Lomita City Council
November 5, 2024

To Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION
If a non-Federal entity (state or non-state) wants to use federal funds to pay or reimburse their expenses for equipment or services under a contract, that contract must contain the applicable clauses described in Appendix II to the Uniform Rules (Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards) under 2 C.F.R. § 200.326. In addition, there are certain contract clauses which are recommended by FEMA.

This document outlines the federally required contract provisions in addition to FEMArecommended provisions. x For some of the required clauses, sample language or references to find sample language are provided.
x Sample language for certain required clauses (remedies, termination for cause and convenience, changes) is not provided since these must be drafted in accordancewith the non-Federal entity’s applicable local laws and procedures. x For the clauses which require that exact language be included, the required languageis provided. Those clauses are specifically identified below.

Please note that the non-Federal entity alone is responsible for ensuring that all language included in their contracts meets the requirements of 2 C.F.R. § 200.326 and 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II.

U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. TOOLS

1. CONTRACT PROVISIONS QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE ...............................................4 II. REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS

1. REMEDIES................................................................................................................6

2. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE AND CONVENIENCE.....................................................6

3. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ....................................................................6

4. DAVIS BACON ACT.................................................................................................10

5. COPELAND ANTI-KICKBACK ACT ...........................................................................11

6. CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT....................................13

7. RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS MADE UNDER A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT…............14

8. CLEAN AIR ACT AND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT… ........... 15

9. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION .......................................................................... 16

10. BYRD ANTI-LOBBYING AMENDMENT................................................................... 18

11. PROCUREMENT OF RECOVERED MATERIALS ...................................................... 21 III. FEMA-RECOMMENDED CONTRACT PROVISIONS

1. ACCESS TO RECORDS............................................................................................ 22

2. CHANGES/MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................. 23

3. NON-USE OF DHS SEAL, LOGO, AND FLAGS.........................................................23

4. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS... 24

5. NO OBLIGATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT .............................................. 24

6. PROGRAM FRAUD AND FALSE/FRADULENT STATEMENTS OR RELATED ACTS....25 U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
Required Contract Provisions: Quick Reference Guide
KEY
Required/Recommended Provision
Required/Recommended Provision and Required Exact Language Not Required for PA Awards (Grants)
Required Provision Contract Criteria Sample Language?

1. Legal/contractual/administrative
remedies for breach of contract
> Simplified Acquisition
Threshold ($250k)
No. It is based on applicant’s
procedures.

2. Termination for cause or
convenience > $10k No. It is based on applicant’s procedures.

3. Equal Employment Opportunity Construction work Yes. 41 CFR Part 60-1.4(b)

4. Davis Bacon Act Construction work Not applicable to PA grants

5. Copeland Anti-Kickback Act Construction work > $2k Not applicable to PA grants

6. Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act
> $100k + mechanics or
laborers Yes. 29 CFR 5.5(b)

7. Rights to inventions made under a
contract or agreement Funding agreement Not applicable to PA grants

8. Clean Air Act and Federal Water
Pollution Control Act >$150k Yes

9. Debarment and Suspension All Yes

10. Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment All
(>$100k: Certification) Yes. Clause and certification

11. Procurement of Recovered
Materials
Applicant is a state or
political subdivision of a
state. Work involves the use
of materials.

Yes
U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
Recommended Contract Provisions: Quick Reference Guide
Recommended Provision Contract Criteria Sample Language?

1. Access to Records All Yes

2. Contract Changes or
Modifications All No. It depends on nature of contract and end-item procured.

3. DHS Seal, Logo, and Flags All Yes

4. Compliance with Federal Law,
Regulations and Executive Orders All Yes

5. No Obligation by Federal
Government All Yes

6. Program Fraud and False or
Fraudulent Statements or Related
Acts
All Yes
U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents

REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS

1. REMEDIES
a. Standard. Contracts for more than the simplified acquisition threshold, currently set at $250,000, must address administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where contractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such sanctions and penalties as appropriate. See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(A).
b. Applicability. This requirement applies to all FEMA grant and cooperative agreement programs.

2. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE AND CONVENIENCE
a. Standard. All contracts in excess of $10,000 must address termination for cause and for convenience by the non-Federal entity, including the manner by which it will be effected and the basis for settlement. See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(B).
b. Applicability. This requirement applies to all FEMA grant and cooperative agreement programs.

3. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If applicable, exact language below in subsection 3.d is required. a. Standard. Except as otherwise provided under 41 C.F.R. Part 60, all contracts that meet the definition of “federally assisted construction contract” in 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.3 must include the equal opportunity clause provided under 41 C.F.R. § 60- 1.4(b), in accordance with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity (30 Fed. Reg. 12319, 12935, 3 C.F.R. Part, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339), as amended by Executive Order 11375, Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity, and implementing regulations at 41 C.F.R. Part 60 (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor). See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(C).

U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
b. Key Definitions.
i. Federally Assisted Construction Contract. The regulation at 41 C.F.R. § 60-

1.3 defines a “federally assisted construction contract” as any agreement or modification thereof between any applicant and a person for construction work which is paid for in whole or in part with funds obtained from the Government or borrowed on the credit of the Government pursuant to any Federal program involving a grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, or undertaken pursuant to any Federal program involving such grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, or any application or modification thereof approved by the Government for a grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee under which the applicant itself participates in the construction work.
ii. Construction Work. The regulation at 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.3 defines “construction work” as the construction, rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, extension, demolition or repair of buildings, highways,or other changes or improvements to real property, including facilities providing utility services. The term also includes the supervision, inspection, and other onsite functions incidental to the actual construction.
c. Applicability. This requirement applies to all FEMA grant and cooperative agreement programs.
d. Required Language. The regulation at 41 C.F.R. Part 60-1.4(b) requires the insertion of the following contract clause.

During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action toensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:

Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. (3) The contractor will not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the compensation of the employee or applicant or another employee or applicant. This provision shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the compensation information of other employees or applicants as a part of such employee's essential job functions discloses the compensation of such other employees or applicants to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a formal complaint or charge, in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or is consistent with the contractor's legal duty to furnish information.
(4) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the contractor's commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
(5) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor.
(6) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to hisbooks, records, and accounts by the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.
(7) In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders,this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or federally assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
(8) The contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (1) and the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (8) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the administering agencymay direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance:

Provided, however, that in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the administering agency, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

The applicant further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in federally assisted construction work: Provided, That if the applicant so participating is a State or local government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the contract.

The applicant agrees that it will assist and cooperate actively with the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor, that it will furnish the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor such information as they may require for the supervision of such compliance, and that it will otherwise assist the administering agency in the discharge of the agency's primary responsibility for securing compliance.

The applicant further agrees that it will refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, Government contracts and federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed upon U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
contractors and subcontractors by the administering agency or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D of the Executive Order. In addition, the applicant agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the administering agency may take any or all of the following actions: Cancel, terminate, or suspend in whole or in part this grant (contract, loan, insurance, guarantee); refrain from extending any further assistance to the applicant under the program with respect to which the failure or refund occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from such applicant; and refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings.

4. DAVIS-BACON ACT
a. Standard. All prime construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by nonFederal entities must include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3144 and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department ofLabor regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 5 (Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(D). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once aweek. b. Applicability. The Davis-Bacon Act only applies to the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant Program, Homeland Security Grant Program, Nonprofit Security Grant Program, Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program, Port Security Grant Program, and Transit Security Grant Program. It DOES NOT apply to other FEMA grant and cooperative agreement programs, including the Public Assistance Program.
c. Requirements. If applicable, the non-federal entity must do the following:
i. The non-Federal entity must place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each solicitation.

The decision to award a contract or subcontract must be conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The non-Federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency.
ii. Additionally, pursuant 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(D), contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, must also include a provision for compliance with U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (40 U.S.C. § 3145), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 3 (Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States). The Copeland AntiKickback Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The nonFederal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to FEMA. iii. Include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5, “Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction”).

Suggested Language. The following provides a sample contract clause:

Compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act.
a. All transactions regarding this contract shall be done in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-
3144, and 3146-3148) and the requirements of 29 C.F.R.
pt. 5 as may be applicable. The contractor shall comply with 40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, and 3146-3148 and the
requirements of 29 C.F.R. pt. 5 as applicable.
b. Contractors are required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages
specified in a wage determination made by the
Secretary of Labor.
c. Additionally, contractors are required to pay wages not less than once a week.

5. COPELAND ANTI-KICKBACK ACT
a. Standard. Recipient and subrecipient contracts must include a provision for compliance with the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (40 U.S.C. 3145), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3, “Contractorsand Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States”).

U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
b. Applicability. This requirement applies to all contracts for construction or repair work above $2,000 in situations where the Davis-Bacon Act also applies. It DOES NOT apply to the FEMA Public Assistance Program.
c. Requirements. If applicable, the non-federal entity must include a provision for compliance with the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (40 U.S.C. § 3145), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 3 (Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States). Each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The non-Federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to FEMA. Additionally, in accordance with the regulation, each contractor and subcontractor must furnish each week a statement with respect to the wages paid each of its employees engaged in work covered by the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act and the Davis Bacon Act during the preceding weekly payroll period. The report shall be delivered by the contractor or subcontractor, within seven days after the regular payment date of the payroll period, to a representative of a Federal or State agency in charge at the site of the building or work.

Sample Language. The following provides a sample contract clause:

Compliance with the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act.
a. Contractor. The contractor shall comply with 18 U.S.C. § 874, 40 U.S.C. § 3145, and the requirements of 29 C.F.R. pt. 3 as may be applicable, which are incorporated by reference into this contract.
b. Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor shall insert in any subcontracts the clause above and such other clauses as FEMA may by appropriate instructions require, and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime contractor shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor orlower tier subcontractor with all of these contract clauses.
c. Breach. A breach of the contract clauses above may be grounds for termination of the contract, and fordebarment U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
as a contractor and subcontractor as provided in 29 C.F.R. §

5.12.”

6. CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT
a. Standard. Where applicable (see 40 U.S.C. §§ 3701-3708), all contracts awarded by the non-Federal entity in excess of $100,000 that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers must include a provision for compliance with 40 U.S.C. §§ 3702 and 3704, as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 5. See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(E). Under 40 U.S.C. § 3702, each contractor must be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than one and a half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. Further, no laborer or mechanic must be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous.
b. Applicability. This requirement applies to all FEMA contracts awarded by the nonfederal entity in excess of $100,000 under grant and cooperative agreement programs that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers. It is applicable to construction work. These requirements do not apply to the purchase of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. c. Suggested Language. The regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(b) provides contract clause language concerning compliance with the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. FEMA suggests including the following contract clause:

Compliance with the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. (1) Overtime requirements. No contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall require or permit any such laborer or mechanic in any workweek in which he or she is employed on such work to work in excess of forty hours in such workweek unless such laborer or mechanic receives compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in such workweek.

U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
(2) Violation; liability for unpaid wages; liquidated damages. In the event of any violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section the contractor and any subcontractor responsible therefor shall be liable for the unpaid wages. In addition, such contractor and subcontractor shall be liable to the United States (in the case of work done under contract for the District of Columbia or a territory, to such District or to such territory), for liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each individual laborer or mechanic, including watchmen and guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in the sumof $27 for each calendar day on which such individual was required or permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty hours without payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidated damages. The (write in the name of the Federal agency or the loan or grant recipient) shall upon its own action or upon written request of an authorized representative of the Department of Labor withhold or cause to be withheld, from any moneys payable on account of work performed by the contractor or subcontractor under any such contract or any other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally-assisted contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, which is held by the same prime contractor, such sums as may be determined to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such contractor or subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated damages as provided in the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of thissection. (4) Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor shall insert in any subcontracts the clauses set forth in paragraph (b)(1) through (4) of thissection and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

7. RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS MADE UNDER A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT a. Standard. If the FEMA award meets the definition of “funding agreement” under 37C.F.R. § 401.2(a) and the non-Federal entity wishes to enter into a contract with a small business firm or nonprofit organization regarding the substitution of parties, assignment or performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under that “funding agreement,” the nonFederal entity must comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. Part 401 (Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business FirmsUnder U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements), and any implementing regulations issued by FEMA. See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(F).
b. Applicability. This requirement applies to “funding agreements,” but it DOES NOT apply to the Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Fire Management Assistance Grant Program, Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Grant Program, Disaster Case Management Grant Program, and Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households – Other Needs Assistance Grant Program, as FEMA awards under these programs do not meet the definition of “fundingagreement.”
c. Funding Agreements Definition. The regulation at 37 C.F.R. § 401.2(a) defines “funding agreement” as any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into between any Federal agency, other than the Tennessee Valley Authority, and any contractor for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work funded in whole or in part by the Federal government. This term also includes any assignment, substitution of parties, or subcontract of any type entered into for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under a funding agreement as defined in the first sentence of this paragraph.

8. CLEAN AIR ACT AND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT a. Standard. If applicable, contracts must contain a provision that requires the contractor to agree to comply with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387).

Violations must be reported to FEMA and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency. See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(G). b. Applicability. This requirement applies to contracts awarded by a non-federal entity of amounts in excess of $150,000 under a federal grant. c. Suggested Language. The following provides a sample contract clause.

Clean Air Act

1. The contractor agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.

2. The contractor agrees to report each violation to the (name of applicant entering into the contract) and understands and agrees that the (name of the applicant entering into the contract) will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office.

3. The contractor agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $150,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FEMA.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

1. The contractor agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

2. The contractor agrees to report each violation to the (name of the applicant entering into the contract) and understands and agrees that the (name of the applicant entering into the contract) will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office.

3. The contractor agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $150,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided byFEMA.

9. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
a. Standard. Non-Federal entities and contractors are subject to the debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension (1986) and Executive Order 12689, Debarment and Suspension (1989) at 2 C.F.R. Part 180 and the Department of Homeland Security’s regulations at 2 C.F.R. Part 3000 (Nonprocurement Debarment andSuspension). b. Applicability. This requirement applies to all FEMA grant and cooperative U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
agreement programs.
c. Requirements.
i. These regulations restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs and activities.

See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(H); and 2 C.F.R. § 200.213. A contract award must not be made to parties listed in the SAM Exclusions. SAM Exclusions is the list maintained by the General Services Administration that contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. SAM exclusions can be accessed at www.sam.gov. See 2 C.F.R. § 180.530. ii. In general, an “excluded” party cannot receive a Federal grant award or a contract within the meaning of a “covered transaction,” to include subawards and subcontracts. This includes parties that receive Federal funding indirectly, such as contractors to recipients and subrecipients.

The key to the exclusion is whether there is a “covered transaction,” which is any nonprocurement transaction (unless excepted) at either a “primary” or “secondary” tier. Although“covered transactions” do not include contracts awarded by the Federal Government for purposes of the nonprocurement common rule and DHS’s implementing regulations, it does include some contracts awarded by recipients andsubrecipients. iii. Specifically, a covered transaction includes the following contracts for goods or services:

1. The contract is awarded by a recipient or subrecipient in the amount of at least $25,000.

2. The contract requires the approval of FEMA, regardless of amount.

3. The contract is for federally-required audit services.

4. A subcontract is also a covered transaction if it is awarded by the contractor of a recipient or subrecipient and requires either the approval of FEMA or is in excess of$25,000.
d. Suggested Language. The following provides a debarment and suspension U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
clause. It incorporates an optional method of verifying that contractors are not excluded or disqualified.

Suspension and Debarment
(1) This contract is a covered transaction for purposes of 2 C.F.R. pt. 180 and 2 C.F.R. pt. 3000. As such, the contractor is required to verify that none of the contractor’s principals (defined at 2 C.F.R. § 180.995) or its affiliates (defined at 2 C.F.R. § 180.905) are excluded (defined at 2 C.F.R. § 180.940) or disqualified (defined at 2 C.F.R. § 180.935).
(2) The contractor must comply with 2 C.F.R. pt. 180, subpart C and2 C.F.R. pt. 3000, subpart C, and must include a requirement to comply with these regulations in any lower tier covered transaction it enters into. (3) This certification is a material representation of fact relied upon by (insert name of recipient/subrecipient/applicant). If it is later determined that the contractor did not comply with 2 C.F.R. pt. 180, subpart C and 2 C.F.R. pt. 3000, subpart C, in addition to remedies available to (insert name of recipient/subrecipient/applicant), the Federal Government may pursue available remedies, including but not limited to suspension and/or debarment.
(4) The bidder or proposer agrees to comply with the requirements of2 C.F.R. pt. 180, subpart C and 2 C.F.R. pt. 3000, subpart C while this offer is valid and throughout the period of any contract that may arise from this offer.

The bidder or proposer further agrees to include a provision requiring such compliance in its lower tier covered transactions.

10. BYRD ANTI-LOBBYING AMENDMENT
a. Standard. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. § 1352. FEMA’s regulation at 44 C.F.R. Part 18 implements the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 1352 and provides, in Appendix A to Part 18, a copy of the certification that is required to be completed by each entity as described in 31 U.S.C. § 1352. Each tier must also disclose anylobbying with non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the Federal awarding agency.
b. Applicability. This requirement applies to all FEMA grant and cooperative agreement programs. Contractors that apply or bid for a contract of $100,000 or more under a federal grant must file the required certification. See 2 C.F.R.

Part 200, Appendix II(I); 31 U.S.C. § 1352; and 44 C.F.R. Part 18. c. Suggested Language.

Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment, 31 U.S.C. § 1352 (as amended) Contractors who apply or bid for an award of $100,000 or more shall file the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant, or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. § 1352. Each tier shall also disclose any lobbying with non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the recipient who in turn will forward the certification(s) to the awarding agency.
d. Required Certification. If applicable, contractors must sign and submit to the non-federal entity the following certification.

APPENDIX A, 44 C.F.R. PART 18 – CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and discloseaccordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

The Contractor, , certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracyof each statement of its certification and disclosure, if any. In addition, the Contractor understands and agrees that the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Chap. 38, Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements, apply to this certification and disclosure, if any.

Signature of Contractor’s Authorized Official
Name and Title of Contractor’s Authorized Official
Date
U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents

11. PROCUREMENT OF RECOVERED MATERIALS
a. Standard. A non-Federal entity that is a state agency or agency of a political subdivision of a state and its contractors must comply with Section 6002 ofthe Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II(J); and 2 C.F.R. § 200.322. b. Applicability. This requirement applies to all contracts awarded by a nonfederal entity under FEMA grant and cooperative agreement programs. c. Requirements. The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the EPA at 40 C.F.R. Part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of the quantity acquired by the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10,000; procuring solid waste management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and establishing an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidelines.
d. Suggested Language.
i. In the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall make maximum use of products containing recovered materials that are EPA-designated items unless the product cannot be acquired—

1. Competitively within a timeframe providing forcompliance with the contract performance schedule;

2. Meeting contract performance requirements; or

3. At a reasonable price.
ii. Information about this requirement, along with the list of EPAdesignated items, is available at EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines web site, https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensiveprocurement-guideline-cpg-program. iii. The Contractor also agrees to comply with all other applicable requirements of Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.” U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents

RECOMMENDED CONTRACT PROVISIONS
The Uniform Rules authorize FEMA to require additional provisions for non-Federal entity contracts. Although FEMA does not currently require additional provisions, FEMA recommends the following:

1. ACCESS TO RECORDS
a. Standard. All recipients, subrecipients, successors, transferees, and assignees must acknowledge and agree to comply with applicable provisions governing DHS access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff.

Recipients must give DHS/FEMA access to, and the right to examine and copy, records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the federal financial assistance award and permit access to facilities, personnel, and other individuals and information as may be necessary, as required by DHS regulations and other applicable laws or program guidance. See DHS Standard Terms and Conditions: Version 8.1 (2018). Additionally, Section 1225 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 prohibits FEMA from providing reimbursement to any state, local, tribal, or territorial government, or private non-profit for activities made pursuant to a contract that purports to prohibit audits or internal reviews by the FEMA administrator or Comptroller General. b. Suggested Language.

Access to Records. The following access to records requirements apply to this contract:
(1) The Contractor agrees to provide (insert name of state agency or local or Indian tribal government), (insert name of recipient), the FEMA Administrator, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their authorized representatives access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Contractor which are directly pertinent to this contract for the purposes of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions.
(2) The Contractor agrees to permit any of the foregoing parties to reproduce by any means whatsoever or to copy excerpts and transcriptions as reasonably needed.
(3) The Contractor agrees to provide the FEMA Administrator or U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
his authorized representatives access to construction or other work sites pertaining to the work being completed under the contract.
(4) In compliance with the Disaster Recovery Act of 2018, the (write in name of the non-federal entity) and the Contractor acknowledge and agree that no language in this contract is intended to prohibit audits or internal reviews by the FEMA Administrator or the Comptroller General of the United States.

2. CHANGES
a. Standard. To be eligible for FEMA assistance under the non-Federal entity’s FEMA grant or cooperative agreement, the cost of the change, modification, change order, or constructive change must be allowable, allocable, within the scope of its grant or cooperative agreement, and reasonable for the completion of project scope.
b. Applicability. FEMA recommends, therefore, that a non-Federal entity include a changes clause in its contract that describes how, if at all, changes can be made by either party to alter the method, price, or schedule of the work without breaching the contract. The language of the clause may differ depending on the nature of the contract and the end-item procured.

3. DHS SEAL, LOGO, AND FLAGS
a. Standard. Recipients must obtain permission prior to using the DHS seal(s), logos, crests, or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials. See DHS Standard Terms and Conditions: Version 8.1 (2018).
b. Applicability. FEMA recommends that all non-Federal entities place in their contracts a provision that a contractor shall not use the DHS seal(s), logos, crests, or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials without specific FEMA pre-approval.
c. Suggested Language.
“The contractor shall not use the DHS seal(s), logos, crests, or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials without specific FEMA pre-approval.” U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents

4. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS a. Standard. The recipient and its contractors are required to comply with all Federal laws, regulations, and executive orders.
b. Applicability. FEMA recommends that all non-Federal entities place into their contracts an acknowledgement that FEMA financial assistance will be used to fund the contract along with the requirement that the contractor will comply with all applicable Federal law, regulations, executive orders, and FEMA policies, procedures, anddirectives.
c. Suggested Language.
“This is an acknowledgement that FEMA financial assistance will be used to fund all or a portion of the contract. The contractor will comply with all applicable Federal law, regulations, executive orders, FEMA policies, procedures, and directives.”

5. NO OBLIGATION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
a. Standard. FEMA is not a party to any transaction between the recipient and its contractor. FEMA is not subject to any obligations or liable to any party for any matter relating to the contract.
b. Applicability. FEMA recommends that the non-Federal entity include a provision in its contract that states that the Federal Government is not a party to the contract and is not subject to any obligations or liabilities to the non-Federal entity, contractor, or any other party pertaining to any matter resulting from the contract.
c. Suggested Language.
“The Federal Government is not a party to this contract and is not subject to any obligations or liabilities to the non-Federal entity, contractor, orany other party pertaining to any matter resulting from thecontract.”

6. PROGRAM FRAUD AND FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR RELATED ACTS a. Standard. Recipients must comply with the requirements of The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733) which prohibits the submission of false or U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters
500 C St SW
Washington, D.C. 20042

To Table of Contents
fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government. See DHS Standard Terms and Conditions: Version 8.1 (2018); and 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801-3812, which details the administrative remedies for false claims and statements made. The non-Federal entity must include a provision in its contract that the contractor acknowledges that 31 U.S.C. Chap. 38 (Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements) applies to its actions pertaining to thecontract. b. Applicability. FEMA recommends that the non-Federal entity include a provision in its contract that the contractor acknowledges that 31 U.S.C. Chap. 38 (Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements) applies to its actions pertaining to the contract.
c. Suggested Language.
“The Contractor acknowledges that 31 U.S.C. Chap. 38 (Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements) applies to the Contractor’s actions pertaining to this contract.”

APPENDIX VIII

NDPES PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE

LOS ANGELES REGION
3(50,7NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-1
1'3(63(50,712&$6

CONTENTS
I. Permit Information.............................................................................................................F-6 A. Dischargers................................................................................................................F-7 B. Discharges.................................................................................................................F-7 C. Permit Scope .............................................................................................................F-7 D. Rationale for Issuance of a Regional Phase I MS4 Permit........................................F-8 II. Facility Description..........................................................................................................F-11 A. Description of Receiving Waters and Watershed Management Areas....................F-11 B. Geographic Coverage and Watershed Management Areas....................................F-11 C. Description of the Permittees’ MS4s........................................................................F-22 D. Description of Flood Control District Permittees ......................................................F-27 E. Nature of MS4 Discharges as a Source of Pollutants to Receiving Waters and Need for Regulation ..........................................................................................................F-28 F. History of the Previous Permits ...............................................................................F-48 G. Summary of Requirements in Previous Permits ......................................................F-51 H. Permit Applications ..................................................................................................F-60 III. Applicable Federal and State Laws, Regulations, Plans, and Policies ...........................F-61 A. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Requirements........................................F-61 B. Water Quality Control Plans ....................................................................................F-62 C. National Toxics Rule (NTR) and California Toxics Rule (CTR) ...............................F-64 D. Endangered Species Acts .......................................................................................F-65 E. NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (e-Rule).............................................................F-65 F. Monitoring and Reporting ........................................................................................F-65 G. Standard Provisions.................................................................................................F-66 H. Antidegradation Policy .............................................................................................F-66 I. Anti-Backsliding Requirements..............................................................................F-102 J. Human Right to Water Law....................................................................................F-122 K. Advancing Measures to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change ...........................F-122 L. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)........................................................F-124 M. Advancing Racial Equity ........................................................................................F-124 N. Other Plans, Policies, and Regulations .................................................................F-124 IV. Rationale for Discharge Prohibitions.............................................................................F-124 A. Non-Stormwater Discharges..................................................................................F-124 B. Trash......................................................................................................................F-139 V. Rationale for Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications ...................................F-144 A. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations .................................................................F-144 B. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) ............................................F-147 VI. Rationale for Total Maximum Daily Load Provisions.....................................................F-153 A. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and Relationship to TMDLs .........................F-153 B. TMDLs and Their Implementation Through NPDES Permits.................................F-153 C. TMDL Provisions ...................................................................................................F-155 D. Manner of TMDL Incorporation..............................................................................F-168 E. WQBELs for Trash.................................................................................................F-178 F. U.S. EPA Established TMDLs ...............................................................................F-181 G. Compliance Schedules for Achieving TMDL Requirements ..................................F-188 H. Considerations Regarding Extensions of TMDL Deadlines...................................F-201 VII. Rationale for Receiving Water Limitations ....................................................................F-202 MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-2
VIII. Rationale for Standard Provisions ................................................................................. F-205 A. Standard Provisions ............................................................................................... F-205 B. Legal Authority ....................................................................................................... F-205 C. Fiscal Resources ................................................................................................... F-206 D. Responsibilities of the Permittees .......................................................................... F-206 E. Public Review and Los Angeles Water Board Review .......................................... F-207 F. Reopener and Modification Provisions .................................................................. F-207 G. Other Provisions .................................................................................................... F-207 IX. Rationale for Stormwater Management Programs and MCMs ..................................... F-207 A. General Requirements ........................................................................................... F-208 B. Progressive Enforcement ...................................................................................... F-210 C. Modifications/Revisions ......................................................................................... F-211 D. Public Information and Participation Program ....................................................... F-211 E. Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program .............................................................. F-216 F. Planning and Land Development Program ............................................................ F-221 G. Construction Program ............................................................................................ F-224 H. Public Agency Activities Program .......................................................................... F-227 I. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program .............................................. F-233 X. Rationale for Watershed Management Programs ......................................................... F-238 A. Previous Permit Requirements .............................................................................. F-238 B. General Rationale for All Watershed Management Programs ............................... F-239 C. Schedule for Development or Revision of the Watershed Management Program F-242 D. Participation in Watershed Management Programs .............................................. F-243 E. Program Development ........................................................................................... F-244 F. Watershed Management Program Implementation ............................................... F-246 G. Integrated Watershed Monitoring and Assessment ............................................... F-247 H. Adaptive Management Process ............................................................................. F-247 XI. Rationale for Compliance Determination Provisions ..................................................... F-248 A. General Compliance Provisions ............................................................................ F-249 B. WQBELs and Receiving Water Limitations for Pollutants Other Than Trash ........ F-249 C. WQBELs and Receiving Water Limitations for Trash ............................................ F-252 D. Commingled Discharges ........................................................................................ F-252 E. Time Schedule Orders ........................................................................................... F-253 XII. Rationale for Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ................................................. F-253 A. Legal Authorities Supporting Monitoring and Reporting ........................................ F-254 B. General Monitoring Provisions ............................................................................... F-258 C. Monitoring Programs ............................................................................................. F-259 D. Monitoring Locations for Ventura County MS4 Permittees .................................... F-260 E. Receiving Water Monitoring Requirements ........................................................... F-261 F. Stormwater Outfall-Based Monitoring Requirements ............................................ F-292 G. Non-Stormwater Outfall-Based Screening and Monitoring Requirements ............ F-293 H. TMDL Monitoring ................................................................................................... F-300 I. Outfall-Based Database ......................................................................................... F-301 J. Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring Methods ..................................................................... F-301 K. Regional Studies .................................................................................................... F-304 L. Special Studies ...................................................................................................... F-304 M. Reporting Requirement Objectives ........................................................................ F-304 N. Standard Monitoring and Reporting Provisions ..................................................... F-305 O. Reporting Requirements ........................................................................................ F-305 P. TMDL Reporting .................................................................................................... F-307 XIII. California Water Code Section 13241 ........................................................................... F-307 MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-3
A. Past, Present, and Probable Future Beneficial Uses of Water .............................. F-311 B. Environmental Characteristics of the Hydrographic Unit Under Consideration, Including the Quality of Water Available Thereto ................................................... F-312 C. Water Quality Conditions that Could Reasonably be Achieved Through the Coordinated Control of All Factors Which Affect Water Quality in the Area .......... F-313 D. Economic Considerations ...................................................................................... F-319 E. The Need for Developing Housing Within the Region ........................................... F-374 F. The Need to Develop and Use Recycled Water .................................................... F-375 XIV. State Mandates ............................................................................................................. F-380 A. Renewal of the Permits Is Not a New Program Or Higher Level of Service .......... F-380 B. The Permit Requirements Fall Under Several Exceptions to Mandates Rules ...... F-381 XV. Public Participation ........................................................................................................ F-387 A. Permittee and Stakeholder Participation in Permit Issuance Process ................... F-387 B. Notification to Permittees and Interested Parties ................................................... F-404 C. Written Comments ................................................................................................. F-404 D. Public Hearing ....................................................................................................... F-405 E. Reconsideration of Waste Discharge Requirements ............................................. F-405 F. Information and Copying ........................................................................................ F-405 G. Register of Interested Persons .............................................................................. F-405 H. Additional Information ............................................................................................ F-406 TABLES
Table F-1. Facility Information ................................................................................................... F-6 Table F-2. Select Permittees’ MS4-Related Infrastructure ...................................................... F-23 Table F-3. Los Angeles County Impervious Area .................................................................... F-24 Table F-4. Summary of Major Constituents Exceeding TMDL Targets and/or Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives at Mass Emission Stations During Wet Weather Conditions (2009- 2017) ........................................................................................................................ F-33 Table F-5. Summary of Major Constituents Exceeding TMDL Targets and/or Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives at Mass Emission Stations During Dry Weather Conditions (2009- 2017) ........................................................................................................................ F-34 Table F-6. Summary of Wet Weather Bacteria Monitoring at Receiving Water Stations ......... F-35 Table F-7. Summary of Wet Weather Bacteria Monitoring at Outfall Stations ......................... F-36 Table F-8. Summary of Dry Weather Bacteria Monitoring at Receiving Water Stations .......... F-36 Table F-9. Summary of Dry Weather Bacteria Monitoring at Outfall Stations .......................... F-38 Table F-10. Summary of Wet Weather Metals Receiving Water Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples) ..................................................................... F-40 Table F-11. Summary of Wet Weather Metals Outfall Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples) .................................................................... F-41 Table F-12. Summary of Dry Weather Metals Receiving Water Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples) .................................................................... F-43 Table F-13. Summary of Dry Weather Metals Outfall Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples) .................................................................... F-44 Table F-14. Summary of Nutrients Receiving Water Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples) ........................................................................................ F-45 Table F-15. Summary of Nutrients Outfall Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples) ........................................................................................ F-45 Table F-16. Summary of Salts Monitoring at Receiving Water Stations .................................. F-46 Table F-17. Summary of Salts Monitoring at Outfall Stations .................................................. F-46 MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-4
Table F-18. Summary of Toxic Pollutants Receiving Water Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples) ..................................................................... F-47 Table F-19. Multi-benefit projects funded through Proposition 1 To Date ............................... F-81 Table F-20. Measure W Funded Projects (2020-2021) ........................................................... F-86 Table F-21. Changes to Effluent Limitations in Previous MS4 Permits ................................. F-102 Table F-22. General NPDES Permits, WDRs and Conditional Waivers Applicable to NonStormwater Discharges ......................................................................................... F-131 Table F-23. Selected Compliance Option in Response to California Water Code Section 13383 Orders .................................................................................................................... F-141 Table F-24. Incorporated TMDLs and Programs of Implementation ...................................... F-157 Table F-25. Status of TMDLs in the Regional MS4 Permit and Previous MS4 Permits ......... F-164 Table F-26. TMDL Final Implementation Deadlines .............................................................. F-191 Table F-27. Rationale for Recommended Reporting Levels (RLs) in the Regional MS4 Permit . F266 Table F-28. Estimated Costs of Implementing TMDLs Through the Order by Watershed (millions, 2019 dollars). .......................................................................................... F-325 Table F-29. Permittees’ Projected Cost Estimates for EWMP Full Implementation (millions of dollars, 2019$). ...................................................................................................... F-327 Table F-30. Permittees’ Projected Cost Estimates for WMP Full Implementation (millions of dollars, 2019$). ...................................................................................................... F-328 Table F-31. Permittees’ Projected Cost Estimates for WMP/EWMP Full Implementation, by Permittee (millions, 2019$) .................................................................................... F-329 Table F-32. Ventura County Permittees’ Projected Capital Cost Estimates for Full Implementation through 2040, by Permittee (millions, 2019$)............................... F-333 Table F-33. Ventura County Permittees’ Projected Annual O&M Cost Estimates for Capital Projects (millions, 2019$). ..................................................................................... F-334 Table F-34. Ventura County Permittees’ Projected Total Cost Estimates for Capital Projects (millions, 2019$). ................................................................................................... F-335 Table F-35. Ventura County WMP Development Costs (millions, 2019$). ............................ F-336 Table F-36. Estimated Annual Costs Incurred by Ventura County MS4 Permittees for Stormwater Programs (2019$) .............................................................................. F-337 Table F-37. Estimated Annual Costs Incurred by Los Angeles County Permittees for Implementation of Stormwater Programs (2019$) ................................................. F-338 Table F-38. Total 20-Year MS4 Costs Estimated from Method 1 (millions, 2019$) ............... F-342 Table F-39. Total 20-Year MS4 Costs Estimated from Method 2 (millions, 2019$) ............... F-342 Table F-40. Estimated Annual Safe, Clean Water Program Municipal Program Funds, by Permittee ............................................................................................................... F-352 Table F-41. Estimated Annual Safe, Clean Water Program Regional Program Funds by Watershed Area ..................................................................................................... F-353 Table F-42. Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Benefit Assessment Program Revenue for NPDES Compliance ............................................................................................................ F-356 Table F-43. Other Existing Municipal Stormwater Fees in the Los Angeles Region.............. F-357 Table F-44. Funds Allocated to Stormwater Management in Los Angeles County Up To 2012 .. F358 Table F-45. Potential Future State and Federal Grant Sources ............................................ F-359 Table F-46. Potential Future State and Federal Loan Sources ............................................. F-361

FIGURES
Figure F-1. Non-Stormwater Outfall-Based Screening and Monitoring Program General Process ...................................................................................................................................... F-294 MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-5
Figure F-2. Map of Watershed Areas, Watershed Management Program Areas, and Enhanced Watershed Management Program Areas ...................................................................... F-354 MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-6
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET
As described in Part II of the Order, the Los Angeles Water Board incorporates this Fact Sheet as findings of the Los Angeles Water Board supporting the issuance of the Order. This Fact Sheet sets forth the principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological, and policy and technical rationale that serve as the basis for the requirements of the Order.

I. PERMIT INFORMATION
The following table summarizes administrative information related to the facility and the Dischargers.

Table F-1. Facility Information
WDID No.1 Various (see Table 2 and Table 3 of the Order) Dischargers
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), the County of Los Angeles, the 85 incorporated cities within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD), the County of Ventura, and the 10 incorporated cities within Ventura County (see Table 2 and Table 3 of the Order)2
Name of Facility Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)3 within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura counties
Facility Contacts,
Titles, Addresses, and
Phone Numbers
Available through the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS)4 at
https://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/smarts/faces/SwSmartsLogin.xhtml Mailing Addresses Refer to SMARTS
Billing Addresses Refer to SMARTS
Type of Facility Large Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Major or Minor Facility Major
Discharge Points Locations throughout the Los Angeles Region Discharge Description Stormwater and Non-Stormwater Discharges Receiving Waters Various (see Part II.A of this Fact Sheet) 1 WDID No. stands for “Waste Discharge Identification” Number, which is a unique identifier given to a specific facility and regulatory measure (e.g., NPDES permit). In the case of the Order, each Discharger has a unique WDID number associated with its coverage under the Order. 2 Note that the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster, though in Los Angeles County, are not within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County and, therefore, are not under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Water Board. These two cities are under the jurisdiction of the Lahontan Water Board. 3 See Attachment A of the Order for definitions of terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used in the Order, including this Fact Sheet and all other attachments.
4 SMARTS provides a platform where dischargers, regulators, and the public can enter, manage, and view stormwater data including permit applications and compliance and monitoring data associated with NPDES permits for stormwater discharges issued by the State of California. SMARTS is compliant with U.S. EPA’s Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule, which sets requirements for electronic reporting of NPDES permit-related submittals.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-7
Receiving Water Type
Inland surface waters, estuarine waters, and marine waters, including but not limited to, lakes, rivers, estuaries, lagoons, harbors, bays, beaches, and the Pacific Ocean
A. Dischargers
The 99 municipalities listed in Table 2 and Table 3 of the Order are the owners and/or operators5 of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems within the Los Angeles Region (hereinafter Facility or MS4). For the purposes of the Order, the entities listed in Table 2 and Table 3 of the Order are hereinafter referred to separately as “Permittees” and jointly as the “Dischargers.” References to “discharger” or “permittee” or “co-permittee” or “municipality” in applicable federal and state laws, regulations, plans, or policy are held to be equivalent to references to the Dischargers or Permittees herein.

References to “Los Angeles County MS4 Permittees” or “Los Angeles County Permittees” refer to LACFCD, the County of Los Angeles, and the 85 incorporated cities within Los Angeles County, excluding Lancaster and Palmdale which are not within the Los Angeles Water Board’s jurisdiction. References to “Ventura County MS4 Permittees” or “Ventura County Permittees” refers to VCWPD, the County of Ventura, and the 10 incorporated cities within Ventura County. Furthermore, reference to “Los Angeles Region” is defined per California Water Code section 13200(d) as follows: “Los Angeles region, which comprises all basins draining into the Pacific Ocean between the southeasterly boundary, located in the westerly part of Ventura County, of the watershed of Rincon Creek and a line which coincides with the southeasterly boundary of Los Angeles County from the ocean to San Antonio Peak and follows thence the divide between San Gabriel River and Lytle Creek drainages to the divide between Sheep Creek and San Gabriel River drainages.”
B. Discharges
Information about the Facility’s stormwater and non-stormwater discharges to waters of the United States is summarized in Table F-1 above. Permittees were previously regulated by (1) Order No. R4-2010-0108 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS004002, effective on July 8, 2010, (2) Order No. R4- 2012-0175 and NPDES No. CAS004001, effective on December 28, 2012, and (3) Order No. R4-2014-0024 and NPDES No. CAS004003, effective on March 28, 2014.

Attachment A of the Order lists definitions, abbreviations, and acronyms of terms used in the Order and all other attachments. Attachment B of the Order provides a map depicting each major Watershed Management Area (WMA), its subwatersheds, and the major receiving waters therein to which the Facility discharges. Attachment C of the Order depicts the major MS4-related infrastructure within the Los Angeles Region and monitoring locations for Ventura County Permittees.

C. Permit Scope
The Order regulates discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater from the Permittees’ MS4s. Section 122.26(b)(8) of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)6 defines an MS4 as “a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade 5 Owner or operator means the owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to regulation under the NPDES program (40 CFR § 122.2).
6 All further statutory references are to title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations unless otherwise indicated.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-8
channels, or storm drains): (i) [o]wned or operated by a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States; (ii) [d]esigned or used for collecting or conveying storm water; (iii) [w]hich is not a combined sewer; and (iv) [w]hich is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.”
Stormwater discharges consist of those discharges that originate from precipitation events. Federal regulations define “storm water” as “storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.” (40 CFR § 122.26(b)(13)). While “surface runoff and drainage” is not defined in federal law, U.S. EPA’s preamble to its final stormwater regulations demonstrates that the term is related to precipitation events such as rain and/or snowmelt. (55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47995-96 (Nov. 16, 1990)).

Non-stormwater discharges consist of all discharges through an MS4 that do not originate from precipitation events. Non-stormwater discharges through an MS4 are prohibited unless authorized under a separate NPDES permit; authorized by U.S. EPA pursuant to Sections 104(a) or 104(b) of CERCLA; composed of natural flows; the result of emergency firefighting activities; or conditionally exempted in the Order.

A permit issued to more than one Permittee for MS4 discharges may contain separate stormwater management programs for particular Permittees or groups of Permittees. (40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)). Given LACFCD’s and VCWPD’s limited land use authorities, they are not subject to the Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program and the Planning and Land Development Program. However, as owners and operators of a MS4, LACFCD and VCWPD remain subject to the Public Information and Participation Program, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program, Public Agency Activities Program, and Construction Program. LACFCD and VCWPD are also subject to all other requirements of the Order, including but not limited to the discharge prohibitions, receiving water limitation provisions, TMDL provisions, monitoring and reporting provisions, and standard provisions.

D. Rationale for Issuance of a Regional Phase I MS4 Permit The Los Angeles Water Board retains the discretion as the permitting authority to determine whether to issue permits for discharges from MS4s on a system-wide or jurisdiction-wide basis. Clean Water Act section 402(p)(3)(B)(i) and implementing regulations at 40 CFR section 122.26, subdivisions (a)(1)(v), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(iv) allow the permitting authority to issue permits for MS4 discharges on a system-wide or jurisdiction-wide basis taking into consideration a variety of factors. Such factors include the location of the discharge with respect to waters of the United States, the size of the discharge, the quantity and nature of the pollutants discharged to waters of the United States, and other relevant factors. Federal regulations at 40 CFR section 122.26(a)(3)(ii) identify a variety of possible permitting structures, including one system-wide permit covering all MS4 discharges or distinct permits for appropriate categories of MS4 discharges including, but not limited to, all discharges owned or operated by the same municipality, located within the same jurisdiction, all discharges within a system that discharge to the same watershed, discharges within a MS4 that are similar in nature, or MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-9
for individual discharges from MS4s. Consistent with CWA 402(p)(3)(B)(i), the Los Angeles Water Board is issuing the Order for its entire Los Angeles Region.

Additionally, the Los Angeles Water Board is issuing the Order to implement the State Water Board’s guiding principles for MS4 permit development by all regional water boards, which is provided in Order WQ 2015-0075.7 Specifically, the State Water Board declared:
“Phase I MS4 permits should (1) continue to require compliance with water quality standards in accordance with our Order WQ 99-05; (2) allow compliance with TMDL requirements to constitute compliance with receiving water limitations; (3) provide for a compliance alternative that allows permittees to achieve compliance with receiving water limitations over a period of time as described above; (4) encourage watershedbased approaches, address multiple contaminants, and incorporate TMDL requirements; (5) encourage the use of green infrastructure and the adoption of low impact development principles; (6) encourage the use of multi-benefit regional projects that capture, infiltrate, and reuse storm water; and (7) require rigor, accountability, and transparency in identification and prioritization of issues in the watershed, in proposal and implementation of control measures, in monitoring of water quality, and in adaptive management of the program.”
The application of these principles on a region-wide basis results in improved consistency and uniformity, where warranted, in Phase I MS4 permit requirements, while providing Permittees the flexibility to tailor their implementation through watershed management programs in consideration of socio-economic, land use, and geographic characteristics.

Two of the three Phase I MS4 permits issued by the Los Angeles Water Board, including Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach, already incorporate these principles.

With regard to Ventura County MS4 Permittees, the previous Order, No. R4-2010-0108, was structured as a single permit whereby all 12 Permittees were assigned uniform requirements, with additional requirements for the Principal Permittee. With the issuance of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit (Order No. R4-2012-0175) as amended by State Water Board Order WQ 2015-0075, the Los Angeles Water Board created a new permitting framework based on Watershed Management Areas to address MS4 discharges and water quality protection in the region. This framework 7 On April 21, 2021, the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a final judgment in the case of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board and California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BS156962 (NRDC)). At issue was plaintiffs’ challenge to the adequacy of the Water Boards’ antidegradation analysis in the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Order. The trial court ruled that the Water Boards’ antidegradation analysis for any high quality waters was not supported by adequate findings. In furtherance of the judgment, the court will issue a writ ordering the State Water Board to set aside Order WQ 2015-0075. As of June 1, 2021, the court has not issued the writ and the State Water Board has taken no action to set aside Order WQ 2015-0075. As such, Order WQ 2015-0075 remains in effect and relevant to the analysis of many of the matters discussed herein. Even if Order WQ 2015-0075 is ultimately set aside, the trial court’s ruling was based solely on the antidegradation analysis for high quality waters and did not call into question the propriety of the State Water Board’s other holdings on the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit. Because these holdings have not been disturbed by the NRDC case, and because these holdings address matters relevant to the Regional MS4 Order, this Fact Sheet continues to cite and discuss Order WQ 2015-0075, as appropriate, for matters other than antidegradation concerning high quality waters.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-10
intended to provide a comprehensive and integrated strategy toward water resource protection, enhancement, and restoration within a hydrologically defined drainage basin or watershed while considering watershed specific characteristics in order to develop and implement a cost-effective program to achieve compliance. The Ventura County Permittees’ reapplication package supported the inclusion of the Watershed Management Program as an optional alternative compliance pathway in Ventura County. Additionally, the reapplication package assumed that the future permit would follow the structure of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit in Order No. R4-2012-0175 and therefore, the Permittees framed their proposals for changes to the permit accordingly. As a result, the Los Angeles Water Board finds that the framework and principal elements of a MS4 permit need not differ between counties and/or Permittees in the Los Angeles Region. A Regional Phase I MS4 Permit, which incorporates a watershed-based approach, provides regional consistency, while allowing Permittees the opportunity to customize their stormwater management programs considering unique watershed characteristics.

The Los Angeles Water Board also considered the nature of most Permittees’ MS4s, which comprise a large interconnected system particularly in Los Angeles County where the discharges from these entities frequently commingle in the MS4 prior to discharge to receiving waters. Additionally, the City of Long Beach, which was previously regulated under its own permit, is geographically located at the base of 4 out of 10 of the watersheds within Los Angeles County and therefore has frequent commingling of its MS4 discharges with MS4 discharges of upstream Permittees in these watersheds.

The Los Angeles Water Board also considered the location of discharges and the nature of the receiving waters (see 40 CFR 122.26(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(7)(iii)). For example, while the MS4s in Los Angeles and Ventura County do not interconnect, they do discharge to some shared receiving waters (e.g., Malibu Creek, Santa Monica Bay, Santa Clara River). The City of Thousand Oaks (within Ventura County) and the City of Agoura Hills (within Los Angeles County) both discharge to Malibu Creek. Likewise, the cities of Ventura (within Ventura County) and Santa Clarita (within Los Angeles County) both discharge to Santa Clara River. The same is true within Ventura County where for example, the City of Ojai and the City of Ventura, both discharge to receiving waters in the Ventura River Watershed. Having one permit for MS4 discharges to the same receiving waters across Los Angeles and Ventura Counties allows to the Board to address water quality in a consistent manner.

Further necessitating a watershed framework is the requirement to implement 45 largely watershed-based TMDLs in the Order. Most Permittees have already established jurisdictional groups on a watershed or subwatershed basis for TMDL implementation. (See Attachment J of the Order for a matrix of these TMDLs and Permittees by WMA.) Some of the TMDLs apply to both Los Angeles County and Ventura County Permittees for the reason discussed above. These TMDLs also address multiple watersheds and the jurisdictional areas of multiple Permittees. Having separate permits makes implementation of the TMDLs more cumbersome.

Based on an evaluation of these factors, the Los Angeles Water Board determined that, because of the complexity and networking of the MS4 within the Los Angeles Region, that one system-wide permit is appropriate. In order to provide individual Permittees with specific requirements, the Order regulates the MS4 discharges of all 99 Permittees with some sections devoted to universal requirements for all Permittees. Some sections are devoted to distinct requirements for Los Angeles County Permittees and Ventura County Permittees and other sections devoted to requirements specific to each WMA, MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-11
including TMDL implementation provisions. This structure is supported by section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR sections 122.26, subdivisions (a)(1)(v), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(iv). A single permit will ensure consistency and equitability in regulatory requirements within the Los Angeles Region, while watershed-based requirements within the single permit will provide flexibility to tailor permit provisions to address distinct watershed characteristics and water quality issues. Additionally, an internal watershed-based structure comports with the Los Angeles Water Board’s Watershed Management Initiative and its watershed-based TMDL requirements.

Watershed-based requirements will help promote watershed-wide solutions to address water quality problems, which in many cases are the most efficient and cost-effective means to address stormwater and urban runoff pollution. Further, watershed-based requirements may encourage collaboration among permittees to implement regional integrated water resources approaches such as stormwater capture and re-use to achieve multiple benefits.

II. FACILITY DESCRIPTION
A. Description of Receiving Waters and Watershed Management Areas The area under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Water Board (Los Angeles Region) is 4,447 square miles in size. It contains 120 miles of coastline, 18,839 acres of lakes, and 1,704 miles of rivers and streams. Major Watershed Management Areas in the Los Angeles Region are shown on Figure B-1 of Attachment B of the Order and described below.

B. Geographic Coverage and Watershed Management Areas
The municipal stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 enter receiving waters in the major Watershed Management Areas of the Ventura River Watershed; Miscellaneous Ventura County Coastal Watersheds; Santa Clara River Watershed; Calleguas Creek Watershed; Santa Monica Bay Watershed, including Malibu Creek Subwatershed, Ballona Creek Subwatershed, and Marina del Rey Subwatershed; Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Watershed, including Machado Lake Subwatershed; Los Angeles River Watershed; San Gabriel River Watershed; and Los Cerritos Channel and Alamitos Bay Watershed. The receiving waters within these WMAs include those identified in Tables 2-1, 2-1a, 2-3, 2- 3a, 2-4, 2-4a, and Appendix 1 Table 1, Table A2-1, Table A2-3 and Table A2-4 of the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties), and other unidentified tributaries to these surface waters.

The Order defines WMAs consistent with the delineations used by the Los Angeles Water Board. Permittees included in each of the major WMAs are listed in Attachment J of the Order. Maps depicting each WMA, its subwatersheds, and the major receiving waters therein are included in Attachment B of the Order.

