Conditional Waiver. Water and sediment quality samples are collected during both dry weather and stormwater
discharge events. An annual report is prepared, and electronic data deliverables are uploaded to CEDEN every quarter.
Trace metal sampling is conducted using EPA ultra -clean methodologies. Mr. Wortham assisted the project manager in
preparing the project -specific health and safety plan and provided review/comment on said document.
North San Francisco Bay Selenium TMDL. Field and QA/QC Lead. Selenium has been a concern in the Central Valley
and San Francisco Bay for several decades, a region with selenium sources from San Joaquin Valley and various point
sources including refineries. A TMDL project is underway to address selenium toxicity in North San Francisco Bay led by
the San Francisco Bay Regional Board. With funding provided by WSPA, Tetra Tech is providing technical support to the
Regional Board for the development of the TMDL. Mr. Wortham is the field lead and primary QA/QC analyst for this
multi -year project which includes sample collection from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Sacramento Valley and from
several of the major tributaries to the North San Francisco Bay. Trace metal sampling was conducted using EPA ultra -
clean methodologies.
Technical Support to the Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (TMDCI) Constructed Wetlands (Salton Sea, CA).
Project Manager, QA/QC Manager. Developed an EPA -approved Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Tribe and
provided ongoing technical support to the TMDCI in implementing their Water Quality Plan for the constructed wetlands
on the Reservation. The purpose of the Torres Martinez Constructed Wetlands Project is to study how wetlands can
improve the quality of Whitewater River water inflows to the Salton Sea by reducing or removing selenium, nutrient, and
bacterial loads into the Sea. To achieve this goal, the inflow and outflow of the Torres Martinez wetlands are monitored
regularly to determine the effectiveness of the design to improve water quality by removing nutrients, sediment,
selenium. and other contaminants.
Ecological Assessment of Gas and Oil Production Activities in the Central Gulf of Thailand, Chevron Thailand Exploration
and Production, Bangkok. Mr. Wortham has been the project health and safety officer since 2000. Mr. Wortham's
responsibilities have included the development, updating, and implementation of the project -specific health and safety
plan (HASP) for the development and implementation of survey program designs, interpretation of benthic community
data, evaluation of bioaccumulation of mercury and arsenic in benthic invertebrates and fishes, and evaluation of risks
to marine environment. Additionally, Mr. Wortham is responsible for data QAQC review. This ongoing project addresses
concerns for potential environmental and human health risks due to levels of mercury and arsenic in sediments and
fish around offshore processing platforms due to the release of mercury in produced waters. The sampling program
includes sampling of sediments, surface water, benthic invertebrates, plankton, and fish to evaluate mercury cycling
and estimate human health risks due to the consumption of fish caught from the platforms. Other studies addressed
spatial and temporal community -level effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on benthic infaunal communities at wellhead
platforms. In addition, Mr. Wortham has included COVID-19 health and safety procedures that are compliant with the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
OTETRA TECH Page 2