Ventura River Watershed Management Area. The Ventura River and its tributaries drain a coastal watershed in western Ventura County. The watershed covers a fanshaped area of 235 square miles (150,400 acres), which is located within the western Transverse Ranges (the only major east-west mountain ranges in the continental U.S.) (Attachment B Figure B-2). From the upper slopes of the Transverse Ranges, the surface water system in the Ventura River watershed generally flows in a southerly direction to an estuary, located at the mouth of the Ventura River. Groundwater basins are highly interconnected with the surface water system and are recharged or depleted MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-12
according to surface flow conditions. The surface waters that drain the watershed have very steep gradients, ranging from 40 feet per mile at the mouth to 150 feet per mile at the headwaters. Precipitation in the watershed varies widely and mostly occurs as rainfall during a few storms between November and March. Summer and fall months are typically dry. Although snow occurs at higher elevations, melting snowpack does not sustain significant runoff in warmer months. The unpredictable weather pattern, coupled with the steep gradients throughout most of the watershed, result in high flow velocities with most runoff reaching the ocean.

Land use in the watershed is predominantly open space with a mix of residential, agriculture, commercial and industrial uses along the mainstem of the river. The MS4s of the incorporated cities of Ojai and Ventura along with unincorporated areas of Ventura County discharge to the Ventura River system. Residents and agricultural interests in this watershed are entirely dependent on local surface water and groundwater and there is no connection to the State Water Project to deliver imported water.

Migratory steelhead trout ascend upstream in the Ventura River and into San Antonio Creek and may utilize areas above the Robles Diversion Dam via a fish passageway. A limited resident population of rainbow trout occurs above Robles Diversion Dam and in San Antonio Creek and the lower Ventura River. Multiple interested agencies, including Ventura County and other entities, have recognized the potential for the restoration and enhancement of steelhead populations in the Ventura River through the removal of Matilija Dam, which is in the upper watershed and blocks access to a large area of prime spawning habitat.

Wetlands are found at the Ventura River estuary as well as along the river and bordering lakes. The wetland at the mouth of the Ventura River is considered a significant biological resource by Ventura County due to its ability to provide habitat for thousands of biota that include endangered, rare, or threatened species. The mainstem of the river as well as San Antonio Creek are also listed as significant biological resources due to their use by steelhead trout. “Critical” condor habitat exists in three areas in Ventura County, including Matilija Creek.

Water quality in the upper reaches is good but quality in the lower reaches is influenced by a combination of municipal wastewater discharges, agricultural activities, livestock, MS4 discharges, and oil industry discharges among other sources of pollutants.

Excessive algae occurs at many locations and most water quality problems involve eutrophication. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been established (as required by the federal Clean Water Act) to address water quality impairments due to trash, nutrients, eutrophic conditions and algae in the watershed.

Stakeholders in the watershed have formed several long-range water planning groups and have developed Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plans under Propositions 50 and 84. These Plans address the future water needs of each IRWM Region in terms of reliability of the water supply, improvement to water quality (including implementing TMDLs), increases in habitat and open space (additionally serving as areas for recharge of stormwater), and replacement of water-related infrastructure as needed. The stakeholders also propose projects to help implement the Plan’s goals; applicants may pursue funding through a variety of sources including grant funding available through bond programs. Ventura County Permittees within this watershed also participated in the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan pursuant to Water Code section 10563 et seq. in order to be eligible to apply for state funding for stormwater and dry weather runoff projects to improve water quality.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-13
Miscellaneous Ventura County Coastal Watershed Management Area. The Miscellaneous Ventura County Coastal WMA is composed of four separate coastal drainage areas located between the Los Angeles Water Board’s boundary with the Central Coast Water Board and the Ventura River, Santa Clara River, Calleguas Creek, and Santa Monica Bay WMAs (Attachment B Figure B-3). The drainage areas are typified by beaches, small coastal streams, coastal lakes, and harbors such as Ventura Harbor, Channel Islands Harbor, and Port Hueneme. The WMA encompasses an area that historically consisted of extensive coastal wetlands that were connected to the Pacific Ocean. Many unique habitats, including coastal wetlands and lagoons, such as McGrath Lake and Ormond Beach Wetlands, and the nearby coastal dunes remain in the WMA. They are identified as significant biological resources by Ventura County.

These areas provide habitats for many fish, birds, invertebrates, sea lions, and other marine and estuarine species
Land use in this WMA trends heavily to either open space or urban uses. The MS4s of the incorporated cities of Port Hueneme, Oxnard, and Ventura along with unincorporated areas of Ventura County discharge to these miscellaneous Ventura County Coastal Watersheds. Some of these waterbodies receive runoff from urban areas through sizable drains and pollutants associated with MS4 discharges will be found. The water quality problems found in the harbors in the WMA generally involve elevated bacteria, metals, and legacy pesticides. While residents and commercial/agricultural interests in this WMA utilize some local groundwater, they are highly dependent on imported water.

Channel Islands Harbor: Channels Islands Harbor is located south of the Santa Clara River and is in the immediate vicinity of considerable residential development and some agricultural land. Kiddie Beach and Hobie Beach, near the mouth of the harbor, are on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list due to impairment by indicator bacteria.

Port Hueneme Harbor: Port Hueneme Harbor is a medium-sized deep-water harbor located in Ventura County, north of Mugu Lagoon. The construction of most of the harbor was completed in 1975. A U.S. Navy Construction Battalion historically operated part of it. The rest of the harbor serves as a commercial port operated by the Oxnard Harbor District. Two endangered bird species may use the harbor, the California Brown Pelican, and the California Least Tern. The harbor is on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for DDT and PCBs in fish/shellfish tissue. The DDT and PCB impairments in fish/shellfish tissue are being addressed through an action other than a TMDL (i.e., dredging).

Ventura Marina: Ventura Marina is a small craft harbor located between the mouths of the Ventura and Santa Clara Rivers. It is home to numerous small boats and two boatyards. The "Ventura Keys" area of the marina is a residential area situated along three canals. The marina is surrounded by agricultural land and a large unlined ditch drains into the Keys area. The marina and Ventura Keys area are on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for indicator bacteria. In 2018, the Los Angeles Water Board re-evaluated the 303(d) listing for Ventura Keys and concluded that the waterbody should remain on the 303(d) list. The area around the jetties is listed as impaired for DDT and PCBs. The nearby Arundell Barranca is an open drain carrying mostly agricultural, commercial, and residential runoff, which flows into the marina.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-14
McGrath Lake: McGrath Lake is a small brackish waterbody located just south of the Santa Clara River. The lake is located partially on State Parks land and partially on privately-owned oilfields in current production. A number of agricultural ditches drain into the lake. The MS4 does not discharge into McGrath Lake. A state beach is located off the coastal side of the lake. The habitat around the lake is quite unique and it is utilized by a large number of overwintering migratory birds. The lake is on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for several legacy pesticides.

Open Coastline: A major feature of the coastline north of Mugu Lagoon is Ormond Beach and Ormond Beach Wetlands. The ocean immediately off the coast was part of the Bight ’03, Bight ’98, and the 1994 Southern California Bight Regional Monitoring Program. The Ormond Beach Wetlands has been extensively characterized as part of a wetlands restoration planning process being led by the Coastal Conservancy. The Ormond Beach Task Force was formed in 1993 and meets as needed to address issues and projects that may affect the beach and wetlands. Major ongoing activities include work by U.S. EPA to characterize and clean up the Halaco Superfund site adjacent to Ormond Beach Wetlands and wetlands restoration planning being undertaken by the State Coastal Conservancy.

Additionally, the open coastline has numerous beaches. Several of these were historically listed on the 303(d) list as impaired due to bacteria. The Los Angeles Water Board re-evaluated these listings in 2019 and, based on the data analysis, recommended removing Ormond Beach, Peninsula Beach, Point Mugu Beach, Port Hueneme Beach Park, Rincon Parkway Beach, San Buenaventura Beach and Surfer’s Point at Seaside (also known as Seaside Park Beach) from the 303(d) list.

The Los Angeles Water Board recommended keeping Rincon Beach on the 303(d) list due to an ongoing bacteria impairment.

TMDLs have been developed for many of the impairments in the Miscellaneous Ventura County Coastal Watersheds. TMDLs in effect include those for bacteria at Kiddie Beach and Hobie Beach, bacteria at McGrath Beach, and PCBs, pesticides, and sediment toxicity at McGrath Lake.

Santa Clara River Watershed Management Area. The Santa Clara River and its tributaries drain a watershed area of 1,620 square miles (1,036,800 acres) (Attachment B Figure B-4). At approximately 100 miles (161 kilometers) in length, the Santa Clara River is the largest river system in southern California that remains in a relatively natural state. The river originates on the northern slope of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County, traverses Ventura County, and flows into the Pacific Ocean between the cities of Ventura and Oxnard. Santa Clara River Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B and major tributaries Santa Paula, Sespe and Piru Creeks are in Ventura County. Santa Clara River Reach 5 lies between Ventura County and Los Angeles County. Santa Clara River Reaches 6, 7, 8 and major tributaries Castaic, San Francisquito, and Bouquet Canyon Creeks are in Los Angeles County. About 40% of the watershed, the Upper Santa Clara River, is in Los Angeles County and about 60% of the watershed, the Lower Santa Clara River, is in Ventura County.

Land use in the watershed is predominately open space, most of which is National Forest or condor sanctuary. Residential, agriculture, and some industrial land uses occur along the mainstem. Portions of the MS4s of the incorporated cities of Santa Clarita, Fillmore, Santa Paula, Ventura and Oxnard and unincorporated areas of both counties discharge to the Santa Clara River system.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-15
Significant biological resources described in Ventura County’s General Plan include the extensive patches of high-quality riparian habitat that are present along the length of the river and its tributaries. Also considered significant are areas such as the wetlands found at the Santa Clara River estuary, along the river, and bordering lakes. One of the largest of Santa Clara River's tributaries, Sespe Creek, contains most of the Santa Clara River's remnant run of the steelhead trout. Piru and Santa Paula Creeks, two other tributaries of the Santa Clara River, also support good habitat for steelhead, although both contain barriers to migration. Additionally, the Santa Clara River has populations of unarmored three-spined stickleback (endangered), Santa Ana sucker, arroyo toad, and California least Bell’s vireo. San Francisquito Canyon, Placerita Canyon, Soledad Canyon, Castaic, and Elizabeth Canyon Creeks are smaller tributaries that all provide valuable habitat. The Santa Clara River also serves as an important wildlife corridor. A lagoon exists at the mouth of the river and supports a large variety of wildlife.

Various reaches of the Santa Clara River are on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for pesticides, metals, indicator bacteria, salts, and trash, among other pollutants. The elevated bacterial indicator densities are causing impairment of the REC-1 and REC-2 designated beneficial uses for the Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7. The Estuary is also listed for toxaphene and residual amounts of other legacy pesticides (ChemA) in fish tissue. The excessive levels of chloride are impairing the AGR and GWR designated beneficial uses of Santa Clara River Reaches 3, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6. The trash in Lake Elizabeth is causing impairments to the WARM, WILD, RARE, REC-1 and REC-2 designated beneficial uses. TMDLs have been developed for these impairments in the watershed.

Stakeholders within the area under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Water Board have formed several long-range water planning groups and have developed IRWM Plans under Propositions 50 and 84. Stakeholders in the Los Angeles County portion of the Santa Clara River Watershed joined together to develop the IRWM Plan for the Upper Santa Clara River. They work closely with the IRWM group in the lower watershed, led by the Watersheds Coalition for Ventura County, which has a Santa Clara River Watershed Committee for IRWM Plan implementation in that watershed. Permittees within this watershed also participated in the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan pursuant to Water Code section 10563 et seq. in order to be eligible to apply for state funding for stormwater and dry weather runoff projects to improve water quality.

Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Area. Calleguas Creek and its major tributaries: Revolon Slough, Conjeo Creek, Arroyo Conejo, Arroyo Santa Rosa, and Arroyo Simi, drain a watershed area of 343 square miles (219,520 acres) in southern Ventura County and a small portion of western Los Angeles County (Attachment B Figure B-5). The northern boundary is formed by the Santa Susana Mountains, South Mountain, and Oak Ridge; the southern boundary is formed by the Simi Hills and Santa Monica Mountains. Land uses vary throughout the watershed. Urban development is generally restricted to the city limits of Simi Valley, Moorpark, Thousand Oaks, and Camarillo. Although some residential development has occurred along the slopes of the watershed, most upland areas are still open space. Agricultural activities, primarily cultivation of orchards and row crops, are spread out along valleys and on the Oxnard Plain.

Mugu Lagoon, located at the mouth of the watershed, is one of the few remaining significant saltwater wetland habitats in southern California. The Point Mugu Naval Air Base is located in the immediate area. The surrounding Oxnard Plain supports a large variety of agricultural crops. The lagoon borders on an Area of Special Biological MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-16
Significance (ASBS) and supports a great diversity of wildlife including several endangered birds and one endangered plant species. Except for the military base, the lagoon area is relatively undeveloped.

Various reaches of the Calleguas Creek Watershed are on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for ammonia, chlordane, chloride, legacy pesticides, metals, bacteria, nutrients, and trash, among other pollutants.

Stakeholders within the area under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Water Board have formed several long-range water planning groups and have developed IRWM Plans under Propositions 50 and 84. Permittees within this watershed also participated in the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan pursuant to Water Code section 10563 et seq. in order to be eligible to apply for state funding for stormwater and dry weather runoff projects to improve water quality.

Santa Monica Bay Watershed Management Area. The Santa Monica Bay Watershed Management Area encompasses an area of 414 square miles (264,960 acres) (Attachment B Figure B-6). Its borders reach from the crest of the Santa Monica Mountains on the north and from the Ventura-Los Angeles County line to downtown Los Angeles. From there it extends south and west across the Los Angeles plain to include the area east of Ballona Creek and north of the Baldwin Hills. A narrow strip of land between Playa del Rey and Palos Verdes drains to the Bay south of Ballona Creek. The WMA includes several subwatersheds, the two largest being Malibu Creek to the northwest and Ballona Creek to the south. The Malibu Creek area contains mostly undeveloped mountain areas, large acreage residential properties, and many natural stream reaches, while Ballona Creek is predominantly channelized and drains a highly developed watershed.

Many of the Santa Monica Bay beaches are identified on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for indicator bacteria. Santa Monica Bay offshore and nearshore is on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for trash, DDTs, PCBs, arsenic, and mercury. The elevated bacterial indicator densities during both dry and wet weather are causing impairments of the REC-1 and REC-2 designated beneficial uses of the Santa Monica Bay beaches.

The debris and elevated concentrations of DDT and PCBs are causing impairments to the IND, NAV, REC-1, REC-2, COMM, EST, MAR, BIOL, MIGR, WILD, RARE, SPWN, SHELL, and WET designated beneficial uses of the Santa Monica Bay. One of the impacts in marine habitats is sediment contamination and damage to marine life that the contaminants cause when they are released from the sediment (through natural fluctuations or through disturbance of the sediment) into the food chain.

Bioaccumulation of DDT in white croaker, Dover sole, and California brown pelicans are well-known examples of the impacts caused by sediment contamination.

Malibu Creek subwatershed: The Malibu Creek subwatershed drains an area of about 109 square miles (69,760 acres) (Attachment B Figure B-6a). Approximately two-thirds of this subwatershed lies in Los Angeles County and the remaining third lies in Ventura County. Much of the land is part of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and is under the purview of the National Parks Service.

The watershed borders the eastern portion of Ventura County to the northwest and the Los Angeles River watershed to the east. Major tributaries include Cold Creek, Lindero Creek, Las Virgenes Creek, Medea Creek, and Triunfo Creek. The Malibu Creek watershed also includes lakes such as Lake Sherwood, Westlake Lake, Malibou Lake, and Lake Lindero. Located at the end of and receiving flows from MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-17
Malibu Creek is the 40-acre Malibu Lagoon. The Malibu Creek subwatershed land uses are 88% open space, 3% commercial/light industry, 9% residential, and less than 1% public.

Malibu Lagoon supports two important plant communities, the coastal salt marsh and coastal strand, and is an important refuge for migrating birds (over 200 species of birds have been observed). Perennial streams in Malibu Canyon support oak and riparian woodlands. Malibu Creek is also the southernmost watercourse in California where steelhead trout continue to spawn in relatively large numbers.

The Malibu Creek Watershed is on the 2014/16 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for bacteria, nutrients, selenium, sulfates, sediment/siltation, and trash. Elevated bacterial indicator densities are causing impairment of the REC-1 and REC-2 designated beneficial uses of Malibu Creek, Malibu Lagoon, and the adjacent beaches. Excess nutrients and sedimentation/siltation are causing impairments to the REC-1, REC-2, WARM, COLD, EST, MAR, WILD, RARE, MIGR, and SPWN designated beneficial uses of waterbodies in the Malibu Creek Watershed. Selenium is causing impairments to the WARM designated beneficial uses of waterbodies in the Malibu Creek Watershed. Trash is causing impairments to the REC-1, REC-2, WARM, COLD, MIGR, WILD, RARE, SPWN, and WET designated beneficial uses of the waterbodies in the Malibu Creek Watershed.

Marina del Rey subwatershed: The Marina del Rey subwatershed is approximately 2.7 square miles (1,728 acres) located adjacent to the mouth of Ballona Creek (Attachment B, Figure B-6b). The Marina del Rey subwatershed is highly developed at 80%; the remaining 20% is split between water and open/recreation land uses.

Marina del Rey is on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for bacteria and sediment concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, DDT, PCBs, chlordane, and sediment toxicity. The elevated bacterial indicator densities are causing impairment of the REC-1 and REC-2 designated beneficial uses at Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and back basins. The toxic pollutants are causing impairments to the REC-1, MAR, WILD, COMM, and SHELL designated beneficial uses of the Marina del Rey Harbor.

Ballona Creek subwatershed: Ballona Creek and its tributaries drain a subwatershed of about 128 square miles (81,920 acres) (Attachment B, Figure B6c). Ballona Creek is the largest drainage tributary to Santa Monica Bay and discharges to the ocean adjacent to the entrance of the Marina del Rey Harbor.

The watershed boundary extends in the east from the crest of the Santa Monica Mountains southward and westward to the vicinity of central Los Angeles and thence to Baldwin Hills. Tributaries of Ballona Creek include Centinela Creek, Sepulveda Canyon Channel, Benedict Canyon Channel, and numerous other storm drains. Ballona Creek is concrete lined upstream of Centinela Boulevard. All of its tributaries are either concrete channels or covered culverts. The channel downstream of Centinela Boulevard is trapezoidal composed of grouted rip-rap side slopes and an earth bottom. The urbanized areas of Ballona Creek account for 80% of the watershed; the partially developed foothill and mountains make up the other 20%.

The watershed encompasses an area that historically consisted of extensive wetlands. The current-day Ballona Wetlands are located near the mouth of the MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-18
creek and represents one of the few remaining regionally significant coastal wetlands along Santa Monica Bay. The complex of wetlands is a mixture of habitats dominated by coastal salt marsh; several special status species are supported there including Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. In 2004, the State of California acquired ownership of this remaining wetland area (600 acres (243 hectares) in total).

Ballona Creek and Ballona Creek Estuary are on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for trash, toxicity, bacteria, historic pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, and metals. The Ballona Creek Wetlands is on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for trash, exotic vegetation, habitat alterations, and reduced tidal flushing. Trash is causing impairments to the REC-1, REC-2, WARM, WILD, EST, MAR, RARE, MIGR, SPWN, COMM, WET, and COLD designated beneficial uses of Ballona Creek. The metals, pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs in sediments and dissolved copper, dissolved lead, and dissolved zinc, are causing impairments to the REC-1, REC-2, EST, MAR, WILD, RARE, MIGR, SPWN, COMM, and SHELL designated beneficial uses of Ballona Creek Estuary, Ballona Creek, and Sepulveda Channel. The elevated bacterial indicator densities are causing impairment of the REC-1, LREC-1, and REC-2 designated beneficial uses of Ballona Creek, Sepulveda Channel, and Ballona Estuary. The excess sediment and invasive non-native vegetation are causing impairments to the EST, MIGR, RARE, REC-1, REC-2, SPWN, WET, and WILD designated beneficial uses of the Ballona Creek Wetlands.

Dominguez Channel and Greater Harbor Waters Watershed Management Area.

The Dominguez Channel and Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors Watershed Management Area (Dominguez WMA) is in the southern portion of the Los Angeles Basin (Attachment B Figure B-7). It covers an area of approximately 121 square miles (77,440 acres). Los Angeles Harbor is 7,500 acres and the Long Beach Harbor is 7,600 acres; together they have an open water area of approximately 8,128 acres. Along the northern portion of San Pedro Bay is a natural embayment formed by a westerly extension of the coastline which contains both harbors, with the Palos Verdes Hills the dominant onshore feature. The 15-mile-long Dominguez Channel drains a densely urbanized area to Inner Los Angeles Harbor. Despite its industrial nature, contaminant sources, disrupted wetlands habitat, and low flushing ability, the inner harbor area supports diverse fish and benthic populations and provides a protected nursery area for juvenile fish. The California least tern, an endangered species, nests in one part of the harbor complex. Some wetlands persist in the Machado Lake area. The outer part of both harbors (the greater San Pedro Bay within the breakwaters) has been less disrupted and supports a great diversity of marine life and a large population of fish. It is also open to the ocean at its eastern end and receives much greater flushing than the inner harbors.

Various reaches of the Dominguez WMA are on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for metals, DDT, PCBs, PAHs, historic pesticides, coliform, and sediment toxicity. The elevated bacteria indicator densities are causing impairments to the SHELL, REC-1, and REC-2 designated beneficial uses of Los Angeles Harbor. The elevated levels of metals and organics are causing impairments to beneficial uses designated in these waters to protect aquatic life, including MAR and RARE. In addition, the elevated levels are causing impairments in the estuaries, which are designated with SPWN, MIGR, and WILD beneficial uses. Dominguez Channel also has an existing designated use of WARM and the Los Angeles River Estuary has the MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-19
designated use of WET. Beneficial uses associated with human use of these waters that are impaired due to the elevated concentrations of metals and organics include REC-1, REC-2, IND, NAV, COMM, and SHELL.

Machado Lake subwatershed: Machado Lake is a subwatershed of the Dominguez Channel Watershed (Attachment B, Figure B-7a). Wilmington Drain discharges into Machado Lake from the north; the channel is concrete lined from its origin south of Sepulveda Boulevard (between Normandie and Vermont Avenues) to where it crosses under the Harbor Freeway north of Lomita Boulevard.

South of this point it changes to a soft bottom with natural side banks to where it empties into Machado Lake. Habitat in this part of the drain includes mature riparian woodland, riparian scrub, freshwater marsh, and weedy vegetation. The area is well-utilized by birds
Machado Lake is listed on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for trash, nutrients, PCBs and historic pesticides. Trash, nutrients and toxic pollutants are causing impairments to the WARM, WET, RARE, WILD, REC-1 and REC-2 designated beneficial uses of Machado Lake. TMDLs have been adopted by the Los Angeles Water Board for trash, nutrients, PCBs and pesticides for Machado Lake. The point sources of trash and nutrients into Machado Lake are stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4. Stormwater discharges occur through the following sub-drainage systems: Drain 553, Wilmington Drain, Project 77/510, and Walteria Lake Retention Basin.

Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area. The Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area drains a watershed of 824 square miles (527,360 acres) (Attachment B Figure B-8) in Los Angeles County and a small portion of south eastern Ventura County. Approximately 1.2 acres of Simi Valley, which is in Ventura County, drains to the Los Angeles River Watershed and is mainly undeveloped. The Los Angeles River WMA is one of the largest in the Los Angeles Region and is also one of the most diverse in terms of land use patterns. Approximately 324 square miles of the watershed are covered by forest or open space land including the area near the headwaters, which originate in the Santa Monica, Santa Susana, and San Gabriel Mountains. The remainder of the watershed is highly developed. There are approximately 205 miles of engineered channels within the Los Angeles River Watershed. A 6.8-mile (11-kilometer) long reach in the narrows area (in the middle portion of the river system), where ground water rises into the streambed, is mostly unlined along the stream bottom and provides natural habitat for fish and other wildlife in an otherwise concrete conveyance. The river flows through the San Fernando Valley past heavily developed residential and commercial areas. Major tributaries to the river in the San Fernando Valley are the Pacoima Wash, Tujunga Wash (both drain portions of the Angeles National Forest in the San Gabriel Mountains), Burbank Western Channel, and Verdugo Wash (both drain the Verdugo Mountains). From the Arroyo Seco, north of downtown Los Angeles, to the confluence with the Rio Hondo, the river flows through industrial and commercial areas and is bordered by rail yards, freeways, and major commercial and government buildings. The river is hydraulically connected to the San Gabriel River Watershed by the Rio Hondo through the Whittier Narrows Reservoir. Flows from the San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo merge at this reservoir during larger flood events and thus flows from the San Gabriel River Watershed may impact the Los Angeles River. From the Rio Hondo to the Pacific Ocean, the river flows through industrial, residential, and commercial areas. The Los Angeles River tidal prism/estuary begins in Long Beach at MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-20
Willow Street and runs approximately three miles before joining with Queensway Bay.

The channel has a soft bottom in this reach with concrete-lined sides.

A number of lakes are also part of the Los Angeles River WMA, including Legg Lake, Peck Road Park, Belvedere Park, Hollenbeck Park, Lincoln Park, and Echo Park Lakes as well as Lake Calabasas. These lakes are heavily used for recreational purposes.

Various reaches and lakes within the Los Angeles River WMA are on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for trash, nitrogen compounds and related effects (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, algae, pH, odor, and scum), metals (copper, cadmium, lead, zinc, aluminum and selenium), bacteria, and historic pesticides. Beneficial uses impaired by trash are REC-1, REC-2, WARM, WILD, EST, MAR, RARE, MIGR, SPWN, COMM, WET and COLD. The excess nitrogen compounds are causing impairments to the REC-1, REC-2, WARM, COLD, and WILD beneficial uses. Excess metals and historic pesticides are causing impairments to the WILD, RARE, WARM, WET, and GWR beneficial uses. Elevated indicator bacteria densities are causing impairments to the REC-1 and REC-2 beneficial uses.

San Gabriel River Watershed Management Area. The San Gabriel River Watershed (SGR WMA) receives drainage from a 689-square mile (440,960 acre) area of eastern Los Angeles County (Attachment B, Figure B-9). The main channel of the San Gabriel River is approximately 58 miles long. Its headwaters originate in the San Gabriel Mountains with the East, West, and North Forks. The river empties to the Pacific Ocean at the Los Angeles and Orange Counties boundary in Long Beach. The main tributaries of the river are Big Dalton Wash and Little Dalton Wash, San Dimas Wash, Walnut Creek, San Jose Creek, Fullerton Creek, and Coyote Creek. Part of the Coyote Creek subwatershed is in Orange County and is under the authority of the Santa Ana Water Board.8 A number of lakes and reservoirs are also part of the SGR WMA, including Puddingstone Reservoir. Land use in the watershed is diverse and ranges from 8 The Orange County portion of the Coyote Creek subwatershed comprises 86 square miles. MS4 discharges within the Orange County portion of the Coyote Creek subwatershed are within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Water Board and are not covered by the Order. These MS4 discharges, which drain into Coyote Creek, eventually reach the San Gabriel River within the boundaries of the Los Angeles Water Board’s jurisdiction. Sources of MS4 discharges from Orange County to the San Gabriel River include the following. The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) owns and operates the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin and Pumping Station (Los Alamitos Retarding Basin). The Los Alamitos Retarding Basin is within the San Gabriel River Watershed and is located adjacent to the Los Angeles and Orange County boundary. The majority of the 30-acre Los Alamitos Retarding Basin is in Orange County; however, the northwest corner of the facility is in Los Angeles County. Stormwater and nonstormwater discharges, which drain to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin, are pumped to the San Gabriel River Estuary (SGR Estuary) through pumps and subterranean piping. The pumps and discharge point are in Los Angeles County. The OCFCD pumps the water within the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin to the SGR Estuary through four discharge pipes, which are covered by tide gates. The discharge point is located approximately 700 feet downstream from the 2nd Street Bridge in Long Beach. The total pumping capacity of the four pumps is 800 cubic feet per second (cfs). There is also a 5 cfs sump pump that discharges nuisance flow continuously to the SGR Estuary though a smaller diameter uncovered pipe.

The discharge from the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin is covered under the Orange County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS618030, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2009-0030), which was issued to the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and Incorporated Cities on May 22, 2009. The Orange County MS4 Permit references the San Gabriel River Metals and Selenium TMDL (Metals TMDL). The waste load allocations listed in the Metals TMDL for Coyote Creek are included in the Orange County MS4 Permit. However, the Orange County MS4 Permit does not contain the dry weather copper waste load allocations assigned to the Estuary.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-21
predominantly open space in the upper watershed to urban land uses in the middle and lower parts of the watershed.

The watershed consists of extensive areas of undisturbed riparian and woodland habitats in its upper reaches. Much of the watershed of the West Fork and East Fork of the river is set aside as a wilderness area; other areas in the upper watershed are subject to heavy recreational use. The upper watershed also contains a series of flood control dams. The watershed is hydraulically connected to the Los Angeles River through the Whittier Narrows Reservoir (normally only during high storm flows). The lower part of the river flows through a concrete-lined channel in a heavily urbanized portion of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain, before becoming a soft bottom channel once again near the ocean in the City of Long Beach. Flow in these lower reaches is dominated by effluent from several municipal wastewater treatment facilities and MS4 discharges.

Various reaches and lakes of the SGR WMA are on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to bacteria, trash, nitrogen, phosphorus, historic pesticides, PCBs, and metals (copper, lead, selenium, and zinc). Beneficial uses impaired by trash are REC-1, REC-2, WARM, COLD, and WILD. Metals and historic pesticides loadings are causing impairments of the WILD, WARM, COLD, RARE, EST, MAR, MIGR, SPWN, WET, MUN, IND, AGR, GWR, and PROC beneficial uses. The excess nitrogen and phosphorus are causing impairments to the REC-1, REC-2, WARM, COLD, and WILD beneficial uses. Elevated indicator bacteria densities are causing impairments to the REC-1 and REC-2 beneficial uses.

Los Cerritos Channel and Alamitos Bay Watershed Management Area. The Los Cerritos Channel is concrete-lined above the tidal prism and drains a small but densely urbanized area of east Long Beach (Attachment B, Figure B-10). The watershed covers an area of approximately 37 square miles (23,680 acres) out of which 5 square miles (3,200 acres) is Alamitos Bay. The Los Cerritos WMA is located between the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and drains to the same general area as the San Gabriel River. There is also a minor hydraulic connection between the lower San Gabriel River and Los Cerritos Channel due to the location of a power plant intake within the Long Beach Marina; the discharge from this facility is into the San Gabriel River estuary. The Los Cerritos Channel’s tidal prism starts at Anaheim Road and connects with Alamitos Bay through the Marine Stadium; the wetlands connect to the Channel a short distance from the lower end of the Channel. The wetland, and portion of the channel near the wetland, is an overwintering site for a great diversity of birds despite its small size. An endangered bird species, the Belding's Savannah Sparrow, may nest there and an area adjacent to the wetlands is a historic least tern colony site. A small marina is located in the channel, which is also used by rowing teams and is a popular fishing area. Alamitos Bay is composed of the Marine Stadium, a recreation facility built in 1932; Long Beach Marina; a variety of public and private berths; and the Bay proper. A small bathing lagoon, Colorado Lagoon located entirely in Long Beach, has a tidal connection with the Bay and is used by overwintering migratory birds. The majority of land use in this WMA is high density residential.

Los Cerritos Channel is on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) List of impaired water bodies for metals (copper, zinc, and lead), trash, ammonia, pH, chlordane, and bacteria. Alamitos Bay is on the 2014/2016 Clean Water Act section 303(d) List of impaired water bodies for bacteria and dissolved oxygen. Beneficial uses impaired by these constituents in the Los Cerritos Channel include WILD, REC2 and WARM.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-22
Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Management Area. The Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Management Area (MSAR WMA) covers approximately 488 square miles (312,320 acres) and lies mostly in San Bernardino and Riverside counties; however, a small part of Los Angeles County is also included. The area of Los Angeles County, which lays in the MSAR WMA, includes portions of the cities of Pomona (12.3 square miles), Claremont (8.4 square miles), and Diamond Bar (0.7 square miles) and unincorporated Los Angeles County (12.3 square miles). The MSAR WMA is comprised of three subwatersheds. The subwatershed that includes portions of Pomona and Claremont is the Chino Basin Subwatershed. Surface drainage from Pomona and Claremont is generally southward toward San Antonio Creek, which is tributary to Chino Creek, which feeds into the Prado Flood Control Basin.

Various reaches of the MSAR WMA, including Chino Creek, are listed on the 2014/16 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for bacteria. Elevated bacterial indicator densities are causing impairments of the REC-1 and REC-2 beneficial uses for the Santa Ana River Reach 3, Chino Creek Reaches 1 and 2, Mill Creek (Prado Area), Cucamonga Creek Reach 1, and Prado Park Lake.

The Santa Ana River Watershed is a major WMA within the Santa Ana Water Board jurisdiction. However, 30.5 square miles of the Santa Ana River Watershed falls within the Los Angeles Water Board’s jurisdiction and therefore will be addressed in the Order except as follows. Per an agreement between the Los Angeles Water Board and the Santa Ana Water Board dated May 31, 2013, the Santa Ana Water Board is designated as the regulator of discharges of bacteria by the cities of Claremont and Pomona through their MS4s to receiving waters within the Santa Ana River Watershed addressed by the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Bacterial TMDL.9 Per this agreement, both the Santa Ana Water Board and Los Angeles Water Board have the authority to enforce the terms of any MS4 permit issued to the cities of Claremont and Pomona if the MS4 discharges occur with the Los Angeles Water Board’s geographic jurisdiction.

C. Description of the Permittees’ MS4s
The Permittees’ MS4s, like many MS4s in the nation, are based on regional floodwater management systems that use both natural and altered water bodies to achieve flood management goals. Most Permittees’ MS4s comprise a large interconnected system used by multiple municipalities. This extensive system conveys stormwater and nonstormwater across municipal boundaries where it is commingled within the MS4 and then discharged to receiving water bodies.

The area covered under the Order contains an extensive drainage network that serves incorporated and unincorporated areas in every Watershed Management Area within the Los Angeles Region. The Los Angeles Region comprises all basins draining into the Pacific Ocean between the southeasterly boundary, located in the westerly part of Ventura County, of the watershed of Rincon Creek and a line which coincides with the southeasterly boundary of Los Angeles County from the ocean to San Antonio Peak and follows thence the divide between San Gabriel River and Lytle Creek drainages to the divide between Sheep Creek and San Gabriel River drainages. (California Water Code § 13200(d)). Maps depicting the major drainage infrastructure within the area covered under the Order are included in Attachment C. Rough estimates based on GIS data and other information from Permittees indicate that the Los Angeles Region has 9 Attachment D to Order No. R8-2013-0043.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-23
an over 7,300-mile subsurface network of MS4 infrastructure (including main storm drain lines, lateral lines, and culverts). Table F-2 below provides approximated information on the extent of select Permittees’ MS4-related infrastructure based on available information carried over from the previous permits, information provided by Ventura County Permittees upon request, GIS data, and annual reports.

Table F-2. Select Permittees’ MS4-Related Infrastructure10 Permittee
Area
(Square
Miles)
Catch
Basins
Storm Drain
Length
(miles)
Open
Channel
Length
(miles)
Ventura
County
Watershed
Protection
District

8.9 0 59.5 219
Ventura
County 32.4 1421 35.6 0.01
Camarillo 19.86 1521 60 5.78
Fillmore 3.2 208 18.2 5
Moorpark 12.5 737 57.0 0
Ojai 4.4 172 4.1 6
Oxnard 27.1 3644 167.3 10.62
Port
Hueneme 4.5 234 6.4 3
Santa Paula 5.5 520 18.5 1
Simi Valley 42.3 1783 107.5 3
Thousand
Oaks 55.4 3293 205.4 2
Ventura 22.2 1847 139.6 9
Long Beach 47.7 3800 180 49

LACFCD /
Los Angeles
County
3100 88000 3500 500
City of Los
Angeles 469 30000 1600 31
El Monte 10 316 11 0.4
Glendale 30.6 1045 136.7 14.4
Inglewood 9 1157 12 0
Pasadena 26 1050 30 7.3
10 All numbers in this table are the Permittees’ best estimates based on knowledge of their storm drainage system; these estimates do not include all conveyances subject to the definition of an MS4 under federal regulations. Estimates can vary due to definition of terms, and GIS categorization and mapping accuracy.

These are subject to change as data is field verified and new infrastructure is constructed or decommissioned by Permittees.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-24
Permittee
Area
(Square
Miles)
Catch
Basins
Storm Drain
Length
(miles)
Open
Channel
Length
(miles)
Santa
Monica 8.3 850 68.3 0.5
Torrance 20 2000 20 3
Additionally, there are numerous stormwater treatment facilities, including stormwater retention basins and stormwater detention basins, within the region. Some examples of existing stormwater treatment facilities include the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) (City of Santa Monica), Marie Canyon (City of Malibu), and Paradise Cove (City of Malibu). Some examples of existing stormwater retention/detention basins include Oxford Basin (County of Los Angeles), Amie Retention Basin (Torrance), and Louie Pompei Park (Glendora).

Stormwater and non-stormwater are conveyed through the MS4s and ultimately discharge into receiving waters of the Los Angeles Region. MS4s subject to the Order receive stormwater and non-stormwater flows from various sources, including conveyances owned by the Permittees covered by the Order and other public agencies, NPDES permitted discharges, discharges authorized by the U.S. EPA (including discharges subject to a decision document approved pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)), rising ground water, and natural flows.

The volume of stormwater and non-stormwater conveyed through the MS4s can be estimated by looking at impervious area data. Detailed data on impervious area is unavailable for Ventura County Permittees at the time of this permit development.

However, per the permit reapplication package (or Report of Waste Discharge, also known as the ROWD), Ventura County has 200,000 acres of developed land. Specific data for Los Angeles County, however, is available through the Safe, Clean Water Program (Measure W) information provided by Los Angeles County and LACFCD and is presented in Table F-3 below.

Table F-3. Los Angeles County Impervious Area
Permittee Impervious Area (ac)
Agoura Hills 840
Alhambra 2,066
Arcadia 2,361
Artesia 491
Azusa 1,526
Baldwin Park 1,717
Bell 755
Bell Gardens 757
Bellflower 1,936
Beverly Hills 1,290
Bradbury 143
Burbank 3,407
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-25
Permittee Impervious Area (ac)
Calabasas 1,089
Carson 6,432
Cerritos 2,363
Claremont 1,388
Commerce 2,974
Compton 2,855
County of Los Angeles 28,769
Covina 1,757
Cudahy 416
Culver City 1,280
Diamond Bar 2,060
Downey 3,406
Duarte 604
El Monte 2,714
El Segundo 2,059
Gardena 1,982
Glendale 3,939
Glendora 2,160
Hawaiian Gardens 300
Hawthorne 1,903
Hermosa Beach 372
Hidden Hills 235
Huntington Park 1,001
Industry 4,278
Inglewood 2,386
Irwindale 1,164
La Cañada Flintridge 914
La Habra Heights 417
La Mirada 2,275
La Puente 816
La Verne 1,430
Lakewood 2,597
Lawndale 537
Lomita 535
Long Beach 11,150
Los Angeles 87,031
Lynwood 1,351
Malibu 1,035
Manhattan Beach 995
Maywood 407
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-26
Permittee Impervious Area (ac)
Monrovia 1,247
Montebello 2,286
Monterey Park 1,803
Norwalk 2,634
Palos Verdes Estates 603
Paramount 1,586
Pasadena 3,613
Pico Rivera 2,278
Pomona 4,598
Rancho Palos Verdes 1,643
Redondo Beach 1,738
Rolling Hills 282
Rolling Hills Estates 448
Rosemead 1,395
San Dimas 1,467
San Fernando 642
San Gabriel 1,057
San Marino 540
Santa Clarita 8,301
Santa Fe Springs 3,636
Santa Monica 1,903
Sierra Madre 354
Signal Hill 686
South El Monte 1,065
South Gate 2,419
South Pasadena 590
Temple City 1,057
Torrance 5,738
Vernon 2,592
Walnut 1,163
West Covina 3,213
West Hollywood 630
Westlake Village 565
Whittier 2,853
Grand Total 275,290
The Order applies to all 99 Permittees within the nine major coastal WMAs under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Water Board. These 99 Permittees include 95 cities, two counties, and two flood control districts. The two flood control districts are described in more detail, below, as the nature and scope of their authorities is different from the other 97 Permittees.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-27
D. Description of Flood Control District Permittees
In 1915, the California Legislature enacted the Los Angeles County Flood Control Act, establishing the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). The objectives and purposes of the Act are to provide for the control and conservation of flood, storm and other waste waters within the flood control district. Among its other powers, LACFCD also has the power to preserve, enhance, and add recreational features to lands or interests in lands contiguous to its properties for the protection, preservation, and use of the scenic beauty and natural environment for the properties or the lands.

LACFCD is governed, as a separate entity, by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors.

LACFCD’s system includes the majority of drainage infrastructure within incorporated and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County in every watershed, including approximately 500 miles of open channel, 3,500 miles of underground drains, and an estimated 88,000 catch basins. Portions of LACFCD’s current system were originally unmodified natural rivers and water courses. LACFCD’s system conveys both storm and non-stormwater throughout Los Angeles County. Other Permittees’ MS4s within Los Angeles County connect and discharge to LACFCD’s system.

The Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) was formed, in part, to provide for the control and conservation of flood and stormwaters, and for the protection and maintenance of watercourses, watersheds, and life and property within the VCWPD from damage or destruction from storm flows or flooding. The VCWPD was originally established on September 12, 1944 as the “Ventura County Flood Control District.” On January 1, 2003, per California Water Code Appendix, Chapter 46, the name was changed to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District to reflect changes in community values, regulatory requirements, and funding opportunities. The change in name also reflected VCWPD’s desire to emphasize integrated watershed management and to solve flood control problems with environmentally sound approaches.

VCWPD’s system includes infrastructure within incorporated and unincorporated areas of Ventura County in every watershed. VCWPD owns/operates approximately 219 miles of open channel and 60 miles of storm drains.

Unlike other Permittees, including the counties of Los Angeles and Ventura, LACFCD and VCWPD do not own or operate any municipal sanitary sewer systems, public streets, roads, or highways. LACFCD and VCWPD also have no planning, zoning, development permitting or other land use authority over industrial or commercial facilities, or new developments or re-development projects located in any incorporated or unincorporated areas within their service area. Nonetheless, as owners and operators of MS4s, LACFCD and VCWPD are required by federal law to control pollutant discharges into and from their MS4s, including but not limited to the ability to control through interagency agreements among co-Permittees and other owners of MS4s the contribution of pollutants from one portion of the MS4 to another portion of the MS4.

Under Order No. R4-2010-0108, VCWPD was designated the Principal Permittee.

However, in the Order, the role of Principal Permittee has been eliminated, since the Order applies to Permittees in both Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Furthermore, under Order No. R4-2012-0175, LACFCD was prescribed separate requirements for minimum control measures. The Order generally does not include separate requirements for LACFCD or VCWPD; however, it notes where certain provisions do not apply (e.g., provisions relating to the industrial and commercial facilities inspection MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-28
programs, planning and land development programs, and new development and redevelopment projects within their jurisdictional boundaries).

E. Nature of MS4 Discharges as a Source of Pollutants to Receiving Waters and Need for Regulation
Stormwater and non-stormwater discharges consist of surface runoff generated from various land uses, which is conveyed via the MS4 and ultimately discharge to surface waters throughout the region. Discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater through the MS4s within the Los Angeles Region convey pollutants to surface waters.

The quality of stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from MS4s is fundamentally important to public health, the health of the environment, and the quality of life in Southern California. Polluted stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from MS4s are a leading cause of water quality impairment in the Los Angeles Region. Stormwater and non-stormwater discharges are often contaminated with pesticides, fertilizers, fecal indicator bacteria and associated pathogens, trash, oil and other automotive byproducts, and many other toxic substances generated by activities in the urban environment. Water that flows over streets, parking lots, construction sites, and industrial, commercial, residential, and municipal areas convey these pollutants through the MS4 directly into receiving waters of the Region.

The water quality impacts and resulting ecosystem impacts and increased public health risks from MS4 discharges that affect receiving waters nationwide and throughout the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Water Board, including its coastline, are well documented. One of the seminal studies on stormwater impacts was the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Study (U.S. EPA 1983), which showed that MS4 discharges from residential, commercial, and light industrial areas contain significant loadings of total suspended solids and other pollutants. The NURP Study also found that pollutant levels from illicit discharges were high enough to significantly degrade receiving water quality, and threaten aquatic life, wildlife, and human health. Many studies since continue to support the conclusions of the NURP Study. The general findings and conclusions of the NURP Study are reiterated in the more recent 2008 National Research Council report “Urban Runoff Management in the United States” as well as in a regional study, “Sources, Patterns and Mechanisms of Storm Water Pollutant Loading from Watersheds and Land Uses of the Greater Los Angeles Area, California,” SCCWRP Technical Report 510 (2007), funded in large part by the Los Angeles Water Board.

Some of the conclusions of the 2007 regional study, which largely remain true today (as demonstrated by an analysis of monitoring data collected under the three previous permit terms), were as follows:
x Storm water runoff from watershed and land use-based sources is a significant contributor of pollutant loading and often exceeds water quality standards. High pollutant concentrations were observed throughout the study at both mass emission (ME) and land use (LU) sites. Pollutant concentrations frequently exceeded water quality standards.
x Storm water Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs), fluxes and loads were substantially lower from undeveloped open space areas when compared to developed urbanized watersheds. Storms sampled from less developed watersheds produced pollutant EMCs and fluxes that were one to two orders of magnitude lower than comparably sized storms in urbanized watersheds.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-29
Furthermore, the higher fluxes from developed watersheds were generated by substantially less rainfall than the lower fluxes from the undeveloped watersheds, presumably due to increased impervious surface area in developed watersheds.
x The Los Angeles region contributed a similar range of storm water runoff pollutant loads as that of other regions of the United States. Comparison of constituent concentrations in storm water runoff from land use sites from this study reveal median EMCs that are comparable to U.S. averages reported in the National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD; Pitt et al., 2003). Comparison to the NSQD data set provides insight to spatial and temporal patterns in constituent concentrations in urban systems. Similarities between levels reported in the NSQD and this study suggest that land-based concentrations in southern California storm water are generally comparable to those in other parts of the country.
x Peak concentrations for all constituents were observed during the early part of the storm. Constituent concentrations varied with time over the course of storm events. For all storms sampled, the highest constituent concentrations occurred during the early phases of storm water runoff with peak concentrations usually preceding peak flow. Although the pattern of an early peak in concentration was comparable in both large and small developed watersheds, the peak concentration tended to occur later in the storm and persist for a longer duration in the smaller developed watersheds. Therefore, monitoring programs must capture the early portion of storms and account for intra-storm variability in concentration in order to generate accurate estimates of EMC and contaminant loading. Programs that do not initiate sampling until a flow threshold has been surpassed may severely underestimate storm EMCs.
x Highest constituent loading was observed early in the storm season with intraannual variability driven more by antecedent dry period than amount of rainfall.

Seasonal differences in constituent EMCs and loads were consistently observed at both ME and LU sites. In general, early season storms (October - December) produce significantly higher constituent EMCs and loads than late season storms (April - May), even when rainfall quantity was similar. This suggests that the magnitude of constituent load associated with storm water runoff depends, at least in part, on the amount of time available for pollutant build-up on land surfaces. The extended dry period that typically occurs in arid climates such as southern California maximizes the time for constituents to build-up on land surfaces, resulting in proportionally higher concentrations and loads during initial storms of the season.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 1999 Report, "Stormwater Strategies, Community Responses to Runoff Pollution” identifies two main causes of the storm water pollution problem in urban areas. Both causes are directly related to development in urban and urbanizing areas:
x Increased volume and velocity of surface runoff. There are three types of human-made impervious covers that increase the volume and velocity of runoff:
(i) rooftop, (ii) transportation imperviousness, and (iii) non-porous (impervious) surfaces. As these impervious surfaces increase, infiltration will decrease, forcing more water to run off the surface, picking up speed and pollutants.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-30
x The concentration of pollutants in the runoff. Certain activities, such as those from industrial sites, are large contributors of pollutant concentrations to the MS4.

The report also identified several activities causing stormwater pollution from urban areas, including practices of homeowners, businesses, and government agencies.

Studies conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) through its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program confirm the link between urbanization and water quality impairments in urban watersheds due to contaminated stormwater runoff (USGS, 2001).

Furthermore, the water quality impacts of urbanization and urban stormwater discharges have been examined and described by many researchers and summarized by U.S. EPA in a 1997 publication titled “Urbanization and Streams: Studies of Hydrologic Impacts”. Urbanization causes changes in hydrology and increases pollutant loads which adversely impact water quality and impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters. Increases in population density and imperviousness result in changes to stream hydrology including:
x increased peak discharges compared to predevelopment levels; x increased volume of storm water runoff with each storm compared to predevelopment levels; x decreased travel time to reach receiving water;
x increased frequency and severity of floods;
x reduced stream flow during prolonged periods of dry weather due to reduced levels of infiltration;
x increased runoff velocity during storms due to a combination of effects of higher discharge peaks, rapid time of concentration, and smoother hydraulic surfaces from channelization; and
x decreased infiltration and diminished ground water recharge.

The 2016 National Water Quality Inventory (CWA Section 305(b) Report) showed that urban runoff/storm water discharges contribute to the impairment of 49,330 miles of streams, to the impairment of 759,483 acres of lakes, to the impairment of 316 miles of coastal shoreline, and to the impairment of 16,773 square miles of estuaries in the United States.

Permittees in Ventura County and Los Angeles County have conducted monitoring to, among other objectives:
x assess the overall health and trends in receiving water quality; x assess impacts of MS4 discharges on receiving waters; x identify sources of pollutants;
x assess compliance with receiving water limitations and water quality-based effluent limitations derived from TMDL waste load allocations; and x measure and improve the effectiveness of measures implemented to comply with their MS4 permits.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-31
Monitoring by Permittees in the Los Angeles Region indicates that concentrations of pathogen indicators (fecal coliform, total coliform, and enterococcus), heavy metals (such as Pb, Cu, Zn, Cd, As, Ni, Ag) and pesticides (such as diazinon, malathion, lindane, total chlordane) among others exceed water quality standards in receiving waters. Receiving water impacts studies found that stormwater discharges from urban watersheds exhibit toxicity attributable to heavy metals. Bioassessments of the benthic communities showed bioaccumulation of toxicants. Sediment analysis showed higher concentrations of pollutants, such as Pb and PAHs, in urban watersheds than in rural watersheds (2 to 4 times higher). In addition, toxicity of dry weather, non-stormwater flows was observed with the cause of toxicity undetermined. Other studies have documented concentrations of pollutants that exceed water quality standards in storm drains flowing to the ocean during dry weather, and adverse health impacts from swimming near flowing storm drains (LARWQCB, 2020; Haile et al., 1999).

Trash is also a serious and pervasive water quality problem in the Los Angeles Region and statewide. In 2015, during development of the Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) for Trash Provisions and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries (collectively referred to as “the Trash Amendments”), the State Water Board conducted a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of trash on beneficial uses of surface waters throughout the state, including impacts to aquatic habitat and aquatic life, public health, contact and non-contact water recreation, commercial and sport fishing, navigation, and Native American culture.11 Trash in waterways causes significant water quality problems. Small and large floatables inhibit the growth of aquatic vegetation, decreasing habitat and spawning areas for fish and other living organisms. Wildlife living in rivers and in riparian areas can be harmed by ingesting or becoming entangled in floating trash. Except for large items, settleables are not always obvious to the eye. They include glass, cigarette butts, rubber, and construction debris, among other things. Settleables can be a problem for bottom feeders and can contribute to sediment contamination. Some debris (e.g., diapers, medical and household waste, and chemicals) are a source of bacteria and toxic substances. Floating debris that is not trapped and removed will eventually end up on the beaches or in the open ocean, keeping visitors away from our beaches and degrading coastal waters. Through periodic surface water quality assessments pursuant to Clean Water Act section 305(b) and identification of impaired waters pursuant to Clean Water Act section 303(d), the Los Angeles Water Board has determined that current levels of trash exceed the existing water quality objectives contained in the Basin Plan that are necessary to protect the beneficial uses of many surface waters. Los Angeles Water Board staff regularly observes trash in surface waters throughout the Los Angeles Region. Non-profit organizations such as Heal the Bay, Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR) and others organize volunteer clean-ups periodically and document the amount of trash collected. Significant strides have been made by a number of Permittees in addressing this problem through the implementation of control measures to achieve waste load allocations established in trash TMDLs.

As discussed above, pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater have damaging effects on both human health and aquatic ecosystems. Water quality assessments 11 State Water Resources Control Board. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California: Final Staff Report Appendix A “Trash Background.”
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-32
conducted by the Los Angeles Water Board have identified impairment of beneficial uses of water bodies in the Los Angeles Region caused or contributed by pollutants in MS4 discharges. As a result of these impairments, there are beach postings, fish consumption advisories, ecosystem and recreational impacts from trash and debris, and toxic conditions for aquatic life, among others. Forty-five TMDLs established by the Los Angeles Water Board and U.S. EPA identify MS4 discharges as one of the pollutant sources causing or contributing to the water quality impairments of the myriad waterbodies addressed by the TMDLs.

The Ventura County Permittees’ January 2015 Report of Waste Discharge identifies a number of pollutants of concern in Table 3-25, including indicator bacteria, trash, sedimentation/siltation, pesticides (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT compounds, toxaphene, and bifenthrin), minerals (boron, chloride, sulfate, TDS), PCBs, metals (copper, nickel, mercury, aluminum), selenium, nutrients and nutrient related effects (total nitrogen, total phosphorus, algal biomass, algal percent cover, dissolved oxygen), toxicity, and temperature among others. Ventura County Permittees’ Annual Reports (2009/2010 – 2018/2019) confirm these pollutants of concern, reporting E. coli, chloride, total dissolved solids (TDS), selenium and metals, including dissolved copper and total aluminum as some of the pollutants in MS4 discharges. Additionally, the Los Angeles Water Board has also identified nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, and trash as pollutants of concern in various areas of Ventura County and, through TMDL development, has identified MS4 discharges as one of the sources of these pollutants.

An analysis of monitoring data relative to TMDL implementation in Ventura County is summarized below.

The Los Angeles Water Board, based on monitoring data collected during the term of Order No. R4-2012-0175 (2012/2013 – 2016/2017) has identified bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, metals, and trash among others as pollutants of concern in various areas of Los Angeles County and, through TMDL development, has identified MS4 discharges as one of the sources of these pollutants. An analysis of monitoring data analysis relative to TMDL implementation in Los Angeles County is also summarized below.

1. Mass Emission Stations
Permittees have historically monitored receiving waters throughout the Los Angeles Region at a set of receiving water monitoring stations referred to as “mass emission stations.” These stations were established to assess compliance with the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the Ventura County MS4 Permit. The mass emission stations are generally located at the base of watersheds and are intended to monitor the quality of water discharged from large mixed land use areas. Results from the mass emission monitoring are also used to estimate pollutant loads and to analyze long term water quality trends. Monitoring at these stations provides a high-level look at the impacts of MS4 discharges on receiving waters during storm events and during dry weather conditions.
a. Wet Weather Mass Emission Station Monitoring
The table below highlights the frequency that select constituents exceeded wet weather TMDL targets and/or Basin Plan water quality objectives at each mass emission station during the period of the permit terms for Order No. R4- 2010-0108 and Order No. R4-2012-0175 from 2009 to 2017. This table shows that bacteria and metals are not achieving objectives during storm events throughout the Los Angeles Region. E. coli exceeded TMDL targets and/or Basin Plan objectives in more than 25% of wet weather samples. Additionally, MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-33
eight of ten stations had metals that exceeded TMDL targets and/or Basin Plan objectives in more than 25% of wet weather samples. Nutrients had exceedances in two of the ten stations.

Table F-4. Summary of Major Constituents Exceeding TMDL Targets and/or Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives at Mass Emission Stations During Wet Weather Conditions (2009-2017)
Mass Emission
Station Condition
1% - 10% of
Samples
Exceeded TMDL
Target/Basin
Plan Objective
11% - 25% of
Samples
Exceeded TMDL
Target/Basin
Plan Objective
> 25% of
Samples
Exceeded TMDL
Target/Basin
Plan Objective
Ballona Creek Wet - Total Lead E. coli, Total
Copper, Total Zinc
Calleguas Creek Wet - - E. coli
Coyote Creek Wet - - E. coli, Total
Copper, Total Zinc
Dominguez
Channel Wet - Total Lead E. coli, Total Copper, Total Zinc Los Angeles
River Wet - Total Lead E. coli, Total Copper, Total Zinc Malibu Creek Wet - -
E. coli, Total
Nitrogen, Total
Phosphorus
San Gabriel River Wet - Total Zinc E. coli, Total
Copper
Santa Clara River
(Lower) Wet Nitrate + Nitrite - E. coli, Total Copper, Total Zinc Santa Clara River
(Upper) Wet Total Lead Total Zinc E. coli, Total Copper Ventura River Wet - - E. coli
b. Dry Weather Mass Emission Station Monitoring
The table below similarly shows the frequency that the same set of constituents exceeded dry weather TMDL targets and/or Basin Plan water quality objectives at each mass emissions station. E. coli exceeded TMDL targets and/or Basin Plan objectives in six of ten stations. Metals exceeded targets and limitations in two of ten stations. Nutrients exceeded targets and limitations in two of ten stations.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-34
Table F-5. Summary of Major Constituents Exceeding TMDL Targets and/or Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives at Mass Emission Stations During Dry Weather Conditions (2009-2017)
Mass Emission
Station Condition
1% - 10% of
Samples
Exceeded TMDL
Target/Basin
Plan Objective
11% - 25% of
Samples
Exceeded TMDL
Target/Basin
Plan Objective
> 25% of
Samples
Exceeded TMDL
Target/Basin
Plan Objective
Ballona Creek Dry Total Copper,
Total Zinc E. coli -
Calleguas Creek Dry - E. coli -
Coyote Creek Dry - - E. coli
Dominguez
Channel Dry - Total Copper E. coli
Los Angeles
River Dry - - E. coli
Malibu Creek Dry - - Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus
San Gabriel River Dry - Nitrate + Nitrite -
Santa Clara River
(Lower) Dry - - -
Santa Clara River
(Upper) Dry - - -
Ventura River Dry - E. coli -

2. Bacteria
Indicator bacteria (e.g., E. coli, total coliform, fecal coliform, and Enterococcus) are monitored to indicate the likelihood of pathogens in surface waters. The Los Angeles Water Board’s Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives for indicator bacteria to protect water contact recreation (REC-1) and non-contact water recreation (REC-2) beneficial uses. Permittees have monitored bacteria to implement bacteria TMDLs in the Los Angeles Region and to implement beach water quality monitoring requirements under Health and Safety Code sections 115880, 115885, and 115915.
a. Wet Weather Bacteria Monitoring
The tables below summarize wet weather bacteria monitoring at receiving water and outfall monitoring stations. Data from 2012 to 2017 was analyzed for Los Angeles County. Data from 2009 through 2017 was analyzed for Ventura County. Indicator bacteria consistently exceeded water quality objectives at receiving water monitoring stations. In several watersheds, the frequency of samples exceeding objectives was more than 50%. Outfalls have also consistently exceeded applicable E. coli effluent limitations. In some watersheds, all outfalls samples exceeded effluent limitations.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-35
Table F-6. Summary of Wet Weather Bacteria Monitoring at Receiving Water Stations Watershed TMDL # of
Stations
# of
Exceedances
# of
Samples
%
Exceed
Ballona
Creek
Ballona Creek Bacteria
TMDL 8 155 203 76%
Dominguez
Channel
Los Angeles Harbor Bacteria
TMDL 3 164 385 43%
Los
Angeles
River
Los Angeles River Bacteria
TMDL 7 26 45 58%
Los
Angeles
River
Long Beach City Beaches
and Los Angeles River
Estuary Bacteria TMDL
12 175 330 53%
Malibu
Creek
Malibu Creek and Lagoon
Bacteria TMDL 14 127 198 64%
Marina del
Rey
Marina del Rey Harbor
Mothers’ Beach and Back
Basins Bacteria TMDL
13 367 733 50%
Misc.

Ventura
Coastal
Watersheds
Harbor Beaches of Ventura
County Bacteria TMDL 2 43 135 32%
San Gabriel
River
San Gabriel River Bacteria
TMDL 10 48 51 94%
Santa Clara
River
Santa Clara River Estuary
and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7
Indicator Bacteria TMDL
4 30 37 81%
Santa
Monica Bay
Santa Monica Bay Beaches
Bacteria TMDL 68 1174 3770 31%
Alamitos
Bay (non-TMDL areas) 4 82 149 55%
Calleguas
Creek (non-TMDL areas) 1 21 22 95%
Colorado
Lagoon (non-TMDL areas) 2 27 70 39%
Dominguez
Channel (non-TMDL areas) 2 19 19 100%
Los
Cerritos
Channel
(non-TMDL areas) 3 18 18 100%
Ventura
River (non-TMDL areas) 1 23 26 88%
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-36
Table F-7. Summary of Wet Weather Bacteria Monitoring at Outfall Stations Watershed TMDL # of
Stations
# of
Exceedances
# of
Samples
%
Exceed
Ballona
Creek
Ballona Creek Bacteria
TMDL 2 9 9 100%
Los Angeles
River
Los Angeles River Bacteria
TMDL 12 17 37 46%
Malibu
Creek
Malibu Creek and Lagoon
Bacteria TMDL 3 6 6 100%
Marina del
Rey
Marina del Rey Harbor
Mothers’ Beach and Back
Basins Bacteria TMDL
1 3 3 100%
San Gabriel
River
San Gabriel River Bacteria
TMDL 12 53 58 91%
Santa Clara
River
Santa Clara River Estuary
and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7
Indicator Bacteria TMDL
11 91 103 88%
Alamitos
Bay (non-TMDL areas) 1 3 3 100%
Dominguez
Channel (non-TMDL areas) 4 9 9 100%
Los Cerritos
Channel (non-TMDL areas) 1 3 3 100%
b. Dry Weather Bacteria Monitoring
The tables below summarize dry weather bacteria monitoring at receiving water and outfall monitoring stations. Data from 2012 to 2017 was analyzed for Los Angeles County. Data from 2009 through 2017 was analyzed for Ventura County. Compared to wet weather, there were fewer exceedances of water quality objectives at receiving water stations. Outfalls consistently exceeded applicable E. coli effluent limitations.

Table F-8. Summary of Dry Weather Bacteria Monitoring at Receiving Water Stations Watershed Associated
TMDL
Weather
Condition
# of
Stations
# of
Exceedances
# of
Samples
%
Exceed
Ballona
Creek
Ballona Creek
Bacteria TMDL Dry 8 950 1763 54%
Dominguez
Channel
Los Angeles
Harbor Bacteria
TMDL
Dry
(Winter) 3 159 899 18%
Dominguez
Channel
Los Angeles
Harbor Bacteria
TMDL
Dry
(Summer) 3 269 1618 17%
Los
Angeles
River
Los Angeles
River Bacteria
TMDL
Dry 25 293 513 57%
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-37
Watershed Associated
TMDL
Weather
Condition
# of
Stations
# of
Exceedances
# of
Samples
%
Exceed
Los
Angeles
River
Long Beach City
Beaches and
Los Angeles
River Estuary
Bacteria TMDL
Dry
(Winter) 12 59 796 7%
Los
Angeles
River
Long Beach City
Beaches and
Los Angeles
River Estuary
Bacteria TMDL
Dry
(Summer) 12 170 1507 11%
Malibu
Creek
Malibu Creek
and Lagoon
Bacteria TMDL
Dry 15 346 1447 24%
Marina del
Rey
Marina del Rey
Harbor Mothers’
Beach and Back
Basins Bacteria
TMDL
Dry
(Winter) 13 353 1479 24%
Marina del
Rey
Marina del Rey
Harbor Mothers’
Beach and Back
Basins Bacteria
TMDL
Dry
(Summer) 13 338 2722 12%
Misc.

Ventura
Coastal
Watersheds
Harbor Beaches
of Ventura
County Bacteria
TMDL
Dry
(Winter) 2 21 219 10%
Misc.

Ventura
Coastal
Watersheds
Harbor Beaches
of Ventura
County Bacteria
TMDL
Dry
(Summer) 2 26 469 6%
San Gabriel
River
San Gabriel
River Bacteria
TMDL
Dry 10 17 38 45%
Santa Clara
River
Santa Clara
River Estuary
and Reaches 3,
5, 6, and 7
Indicator
Bacteria TMDL
Dry 3 0 15 0%
Santa
Monica Bay
Santa Monica
Bay Beaches
Bacteria TMDL
Dry
(Winter) 68 938 7839 12%
Santa
Monica Bay
Santa Monica
Bay Beaches
Bacteria TMDL
Dry
(Summer) 68 746 14094 5%
Alamitos
Bay
(non-TMDL
areas) Dry 4 57 980 6%
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-38
Watershed Associated
TMDL
Weather
Condition
# of
Stations
# of
Exceedances
# of
Samples
%
Exceed
Calleguas
Creek
(non-TMDL
areas) Dry 1 1 9 11%
Colorado
Lagoon
(non-TMDL
areas) Dry 2 14 475 3%
Dominguez
Channel
(non-TMDL
areas) Dry 2 7 12 58%
Los Cerritos
Channel
(non-TMDL
areas) Dry 1 2 3 67%
Ventura
River
(non-TMDL
areas) Dry 1 1 9 11%
Table F-9. Summary of Dry Weather Bacteria Monitoring at Outfall Stations Watershed Associated TMDL # of
Stations
# of
Exceedances
# of
Samples
%
Exceed
Malibu
Creek
Malibu Creek and Lagoon
Bacteria TMDL 1 1 1 100%
San
Gabriel
River
San Gabriel River Bacteria
TMDL 3 6 17 35%
Santa
Clara River
Santa Clara River Estuary
and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7
Indicator Bacteria TMDL
9 37 60 62%
Los
Cerritos
Channel
(non-TMDL areas) 1 1 1 100%
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-39

3. Metals
Permittees have monitored metals at several receiving water and outfall monitoring stations. This reflects the number of metals TMDLs and metals impairments throughout the Los Angeles Region. Copper, lead, and zinc are the primary metals of concern in the region as concentrations of these metals have exceeded water quality objectives for protection of aquatic life, which are established in the California Toxics Rule (CTR). Zinc and copper have often been identified as “limiting pollutants” in Watershed Management Programs established under the Los Angeles County and City of Long Beach MS4 Permits.
a. Wet Weather Metals Monitoring
The tables below summarize Permittees’ wet weather metals monitoring in select watersheds during the previous permit term (2009-2017 in Ventura County and 2012-2017 in Los Angeles County). Copper and/or zinc exceedances were observed at many receiving water stations when monitoring results were compared to CTR acute criteria for both total metals and dissolved metals.

Where outfall monitoring was conducted, many outfalls exceeded applicable effluent limitations for copper and zinc during wet-weather monitoring.

Exceedances for these two constituents were observed at outfall stations in Calleguas Creek, Santa Clara River, Los Angeles River, Ballona Creek, San Gabriel River, and Los Cerritos Channel. Lead exceedances were also observed; however, these occurred at a far lower frequency.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-40
Table F-10. Summary of Wet Weather Metals Receiving Water Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples)
Parameter Ballona
Creek
Calleguas
Creek
Dominguez
Channel
Los
Angeles
River
Los Cerritos
Channel
San
Gabriel
River
Santa
Clara
River
Ventura
River
Cadmium
(Total) -- -- -- 3/48 -- -- -- --
Cadmium
(Dissolved) -- -- -- 0/42 -- -- -- --
Copper
(Total) 104/109 5/24 21/21 64/100 30/30 82/91 17/37 0/26 Copper
(Dissolved) 84/109 0/25 -- 19/94 30/30 34/91 -- --
Lead
(Total) 41/109 0/22 4/21 13/104 16/19 9/91 2/32 0/26
Lead
(Dissolved) 0/109 -- -- 1/98 6/19 0/91 -- --
Mercury
(Total) -- 7/27 -- -- -- -- -- --
Nickel
(Total) -- 0/24 -- -- -- -- -- --
Nickel
(Dissolved) -- 0/24 -- -- -- -- -- --
Selenium 0/80 -- -- -- -- 0/67 -- --
Zinc
(Total) 102/109 -- 21/21 83/102 19/19 74/93 10/37 0/26
Zinc
(Dissolved) -- 0/22 -- 20/96 17/19 20/93 -- --
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-41
Table F-11. Summary of Wet Weather Metals Outfall Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples)
Parameter Ballona
Creek
Calleguas
Creek
Dominguez
Channel
Los Angeles
River
Los Cerritos
Channel
San
Gabriel
River
Santa
Clara
River
Ventura
River
Cadmium
(Total) -- -- -- 4/62 -- -- -- --
Copper
(Total) 8/9 26/43 0/6 27/65 -- 3/7 -- --
Lead
(Total) 2/9 -- 0/6 1/65 -- 0/38 -- --
Mercury
(Total) -- 8/26 -- -- -- -- -- --
Nickel
(Total) -- 0/43 -- -- -- -- -- --
Selenium 0/2 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Zinc
(Total) 8/9 -- 0/6 39/62 -- 3/7 -- --
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-42
b. Dry Weather Metals Monitoring
The tables below summarize Permittees’ dry weather metals monitoring in select watersheds during the previous permit term (2009-2017 in Ventura County and 2012-2017 in Los Angeles County). Compared to wet weather, there were fewer exceedances of dry weather effluent limitations at outfalls and receiving water limitations at receiving water stations. For several constituent and waterbodies, no exceedances were observed.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-43
Table F-12. Summary of Dry Weather Metals Receiving Water Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples)
Parameter Ballona
Creek
Calleguas
Creek
Dominguez
Channel
Los
Angeles
River
Los
Cerritos
Channel
San
Gabriel
River
Santa
Clara
River
Ventura
River
Cadmium
(Total) -- -- -- 0/18 -- -- -- --
Cadmium
(Dissolved) -- -- -- 0/14 -- -- -- --
Copper
(Total) 8/150 0/10 2/10 5/255 4/8 1/34 0/19 0/9
Copper
(Dissolved) 1/150 0/10 -- 2/251 4/8 0/34 -- --
Lead
(Total) 0/150 0/9 0/10 3/164 -- 0/31 0/16 0/9
Lead
(Dissolved) 0/150 -- -- 0/160 -- 0/31 -- --
Mercury
(Total) -- 0/11 -- -- -- -- -- --
Nickel
(Total) -- 0/10 -- -- -- -- -- --
Nickel
(Dissolved) -- 0/10 -- -- -- -- -- --
Selenium 0/78 0/10 -- -- -- 2/26 -- --
Zinc
(Total) 0/150 0/9 0/10 1/225 -- 0/35 0/19 0/9
Zinc
(Dissolved) 0/150 -- -- 0/221 -- 0/35 -- --
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-44
Table F-13. Summary of Dry Weather Metals Outfall Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples)
Parameter Ballona
Creek
Calleguas
Creek
Dominguez
Channel
Los
Angeles
River
Los
Cerritos
Channel
San
Gabriel
River
Santa
Clara
River
Ventura
River
Cadmium
(Total) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Copper
(Total) 1/8 9/17 -- 0/2 -- -- -- --
Lead
(Total) 0/8 -- -- 0/2 -- -- -- --
Mercury
(Total) -- 0/9 -- -- -- -- -- --
Nickel
(Total) -- 0/15 -- -- -- -- -- --
Selenium -- 0/8 -- -- -- 0/4 -- --
Zinc
(Total) 0/8 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-45

4. Nutrients
Permittees have monitored nutrients at several receiving water and outfall monitoring stations in waterbodies with nutrient and nutrient-related impairments.

Data from 2012 to 2017 was analyzed for Los Angeles County. Data from 2009 through 2017 was analyzed for Ventura County. Although discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants (also known as publicly owned treatment works or POTWs) have often been identified as major sources of impairments in some TMDLs, MS4 discharges have been identified as a source of impairment during wet weather and dry weather in several TMDLs. The tables below summarize nutrient monitoring at some select river systems with nutrient TMDLs.

Permittees also monitor nutrients in lake systems as there are several lakes in the Los Angeles Region that have nutrient TMDLs.

Table F-14. Summary of Nutrients Receiving Water Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples)
Limitation Calleguas
Creek
Los
Angeles
River
Malibu
Creek
(Summer)
Malibu
Creek
(Winter)
Santa
Clara River
Ammonia (1 Hr Avg) 0/546 0/57 -- -- 1/41
Ammonia (30 Day
Avg) 0/511 0/57 -- -- 1/35
Nitrate 176/546 1/65 -- -- 1/35
Nitrite 1/516 2/57 -- -- --
Nitrate + Nitrite 179/542 5/65 5/13 1/43 --
Total Phosphorus -- -- 12/14 -- --
Table F-15. Summary of Nutrients Outfall Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples)
Limitation Calleguas
Creek
Los
Angeles
River
Malibu
Creek
(Summer)
Malibu
Creek
(Winter)
Santa
Clara
River
Ammonia (1 Hr Avg) 0/108 0/28 -- -- 2/38
Ammonia (30 Day
Avg) 1/100 0/28 -- -- 2/28
Nitrate 0/1 0/21 -- -- --
Nitrite -- 2/21 -- -- --
Nitrate + Nitrite 1/109 1/28 2/2 0/6 0/28
Total Phosphorus -- -- 2/2 -- --

5. Salts
Permittees have monitored for salts at receiving water and outfall monitoring stations in waterbodies with salt impairments. Data from 2012 to 2017 was analyzed for Los Angeles County. Data from 2009 through 2017 was analyzed for Ventura County. The tables below summarize monitoring conducted for the Calleguas Creek Watershed Salts TMDL and Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL.

Both watersheds show continued exceedances of TMDL targets and/or receiving water limitations. The monitoring results for Santa Clara River is separated by the MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-46
weather condition at sample collection. Dry weather receiving water and outfall samples exceeded more frequently than wet weather samples. For example, 12 of 19 (63%) dry weather outfall samples exceeded applicable limitations compared to 1 of 60 (2%) wet weather outfall samples.

Table F-16. Summary of Salts Monitoring at Receiving Water Stations Watershed Constituent Weather
Condition
# of
Stations
# of
Exceedances
# of
Samples
%
Exceed
Calleguas
Creek Boron -- 6 8 34 24%
Calleguas
Creek Chloride -- 6 4 44 9%
Calleguas
Creek Sulfate -- 6 8 36 22%
Calleguas
Creek TDS -- 6 8 44 18%
Santa Clara
River Chloride Wet 3 9 44 20%
Santa Clara
River Chloride Dry 3 12 20 60%
Table F-17. Summary of Salts Monitoring at Outfall Stations Watershed Constituent Weather
Condition
# of
Stations
# of
Exceedances
# of
Samples
%
Exceed
Calleguas Creek Chloride -- 4 10 24 42%
Calleguas Creek Sulfate -- 4 1 7 14%
Calleguas Creek TDS -- 4 7 24 29%
Santa Clara
River Chloride Wet 8 1 60 2%
Santa Clara
River Chloride Dry * 12 19 63%

6. Toxic Pollutants
Toxic pollutants include pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, and metals. Toxic pollutants can bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms, which is harmful for both the organisms as well as organisms that consume these species (including humans).

The Los Angeles Water Board’s Basin Plan establishes a narrative water quality objective to address bioaccumulation, which states “Toxic pollutants shall not be present at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to levels which are harmful to aquatic life or human health.” The State Water Board has established Sediment Quality Objectives for enclosed bays and estuaries, which state:
x Pollutants in sediments shall not be present in quantities that, alone or in combination are toxic to benthic communities in bays and estuaries of California; x Pollutants shall not be present in sediments at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to levels that are harmful to human health in bays and estuaries of California; and
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-47
x Pollutants shall not be present in sediment at levels that alone or in combination are toxic to wildlife and resident finfish by direct exposure or bioaccumulate in aquatic life at levels that are harmful to wildlife or resident finfish by indirect exposure in bays and estuaries of California.

There are several TMDLs addressing impairments due to toxic pollutants in the Los Angeles Region. These TMDLs address impairments in estuaries, harbors, lakes, and other waterbodies where toxic pollutants can accumulate in the sediment.

Permittees have been monitoring toxic pollutants in several waterbodies throughout the Los Angeles Region. This monitoring includes sediment monitoring at estuaries, lakes, and bays; stormborne sediment during rain events; and fish tissue monitoring at receiving waters. Data from 2012 to 2017 was analyzed for Los Angeles County. Data from 2009 through 2017 was analyzed for Ventura County. The table below summarizes some of the toxic pollutant monitoring conducted by Permittees. Due to the complexity of toxics TMDLs, which often include interim limitations and the analysis of multiple lines of evidence, it should be noted that the information in the table is a simplification of receiving water conditions.

Table F-18. Summary of Toxic Pollutants Receiving Water Monitoring Exceeding Criteria by Watershed (Exceedances / Samples)
Parameter Sample
Type
Ballona
Estuary
Calleguas
Creek and
Mugu
Lagoon
Colorado
Lagoon
Dominguez
Channel
Estuary
Santa
Monica
Bay
4,4-DDD Sediment -- 0/66 -- -- --
4,4-DDE Sediment -- 0/66 -- -- --
4,4-DDT Sediment -- 1/66 -- -- --
Cadmium Stormborne
Sediment 2/13 -- -- -- --
Chlordane Fish Tissue -- -- 4/4 -- --
Chlordane Sediment -- 1/66 10/12 -- --
Chlordane Stormborne
Sediment 14/20 -- -- -- --
Copper Sediment -- -- -- 3/22 --
Copper Stormborne
Sediment 2/13 -- -- -- --
DDTs Fish Tissue -- -- -- 4/4 --
DDTs Sediment -- -- -- 3/22 3/3
DDTs Stormborne
Sediment 14/20 -- 11/12 -- --
Dieldrin Fish Tissue -- -- 2/4 -- --
Dieldrin Sediment -- 0/66 11/12 -- --
Lead Sediment -- -- 8/12 3/22 --
Lead Stormborne
Sediment 2/13 -- -- -- --
PAHs Fish Tissue -- -- 2/4 -- --
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-48
Parameter Sample
Type
Ballona
Estuary
Calleguas
Creek and
Mugu
Lagoon
Colorado
Lagoon
Dominguez
Channel
Estuary
Santa
Monica
Bay
PAHs Sediment -- -- 0/12 1/22 --
PAHs Stormborne
Sediment 5/20 -- -- -- --
PCBs Fish Tissue -- -- 4/4 -- --
PCBs Sediment -- 0/66 7/12 2/22 3/3
PCBs Stormborne
Sediment 12/18 -- -- -- --
Silver Stormborne
Sediment 0/13 -- -- -- --
Toxaphene Sediment -- 0/66 -- -- --
Zinc Sediment -- -- 8/12 3/22
Zinc Stormborne
Sediment 2/13 -- -- -- --
F. History of the Previous Permits
Prior to the issuance of the Order, the Los Angeles Water Board issued Permittees in Ventura County, Permittees within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (with the exception of the City of Long Beach), and the City of Long Beach their own respective Phase I MS4 Permits.

Ventura County MS4 Permit
The first MS4 Permit for Ventura County and the incorporated areas therein was Order No. 94-082, issued by the Los Angeles Water Board on August 22, 1994. Between 1994 and 2010, several iterations of this permit were issued. Order No. 94-082 was superseded by Order No. 00-108, issued by the Los Angeles Water Board on July 27, 2000. On May 7, 2009, the Los Angeles Water Board issued Order No. 09-0057, which superseded Order No. 00-108. On July 8, 2010, the Los Angeles Water Board issued Order No. R4-2010-0108, which superseded Order No. 09-0057, to address perceived procedural issues raised by the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation and others in a petition to the State Water Board.

Prior to the issuance of the Order, Order No. R4-2010-0108 served as the NPDES permit for MS4 stormwater and non-stormwater discharges within the watersheds of Ventura County. The requirements of Order No. R4-2010-0108 applied to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, San Buenaventura (Ventura), Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks.

Working together under the Ventura County MS4 Permit, the VCWPD joined together with the County of Ventura and 10 incorporated cities to form the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program. VCWPD was designated as the Principal Permittee. The Principal Permittee coordinated and facilitated activities necessary to comply with the requirements of Order No. R4-2010-0108 but was not responsible for ensuring compliance of any of the other Permittees. As noted earlier, the designation of MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-49
a Principal Permittee has not been carried over from Order No. R4-2010-0108 to the Order.

Los Angeles County MS4 Permit
The first MS4 permit for Los Angeles County and the incorporated areas therein was Order No. 90-079, issued by the Los Angeles Water Board on June 18, 1990. Order No. 96-054 was issued by the Los Angeles Water Board on July 15, 1996, which superseded Order No. 90-079. Order No. 96-054 was superseded by Order No. 01-182, which was issued by the Los Angeles Water Board on December 13, 2001. Order No. 01-182 was amended on September 14, 2006 by Order No. R4-2006-0074, on August 9, 2007 by Order No. R4-2007-0042, on December 10, 2009 by Order No. R4-2009-0130, and on October 19, 2010 and April 14, 2011 pursuant to a peremptory writ of mandate in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS122724. As discussed below, Order No. 01-182 did not regulate MS4 discharges originating from the City of Long Beach.

On November 8, 2012, the Los Angeles Water Board issued Order No. R4-2012-0175, which superseded Order No. 01-182, as amended. Thereafter, several Los Angeles County MS4 Permittees and environmental organizations filed 37 petitions with the State Water Board challenging various provisions of Order No. R4-2012-0175. On June 16, 2015, the State Water Board adopted Order WQ 2015-0075, which generally upheld Order No. R4-2012-0175 but with a number of revisions to the findings and provisions.

Two cities and two environmental organizations subsequently filed three lawsuits (petitions for writ of mandate) against the Los Angeles Water Board and State Water Board challenging various aspects of Los Angeles Water Board Order No. R4-2012- 0175 and State Water Board Order WQ 2015-0075. These lawsuits have the following brief background and status:
x Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Los Angeles Waterkeeper’s primary contention is that allowing permittees to implement approved watershed management programs (WMPs) in lieu of strictly complying with receiving water limitations violates federal NPDES anti-backsliding requirements and state and federal anti-degradation requirements. In January 2017, the Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the petition for writ of mandate and upheld Order No. R4- 2012-0175. Upon appeal by NRDC and Los Angeles Waterkeeper, on December 24, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal issued an unpublished, mixed decision.12 On the anti-backsliding claim, the Court of Appeal affirmed the conclusions of the State Water Board and the trial court that the anti-backsliding provisions did not apply when the 2012 permit authorized WMPs as an alternative means of compliance with receiving water limitations. As for the anti-degradation claim, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court’s anti-degradation ruling on procedural grounds. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court applied the wrong standard of review, but did affirm that a simple anti-degradation analysis applied to the permit. On remand, the Superior Court ruled that the Water Boards’ anti-degradation analysis in Order No. R4-2012-0175 pertaining to high quality waters only was not supported by adequate findings and issued a judgment on April 21, 2021, stating that the court will issue a writ of mandate ordering the Water Boards to set aside Order No. R4-2012-0175. Following issuance of the writ, the Los Angeles Water Board will have 180 days to comply with the court’s writ.

Alternatively, if the Water Boards file a notice of appeal, they may also file a petition 12 Natural Res. Defense Council Inc. et al. v. State Water Res. Control Board et al. (Dec. 24, 2018) Cal.

Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Div. Five, Case No. B282016 [nonpub. opn.].

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-50
for writ of supersedeas with the Court of Appeal to seek to keep the 2012 permit in effect pending appeal. Unless and until the Los Angeles Water Board supersedes the 2012 permit through issuance of this Order or otherwise acts to set aside the 2012 permit, the 2012 permit remains in effect.13
x In two separate but related cases, the cities of Duarte and Gardena challenged various aspects of Order No. R4-2012-0175, including alleging that the Los Angeles Water Board failed to properly consider economic considerations under Water Code section 13241 before imposing numeric effluent limitations (NELs). In September 2019, the Orange County Superior Court issued writs of mandate in both cases requiring the Los Angeles Water Board to set aside all NELs in the 2012 permit and to reconsider the permit in light of the court’s ruling. The court ruled that the Water Boards were required to consider costs under Water Code section 13241, as it had determined that incorporation of NELs in the 2012 permit exceeded federal Clean Water Act requirements, and that the Water Boards failed to adequately do so. The court declined to address the cities’ other contentions as it found the NEL issue dispositive. The Water Boards disagreed with the court’s ruling and appealed the decision. On January 28, 2021, the Court of Appeal issued a unanimous, published decision in the City of Duarte case and a companion unpublished decision in the City of Gardena case reversing the trial court’s rulings in both cases. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether NELs were more stringent than required by federal law. Assuming without deciding that they were more stringent and required considering of the Water Code section 13241 factors, the Court of Appeal concluded that “The Regional Board developed an economic analysis of the Permit’s requirements, consistent with Water Code section 13241.” (City of Duarte v. State Water Resources Control Board et al. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 258, as modified on denial of rehearing (Feb. 19, 2021); City of Gardena v. State Water Resources Control Board et al. (2021) Cal. Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate Dist., Div. Three, Case No. G058540, as modified on denial of rehearing (Feb 19, 2021) [nonpub. opn.].) On April 28, 2021, the California Supreme Court denied the cities’ Petitions for Review, leaving the appellate court’s rulings in place. The Court of Appeal has directed the trial court to deny the cities’ petitions for writ of mandate and to enter judgments in favor of the Water Boards.

The Los Angeles Water Board further amended Order No. R4-2012-0175 on September 8, 2016 (Order No. R4-2012-0175-A01) incorporating provisions consistent with the revised Ballona Creek Watershed Trash TMDL and the revised Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL. Additionally, on July 9, 2018, the Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer modified Table E-2 of Attachment E (Monitoring and Reporting Program) to Order No. R4-2012-0175 to remove fecal coliform from the freshwater monitoring requirements.

Prior to the issuance of the Order, Order No. R4-2012-0175, as amended, served as the NPDES permit for MS4 stormwater and non-stormwater discharges within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County. The requirements of Order No. R4-2012- 0175 applied to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County under Los Angeles County’s jurisdiction, and 84 cities within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County except for the City of Long Beach. 13 Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. et al. v. State Wat. Res. Control Bd. et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BS156962 (March 29, 2021). Judge Beckloff’s ruling did not change the Court of Appeals’ anti-backsliding analysis.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-51
City of Long Beach MS4 Permit
The Los Angeles Water Board regulated discharges from the City of Long Beach’s MS4 from 1990 through 1999 under the Los Angeles countywide MS4 requirements contained in Order No. 90-079 and Order No. 96-054 issued on June 18, 1990 and July 15, 1996, respectively.

In 1999, the Los Angeles Water Board issued a separate MS4 Permit, Order No. 99- 060, to the City of Long Beach for discharges originating from its MS4. Order No. 99- 060 was superseded by Order No. R4-2014-0024, which was issued by the Los Angeles Water Board on February 6, 2014. The Los Angeles Water Board amended Order No.

R4-2014-0024 on September 8, 2016 (Order No. R4-2014-0024-A01) incorporating provisions consistent with the revised Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL.

Additionally, on July 9, 2018, the Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer modified Table E-2 of Attachment E (Monitoring and Reporting Program) to Order No. R4-2014- 0024 to remove fecal coliform from freshwater monitoring requirements.

Order No. R4-2014-0024, as amended, served as the NPDES permit for MS4 stormwater and non-stormwater discharges for the City of Long Beach prior to the issuance of the Order.

Regional MS4 Permit
Except for enforcement purposes, the Order supersedes the previous orders for Permittees in Ventura County, Permittees within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (excepting the City of Long Beach), and the City of Long Beach to cover all Phase I MS4 Permittees within the coastal watersheds of the Los Angeles Region with one regionwide Phase I MS4 Permit (Regional MS4 Permit).

G. Summary of Requirements in Previous Permits
Ventura County
The Ventura County MS4 Permit was last reissued in 2010 as Order No. R4-2010-0108.

Order No. R4-2010-0108 expired on July 8, 2015, but was administratively continued pursuant to federal and state regulations. Order No. R4-2010-0108 was organized under the following seven parts and included several attachments. The description below briefly summarizes key permit parts and attachments in Order No. R4-2010-0108.

Part 1 – Discharge Prohibitions
As required by section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii) of the Clean Water Act, Part 1 requires permittees to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the MS4 and receiving waters, except where such discharges: originate from a State, Federal, or other source for which they are pre-empted from regulating by State or federal law; are covered by a separate NPDES permit or conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for irrigated lands; are flows from firefighting activities; or fall within one of thirteen categories of flows that are conditionally exempted from the discharge prohibition. These exempted flows fall under certain categories of natural flows and flows incidental to urban activities (i.e., landscape irrigation, sidewalk rinsing). These non-stormwater flows may be exempted so long as they are not a source of pollutants that exceed water quality standards and permittees meet all conditions where specified.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-52
Part 2 – Receiving Water Limitations
Pursuant to State Water Board Order WQ 99-05, Part 2 prohibits discharges from the MS4 that cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. In addition, discharges from the MS4 of stormwater or non-stormwater, for which a Permittee is responsible, may not cause or contribute to a condition of nuisance.

Part 2.3 requires permittees to comply with receiving water limitations through timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in the stormwater discharges. If exceedances persist, the Permittee shall ensure compliance with receiving water limitations by following a list of procedures such as submitting a report to the Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer that describes what additional BMPs are being implemented to address the exceedances. Part 2.4 requires Permittees to annually report the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing exceedances of receiving water limitations.

Part 3 – Stormwater Quality Management Program (SQMP) Implementation Under Part 3, each Permittee shall, at a minimum, adopt and implement applicable terms of the permit within its jurisdictional boundary. As Principal Permittee, VCWPD shall be responsible for program coordination as described in the permit, as well as compliance with applicable portions of the permit within its jurisdiction.

Each Permittee shall also comply with the requirements of 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(2) and implement programs and control measures so as to reduce the discharges of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) and achieve water quality standards. Part 3 also requires each Permittee to achieve treatment BMP performance standards identified in Attachment C for an 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event.

With regards to TMDLs, Part 3 requires each Permittee to implement programs and measures to comply with TMDL WLAs assigned to MS4 discharges as specified in Part 5. The WLAs are expressed numerically in Part 5 as water quality-based effluent limitations and Permittees are expected to attain the WLAs by implementing BMPs. Additionally, permittees are required to submit an Annual Budget Summary that provides the estimated expenditures to implement the permit for the upcoming report year.

Part 3 also sets forth specific responsibilities of the Principal Permittee and other Permittees such as participation in committee meetings and intra-agency coordination and requirements regarding each Permittee’s legal authority.

Part 4 – Special Provisions
Part 4 sets forth provisions for watershed initiative participation, public information and participation program, industrial/commercial facilities control program, planning and land development program, development construction program, public agency activities program, and illicit connections and illicit discharges elimination program. These programs are termed “minimum control measures” and have been in place since the inception of the MS4 NPDES permitting program, as required by federal regulations.

As part of general requirements, Part 4 allows Permittees to propose site-specific Best Management Practice (BMP) Substitution for Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer approval. Part 4 also sets forth requirements for the Reporting Program in Attachment I.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-53
Part 5 – Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Provisions
As required by 40 CFR section 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), the permit incorporated TMDL WLAs, expressed numerically in a manner consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL from which they were derived. In permit terms, these TMDL WLAs are water quality-based effluent limits. Part 5 requires permittees to comply with applicable WLAs and lists 13 TMDLs applicable to MS4 discharges within Ventura County with the WLAs assigned to MS4 discharges and compliance options.

Part 6 – Definitions
Part 6 includes definitions for terms used within the permit.

Part 7 – Standard Provisions
Part 7 includes standard provisions relating to implementation of the programs required by the permit. Such provisions include, but are not limited to, the duty to comply, the duty to mitigate, inspection and entry requirements, proper operation and maintenance requirements, monitoring and reporting requirements, and the duty to provide information. Most of these provisions are required by 40 CFR sections 122.41 or 122.42 and apply to all NPDES permits.

Attachment A – Watershed Management Areas
Attachment A includes a table that lists the Watershed Management Areas and their respective major surface waterbodies, hydrologic units, Clean Water Act section 303(d) listed pollutants, and permittees.

Attachment B – Pollutants of Concern for Calleguas Creek, Santa Clara River, and Ventura River Watersheds
Attachment B includes pollutants of concern for Calleguas Creek, Santa Clara River, and Ventura River Watershed based on 2003-2007 data from mass emissions stations, receiving water sites, and land use monitoring sites.

Attachment C – Treatment BMP Performance Standards and Effluent Concentrations as Median Values
Attachment C provides treatment BMP performance standards which includes a table of parameters and their respective effluent concentrations for various categories of BMPs.

Attachment D – Critical Sources Categories
Attachment D lists facilities and their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for critical sources.

Attachment E – Determination of Erosion Potential
Attachment E includes formulas to determine erosion potential.

Attachment F – Monitoring Program
Attachment F has self-monitoring requirements, which include: (1) monitoring of “mass emissions” at three mass emission monitoring stations; (2) monitoring of major outfalls specified in Attachment I; (3) Dry Weather Analytical Monitoring; (4) Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring; (5) Beach Water Quality Monitoring; (6) TMDL Monitoring; (7) Bioassessment; and (8) Special Studies.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-54
Attachment G – Storm Water Monitoring Program’s Constituents and Associated Minimum Levels
Attachment G includes a table listing the required stormwater monitoring program constituents and their associated minimum levels.

Attachment H – Storm Water Monitoring Program’s Major Outfall Stations Attachment H includes a table listing the required major outfall monitoring sites and the responsible permittees.

Attachment I – Reporting Program Requirements
Attachment I has reporting requirements where an annual report includes: (1) monitoring of “mass emissions” at three mass emission monitoring stations; (2) monitoring of major outfalls specified in Attachment H; (3) Dry Weather Analytical Monitoring; (4) Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring; (5) Beach Water Quality Monitoring; (6) TMDL Monitoring; (7) Bioassessment; and (8) Special Studies. Permittees are also required to submit an Annual Monitoring Program Report, which answers a set of questions on discharge prohibitions and receiving water limitations. Additionally, Permittees are required to include in their Annual Report answers to a set of questions on the SQMP and special provisions of the Order.

Fact Sheet/Staff Report
The Fact Sheet/Staff Report provides an overview of the Ventura County MS4 Permit and explains the significant factual, legal, methodological, technical, and policy rationale that serve as the basis for the permit requirements.

Los Angeles County
The Los Angeles County MS4 Permit was last reissued in 2012 as Order No. R4-2012- 0175 and was amended as described above. Order No. R4-2012-0175 expired on December 28, 2017 but was administratively continued pursuant to federal and state regulations. Order No. R4-2012-0175 is organized under six parts and includes several attachments. The description below summarizes key permit parts and attachments in Order No. R4-2012-0175.

Part III. Discharge Prohibitions
As required by section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii) of the Clean Water Act, Part III requires Permittees to prohibit non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 to receiving waters except for non-stormwater discharges regulated under a separate NPDES permit, temporary non-stormwater discharges authorized by U.S. EPA, authorized non-stormwater discharges from emergency firefighting activities, natural flows, and certain conditionally exempt discharges.

Part IV. Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications Part IV requires each Permittee to comply with technology based effluent limitations by reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Part IV also requires Permittees to comply with applicable water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) as set forth in Part VI.E of the permit.

Part V. Receiving Water Limitations
Pursuant to State Water Board Order WQ 99-05, Part V prohibits discharges from the MS4 that cause or contribute to a violation of receiving water limitations. In MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-55
addition, discharges from the MS4 of stormwater or non-stormwater, for which a Permittee is responsible, shall not cause or contribute to a condition of nuisance.

Part V.3 requires permittees to comply with receiving water limitations through timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in the discharges. If exceedances persist, the Permittee shall ensure compliance with receiving water limitations by following a list of procedures, such as submitting an Integrated Monitoring Compliance Report to the Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer that describes what additional BMPs are being implemented to address the exceedances.

Part VI. Provisions
Part VI includes requirements for standard provisions, monitoring and reporting, watershed management programs, stormwater management program minimum control measures (MCMs), and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).

Standard provisions include requirements to comply with Attachment D, ensure each Permittee has the necessary legal authority to prohibit non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 to receiving waters, as well as possess adequate legal authority to develop and enforce stormwater and non-stormwater ordinances for its jurisdiction. It also lists responsibilities of Permittees and requires Permittees to conduct a fiscal analysis and report it in their annual report. There are also provisions for public review and Los Angeles Water Board review, permit reopener and modification provisions, and enforcement provisions including enforcement of water quality-based effluent limitations for trash.

The monitoring and reporting provisions require compliance with Attachment E (Monitoring and Reporting Program) and also describe compliance determination for commingled discharges.

The watershed management program provisions in Part VI.C describe a voluntary alternative compliance pathway allowing permittees to individually or collaboratively develop a Watershed Management Program (WMP) or an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). The WMP or EWMP allows Permittee(s) the flexibility to customize strategies, control measures, and BMPs to meet the requirements of the permit. Part VI.C describes compliance determination for participation in a WMP or EWMP, timelines for WMP or EWMP development and implementation, requirements to conduct a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), and provisions for an adaptive management process.

Part VI.D includes general requirements, progressive enforcement and interagency coordination provisions, and six MCMs that are the Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP), Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program, Planning and Land Development Program, Development Construction Program, Public Agency Activities Program, and Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Program (IC/IDE). Part VI.D.4 lists MCM provisions applicable to LACFCD.

Part VI.E includes TMDL provisions including compliance with applicable WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations contained in Attachments L through R, compliance determination for TMDLs, timelines for compliance with U.S. EPA TMDLs, and provisions for compliance with trash TMDLs.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-56
Attachment A – Definitions
Attachment A includes acronyms, abbreviations, and definitions for terms used within the permit.

Attachment B – Watershed Management Area Maps
Attachment B depicts each Watershed Management Area, its subwatersheds, and the major receiving waters.

Attachment C – MS4 Maps by Watershed Management Area
Attachment C depicts the major drainage infrastructure with the area covered under the permit by WMAs.

Attachment D – Standard Provisions
Attachment D includes standard provisions relating to implementation of the programs required by the permit. Such provisions include, but are not limited to, the duty to comply, the duty to mitigate, inspection and entry requirements, proper operation and maintenance requirements, monitoring and reporting requirements, and the duty to provide information. Most of these provisions are required by 40 CFR section 122.41, which applies to all NPDES permits, or section 122.42, which sets forth additional conditions applicable to specified categories of NPDES permits, including MS4 permits.

Attachment E – Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment E establishes monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

Attachment E allows for an integrated monitoring approach where a Permittee can submit an Integrated Monitoring Program (IMP) or a group of Permittees can coordinate monitoring efforts on a watershed or subwatershed basis to submit a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer approval. The IMP or CIMP must contain the following elements:
(1) receiving water monitoring; (2) stormwater outfall-based monitoring; (3) nonstormwater outfall-based monitoring; (4) new-development/re-development effectiveness tracking; and (5) regional studies. Furthermore, Attachment E specifies monitoring data and annual report submittal timelines and describes key elements to report on.

Attachment F – Fact Sheet
The Fact Sheet provides an overview of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and explains the significant factual, legal, methodological, technical, and policy rationale that serve as the basis for the requirements of the permit.

Attachment G – Non-Storm Water Action Levels and Municipal Action Levels Corresponding to Part III (Discharge Prohibitions) of the permit and non-stormwater outfall monitoring per Attachment E, Attachment G lists non-stormwater action levels for waterbodies. Additionally, Attachment G lists hardness-based action levels for metals. Municipal Action Levels listed in Attachment G apply to stormwater outfall monitoring conducted per Attachment E.

Attachment H – Bioretention/Biofiltration Design Criteria Corresponding to the Planning and Land Development MCM in the permit, Attachment H describes design specification requirements for bioretention and biofiltration systems.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-57
Attachment I – Developer Technical Information and Guidelines Attachment I requires Permittees to make available certain reference information and recommended guidelines to the development community. This information may include but is not limited to hydromodification control criteria, low impact development (LID) principles and specifications, and construction BMPs.

Attachment J – Determination of Erosion Potential
Corresponding to the Planning and Land Development MCM in the permit, Attachment J defines erosion potential and provides equations to calculate erosion potential.

Attachment K – Permittees and TMDLs Matrix
Attachment K provides a comprehensive list of TMDLs by Watershed Management Area and the Permittees subject to each TMDL.

Attachment L – TMDL Provisions for the Santa Clara River Watershed Management Area
Attachment L specifies four TMDLs incorporated in the permit with their WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations and compliance options.

Attachment M – TMDL Provisions for Santa Monica Bay Watershed Management Area (including Malibu Creek, Ballona Creek, and Marina del Rey Subwatersheds) Attachment M specifies 13 TMDLs incorporated in the permit with their WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations and compliance options.

Attachment N – TMDL Provisions for Dominguez Channel and Greater Harbor Waters Watershed Management Area (including Machado Lake Subwatershed) Attachment N specifies five TMDLs incorporated in the permit with their WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations and compliance options.

Attachment O – TMDL Provisions for Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area
Attachment O specifies seven TMDLs incorporated in the permit with their WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations and compliance options.

Attachment P – TMDL Provisions for the San Gabriel River Watershed Management Area
Attachment P specifies two TMDLs incorporated in the permit with their WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations and compliance options.

Attachment Q – TMDL Provisions for Los Cerritos Channel and Alamitos Bay Watershed Management Area
Attachment Q specifies two TMDLs incorporated in the permit with their WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations and compliance options.

Attachment R – TMDL Provisions for Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Management Area
Attachment R specifies one TMDL incorporated in the permit with its WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations and compliance options.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-58
City of Long Beach
The City of Long Beach MS4 Permit was last reissued in 2014 as Order No. R4-2014- 0024 and was amended as described above. Order No. R4-2014-0024 expired on March 28, 2019 but was administratively continued pursuant to federal and state regulations. Order No. R4-2014-0024 is organized under the following eight parts and includes several attachments. The description below summarizes key permit parts and attachments in Order No. R4-2014-0024.

Part III. Discharger Responsibilities
Part III requires the City of Long Beach to comply with provisions in the permit including attachments. It also requires the City of Long Beach to submit complete and timely reports and participate in intra-agency coordination.

Part IV. Discharge Prohibitions
Part IV requires the City of Long Beach to prohibit any discharge of toxic substances from the MS4 into surface waters in concentrations acutely or chronically toxic to animal or plant life. As required by section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii) of the Clean Water Act, Part IV also prohibits non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 to receiving waters except for non-stormwater discharges regulated under an NPDES permit, temporary non-stormwater discharges authorized by U.S. EPA, authorized non-stormwater discharges from emergency firefighting activities, natural flows, and certain conditionally exempt discharges.

Part V. Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications Part V requires the City of Long Beach to comply with technology based effluent limitations by reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Part V also requires the City of Long Beach to comply with WQBELs as set forth in Part VIII of the permit.

Part VI. Receiving Water Limitations
Pursuant to State Water Board Order WQ 99-05, Part VI prohibits discharges from the MS4 that cause or contribute to a violation of receiving water limitations. In addition, discharges from the MS4 of stormwater or non-stormwater, for which the City of Long Beach is responsible, shall not cause or contribute to a condition of nuisance. Part VI.3 requires the City of Long Beach to comply with receiving water limitations through timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in the discharges. If exceedances persist, the City of Long Beach shall ensure compliance with receiving water limitations by following a list of procedures such as submitting an Integrated Monitoring Compliance Report to the Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer that describes what additional BMPs are being implemented to address the exceedances.

Part VII. Provisions
Part VII includes standard provisions, monitoring and reporting requirements, provisions for watershed management programs, and stormwater management program MCMs such as PIPP, Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program, Planning and Land Development Program, Construction Program, Public Agency Activities Program, and IC/IDE Program. Monitoring and reporting provisions require compliance with Attachment E.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-59
Standard provisions include requirements to comply with Attachment D to ensure that the City of Long Beach has the necessary legal authority to prohibit nonstormwater discharges through the MS4, as well as possess adequate legal authority to develop and enforce stormwater and non-stormwater ordinances for its jurisdiction. It also requires the City of Long Beach to conduct a fiscal analysis and discuss it in their annual report. Other provisions include public review and Los Angeles Water Board review provisions, permit reopener and modification provisions, and enforcement provisions including enforcement of trash water quality-based effluent limitations.

The watershed management program provisions in Part VII.C describe a voluntary alternative compliance pathway allowing the City of Long Beach to individually or collaboratively with other MS4 Permittees develop a Watershed Management Program (WMP) or an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). The WMP or EWMP allows the City of Long Beach flexibility to customize strategies, control measures, and BMPs to meet the requirements of the permit. It describes compliance determination for participation in a WMP or EWMP, timelines for WMP or EWMP development and implementation, requirements to conduct a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), and provisions for an adaptive management process.

Part VIII. Total Maximum Daily Loads
Part VIII lists TMDL provisions including compliance determination for TMDLs, timelines for compliance with U.S. EPA TMDLs, and provisions for compliance with trash TMDLs. It also requires the City of Long Beach to comply with applicable WQBELs to implement 9 TMDLs.

Attachment A – Definitions
Attachment A includes acronyms, abbreviations, and definitions for terms used within the permit.

Attachment B – Watershed Management Areas within the City of Long Beach Attachment B depicts the four WMAs within the City of Long Beach.

Attachment C – City of Long Beach MS4
Attachment C depicts the MS4 within the City of Long Beach.

Attachment D – Standard Provisions
Attachment D includes standard provisions relating to implementation of the programs required by the permit. Such provisions include, but are not limited to, the duty to comply, the duty to mitigate, inspection and entry requirements, proper operation and maintenance requirements, monitoring and reporting requirements, and the duty to provide information. Most of these provisions are required by 40 CFR section 122.41, which applies to all NPDES permits, and section 122.42, which sets forth additional conditions applicable to specified categories of NPDES permits, including MS4 permits.

Attachment F – Fact Sheet
The Fact Sheet provides an overview of the City of Long Beach MS4 Permit and explains the significant factual, legal, methodological, technical, and policy rationale that serve as the basis for the requirements of the permit.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-60
Attachment E – Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment E establishes monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

Attachment E allows for an integrated monitoring approach where the City of Long Beach can submit an Integrated Monitoring Program (IMP) or the City of Long Beach with other MS4 Permittees can coordinate monitoring efforts on a watershed or subwatershed basis to submit a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer approval. The IMP or CIMP must contain the following elements: (1) receiving water monitoring; (2) stormwater outfall-based monitoring; (3) non-stormwater outfall-based monitoring; (4) newdevelopment/re-development effectiveness tracking; and (5) regional studies.

Furthermore, Attachment E specifies monitoring data and annual report submittal timelines and describes key elements to report on.

Attachment G – Non-Storm Water Action Levels and Municipal Action Levels Corresponding to Part IV (Discharge Prohibitions) of the permit and nonstormwater outfall monitoring per Attachment E, Attachment G lists non-stormwater action levels for waterbodies. Additionally, Attachment G lists hardness-based action levels for metals. Municipal Action Levels listed in Attachment G apply to stormwater outfall monitoring conducted per Attachment E.

Attachment H – Bioretention / Biofiltration Design Criteria Corresponding to the Planning and Land Development MCM in the permit, Attachment H describes design specification requirements for bioretention and biofiltration systems.

Attachment I – Developer Technical Information and Guidelines Attachment I requires the City of Long Beach to make available certain reference information and recommended guidelines to the development community. This information may include but not limited to hydromodification control criteria, LID principles and specifications, and construction BMPs.

Notably, all three previous MS4 permits required outfall and receiving water monitoring for a suite of constituents commonly found in stormwater and non-stormwater discharges and addressed by applicable TMDLs. Therefore, Part II.E of this Fact Sheet summarizes water quality in the Los Angeles Region based on existing monitoring for TMDLs and other categories of pollutants.

H. Permit Applications

1. Ventura County Permittees
On January 9, 2015, 180 days prior to the expiration of Order No. R4-2010-0108, all 12 Ventura County Permittees filed a joint reapplication package also known as a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) to apply for renewal of their waste discharge requirements that serve as an NPDES permit to discharge stormwater and authorized and conditionally exempt non-stormwater through their MS4 to surface waters. Specifically, the reapplication package was submitted on behalf of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, which consists of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, the County of Ventura, and the incorporated cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Ventura, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-61
The Los Angeles Water Board evaluated the Ventura County Permittees’ reapplication package and deemed it complete per federal stormwater regulations contained in the U.S. EPA Interpretive Policy Memorandum on Reapplication Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems; Final Rule, August 9, 1996 (61 Fed Reg. 41697).

2. Los Angeles County Permittees
By July 3, 2017, 180 days prior to the expiration of Order No. R4-2012-0175 as amended by State Water Board Order WQ 2015-0075 and Los Angeles Water Board Order No. R4-2012-0175-A01, the 86 Los Angeles County Permittees submitted a total of 29 reapplication packages to discharge stormwater and authorized and conditionally exempt non-stormwater through their MS4 to surface waters. Out of the 29 reapplication packages, 19 were submitted by groups of Permittees and 10 were submitted individually.

The Los Angeles Water Board evaluated these 29 reapplication packages and deemed them complete per federal stormwater regulations contained in the U.S.

EPA Interpretive Policy Memorandum on Reapplication Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems; Final Rule, August 9, 1996 (61 Fed Reg. 41697).

3. City of Long Beach
On October 1, 2018, 180 days prior to the expiration of Order No. R4-2014-0024 as amended by Los Angeles Water Board Order No. R4-2014-0024-A01, the City of Long Beach submitted a reapplication package to discharge stormwater and authorized and conditionally exempt non-stormwater through its MS4 to surface waters.

The Los Angeles Water Board evaluated the City of Long Beach’s reapplication package and deemed it complete per federal stormwater regulations contained in the U.S. EPA Interpretive Policy Memorandum on Reapplication Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems; Final Rule, August 9, 1996 (61 Fed Reg. 41697).

III. APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, PLANS, AND POLICIES The provisions contained in the Order are based on the requirements and authorities described in the Order’s Findings and below. These include the federal Clean Water Act and implementing regulations, the California Water Code, and applicable statewide and regional water quality control plans and policies.

A. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Requirements
The 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA)14 established the NPDES Program to regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. However, pollution from stormwater and dry-weather urban runoff was largely unabated for over a decade. In response to the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act, U.S. EPA developed Phase I of the NPDES Storm Water Permitting Program in 1990, which established a framework for regulating municipal, industrial, and construction discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater. The Phase I program addressed sources of stormwater and dry-weather urban runoff that had the greatest potential to 14 Federal Water Pollution Control Act; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., which, as amended in 1977, is commonly known as the Clean Water Act.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-62
negatively impact water quality. In particular, under Phase I U.S. EPA required NPDES permit coverage for discharges from medium and large MS4s with populations of 100,000 or more. Operators of MS4s regulated under the Phase I NPDES Storm Water Program were required to obtain permit coverage for discharges of stormwater and nonstormwater from their MS4s to waters of the United States.

In 1990, pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.26(b)(4), the Los Angeles Water Board designated the MS4s owned and/or operated by the incorporated cities and Ventura County within the watersheds of Ventura County, and by the incorporated cities and Los Angeles County within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County as a large MS4 due to the total populations of Los Angeles County and Ventura County and the interconnected nature of the Permittees’ MS4s. The total population of the cities and unincorporated areas in Ventura County covered by the Order was approximately 823,318 in 2010 and has increased by approximately 3.3% to 850,967 in 2018 according to the United States Census. The total population of the cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County covered by the Order was approximately 9,505,484 in 2010 and has increased by approximately 2.9% to 9,786,075 in 2018, according to the United States Census.

B. Water Quality Control Plans
The CWA requires the Los Angeles Water Board to establish water quality standards for each water body in its region. Water quality standards include beneficial uses, water quality objectives that are established at levels sufficient to protect those beneficial uses, and an antidegradation policy to prevent degrading high-quality waters unless specific circumstances apply.

1. Water Quality Control Plan - Los Angeles Region
The Los Angeles Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan - Los Angeles Region (hereinafter Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters in the Los Angeles Region. Pursuant to CWC Section 13263(a), the requirements of the Order implement the Basin Plan. The beneficial uses applicable to the surface water bodies that receive discharges from the Permittees’ MS4 are identified in Chapter 2 of the Basin Plan and generally include Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN); Agricultural Supply (AGR); Industrial Service Supply (IND); Industrial Process Supply (PROC); Ground Water Recharge (GWR); Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH); Navigation (NAV); Hydropower Generation (POW); Water Contact Recreation (REC-1); Limited Contact Recreation (LREC-1); Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2); Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM); Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM); Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD); Estuarine Habitat (EST); Preservation of Areas of Special Biological Significance (BIOL); Wildlife Habitat (WILD); Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species (RARE); Marine Habitat (MAR); Wetland Habitat (WET); Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR); Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN); and Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL).

2. Ocean Plan
In 1972, the State Water Board adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). Since the adoption of Order No. R4-2010-0108, Order No. R4-2012-0175, and Order No. R4-2014-0024, the State Water Board adopted various amendments to the Ocean Plan. One of the most recent MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-63
amendments that has become effective was adopted on August 7, 2018 to incorporate bacteria provisions and a water quality standards variance policy. OAL approved it on February 4, 2019 and U.S. EPA approved it on March 22, 2019.

Additionally, on April 2, 2019, the State Water Board further revised the Ocean Plan through Resolution No. 2019-0015 (incorporating state wetland definition and procedures for discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the state). OAL approved it on August 28, 2019 and it became effective on May 28, 2020. The Ocean Plan is applicable, in its entirety, to the ocean waters of the State. To protect beneficial uses, the Ocean Plan establishes water quality objectives and a program of implementation. Pursuant to California Water Code section 13263(a), the requirements of the Order implement the Ocean Plan. The Ocean Plan identifies beneficial uses of ocean waters of the State to be protected, which include Industrial Water Supply (IND); Water Contact (REC-1) and Non-Contact Recreation (REC-2), including aesthetic enjoyment; Navigation (NAV); Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM); Mariculture; Preservation and Enhancement of Designated Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS); Rare and Endangered Species (RARE); Marine Habitat (MAR); Fish Migration (MIGR); Fish Spawning (SPWN); and Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL). All MS4 discharges into the Pacific Ocean must protect the existing and designated uses identified in the Ocean Plan and Basin Plan.

3. Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan (ISWEBE) Since the adoption of Order No. R4-2010-0108, Order No. R4-2012-0175, and Order No. R4-2014-0024, the State Water Board adopted various provisions, which make up, collectively, the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries (ISWEBE) of California. Part 1 Trash Provisions was adopted by the State Water Board on April 7, 2015 through Resolution No. 2015- 0019. OAL approved it on December 2, 2015 and U.S. EPA approved it on January 12, 2016. Part 2 Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions was adopted by State Board on May 2, 2017 through Resolution No. 2017-0027. OAL approved it on June 28, 2017 and U.S. EPA approved it on July 14, 2017. Part 3 Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy was adopted by State Board on August 7, 2018 through Resolution No. 2018-0038. OAL approved it on February 4, 2019 and U.S. EPA approved it on March 22, 2019. The State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State was adopted by State Board on April 2, 2019 through Resolution No. 2019-0015. OAL approved it on August 28, 2019 and it became effective on May 28, 2020. The Toxicity Provisions were adopted by the State Water Board on December 1, 2020.

The Toxicity Provisions are not yet in effect. The Toxicity Provisions will take effect upon approval by the California Office of Administrative Law for purposes of state law and upon approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of federal law. The ISWEBE is applicable to various discharges in the Order.

4. Statewide Trash Provisions
To control trash, the State Water Board on April 7, 2015, adopted an Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) for Trash Provisions and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries. Together, they are collectively referred to as “the Trash Amendments.” The Trash Amendments do the following: (1) establish a narrative water quality objective for trash, (2) establish corresponding applicability, including an exception for those waters within the MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-64
jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Water Board for which trash TMDLs are in effect prior to the effective date of the Trash Amendments,15 (3) establish a prohibition on the discharge of trash, (4) provide implementation requirements for permitted storm water and other discharges, (5) set a time schedule for compliance, and (6) provide a framework for monitoring and reporting requirements. The Los Angeles Water Board is required to implement the new Trash Provisions through NPDES permits issued pursuant to Federal Clean Water Act section 402(p), including MS4 permits.

The water quality objective established by the Trash Provisions serves as a water quality standard federally mandated under Clean Water Act section 303(c) and the federal regulations. (33 United States Code section 1312, 40 Code of Federal Regulations section 131.) This water quality standard was specifically approved by U.S. EPA following adoption by the State Water Board and approval by the Office of Administrative Law. Further, the water quality standard expected to be achieved pursuant to the Trash Provisions may allow each waterbody subsequently determined to be impaired by trash to not be placed on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list, obviating the need for the development of a TMDL for trash for each of those waterbodies. (33 United States Code section 1313(c); 40 Code of Federal Regulations section 130.7.). In those cases, the specific actions that will be carried out by the Permittee substitute for some or all the actions that would otherwise be required consistent with a waste load allocation in a trash TMDL. (40 Code of Federal Regulations section 122.44, subdivision (d)(1)(vii)(B).) The Trash Amendments are applicable to various discharges in the Order and the Order implements the Trash Amendments.

5. Sediment Quality
In 2008, the State Water Board adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries – Part 1, Sediment Quality Provisions. It is was most recently amended on June 5, 2018 and became effective on March 11, 2019. This plan supersedes other narrative sediment quality objectives and establishes new sediment quality objectives and related implementation provisions for specifically defined sediments in most bays and estuaries. Requirements of the Order implement sediment quality objectives of this plan.

C. National Toxics Rule (NTR) and California Toxics Rule (CTR) U.S. EPA adopted the National Toxics Rule (NTR)16 on December 22, 1992, and later amended it on May 4, 1995 and November 9, 1999. About forty criteria in the NTR applied in California. On May 18, 2000, U.S. EPA adopted the California Toxics Rule (CTR).17 The CTR promulgated new toxics criteria for California and, in addition, incorporated the previously adopted NTR criteria that were applicable in the state. The CTR was amended on February 13, 2001. The CTR was most recently amended on November 15, 2018 to withdraw the freshwater criteria for lead applicable to certain waters of California because the State of California adopted, and the U.S. EPA approved a site-specific objective for lead for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. 15 The exception includes the following watersheds and waterbodies: Los Angeles River Watershed, Ballona Creek, Malibu Creek Watershed, Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore, San Gabriel River East Fork, Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash, Ventura River Estuary, Machado Lake, Lake Elizabeth, Lake Hughes, Munz Lake, Peck Road Park Lake, Echo Park Lake, Lincoln Park Lake and Legg Lake. 16 40 CFR § 131.36.
17 Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, (65 Federal Register 31682-31719 (May 18, 2000)), adding 40 CFR § 131.38.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-65
(83 Fed. Reg. 52163-52168 (Oct. 16, 2018)). These rules contain federal water quality criteria for priority pollutants. The requirements of the Order are consistent with the NTR (40 CFR section 131.36) and CTR (40 CFR section 131.38).

D. Endangered Species Acts
The Order does not authorize any act that results in the taking of a threatened or endangered species or any act that is now prohibited, or becomes prohibited in the future, under either the California Endangered Species Act (CESA, Fish and Game Code, §§ 2050 to 2089.25) or the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C.A., §§ 1531 to 1544). The requirements of the Order are designed to maintain water quality and prevent a condition of pollution, contamination, or nuisance in waters of the United States. Permittees remain independently responsible for meeting all applicable requirements under CESA and ESA.

E. NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (e-Rule)
40 Code of Federal Regulations part 127 requires NPDES permittees to electronically report information and also requires authorized states implementing the NPDES program to ensure that the required minimum set of data in part 127, Appendix A, is electronically transferred to U.S. EPA in a “timely, accurate, complete and nationally consistent manner fully compatible with U.S. EPA’s national NPDES data system.” The rule does not add new reporting requirements on NPDES regulated entities; rather it substitutes paper-based filings with electronic transmission. The State’s existing electronic reporting system for stormwater discharges (Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS)), which is compliant with U.S. EPA’s CrossMedia Electronic Reporting Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations part 3), does not currently accommodate the collection from MS4 dischargers and reporting to U.S. EPA of all applicable Appendix A data in a “nationally consistent manner fully compatible with U.S. EPA’s national NPDES data system.” Electronic reporting requirements for those data will be implemented when the State develops an approved system. On April 30, 2019, U.S. EPA proposed changes to the NPDES e-Rule, in Appendix A, to update data elements applicable to regulated MS4s to be consistent with existing MS4 regulations.

On February 28, 2020, U.S. EPA proposed the “Phase 2 Extension Rule,” extending the December 21, 2020 deadline to December 21, 2025 for electronic submittal of annual reports.18
F. Monitoring and Reporting
Section 308(a) of the federal CWA, and 40 CFR sections 122.41(h), (j)-(l), 122.41(i), and 122.48, require that all NPDES permits specify monitoring and reporting requirements. Federal regulations applicable to large and medium MS4s also specify additional monitoring and reporting requirements. These monitoring requirements for MS4 discharges are prescriptive and require the permitting agency to include requirements for both stormwater and non-stormwater effluent sampling at representative outfalls, representative receiving water monitoring, sampling of specific pollutants, monitoring at specified intervals (e.g., at least three storm events per year), use of analytical methods specified in 40 CFR Part 136, and use of field collection methods. (40 CFR §§ 122.26(d)(2)(i)(F) & (d)(2)(iii)(D), 122.42(c).) California Water Code Section 13383 authorizes the Los Angeles Water Board to establish monitoring, inspection, entry, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The Monitoring and 18 80 Federal Register pp. 64064-64158; 84 Federal Register pp. 18200-182-5; 85 Federal Register pp. 11909-11927.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-66
Reporting Program in the Order requires monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that implement the federal and state laws and/or regulations. This Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided in Attachment E of the Order.

G. Standard Provisions
Standard Provisions, which apply to all NPDES permits in accordance with 40 CFR section 122.41, and additional conditions applicable to specified categories of permits in accordance with 40 CFR section 122.42, are provided in Attachment D of the Order.

Permittees must comply with all standard provisions and with those additional conditions that are applicable under 40 CFR section 122.42 provided in Attachment D of the Order.

Part VI of the Order also includes various provisions applicable to the Permittees. The rationale for the provisions contained in Part VI of the Order is provided in Part VIII of this Fact Sheet.

H. Antidegradation Policy
Federal regulations at 40 CFR section 131.12 require that state water quality standards include an antidegradation policy consistent with federal requirements. The State Water Board established California’s antidegradation policy in State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 (“Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California”). Where the federal antidegradation policy is applicable, the State Water Board has interpreted Resolution No. 68-16 to incorporate the federal antidegradation policy.19 The Los Angeles Water Board’s Basin Plan implements, and incorporates by reference, both the State and federal antidegradation policies. The permitted discharge must be consistent with the antidegradation provision of 40 CFR section 131.12 and State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16. Resolution No. 68-16 and 40 CFR section 131.12 require that high quality waters be maintained unless degradation is justified based on specific findings. The Los Angeles Water Board finds that the permitted discharges authorized by this Order are consistent with the antidegradation provision of 40 CFR section 131.12 and State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16, as set forth herein.

In the context of the Order, a federal NPDES permit, compliance with the federal antidegradation policy requires consideration of the following. First, the Los Angeles Water Board must ensure that “existing instream uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses” are maintained and protected.20 Second, if the baseline quality of a waterbody for a given constituent “exceeds levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected” through the requirements of the Order unless the Los Angeles Water Board makes findings that: (1) any lowering of the water quality is “necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located”; (2) “water quality adequate to protect existing uses fully” is assured; and (3) “the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources and all cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control” are achieved.21 Under this second tier review, the Board may identify the waters for protection through the public process of a permitting action, as it is here. Before allowing any lowering of high quality water, the Board must 19 State Water Board Order WQ 86-17 (Fay), pp. 16-19.
20 40 CFR § 131.12(a)(1). This provision has been interpreted to mean that, “[i]f baseline water quality is equal to or less than the quality as defined by the water quality objective, water quality shall be maintained or improved to a level that achieves the objectives.” (State Water Board, Administrative Procedures Update, Antidegradation Policy Implementation for NPDES Permitting, 90-004 (APU 90-004), p. 4.) 21 40 CFR § 131.12(a)(2).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-67
conduct an analysis of alternatives that evaluates practicable alternatives that would prevent or lessen the degradation associated with the discharges permitted. In the context of 40 CFR § 131.12(a)(2)(ii), practicable means “technologically possible, able to be put into practice, and economically viable.”22
The Order must also comply with any requirements of State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 beyond those imposed through incorporation of the federal antidegradation policy.23 Resolution No. 68-16 requires findings that any lowering of water quality is “consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State” and “will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies” and further that the discharge is subject to “waste discharge requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge.”24 The baseline quality considered in making the appropriate findings is the best quality of the water since 1968, the year of adoption of Resolution No. 68-16, or a lower level if that lower level was allowed through a permitting or other regulatory action, such as establishing a water quality objective, that was consistent with the federal and state antidegradation policies.25 The following analysis assumes, without deciding, that the baseline for antidegradation analysis is 1968.26
22 40 CFR § 131.3(n).
23 See State Water Board Order WQ 86-17 (Fay), p. 23, fn. 11. 24 State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16, Resolve 2. Best practicable treatment or control is not defined in Resolution No. 68-16; however, the State Water Board has evaluated what level of treatment or control is technically achievable using “best efforts.” (See State Water Board Orders WQ 81-5 (City of Lompoc), WQ 82-5 (Chino Basin Municipal Water District), WQ 90-6 (Environmental Resources Protection Council).) A Questions and Answers document on Resolution No. 68-16 by the State Water Board states as follows: “To evaluate the best practicable treatment or control method, the discharger should compare the proposed method to existing proven technology; evaluate performance data, e.g. through treatability studies; compare alternative methods of treatment or control; and/or consider the method currently used by the discharger or similarly situated dischargers . . .The costs of the treatment or control should also be considered . . . .” (Questions and Answers, Resolution No. 68-16, State Water Board (Feb. 16, 1995), pp. 5-6.)
25 APU 90-004, p.4. The baseline for application of the federal antidegradation policy is 1975, which is the date used in 40 CFR § 131.3(e) to define existing uses of a waterbody. For state antidegradation requirements, see also Asociacion de Gente Unida por el Agua (AGUA) v. Central Valley Water Board (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1255,1270. The baseline for the application of the state antidegradation policy is generally the highest water quality achieved since 1968, the year the policy was adopted. 26 The baseline may be later than 1968 for two reasons. First, the appropriate baseline is determined by the date on which a policy establishing the level of water quality to protect was effective. (Resolution 68- 16, Resolve 1.) The Region’s Basin Plan has been updated and amended several times since 1971, when it was first adopted, to include new or revised water quality objectives. Second, a permitting action with appropriate antidegradation findings allowing degradation may establish a new baseline consistent with the level of water quality achieved under that permit. The Los Angeles Water Board has regulated the Permittees’ MS4 discharges in the past through permits issued in 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 for Los Angeles County; 1999 and 2014 for City of Long Beach; and 1994, 2000, 2009, and 2010 for Ventura County. APU 90-004 acknowledges that no antidegradation analysis is required where the regional water board has no expectation that water quality will be reduced by the permitting action; here, if the water quality achieved under the prior permits had been used as the baseline, arguably, no antidegradation analysis would have been required. (APU 90-004, p. 2.) Nevertheless, this is a new regional permit for Permittees in both Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, and for ease of analysis, 1968 is used herein as the baseline.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-68
The Board Is Not Required to Make Waterbody by Waterbody and Pollutant by Pollutant Antidegradation Findings:

The Los Angeles Water Board finds that it is not required to conduct a waterbody by waterbody and pollutant by pollutant antidegradation analysis for this Order. The Los Angeles Water Board makes this finding for two reasons. First, the Administrative Procedures Update, Antidegradation Policy Implementation for NPDES Permitting, 90- 004 (APU 90-004), which specifies a waterbody by waterbody and pollutant by pollutant analysis for some permitting actions, does not address permitting for diffuse MS4 discharges. Second, APU 90-004 itself indicates that a waterbody by waterbody and pollutant by pollutant analysis is only required when conducting a “complete” antidegradation analysis; a complete analysis, in turn, is not required where any reduction in water quality is temporally limited and would not result in any long-term deleterious effects on water quality.”27 Here, the Order requires compliance with the non-stormwater discharge prohibition, Receiving Water Limitations and Numeric Effluent Limitations derived from TMDLs designed to bring MS4 discharges and receiving waters into compliance with water quality objectives. The discussion below elaborates on these two reasons.

APU 90-004 is a State Water Board internal guidance document establishing methods for implementing the federal and state antidegradation policies in NPDES permits. APU 90-004 suggests that an antidegradation analysis requires a pollutant by pollutant and waterbody by waterbody analysis in certain contexts, specifically where the discharge at issue is a discrete discharge from a singular facility. However, APU 90-004 has limited value when considering antidegradation in the context of MS4 discharges from diffuse sources, conveyed through multiple outfalls, with multiple pollutants impacting multiple water bodies within region. 28 This interpretation is sensible for this Order, given that reliable data on the baseline water quality is not readily available since 1968 for a region that spans 4,447 square miles and includes 120 miles of coastline, 18,839 acres of lakes, and 1,704 miles of rivers and streams. The Los Angeles Water Board estimates that, there are over 850,000 combinations of waterbodies and pollutants that could potentially require individual consideration in the Region.29 The antidegradation analysis for this Order instead relies on a general assessment of the existing water quality data that is reasonably available to the Los Angeles Water Board and makes findings regarding the social and economic benefits and costs of permitting stormwater and nonstormwater MS4 discharges in accordance with the Order terms.

The Los Angeles Water Board additionally finds that, even if APU 90-004 applies to the issuance of this Order, it requires at most a “simple” antidegradation analysis. APU 90- 27 APU 90-004, p. 2.
28 The State Water Board held so in Order WQ 2015-0075. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. State Water Resources Control Board, the superior court did not invalidate this particular conclusion. (Super.

Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BS156962, Order, March 29, 2021). The State Water Board’s interpretation of its own guidance is entitled to deference. See also State Water Board Order WQ 2018-0002, p. 77 (reaching the same conclusion for agricultural discharges). 29 See, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_goals/; the tributary table MasterTribTable.xls (ca.gov); and the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan), Ch. 2, Tables 2-1 through 2-4a and Beneficial Uses Figures; and Chapter 3. The number could easily be higher if the Los Angeles Water Board incorporated CEDEN data and other information to determine the exact number of waterbodies and waterbody pollutant combinations. If it could be done at all, a pollutant by pollutant, waterbody by waterbody antidegradation analysis would be extremely time consuming and take years to complete.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-69
004 contemplates that a “simple” antidegradation analysis is appropriate under specified circumstances. In particular, as stated above, APU 90-004 states that a simple antidegradation analysis is allowed when a “Regional Board determines the reduction in water quality is temporally limited and will not result in any long-term deleterious effects on water quality” or where a “Regional Board determines the proposed action will produce minor effects which will not result in a significant reduction of water quality.”30 Here, the Order continues the requirements of the previous permits or imposes equivalent or more protective requirements such that the water quality established under the prior permits is expected to be maintained and improved.

Generally, the prior permits instituted controls such as a prohibition on non-stormwater discharges that are a source of pollutants through the MS4s, receiving water limitations, WQBELs based on TMDLs, and monitoring programs to help ensure that water quality will be maintained at the level it is now, or improve it, and this new Order institutes further controls such as additional TMDL-based WQBELs and receiving water limitations. Therefore, any degradation permitted while controls are continuing to be developed will be temporally limited and will not result in any long-term deleterious effects on water quality.31 Such a finding would not be appropriate if, for example, the Order declined to require long-term compliance with water quality objectives, but that is not the case here.

APU 90-004 does not provide guidance on the scope and content of a simple antidegradation analysis. Nor does it define the terms “temporally limited” or “long term.” Those terms must therefore be interpreted in the context of the types of discharges being permitted and with deference to the best professional judgment of the Los Angeles Water Board.32 The Los Angeles Water Board determines that the findings made below 30 APU 90-004, p. 2. In an unpublished decision, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed that a simple antidegradation analysis applied to the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 permit. (Natural Resources Defense Council v. State Water Resources Control Board (2018) 2018 WL 6735201, at *6). 31 See, Order, Part IX.A.4.b, k; B.8; E; G.3
32 During the hearing to consider adoption of this Order on July 16, 2021, NRDC, Heal the Bay, and Los Angeles Waterkeeper (together, the “Environmental Groups”) asserted that if the Los Angeles Water Board adopted the Order with the alternative compliance path outlined in Part X.B.1.b of the Order (referred to in the antidegradation analysis, infra, as “Alternative 5,”), then a simple antidegradation analysis is not appropriate. They asserted that a complete antidegradation analysis is necessary because, since the WMPs were first approved (2015), there is no evidence that there has been any significant improvement in water quality. The Los Angeles Water Board disagrees and finds that water quality effects during a period of multiple years, spanning more than one permit term, are still “temporally limited” and not “long term” in the context of the regulation of MS4 discharges.

MS4 discharges are fundamentally different from those specifically discussed in the APU, such as discharges from discrete point sources like publicly owned treatment works, or POTWs. MS4 discharges are diffuse discharges conveyed through multiple outfalls, with multiple pollutants impacting multiple water bodies within the region. To effectively control and abate pollution to surface waters from MS4 discharges, permittees testified during the hearing on this Order that they need time to plan and implement solutions that are projected to bring impaired waters into attainment. This kind of pollution control and abatement would take time even if WMPs with deemed in compliance provisions were not part of the proposed solutions. The Board, and permittees, understand and expect that more than one permit term may be necessary to adequately plan and construct BMPs or implement other solutions to ensure that impaired waters will be restored.

Furthermore, it is not surprising that, after only one permit term, water quality data do not show marked improvement, because as many permittees testified, the first generation of projects in approved WMPs are only being completed just now. For example, Paul Alva, Principal Engineer at the Los Angeles County MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-70
meet the requirements of a simple antidegradation analysis and are also consistent with an antidegradation analysis done at a generalized level, as appropriate for this Order.

With these findings, based on the information available to it and using its best professional judgment, the Los Angeles Water Board concludes that the discharge will not be adverse to the intent and purpose of the State and federal antidegradation policies. Regardless of APU 90-004’s application, however, the below analysis is consistent with the generalized antidegradation analysis appropriate for this Order and complies with both the federal antidegradation regulations, and with the State antidegradation policy.

The Los Angeles Water Board Makes the Following Antidegradation Findings:

The discharges permitted in the Order are consistent with the antidegradation provisions of 40 CFR section 131.12 and Resolution No. 68-16. The Los Angeles Water Board’s conclusion that the terms and conditions of the Order are consistent with the antidegradation policies is based on the following analysis.

1. Water bodies that do not meet water quality objectives (water bodies that are not high quality):

Most of the receiving waters within the area covered by the Order are not meeting water quality objectives for multiple pollutants associated with MS4s, meaning that they are not attaining water quality objectives necessary to protect beneficial uses.33 This is evidenced in part by the fact that many of these waterbodies are listed on the State’s Clean Water Act section 303(d) List of impaired waters and, additionally, either the Los Angeles Water Board or the U.S. EPA has established numerous TMDLs to address many of the impairments.34 The source assessment for these TMDLs identify MS4 discharges as a source of the impairments. Under both federal and state antidegradation policies, these receiving waters are not considered “high quality” waters for these pollutants. To the extent that data are Department of Public Works, testified on July 16, 2021 that multi-benefit WMP projects such as Magic Johnson Park, Ladera Park, Carriage Crest Park, and Gates Park have either just been completed or will be completed soon. Once those projects are fully operational, and once other, similar projects are built, the Board expects to see measurable improvements in receiving water quality. Indeed, the evidence already indicates WMPs with deemed in compliance are achieving results. As illustrated in Mr. Alva’s presentation to the Board on July 16, 2021, the landscape of water quality has and will continue to vastly improve all over the County, and not just in certain communities, due to WMP construction and implementation.

In summary, the time to plan, construct, and see results from the projects built is a temporal limitation that is as short as practicable and it is appropriate given the nature of the discharges at issue. This is especially true since most of the deemed in compliance provisions have an end point and will expire. (See Order, Part X.B.)
33 This is certainly true of the receiving waters in the more urbanized watersheds throughout the Region during wet weather. See, staff presentations at MS4 Workshops regarding monitoring data, dated 9/13/2018 (Ventura County data); and 7/12/2018 and 5/10/2018 (Los Angeles County data). 34 It should be noted that impaired waters, or waters that are not high quality, are not confined to those listed only on the 303(d) List. There are several reasons for this, including (but not limited to) the fact that the most recent 303(d) List for the Los Angeles Region is based on available data through August 2010. Accordingly, the 303(d) List itself does not reflect all of the waterbodies in the Region that are impaired or fail to meet water quality standards.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-71
available from 1968, there were few high quality receiving waters in the more urbanized watersheds in the Los Angeles Region even at that time.35 For receiving waters that are not high quality waters, the federal antidegradation policy requires that regulatory actions ensure that existing instream uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses is maintained and protected. (40 CFR § 131.12(a)(1).) The Order ensures that existing instream (beneficial) uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses is maintained and protected through requirements to not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality objectives in the receiving water and to restore impaired water bodies.36 This is achieved through the following provisions:
a. The Order requires compliance with receiving water limitations to meet water quality standards in the receiving water either by demonstrating compliance pursuant to Part V of the Order and the Permittee’s monitoring and reporting program pursuant to Part VII of the Order or by implementing an approved Watershed Management Program (WMP) pursuant to Part IX of the Order.

Watershed Management Programs must specify structural and non-structural stormwater and non-stormwater controls that are demonstrated to have a reasonable assurance of achieving compliance with receiving water limitations and that must be implemented in accordance with an approved compliance schedule. The reasonable assurance analysis, or RAA, is 35 See e.g., Water Resources Control Board, State of California, Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, Ten Year Summary Report 1978-1987 (August 1990) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0044666 - 44669); The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, An Assessment of Inputs of Fecal Indicator Organisms and Human Enteric Viruses from Two Santa Monica Storm Drains (June 1990) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0047130 - 47174); Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Pathogens and Indicators in Storm Drains Within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed (June 1992) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0047688 - 47748); Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Storm Drains as a Source of Surf Zone Bacterial Indicators and Human Enteric Viruses to Santa Monica Bay (August 1991) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R004779 - 47780); James M. Danza, Water Quality and Beneficial Use Investigation of the Los Angeles River: Prospects for Restored Beneficial Use (1994) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0048073 - 48204); Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report (1987) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01- 082, R0048205 - 48304); National Research Council, Monitoring Southern California’s Coastal Waters (1990) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0048306 - 48473); Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report (1988-89) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0048476 - 48482); City of Los Angeles, Wastewater Program Management Division, Santa Monica Bay Stormwater Pollutant Reduction Study (December 1987) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0048485 – 48561); Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Santa Monica Bay Characterization Study Chapter 7, Urban Runoff (1993) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0048714 - 48733); To California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Stormwater Runoff in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (June 1988) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0050795 - 50888); Heal the Bay’s State of the Marina Report, Marina del Rey (July 9, 1993) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0050999 - 0051022); County of Los Angeles, Department of Beaches and Harbors, The Marine Environment of Marina del Rey (October 1991 – June 1992) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0051023 - 51344); Prepared for American Oceans Campaign, Chemical Contaminant Release into the Santa Monica Bay, A Pilot Study (June 12, 1993) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0051345 - 51557; Report to the Department of Beaches and Harbors, County of Los Angeles, The Marine Environment of Marina del Rey, October 1989 to September 1990 (March 1991) (Administrative Record, Order No. 01-082, R0052394 – 52721).
36 These actions also ensure that discharges will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses and will not result in water quality less than water quality objectives, as required by Resolution No. 68-16.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-72
quantitative and generally conducted using industry accepted computer modeling to show that proposed WMPs will achieve applicable WQBELs and will not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations. This Order requires objective technical demonstrations that any proposed controls, and those controls already in the process of being developed, will address pollutants in MS4 discharges sufficient to meet water quality standards.

Additionally, the Order requires a comprehensive evaluation and update, through the required adaptive management process, of the WMP during the permit term to ensure progress toward achieving WQBELs and receiving water limitations.
b. The Order requires Permittees to comply with WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations consistent with the assumptions and requirements of TMDL WLAs assigned to MS4 discharges established in 45 TMDLs applicable to water bodies within the Los Angeles Region to restore water quality sufficient to protect the beneficial uses of the impaired water bodies. c. The Order requires Permittees to develop and implement stormwater management programs consisting of six major program elements (MCMs), and effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges that are a source of pollutants through the MS4 to receiving waters.
d. The Order includes requirements for extensive monitoring and reporting designed to identify changes in water quality at hundreds of outfall monitoring sites.

These provisions are collectively designed to halt any further degradation of impaired water bodies and improve the quality of such waters to a level protective of existing uses over a time schedule that is as short as possible. The antidegradation policies do not explicitly or implicitly override the authority and discretion the Clean Water Act and the Water Code grant to the Los Angeles Water Board as to how it structures a permit to ensure water quality necessary to protect beneficial uses. The law does not require immediate restoration of impaired water bodies nor does it require an immediate prohibition of discharges that contribute to an exceedance in the waterbody. Rather, federal regulations at 40 CFR section 122.47 allow NPDES permits, including MS4 permits, to have compliance schedules. Similarly, Water Code section 13263, subdivision (c), authorizes the Los Angeles Water Board to include a time schedule for achieving water quality objectives in waste discharge requirements. Where a TMDL has been established, Water Code section 13242 states that the TMDL implementation plan, as incorporated into the water quality control plan, shall include a time schedule for actions to be taken. When issuing waste discharge requirements, Water Code section 13263 requires regional boards to implement any relevant water quality control plans that have been adopted. Certainly, water quality objectives must be achieved; but the law, as cited above, recognizes and allows for the fact that it can take time to restore or achieve the objectives.37 In this regard, some impaired 37 Additionally, and as discussed elsewhere in this Fact Sheet, while MS4 permits must include a technology-based standard of effectively prohibiting non-storm water discharges through the MS4 and reducing pollutants in the discharge to the MEP, requiring strict compliance with water quality standards (e.g., by requiring immediate compliance with receiving water limitations or water quality based effluent limitations) is at the discretion of the permitting agency (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B); Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159, 1166-67). This Order imposes numeric water quality based MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-73
water bodies may stagnate or, rarely, continue to degrade38 for a period of time before showing improvement. This period of time may be as long as multiple years.

This is not contrary to the authorities for compliance schedules stated above and is not contrary to the antidegradation policies.39

2. High quality water bodies:

Some of the waterbodies within the area covered by the Order may be high quality waters with regard to some pollutants. Some of these waterbodies may be currently high quality as compared to currently applicable objectives.40 Others of these waterbodies may be currently impaired but may be classified as high quality waters because they were historically high quality for certain pollutants. MS4 discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater into such water bodies may have resulted in lowering of the quality of the water bodies since 1968 with regard to the pollutants in the discharge.

For high quality water bodies, 41 the Los Angeles Water Board finds as follows:
a. Practicable Alternatives: The Los Angeles Water Board has evaluated a range of practicable alternatives that would prevent or lessen any degradation effluent limitations to implement TMDL WLAs and requires compliance with receiving water limitations for all constituents in the MS4 discharges. The fact that the Board also allows reasonable time schedules to achieve compliance with the numeric effluent limitations and receiving water limitations is not contrary to the law for this additional reason.
38 Certain commenters have argued that any further degradation of water bodies not meeting objectives violates the antidegradation policies and that such further degradation has occurred under the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Order. As a matter of fact and science, the Los Angeles Water Board generally disagrees with assertions made that water bodies not meeting water quality objectives have continued to degrade (or that they are accelerating) under the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Order or will continue to degrade under this Order. However, even if these assertions were true, the law does not preclude limited and temporary further degradation while a permittee works to implement measures in compliance with a compliance schedule, as set forth above. 39 With regard to waterbodies that are not high quality, the antidegradation policies do not require socioeconomic findings justifying any continued degradation of such waterbodies that may occur while the Permittees implement requirements in accordance with a compliance schedule. Even if such findings were required, the Los Angeles Water Board finds that this potential, limited, and temporary further lowering of water quality is justified for the same reasons articulated in the Section titled, “High Quality Water Bodies,” Part III.H.2 of this Fact Sheet, infra. 40 See, staff presentations at MS4 Workshops regarding monitoring data (dated 9/13/2018 (Ventura County data); and 7/12/2018 and 5/10/2018 (Los Angeles County data)), which summarize and evaluate data collected under the three prior MS4 permits. For example, at the mass emissions stations in the Ventura River, Calleguas Creek, and Malibu Creek watersheds, concentrations of copper, lead and zinc in wet weather are below water quality objectives, or TMDL numeric targets where applicable. 41 The quality of some currently high quality waters that are close to or at objectives may degrade below water quality objectives temporarily while Permittees plan for, develop, and implement appropriate controls in accordance with the compliance schedules in the Order and some historically high quality waters may stagnate or continue to degrade below water quality objectives during the same period. The Los Angeles Water Board finds that the potential, limited, and temporary lowering of water quality below the objectives is authorized by 40 CFR § 122.47 and the time schedule provisions of the Water Code set out in the Section titled, “Water bodies that do not meet the water quality objectives (water bodies that are not high quality)” Part III.H.1 of this Fact Sheet, supra, and, to the extent any findings are required under the antidegradation policies, is justified for the same reasons articulated in this Part III.H.2 of this Fact Sheet, “High quality water bodies.”
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-74
associated with permitted MS4 discharges to high quality waters. These alternatives are discussed below.
i. Alternative 1 - Complete prohibition on some or all pollutants in MS4 nonstormwater discharges to high quality waters: This alternative would prohibit MS4 discharges of some or all pollutants in non-stormwater to high quality receiving waters. By eliminating these discharges, pollutants from non-stormwater discharges would not reach high quality receiving waters during dry weather and thus not cause any degradation. In high quality water areas, this alternative could require the permittees to either divert all non-stormwater to a facility for treatment, or retain all nonstormwater through retention basins, infiltration galleries, and other controls that would prevent non-stormwater from reaching surface waters through storage, infiltration, or reuse. Alternatively, Permittees could install specific pollutant control measures that prevent specific pollutants from being discharged through the MS4.
ii. Alternative 2 - Complete prohibition on some or all pollutants in MS4 stormwater discharges to high quality waters: This alternative would prohibit MS4 discharges of some or all pollutants in stormwater to high quality receiving waters. By eliminating these discharges, pollutants from stormwater would not reach high quality receiving waters during wet weather and not cause any degradation. As wet weather will always occur, this alternative could require the permittees to either divert all stormwater in the MS4 to a facility for treatment, or retain all stormwater through retention basins, infiltration galleries, and other controls that would prevent stormwater from reaching surface waters through storage, infiltration, or reuse. Permittees could also install pollutant control measures that are specific to preventing specific pollutants from being discharged through the MS4.
iii. Alternative 3 - Stricter Pollutant Controls for New Development and Redevelopment in areas with high quality waters: This alternative would subject new development and redevelopment projects to more stringent water quality and runoff reduction criteria, such as retention of the 95th percentile, 24-hour storm volume instead of the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm volume. This alternative would hold new developments and redevelopments to more stringent performance criteria that would eliminate stormwater discharges from most storms.
iv. Alternative 4 - Watershed Management Program alternative compliance option without deemed compliance with Receiving Water Limitations for any high quality waters: This alternative would allow the permittees to implement approved WMPs, with customized control measures, to achieve Receiving Water Limitations, WQBELs, and other requirements.

With this alternative, a permittee would not be deemed in compliance with Receiving Water Limitations for high quality waters while they are fully and timely implementing an approved WMP.
v. Alternative 5 - Watershed Management Program alternative compliance option with deemed compliance with Receiving Water Limitations for some high quality waters: This alternative would allow the permittees to implement approved WMPs, with customized control measures, to MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-75
achieve Receiving Water Limitations, WQBELs, and other requirements.

With this alternative, a permittee would be deemed in compliance with Receiving Water Limitations for some high quality waters, primarily those waters that may have been high quality historically but are not currently high quality,42 while they are fully and timely implementing an approved WMP.43 This alternative was incorporated as a set of terms in the 2012 Los Angeles MS4 permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 permit. vi. Alternative 6 - Establishment of WQBELs for MS4 discharges to high quality waters: This alternative includes the Board establishing WQBELs for MS4 discharges of certain pollutants to high quality waters. These WQBELs would apply to both stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The 2010 Ventura County, 2012 Los Angeles County, and 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 permits only include WQBELs where they are based on TMDL wasteload allocations applicable to MS4 discharges (i.e., for impaired waters and not high quality waters). This alternative would require the Board to establish WQBELs where no TMDLs have been established.
b. Economic and Social Development Considerations and Consistency with Maximum Benefit to the People of the State: The Board incorporated Alternative 5 and aspects of Alternatives 1 and 2 into the Order. These alternatives may allow limited degradation of high quality water bodies by MS4 discharges, but these alternatives ultimately require MS4 discharges to meet and not fall below water quality standards.

Such degradation of high quality waters is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area and is consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state for the following reasons:
i. Alternatives 1 and 2, if implemented as full prohibitions, would hamper important social and economic development.
(a) The MS4 discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater in certain circumstances are to the maximum benefit to the people of the state because they may be necessary for flood control and public safety.44 MS4 discharges also can assist with maintaining instream flows that support beneficial uses.45 In addition, complete diversion or 42 See, discussion infra at Parts III.H.1.d and III.H.2.b of this Fact Sheet. 43 Under this alternative, and in accordance with WQ-2020-0038, Permittees must develop compliance schedules for WMPs that (among other things) include a final date for achieving receiving water limitations as soon as possible. (State Board Order WQ-2020-0038 at p. 77; see, also, Order, Part IX.B.9.c.iii.c; Part X, generally.)
44 SCCWRP Technical Report 520, Concept Development: Design Storm for Water Quality in the Los Angeles Region, October 2007; LASGRWC. Storm Water: Asset not Liability. [n.d.] [Noting at p. 1 the potential trade-offs between water quality and ensuring public safety, including protecting property from flood damage and maintaining passable roadways.]
45 For instance, the Los Angeles River Flows Project studied the impacts of reduced flows on beneficial uses in the Los Angeles River as a pilot application of the California Environmental Flows Framework.

At the beginning of this project, Los Angeles Water Board staff presented on the importance of minimum flows for recreation and wildlife in both concrete and soft-bottom channels of the river (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/docs/lar/002_r4_la_river_info_item_2017110 3rev.pdf). Wading shorebirds, for example, rest and feed in the shallow waters of the concrete lined portion of the lower Los Angeles River. The final report for the project, “Process and Decision Support MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-76
retention of MS4 discharges that would reach the MS4 and receiving water would require extensive structural controls that are not technologically feasible in many locations.46
(b) The vast majority of the Permittees are cities and counties that provide essential and valuable public services. Part XIII of this Fact Sheet considers economics, including Permittees’ compliance costs associated with meeting the requirements of the Order. Controlling stormwater discharges to the point that there is no potential degradation of any potentially high quality waters by requiring complete diversion or retention would be an enormous opportunity cost that could preclude MS4 permittees from spending substantial funds on other important social and economic needs. This may manifest itself in the reduction of some public services or prevent other public services from being provided in the first place.

Permittees have previously provided public comments (on the Tentative Order and during consideration of the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit) that spending limited municipal resources on immediately addressing all pollutants in MS4 discharges (all stormwater and non-stormwater discharges) will adversely impact municipal budgets, such as fire and police protection, as well as other social services.47
(c) As another example, and specifically in response to comments received, the Los Angeles Water Board conducted an analysis (based on cited sources in footnote no. below), that estimates the equivalent public benefit that may be provided through affordable housing and services if full retention and diversion is not required.

The results of the analysis support the finding that the social and economic benefits of a society where there would be significantly fewer unhoused residents would be far greater than the additional benefits created by taking water quality from the point where water quality standards are achieved to a level of higher quality that may only be achieved with full retention.48 The same funds that would Tools for Evaluating Flow Management Targets to Support Aquatic Life and Recreational Beneficial Uses of the Los Angeles River,” quantified the flow ranges associated with different species, habitats, and recreational uses in the river and evaluated the impacts of various combinations of reductions in wastewater, stormwater, and non-stormwater discharges. In general, if all discharges were eliminated, there would not be enough flow to protect beneficial uses including habitat for local plant and animal species.
46 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Concept Development: Design Storm for Water Quality in the Los Angeles Region, Technical Report 520. October 1, 2007. 47 See, e.g., City of South El Monte comment letter on 2012 Los Angeles MS4 Permit, July 23, 2012 (prior to the time the deemed in compliance pathway was included in the permit) (“The City is dedicated to the protection and enhancement of water quality. The City, however, has other functions that require funding as well. If this Permit is adopted as proposed, even in the best case scenario, spending cuts to other crucial services such as police, fire, and public works are certain. The permittee dwindling general funds simply cannot take the financial hit the Permit is poised to impose on them.”). 48 In 2012, Los Angeles County projected that it would cost $120B, or $134.8B in 2019 dollars, for complete diversion or retention of MS4 discharges, whereas the cost of implementing EWMPs, which require addressing the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event or otherwise reducing or treating stormwater discharges to attain water quality standards, was estimated by Board staff to be $21.0B-$21.3B (see Section XIII, Economic Considerations). Instead of using this cost differential of $113.5B-$113.8B to further improve MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-77
have to be used to prevent all MS4 discharges (as opposed to only 85% of those discharges) could be invested instead in addressing homelessness, and could support affordable housing and several decades of supportive services for a significant number of residents at-risk of being unhoused.49
(d) The significantly higher cost of complete stormwater diversion or retention could lead to increased fees for residents with little benefit waters that would already have achieved water quality standards, thereby already being able to support designated beneficial uses, this money could be better spent addressing the homeless problem in the region. In 2020, there were an estimated 66,436 unhoused residents in Los Angeles County. (Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. 2021. 2020 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count – Total Point-In-Time Homeless Population by Geographic Areas. https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=4692-2020-greater-losangeles-homeless-count-total-point-in-time-homeless-population-by-geographic-areas.pdf.) The median cost in Los Angeles County of constructing a permanent housing unit for the homeless is about $531,000. (Galperin, Ron. 2019. The High Cost of Homeless Housing: Review of Proposition HHH. Ron Galperin LA Controller. https://lacontroller.org/audits-and-reports/high-cost-of-homeless-housing-hhh/.) Supportive services to address the homeless housing gap were estimated in 2016 to be $428.8M per year, or $455.3M in 2019 dollars. (Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. 2016. Report on Homeless Housing Gaps in the County of Los Angeles. https://homeless.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Report-onHomeless-Housing-Gaps-in-the-County-of-Los-Angeles-1-2016-1....pdf) Adjusting for the increase in the homeless population since then yields an estimated annual cost in supportive services of $1.2B in 2019 dollars. (Assuming the same supportive services cost per person estimated in 2016, multiplied by the number of homeless residents in LA County in 2020.) The stormwater capture cost differential could build enough units to house every homeless person in Los Angeles County and pay for supportive services for the next 67 years, even with the conservative assumption of one person per housing unit. Housing a homeless person in Los Angeles County results in average cost savings of about $2,731 per person per month in 2019 dollars in terms of reduced need for public services, such as medical and policing expenses. (Economic Roundtable. 2008. Where We Sleep: Costs when Homeless and Housed in Los Angeles. https://economicrt.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Where_We_Sleep_2009.pdf) This means that there would be annual cost savings of about $2.2B from housing all homeless residents in Los Angeles County, and over 67 years the cost savings would be about $145.1B-$145.8B, greater than the stormwater capture cost differential of $113.5B-$113.8B. An analysis of Ventura County finds similar results where each of its 1,743 unhoused residents could be provided permanent housing for at least 55 years with its stormwater capture cost differential, assuming that Ventura County’s cost of full capture would be their estimated MS4 compliance costs multiplied by the same ratios of Los Angeles County’s E/WMP costs to cost of full stormwater capture, yielding cost differentials ranging from $2.5B-$23.4B (https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2020/12/12/covid-ventura-county-continuum-of-care-2021-homelesscount/3868785001/). This analysis was also based on an average cost per unit of $480,000 for housing the homeless in Ventura County in 2019 and the same supportive services cost per person as in LA County (https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/HIP-Ventura-County-Lets-Invest-Sources2020.pdf). Detailed calculations can be found in the administrative record. It can be expected that there would be substantial additional benefits for these housed residents and for the local economy from being more fully able to engage in society.
49 Contrary to what the Environmental Groups asserted during their closing statement to the Board on July 16, 2021, this discussion is only an example used to show how different permit requirements could affect municipal spending, and it is not a finding that the funds not expended on MS4 controls would in fact be spent on ending homelessness or that in deciding whether to approve the permit with deemed compliance provisions that the board is presented with a zero sum choice—housing or water quality.

Municipalities’ budgets are not unlimited, so when one slice of the budget pie gets bigger, another slice may get smaller. Permittees who testified during the hearings on July 8, 9, and 16, 2021, and those who testified during the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 hearings, have identified certain services that would be cut, such as police and fire, if they were required to immediately comply with all receiving water limitations.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-78
in return after water quality standards have been met, or beyond the requirement to address the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. The literature is sparse on the impact of MS4 project costs on user fees, but Kea et al. (2016) found higher rates of user fee establishment in the years directly before and after MS4 permit deadlines,50 indicating that utilities often rely on user fees to meet permit requirements.

It is also possible that higher costs could be passed down to residents through increased housing prices driven by higher impact fees, which cities often charge developers to help fund public services, or higher construction costs. The literature finds that overall impact fees lead to higher home prices.51 Requiring complete stormwater diversion or retention from properties could also lead to higher construction costs for housing, which is one of the drivers of higher home prices.52 There is extensive literature showing that higher housing prices are associated with proximity to cleaner waterbodies,53 which provide benefits to society. However, higher housing prices driven by higher impact fees or construction costs that do not contribute toward discernible improvements in water quality would likely provide lower marginal benefits compared to a scenario where residents could avoid additional housing costs by not having to pay higher impact fees or construction costs in a region where housing costs are already high, or a scenario where this cost could be spent on more pressing public services or societal problems (see, for example, footnote , supra.)
ii. However, aspects of Alternatives 1 and 2 are practicable and have been incorporated into this Order. The Order generally implements a prohibition on trash discharges through the installation of full capture systems or controls to achieve full capture equivalency, or alternative 50 Kea, Kandace, Randel Dymond, Warren Campbell. 2016. An Analysis of Patterns and Trends in United States Stormwater Utility. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 52(6). See, also, Comment Letter on 2012 Los Angeles MS4 Permit from City of Lakewood, Lisa A. Rapp, Director of Public Works, July 23, 2012, Comment Letter from City of La Verne, Daniel W. Keesey, Director of Public Works, July 23, 2012, and Comment Letter from LA Permit Group, July 23, 2012 (discussing the need to, and difficulty of, levying additional special taxes to pay for the permit). 51 Mathur, Shishir, Paul Waddell, and Hilda Blanco. 2004. The Effect of Impact Fees on the Price of New Single-family Housing. Urban Studies, 41(7); Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. and Timothy M. Shaughnessy. 2004. An empirical investigation of the effects of impact fees on housing and land markets. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6); Mathur, Shishir. 2013. Do All Impact Fees Affect Housing Prices the Same? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(4).
52 Emmons, William R. 2019, Sept. 5. Construction Costs, Not Another Housing Bubble, Are Driving House Prices Higher. St. Louis Fed On the Economy Blog. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-theeconomy/2019/september/construction-costs-housing-bubble-driving-housing-prices-higher 53 See e.g. Guignet, Dennis, Matthew T. Heberling, Michael Papenfus,Olivia Griot, and Ben Holland. 2020.

Property values, water quality, and benefit transfer: A nationwide meta-analysis. Working Papers 20-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University. https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/20-

04.html
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-79
compliance option, e.g., the mass-balance approach.54 The Order also largely prohibits the discharge of non-stormwater into and through the MS4 to receiving waters. While there are some limited exceptions where the non-stormwater discharge is expected not to be a source of pollutants, where the discharge is determined to be a source of pollutants it must be prohibited. The Order also supports efforts to maximize the capture of stormwater through retention basins, infiltration galleries, and other controls.
iii. Alternative 3, if implemented, would create heightened water quality related performance requirements for new developments and redevelopments that discharge to high quality water. Holding new developments and redevelopments to more stringent criteria may be practicable for some projects; however, the benefit to water quality is expected to be marginal as compared to the requirements already imposed on projects designated as “Priority Development Projects” in the Order. (See Part VIII.F.1.a of the Order.) Whenever feasible, these projects must implement structural BMPs to remove, reduce, beneficially reuse, and/or retain stormwater on-site. These structural BMPs must be designed to address the 85th percentile, 24-hour runoff volume. When onsite measures are technically infeasible (e.g., infill development), the projects are required to mitigate off-site. These requirements apply whether or not the receiving water is considered high-quality and are expected to improve water quality for a greater number of people.

Further, because waterbodies may be high quality for some pollutants and not others it is difficult, if not impossible, to designate specific areas as high quality waters.
iv. Both Alternatives 4 and 5, if implemented, could result in limited degradation of high quality water bodies. Any degradation that would occur under either alternative is consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state because the structural controls built through these programs will ultimately be more effective at maintaining and restoring water quality protective of beneficial uses than ongoing programmatic controls. The WMP permit terms of Alternatives 4 and 5 require implementation of objective technical solutions that have been demonstrated to be designed to meet water quality standards. Such controls necessarily take time to design and construct, but it is to the maximum benefit of the people of the state that such controls be designed and implemented properly so as to be protective of water quality in the long run. These measures that control impacts from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges in the Order are typically effective across multiple pollutants. The alternatives would concurrently address other constituents of concern that may not be causing impairment but may still be leading to degradation, resulting in improvements in levels of all pollutants, including those for which the receiving water may be high quality.
54 Where there are no applicable trash TMDLs, the Order requires compliance with the Statewide Trash Amendments in Priority Land Uses (PLU), alternative land use areas, and designated land use areas.

See, Part III.B (Trash Discharge Prohibitions), Order; and Part IV.B.3 (WQBELs for Trash), Order.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-80
v. Alternatives 4 and 5 avoid the high economic and social costs associated with decreased public services analyzed above in Parts III.H.2.b.i.(b)- (d)of this antidegradation analysis.55 At the same time, Alternatives 4 and 5 provide additional economic and social benefits to the people of the state by incentivizing and incorporating multi-benefit projects that include benefits beyond water quality protection such as increased local water supplies, beautified streets, plazas, and parking areas, and facilities that support habitat and recreation. For example, the MacArthur Lake Rehabilitation Project in the City of Los Angeles is projected to capture about 130 acre-feet of stormwater per year while improving the habitat and recreational value of the park by improving lake water quality and adding bioswales and wetlands. The master plan for the project was completed in 2017, and it is estimated that the project will be completed between 2024 to 2026.56
vi. Multi-benefit projects – that is, projects that fund stormwater capture that provide multiple benefits like those emphasized in WMPs – are actively encouraged by the State of California, which administers Proposition 1 funds ($200 million in grant funds) for such multi-benefit projects. For example, the Piru Stormwater Capture for Groundwater Recharge Project in Ventura County, which is estimated to capture about 17 acrefeet per year while also augmenting local water supply through groundwater recharge.57 Table F-19 provides further examples of multibenefit projects funded by Proposition 1, many of which were funded to build WMP projects in Los Angeles County. While Prop 1 funding has been expended, construction of multi-benefit projects from approved WMPs will likely qualify for these types of grant monies in the future.

Additionally, the construction of these projects also creates good-paying jobs that do not require advanced degrees, accessible to those in disadvantaged communities.58
55 See footnote nos. - and sources cited therein.
56 Deets, Deborah, Gilbert A. Cedillo, Enrique C. Zaldivar, and Shahram Kharaghani. 2020. MacArthur Lake Rehabilitation Project. PowerPoint presentation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wOoTBkZE4amsEoOtwKOxxa_gAzSQISUu/view 57 Ventura County Public Works. 2020. In the News: Completed Project for Groundwater Recharge Captures Stormwater amid dry months of January and February. Ventura County Public Works. https://www.vcpublicworks.org/2020/08/25/piru-stormwater/ While Ventura County’s current 2010 MS4 Permit does not have provisions to implement WMPs as a compliance alternative, this project is included in the Ventura Countywide Municipal Stormwater Resource Plan prepared for the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, dated September 20, 2016. This plan identifies projects that are expected to contribute towards meeting MS4 permit requirements, including TMDL-related provisions, in addition to achieving other benefits, including augmenting local water supplies. In this way, it has many similarities to WMPs. It is expected that these types of multi-benefit projects will be incentivized further by this Order, as they were in Los Angeles County following the issuance of the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit.
58 Building on the findings by Economic Roundtable, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy estimated that over 30 years, the Safe, Clean Water Program (Measure W) will create about 6,530 construction jobs and 1,347 O&M jobs, as well as about 1,559 annual indirect and induced jobs. This would yield about $14B in overall regional economic benefits from $9B in investment. Furthermore, many of these jobs created would be good-paying jobs that do not require an advanced degree, accessible to those in disadvantaged communities. (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE). Liquid Assets. How Stormwater Infrastructure Builds Resilience, Health, Jobs, and Equity. March 2018.) MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-81
Table F-19. Multi-benefit projects funded through Proposition 1 To Date Project Name Project
Proponent
Water
supply
benefit
Water quality
benefit
Flood
management
benefit
Environmental
benefit
Community
benefit
Benefit to
DAC
South Gate
Urban Orchard
Demonstration
Project
City of South
Gate
Increased
water supply
reliability
Nonpoint source
pollution control -- --
Enhanced
and/or created
recreational
and public use
areas
Y - City of
South Gate
and
Thunderbird
Villa Mobile
Home Park
San Fernando
Regional Park
Project (Planning
only)
City of San
Fernando
Increased
water supply
reliability
--
Decreased
flood risk by
reducing runoff
rate and/or
volume
--
Enhanced
and/or created
recreational
and public use
areas / Public
education
--
Tujunga
Spreading
Grounds
Enhancement
Project
City of Los
Angeles DWP
Increased
water supply
reliability
Reestablished
natural water
drainage and
treatment
Decreased
flood risk by
reducing runoff
rate and/or
volume
-- --
Y - The
communities
of Arleta and
Sun Valley
Central-Jefferson
High Green Alley
Network Storm
Water Capture
Project
The Trust for
Public and
City of Los
Angeles
Increased
water capture
and
conservation
Increased
filtration and
treatment of
runoff
-- --
Enhanced
and/or created
recreational
and public use
areas
Y - South Los
Angeles
John Anson Ford
Park Infiltration
Cistern
Gateway
Water
Management
Authority
Increased
water supply
reliability
Reestablished
natural water
drainage and
treatment
Decreased
flood risk by
reducing runoff
rate and/or
volume
-- --
Y - Cities of
Bell Gardens
and
Commerce
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-82
Project Name Project
Proponent
Water
supply
benefit
Water quality
benefit
Flood
management
benefit
Environmental
benefit
Community
benefit
Benefit to
DAC
Ladera Park
Stormwater
Capture Project
LA County
Increased
water supply
reliability
Reestablished
natural water
drainage and
treatment
--
Environmental
and habitat
protection and
improvement
-- N
Gates Canyon
Park Project LA County
Increased
water
conservation
Nonpoint source
pollution control --
Environmental
and habitat
protection and
improvement
-- N
East Los
Angeles
Sustainable
Median
Stormwater
Capture Project
LA County
Increased
water supply
reliability
Nonpoint source
pollution control -- --
Enhanced
and/or created
recreational
and public use
areas
Y - East Los
Angeles
Walnut Storm
Water Capture
and
Groundwater
Replenishment
Basin
City of
Torrance
Increased
water supply
reliability
Nonpoint source
pollution control
Decreased
flood risk by
reducing runoff
rate and/or
volume
-- Public
education Y
Piru Stormwater
Capture for
Groundwater
Recharge
Ventura
County
Increased
water supply
reliability
Increased
filtration and/or
treatment of
runoff
-- -- -- Y - Piru
Merced Avenue
Greenway
Improvement
Project
City of South
El Monte --
Increased
filtration and
treatment of
runoff
--
Reduced energy
use, greenhouse
gas emissions, or
provides a carbon
sink
Improved
public health
Y - City of
South El
Monte
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-83
Project Name Project
Proponent
Water
supply
benefit
Water quality
benefit
Flood
management
benefit
Environmental
benefit
Community
benefit
Benefit to
DAC
Walnut Park
Pocket Park and
Stormwater
Infiltration
Project
LA County
Increased
water
conservation
Increased
filtration and
treatment of
runoff
Decreased
flood risk -- -- Y - Huntington Park
Stormwater
Harvesting &
Treatment
Project For
Groundwater
Injection
City of Santa
Monica
Increased
water supply
reliability
Nonpoint source
pollution control
/ Increased
filtration and
treatment of
runoff
-- -- -- N
Alondra Park
Multi-Benefit
Stormwater
Capture Park
LA County Increased
water supply
Increased
filtration and
treatment of
runoff
-- --
Enhanced
and/or created
recreational
and public use
areas
N
Valley Village
Park Stormwater
Capture Project
City of Los
Angeles DWP
Increased
water supply
reliability
Increased
filtration and
treatment of
runoff
-- --
Enhanced
and/or created
recreational
and public use
areas
--
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-84
vii. Alternative 4 is nevertheless not to the maximum benefit of the people of the state because it is less likely than Alternative 5 to result in the anticipated economic and social development described in Part III.H.2.b, subsection v, immediately above. As many of the permittees testified during the hearing on this Order, WMPs with the broader deemed compliance option (Alternative 5) better incentivize building and investing in long-term structural and non-structural controls that will improve water quality in the long run for multiple constituents and with multiple benefits.59 There are several reasons for this. Deeming Permittees in compliance with receiving water limitations while they are building and investing in these multi-benefit projects is necessary to accommodate the public bidding process (which many municipalities must go through to initiate construction) and the construction process, which takes approximately 5-7 years.60 Deeming Permittees in compliance while they are implementing their WMP projects allows Permittees to focus on constructing multi-benefit projects and long-term water sustainability planning, instead of focusing immediately (and spending money) on fixing violations or defending litigation related to those violations that might occur before their projects are completed. Having determined that water quality is most effectively protected by requiring Permittees to take a thoughtful proactive watershed management approach to discharges, which also encourages water supply augmentation and has environmental benefits, the Los Angeles Water Board finds that fairness and good public policy also advises against requiring them to comply with all effluent and receiving water limitations immediately (and potentially penalizing them for not doing so). The Order is designed to facilitate cooperation and coordination between the State and Permittees, local government entities. For example, Paul Alva, Principal Engineer for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, testified on July 16, 2021, that the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit structure, with deemed in compliance, has enabled the County to form new partnerships with entities like Caltrans and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and that it has fostered collaboration with other permittees as well. Allowing local governments to be deemed in compliance while implementing and constructing WMP projects strengthens this important public policy goal. Without the deemed compliance approach, Permittees are expected to shift at least some of their limited resources budgeted for planned, comprehensive, long-term, multi-benefit projects, to measures that are reactive, short-term, and ultimately less effective or protective of water quality in the long run.61 Importantly, the deemed compliance approach does not mean that the Los Angeles Water Board cannot take 59 See, Table F-20. Testimony from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works staff, and representatives from the Lower Los Angeles River Watershed and Lower San Gabriel River Watershed E/WMP groups on July 16, 2021 also supports this.
60 Testimony provided by Los Angeles County Public Works staff and other permittees at Board meetings and workshops in 2020 states that TMDL implementation projects (incorporated into WMPs) can take from five to seven years per project from design to completion (January 7, 2020 workshop and May 14, 2020 Board meeting).
61 See, footnote nos. - and citations therein.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-85
enforcement to ensure implementation of the Order requirements. Of course, Permittees are required to be pursuing and implementing their WMP controls as expeditiously as possible according to approved time schedules, and they can be separately subject to enforcement if they are not. Similarly, they may be subject to third-party citizen suits for violations of these terms.
viii. Alternative 5 is necessary to accommodate important economic and social development and to the maximum benefit of the people of the state because coupling the WMP framework with deemed compliance also incentivizes collaboration to implement the most cost-effective controls.

For example, Permittees in the County of Los Angeles were able to leverage the water supply and water quality benefits of the WMPs with deemed in compliance benefits to pass funding measures such as Measure W and Measure CW. Table F-20 documents the Measure W projects funded in 2020 and 2021,62 the majority of which were also proposed in an E/WMP. Table F-20 also documents another important fact that also demonstrates that Alternative 5 results in social and economic development that would not be achieved under Alternative 4.

The kinds of projects built under the WMP framework with deemed in compliance has facilitated investment and construction of multi-benefit projects that include parks, infiltration, and low impact development (among other things) in communities that might not have seen that investment without the Board’s adoption of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit in 2012 incorporating the alternative compliance pathway of WMPs with deemed in compliance. This is not speculation. Mr. Alva from the County of Los Angeles explained to the Board on July 16, 2021, that the landscape of water quality has and will continue to vastly improve all over the County, and not just in certain communities, due to WMP construction and implementation. Under the 2001 Permit, which did not include deemed in compliance provisions for RWLs, only about two dozen coastal projects for low flow diversions were built to achieve water quality objectives. The 2012 Permit facilitated a shift in the building of projects from the limited number of coastal projects under the 2001 permit, to the planning, approval and beginning construction of many multi-benefit projects all over the County, including in disadvantaged, inland communities. All of Los Angeles County benefits from the multibenefit projects now – which include multi-benefit projects and naturebased solutions that take into account current pressing challenges of drought and climate change and allow change to occur in an equitable fashion, in communities where they would not have occurred otherwise.

Mr. Alva testified that this paradigm shift, towards building multi-benefit projects across the region and not just at the coast, would not have happened without the current compliance pathway, WMPs with deemed in compliance. Alternative 5, compared to Alternative 4, has thus already resulted in and is expected to continue to result in important economic and social development and are to the maximum benefit to the people of the state.
62 Los Angeles County. Safe Clean Water Program – 2020-21 Stormwater Investment Plans for nine Watershed Area Steering Committees. https://safecleanwaterla.org/projects2/ MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-86
Table F-20. Measure W Funded Projects (2020-2021)
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Active
Transportation
Rail toRiver
Corridor
Project Ǧ
Segment A
Los Angeles
Metropolitan
Transit
Authority
(Metro)
LID Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR No YesMimic Natural
Processes/Uses
Natural Material
Connect to
Aquifer/Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space/
Enhance Green
Space in Schools
Bacteria
Adventure
Park Multi
Benefit
Stormwater
Capture
Project
Los Angeles
County
Public
Works
Capture
and
diversion
to sewer;
LID
Upper
San
Gabriel
River
USGR Yes YesMimic Natural
Processes/ Uses
Natural Material
Connect to
WWTP
Reduce Heat
Island/Provide
Recreational
Opportunities/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Other
Alondra Park
Multi Benefit
Stormwater
Capture
Project
Los Angeles
County
Capture
and
diversion
to sewer;
LID
South
Santa
Monica Bay
DC Yes YesMimic Natural
Processes/ Uses
Natural Material
Connect to
Aquifer/Connect
to WWTP
Reduce Heat
Island/Provide
Recreational
Opportunities/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Other
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-87
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Protection/Enhance
Habitat or ParkSpace
Baldwin Lake
and Tule
Pond
Restoration
Project
Los Angeles
County Public
Works/Flood
Control
District
EnhancementRio Hondo RHǦ
SGR
Yes YesMimic Natural
Processes/Uses
Natural Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Provide
Recreational
Opportunities/
Improve Flood
Protection/
Improve Waterway
Access/ Enhance
Habitat or Park
Space
Other
Barnes Park City of Baldwin
Park
Infiltration Upper
San
Gabriel
River
USGR Yes YesMimic Natural
Processes/ Uses
Natural Material
-- Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Zn
Bassett High
School
Stormwater
Capture
MultiǦBenefit
Project
Los Angeles
County
Infiltration Upper
San
Gabriel
River
USGR Yes*YesMimic Natural
Processes/ Uses
Natural Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Zn
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-88
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Habitat or Park
Space/Enhance
Green Space in
Schools
Beverly Hills
Burton Way
Green Street
and Water
Efficient
Landscape
Project
City of
Beverly Hills
(Derek
Nguyen)
Green
Street/
Infiltration
Central
Santa
Monica
Bay
Ballona
Creek
No No Mimic Natural
Processes/ Uses
Natural Material
Connect to
Aquifer/Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park
Space
Zn
Bolivar Park City of
Lakewood
O&M Lower
San
Gabriel
River
LCC Yes YesUses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer/ Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/
Provide Shade/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space/
Enhance Green
Space in Schools
Zn
Caruthers Park City of
Bellflower
O&M Lower
San
Gabriel
River
LCC Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer/ Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat
Island/Provide
Recreational
Opportunities/Provide
Shade/Improve Flood
Protection/Enhance
Other
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-89
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Habitat or Park
Space
City of San
Fernando
Regional Park
Infiltration
Project
City of San
Fernando
(Kenneth Jones)
Infiltration Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes
Connect to
Aquifer
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park
Space
Zn
Culver City
Mesmer Low
Flow
City of Culver
City
Low Flow
Diversion
Central
Santa
Ballona
Creek
Yes No -- Connect to
WWTP
-- Other
East Los
Angeles
Sustainable
Median
Stormwater
Capture Project
Los Angeles
County
Infiltration; LIDRio Hondo ULAR Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Other
Echo Park Lake
Rehabilitation
City of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Sanitation
O&M Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR No No Mimic Natural
Processes
/Uses Natural
Material
Use Onsite Provide Recreational
Opportunities/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Nitrogen
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-90
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed El Dorado
Regional Project
City of Long
Beach
Planning and
Design
Lower
San
Gabriel
River
LSGR No Yes Mimic Natural
Processes
/Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
WWTP /Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Zn
Encanto Park
Stormwater
Capture Project
City of Monrovia Infiltration Upper
San
Gabriel
River
RHSGR Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Zn
Fernangeles
Park Stormwater
Capture Project
Los Angeles
Department of
Water and
Power (LADWP)
Infiltration Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Zn
Franklin D.

Roosevelt Park
Regional
Stormwater
Capture Project
Los Angeles
County
Infiltration Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Zn
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-91
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Habitat or Park Space
Garvey Avenue
Grade
Separation
Drainage
Improvement
Project
City of El Monte Infiltration Upper
San
Gabriel
River
El
Monte
Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes
Connect to
Aquifer
Improve Flood
Protection
Zn
Hasley Canyon
Park Stormwater
Improvements
Project
Los Angeles
County Public
Works
Infiltration Santa
Clara
River
USCR Yes No Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Nitrogen
Hermosillo Park City of Norwalk Infiltration Lower
San
Gabriel
River
LSGR Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer/Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Zn
John Anson
Ford Park
Infiltration
Cistern
City of Bell
Gardens
Infiltration Lower Los
Angeles
River
LARUR2 Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Zn
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-92
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Ladera Park
Stormwater
Improvements
Project
Los Angeles
County Public
Works
Infiltration
Wells
Central
Santa
Monica
Bay
Ballona
Creek
Yes No Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer/ Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Zn
Lankershim
Boulevard Local
Area Urban
Flow
Management
Network Project
City of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Sanitation
Infiltration Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection
Zn
Long Beach
Municipal Urban
Stormwater
Treatment (LB
MUST) - Phase
1 City of Long
Beach
Treatment
and reuse
Lower Los
Angeles
River
LLAR Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Use Onsite Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Other
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-93
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed MacArthur Lake
Rehabilitation
Project
City of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Sanitation
Capture and
reuse;
Recreation
enhancement
Central
Santa
Monica
Bay
Ballona
Creek
Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
WWTP/ Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space/
Enhance Green
Space in Schools
Zn
Mayfair Park City of
Lakewood
O&M Lower
San
Gabriel
River
LCC Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
WWTP/ Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Other
Monteith Park
and View Park
Green Alley
Stormwater
Improvements
Project
Los Angeles
County Public
Works
Infiltration
Wells
Central
Santa
Monica
Bay
Ballona
Creek
No Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
-- Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Zn
Newhall Park
Infiltration
Dan Duncan,
Oliver Cramer
Infiltration Santa
Clara
River
USCR Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space/
Enhance Green
Space in Schools
Bacteria
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-94
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Oro Vista Local
Area Urban
Flow
Management
Project
City of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Sanitation
Infiltration; LID Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes* No Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection
Zn
Pedley
Spreading
Grounds
East San
Gabriel Valley
Watershed
Management
Group (City of
San Dimas, City
of Claremont,
City of Pomona,
City of La
Verne)
Infiltration Upper
San
Gabriel
River
ESGV No No Mimic Natural
Processes
Connect to
Aquifer
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Other
Rory M. Shaw
Wetlands Park
Project
Los Angeles
Flood Control
District
Detention
pond/
infiltration
Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Nitrogen
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-95
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Skylinks Golf
Course at
Wardlow
Stormwater
Capture Project
City of Long
Beach
Infiltration Lower
San
Gabriel
River
LCC Yes No Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer/ Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Zn
Strathern Park
North
Stormwater
Capture Project
Los Angeles
Department of
Water and
Power (LADWP)
Infiltration Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Zn
Sustainable
Water
Infrastructure
Project
City of Santa
Monica
Capture,
advance
treatment, and
reuse
Central
Santa
Monica
Bay
SMB
J2-J3
Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer/
Connect to
WWTP/ Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space/ Enhance
Green Space in
Schools
Bacteria
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-96
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed The Distributed
Drywell System
Project
City of Glendale Infiltration Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection
Zn
Torrance Airport
Storm Water
Basin Project,
Phase 2
City of Torrance Capture and
divert to
sanitary sewer
South
Santa
Monica
Bay
Beach
Cities
Yes Yes -- Connect to
WWTP
Improve Flood
Protection
Other
Valley Village
Park Stormwater
Capture Project
Los Angeles
Department of
Water and
Power (LADWP)
Infiltration Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Other
Walnut Park
Pocket Park
Project
County of Los
Angeles
Infiltration Upper Los
Angeles
River
ULAR Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/Uses
Natural Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Enhance
Habitat or Park Space
Zn
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-97
Project NameProject DeveloperProject TypeWatershed Area WMP/EWMP Area
Proposed in E/WMP?DAC?Natural Based SolutionWater SupplyCommunity BenefitsPrimary Pollutant Addressed Washington
Boulevard
Stormwater and
Urban Runoff
Diversion
City of Culver
City
Capture and
divert to
sanitary sewer
Central
Santa
Monica
Bay
MdR Yes No Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
WWTP/ Use
Onsite
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection
Other
Wilmington Q
Street Local
Urban Area
Flow
Management
Project
City of Los
Angeles, Bureau
of Sanitation
Green Street/
Infiltration
South
Santa
Monica
Bay
DC Yes* Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/Uses
Natural Material
-- Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Shade/
Improve Flood
Protection/ Enhance
Green Space in
Schools
Zn
Wingate Park
Regional EWMP
Project
City of Covina Planning and
design of
Infiltration
project
Upper
San
Gabriel
River
USGR Yes Yes Mimic Natural
Processes/
Uses Natural
Material
Connect to
Aquifer
Reduce Heat Island/
Provide Recreational
Opportunities/ Provide
Shade/ Improve Flood
Protection/ Improve
Waterway Access/
Enhance Habitat or
Park Space
Zn
* This specific project was not identified in the E/WMP, but this type of project was identified.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-98
Similarly, Permittees in both Los Angeles and Ventura Counties have been able to utilize Proposition 1 funding to develop multi-benefit stormwater management projects such as those set forth in Table F-20, supra, which are exactly the type of projects that WMPs contemplate.63 And, as discussed immediately above, this alternative provides important socioeconomic benefits such as creation of new jobs, increased local water supplies, beautified streets, plazas, and parking areas, and facilities that support habitat and recreation, while allowing the local governments to maintain important public services. This alternative therefore has the greatest chance of success, within the shortest time frame, and furthers the goal of maintaining and achieving water quality standards.
ix. Further, Alternative 5 does not create a framework where there is a deemed in compliance pathway for all receiving water limitations.

Alternative 5 does not relieve Permittees of the requirement to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges. The non-stormwater discharge prohibitions are not afforded deemed compliance status through the WMP provisions. Rather, the WMPs provide alternative compliance pathways only for particular waterbody-pollutant combinations: Those addressed by TMDLs (highest priority); those that are listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List as impaired and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the impairment (high priority); or for which there are insufficient data to indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State’s Listing Policy, but which exceed applicable receiving water limitations contained in this Order and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance within the last five years (medium priority).64 None of these water bodies are high quality waters currently. As explained in State Water Board Order WQ 2020-0038, Permittees must be clear about which waterbody-pollutant combinations and receiving water limitations they will address in their WMPs.65 “Deemed compliance is not a right; it is an accommodation based on the time and effort required to undertake the complex planning and implementation efforts needed to improve water quality. It is meant to encourage significant investment in collaborative regional - and watershed-based BMP implementation, leading eventually to all receiving waters meeting final receiving water limitations.”66
63 See, Table F-21, supra.
64 As such, many of the waters to which the deemed in compliance allowance provisions will be applied are not high quality waters in the first place (see Order, Part IX.A.4; IX.B.1-3) and subject instead to the antidegradation analysis under Part III.H.1 of this Fact Sheet. The findings above are made only to the extent these waterbodies are considered high quality based on a historic baseline. To the extent that the WMP alternative compliance pathways do allow for pollutants to be discharged into otherwise high quality waters, the period to achieve receiving water limitations where there are exceedances must be as short as possible.
65 See, e.g., WQ 2020-0038 at p. 11.
66 WQ 2020-0038 at p. 10.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-99
x. Alternative 5 may result in limited degradation of high quality waters, in particular currently impaired waters that may nevertheless be considered high quality waters based on a historic baseline.67 The federal antidegradation policy does not require consideration of economic and social costs associated with degradation; it only requires findings that “allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.” The state antidegradation policy does not define the exact factors that must be considered in determining “maximum benefit to the people of the state.” APU 90-004 states that factors to be considered in a complete antidegradation analysis include economic and social costs of the discharge compared to its benefits, but this Order is subject only to a simple antidegradation analysis.68 The Los Angeles Water Board has nevertheless considered the costs associated with water quality degradation that may occur under Alternative 5, but has done so necessarily at a generalized level. Specifically, in choosing Alternative 5 over Alternative 4, the Los Angeles Water Board finds as follows:
(a) There are significant environmental, public health, and economic costs associated with exceedances of water quality objectives.

Southern California’s local economy thrives on a healthy environment, as does the health of its population. By way of example, the failure to control stormwater runoff (which would result in exceedances of water quality objectives) would, among other things, negatively impact ocean water quality, which would negatively impact the coastal economy, including tourism and the fishing industry. Similarly, the failure to meet water quality objectives in ocean waters would negatively impact recreation and public health of beachgoers. These costs are discussed in detail in Part XIII.D.4 of this Fact Sheet and are incorporated into these findings by reference.
(b) The considered costs are associated with exceedances of water quality objectives rather than limited degradation of high quality waters to a level that remains better than objectives. This is because the objectives are set to protect beneficial uses in the first place. (c) Where Alternative 5 may allow a currently high quality waterbody to degrade below water quality objectives, or where it will allow a currently impaired, but historically high quality waterbody to stagnate or worsen in quality, even for multiple years, this allowance is for a finite period of time defined by the compliance schedule specified in the permit. The Los Angeles Water Board finds that the temporary degradation is justified based on the social and economic benefits discussed in findings Part III.H.2.b of this Fact Sheet. 67 The WMPs are designed to provide deemed in compliance only for pollutants for which the waterbody is impaired or there are exceedances of receiving water limitations and the Order is not written to allow currently high quality waterbodies to be degraded for those pollutants for which deemed compliance is not provided.
68 Outside of the complete antidegradation analysis context, APU 90-004 states only that the “findings should indicate . . . [t]he socioeconomic and public benefits that result from lowered water quality.” (APU 90-004, p. 1.)
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-100
associated with Alternative 5, notwithstanding the potential costs of degradation. In particular, the Los Angeles Water Board anticipates that the structural controls that are designed and built over a longer timeframe are more likely to lead to water quality improvements than other measures.
(d) Alternative 4 could potentially avoid some of the costs discussed in subsection (a), above, because some Permittees may correct some exceedances earlier if required to comply immediately with receiving water limitations. From a practical perspective, however, the Los Angeles Water Board finds that immediate compliance, particularly for those waters that may have been high quality historically but are not high quality currently, is unrealistic even if required, given the technical and financial constraints faced by Permittees. Since Permittees will not be able to afford to comply immediately, any costs avoided would be minimal.69
xi. Regarding Alternative 6, WQBELs are for the most part set to be protective of beneficial uses, which is the floor of the level of protection required under the antidegradation policies and may not be protective of water quality higher than necessary to protect beneficial uses. Therefore, this alternative is not more protective of high quality water bodies than requiring compliance with receiving water limitations, which already require permittees’ MS4 discharges to not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality objectives. This alternative would impose a significant analytical hurdle on development and adoption of a permit by requiring the Los Angeles Water Board to spend extensive efforts to analyze hundreds of thousands of waterbody-pollutant combinations and then further conduct an infeasible set of reasonable potential analyses to determine whether the permittees’ discharges are impacting high quality waters and for what pollutants. Ultimately, the alternative would divert staff resources from oversight of the implementation of potentially more effective and practical permit requirements, as well diverting staff from the Board’s other programs.
xii. For all of the reasons set forth above, the Los Angeles Water Board finds that any lowering of high quality waters under this Order’s structure, which is consistent with Alternative 5 and components of Alternatives 1 and 2, is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the Region and is to the maximum benefit of the people of the State.
c. Requirement for Highest Statutory and Regulatory Requirements and Best Practicable Treatment and Control: The Order requires the highest statutory 69 See, e.g., Testimony from Arne Anselm, Ventura County, Transcript, October 15, 2020 Board Workshop, at p. 55:12-14 (“And certainly funding plays a big part of that, and getting a funding plan together, and developing that source of money. It’s hard to do everything without that money. If we’re limited to just the funds we have, not much will get done.”); Chris Minton, Larry Walker and Associates, on behalf of the Malibu Creek Watershed EWMP Group, Transcript, February 11, 2021 Board Meeting, at p. 83:8-14 (“One reason we asked for more time is that it does take money to build projects. Under no cashflow scenario is it possible for us to receive or borrow enough money in the next five years to cover the cost of all of our projects. Even if our EWMP cost estimates are off by 50-percent, we still won't receive enough funds.”). See, also, references cited in footnote , supra.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-101
and regulatory requirements and requires that the Permittees meet best practicable treatment or control.
i. The Order prohibits all non-stormwater discharges, with a few enumerated exceptions, through the MS4 to all receiving waters. ii. As required by 40 CFR section 122.44(a), the Permittees must comply with the “maximum extent practicable” technology-based standard set forth in CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) and implement control measures under six program elements of a stormwater management program. iii. As required by CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) and 40 CFR section 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), the Permittees must comply with applicable WQBELs based on TMDL WLAs established for waters in the Los Angeles Region.
iv. The Order also contains provisions to encourage, wherever feasible, retention of stormwater from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.

This stormwater retention design standard is based on robust engineering and technical evaluations to determine state-of-the-art design standards for post-construction site scale BMPs and catchment scale regional BMPs.70
v. The measures that control impacts from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges in the Order are typically effective across multiple pollutants.

For example, retention basins, low-impact development controls, and low flow diversions avert stormwater and non-stormwater from reaching the receiving water at all—preventing degradation to the receiving water from all types of constituents. The Watershed Management Program provisions contained in the Order are designed to achieve water quality standards for those constituents that are impairing the receiving water, as well as to address other constituents of concern that may not be causing impairment as defined in CWA section 303(d) and State policy.

The Watershed Management Programs developed pursuant to these provisions will likely result in improvements in levels of all pollutants, including those for which the receiving water may be high quality.

As a final backstop against degradation, the Order includes an extensive monitoring and reporting program, including concurrent monitoring of MS4 discharges at representative outfalls and in receiving waters for all pollutants of concern in the particular receiving water; monitoring during both wet weather and dry weather conditions; and analysis of toxicity in receiving waters and, if toxicity is observed, follow-up monitoring of MS4 discharges among other monitoring requirements. Monitoring data must be submitted semi-annually, and the Order also includes reopener provisions to allow modification of the Order as necessary to add preventative provisions if a threat of degradation is suspected. The monitoring and reporting requirements are sufficient to identify and address changes in water quality.71
70 See, for example, State Water Board Order WQ 2000-11, the “LA SUSMP Order” and Concept Development: Design Storm For Water Quality in the Los Angeles Region (SCCWRP, Technical Report 520, October 2007).
71 In AGUA, 210 Cal.App.4th 1255, the Court of Appeal held that a dairy general non-NPDES permit violated the State antidegradation policy in part because the permit relied on a prohibition of degradation to assert that the antidegradation policy was not implicated by the discharges without incorporating any additional MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-102
I. Anti-Backsliding Requirements
Sections 402(o) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 C.F.R. section 122.44(l) prohibit backsliding in NPDES permits. These anti-backsliding provisions require effluent limitations in a reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permits, with some exceptions where limitations may be relaxed. In general, the effluent limitations in the Order are at least as stringent as the effluent limitations in Order No.

R4-2010-0108 (Ventura County), Order No. R4-2012-0175 (Los Angeles County), and Order No. R4-2014-0024 (Long Beach). However, certain of the effluent limitations in the Order are not identical to the effluent limitations in the previous MS4 permits because the Order implements revisions to TMDLs that occurred after these permits were adopted. Table F-21 lists changes to effluent limitations that increase allowable pollutant loadings or remove the effluent limitations entirely due to revised WLAs. While not all of the changes to these effluent limitations constitute backsliding, the rationale for each change is discussed below.

Table F-21. Changes to Effluent Limitations in Previous MS4 Permits TMDL Constituent Waterbody Existing
Limitation New Limitation
Revolon
Slough and
Beardsley
Wash Trash
TMDL
Trash Revolon Slough and
Beardsley Wash
0 Trash
discharged
from all land
uses
0 Trash discharged
from priority land
uses
Malibu
Creek
Watershed
Trash
TMDL
Trash Malibu Creek
Watershed
0 Trash
discharged
from all land
uses
0 Trash discharged
from priority land
uses
Ballona
Creek
Metals
TMDL
Selenium
Ballona Creek 169 g/day
None
Sepulveda Channel 76 g/day
Ballona Creek and
tributaries 5 μg/L
Ballona Creek and
tributaries

4.73 x 10-6 x
daily storm
volume (L)
g/day
Copper Ballona Creek 807.7 g/day 1,457.6 g/day
technical controls, or in lieu of such controls sufficient or appropriate monitoring to verify that in fact there was no ongoing degradation. The Order acknowledges that there may be some limited degradation of high quality waters due to stormwater and non-stormwater discharges, but imposes appropriate controls (e.g., through compliance with receiving water limitation provisions, discharge prohibitions, and WQBELs) to minimize any such degradation and further imposes extensive monitoring and reporting as described above to detect any degradation that may be inconsistent with the findings of the Order.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-103
TMDL Constituent Waterbody Existing
Limitation New Limitation
Sepulveda Channel 365.6 g/day 540.6 g/day
Ballona Creek and
tributaries 24 μg/L 35.56 μg/L
Ballona
Creek
Metals
TMDL
Lead
Ballona Creek 432.6 g/day 805.0 g/day
Sepulveda Channel 196.1 g/day 298.7 g/day
Ballona Creek and
tributaries 13 μg/L 19.65 μg/L
Ballona Creek and
tributaries

5.58 x 10-5 x
daily storm
volume (L)
g/day

7.265 x 10-5 x daily
storm volume (L)
g/day
Zinc
Ballona Creek 10,273.1 g/day 18,302.1 g/day
Sepulveda Channel 4,646.4 g/day 6,790.8 g/day
Ballona Creek and
tributaries 304 μg/L 446.55 μg/L
Ballona
Creek
Estuary
Toxic
Pollutants
TMDL
Total PAHs
Ballona Creek Estuary
26,900 g/yr None
Total
Chlordane 3.34 g/yr 8.69 g/yr
Total DDTs 10.56 g/yr 12.70 g/yr
Marina del
Rey Harbor
Toxic
Pollutants
TMDL
Copper
Marina del Rey Harbor

2.01 kg/yr 2.26 kg/yr
Lead 2.75 kg/yr 3.10 kg/yr
Zinc 8.85 kg/yr 9.96 kg/yr
Total
Chlordane 0.0295 g/yr 0.0332 g/yr
Total PCBs 1.34 g/yr 1.51 g/yr
Los
Angeles
River (LAR)
Metals
TMDL
Copper
LAR Reach 4 0.32 kg/day 1.27 kg/day
LAR Reach 3 0.06 kg/day 0.24 kg/day
LAR Reach 2 0.13 kg/day 0.52 kg/day
LAR Reach 1 0.14 kg/day 0.56 kg/day
Tujunga Wash 0.001 kg/day 0.008 kg/day
Burbank Western
Channel 0.15 kg/day 0.71 kg/day
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-104
TMDL Constituent Waterbody Existing
Limitation New Limitation
Verdugo Wash 0.18 kg/day 0.39 kg/day
Rio Hondo Reach 1 0.01 kg/day 0.097 kg/day
Compton Creek 0.04 kg/day 0.13 kg/day
LAR Reach 4 26 μg/L 103 μg/L
LAR Reach 3 above
LAG WRP 23 μg/L 91 μg/L
Verdugo Wash 23 μg/L 50 μg/L
LAR Reach 3 below
LAG WRP 26 μg/L 103 μg/L
Burbank Western
Channel (above WRP) 26 μg/L 124 μg/L
Burbank Western
Channel (below WRP) 19 μg/L 90 μg/L
LAR Reach 2 22 μg/L 87 μg/L
Arroyo Seco 22 μg/L 29 μg/L
LAR Reach 1 23 μg/L 91 μg/L
Compton Creek 19 μg/L 64 μg/L
Rio Hondo Reach 1 13 μg/L 126 μg/L
Los Angeles River and
tributaries

1.5 x 10-8 x
daily storm
volume (L) –

9.5 g/day

6.0 x 10-8 x daily
storm volume (L) –

9.5 g/day
Lead
LAR Reach 6 0.33 kg/day 3.0 kg/day
LAR Reach 5 0.03 kg/day 0.31 kg/day
LAR Reach 4 0.12 kg/day 1.04 kg/day
LAR Reach 3 0.03 kg/day 1.18 kg/day
LAR Reach 2 0.07 kg/day 0.89 kg/day
LAR Reach 1 0.07 kg/day 0.64 kg/day
Bell Creek 0.04 kg/day 0.33 kg/day
Tujunga Wash 0.0002 kg/day 0.0053 kg/day
Burbank Western
Channel 0.07 kg/day 0.61 kg/day
Verdugo Wash 0.10 kg/day 0.82 kg/day
Arroyo Seco 0.01 kg/day 0.06 kg/day
Rio Hondo Reach 1 0.006 kg/day 0.045 kg/day
Compton Creek 0.02 kg/day 0.16 kg/day
LAR Reaches 5, 6 and
Bell Creek 19 μg/L 170 μg/L
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-105
TMDL Constituent Waterbody Existing
Limitation New Limitation
LAR Reach 4 10 μg/L 83 μg/L
LAR Reach 3 above
LAG WRP 12 μg/L 102 μg/L
Verdugo Wash 12 μg/L 102 μg/L
LAR Reach 3 below
LAG WRP 12 μg/L 100 μg/L
Burbank Western
Channel (above WRP) 14 μg/L 126 μg/L
Burbank Western
Channel (below WRP) 9.1 μg/L 751 μg/L
LAR Reach 2 11 μg/L 94 μg/L
Arroyo Seco 11 μg/L 94 μg/L
LAR Reach 1 12 μg/L 102 μg/L
Compton Creek 8.9 μg/L 73 μg/L
Rio Hondo Reach 1 5.0 μg/L 37 μg/L
Los Angeles River and
tributaries

5.6 x 10-8 x
daily storm
volume (L) –

3.85 g/day

8.5 x 10-8 x daily
storm volume (L) –
32 g/day
Los
Angeles
River
Nitrogen
Compounds
and Related
Effects
TMDL
Ammonia
30-day
Average
Los Angeles River
Reach 5 1.6 mg/L

2.1 mg/L

1.8 mg/L
LAR Reach 4 1.6 mg/L 2.1 mg/L
LAR Reach 3 above
LAG WRP 1.6 mg/L

4.1 mg/L

2.4 mg/L
LAR Reach 3 below
LAG WRP 2.4 mg/L 4.1 mg/L
Rio Hondo Reach 3
above Whittier Narrows
Dam

2.3 mg/L

4.3 mg/L

2.8 mg/L
Colorado
Lagoon OC
Pesticides,
PCBs,
Sediment
Toxicity,
PAHs and
Metals
TMDL
Lead
Termino Avenue Storm
Drain
1,134,867.12
mg/yr
None
Zinc 3,645,183.47
mg/yr
Total
Chlordane 12.15 mg/yr
Dieldrin 0.49 mg/yr
Total PAHs 97,739.52
mg/yr
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-106
TMDL Constituent Waterbody Existing
Limitation New Limitation
Total PCBs 551.64 mg/yr
Total DDTs 38.40 mg/yr
Colorado
Lagoon OC
Pesticides,
PCBs,
Sediment
Toxicity,
PAHs and
Metals
TMDL
Lead
Line M Storm Drain
68,116.09
mg/yr
None
Zinc 218,788.29
mg/yr
Total
Chlordane 0.73 mg/yr
Dieldrin 0.03 mg/yr
Total PAHs 5,866.44 mg/yr
Total PCBs 33.11 mg/yr
Total DDTs 2.30 mg/yr
Middle
Santa Ana
River
Watershed
Bacterial
Indicator
TMDLs
Fecal
Coliform
San Antonio Creek and
Chino Creek
30-Day
Geometric
Mean (GM)
less than
180/100 mL
None
Not more than
10% exceed
360/100 mL
during any 30-
day period
E. coli San Antonio Creek and
Chino Creek
30-Day GM
less than
113/100 mL
Not more than
10% exceed
212/100 mL
during any 30-
day period
Upper
Santa Clara
River
Chloride
TMDL
Chloride Reaches 4B and 5
(Ventura County only)
100 mg/L None
U.S. EPA
Established
- Santa
Clara River
Reach 3
Chloride Santa Clara River
Reach 3 80 mg/L 100 mg/L
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-107
TMDL Constituent Waterbody Existing
Limitation New Limitation
Chloride
TMDL
Santa Clara
River
Estuary and
Reaches 3,
5, 6, & 7
Indicator
Bacteria
TMDL
E. coli Santa Clara River
Reaches 5, 6, and 7
0 allowable
exceedances
days at the
outfall
Exceedance days
now allowed at the
outfall and are the
same as the
allowable
exceedance days
for receiving water
What follows is a discussion of (1) the general law pertaining to anti-backsliding and (2) why the anti-backsliding provisions in the CWA and federal regulations do not bar the changes in the effluent limitations appearing in the Order.

1. General Principles of Law Governing Anti-Backsliding Analysis for Effluent Limitations Established Pursuant to TMDLs
As noted above, the CWA contains both statutory anti-backsliding provisions in section 402(o) and regulatory anti-backsliding provisions in 40 C.F.R. section 122.44(l). The CWA’s statutory prohibition against backsliding applies under a narrow set of criteria specified in section 402(o).72 Section 402(o)(1) prohibits relaxing technology based effluent limitations originally established based on best professional judgment, when there is a newly revised effluent limitation guideline.

This section is inapplicable here since none of the WQBELs in the Order are TBELs based on BPJ. Section 402(o)(1) also prohibits relaxing of WQBELs imposed pursuant to CWA sections 301(b)(1)(C) or 303(d) or (e). However, backsliding may be allowed for WQBELs such as the ones at issue here pursuant to one of six exceptions in CWA section 402(o)(2).73 Two are relevant here:
72 See SWRCB Order WQ 2015-0075 at pp. 19-23; NPDES Permit Writers’ Handbook at §7.2.1.1 (U.S.

EPA 2010).
73 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual, § 7.2.1.3 (U.S. EPA 2010); CWA section 402(o). Relaxation of limits based on state water quality standards may not be based on section 402(o)(B)(ii), which allows TBELs based on BPJ to be relaxed if technical mistakes or mistaken interpretations of the law were made in issuing the permit under CWA section 402(a)(1)(B).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-108
ƒ material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility occurred after permit issuance which justify the application of a less stringent effluent limitation (CWA section 402(o)(A));
ƒ information is available which was not available at the time of permit issuance (other than revised regulations, guidance, or test methods) and which would have justified the application of a less stringent effluent limitation at the time of permit issuance (the “New Information Exception”) (402(o)(2)(B)(i));
Relaxation of WQBELs may also be allowed if such backsliding is consistent with the provisions in CWA section 303(d)(4). CWA section 303(d)(4) allows backsliding in the following circumstances. First, “CWA section 303(d)(4)(A) allows the establishment of a less stringent effluent limitation when the receiving water has been identified as not meeting applicable water quality standards (i.e., a nonattainment water)” if two conditions are met: (a), “the existing effluent limitation must have been based on a …TMDL or other …WLA established under CWA section 303;” and (b) “relaxation of the effluent limitation is only allowed if attainment of water quality standards will be ensured or the designated use not being attained is removed in accordance with the water quality standards regulations.”74
Second, section 303(d)(4)(B), applies to “waters where the water quality equals or exceeds levels necessary to protect the designated use, or to otherwise meet applicable water quality standards (i.e., an attainment water). Under CWA section 303(d)(4)(B), a limitation based on a TMDL, WLA, other water quality standard, or any other permitting standard may only be relaxed where the action is consistent with state’s antidegradation policy.”75
Here, the WQBELs are imposed pursuant to section 303(d). For purposes of the following analysis, both sections 303(d)(4) and the exceptions in section 402(o)(2) are relevant because “U.S. EPA has consistently interpreted CWA section 402(o)(1) to allow relaxation of WQBELs and effluent limitations based on state standards if the relaxation is consistent with the provisions of CWA section 303(d)(4) or if … [certain] of the exceptions in CWA section 402(o)(2)… [apply].

The two provisions [303(d)(4) and 402(o)(2)] constitute independent exceptions to the prohibition against relaxation of effluent limitations. If either is met, relaxation is permissible.”76 As set forth below, the changes to numeric WQBELs in the Order either do not constitute backsliding or satisfy one or more of the foregoing exceptions to anti-backsliding as described below.

2. WQBEL Revisions That Do Not Constitute Backsliding
a. Marina del Rey Harbor Toxic Pollutants TMDL
The 2012 Permit for the County of Los Angeles incorporated the Marina del Rey Harbor Toxic Pollutants TMDL and included numeric WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the WLAs in the TMDL as adopted in 2005. (Resolution No. 2005-012. (2005 TMDL.)). The TMDL was reconsidered in 2014 (Resolution R14-004 (2014 TMDL)). The Order updates the WQBELs for copper, lead, zinc, total chlordane, and total PCBs in Marina 74 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual, § 7.2.1.3 (U.S. EPA 2010); CWA section 303(d)(4)(A). 75 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual, § 7.2.1.3 (U.S. EPA 2010); CWA section 303(d)(4)(B). 76 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual, § 7.2.1.3 (U.S. EPA 2010); CWA sections 303(d)(4) and 402(o)(2).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-109
del Ray Harbor consistent with the assumptions and requirements in the 2014 TMDL.

In the 2005 TMDL, the geographical area in which the toxic impairments were found were confined to the back basins of the Marina del Rey Harbor. During the 2014 reconsideration, the Los Angeles Water Board evaluated data collected since adoption of the TMDL and found that the toxic impairments were also present in several of the front basins.77 Therefore, the 2014 TMDL revised the geographic area addressed by the TMDL to include the whole harbor and updated the percentage of land area covered by the MS4 permittees to account for areas draining into the front basins.78 The 2014 TMDL adjusted the loading capacity and waste load allocations based on the revised geographic area.

The WQBELs in the Order are equal to the adjusted waste load allocations for copper, lead, zinc, total chlordane, and total PCBs in the 2014 TMDL. Because the increased geographic area resulted in an increased loading capacity of sediment bound pollutants discharged to Marina del Rey Harbor through stormwater, the WQBELs assigned to responsible MS4 permittees in the Order allow increased loadings of these constituents.

However, even though increased loadings are allowed, the WQBELs are not less stringent than before. In the 2014 TMDL analysis, the Los Angeles Water Board relied on the same the linkage analysis as the 2005 TMDL.79 Similarly, the numeric sediment targets used to calculate the loading capacity and waste load allocations remained the same as the 2005 TMDL. The increased allowable loading is a result of adding the expanded geographic area to the analysis and its associated TSS loading. The increased allowable loading is spread out over the expanded geographic area. Therefore, while the WQBELs for copper, lead, zinc, total chlordane and total PCBs have increased, they are still as protective as the WQBELs in the 2012 Los Angeles County Permit.

Even if anti-backsliding applies, the imposition of new WQBELs for copper, lead, zinc, total chlordane and total PCBs satisfies the anti-backsliding exception in CWA section 303(d)(4)(A) because the revisions in the 2014 TMDL will assure attainment of water quality standards. Indeed, TMDLs are developed for the purpose of specifying requirements for the achievement of water quality standards in impaired water bodies.80 The additional loading of sediment-bound pollutants was solely to account for the expanded scope of the TMDL and no changes were made to the implementation schedule for the back basins.
b. Ballona Creek Metals TMDL
The 2012 Los Angeles County Permit incorporated numeric WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the Ballona Creek Metals TMDL (Resolution No. R07-015), which became effective in 2008. In 2013, the Los Angeles Water Board reconsidered and revised this TMDL (Resolution No. R13-010). The revised TMDL became effective in 2015. The 77 (Staff Report p. 6).
78 (Staff Report p. 6 and 24)
79 (Staff Report p. 8).
80 (33 U.S.C. 1313(d); 40 C.F.R. §130.7.)
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-110
Order updates the WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the revised Ballona Creek TMDL. Specifically:
ƒ the final mass-based and concentration-based WQBELs for copper, lead and zinc allow increased loadings during dry weather; and ƒ the final mass-based WQBEL for lead allows increased loading during wet weather.

Although these revisions to the WQBELs allow increased loadings of copper, lead, and zinc, these changes do not constitute backsliding because the revised TMDL on which they are based used site-specific information to recalculate the WLAs, which did not change the intended level of protection.

During the 2013 reconsideration, the Los Angeles Water Board evaluated additional, more recent flow data, hardness data, and dissolved to total metals ratios. These robust data sets resulted in adjustments to flow rates, hardness and conversion factors that compelled revisions to the dry- and wet-weather numeric targets. The dry-weather numeric targets for copper, lead and zinc increased, which in turn increased the dry-weather WLAs for copper, lead and zinc. Likewise, the wet-weather numeric target for lead increased, which increased the wet-weather WLA for lead.81 The WQBELs in the Order are equal to the revised WLAs.

Even if anti-backsliding applies, each of these changes meets the antibacksliding exception set forth in CWA section 303(d)(4)(A). Section 303(d)(4)(A) of the CWA allows relaxation of effluent limits in non-attainment waters if “the cumulative effect of all such revised effluent limitations based on such total maximum daily load or waste load allocation will assure the attainment of such water quality standard, or (ii) the designated use which is not being attained is removed in accordance with regulations” established under the CWA. These revisions were made in accordance with the revised WLAs in the revised TMDL, which will assure the attainment of water quality standards for copper, lead and zinc in dry weather, and for lead in wet weather. Attainment of these water quality standards will occur within a reasonable time frame, set forth in the implementation schedule. c. Los Angeles River Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects TMDL The 2012 Permit for the County of Los Angeles incorporated WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the Los Angeles River (LAR) Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects TMDL (LAR Nitrogen TMDL) (Resolution NO. R03-009).82 In 2012, the Los Angeles Water Board reconsidered and revised the LAR Nitrogen TMDL to incorporate site-specific, seasonal objectives for ammonia, expressed as temperature- and pHdependent equations for Reaches 3-5 of the river and Rio Hondo Reach 3. (Resolution No. 12-010). These revisions became effective on August 7, 2014.

The Order therefore updates the numeric WQBELs consistent with the assumption and requirements of the 2012 revisions of the LAR Nitrogen 81 The wet-weather numeric targets for copper and zinc decreased which resulted in a decrease of the wetweather WLAs for copper and zinc. (Section 3.1.5.1, pp. 15-16 of the Staff Report.) 82 The implementation plan for LAR Nitrogen TMDL was amended by Resolution No. 03-016 to align certain interim ammonia WLAs with planned construction projects. The TMDL remained unchanged in all other respects.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-111
TMDL. The updated WQBELs were calculated using three years of sitespecific temperature and pH data (1/1/2018 - 12/31/2020) consistent with the WLA equations and implementation provisions in the 2012 revised TMDL.

The original LAR Nitrogen TMDL included numeric targets and WLAs for ammonia based on U.S. EPA’s “1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria” for Ammonia. EPA’s updated ammonia criteria included thirty-day average water quality objectives that are a function of temperature and pH, which can affect ammonia toxicity to fish. The objectives are thus expressed as equations. There are separate equations for waterbodies with and without early life stages of fish, which are more sensitive to ammonia. The more stringent equation applies to waterbodies with early life stages of fish. The 1999 Update also allows for the development of a water effects ratio (WER) to adjust the equation. WERs account for site-specific conditions that also affect ammonia toxicity. In the absence of site-specific information, a default WER of 1.0 is used. At the time of the LAR Nitrogen TMDL adoption in 2003, the Basin Plan did not specifically identify, which reaches in the Los Angeles Region, where early life stages of fish were present or absent. As such, the numeric targets and WLAs for ammonia in the original LAR Nitrogen TMDL assumed that early life stages of fish were absent in the Los Angeles River watershed.83 Additionally, the numeric targets and WLAs for ammonia in the TMDL were calculated using the default WER value of “1” because a WER study was still under development.

In 2005 and 2007, the Los Angeles Water Board adopted seasonal, sitespecific ammonia objectives for the San Gabriel, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara River Watersheds.84 These objectives became effective on April 5, 2007 and April 23, 2009, respectively, changing the previous 30-day average ammonia objective in Chapter 3 of the Basin Plan for a subset of inland surface waters, including Reaches 3-5 of the LAR and Reach 3 of the Rio Hondo, upstream of Whittier Narrows Dam. The new site-specific objectives incorporated WERs for these reaches and defined seasonal periods of early life stages of fish presence and absence in these reaches.85 In 2012, the LAR Nitrogen TMDL was revised to conform the numeric targets and WLAs with the updated seasonal, site-specific objectives for Los Angeles River Reaches 3-5, and Rio Hondo Reach 3, upstream of Whittier Narrows Dam. Specifically, the TMDL’s thirty-day average numeric targets and associated WLAs for Los Angeles River Reaches 3-5, and Rio Hondo Reach 3 were changed to the site-specific equations for “early life stages (of fish) present” and “early life stages (of fish) absent” periods. These equations incorporate a site-specific WER value and are temperature and pH dependent. The TMDL notes that it would be consistent with the assumptions 83 TMDL for Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects, Los Angeles River and Tributaries, Staff report (May 2, 2003; Revised July 10 2003) p. 37.
84 Resolution R07-005
85 “The SSOs are based on the results of a WER study completed by the City of Los Angeles, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, and the City of Burbank. These SSOs, in addition to ammonia SSOs for the San Gabriel and Santa Clara River watersheds, were previously incorporated into the Basin Plan by resolution 2007-005, adopted by the Regional Board on June 7, 2007. By adopting the SSOs into the Basin Plan, they are now the applicable ammonia water quality objectives for the rivers and reaches to which they apply.” (December 6, 2012, Final Staff Report p. 3.) See also Basin Plan page 3-14 and 3-15.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-112
and requirements of the TMDL to translate the WLA into effluent limitations by using the past three years of temperature and pH data.86 The Order calculates the 30-day average ammonia WQBELs in the LAR watershed using the site-specific, seasonal objectives for Los Angeles River Reaches 3-5, and Rio Hondo Reach 3, upstream of Whittier Narrows Dam.

Three years of temperature and pH data was obtained from receiving water monitoring from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), the Los Angeles-Glendale WRP, and the Whittier Narrows WRP. Based on these calculations the 30-day effluent limitations for total ammonia when “early life stages present” and when “early life stages absent” increased in the Los Angeles River Reaches 3-5 and Rio Hondo Reach 3. Although the revisions to the ammonia WQBELs in the Order allow increased loadings of ammonia, these changes do not constitute backsliding because the updated WQBELs are based on site-specific information that achieve the same intended level of protection. The revised WLAs are still based on the same ammonia criteria equations. The WER term in the equations has merely been updated to reflect site-specific conditions and recent data have been inserted into the equations to calculate the WQBELs.

But even if the changes described above were subject to CWA section 402(o)’s anti-backsliding provisions, the revisions to these WQBELs comply with CWA section 304(d)(4)(A). Section 303(d)(4)(A) of the CWA allows relaxation of effluent limits in non-attainment waters if “the cumulative effect of all such revised effluent limitations based on such total maximum daily load or waste load allocation will assure the attainment of such water quality standard, or (ii) the designated use which is not being attained is removed in accordance with regulations” established under the CWA. Here, the water quality objective itself was adjusted, and the revised TMDL reflects this. Any changes to WQBELs are recalculated as directed in the TMDL. Compliance with the WQBELs will therefore ensure the attainment of the site-specific objectives for ammonia in these four reaches of surface waters, within a reasonable time frame set forth in the implementation schedule. d. Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL
The 2012 Permit for the County of Los Angeles incorporated WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals (LAR Metals TMDL).87 In 2015, the Los Angeles Water Board reconsidered and revised the LAR Metals TMDL to incorporate sitespecific water-effect ratios for calculating the copper water quality objectives and site-specific water quality objectives for lead for a number of reaches in the Los Angeles River watershed. (Resolution No. 15-004). The site-specific copper WERs and lead water quality objectives and revisions to the TMDL became effective on December 12, 2016. U.S. EPA withdrew the previously effective water quality criteria for lead from the California Toxics Rule (CTR) for the portions of the Los Angeles River watershed subject to the TMDL, effective November 15, 2018. The Order updates the WQBELs for copper and 86 Basin Plan p. 7-91.
87 The Los Angeles Water Board approved the LAR Metals TMDL in 2007 (Resolution No. R2007-0014). A TMDL revision applicable to POTWs was adopted in 2010 (R10-003). The revised TMDL became effective on November 3, 2011.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-113
lead in the reaches identified in Table F-21 consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the revised LAR Metals TMDL. Although the revisions to these WQBELs allow increased loadings of copper and lead, the increased loadings do not constitute backsliding because the WQBELs provide the same level of intended protection and are no less stringent as described below. i. Copper
The numeric targets and WLAs for the LAR Metals TMDL are based on the water quality objectives for copper in the CTR. The CTR water quality objectives for copper are expressed as equations, which include a term called a water effect ratio or WER. The WER reflects the effect that local site water constituents have on the toxicity of copper. The CTR equation includes a default WER of 1.0, which assumes that metals are equally toxic in local site water as they are in lab water. The WER may be adjusted using a properly conducted WER study. A WER greater than

1.0 means the local site water reduces the toxicity of copper and a WER less than 1.0 means that local site water increases the toxicity of copper.

The numeric targets and WLAs for copper in the LAR Metals TMDL were based on a default WER value of 1.0.

The LAR Metals TMDL was revised in 2015 based on the results of a properly conducted WER study for Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Los Angeles River, Compton Creek, Rio Hondo, Arroyo Seco, Verdugo Wash, Burbank Western Channel and Tujunga Wash.88 The TMDL recalculated the numeric targets and WLAs for copper to reflect sitespecific WERs for copper, as determined by the study.

The WQBELs in the Order are equal to the WLAs for copper in the revised LAR Metals TMDL. Incorporating WQBELs equal to the revised WLAs does not change the intended level of protection because the revised WLAs are still based on the same CTR equation for copper -- only the WER term in the equation has been updated to reflect site-specific conditions. The updated WQBELs merely reflect the fact copper is less toxic to aquatic life in the Los Angeles River receiving waters than it is in lab water.
ii. Lead
The numeric targets and WLAs for lead in the LAR Metals TMDL are based on the water quality objectives for lead in the CTR, which are based on a national toxicity dataset. U.S. EPA allows for the derivation of site-specific objectives using the Recalculation Procedure.89 The Recalculation Procedure provides a method for adjusting the national dataset based on more recent toxicity studies.

The LAR Metals TMDL was revised in 2015 to incorporate recalculated lead water quality objectives based on the results of a special study that followed the Recalculation Procedure.90 The study recalculated the acute 88 Final Report: Copper Water-Effect Ratio Study to Support Implementation of the Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL (2014)
89 USEPA Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition (1994) 90 Final Lead Recalculation Report to Support Implementation of the Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL (2014)
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-114
and chronic lead objectives for portions of the Los Angeles River using an expanded nation-wide dataset provided by U.S. EPA. The recalculated objectives were compared to toxicity data for species of interest in the Los Angeles River Watershed to ensure the objectives were protective of local species. The TMDL updated the numeric targets and WLAs based on the recalculated lead objectives.91 The resulting numeric targets and WLAs for lead were greater than the numeric targets and WLAs in the original LAR Metals TMDL. The WQBELs in the Order are based on the updated WLAs. Although the WQBELs for lead increased from the 2012 Los Angeles MS4 Permit, these effluent limitations are not less stringent. These effluent limitations are based on site-specific numeric targets and WLAs, which were based on an updated toxicity dataset and the recalculation of the water quality objectives following U.S. EPA guidelines. The study showed that the recalculated objectives for lead are protective of aquatic life, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that the objectives would not likely adversely affect any listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.92
Conclusion. Even if anti-backsliding applies to the revised copper and lead WQBELs discussed above, each of these changes meets the anti-backsliding exception set forth in CWA section 303(d)(4)(A). Section 303(d)(4)(A) of the CWA allows relaxation of effluent limits in non-attainment waters if “the cumulative effect of all such revised effluent limitations based on such total maximum daily load or waste load allocation will assure the attainment of such water quality standard, or (ii) the designated use which is not being attained is removed in accordance with regulations” established under the CWA.

These revisions were made in accordance with the revised WLAs in the revised TMDL, which will ensure the attainment of water quality standards for copper and lead. Attainment of these water quality standards will occur within a reasonable time frame set forth in the implementation schedule. e. Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Bacterial Indicator TMDL The Order removes the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Bacterial Indicator TMDL (MSAR Bacteria TMDL) WQBELs applicable to the cities of Claremont’s and Pomona’s MS4. Claremont and Pomona are subject to regulations by the Los Angeles Water Board and Santa Ana Water Board. To streamline regulatory requirements, Water Code section 13228 authorizes persons regulated by more than one regional water board to request designation of a single regulator. In 2013, the Los Angeles Water Board and the Santa Ana Water Board agreed to designate the Santa Ana Water Board as the single regulator of discharges of bacteria by Claremont and Pomona through their MS4s to the receiving waters within the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed.93 On September 13, 2013, the Santa Ana Water Board adopted Order No. R8-2013-0043 (NPDES No. CA8000410) to implement the MSAR Bacteria TMDL. Accordingly, the WQBELs implementing the MSAR Bacteria 91 Section 4.2, pp. 8-9 of the Staff Report.
92 83 Fed. Reg. 52166-52168 (Oct. 16, 2018).
93 May 31, 2013 letter and memorandum of understanding by and between Los Angeles Water Board and Santa Ana Water Board (signed by Samuel Unger, Executive Officer, Los Angeles Water Board, and Kurt Berchtold, Executive Officer, Santa Ana Water Board).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-115
TMDL are removed from the Order. Because the cities of Pomona and Claremont are still subject to these WQBELs through another permit, no backsliding has occurred.

3. WQBEL Revisions that Fall Within an Exception to Backsliding a. Ballona Creek Metals TMDL
As previously discussed, the Ballona Creek Metals TMDL was reconsidered and revised in 2013. In addition to the changes to copper, lead and zinc set forth above, the revised 2013 Ballona Creek Metals TMDL removed WLAs for selenium because the receiving water is no longer considered impaired for selenium. In making this determination, the Los Angeles Water Board considered recent selenium data as well the data considered during the adoption of the Ballona Creek Metals TMDL in 2008. These data were evaluated pursuant to the State Water Board’s Water Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (Listing Policy), which uses a weight of the evidence approach to evaluate whether to place waters on, or remove waters from, the 303(d) List. The reexamined data satisfied the delisting requirements in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy and the Los Angeles Water Board approved removing selenium from the Ballona Creek Metals TMDL.

The Order therefore removes the selenium WQBELs for Ballona Creek Reach

2. Removal of the selenium WQBELs for Ballona Creek Reach 2 in the Order satisfies the anti-backsliding exception set forth in CWA section 303(d)(4)(B) because this reach is no longer impaired for selenium and MS4 discharges will not result in degradation. With the reconsideration of the TMDL, the Los Angeles Water Board determined that existing in stream beneficial uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the beneficial uses would be maintained if selenium WLAs, and associated WQBELs, were removed. Even though there might be some discharges of selenium to Ballona Creek, any such discharges will be limited or minor with respect to the assimilative capacity of Ballona Creek and will not result in any long-term deleterious effects on water quality as shown in the water quality data assessment for the TMDL revision. (See, also, discussion in Fact Sheet, Part III.H, supra.) Furthermore, MS4 dischargers are still required to comply with receiving water limitations in Part V of the Order and are required to monitor for selenium in the Order. Continued monitoring for selenium ensures that any adverse changes in water quality with respect to selenium will be caught and corrected. b. Ballona Creek Estuary Toxics TMDL
The 2012 Los Angeles County Permit incorporated numeric WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the Ballona Creek Toxics TMDL (Resolution No. R05-008). In 2013, the Los Angeles Water Board reconsidered and revised this TMDL (Resolution No. R13-010). The revised TMDL became effective in 2015. The Order updates the numeric WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the revised Ballona Creek Toxics TMDL. Specifically:
ƒ the WQBELs for sediment for Chlordane and total DDTs were increased and
ƒ the WQBELs for total PAHs were removed.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-116
The rationale for these revisions is as follows:
i. Chlordane and DDTs
The numeric targets and WLAs for metals and organic pollutants in the Ballona Creek Estuary Toxics TMDL were originally based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) sediment quality guidelines. In 2009, the State Water Board adopted its Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays & Estuaries – Part 1 Sediment Quality (Sediment Quality Plan). The Sediment Quality Plan includes (1) a narrative sediment objective to protect benthic communities, and (2) a narrative sediment objective to protect human health. The Sediment Quality Plan established a methodology based on integrating multiple lines of evidence (MLOE) to determine whether the narrative sediment objective for benthic communities is achieved. This assessment is sometimes called a “direct effects” assessment for the direct effect of contaminants on benthic organisms and does not include an assessment of the “indirect effects” of contaminants transferring up the food chain to fish, which can impact human health.94 The Sediment Quality Plan directed the State and Regional Water Boards to implement the narrative sediment objective to protect human health on a case-by-case basis, based upon a human health risk assessment.95
During the reconsideration, the Los Angeles Water Board evaluated Ballona Creek Estuary using the MLOE approach in the Sediment Quality Plan. This evaluation indicated that at least one station in the Ballona Creek Estuary exceeded the sediment objectives for benthic communities.96 The Los Angeles Water Board also considered the results of a Toxicity Identification Evaluation study conducted in 2010 (2010 TIE).

This study found that the principal source of sediment toxicity in the Ballona Creek Estuary was pyrethroids. Based on these studies, the Los Angeles Water Board determined that total DDTs and chlordane were not causing “direct effect” impairments to the benthic community.97 Nonetheless, monitoring data collected as part of the TMDL coordinated monitoring plan indicated that exceedances of total DDTs and chlordane targets in sediment were ongoing.98 Total DDTs were present in limited fish sampling.99 And in 2009, Ballona Creek was identified a fish consumption “red zone,” with 5 fish listed as “do not eat” and 14 fish with recommended consumption limitations.100 The Los Angeles Water Board therefore conducted a human health risk assessment consistent with the Sediment Quality Plan to implement the narrative sediment objective to protect human health.101
94 Staff report 19-20.
95 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/bptcp/docs/sediment/sed_qlty_part1.pdf at p.

13. 96 Staff report p. 22.
97 See staff report p. 23.
98 Staff report pp. 3 and 23.
99 Ibid.
100 Staff report pp. 24-25
101 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/bptcp/docs/sediment/sed_qlty_part1.pdf at p.

13. MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-117
The Sediment Quality Plan directed regional water boards to consider any applicable and relevant information, including but not limited to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) policies for fish consumption and risk assessment. In 2008, OEHHA developed Fish Contaminant Goals for Chlordane and total DDTs.102 During the reconsideration of the Ballona Creek Toxics TMDL, the Los Angeles Water Board replaced the direct effects numeric targets for chlordane and total DDTs in sediment with indirect effects numeric targets for chlordane and total DDTs in sediment using OEHHA’s Fish Contaminant Goals. The new numeric targets and resulting WLAs for chlordane and total DDTs increased.103 The WQBELs for chlordane and DDTs in the Order have been adjusted accordingly.

The changes described above meet the anti-backsliding exception set forth in CWA section 303(d)(4)(A) because any relaxation of the WQBELs for chlordane and total DDTs in the Order was made as a result of the reconsidered TMDL. Although the waters remain impaired, the changes to the WQBELs are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the WLAs in the revised TMDL. The revised TMDL’s limits are designed to attain water quality standards, and the WQBELs ensure this will happen within a reasonable time frame.
ii. Total PAHs
In addition to the foregoing, the numeric targets and WLAs for total PAHs were removed from the Ballona Creek Estuary Toxics TMDL in the 2013 reconsideration. Removal was based on application of criteria in the Listing Policy to sediment samples collected since the adoption of the TMDL in 2005. The reexamined data satisfied the delisting requirements in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy and the Los Angeles Water Board approved removing total PAHs from the Ballona Creek Toxics TMDL.

Removal of total PAHs from the Order satisfies the exception to antibacksliding in CWA section 303(d)(4)(B). The waters here are no longer impaired for total PAHs, and MS4 discharges will not result in degradation. With the reconsideration of the TMDL, the Los Angeles Water Board determined that existing in stream beneficial uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the beneficial uses would be maintained if total PAH WLAs, and associated WQBELs, were removed.

There have been no exceedances in any of the samples collected and analyzed, but even if there might be some discharges, any such discharges will be limited or minor with respect to the assimilative capacity of Ballona Creek. (See, also, discussion in Fact Sheet, Part III.H, supra.) Furthermore, MS4 dischargers are still required to comply with receiving water limitations in Part V of the Order and are required to monitor for total PAHs in the Order. Continued monitoring for total PAHs 102 Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish:

Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene” (FCGs), at https://oehha.ca.gov/fish/report/fish-contaminant-goals-and-advisory-tissue-levels-evaluatingmethylmercury-chlordane. 103 The numeric targets, WLA, and LAs for total PCBs are more stringent after the revision to the TMDL.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-118
in sediment will ensure that any adverse changes in water quality with respect to total PAHs in sediment will be caught and corrected. c. Colorado Lagoon TMDL
The 2012 Los Angeles County Permit incorporated WQBELs for lead, zinc, total chlordane, dieldrin, total PAHs, total PCBs, and Total DDTs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the Colorado Lagoon TMDL. The Order removes these WQBELs for two discharge points: Termino Avenue and Line M because these two storm drains were physically rerouted such that they no longer discharge into the Colorado Lagoon. These alterations, which were structural changes to the MS4 itself, are “material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility” and justify the application of a less stringent effluent limitation under CWA section 402(o)(2)(A). d. Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash Trash TMDL
The 2010 Ventura County Permit incorporated WQBELs of zero trash consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash Trash TMDL (Resolution No. 2007-007; Revolon/Beardsley Trash TMDL). The Revolon/Beardsley Trash TMDL required MS4 responsible entities to address discharges of trash from all land uses with full capture systems, or other lawful manner.104 The Order revises the WQBELs to apply to discharges from priority land uses only. The rationale for this revision is as follows.

In 2015, the State Water Board adopted the Trash Amendments. As discussed in Part IV.B of this Fact Sheet, the Trash Amendments established a prohibition on the discharge of trash in all Waters of the State. Implementation of this discharge prohibition focuses MS4 compliance efforts on high trash generation areas or “priority land uses.” The Trash Amendments do not apply to waterbodies with a TMDL in effect prior to the effective date of the Trash Amendments (December 2, 2015). However, the State Water Board directed the Los Angeles Water Board to reconsider whether its existing trash TMDLs could be aligned with the Trash Amendments to focus on priority land use areas only.

In 2018, the Los Angeles Water Board reconsidered the Revolon/Beardsley Trash TMDL in light of the statewide Trash Amendments. The revised TMDL became effective on May 6, 2020. The Los Angeles Water Board concluded that a focus on priority land use areas would attain the numeric target of zero trash in the Revolon Slough/Beardsley subwatershed as long as nonpoint source responsible entities implemented Minimum Frequency of Assessment and Collection Program (MFAC) programs in the impaired waters downstream to address any potential trash discharged from nonpriority land uses. The TMDL revised the implementation provisions for the WLAs to require full capture systems for storm drains that capture runoff from priority land uses.

This amounts to a reduction in the amount of full capture systems installed in the subwatershed. The Order incorporates WQBELs consistent with the revised implementation provisions for the TMDL.
104 See page 3 of Attachment A to Resolution No. 2007-007 (Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash Trash TMDL).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-119
The changes described above meet the anti-backsliding exception set forth in CWA section 303(d)(4)(A) because any relaxation of the WQBELs in the Order for trash are a result of the reconsidered TMDL. Although the waters remain impaired, the revised TMDL determined that implementation of full capture systems to address priority land uses only will attain the numeric target of zero trash for Revolon Slough and Beardsley Slough provided that nonpoint source responsible entities implement MFAC programs in the impaired waters downstream.105 Changes to the WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the revised TMDL will ensure attainment of the water quality standard and is therefore permissible consistent CWA section 303(d)(4)(a). e. Malibu Creek Watershed Trash TMDL
The 2012 Los Angeles County Permit incorporated WQBELs of zero trash consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the Malibu Creek Watershed Trash TMDL (Resolution No. 2008-007; Malibu Trash TMDL). The Malibu Trash TMDL required MS4 responsible entities to address discharges of trash from all land uses with full capture systems, or other lawful manner.106 The Order revises the WQBELs to apply to discharges from priority land uses only. The rationale for this revision is as follows.

The Malibu Trash TMDL was revised at the same time and in the same manner as the Revolon Slough/Beardsley Wash TMDL discussed above (Resolution No. R4-2018-006). The revised TMDL became effective on May 6, 2020. Similar to the Revolon Slough/Beardsley Wash TMDL, the Los Angeles Water Board concluded it was appropriate to align the Malibu Trash TMDL with the Statewide Trash Amendments because installation of full capture devices in the priority land use areas would attain the numeric target of zero trash in the Malibu Creek watershed as long as nonpoint source responsible entities implement MFAC programs are in place in the impaired waters downstream to address any potential trash discharged from nonpriority land uses.107 The WQBELs of zero trash in the Order are limited to discharges from “priority land use areas” to Malibu Creek, Malibu Lagoon, Malibou Lake, Medea Creek (Reach 1 and Reach 2), Lindero Creek (Reach 1 and Reach 2), Lake Lindero, and Las Virgenes Creek of the Malibu Creek Watershed, instead of the whole Malibu Creek Watershed.

The changes described above meet the anti-backsliding exception set forth in CWA section 303(d)(4)(A) because any relaxation of the WQBELs in the Order for trash are a result of the reconsidered TMDL. Although the waters remain impaired, the revised TMDL determined that implementation full capture systems to address priority land uses only will attain the numeric target of zero trash for Malibu Creek Watershed provided that nonpoint source responsible entities implement MFAC programs in the impaired waters downstream.108 Changes to the WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the revised TMDL will ensure attainment of the water quality standard and is therefore permissible consistent CWA section 303(d)(4)(a). 105 Page 23 of the Staff Report.
106 See page 3 of Attachment A to Resolution No. 2007-007 (Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash Trash TMDL).
107 Page 44 of the Staff Report.
108 Page 44 of the Staff Report.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-120
f. Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL
The Order relieves Ventura County Permittees from compliance with the chloride limits in the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL for Reaches 4B and 5 of the Santa Clara River, because the MS4s are not discharging into those Reaches. Removal is consistent with both CWA section 303(d)(4)(A)(i) and section 402(o)(B)(i).

The TMDL for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River was originally adopted in 2003 and went into effect in 2005. It was revised in 2008 and 2014, and the revisions went into effect in 2009 and 2015, respectively.

In drafting the Order, the Los Angeles Water Board examined the evidence and found that Ventura County Permittees have no MS4s that discharge into the chloride impaired reaches of the Upper Santa Clara River. Reach 5 falls partially within Ventura County, but Ventura County Permittees do not have any MS4 discharges to the portion of Reach 5 that falls within Ventura County.109 Therefore, the Order assigns chloride WQBELs for discharges to Reach 5 exclusively to Los Angeles County Permittees draining to Reach 5.

For Reach 4B, although it is completely within Ventura County110, there are no MS4 discharges from Ventura County Permittees to Santa Clara River Reach 4B. Removal of the limits for Ventura County MS4 Facilities in the Order is therefore consistent with CWA section 303(d)(4) because removal will have no impact on the cumulative impact or effect of chloride loading in the Upper Santa Clara River. Put differently, the “cumulative effect” of this revised WLA for Ventura County Permittees will assure attainment of the water quality objectives, since they are not discharging through their MS4s to the Upper Santa Clara River.
g. U.S. EPA Established - Santa Clara River Reach 3 Chloride TMDL The 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit has a WQBEL of 80 mg/L for discharges of chloride to Santa Clara River Reach 3. The Order revises the WQBEL from 80 mg/L to 100 mg/L. Revisions to WQBELs in attainment waters are permitted provided the change is consistent with the antidegradation policy pursuant to CWA section 303(d)(4)(B). The revision of the chloride WQBEL is consistent with the antidegradation policies for the following reasons:

The Santa Clara River Reach 3 Chloride TMDL intended to assign a WLA for chloride equal to the applicable water quality objective in the Basin Plan. At the time this TMDL was established on June 18, 2003, the Basin Plan Objective for Santa Clara River Reach 3 was 80 mg/L for chloride. In 2004, the Los Angeles Water Board changed the water quality objective for Santa Clara River Reach 3 from 80 mg/L to 100 mg/L (Resolution R03-015, effective on 8/4/2004). The TMDL on page 20, Section 10: Implementation Recommendations, states the following: “EPA understands that the State is in the process of reviewing and revising upward the numeric water quality objective for chloride in Santa Clara River Reach 3. Based on our review of the data used to support the State’s listing of Reach 3 for chlorides on the 2002 California Section 303(d) list, it appears possible that this Reach would 109 Ventura County GIS data and MS4 drainage area maps (July 15, 2016) 110 Ventura County GIS data and MS4 drainage area maps (July 15, 2016) MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-121
not exceed water quality standards if the objective is raised to 100 mg/L as proposed by the State. EPA believes it would be reasonable for the State to defer full implementation of the TMDL for Reach 3 until this objective change is completed. If the State does not complete its proposed action to raise the chloride objective for Reach 3, the State should determine the appropriate means of implementing the TMDL through its NPDES permitting decisions and other programs to address nonpoint sources for which allocations are included in this TMDL”. The change to the Water Quality Objective was inadvertently not considered during the issuance of the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit. The Santa Clara River Reach 3 WQBEL of 80 mg/L in the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit has been revised to 100 mg/L in the Order to align it with the water quality objective in the Basin Plan. This is consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL to implement the applicable water quality objective, which is currently being met (see Part VI.F.2.b of this Fact Sheet). Additionally, because compliance with the revised WQBEL still requires compliance with the applicable water quality objective for this reach it will not result in degradation and is consistent with the antidegradation policies. Therefore, this revision is permissible consistent CWA section 303(d)(4)(B).
h. Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6 and 7 Indicator Bacteria TMDL
The 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit incorporated WQBELs for E. coli for MS4 discharges to Santa Clara River Reaches 5, 6, and 7. The WQBELs were applied at the outfalls and Permittees were not allowed any exceedance days. For Los Angeles County Permittees, this Order incorporates the following exceedance days at the outfall for the daily maximum single sample objectives:

Constituent Daily Maximum Single Sample Objectives for Santa Clara River Reaches 5 and above (MPN or cfu)
E. coli 235/100 mL
Location Time Period
Interim Annual Allowable Exceedance
Days of the Single Sample Objectives
Daily
Sampling
Weekly
Sampling
3 Wet and 2
Dry weather
events
Santa Clara
River Reaches
5 and above
Dry Weather
(November 1 to October 31) 17 3 1
Wet Weather
(November 1 to October 31) 61 9 1
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-122
Location Time Period
Final Annual Allowable Exceedance
Days of the Single Sample Objectives
Daily Sampling Weekly
Sampling
Santa Clara River
Reaches 5 and
above
Dry Weather
(November 1 to October 31) 5 1
Wet Weather
(November 1 to October 31) 16 3
The allowable exceedance days applied at the outfalls were erroneously omitted from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit. Implementation of allowable exceedance days at the outfall in this permit is less stringent than the previous 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit because Los Angeles County Permittees may exceed the daily maximum single sample objective per the allowable exceedance days as outlined in the above tables without violating the permit. However, allowing exceedance days is consistent with the TMDL and allowed pursuant to CWA section 303(d)(4)(A) for the following reason—when the TMDL was adopted it specifically contemplated application of exceedance days at the outfall in its implementation plan. Chapter 7, section 7-36 of the Basin Plan under the heading “Monitoring to Determine Compliance”, states, “Responsible jurisdictions and agencies shall assess compliance at the outfall monitoring sites identified in the implementation plan.

Compliance shall be based on the allowable number of exceedance days…” (Basin Plan, p. 7-436.) Applying the allowable exceedance days to WQBELs measured at the outfalls is therefore consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the applicable TMDL WLAs and will ensure attainment of the water quality standard. As such, this revision is permissible under CWA section 303(d)(4)(A).

J. Human Right to Water Law
The Order is consistent with Water Code section 106.3 which establishes the policy of the State of California that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. The Order implements Water Code section 106.3 and promotes the State Water Board’s resolution adopting the human right to water as a core value and directing its implementation in Water Board programs and activities (Resolution No. 2016-0010) by requiring receiving waters to meet adopted water quality standards that are designed to protect human health and ensure that water is safe for domestic use and by regulating discharges to minimize loading to attain the highest water quality which is reasonable, considering all demands being made on those waters and the total values involved. (Water Code, sections 13000, 13050, subdivisions (i)-(m), 13240, 13241, 13263; State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16.) The Order includes actions to improve conditions for economically distressed communities and persons experiencing homelessness.

K. Advancing Measures to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change The predicted impacts of climate change in Southern California include an increase in temperatures, heightened frequency of extreme weather conditions including extreme precipitation events and drought, along with sea level rise. At the local scale, within urbanized areas, these changes may directly impact groundwater and surface water MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-123
supply; drainage, flooding, and erosion patterns; economically distressed communities; and ecosystems and habitat.

In recognition of the challenges posed by climate change, the State Water Board adopted on March 7, 2017 a resolution that requires a proactive approach to climate change in all State Water Board actions, including drinking water regulation, water quality protection, and financial assistance (Resolution No. 2017-0012). The resolution lays the foundation for a response to climate change that is integrated into all State Water Board actions, by giving direction to the State Water Board divisions and encouraging coordination with the Regional Water Boards. In conjunction with the State Water Board’s Resolution, the Los Angeles Water Board adopted “A Resolution to Prioritize Actions to Adapt to and Mitigate the Impacts of Climate Change on the Los Angeles Region’s Water Resources and Associated Beneficial Uses” (Resolution No.

R18-004) on May 10, 2018. The resolution summarizes the steps taken so far to address the impacts of climate change within the Los Angeles Water Board and lists a series of steps to move forward. These include the identification of potential regulatory adaptation and mitigation measures that could be implemented on a short-term and long-term basis by each of the Los Angeles Water Board’s programs to take into account, and assist in mitigating where possible, the effects of climate change on water resources and associated beneficial uses.

In addition, Executive Order N-10-19, signed on April 29, 2019, directs the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to prepare a water resilience portfolio that meets the needs of California’s communities, economy, and environment, and expand and/or reassess the priorities in the California Water Action Plan. The order directs agencies to prioritize multi-benefit approaches, natural infrastructure, innovation and new technologies, regional approaches, integration across state government, and partnerships across governments.

The Order follows the guiding principles of the State and Los Angeles Water Boards resolutions (No. 2017-0012 and No. R18-004) as well as Executive Order N-10-19 by contributing to an adaptive climate change and water resilience strategy. Through multibenefit regional projects, stormwater and non-stormwater runoff can be captured, infiltrated, and used to mitigate periodic drought conditions, reduce flood hazards and erosion rates, and recharge depleted groundwater aquifers and other water supply sources, all while reducing pollutant loads, maintaining beneficial uses in receiving waters and improving community health.

While not a requirement, to maximize these types of benefits when considering different possible approaches (management practices, locations, etc.) to achieve compliance, permittees should consider climate change offsets. The relevance of long-term implementation measures in the face of a changing climate may be considered, for example, by taking into account the results of regional climate change models in stormwater models used to develop Watershed Management Programs, or by considering BMP vulnerability to climate change when designing mitigation plans.

Overall, implementation of such a strategy has multiple benefits and may contribute to enhancing local water supply, creating drought buffer reserves, and restoring habitat and watershed health.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-124
L. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The action to adopt an NPDES permit is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, § 21100, et seq.) pursuant to California Water Code section 13389. (County of Los Angeles v. Cal. Water Boards (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 985.)
M. Advancing Racial Equity
In accordance with the Water Boards’ Racial Equity Initiative, formally launched on August 18, 2020, the Order requires all Permittees to meet water quality standards to protect public health and the environment, thereby benefitting all persons and communities within the Region. The Los Angeles Water Board is committed to developing and implementing policies and programs to advance racial equity and environmental justice so that race can no longer be used to predict life outcomes, and outcomes for all groups are improved.

N. Other Plans, Policies, and Regulations
The Order implements all other applicable federal regulations and State plans, policies, and regulations.

IV. RATIONALE FOR DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS
A. Non-Stormwater Discharges

1. Regulatory Background
The CWA employs the strategy of prohibiting the discharge of any pollutant from a point source into waters of the United States unless the discharger of the pollutant(s) obtains an NPDES permit pursuant to CWA section 402. The 1987 amendments to the CWA included section 402(p) that specifically addresses NPDES permitting requirements for municipal discharges from MS4s. Section 402(p) prohibits the discharge of pollutants from specified MS4s to waters of the United States except as authorized by an NPDES permit and identifies the substantive standards for MS4 permits. The MS4 permits (1) “shall include a requirement to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewers[ ]” and (2) “shall require [i] controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods, and [ii] such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” (CWA § 402(p)(3)(B)(ii-iii).)
On November 16, 1990, U.S. EPA published regulations to implement the 1987 amendments to the CWA (55 Fed. Reg. 47990 et seq. (Nov. 16, 1990)). The regulations establish minimum requirements for MS4 permits and address both stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from MS4s; however, the minimum requirements for each are significantly different. This is evident from U.S. EPA’s preamble to the stormwater regulations, which states that “Section 402(p)(B)(3) [of the CWA] requires that permits for discharges from municipal separate storm sewers require the municipality to “effectively prohibit” non-stormwater discharges from the municipal storm sewer … Ultimately, such non-stormwater discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer system must either be removed from the system or become subject to an NPDES permit.” (55 Fed.Reg. 47990, 47995 MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-125
(Nov. 16, 1990).)111 U.S. EPA states that MS4 Permittees are to begin to fulfill the “effective prohibition of non-storm water discharges” requirement by: (1) conducting a screening analysis of the MS4 to provide information to develop priorities for a program to detect and remove illicit discharges, (2) implementing a program to detect and remove illicit discharges, or ensure they are covered by a separate NPDES permit, and (3) to control improper disposal into the storm sewer. (40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B).) These non-stormwater discharges therefore are not subject to the MEP standard. In its precedential decision on the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit (Order WQ 2015-0075), the State Water Board affirmed that “MEP is not the standard that governs non-storm water discharges.”112

2. Definition of Non-Stormwater
Neither the CWA nor federal regulations specifically define “non-stormwater.” The definition of “non-stormwater” is derived from the definition of “stormwater.” Federal regulations define “storm water” as “storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.” (40 CFR § 122.26(b)(13).) While “surface runoff and drainage” is not defined in federal law, U.S. EPA’s preamble to the federal regulations demonstrates that the term is related to precipitation events such as rain and/or snowmelt. (55 Fed.Reg. 47990, 47995-96 (Nov. 16, 1990)). For example, U.S. EPA states:

In response to the comments [on the proposed rule] which requested EPA to define the term ‘storm water’ broadly to include a number of classes of discharges which are not in any way related to precipitation events, EPA believes that this rulemaking is not an appropriate forum for addressing the appropriate regulation under the NPDES program of such non-storm water discharges . . . . Consequently, the final definition of storm water has not been expanded from what was proposed.
(Ibid.) The stormwater regulations themselves identify numerous categories of discharges including landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, discharges from drinking water supplier sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, water from crawl space pumps, footing drains, lawn watering, individual residential car washing, and street wash water as “nonstormwater.” While these types of discharges may be regulated under stormwater permits, they are not considered stormwater discharges. (40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)). U.S. EPA states that, “in general, municipalities will not be held responsible for prohibiting some specific components of discharges or flows … through their municipal separate storm sewer system, even though such components may be considered non-storm water discharges…” (emphasis added).

However, where certain categories of non-stormwater discharges are identified by the Permittee (or the Los Angeles Water Board) as needing to be addressed, they are no longer exempt and become subject to the effective prohibition requirement in CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii). This review of the stormwater regulations and U.S.

EPA’s discussion of the definition of stormwater in its preamble to these regulations strongly supports the interpretation that stormwater includes only precipitationrelated discharges. Therefore, non-precipitation related discharges are not 111 U.S. EPA further states that, “[p]ermits for such [non-storm water] discharges must meet applicable technology-based and water-quality based requirements of Sections 402 and 301 of the CWA.” (55 Fed.

Reg. 47990, 48037 (Nov. 16, 1990)).
112 State Water Board Order WQ 2015-0075, p. 62.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-126
stormwater discharges and, therefore, are not subject to the MEP standard in CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii). Rather, non-stormwater discharges shall be effectively prohibited pursuant to CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii), as discussed further in the next two sections.

While federal regulations have no definition for “non-stormwater discharges,” “illicit discharges” defined in the regulations is the most closely applicable definition and the terms are often used interchangeably. “Illicit discharge” is defined by U.S. EPA as “any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit . . . and discharges resulting from firefighting activities.”113 The program must include among other elements a program to implement and enforce an ordinance, orders or similar means to prevent illicit discharges to the MS4. The program is to address all types of illicit discharges, however the federal regulations specifically identify the following categories of non-stormwater discharges to be addressed where such discharges are identified by the municipality as sources of pollutants to waters of the United States: water line flushing, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising ground waters, uncontaminated ground water infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR § 35.2005(20)) to separate storm sewers, uncontaminated pumped ground water, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, water from crawl space pumps, footing drains, lawn watering, individual residential car washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, and street wash water...”.114 Accordingly, federal regulations require that non-stormwater discharges be controlled if they are a significant source of pollutants and the permitting authority is expected to include permit conditions to prohibit or control specified categories of non-stormwater discharges if they are determined to be a source of pollutants to waters of the United States.

3. Non-Stormwater Regulation
Non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 that are not authorized by separate NPDES permits, nor specifically exempted, are subject to requirements under the NPDES program, including discharge prohibitions, technology-based effluent limitations and water quality-based effluent limitations (40 CFR § 122.44). U.S.

EPA’s preamble to the stormwater regulations also supports the interpretation that regulation of non-stormwater discharges through an MS4 is not limited to the MEP standard in CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii):
“Today’s rule defines the term “illicit discharge” to describe any discharge through a municipal separate storm sewer system that is not composed entirely of storm water and that is not covered by an NPDES permit. Such illicit discharges are not authorized under the Clean Water Act. Section 402(p(3)(B) requires that permits for discharges from municipal separate storm sewers require the municipality to “effectively prohibit” non-storm water discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer…Ultimately, such non-storm water discharges through a municipal separate storm 113 Id., § 122.26(b)(2). The preamble to the regulations states: “Today’s rule defines the term ‘illicit discharge’ to describe any discharge through a municipal separate storm sewer system that is not composed entirely of storm water and that is not covered by an NPDES permit.” (55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47995 (Nov. 16, 1990)
114 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-127
sewer must either be removed from the system or become subject to an NPDES permit.” (55 Fed.Reg. 47990, 47995.)
In its 1990 rulemaking, U.S. EPA explained that the illicit discharge detection and elimination program requirement was intended to begin to implement the Clean Water Act’s provision requiring permits to “effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges,” indicating that the illicit discharge detection and elimination program requirement did not constitute the full manifestation of this provision (55 Fed.Reg. 47990, 47995; see also 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(i).)
U.S. EPA’s preamble to its 1990 Phase I MS4 regulations explain that the “effective prohibition” means that non-stormwater discharges to MS4s require separate NPDES permits, and that such permits must meet applicable requirements of CWA sections 402 and 301, including water quality-based requirements.115 In response to public comments suggesting that certain types of non-stormwater discharges should not be prohibited in such a manner because they did not pose significant environmental problems, U.S. EPA stated that “[it] disagrees that the above described flows will not pose, in every case, significant environmental problems.” U.S. EPA goes on to state that “[it] is clarifying that section 402(p)(3)(B) of the CWA (which requires permits for municipal separate storm sewers to 'effectively' prohibit non-storm water discharges) does not require permits for municipalities to prohibit certain discharges or flows of non-storm water to waters of the United States through municipal separate storm sewers in all cases.”116 U.S. EPA clarified that the permitting authority (i.e., the Los Angles Water Board here) “may include permit conditions that either require municipalities to prohibit or otherwise control any of these types of discharges where appropriate.”117 In addition, U.S. EPA’s MS4 Permit Improvement Guide includes the following example of MS4 permit language addressing the Permittee’s authority to require compliance by Dischargers:
“Authority to Require Compliance – Require compliance with conditions in the permittee’s ordinances, permits, contracts, or orders (i.e., hold dischargers accountable for their contributions of pollutants and flows).”118 Notably, the alternative to conditional exemptions to discharge prohibitions in the Order is a conservative interpretation of CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii), which is to require Permittees to effectively prohibit all non-stormwater discharges. However, this alternative is more stringent than that provided in the Order (and previous permits) and, Permittees may incur more costs to implement a prohibition of all non-stormwater discharges than to implement or ensure implementation of specified BMPs to address non-stormwater discharges that are conditionally exempt from the discharge prohibition. An example of this is implementing an effective prohibition of landscape irrigation runoff as compared to implementing a local ordinance addressing landscape irrigation efficiency along with public outreach regarding use of drought tolerant landscaping and integrated pest management to minimize landscape irrigation runoff and associated pollutants.

4. Implementation of the Effective Prohibition on Non-Stormwater Discharges Consistent with previous MS4 permits, Part III.A of the Order requires each Permittee, for the portion of the MS4 for which it is an owner or operator, to prohibit 115 Id., at p. 48036-48037.
116 Id., at p. 48037.
117 Id., at p. 48037.
118 U.S. EPA. MS4 Improvement Guide (2010), p. 11.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-128
non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 to receiving waters except where such discharges are specifically authorized or conditionally exempt. For nearly two decades, some permittees have raised concerns with the Los Angeles Water Board’s use of “through the MS4” or similar language, alleging that the Los Angeles Water Board can only prohibit or regulate non-stormwater discharges “into” the MS4 and not “from” the MS4. The Los Angeles Water Board once again concludes that its usage of “through the MS4” is appropriate to implement the CWA’s effective prohibition of non-stormwater discharges.

U.S. EPA regulations and its 1990 preamble to the Phase I MS4 regulations use the terms “into,” “to,” “through,” and “from” the MS4 interchangeably when describing the federal requirement to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges. As noted previously, federal regulations define illicit discharges as “any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit…”.119 U.S. EPA in its 1990 preamble states that “[t]hese [MS4] permits are to…effectively prohibit nonstorm water discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system,” and that “[t]oday’s rule defines the term ‘illicit discharge’ to describe any discharge through a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water and that is not covered by an NPDES permit. Such illicit discharges are not authorized under the CWA. Section 402(p)(3)(B) of the CWA requires that permits for discharges from municipal separate storm sewers require the municipality to ‘effectively prohibit’ non-storm water discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer… Ultimately, such non-storm water discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer must either be removed from the system or become subject to an NPDES permit.”120 Further on, U.S. EPA states that “[t]he CWA prohibits the point source discharge of non-storm water not subject to an NPDES permit through municipal separate storm sewers to waters of the United States.”121 In addressing comments related to various types of non-stormwater discharges, U.S. EPA again uses “through” to describe the nature of the non-stormwater discharge prohibition, stating with regard to street wash waters that “such discharges…must be addressed by municipal management programs as part of the prohibition on nonstorm water discharges through municipal separate storm sewer systems.”122 Congress’ intent and U.S. EPA’s phraseology in its own regulations therefore support the Los Angeles Water Board’s interpretation that there is no meaningful difference with these terms, and that permittees must have adequate legal authority to control non-stormwater discharges into and from a portion of an MS4 for which it is an owner or operator.

When commenting on a draft version of the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, U.S. EPA supported the non-stormwater discharge prohibition, which has been carried over in this Regional MS4 Permit. U.S. EPA stated:

We understand that concerns have been raised specifically on Section Ill.A.1 of the draft permit which requires that the permittee prohibit certain non-stormwater discharges “through” the MS4 while Section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii) of the Clean Water Act requires that the permittee prohibit discharges “into” the MS4. We support the Board’s proposed language 119 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(2).
120 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47995 (Nov. 16, 1990).
121 Id., at p. 47996.
122 Id., at p. 47990, 47996.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-129
on this issue. We would note that the preamble to EPA’s 1990 stormwater regulations (55 FR 47995) itself uses the word “through” in describing the discharges which are to be prohibited. We believe this is in recognition of the fact that a discharge “into” the MS4 is tantamount to a discharge “through” the MS4 to receiving waters since the principal purpose of an MS4 is conveyance of water.123
Furthermore, the Los Angeles County Superior Court upheld the language in the 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and rejected the “into” versus “from” argument where the court stated:
[A]lthough this Court recognizes that it may not always be possible to prevent something from going into the system, it probably is the cheapest method. If something does not go in, then there is no concern about it coming out the other end. If the contaminant does not enter the system, there is no need to process it at the end of the system.124
The court further stated that the permit’s “regulation of what goes ‘into’ the storm drain does not take away from the [Permittees’] rights and needs to control the process” and set regional controls.125
Additionally, in Order WQ 2015-0075, the State Water Board agreed with the Los Angeles Water Board and found “the variation in language to be a distinction without a difference.” It concluded “[w]hether the Los Angeles MS4 Order prohibits non-storm water discharges into the MS4 or through the MS4 to receiving waters, the intent and effect of the prohibition is to prevent non-exempt non-storm water discharges from reaching the receiving waters. The legal standard governing nonstorm water – effective prohibition – is not altered because the Los Angeles MS4 Order imposes the prohibition at the point of entry into the receiving water rather than the point of entry into the MS4 itself. Instructively, U.S. EPA has used the terms “into,” “from,” and “through” interchangeably when describing the prohibition.” 126

5. Authorized and Conditionally Exempt Non-Stormwater Discharges The Order carries over provisions from previous permits exempting a limited number of authorized and conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges from the discharge prohibition. Authorized non-stormwater discharges are those that are separately regulated by an individual or general NPDES permit, or by WDRs or a conditional waiver of WDRs for non-stormwater discharges from agricultural lands.

The conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges are only exempt provided the discharge complies with the conditions set forth in the Order. In general, these conditions require Permittees to implement, or ensure that a discharger if not a named Permittee in the Order implements, BMPs to ensure that the nonstormwater discharges are not a source of pollutants to waters of the United States.

Conditions established in the Order for each of the non-stormwater discharge 123 U.S. EPA Comments on Draft MS4 Permit for Los Angeles County (July 23, 2012). 124 In re Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit Litigation (Sup. Ct. Los Angeles County, March 24, 2005, Case No. BS 080548), Statement of Decision from Phase I Trial on Petitions for Writ of Mandate.
125 Id., at p. 17.
126 State Water Board Order WQ 2015-0075, p. 61.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-130
categories ensure the protection of receiving water quality and are considered common practices.

The list of authorized and conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges is similar, but not identical, to the previous permits. The Order conforms the exemptions for Ventura County, Los Angeles County, and the City of Long Beach and most closely matches provisions in the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit. The primary changes are as follows:
x The Order carries over the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit’s exemption for discharges from irrigated agriculture covered by WDRs or a conditional waiver of WDRs;
x The Order carries over the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit’s exemption for short-term releases of potable water with no dyes or additives for filming purposes;
x The Order removes references to U.S. EPA from the exemption for temporary non-stormwater discharges authorized pursuant to section 104(a) or 104(b) of CERCLA because the federal response authorities in these sections has been delegated to a number of federal agencies including, but not limited to, U.S.

EPA. For example, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Transportation are all delegated with these federal response authorities;
x The Order does not carry over usage of the term “flows incidental to urban activities” from the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit to describe certain conditionally exempt discharges. Although the terminology is different, the categories of conditionally exempt discharges are the largely the same, except as described below.
x The Order eliminates the conditional exemptions in the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit for air conditioning condensate because the Los Angeles Water Board determined that these discharges were more appropriately regulated under a general permit. NPDES Permit No. CAG994003, Discharges of Nonprocess Wastewater to Surface Waters in Coastal Watershed of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, was most recently reissued in 2014. x The Order eliminates the conditional exemptions in the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit for gravity flows from foundation, footing, and crawl space drains because the Los Angeles Water Board determined that these discharges were more appropriately regulated under a general permit. NDPES Permit No.

CAG994004, Discharges of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, was most recently reissued in 2018.
x The Order eliminates the non-stormwater action levels (NALs) included in the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit. These NALs had been included as a means to identify the potential need for additional controls for non-stormwater discharges in the future. The inclusion of NALs is redundant with other permit requirements such as the nonstormwater discharge prohibition and WQBELs for non-stormwater discharges.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-131

6. Specific Provisions
Part III.A.2.a-e (Non-Stormwater Discharges Not Subject to Discharge Prohibition). These provisions identify the types of non-stormwater discharges that are not subject to the discharge prohibition. The intent of this provision is to exempt certain non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 because they are separately regulated by another NPDES permit or permit equivalent, they are emergency discharges, or they are natural flows. The State Water Board and Los Angeles Water Board general NPDES permits that are used to regulate authorized non-stormwater discharges that are routinely discharged through the MS4 are, for the most part, listed in Table F-22 below.

Table F-22. General NPDES Permits, WDRs and Conditional Waivers Applicable to Non-Stormwater Discharges
127 Discharges of ground water from construction and project dewatering include treated or untreated wastewater from permanent or temporary construction dewatering operations; ground water pumped as an aid in the containment and/or cleanup of a contaminant plume; ground water extracted during shortterm and long-term pumping/aquifer tests; ground water generated from well drilling, construction or development and purging of wells; equipment decontamination water; subterranean seepage dewatering; incidental collected stormwater from basements; and other process and non-process wastewater discharges that meet the eligibility criteria and could not be covered under another specific general NPDES permit.
128 Low threat hydrostatic test water means discharges resulting from the hydrostatic testing or structural integrity testing of pipes, tanks, or any storage vessels using domestic water or from the repair and maintenance of pipes, tanks, or reservoirs.

NPDES Permit No. or Order No. Applicable Types of Discharges NPDES Permit No. CAG994003 –
Discharges of Nonprocess Wastewater to
Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties
x Ground water seepage
x Uncontaminated pumped ground water
x Gravity flow from foundation drains,
footing drains, and crawl space pumps
x Air conditioning condensate
x Discharges of cleaning wastewater and
filter backwash
NPDES Permit No. CAG994004 –
Discharges of Groundwater from
Construction and Project Dewatering to
Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties
x Uncontaminated pumped ground water
x Discharges from activities that occur at
wellheads, such as well construction, well
development (e.g., aquifer pumping tests,
well purging), or major well maintenance
x Gravity flow from foundation drains,
footing drains, and crawl space pumps
x Discharges of ground water from
construction and project dewatering127
NPDES Permit No. CAG990002 –
Discharges from Utility Vaults and
Underground Structures to Surface Waters
x Uncontaminated pumped ground water
x Gravity flow from foundation drains,
footing drains, and crawl space pumps
NPDES Permit No. CAG674001 –
Discharges from Hydrostatic Test Water to
Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties
x Discharges of low threat hydrostatic test
water128
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-132
129 Discharges covered by this permit include discharges from drinking water systems generated during the following activities: ground water supply well flushing or pump-to-waste; ground water well development, rehabilitation, and testing; ground water monitoring for purpose of supply well development, rehabilitation and testing; trench dewatering of drinking water during planned repairs; transmission system installation, cleaning, and testing; water treatment plant operations (excluding filter backwash that is discharged to a water of the U.S.); distribution system storage tank or reservoir releases; distribution system dewatering, flushing, and pressure testing; fire flow / fire hydrant testing; meter testing; automated water analyzers operations; pressure relief valves; and unscheduled activities that must be undertaken to comply with mandates of the Federal Drinking Water Act and California Health and Safety Code.

NPDES Permit No. CAG914001 –
Discharges of Treated Groundwater from
Investigation and/or Cleanup of Volatile
Organic Compounds Contaminated-Sites to
Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties
x Discharges of treated ground water from
investigation and/or cleanup of volatile
organic compound (VOC) contaminated
sites
NPDES Permit No. CAG834001 –
Discharges of Treated Groundwater and
Other Wastewaters from Investigation and/or
Cleanup of Petroleum Fuel-Contaminated
Sites to Surface Waters in Coastal
Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura
Counties
x Discharges of treated groundwater and
other wastewaters from investigation
and/or cleanup of petroleum fuel-related
contamination arising from current and
former leaking underground storage tank
sites or similar operations
NPDES Permit No. CAG994006 –
Discharges of Groundwater from San Gabriel
Valley Groundwater Basin to Surface Water
in the Upper San Gabriel River and Rio
Hondo Watersheds – Los Angeles County
x Discharges from well startup operations
and testing of groundwater treatment
facilities in the San Gabriel Valley
watersheds
NPDES Permit No. CAG140001 – Drinking
Water System Discharges to Waters of the
U.S.
x Discharges from drinking water
systems129
NPDES Permit No. CAG990004 – Biological
and Residual Pesticide Discharges from
Vector Control Applications
x Discharges of residual pesticides from the
application of minimal risk pesticides,
which are pesticides that USEPA has
exempted from FIFRA requirements
when used only in the manner specified
in 40 CFR section 152.25, including
residuals from larvicides and adulticides
that are currently registered in California
and minimum risk pesticide products.

NPDES Permit No. CAG990005 – Residual
Aquatic Pesticide Discharges to Waters of
the United States from Algae and Aquatic
Weed Control Applications
x Discharges of residues resulting from
pesticide applications using products
registered for use in California containing
2,4-D, acrolein, copper, diquat, endothall,
fluridone, glyphosate, imazamox,
imazapyr, penoxsulam, sodium carbonate
peroxyhydrate, and triclopyr-based
algaecides and aquatic herbicides, and
adjuvants containing ingredients
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-133
The Order also exempts temporary non-stormwater discharges authorized pursuant to sections 104(a) or 104(b) of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). These discharges typically consist of short-term, high volume discharges resulting from the development or redevelopment of groundwater extraction wells, or federal or State-required compliance testing of potable water treatment plants, as part of a groundwater remediation action authorized under CERCLA. These discharges through the MS4 are only authorized if: (i) the discharge will comply with water quality standards identified as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (“ARARs”) under section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA; or (ii) the discharge is subject to either (a) a written waiver of ARARs pursuant to section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA or (b) a written determination that compliance with ARARs is not practicable considering the exigencies of the situation, pursuant to 40 CFR section 300.415(j). Exempting these discharges is appropriate because, as noted above, the discharges must comply with water quality standards, which are identified as ARARs, or must be subject to a written waiver of ARARs based on one or more factors identified in 42 U.S.C § 9621(d)(2) or determination that compliance with ARARs is not practicable given the urgency of the situation and scope of the action among other factors.

Additionally, a decision to authorize a discharge through the MS4 to surface waters will not be made by U.S. EPA or another federal agency without first conducting a comprehensive evaluation of containment, treatment, reinjection, or re-use options for the water generated from the subject wells. If a decision to discharge through the MS4 is made, such authorization of the discharge under CERCLA will require that the discharger shall:
a. Implement BMPs to minimize the rate and duration of the discharge and remove excessive solids and implement other on-site physical treatment where feasible;
i. Promote infiltration of discharged water in locations that will prevent or minimize degradation of groundwater quality;
ii. Notify the affected MS4 Permittees, including Ventura County Watershed Protection District and Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and the MS4 Permittee with land use authority over the discharge location, and the Los Angeles Water Board at least one week prior to a planned discharge (unless U.S. EPA determines in writing that exigent circumstances require a shorter notice period) and as soon as possible (but no later than 24 hours after the discharge has occurred) for unplanned discharges;
represented by the surrogate
nonylphenol.

Order No. R4-2016-0143 – Conditional
Waiver for Discharges from Irrigated Lands
x Discharges from irrigated agricultural
lands, including lands planted for row,
vineyard, pasture, field and tree crops,
nurseries, nursery stock production,
wholesale nurseries, and greenhouse
operations with permeable floors, which
are not subject to WDRs, including a MS4
permit or other NPDES permit
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-134
iii. Monitor any pollutants of concern in the discharge;130 and iv. Maintain records for all discharges greater than 100,000 gallons.131 The Order continues to unconditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges from emergency firefighting activities (i.e., flows necessary for the protection of life or property) from the discharge prohibition. Discharges from vehicle washing of firefighting vehicles, building fire suppression system maintenance and testing (e.g., sprinkler line flushing), fire hydrant maintenance and testing, and other routine maintenance activities are not considered emergency firefighting activities.

Additionally, the Order distinguishes between emergency and non-emergency firefighting flows. Essential non-emergency firefighting flows are still eligible for a conditional exemption as discussed below.

Natural flows not subject to the non-stormwater discharge prohibition in the Order include natural springs, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, diverted stream flows authorized by the State Water Board or the Los Angeles Water Board, uncontaminated groundwater infiltration, and rising groundwater where groundwater seepage is not otherwise covered by a NPDES permit. These discharges are not considered a potential source of pollutants.

Part III.A.3.(a-b) (Conditionally Exempt Non-Stormwater Discharges). These provisions identify the types of non-stormwater discharges that are conditionally exempt from the discharge prohibition. For non-stormwater discharges to be conditionally exempt from the discharge prohibition, the Permittees must identify appropriate BMPs, monitor and report on the non-stormwater discharges where applicable, and ensure implementation of effective control measures as discussed in subpart 7 below.

The Order separately identifies flows from non-emergency firefighting activities, discharges from drinking water supplier distribution systems, and potable wash water used to clean reservoir covers as “conditionally exempt essential” nonstormwater discharges rather than combining them into the same category as the other conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges. In doing so, the Los Angeles Water Board recognizes that these discharges are essential public service discharge activities and are directly or indirectly required by other state or federal statutes and/or regulations as done in the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit. Note that the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit had an exemption for flows from firefighting activities but did not include a category for discharges from drinking water supplier distribution systems.

Additionally, consistent with the California Ocean Plan, the Order imposes 130 Pollutants of concern include, at a minimum, trash and debris, including organic matter, TSS, any pollutant being addressed by the groundwater remediation action under CERCLA, and any pollutant for which there is a Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation in Part IV of the Order applicable to discharges from the MS4 to the receiving water.
131 Records shall be maintained, as appropriate, on the: name of CERCLA authorized discharger, date and time of notification (for planned discharges), method of notification, location of discharge, discharge pathway, receiving water, date of discharge, time of the beginning and end of the discharge, duration of the discharge, flow rate or velocity, estimated total number of gallons discharged, type of pollutant removal equipment used, type of dechlorination equipment used if applicable, type of dechlorination chemicals used if applicable, concentration of residual chlorine if applicable, type(s) of sediment controls used, and field and laboratory monitoring data. Records shall be retained for three years, unless the Los Angeles Water Board requests a longer record retention period and shall be made available upon request by the MS4 Permittee or the Los Angeles Water Board.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-135
additional requirements on conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges for direct discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).

If any of the conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges are identified as being a potential source of pollutants, the Order contains a provision that the Los Angeles Water Board, based on an evaluation of monitoring data and other relevant information including TMDLs and antidegradation policies, may require that a discharger obtain coverage under a separate individual or general State Water Board or Los Angeles Water Board NPDES permit for the non-stormwater discharge or may require that the Permittee ensures that the discharger implements additional conditions specified or approved by the Executive Officer to ensure that the discharge is not a source of pollutants.

7. BMPs for Non-Stormwater Discharges
To eliminate adverse impacts from conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges, Permittees are required to implement appropriate BMPs, or ensure that a discharger not named as a Permittee in the Order implements appropriate BMPs consistent with the requirements in Part III.A.5 of the Order. The Order contains language carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit that specifies certain conditions, including implementation of BMPs, for each category of conditionally exempt nonstormwater discharge that must be met in order for the non-stormwater discharge to be exempted from the non-stormwater discharge prohibition and thus allowed through the MS4. The 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit also included similar conditions. The intent of these provisions is to ensure that Permittees implement BMPs consistent with common practice. The Los Angeles Water Board has included applicable guidance documents where appropriate.

One such example is that Permittees must develop and implement procedures to ensure that drinking water system owners/operators drinking water system owners/operators that may discharge amounts greater than 100,000 gallons to the Permittee’s MS4: (1) provide notification at least 72 hours prior to a planned discharge and as soon as possible after an unplanned discharge; (2) monitor any pollutants of concern in the drinking water system discharge; (3) keep records; and (4) implement appropriate BMPs based on the American Water Works Association (California-Nevada Section) Guidelines for the Development of Your Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual for Drinking Water System Releases (2005) or equivalent industry standard BMP manual.

The Statewide Recycled Water Policy, adopted by the State Water Board through Resolution No. 2009-0011, and amended by Resolution No. 2013-0003 and Resolution No. 2018-0057, encourages the safe use of recycled water from wastewater sources that meets the definition in California Water Code section 13050(n), in a manner that implements state and federal water quality laws and protects public health and the environment. The conditions for non-stormwater discharges related to landscape irrigation using potable water and landscape irrigation using reclaimed water were carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit and emphasize the control of incidental runoff from landscape irrigation. Consistent with the Recycled Water Policy, the BMPs incorporated into the Order for potable landscape irrigation ensure that water is conserved, overspray and over irrigation MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-136
causing incidental runoff is minimized, and exposure to landscape related pollutants is minimized.

State Water Board Water Quality Order No. 2009-0006-DWQ, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Landscape Irrigation Uses of Municipal Recycled Water, is a general permit for producers and distributors of recycled water for landscape irrigation uses. As part of that general permit, the producers and distributors of recycled water for landscape irrigation are required to develop an Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) that includes an Operations Plan and an Irrigation Management Plan. Therefore, any landscape irrigation discharges of reclaimed wastewater to the MS4 must comply with the relevant portion of the O&M Plan including the Irrigation Management Plan. By explicitly referencing the O&M requirement in that general permit, it centralizes the requirements for landscape irrigation using reclaimed wastewater and helps to ensure that procedures are in place for conserving water, minimizing incidental runoff, and minimizing exposure to landscape related pollutants.

Non-stormwater discharge provisions have been carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit for the dewatering of lakes to the MS4. The provisions for the dewatering of lakes including removing and legally disposing of all visible trash on the shoreline or on the surface of the lake and the cleaning of the MS4 inlet and outlet where the water will be discharged to the receiving water have been consistently incorporated into Los Angeles Water Board authorizations to discharge non-stormwater from lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. In addition, provisions for volumetrically and velocity controlling discharges as well as taking measurements to stabilize lake bottom sediments are carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit to the Order to ensure that turbidity in receiving waters due to the discharge is minimized. The permit provisions for the dewatering of lakes ensure the protection of receiving water quality.

Consistent with the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit, Basin Plan requirements for residual chlorine have been explicitly included in the conditions for drinking water supplier distribution system releases, dechlorinated/debrominated swimming pool/spa discharges, and dewatering of decorative fountains.132
Specific BMPs for discharges from swimming pools/spas and the dewatering of decorative fountains have been carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit to the Order, including prohibiting the dewatering of swimming pools/spas or decorative fountains containing copper-based algaecides and requiring the implementation of controls to prevent introduction of pollutants prior to discharge. Swimming pool/spa discharges and decorative fountain water must be dechlorinated or debrominated using holding time, aeration, and/or sodium thiosulfate and if necessary, shall be pH adjusted to within the range of 6.5 and 8.5. The MS4 inlet and outlet must be inspected and cleaned out immediately prior to discharge to protect receiving water 132 Swimming pool discharges explicitly excludes discharges of cleaning wastewater and filter backwash.

However, these discharges are considered exempt non-stormwater discharges if the discharge meets the eligibility requirements and obtains coverage under the Los Angeles Water Board’s general permit for discharges of nonprocess wastewater to surface waters in coastal watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura counties (NPDES Permit No. CAG994003).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-137
quality. In addition, provisions for volumetrically and velocity controlling discharges are carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit to the Order to ensure that turbidity in receiving waters due to the discharge is minimized.

In addition to the specific inclusion of the Basin Plan water quality objective for residual chlorine, the Order allows discharges of drinking water supplier distribution system releases as long as specified BMPs are implemented. BMPs must be implemented to prevent introduction of pollutants to drinking water supplier distribution system releases prior to discharge to the receiving water. BMPs must be consistent with the American Water Works Association (California – Nevada Section) BMP Manual for Drinking Water System Releases or other equivalent industry standard BMP manual. This requirement therefore gives Permittees flexibility to design their own program by choosing their BMP manual to address non-stormwater discharges from drinking water supplier distribution systems.

Similar to discharges from swimming pools/spas and dewatering of decorative fountains, drinking water supplier distribution system releases must be dechlorinated or debrominated using holding time, aeration, and/or sodium thiosulfate and if necessary, shall be pH adjusted to within the range of 6.5 and

8.5. The MS4 inlet and outlet must be inspected and cleaned out immediately prior to discharge to protect receiving water quality. BMPs such as sandbags or gravel bags, or other appropriate means shall be utilized to prevent sediment transport and all sediment shall be collected and disposed of in a legal and appropriate manner. Additional provisions for volumetrically and velocity controlling discharges are carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 permit to the Regional MS4 Permit to ensure that turbidity in receiving waters due to the discharge is minimized. The permit provisions for drinking water supply and distribution system releases, dechlorinated/ debrominated swimming pool/spa discharges, and dewatering of decorative fountains ensures the protection of receiving water quality.

Potable wash water used to clean reservoir covers is included in the Order as a conditionally exempt non-essential non-stormwater discharge. This requirement and the corresponding BMPs were carried over from the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit. Provisions and BMPs for potable wash water used to clean reservoir covers is pursuant to The Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (EPA 815-R06-005 February 2006), which includes requirements for “Systems that store treated water in open reservoirs [where the systems] must either cover the reservoir or treat the reservoir discharge to inactivate 4-log virus, 3-log Giardia lamblia, and 2-log Cryptosporidium.”133 The provisions and BMPs are also pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

The Los Angeles Water Board evaluated and established a list of approved BMPs for various programs and activities through Los Angeles Water Board Resolution 98-08 that serves as appropriate BMPs for inclusion in the discharger and Permittees’ regulatory programs. Requirements for street/sidewalk wash water contained in Resolution 98-08 have been explicitly incorporated into the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit and 133 U.S. EPA. Fact Sheet - Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. December 2005. EPA 815-F-05-009.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-138
have been carried over to the Order. The inclusion of the requirements originally identified in Resolution 98-08 ensures the protection of receiving water quality.

Specific BMPs for discharges from non-commercial car washing have been carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit to the Order to prevent the introduction of pollutants prior to discharge. BMPs that must be implemented for the discharge of non-commercial vehicle wash water include minimizing the amount of water used by turning off nozzles or kinking the hose when not spraying a vehicle and by using a low-volume pressure washer; using biodegradable, phosphate free detergents and non-toxic cleaning products; where possible, washing vehicles on permeable surfaces where wash water can percolate into the ground; creating a temporary berm or block off the storm drains; using pumps or vacuums to direct water to pervious areas; and emptying buckets of soapy water or rinse water into the sanitary sewer system.

These BMPs are common practice and ensure the protection of receiving water quality.

Discharges resulting from essential non-emergency firefighting activities have been carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit to the Order. Similar BMPs have been incorporated into other California MS4 permits. For example, both the Riverside County and Orange County MS4 permits require the development and implementation of a program to address pollutants from non-emergency firefighting flows. Rather than develop a program to address non-emergency firefighting discharges, Permittees may implement the BMPs contained in the Best Management Practices Plan for Urban Runoff Management for Participating Riverside County Fire Fighting Agencies or an equivalent guidance manual.

The inclusion of specific conditions for conditionally exempted non-stormwater discharges in the Order centralizes the requirements for non-stormwater discharges. Conditions established in the Order for each of the conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharge categories are common practice and have been incorporated into other area MS4 permits.

8. Permittee Requirements for Non-Stormwater Discharges The Order includes specific requirements for Permittees related to targeted screening of MS4 outfalls for non-stormwater discharges, and monitoring and evaluation of significant non-stormwater discharges. Permittees are required to develop and implement procedures to ensure that all conditions required for conditionally exempt non-stormwater discharges are being implemented. These requirements were carried over from the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit to help clarify the responsibilities of the Permittees versus the responsibilities of the non-MS4 Permittee dischargers to the MS4. The development and implementation of these procedures helps to ensure compliance with the non-stormwater discharge prohibition and ensure that the non-stormwater discharges are not sources of pollutants.

9. Compliance Demonstration
A Permittee’s implementation of program elements and control measures to effectively eliminate prohibited non-stormwater discharges will be considered as evidence of whether a Permittee is complying with the non-stormwater discharge prohibition in Part III.A of the Order. Where a Permittee is fully implementing its MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-139
Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Program, either pursuant to Part VIII.I of the Order, or by incorporation of customized actions into a WMP as approved by the Los Angeles Water Board (see Part IX.B of the Order), the Los Angeles Water Board would conduct a fact-specific analysis of the nature and source of the unauthorized non-stormwater discharge and the efforts of the Permittee to prohibit the discharge in support of any enforcement action under Part III.A of the Order.

B. Trash

1. Federal Requirements
Federal regulations identify the need to develop, implement, and enforce controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from MS4s.134 Federal regulations further specify that Permittees must include in their management program maintenance activities and a maintenance schedule for structural controls to reduce pollutants (including floatables) in discharges from MS4s.135 The highlighting of floatables is pertinent since a significant portion of trash is characteristic of, and within the category of, floatable pollutants. Municipal trash management programs are discussed in federal documents including U.S. EPA’s Stormwater Menu of BMPs fact sheet on Trash and Debris Management.136 This fact sheet highlights source control and structural control techniques to manage trash.

2. Statewide Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the State Water Board adopted Part 1 Trash Provisions (Trash Provisions) of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (ISWEBE Plan) and an amendment to the Ocean Plan to control trash. Together, these amendments are referred to as the Trash Amendments or Trash Provisions. The Trash Amendments establish a water quality objective, a prohibition on the discharge of trash, and implementation requirements to control trash. The Trash Amendments were approved by OAL on December 2, 2015 and by U.S. EPA on January 12, 2016.

3. Applicability
The Trash Amendments apply to all waters of the State, except waters in the Los Angeles Region in which a TMDL for trash was in effect prior to the effective date of the Trash Amendments.137
134 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv).
135 Id., subd. (d)(2)(iv)(A)(1).
136 U.S. EPA. Trash and Debris Management, Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts:

Education for Homeowners.
137 While the Trash Amendments do not apply to waters addressed by existing trash TMDLs in the Los Angeles Region, the Trash Amendments directed the Los Angeles Water Board to reconsider the scope of its trash TMDLs, except for the Los Angeles River Watershed and Ballona Creek Trash TMDLs, within one year of the Trash Amendments’ effective date. The Los Angeles Water Board held an initial public meeting to consider its trash TMDLs on November 28, 2016. On June 14, 2018 the Los Angeles Water Board adopted revisions to the Malibu Creek Watershed Trash TMDL and the Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash Trash TMDL to align them with the Trash Amendments. On March 14, 2019 the Los Angeles Water Board adopted a resolution finding that the Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL and the Machado Lake Trash TMDL could not be aligned with the Trash Amendments. On June 13, 2019 the Los Angeles Water Board adopted a resolution finding that the Ventura River Estuary MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-140
The Order incorporates the Trash Amendments in all areas not addressed by an existing trash TMDL. For areas addressed by an existing trash TMDL, the Order requires Permittees to comply with the appropriate TMDL-based trash WQBELs specified in Part IV.B.3 of the Order.

4. Implementation
The Trash Amendments require NPDES permits regulating MS4 permittees with regulatory authority over priority land uses (PLUs) to include provisions to prohibit the discharge of trash in Waters of the United States. Permittees may elect to comply with the trash prohibition under one of two compliance tracks. Under Track 1, a Permittee must install, operate, and maintain full capture systems for storm drains that capture runoff from priority land uses in their respective jurisdictions.

Under Track 2, a Permittee must install, operate, and maintain any combination of full capture systems, multi-benefit projects, treatment controls and/or institutional controls. Permittees outside of or lacking land use authority over PLUs do not have to implement the trash prohibition unless directed to by the Los Angeles Water Board as described in the discussion of designated land use areas below.

Prior to the issuance of the Order, and as contemplated by the Trash Amendments, on August 18, 2017, the Los Angeles Water Board issued California Water Code Section 13383 Orders to Permittees whose jurisdictional areas are not fully addressed by an existing trash TMDL. These California Water Code Section 13383 Orders required Permittees to submit: (1) a letter identifying the Permittee’s selected compliance option (Track 1 or Track 2) to comply with the Trash Provisions by November 20, 2017; and (2) supporting documents based on the compliance option selected by February 18, 2019. The supporting documents for Permittees selecting Track 1 included the following. For Permittees selecting Track 1, a jurisdictional or watershed map(s) identifying 1) all PLU areas discharging to the storm drain network; 2) any drainage areas addressed by existing trash TMDLs; 3) the corresponding storm drain network; 4) proposed locations of all certified full capture systems; and 5) proposed equivalent alternative land uses, documentation demonstrating that the substitution of equivalent alternative land uses has been approved by the Los Angeles Water Board Executive Officer, and corresponding storm drainage network, if applicable. The supporting documents for Permittees selecting Track 2 generally included a jurisdictional map(s) identifying the provisions 1-3 mentioned above as well as locations or land uses where a combination of controls will be implemented to achieve full capture system equivalency (see Attachment A for a definition of this term) and an assessment of trash levels for all PLUs and for other selected locations or land uses within the MS4s jurisdiction if proposing to implement any combination of controls in locations other than PLUs. In addition, Permittees selecting Track 2 were also required to submit an implementation plan that included requirements similar to the ones included in Part III.B.2.b of the Order. Table F-23 below, lists the Permittees that were issued a California Water Code Section 13383 Order and the compliance option that they selected in response to the Order. The Table also notes those Permittees that are outside of or lack jurisdiction over PLUs. All Permittees that selected either of the Tracks, also submitted the required supporting documents that were due by February 18, 2019. Only two cities selected Track 2, the cities of Trash TMDL, Lake Elizabeth Trash TMDL, and Legg Lake Trash TMDL, could not be aligned with the Trash Amendments.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-141
Gardena and Los Angeles. On April 8, 2019, the Los Angeles Water Board sent a correspondence to Track 1 Permittees clarifying that they could proceed implementing the provisions of the 13383 Order without requiring further approval.

On June 26, 2019, the Los Angeles Water Board issued a conditional approval letter to the City of Gardena, requiring additional information and submittals in order to approve its implementation plan, which were due by March 31, 2021. In its implementation plan, the City of Los Angeles indicated that it is in compliance with the Trash Amendments; Board staff are in the process of reviewing the information provided by both cities.

Table F-23. Selected Compliance Option in Response to California Water Code Section 13383 Orders
Permittee
Selected Compliance
Option
(Track 1 or Track 2)
Arcadia Track 1
Artesia Track 1
Azusa Track 1
Baldwin Park Track 1
Bellflower Track 1
Bradbury Track 1
Carson Track 1
Cerritos Track 1
Claremont Track 1
Compton 138
County of Los Angeles Track 1
Covina Track 1
Diamond Bar Track 1
Downey Track 1
Duarte Track 1
El Monte Track 1
El Segundo Track 1
Gardena Track 2
Glendora Track 1
Hawaiian Gardens Track 1
Hawthorne Track 1
Industry Track 1
Inglewood Track 1
Irwindale Track 1
La Habra Heights Track 1
La Mirada Track 1
La Puente Track 1
La Verne Track 1
Lakewood Track 1
Lawndale Track 1
Lomita Track 1
138 On December 20, 2017, the City of Compton responded to the Los Angeles Water Board’s August 18, 2017’s 13383 Order and stated that the City is only subject to the Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL. Board staff are still investigating the City’s claim.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-142
Permittee
Selected Compliance
Option
(Track 1 or Track 2)
Los Angeles Track 2
Los Angeles County Flood
Control District
139
Manhattan Beach Track 1
Monrovia Track 1
Norwalk Track 1
Paramount Track 1
Pico Rivera Track 1
Pomona Track 1
Rancho Palos Verdes Track 1
Redondo Beach Track 1
Rolling Hills 140
Rolling Hills Estates Track 1
San Dimas Track 1
Santa Clarita Track 1
Santa Fe Springs Track 1
Signal Hill Track 1
South El Monte Track 1
Torrance Track 1
Walnut Track 1
West Covina Track 1
Whittier Track 1
County of Ventura Track 1
Camarillo Track 1
Fillmore Track 1
Moorpark Track 1
Ojai Track 1
Oxnard Track 1
Port Hueneme Track 1
Santa Paula Track 1
Simi Valley Track 1
Thousand Oaks Track 1
Ventura Track 1
Ventura County Watershed
Protection District
141
Long Beach Track 1
Both compliance tracks focus trash control efforts on PLUs. PLUs are areas that have been shown to generate a significant amount of trash and include high density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public transportation stations.

A compliance framework focused on PLUs allows MS4s to allocate trash-control resources to the highest priority areas.
139The District has no jurisdictional authority over PLUs. 140The City has no PLUs within its jurisdiction.
141The District has no jurisdictional authority over PLUs.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-143
In some cases, non-priority land use areas may also generate a substantial amount of trash. Permittees may get approval from the Los Angeles Water Board to substitute one or more of the PLUs with an alternate land use area that generates trash at rates equivalent or greater than the PLU(s) being substituted. The Los Angeles Water Board may also determine that a non-priority land use or location generates a substantial amount of trash. Where this determination is made, the Los Angeles Water Board may require Permittees to adopt Track 1 or Track 2 control measures over these areas. The Order refers to these areas as “designated land use areas.” No designated land use areas for trash have been identified as of the issuance of the Order.

5. Implementation Schedule
The Trash Amendments require NPDES permits for MS4 permittees to contain provisions prohibiting the discharge of trash within ten years of the effective date of the first implementing permit, or no later than fifteen years from the effective date of the Trash Amendments (December 2, 2030). The Order is the first implementing permit for the Permittees; therefore, the Permittees must obtain full compliance with the Trash Amendments by December 2, 2030. Additional time for compliance may be authorized for designated land uses identified after the effective date of the Order. In no case may the time for compliance with the Trash Amendments for newly Designated Land Uses be more than 10 years.

Part III.B.2 of the Order incorporates the Trash Amendments requirements for Permittees with regulatory authority over PLUs, designated land uses, or equivalent alternate land uses. Specifically, Part III.B.2.a of the Order outlines the compliance methods and allows Permittees to change their compliance method by submitting a written request to the Los Angeles Water Board for approval of a modified jurisdictional map. Permittees changing their compliance method to Track 2 are also required to submit an Implementation Plan. Part III.B.2.b of the Order outlines provisions for Implementation Plan for Track 2; and Part III.B.2.c of the Order outlines provisions for jurisdictional map. Part III.B.2.d of the Order establishes the implementation schedule for complying with the discharge prohibition consistent with the Trash Amendments. This provision establishes an interim compliance deadline requiring 50% of all PLUs and/or approved equivalent alternate land uses to meet full capture (Track 1) or full capture system equivalency (Track 2) within 5 years and a final compliance deadline requiring 100% of all PLUs and/or approved equivalent alternate land uses to meet full capture (Track 1) or full capture system equivalency (Track 2) by no later than 10 years from the effective date of the Order or December 2, 2030, whichever is sooner. For designated land uses, it may not be feasible to expect compliance within ten years from the effective date of the Order. Hence, the final compliance date for a designated land use is no longer than 10 years from the Los Angeles Water Board’s written determination to designate a land use or location as a designated land use.

6. Previous Permit Requirements
Part VI.D.9.h.vii of the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and Part VII.L.8.vii of the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit required Permittees to install trash excluders, or equivalent devices, on or in catch basins or outfalls to prevent the discharge of trash to the MS4 or receiving water no later than December 28, 2016 and March 28, 2018, respectively. Part 4.G.I.5.(e) of the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit also required the Permittees to comply with the same requirements no later MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-144
than July 8, 2012. This requirement only applied to areas not subject to a trash TMDL and identified as a “Priority A” area and did not apply to sites where the application of such BMP(s) alone would cause flooding. Priority A was defined as areas consistently generating the highest volumes of trash and/or debris.

Alternatively, Permittees could implement alternative or enhanced BMPs that provide substantially equivalent removal of trash. The Statewide Trash Amendments closely align with the intent and scope of the requirements of the previous permits. Therefore, incorporation of Statewide Trash Amendments into the Order are not new requirements but rather a refinement of the existing requirements.

V. RATIONALE FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS Clean Water Act section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) requires MS4 permits to include “controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” The control of pollutants discharged is established through effluent limitations and other requirements in NPDES permits. The Clean Water Act generally requires NPDES permits to include technology-based effluent limitations and any more stringent water quality-based effluent limitations necessary to meet water quality standards.

Both types of limitations are in the Order and are discussed below.

A. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
Section 301(b)(1)(A) of the CWA and 40 CFR section 122.44(a) require that NPDES permits include technology-based effluent limitations and standards.142 In 1987, the CWA was amended to require that municipal stormwater discharges “reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” (CWA § 402(p)(3)(B)(iii).) The “maximum extent practicable” (MEP) standard is the applicable federal technologybased standard that MS4 owners and operators must attain to comply, in part, with their NPDES permits.143 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(2)(iv) further details the MEP standard, which requires that MS4 owners and operators implement comprehensive pollutant control measures in a stormwater management program including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate. Permit requirements to implement the MEP standard are generally referred to, collectively, as best management practices or BMPs. 142 A technology-based effluent limitation is based on the capability of a model treatment method to reduce a pollutant to a certain concentration (NPDES Permit Writer’s Manual (September 2010), Appendix A).

Technology-based effluent limitations generally are expressed numerically as the maximum amount of pollutant that may be discharged (either as a prohibition or as a concentration or mass; mass is usually normalized either based on production units or wastewater flow) but are sometimes narrative effluent limitations such as model best management practices for an industrial category like “Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production.” For example, model best management practices are identified for solids control, including the following, “[i]n order to minimize the discharge of accumulated solids from settling ponds and basins and production systems, identify and implement procedures for routine cleaning …, and procedures to minimize any discharge of accumulated solids during the … harvesting of aquatic animals in the production system” (NPDES Writers’ Manual (September 2010), p. 5-33). Technologybased requirements represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit issued under CWA § 402.
143 Note that the MEP standard only applies to stormwater discharges from the MS4. Non-stormwater discharges are subject to a different standard – specifically, non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 must be effectively prohibited.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-145
Examples of BMPs used to comply with the MEP standard include street sweeping, requiring erosion controls at construction sites (e.g., straw wattles, silt fences), and catch basin cleanouts.

The fundamental requirement that municipalities reduce pollutants in municipal stormwater discharges to the MEP remains a cornerstone of the mandate imposed on municipalities by the federal Clean Water Act and implementing NPDES regulations.

Meeting the MEP standard is generally a result of emphasizing robust pollution prevention and control through various programs and structural measures. These pollution prevention and control methods require municipalities to take actions that will lessen the incidence of pollutants entering the storm drains by regulating the behavior and practices of the municipalities, their residents, and their businesses and controlling the discharge of pollutants through structural measures and treatment methods.

Neither Congress nor the U.S. EPA has specifically defined the term “maximum extent practicable.” Rather, the MEP standard is an ever evolving, flexible and advancing concept, which considers technical and economic feasibility. As knowledge and technology regarding controlling stormwater runoff continue to evolve, so too must the actions that are taken to comply with the standard. Congress established this flexible MEP standard so that administrative bodies would have “the tools to meet the fundamental goals of the Clean Water Act in the context of storm water pollution.”144 This standard was designed to allow permit writers flexibility to tailor permits to the sitespecific nature of MS4s and to use a combination of pollution controls that may be different in different permits.145 The MEP standard is also expected to evolve in light of programmatic improvements, new source control initiatives, and technological advances that serve to improve the overall effectiveness of stormwater management programs in reducing pollutant loading to receiving waters.

In addition to regulations, U.S. EPA has issued guidance documents that discuss the type of BMPs that should be included in MS4 permits in order to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the MEP.146 Successive permits for the same MS4 must become more refined and detailed and require greater levels of specificity over time in defining what constitutes MEP, based on experience under the previous permit. For example, the 1990 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit provided a general requirement that Permittees develop and implement a plan with a schedule of implementation for BMPs to control pollutants from residential, commercial, and industrial sites to the MEP.

To continue to address these land use areas, the 1996 Permit required Permittees to develop and implement a model system for prioritization of development projects and establish a list of recommended BMPs in a model program, referred to as a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). For new and re-development, the 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit established numeric criteria, requiring the control of a specific volume of runoff from these priority development and redevelopment projects, i.e., the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm volume. In the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, Permittees were required to prioritize onsite retention of this runoff and, only if that was infeasible, to use other means (such as flow-through treatment) of controlling that runoff volume. The 1994 Ventura County MS4 Permit provided a general 144 Building Industry Ass’n of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Board (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 866, 884.
145 In re City of Irving, Texas, Municipal Storm Sewer System (July 16, 2001) 10 E.A.D. 111 (E.P.A.), *6. 146 See, e.g., U.S. EPA, MS4 Permit Improvement Guide (2010). Prior to issuance of the MS4 Permit Improvement Guide, U.S. EPA provided BMP “menus” for the required elements of a MS4 permittee’s stormwater management program as required by 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-146
requirement that Permittees develop and implement source control BMPs and treatment control BMPs in the areas of land development, industrial, commercial, and construction sites. The 2000 Ventura County MS4 Permit required Permittees to develop and implement a comprehensive stormwater quality management program to reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the MEP. In the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit, Permittees were required to implement LID strategies for new development and redevelopment, which would maintain pre-development hydrology and utilize natural controls to reduce stormwater pollution. This is consistent with U.S. EPA’s intent that stormwater management programs evolve based on changing conditions from program development and implementation and corresponding improvements in water quality.147 There is ample evidence of this evolution in stormwater management. Examples include the development of full capture trash control devices in response to the Los Angeles Region Trash TMDLs, innovative media filters for use in outfalls at the Boeing Santa Susana Field Laboratory that have potential municipal applications; and regional scale multi-benefit stormwater capture projects such as the Carriage Crest Park project, which captures stormwater from an 1,146-acre, multi-jurisdictional drainage area for treatment and reclamation at the adjacent wastewater treatment facility.

To provide clarification to the Regional Water Boards, the State Water Board’s Office of Chief Counsel issued a memorandum dated February 11, 1993 regarding the “Definition of ‘Maximum Extent Practicable’.” In the memorandum, the State Water Board interpreted the MEP standard to entail “a serious attempt to comply,” and that under the MEP standard, “practical solutions may not be lightly rejected.” The memorandum states, “[i]n selecting BMPs which will achieve MEP, it is important to remember that municipalities will be responsible to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable. This means choosing effective BMPs, and rejecting applicable BMPs only where other effective BMPs will serve the same purpose, the BMPs would not be technically feasible, or the cost would be prohibitive.” The memorandum suggests several factors to be considered when choosing BMPs, including effectiveness, regulatory compliance, public acceptance, cost, and technical feasibility. The memorandum further states that, “[a]fter selecting a menu of BMPs, it is of course the responsibility of the discharger to insure that all BMPs are implemented.” The Order includes programmatic requirements in six areas pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(2)(iv), including numeric design standards for stormwater runoff from new development and significant redevelopment consistent with the federal MEP standard (see State Water Board Order WQ 2000-11, the “LA SUSMP Order”). The Order also includes requirements for periodically evaluating and modifying or adding control measures, consistent with the concept that MEP is an evolving and flexible standard. 147 See, 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 48052 (“EPA anticipates that storm water management programs will evolve and mature over time.”); 64 Fed. Reg. 68722, 68754; Dec. 8, 1999 (“EPA envisions application of the MEP standard as an iterative process.”); Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in Stormwater Permits (Sept. 1, 1996) (“The interim permitting approach uses BMPs in firstround storm water permits, and expanded or better-tailored BMPs in subsequent permits, where necessary, to provide for the attainment of water quality standards.”); Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on LAs” (Nov. 26, 2014) (“In subsequent stormwater permit terms, if the BMPs used during prior years were shown to be inadequate to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), including attainment of applicable water quality standards, the permit would need to contain more specific conditions or limitations.”).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-147
B. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)

1. Basis for WQBELs
In addition to requiring that MS4 permits include technology-based requirements consistent with the MEP standard, section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA requires that MS4 permits include “such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of [] pollutants.”148 U.S. EPA interprets this provision to mandate “controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and where necessary water quality-based controls.”149 U.S. EPA has reiterated that MS4 “permit conditions must provide for attainment of applicable water quality standards (including designated uses), allocations of pollutant loads established by a TMDL, and timing requirements for implementation of a TMDL.”150 U.S. EPA Region IX has also affirmed the Water Boards’ position that MS4 discharges must meet water quality standards in a series of comment letters on MS4 permits issued by various California regional water boards.151 Likewise, the State Water Board has affirmed that MS4 permits must include requirements necessary to achieve compliance with the applicable technology-based standard of MEP and to achieve water quality standards.152 The permitting agency, be it the Los Angeles Water Board or U.S. EPA, must therefore include provisions in addition to those based on the MEP standard when it finds it is appropriate to do so and to exercise its discretion to determine what permit conditions are necessary to control pollutants in a specific geographic area.

Generally, discharge requirements designed to achieve water quality standards are referred to as water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs). A WQBEL is a restriction on the quantity or concentration of a pollutant that may be discharged from a point source into a receiving water that is necessary to achieve an applicable water quality standard in the receiving water.153 As discussed more fully below, WQBELs may be expressed narratively or numerically.

Federal NPDES regulations require the permitting agency to include WQBELs for point source discharges that cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above water quality standards.154 As the State Water 148 The early iterations (issued from 1990-1996) of the previous MS4 permits for Permittees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties relied solely upon requirements consistent with the MEP standard to work toward achieving water quality standards. Note that the MEP standard is distinct from a water quality-based standard; each has a different basis. Therefore, while from a practical point of view, the goal of all MS4 permits is to control pollutants in discharges to ultimately achieve water quality standards, water quality based standards are directly derived from this desired outcome, while the MEP standard is anticipated to be a way of working toward the desired outcome, but is not directly derived from it. 149 Phase I Stormwater Regulations, Final Rule, 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47994 (Nov. 16, 1990) (emphasis added); see also Building Industry Ass’n of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 866, 882-887.
150 See, e.g., Phase II Stormwater Regulations, Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. 68722, 68737. 151 See, e.g., letter from Alexis Strauss, Acting Director, Water Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Walt Pettit, Executive Director, State Water Board, re: SWRCB/OCC File A-1041 for Orange County, dated January 21, 1998.
152 See, e.g., State Water Board Orders WQ 99-05, WQ 2001-15, and WQ 2015-0075. 153 See 40 CFR § 122.2; NPDES Permit Writer’s Manual, Appendix A. A WQBEL is distinguished from a technology based effluent limitation (TBEL) in that the basis for the WQBEL is the applicable water quality standard for the receiving water, while the basis for the TBEL is generally the performance of the best available technology.
154 40 CFR § 122.44, subds. (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(iii).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-148
Board explained in 2001, “Urban runoff is causing and contributing to impacts on receiving waters throughout the state and impairing their beneficial uses....It is not enough simply to apply the technology-based standards of controlling discharges of pollutants to the MEP….”155 Nearly two decades later, this is still true.

In the Order, WQBELs are included where the Los Angeles Water Board or U.S.

EPA has determined that discharges from the MS4 cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above water quality standards.156 Reasonable potential can be demonstrated in several ways, one of which is through the TMDL development process. Where a point source is assigned a wasteload allocation (WLA)157 in a TMDL, the analysis conducted in the development of the TMDL provides the basis for the Los Angeles Water Board or U.S. EPA’s determination that the discharge has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards in the receiving water.

This approach is affirmed in U.S. EPA’s Permit Writer’s Manual, which states, “[w]here there is a pollutant with a WLA from a TMDL, a permit writer must develop WQBELs.”158
The Los Angeles Water Board and U.S. EPA have each established numerous TMDLs to address water quality impairments in the Los Angeles Region. Through the process of developing these TMDLs and assigning wasteload allocations to MS4 discharges in the Los Angeles Region, the Los Angeles Water Board and U.S.

EPA have established that MS4 discharges cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards. Given the number of Los Angeles Water Board and U.S.

EPA established TMDLs for impaired waters in the Los Angeles Region, there is ample evidence that MS4 discharges are a continuing and significant source of pollutants to the impaired receiving waters notwithstanding implementation of stormwater management programs driven by the MEP standard for the last three decades.

Where a TMDL has been established for a particular waterbody, U.S. EPA’s NPDES regulations further require that, “when developing water quality-based effluent limits…the permitting authority shall ensure that effluent limits … are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available wasteload allocation for the discharge…” (40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B)). In its 2014 memorandum, Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs, U.S. EPA reaffirmed its 2002 interpretation that this regulation requires that “where a State or EPA has established a TMDL, NPDES permits must contain effluent limits and conditions consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the WLAs in the TMDL.”159 This is inclusive of stormwater 155 State Water Board Order WQ 2001-15, pp. 7-8.
156 40 CFR §§ 122.44(d)(1)(i)-(iii); 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) 157 “Wasteload allocation” is defined as “[t]he portion of a receiving water’s loading capacity that is allocated to one if its existing or future point sources of pollution. WLAs constitute a type of water quality-based effluent limitation.” (40 CFR § 130.2(h)).
158 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual, p. 6-30.
159 U.S. EPA, Memorandum, “Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum ‘Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs,’” (Nov. 26, 2014), p. 6 (emphasis added); see also U.S.

EPA, Memorandum, “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs,” (Nov. 22, 2002).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-149
permits – municipal, industrial and construction. U.S. EPA’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference. This requirement that WQBELs must be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the WLAs means that the permit must include either an equivalent numeric effluent limit or “a measurable, objective BMP-based limit that is projected to achieve the WLA.”160 When a narrative WQBEL in the form of a BMP-based limit is relied upon, “the permit’s administrative record needs to provide adequate demonstration that … the BMPs … will be sufficient to implement applicable WLAs. … Improved knowledge of BMP effectiveness … should be reflected in the demonstration and supporting rationale that implementation of the BMPs will attain water quality standards and be consistent with WLAs.”161 Even if this regulation could be read to preclude mandatory incorporation of wasteload allocations into an MS4 permit, effluent limitations consistent with those wasteload allocations are nevertheless required under Clean Water Act section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii)’s direction that the MS4 permit shall require “such other controls” as the permitting authority determines “appropriate for the control of such pollutants.”162
Finally, California Water Code section 13377 requires that NPDES permits include effluent limitations necessary to implement water quality control plans, including TMDL requirements that have been incorporated into the water quality control plans.163
Therefore, the Los Angeles Water Board has included WQBELs in the Order for all pollutants for which a TMDL WLA is assigned to the MS4 discharges and the WQBELs are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of available TMDL WLAs applicable to the Permittees.

2. Expression of WQBELs
While federal law requires the Los Angeles Water Board to include TMDL-based WQBELs in the Order, it does not specify how those WQBELs are to be expressed in MS4 permits. Rather, federal law requires the permitting authority to make that determination as appropriate and necessary for the control of the discharge. In MS4 permits, WQBELs may be expressed either in narrative form (e.g., as requirements to implement specified BMPs) or in numeric form (i.e., as numeric effluent limitations). In the latter, the choice of how to achieve the numeric effluent limitations is left to the permittee.164 Both types of expression of the WQBELs are 160 Ibid.
161 Ibid.
162 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii). See, e.g., State Water Board Orders WQ 91-03, WQ 91-04, WQ 98-01, WQ 99-05, WQ 2001-15, and WQ 2015-0075.
163 Water Code section 13263, subd. (a) likewise requires waste discharge requirements to implement any relevant water quality control plans that have been adopted. See also State Water Res. Control Bd.

Cases (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 674, 730 (noting the obligation of the water boards to follow the program of implementation included in a water quality control plan). 164 CWA § 402(p)(3)(B)(iii); 40 CFR § 122.44(k); U.S. EPA. Memorandum, Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs,” (Nov. 26, 2014), p. 6. (noting that WQBELs “could take the form of a numeric limit, or of a measurable, objective BMP-based limit that is projected to achieve the WLA”); see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159, 1166 (noting that the permitting authority has discretion regarding the nature and timing of requirements that it includes as MS4 permit conditions to attain water quality standards, and that these requirements may include numeric effluent limitations).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-150
allowed and neither one is more stringent than the other because an equivalent level of implementation of BMPs or other control measures is necessary to comply in either expression of the WQBELs. For example, to address MS4 discharges of trash, the permitting authority may require permittees to implement specific pollutant control measures, such as installing certified full capture systems on storm drains that prevent nearly all trash from reaching receiving waters (e.g., screens that trap particles of a certain size), partial capture devices on storm drains that prevent most trash from reaching receiving waters, or non-structural institutional controls (e.g., street sweeping, sidewalk trash cans, and anti-litter educational and outreach programs), or a combination of these three measures.

To comply with this narrative WQBEL expression, a permittee would need to demonstrate that it implemented the required control measures. Alternatively, the permitting authority may establish a numeric limit of zero trash discharged from the MS4. To comply with this numeric WQBEL expression, a permittee would still need to implement pollutant control measures on the ground, and these necessarily would include implementation of certified full capture systems, partial capture systems, or institutional controls, or any combination thereof. Functionally, compliance with either approach requires an equivalent level of implementation, although compliance with numeric WQBELs provides a greater level of flexibility.

The Los Angeles Water Board, as the permitting authority, must choose one of these options for each TMDL wasteload allocation and, in doing so, must ensure attainment of the wasteload allocations within the timeframes established in the TMDLs. Whether the WQBELs are expressed narratively or numerically are simply different ways to achieve the same desired water quality outcome.

Although federal regulations authorize the use of BMP-based WQBELs in stormwater permits to control the discharge of pollutants, those federal regulations and U.S. EPA guidance also state that BMP-based WQBELs are appropriate where it is “infeasible” to develop a numeric effluent limitation.165 At the public hearing for issuance of the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, then Associate Director of the Water Division for U.S. EPA Region 9, confirmed that: “[T]he use of the term ‘feasible’ was to say is it feasible to translate the wasteload allocation into a numeric [effluent limitation] ….”166
U.S. EPA has issued two memoranda, on November 22, 2002 (2002 U.S. EPA Memorandum) and November 26, 2014 (2014 U.S. EPA Memorandum), providing guidance to permitting authorities on translating TMDL wasteload allocations into WQBELs in NPDES permits for stormwater discharges.167 The 2002 U.S. EPA Memorandum contemplated that “the NPDES permitting authority will review the information provided by the TMDL . . . and determine whether the effluent limit is appropriately expressed using a BMP approach (including an iterative BMP approach) or a numeric limit.”168 U.S. EPA further stated that it “expects that most WQBELs for NPDES-regulated municipal . . . storm water discharges will be in the 165 40 CFR § 122.44(k). 166 Transcript, Oct. 5, 2012, p. 225. 167 In addition to the two memoranda, U.S. EPA published guidance titled “Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits” ((Sept. 1996) 61 Federal Register 57425), which recommended inclusion of BMPs in the first two to three rounds of permit issuance, and more specific BMPs or limitations in subsequent permits if the BMPs used during prior years were shown to be inadequate to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, including attainment of applicable water quality standards.
168 2002 U.S. EPA Memorandum, p. 5.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-151
form of BMPs, and that numeric limits will be used only in rare instances.”169 The 2014 U.S. EPA Memorandum updated aspects of the 2002 U.S. EPA Memorandum and constitutes U.S. EPA’s current guidance on this subject. After noting the increased information available to the permitting agencies after more than a decade of experience in setting wasteload allocations and WQBELs, the 2014 U.S. EPA Memorandum explained that:

Where the TMDL includes WLAs for stormwater sources that provide numeric pollutant loads, the WLA should, where feasible, be translated into effective, measurable WQBELs that will achieve this objective. This could take the form of a numeric limit, or of a measurable, objective BMPbased limit that is projected to achieve the WLA….The permitting authority’s decision as to how to express the WQBEL(s), either as numeric effluent limitations or as BMPs, with clear, specific, and measurable elements, should be based on an analysis of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the permit, and/or the underlying WLA, including the nature of the stormwater discharge, available data, modeling results, and other relevant information.170
Where a BMP-based approach to permit limitations is selected, the 2014 U.S. EPA Memorandum noted that the permit’s administrative record needs to provide an adequate demonstration that implementation of the BMPs required in the permit will attain water quality standards and be consistent with the WLAs.171 As stated in Part II.F of this Fact Sheet, the three previous Orders included WQBELs consistent with the assumptions and requirements of available TMDL WLAs assigned to the Permittees’ MS4 discharges.

Except for wasteload allocations associated with certain TMDLs established by U.S. EPA (discussed below), the Los Angeles Water Board has expressed WQBELs in the Order as numeric effluent limitations as the default standard, but alternatively allows permittees the option to demonstrate compliance narratively.

Permittees may comply with the numeric WQBELs either by demonstrating compliance with the numeric WQBELs through monitoring or by implementing BMPs in approved Watershed Management Programs. Therefore, in essence, the Permit includes both numeric and narrative WQBELs. The Order contains both approaches to protect water quality and provide compliance flexibility for Permittees, while also following U.S. EPA guidance. Compliance with numeric WQBELs through monitoring and analysis of water samples collected from select representative MS4 discharge points is the default compliance standard.

Alternatively, Permittees may develop and implement an approved Watershed Management Program whereby they propose and implement certain approved BMPs that computer modeling demonstrates will meet the applicable numeric WQBELs by specified timeframes.

In determining how to express the WQBELs, the Los Angeles Water Board has analyzed the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the Order and the underlying TMDL WLAs, including the nature of MS4 discharges in the Los Angeles Region, available data, modeling results, and other relevant information. In doing so, the Los Angeles Water Board concludes that WQBELs expressed numerically 169 Id., p. 2.
170 2014 U.S. EPA Memorandum, p. 6.
171 Ibid.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-152
are appropriate and necessary in the Order to achieve the WLAs. MS4 discharges constitute a continuing and significant source of pollutants resulting in exceedances of water quality standards in the Los Angeles Region, as evidenced by the number of TMDLs established for impaired waters in the region and identification of MS4 discharges as a source of that impairment. To date, sole reliance on BMP-based requirements have been insufficient to resolve these exceedances. As such, the Los Angeles Water Board finds that WQBELs expressed numerically are necessary to address the historic and persistent exceedances of water quality standards in the Los Angeles Region.

Further, the Los Angeles Water Board concludes that numeric WQBELs are feasible. In the last 20 years, the Los Angeles Water Board and U.S. EPA have established 45 TMDLs for waterbodies in the Los Angeles Region in which WLAs are assigned to Phase I MS4 discharges. A significant part of developing each TMDL entailed analyzing pollutant sources and allocating loads to those sources using empirical relationships, quantitative modeling, and other relevant information.

As noted by the State Water Board when reviewing the numeric WQBELs in the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, “In many ways, the Los Angeles MS4 Order was uniquely positioned to incorporate numeric WQBELs because of the extensive TMDL development in the region in the past decade and the documented role of MS4 discharges in contributing to the impairments addressed by those TMDLs.”172 Following the extensive work already conducted to develop the TMDLs, the Los Angeles Water Board continues to conclude that it is feasible to develop numeric WQBELs for MS4 discharges, and that the numeric WQBELs are consistent with the TMDL wasteload allocations. There is ample evidence that BMPs and other control measures can be designed proactively (through modeling) to divert, capture, and/or treat MS4 discharges such that it is possible for any such discharges to ultimately meet the numeric WQBELs according to established compliance schedules. The 7 WMPs and 12 EWMPs developed under the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and, in particular, the Reasonable Assurance Analysis done in these WMPs/EWMPs demonstrate this. Further, given the variability in implementation of stormwater management programs across Permittees, numeric WQBELs create a measurable, objective, and accountable means of controlling MS4 discharges, while providing significant flexibility for Permittees to comply with the numeric WQBELs in any lawful manner, including by working with other Permittees as well as other government agencies and entities to implement cost-effective control measures.

While the Los Angeles Water Board finds that inclusion of numeric WQBELs in the Order is appropriate and necessary to achieve compliance with the TMDLs WLAs as required by federal law, at the same time, the Los Angeles Water Board also finds it appropriate to allow permittees to, alternatively and voluntarily, comply with the numeric WQBELs by implementing approved Watershed Management Programs comprised of a suite of BMP-based control measures. Watershed Management Programs must be accompanied by demonstrations, via computer modeling, that the BMPs will meet the numeric WQBELs. This alternative BMPbased option satisfies U.S. EPA’s guidance that MS4 permits include “effective, measurable WQBELs…that is projected to achieve the WLA.”173 172 Order WQ 2015-0075, p. 59.
173 2014 U.S. EPA Memorandum, p. 6.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-153

3. Interim and Final WQBELs
Final WQBELs are included in the Order based on the final WLAs assigned to MS4 discharges in all available TMDLs established for waterbodies in the Los Angeles Region.

MS4 permits can include compliance schedules for achieving final WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs, so long as the compliance schedule is consistent with the program of implementation for the TMDL established by the Los Angeles Water Board and approved through the State’s basin plan amendment process (see Water Code §§ 13242, 13263, 13377). If a compliance schedule in an NPDES permit exceeds one year, it must include interim requirements and the dates for their achievement pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.47. As discussed later in this Fact Sheet, the Los Angeles Water Board is providing compliance schedules longer than one year for various pollutants consistent with TMDL programs of implementation. Where there is a program of implementation for a TMDL adopted by the Los Angeles Water Board and approved through the State’s basin plan amendment process, interim WQBELs are included in the Order based on interim WLAs established for MS4 discharges.

VI. RATIONALE FOR TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PROVISIONS
Pursuant to CWA section 402(p)(B)(3)(iii) and 40 CFR section 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), the Order includes requirements, including WQBELs, that are consistent with and implement WLAs that are assigned to discharges from the Permittees’ MS4s from 45 State-adopted and U.S.

EPA-established TMDLs. Permittees are required to comply with the TMDL Provisions in Part IV.B and Attachments K through S of the Order, including WQBELs and receiving water limitations which are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL WLAs assigned to discharges from the Permittees’ MS4s. A comprehensive list of TMDLs by WMA and the Permittees subject to each TMDL is included in Attachment J of the Order.

A. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and Relationship to TMDLs Clean Water Act section 303(d)(1)(A) requires each State to conduct a biennial assessment of its waters and identify those waters that are not achieving water quality standards. These waters are identified as impaired on the State’s Clean Water Act section “303(d) List” of water quality limited segments. Periodically, U.S. EPA approves the State’s 303(d) List. Most recently, U.S. EPA approved the State’s 2014 and 2016 303(d) List of impaired water bodies on April 6, 2018, which includes certain receiving waters in the Los Angeles Region. Numerous water bodies within Los Angeles and Ventura counties do not meet water quality standards or fully support beneficial uses and therefore have been included on the State’s 303(d) List. For each 303(d) listed water body, the state or U.S. EPA is required to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), or implement alternative approaches as defined in U.S. EPA’s Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program, for each pollutant impairing the water quality in that water body.174 B. TMDLs and Their Implementation Through NPDES Permits A TMDL is a tool for facilitating attainment of water quality standards and is based on the relationship between pollution sources and in-stream water quality conditions, 174 Alternative approaches to TMDLs include placement of a waterbody-pollutant combination in Category 4B of the 303(d) List or adoption of a Watershed Plan for nonpoint sources of pollution. Currently there are no alternative approaches adopted for the Los Angeles Region that apply to Phase I MS4 discharges.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-154
thereby providing the basis to establish water quality-based controls. A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards and allocates the acceptable pollutant load to point and nonpoint sources. The elements of a TMDL are described in 40 CFR sections 130.2 and 130.7.

A TMDL is defined as “the sum of the individual waste load allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background.” (40 CFR § 130.2(i).) MS4 discharges are considered point source discharges.

Regulations further require that TMDLs must be set at “levels necessary to attain and maintain the applicable narrative and numeric water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality.” (40 CFR section 130.7(c)(1).) 40 CFR section 130.7 also states that TMDLs shall take into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading and water quality parameters. These controls should provide the pollution reduction necessary for a water body to attain water quality standards. Essentially, TMDLs serve as a backstop provision of the Clean Water Act designed to ensure attainment of water quality standards when other provisions, such as technology-based effluent limitations, have failed to achieve water quality standards.

Upon establishment of TMDLs by the State or the U.S. EPA, the State is required to incorporate, or reference, the TMDLs in the State Water Quality Management Plan. (40 CFR sections 130.6(c)(1) and 130.7.) The Los Angeles Water Board’s Basin Plan, and applicable statewide water quality control plans, serves as the State Water Quality Management Plan governing the watersheds under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Water Board. When adopting TMDLs as part of its Basin Plan, the Los Angeles Water Board includes, as part of the TMDL, a program for implementation of the WLAs for point sources and load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources.

TMDLs are not self-executing, but instead rely upon further Board orders to impose pollutant restrictions on discharges to achieve the TMDL’s WLAs. Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the Clean Water Act requires the Los Angeles Water Board to impose permit conditions, including: “management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Administrator of the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” (emphasis added.) Section 402(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act also requires states to issue permits with conditions necessary to carry out the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Federal regulations also require that NPDES permits include water quality-based effluent limitations consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available waste load allocation for the discharge. (40 CFR section 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).) U.S. EPA has consistently stated that this regulation applies to all permitted stormwater discharges, including MS4 permits.175 Similarly, state law requires that the Los Angeles Water Board implement its Basin Plan when adopting waste discharge requirements (WDRs) and that NPDES permits apply “any more stringent effluent standards or limitations necessary to implement water quality control plans…” (Cal. Wat. Code, §§ 13263, 13377). In precedential State Water Board Order WQ 99-05, the State Water Board exercised its discretion under federal law by requiring MS4s to comply with water quality standards. In precedential Order WQ 2015-0075, the State Water Board reaffirmed that it would continue to require water quality standards compliance in MS4 permits. These 175 U.S. EPA Memorandum, “Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum ‘Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those TMDLs,’” p. 6 (Nov. 26, 2014).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-155
precedential orders are relevant as a TMDL, by its very nature, sets forth a plan for an impaired water body to achieve water quality standards.

An NPDES permit should include clear, specific, and measurable permit requirements, and where feasible, incorporate TMDL WLAs as numeric WQBELs.176 Where a nonnumeric permit limitation is selected, such as BMPs, the permit’s fact sheet and administrative record must support the expectation that the BMPs are sufficient to achieve the WLAs.177 (40 CFR § 124.8.) U.S. EPA has published guidance for establishing WLAs for stormwater discharges in TMDLs and their incorporation as numeric WQBELs, where feasible, in MS4 permits.178
C. TMDL Provisions
As required, WQBELs and receiving water limitations included in the Order and Attachments K through S are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the available WLAs assigned to MS4 discharges in the Los Angeles Region, which have been established in forty-five (45) TMDLs. The Los Angeles Water Board established thirty-five (35) TMDLs and U.S. EPA established ten (10) TMDLs that assign WLAs to MS4 Permittees within the counties of Los Angeles and Ventura. These TMDLs identify MS4 discharges as a source of pollutants to these water bodies and, as required, establish WLAs for MS4 discharges to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to receiving waters. While the TMDLs established by the Los Angeles Water Board include a program of implementation, including actions to be taken and a time schedule for such actions, TMDLs established by U.S. EPA do not. To date, the Los Angeles Water Board adopted three programs of implementation pursuant to Water Code sections 13240 and 13242 for four (4) U.S. EPA-established TMDLs. The TMDLs and programs of implementation included in the Regional MS4 Permit, along with establishment, approval, and effective dates, are listed in Table F-24 below.

The 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit incorporated WQBELs and other permit requirements for thirteen (13) TMDLs. The Regional MS4 Permit continues to include WQBELs for all these TMDLs. The Regional MS4 Permit also continues to include other permit requirements for these TMDLs, except for the Calleguas Creek Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects TMDL (Calleguas Creek Nitrogen TMDL). The Calleguas Creek Nitrogen TMDL identifies stormwater discharges as a minor source of nitrogen to Calleguas Creek; therefore, the TMDL did not assign WLAs to MS4 dischargers. The 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit thus did not include WQBELs for this TMDL and the Regional MS4 Permit continues to not include WQBELs for this TMDL. However, monitoring requirements for the Calleguas Creek Nitrogen TMDL were included in the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit. The monitoring data from 2009 to 2017 had an exceedance rate of less than 1% of Nitrate as Nitrogen plus Nitrite as Nitrogen (1 exceedance out of 108 samples) at the monitored outfalls. Therefore, the Regional MS4 Permit does not include monitoring requirements for the Calleguas Creek Nitrogen TMDL.

The 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit included WQBELs, receiving water limitations, and other permit requirements for thirty-three (33) TMDLs. The Regional MS4 Permit continues to include WQBELs, receiving water limitations, and other permit 176 Id., p. 3.
177 Id., p. 6.
178 U.S. EPA Memorandum, “Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum ‘Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those TMDLs’,” Nov. 26, 2014.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-156
requirements for all these TMDLs, except for the Bacterial Indicator TMDLs for Middle Santa Ana River Watershed (Middle Santa Ana River Bacteria TMDL). On August 26, 2005, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) established the Middle Santa Ana River Bacteria TMDL, which assigned WLAs to the cities of Claremont and Pomona. The cities of Claremont and Pomona are located within the Los Angeles Water Board’s jurisdictional boundaries, but portions of their MS4 discharges drain to the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed. The 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit contained WQBELs, receiving water limitations, and other permit requirements for the cities of Claremont and Pomona consistent with the Middle Santa Ana River Bacteria TMDL, but provided that the WQBELs, receiving water limitations, and other permit requirements would not be applicable during the effective dates of any NPDES permit that is issued by the Santa Ana Water Board. Pursuant to a valid and enforceable designation agreement between the Los Angeles Water Board and the Santa Ana Water Board under Water Code section 13228, dated May 31, 2013, the Santa Ana Water Board was designated as the regulator of discharges of bacteria from the cities of Claremont and Pomona through their MS4 to receiving waters within the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed. Therefore, the Regional MS4 Permit does not include WQBELs and other permit requirements implementing the Middle Santa Ana River Bacteria TMDL.

The 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit included WQBELs and other permit requirements for nine (9) TMDLs, all of which continue to be included in the Regional MS4 Permit.

In addition, there are new TMDLs that the Los Angeles Water Board established, or U.S. EPA established, after the previous MS4 permits were issued. Table F-24 and Table F-25 below list all the TMDLs that are in the Order. Table F-25 indicates which TMDLs were in previous MS4 permits and which TMDLs are new to the Regional MS4 Permit.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-157
Table F-24. Incorporated TMDLs and Programs of Implementation Total Maximum Daily
Load
Resolution
Number
Adoption
Date
State Water
Board
Resolution
Number
State Water
Board
Approval
Date
OAL
Approval
Date
U.S. EPA
Approval
Date
Effective
Date

VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED
Ventura River Estuary
Trash TMDL
R4-2007-
008 6/7/2007 2007-0072 12/4/2007 2/11/2008 2/27/2008 3/6/2008 Ventura River Estuary
Trash TMDL (Revised) R19-005 6/13/2019 2020-0002 1/21/2020 --- --- --- TMDL for Algae, Eutrophic
Conditions, and Nutrients in
the Ventura River and its
Tributaries
R12-011 12/6/2012 2013-0005 2/19/2013 6/4/2013 6/28/2013 6/28/2013

MISCELLANEOUS VENTURA COASTAL WMA
Harbor Beaches of Ventura
County Bacteria TMDL R2007-017 11/1/2007 2008-0072 10/7/2008 12/9/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008

SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED
Santa Clara River Nitrogen
Compounds TMDL 03-011 8/7/2003 2003-0073 11/19/2003 2/27/2004 3/18/2004 3/23/2004 Santa Clara River Estuary
and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7
Indicator Bacteria TMDL
R10-006 7/8/2010 2011-0048 10/4/2011 12/19/2011 1/13/2012 3/21/2012 TMDL for Chloride in the
Santa Clara River, Reach 3
(U.S. EPA established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6/18/2003 6/18/2003
Upper Santa Clara River
Chloride TMDL R14-010 10/9/2014 2014-0069 12/16/2014 3/18/2015 4/28/2015 4/28/2015 Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake,
and Lake Hughes Trash
TMDL (Lake Elizabeth only)
R4-2007-
009 6/7/2007 2007-0073 12/4/2007 2/8/2008 2/27/2008 3/6/2008 Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake,
and Lake Hughes Trash
TMDL (Lake Elizabeth only)
(Revised)
R19-005 6/13/2019 2020-0002 1/21/2020 --- --- ---
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-158
Total Maximum Daily
Load
Resolution
Number
Adoption
Date
State Water
Board
Resolution
Number
State Water
Board
Approval
Date
OAL
Approval
Date
U.S. EPA
Approval
Date
Effective
Date
Santa Clara River Lakes
Nutrients TMDL (Lake
Elizabeth only)
R16-006 9/8/2016 2017-0011 3/7/2017 6/22/2017 6/27/2017 6/27/2017

CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED
TMDL for Organochlorine
(OC) Pesticides,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs), and Siltation in
Calleguas Creek, Its
Tributaries, and Mugu
Lagoon
R4-2005-
010 7/7/2005 2005-0068 9/22/2005 1/20/2006 3/14/2006 3/24/2006 TMDL for Toxicity,
Chlorpyrifos, and Diazinon
in the Calleguas Creek, its
Tributaries, and Mugu
Lagoon
R4-2005-
009 7/7/2005 2005-0067 9/22/2005 12/27/2005 3/14/2006 3/24/2006 TMDL for Metals and
Selenium in Calleguas
Creek, its Tributaries, and
Mugu Lagoon
R16-007 10/13/2016 2017-0007 2/22/2017 5/18/2017 6/9/2017 6/23/2017 Revolon Slough and
Beardsley Wash Trash
TMDL
R18-005 6/14/2018 2019-0018 5/21/2019 4/2/2020 5/6/2020 5/6/2020 TMDL for Boron, Chloride,
Sulfate, and TDS (Salts) in
the Calleguas Creek
Watershed
R4-2007-
016 10/4/2007 2008-0033 5/20/2008 11/6/2008 12/2/2008 12/2/2008 TMDLs for Pesticides,
PCBs, and Sediment
Toxicity in Oxnard Drain 3
(U.S. EPA established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10/6/2011 10/6/2011
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-159
Total Maximum Daily
Load
Resolution
Number
Adoption
Date
State Water
Board
Resolution
Number
State Water
Board
Approval
Date
OAL
Approval
Date
U.S. EPA
Approval
Date
Effective
Date

SANTA MONICA BAY WMA
Santa Monica Bay Beaches
Bacteria TMDL R12-007 6/7/2012 2013-0008 3/19/2013 11/7/2013 7/2/2014 7/2/2014 Santa Monica Bay Beaches
Bacteria TMDL (Revised) R21-001 3/11/2021 --- --- --- --- --- Santa Monica Bay
Nearshore and Offshore
Debris TMDL
R10-010 11/4/2010 2011-0064 12/6/2011 3/15/2012 3/20/2012 3/20/2012 Santa Monica Bay
Nearshore and Offshore
Debris TMDL (Revised)
R19-004 3/14/2019 2020-0001 1/21/2020 --- --- ---
Santa Monica Bay TMDL
for DDTs and PCBs (U.S.

EPA established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/26/2012 3/26/2012

MALIBU CREEK SUBWATERSHED
Malibu Creek and Lagoon
Bacteria TMDL R12-009 6/7/2012 2013-0008 3/19/2013 11/8/2013 7/2/2014 7/2/2014 Malibu Creek and Lagoon
Bacteria TMDL (Revised) R21-001 3/11/2021 --- --- --- --- --- Malibu Creek Watershed
Trash TMDL R18-006 6/14/2018 2019-0017 5/21/2019 4/2/2020 5/6/2020 5/6/2020 TMDLs for Nutrients -
Malibu Creek Watershed
(U.S. EPA established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/21/2003 3/21/2003
Malibu Creek & Lagoon
TMDL for Sedimentation
and Nutrients to Address
Benthic Community
Impairments (U.S. EPA
established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7/2/2013 7/2/2013
Program of Implementation
for the U.S. EPA- R16-009 12/8/2016 2017-0008 2/22/2017 5/16/2017 N/A 5/16/2017 MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-160
Total Maximum Daily
Load
Resolution
Number
Adoption
Date
State Water
Board
Resolution
Number
State Water
Board
Approval
Date
OAL
Approval
Date
U.S. EPA
Approval
Date
Effective
Date
Established Malibu Creek
Nutrients TMDL and the
U.S. EPA-Established
Malibu Creek and Lagoon
Sedimentation and
Nutrients TMDL to Address
Benthic Community
Impairments
Program of Implementation
for the U.S. EPAEstablished Malibu Creek
Nutrients TMDL and the
U.S. EPA-Established
Malibu Creek and Lagoon
Sedimentation and
Nutrients TMDL to Address
Benthic Community
Impairments (Revised)
R21-001 3/11/2021 --- --- --- --- ---

BALLONA CREEK SUBWATERSHED
Ballona Creek Trash TMDL R15-006 6/11/2015 2015-0068 11/17/2015 5/4/2016 6/30/2016 6/30/2016 Ballona Creek Estuary
Toxic Pollutants TMDL R13-010 12/5/2013 2014-0030 6/17/2014 5/4/2015 10/26/2015 10/26/2015 Ballona Creek Estuary
Toxic Pollutants TMDL
(Revised)
R21-001 3/11/2021 --- --- --- --- ---
Ballona Creek, Ballona
Estuary and Sepulveda
Channel Bacteria TMDL
R12-008 6/7/2012 2013-0008 3/19/2013 11/8/2013 7/2/2014 7/2/2014 Ballona Creek, Ballona
Estuary and Sepulveda
Channel Bacteria TMDL
(Revised)
R21-001 3/11/2021 --- --- --- --- ---
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-161
Total Maximum Daily
Load
Resolution
Number
Adoption
Date
State Water
Board
Resolution
Number
State Water
Board
Approval
Date
OAL
Approval
Date
U.S. EPA
Approval
Date
Effective
Date
Ballona Creek Metals
TMDL R13-010 12/5/2013 2014-0030 6/17/2014 5/4/2015 10/26/2015 10/26/2015 Ballona Creek Metals
TMDL (Revised) R21-001 3/11/2021 --- --- --- --- ---
Ballona Creek Wetlands
TMDL for Sediments and
Invasive Exotic Vegetation
(U.S. EPA established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/26/2012 3/26/2012

MARINA DEL REY SUBWATERSHED
Marina del Rey Harbor
Mothers’ Beach and Back
Basins Bacteria TMDL
R12-007 6/7/2012 2013-0008 3/19/2013 11/7/2013 7/2/2014 7/2/2014 Marina del Rey Harbor
Mothers’ Beach and Back
Basins Bacteria TMDL
(Revised)
R21-001 3/11/2021 --- --- --- --- ---
Marina del Rey Harbor
Toxic Pollutants TMDL R14-004 2/6/2014 2014-0049 9/9/2014 5/4/2015 10/16/2015 10/16/2015 Marina del Rey Harbor
Toxic Pollutants TMDL
(Revised)
R21-001 3/11/2021 --- --- --- --- ---

DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL AND GREATER HARBORS WATERS WATERSHED
Los Angeles Harbor
Bacteria TMDL (Inner
Cabrillo Beach and Main
Ship Channel)
R12-007 6/7/2012 2013-0008 3/19/2013 11/7/2013 7/2/2014 7/2/2014 Dominguez Channel and
Greater Los Angeles and
Long Beach Harbor Waters
Toxic Pollutants TMDL
R11-008 5/5/2011 2012-0008 2/7/2012 3/21/2012 3/23/2012 3/23/2012

MACHADO LAKE SUBWATERSHED
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-162
Total Maximum Daily
Load
Resolution
Number
Adoption
Date
State Water
Board
Resolution
Number
State Water
Board
Approval
Date
OAL
Approval
Date
U.S. EPA
Approval
Date
Effective
Date
Machado Lake Trash TMDL R4-2007-
006 6/7/2007 2007-0075 12/4/2007 2/8/2008 2/27/2008 3/6/2008 Machado Lake Trash TMDL
(Revised) R19-004 3/14/2019 2020-0001 1/21/2020 --- --- --- Machado Lake Eutrophic,
Algae, Ammonia, and
Odors (Nutrient) TMDL
R08-006 5/1/2008 2008-0089 12/2/2008 2/19/2009 3/11/2009 3/11/2009 Machado Lake Pesticides
and PCBs TMDL R10-008 9/2/2010 2011-0065 12/6/2011 2/29/2012 3/20/2012 3/20/2012

LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED
Los Angeles River
Watershed Trash TMDL R15-006 6/11/2015 2015-0068 11/17/2015 5/4/2016 6/30/2016 6/30/2016 Los Angeles River Nitrogen
Compounds and Related
Effects TMDL
R12-010 12/6/2012 2013-0016 6/4/2013 6/9/2014 8/7/2014 8/7/2014 Los Angeles River and
Tributaries Metals TMDL R15-004 4/9/2015 2015-0069 11/17/2015 7/11/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 Los Angeles River
Watershed Bacteria TMDL R10-007 7/9/2010 2011-0056 11/1/2011 3/21/2012 3/23/2012 3/23/2012 Long Beach City Beaches
and Los Angeles River
Estuary Bacteria TMDL
(U.S. EPA established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/26/2012 3/26/2012
Legg Lake Trash TMDL R4-2007-
010 6/7/2007 2007-0074 12/4/2007 2/5/2008 2/27/2008 3/6/2008 Legg Lake Trash TMDL
(Revised) R19-005 6/13/2019 2020-0002 1/21/2020 --- --- --- MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-163
Total Maximum Daily
Load
Resolution
Number
Adoption
Date
State Water
Board
Resolution
Number
State Water
Board
Approval
Date
OAL
Approval
Date
U.S. EPA
Approval
Date
Effective
Date
Los Angeles Area Lakes
TMDLs (U.S. EPA
established for Legg Lake,
Lake Calabasas, Echo Park
Lake, and Peck Road Park
Lake)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/26/2012 3/26/2012

SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED
San Gabriel River and
Impaired Tributaries Metals
and Selenium TMDL (U.S.

EPA established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/26/2007 3/26/2007
Program of Implementation
for the TMDLs for Metals
and Selenium in the San
Gabriel River and Impaired
Tributaries
R13-004 6/6/2013 2014-0012 3/4/2014 10/13/2014 5/11/2017 10/13/2014 San Gabriel River, Estuary
and Tributaries Indicator
Bacteria TMDL
R15-005 6/10/2015 2015-0067 11/17/2015 4/14/2016 6/14/2016 6/14/2016 Los Angeles Area Lakes
TMDLs (U.S. EPA
established for
Puddingstone Reservoir)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/26/2012 3/26/2012

LOS CERRITOS CHANNEL AND ALAMITOS BAY WATERSHED
Los Cerritos Channel
Metals TMDL (U.S. EPA
established)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/17/2010 3/17/2010
Program of Implementation
for the TMDLs for Metals in
Los Cerritos Channel
R13-004 6/6/2013 2014-0012 3/4/2014 10/13/2014 5/11/2017 10/13/2014 Colorado Lagoon OC
Pesticides, PCBs, R09-005 10/1/2009 2010-0056 11/16/2010 5/6/2011 6/14/2011 7/28/2011 MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-164
Total Maximum Daily
Load
Resolution
Number
Adoption
Date
State Water
Board
Resolution
Number
State Water
Board
Approval
Date
OAL
Approval
Date
U.S. EPA
Approval
Date
Effective
Date
Sediment Toxicity, PAHs
and Metals TMDL
Table F-25. Status of TMDLs in the Regional MS4 Permit and Previous MS4 Permits

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
NEW TO
REGIONAL MS4
PERMIT
2012 LA
COUNTY
MS4
PERMIT
2014 CITY

OF LONG
BEACH
MS4
PERMIT
2010

VENTURA
COUNTY MS4
PERMIT

VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED
Ventura River Estuary Trash TMDL X
Total Maximum Daily Load for Algae, Eutrophic Conditions, and Nutrients in the Ventura River and its Tributaries X

MISCELLANEOUS VENTURA COASTAL WMA
Harbor Beaches of Ventura County Bacteria TMDL X

SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED
Santa Clara River Nitrogen Compounds TMDL X X
Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7
Indicator Bacteria TMDL X
TMDL for Chloride in the Santa Clara River, Reach 3 (U.S.

EPA established) X
Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL X X
Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDL
(Lake Elizabeth only) X
Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrients TMDL (Lake Elizabeth
only) X

CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED
TMDL for Organochlorine (OC) Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and Siltation in Calleguas Creek, Its Tributaries, and Mugu Lagoon
X
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-165

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
NEW TO
REGIONAL MS4
PERMIT
2012 LA
COUNTY
MS4
PERMIT
2014 CITY

OF LONG
BEACH
MS4
PERMIT
2010

VENTURA
COUNTY MS4
PERMIT
TMDL for Toxicity, Chlorpyrifos, and Diazinon in the
Calleguas Creek, its Tributaries, and Mugu Lagoon X
TMDL for Metals and Selenium in Calleguas Creek, its
Tributaries, and Mugu Lagoon X
Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash Trash TMDL X
TMDL for Boron, Chloride, Sulfate, and TDS (Salts) in the Calleguas Creek Watershed X
TMDLs for Pesticides, PCBs, and Sediment Toxicity in
Oxnard Drain 3 (U.S. EPA established) X

SANTA MONICA BAY WMA
Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL X
Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL X
Santa Monica Bay TMDL for DDTs and PCBs (U.S. EPA
established) X

MALIBU CREEK SUBWATERSHED
Malibu Creek and Lagoon Bacteria TMDL X X
Malibu Creek Watershed Trash TMDL X
TMDLs for Nutrients - Malibu Creek Watershed (U.S. EPA
established) X X
Malibu Creek & Lagoon TMDL for Sedimentation and
Nutrients to Address Benthic Community Impairments (U.S.

EPA established)
X

BALLONA CREEK SUBWATERSHED
Ballona Creek Trash TMDL X
Ballona Creek Estuary Toxic Pollutants TMDL X
Ballona Creek, Ballona Estuary and Sepulveda Channel
Bacteria TMDL X
Ballona Creek Metals TMDL X
Ballona Creek Wetlands TMDL for Sediments and Invasive
Exotic Vegetation (U.S. EPA established) X

MARINA DEL REY SUBWATERSHED
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-166

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
NEW TO
REGIONAL MS4
PERMIT
2012 LA
COUNTY
MS4
PERMIT
2014 CITY

OF LONG
BEACH
MS4
PERMIT
2010

VENTURA
COUNTY MS4
PERMIT
Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins
Bacteria TMDL X
Marina del Rey Harbor Toxic Pollutants TMDL X

DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL AND GREATER HARBORS WATERS WATERSHED
Los Angeles Harbor Bacteria TMDL (Inner Cabrillo Beach
and Main Ship Channel) X
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long
Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL X X

MACHADO LAKE SUBWATERSHED
Machado Lake Trash TMDL X
Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors
(Nutrient) TMDL X
Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL X

LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED
Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL X X
Los Angeles River Nitrogen Compounds and Related
Effects TMDL X X
Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL X X
Los Angeles River Watershed Bacteria TMDL X X
Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary
Bacteria TMDL (U.S. EPA established) X X
Legg Lake Trash TMDL X
Los Angeles Area Lakes TMDLs (U.S. EPA established for
Legg Lake, Lake Calabasas, Echo Park Lake, and Peck
Road Park Lake)
X

SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED
San Gabriel River and Impaired Tributaries Metals and
Selenium TMDL (U.S. EPA established) X X
San Gabriel River, Estuary and Tributaries Indicator
Bacteria TMDL X
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-167

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
NEW TO
REGIONAL MS4
PERMIT
2012 LA
COUNTY
MS4
PERMIT
2014 CITY

OF LONG
BEACH
MS4
PERMIT
2010

VENTURA
COUNTY MS4
PERMIT
Los Angeles Area Lakes TMDLs (U.S. EPA established for
Puddingstone Reservoir) X

LOS CERRITOS CHANNEL AND ALAMITOS BAY WATERSHED
Los Cerritos Channel Metals TMDL (U.S. EPA established) X X Colorado Lagoon OC Pesticides, PCBs, Sediment Toxicity, PAHs and Metals TMDL X X
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-168
D. Manner of TMDL Incorporation
The TMDLs incorporated into the Order express WLAs in different ways. In general, a WLA is a pollutant threshold that must be achieved in order to ensure that water quality standards are attained in the receiving water. The WLA may be expressed in terms of mass or concentration of a pollutant. However, in some cases, a WLA may be expressed as a receiving water condition such as an allowable number of exceedance days of the bacteria water quality objectives.

In the Order, TMDL WLAs have been translated into WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations that are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL WLAs. The assumptions and requirements include, but are not limited to, numeric values and averaging periods. For those TMDLs that do not specify averaging periods for the WLAs, the averaging period for the WQBELs and/or receiving water limitations in the Order are based on the averaging period for the TMDL numeric targets. For each TMDL pollutant category, to the extent possible, the WLAs have been incorporated into the Order in a consistent manner. Some TMDLs specify alternative means of demonstrating compliance with WLAs; these alternative means of demonstrating compliance are included in the TMDL provisions in Part IV.B and Attachments K through S of the Order. The manner of incorporation for each TMDL pollutant category is discussed below in more detail.

A number of the TMDLs for various categories of pollutants such as bacteria, metals, and toxics establish WLAs that are assigned jointly to a group of Permittees whose stormwater and/or non-stormwater discharges are or may be commingled in the MS4 prior to discharge to the receiving water subject to the TMDL. TMDLs address commingled MS4 discharges by assigning a WLA to a group of MS4 Permittees based on co-location within the same subwatershed.

The applicability of TMDLs to Permittees as specified in Attachment J of the Order is consistent with the previous MS4 permits and the TMDLs. Where a TMDL assigns WLAs to categories of certain types of discharges or dischargers (e.g., MS4 permittees), but does not specifically name the “responsible Permittees”, current GIS data, drainage area boundaries, and other relevant information have been used to determine the applicability of a categorical WLA to individual Permittees.

1. Expression of Bacteria TMDLs as Permit Limitations
Ten bacteria TMDLs are incorporated into the Regional MS4 Permit as listed below:
ƒ Harbor Beaches of Ventura County Bacteria TMDL (Attachment L) ƒ Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 Indicator Bacteria TMDL (Attachment M)
ƒ Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL (Attachment O) ƒ Malibu Creek and Lagoon Bacteria TMDL (Attachment O)
ƒ Ballona Creek, Ballona Estuary and Sepulveda Channel Bacteria TMDL (Attachment O)
ƒ Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins Bacteria TMDL (Attachment O)
ƒ Los Angeles Harbor Bacteria TMDL (Attachment P)
ƒ Los Angeles River Watershed Bacteria TMDL (Attachment Q) MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-169
ƒ Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary Indicator Bacteria TMDL – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment Q)
ƒ San Gabriel River, Estuary and Tributaries Indicator Bacteria TMDL (Attachment R)
In general, the bacteria TMDLs express the WLAs as an allowable number of exceedance days of the bacteria water quality objectives within the water body; therefore, the WLAs are translated into receiving water limitations. In addition to the receiving water limitations, WQBELs for MS4 outfalls are established to allow the opportunity for Permittees to individually demonstrate compliance at an outfall or jurisdictional boundary, thus isolating the Permittee’s pollutant contributions from those of other Permittees and from other pollutant sources to the receiving water.

The WQBELs are based on the bacteria water quality objectives in the Basin Plan at the time the TMDL was established.179 For the bacteria TMDLs that apply to marine and ocean waters,180 the WQBELs are based on the multi-part bacteriological water quality objectives for total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus. For the bacteria TMDLs for freshwater,181 the WQBELs are based on the bacteria water quality objectives for E. coli. No exceedances of the WQBELs are permitted unless expressly authorized by the TMDL (e.g., Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 Indicator Bacteria TMDL). The rationale for not allowing any exceedances of the WQBELs is that MS4 outfalls are monitored less frequently than the receiving waters, which are generally sampled at least weekly.

According to the equations used to express WLAs as allowable exceedance days in the bacteria TMDLs, as the frequency of monitoring decreases, the allowable number of exceedance days approaches zero, such that water quality objectives must be met for each monitoring event. Given the frequency at which outfalls are monitored, the allowable number of exceedance days for outfalls is zero and 179 In 2018, the State Water Board adopted statewide bacteria water quality objectives and implementation provisions to protect recreational users from the effects of pathogens in California water bodies (Bacteria Provisions). The Bacteria Provisions supersede numeric REC-1 water quality objectives for bacteria contained in a basin plan prior to the effective date of the Bacteria Provisions (February 4, 2019). The Los Angeles Water Board incorporated these Bacteria Provisions into the Basin Plan. The Bacteria Provisions did not change bacteria TMDLs established before February 4, 2019 and these TMDLs remain in effect. The Los Angeles Water Board may convene a public meeting to evaluate the effectiveness of these TMDLs in attaining the Bacteria Provisions at a later date. 180 These include: Harbor Beaches of Ventura County Bacteria TMDL (Attachment L); Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 Indicator Bacteria TMDL (discharges to the Santa Clara River Estuary and Santa Clara River Reaches 1 and 2) (Attachment M); Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL (Attachment O); Malibu Creek and Lagoon Bacteria TMDL (discharges to the Lagoon) (Attachment O); Ballona Creek, Ballona Estuary and Sepulveda Channel Bacteria TMDL (discharges to the Estuary) (Attachment O); Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins Bacteria TMDL (Attachment O); Los Angeles Harbor Bacteria TMDL (Attachment P); Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary Indicator Bacteria TMDL – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment Q); and San Gabriel River, Estuary, and Tributaries Indicator Bacteria TMDL (discharges to the San Gabriel River Estuary) (Attachment R).
181 These include: Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 Indicator Bacteria TMDL (discharges to Santa Clara River Reaches 3 and above) (Attachment M); Malibu Creek and Lagoon Bacteria TMDL (Malibu Creek discharges) (Attachment O); Ballona Creek, Ballona Estuary and Sepulveda Channel Bacteria TMDL (Ballona Creek and Sepulveda Channel discharges) (Attachment O); Los Angeles River Watershed Bacteria TMDL (Attachment Q); and the San Gabriel River, Estuary and Tributaries Indicator Bacteria TMDL (discharges to the San Gabriel River and tributaries) (Attachment R).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-170
therefore no exceedances of the WQBELs are permitted unless otherwise specified.

The following TMDLs require additional discussion either because the manner of incorporation has changed from previous MS4 permits or information in the TMDL regarding the naming of responsible Permittees requires clarification.

Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL, Marina del Rey Harbor Mothers’ Beach and Back Basins Bacteria TMDL, Los Angeles Harbor Bacteria TMDL, and Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary Indicator Bacteria TMDL. A change that was made in the Order from the way these bacteria TMDLs were previously incorporated into the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit is the removal of open beach compliance locations. Since the Order regulates MS4 discharges, only sampling sites that are or could be impacted by an MS4 discharge are included as receiving water compliance locations. MS4 compliance locations are defined as sites that are within 400 yards of storm drain outfalls.182 Open beach sites are regulated under a different mechanism, such as the Nonpoint Source Program.

For the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL (SMB Bacteria TMDL) specifically, the removal of open beach compliance locations affects the calculation of the interim wet-weather single sample indicator bacteria receiving water limitations for each jurisdictional group. The SMB Bacteria TMDL’s interim wetweather milestones were based on a cumulative percentage reduction from the total wet-weather exceedance-day reductions required for each jurisdictional group. These reduction milestones were translated into the number of exceedance days to be reduced plus the number of annual allowable wet-weather exceedance days for each jurisdictional group. By July 15, 2018, the SMB Bacteria TMDL required each jurisdictional group to achieve a 50% cumulative percent reduction from the total wet-weather exceedance-day reductions required for each jurisdictional group as defined in Table 7-4.2b of the Basin Plan . Table 7-4.2b defines each jurisdictional group and the monitoring sites assigned to that group, which includes both open beach and MS4 compliance locations. The Order incorporates the SMB Bacteria TMDL interim wet-weather milestones as interim wet-weather receiving water limitations to be achieved by the effective date of the Order. For each jurisdictional group, the interim wet-weather receiving water limitations have been recalculated to remove open beach compliance locations. In addition, for MS4 compliance locations that are sampled weekly instead of daily, the interim wet-weather receiving water limitations have been scaled according to equation 8.2 in the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Wet-Weather Bacteria TMDL staff report dated November 7, 2002.

Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 Indicator Bacteria TMDL (SCR Bacteria TMDL). Unlike other bacteria TMDLs, the SCR Bacteria TMDL only provided values for allowable exceedance days when daily sampling is conducted and provided equations to calculate values for more or less frequent sampling.

Interim annual allowable exceedance days of the single sample water quality objective are calculated for daily, weekly, and less than weekly (3 wet and 2 dry weather) sampling frequencies according to the equation included in Table 7-36.3 of the Basin Plan. Final annual allowable exceedance days are calculated for daily 182 “An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay.” Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-171
and weekly sampling frequencies according to the equation included in Table 7-

36.2 of the Basin Plan.

The SCR Bacteria TMDL identifies wet weather as the critical condition. However, the TMDL did not define the wet-weather period. Therefore, the wet-weather period for the SCR Bacteria TMDL is determined based on the same approach as the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL (a day with 0.1 inch of rain or greater and the three days following the rain event).183
The Order identifies the City of Oxnard as one of the responsible Permittees for the SCR Bacteria TMDL even though the TMDL contains conflicting direction about the inclusion of the City of Oxnard. While the TMDL assigns WLAs to different general categories of pollutants184, the implementation section of the TMDL does not specifically name the City of Oxnard as one of the entities responsible for MS4 WLAs.185 However, the TMDL Staff Report does name the City of Oxnard as one of the entities responsible for MS4 WLAs186 and shows the City as discharging to Reach 1 and Reach 2, which drain to the Estuary, in Figure 2-1 of the TMDL Staff Report187. Therefore, including the City of Oxnard as a responsible Permittee for the SCR Bacteria TMDL is consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL.

The Order includes indicator bacteria WQBELs for MS4 dischargers that discharge to Reaches 3 or above based on allowable exceedance days for Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7. Ventura County Permittees have not been assigned indicator bacteria WQBELs for discharges to Reaches 4B, 5, 6, and 7 because there are no MS4 discharges from Ventura County MS4 Permittees to these reaches. For Reaches 6 and 7, the drainage area for MS4 discharges is completely within Los Angeles County. Reach 5 partially falls within Ventura County, but Ventura County Permittees do not have any MS4 discharges to the portion of Reach 5 that falls within Ventura County188. This is consistent with the TMDL Staff Report, which shows a map of the Santa Clara River Reach 5 subwatershed as draining mainly Los Angeles County.189 Therefore, the Order assigns indicator bacteria WQBELs for discharges to Reach 5 exclusively to Los Angeles County Permittees draining to Reach 5. For Reach 4B, although it is completely within Ventura County190, there are no MS4 discharges from Ventura County Permittees to Santa Clara River Reach 4B. The Order may be reopened to name Ventura County Permittees as responsible Permittees for Santa Clara River Reach 4B and 5 if there is future development of MS4 infrastructure and discharges to these reaches. 183 Los Angeles Water Board. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 [Staff Report]. July 8, 2010. p. 49. 184 Los Angeles Water Board. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

Chapter 7 p. 7-433.
185 Los Angeles Water Board. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

Chapter 7 p. 7-435
186 Los Angeles Water Board. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 [Staff Report]. July 8, 2010. pp. 52-53. 187 Los Angeles Water Board. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 [Staff Report]. July 8, 2010. p. 23. 188 Ventura County GIS data and MS4 drainage area maps (July 15, 2016) 189 Los Angeles Water Board. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in Santa Clara River Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 [Staff Report]. July 8, 2010. p. 15. 190 Ventura County GIS data and MS4 drainage area maps (July 15, 2016) MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-172

2. Expression of Metals TMDLs as Permit Limitations
Six metals TMDLs are incorporated into the Regional MS4 Permit as listed below:
ƒ Metals and Selenium in the Calleguas Creek, its Tributaries and Mugu Lagoon TMDL (Attachment N)
ƒ Ballona Creek Metals TMDL (Attachment O)
ƒ Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL (Attachment Q) ƒ TMDLs for Metals and Selenium - San Gabriel River and Impaired Tributaries – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment R)
ƒ Los Angeles Area Lakes TMDLs: Puddingstone Reservoir Mercury TMDL – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment R)
ƒ Los Cerritos Channel TMDLs for Metals – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment S)
The following TMDLs require additional discussion because the manner of incorporation has changed from previous MS4 permits.

Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL, Ballona Creek Metals TMDL, San Gabriel River and Impaired Tributaries Metals and Selenium TMDL, and Los Cerritos Channel Metals TMDL. These TMDLs assign mass-based WLAs to the Permittees during dry-weather and wet-weather conditions expressed as mass per day. For ease of implementation, these WLAs are incorporated into the Order as mass-based WQBELs as well as alternative concentration-based WQBELs.

Demonstrating compliance with concentration-based values rather than massbased values is more practical given the nature of monitoring requirements in the Order.

The TMDLs’ dry-weather numeric targets are used for the alternative concentration-based dry-weather WQBELs. This approach is consistent with the assumptions and requirements of these TMDLs. The Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL and Ballona Creek Metals TMDL both state that concentration-based permit limits equal to dry-weather reach-specific numeric targets may apply during dry weather.191 The San Gabriel River and Los Cerritos Channel TMDLs do not contain this explicit language, but as they follow the same calculation approach as the Los Angeles River and Ballona Creek TMDLs, the same approach for incorporation into permits may apply.

The wet-weather mass-based WLAs are expressed as equations. In the Order, the terms of these equations have been rearranged to express WQBELs as an “effective concentration” of a metal that when multiplied by the volume of flow in the river for the assessed day (i.e. the daily volume in liters) gives the calculated effluent limitation as a load.
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺݔሻ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧሺ ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݐ݅݉݅ܮݐ݁݊ݑ݂݂݈ܧ As an example, the grouped wet-weather effluent limitation for cadmium in the Los Angeles River is a load expressed as kg/day:
191 Los Angeles Water Board. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

Chapter 7 p. 7-132 (Ballona Creek Metals TMDL) and p. 7-156 (Los Angeles and Tributaries Metals TMDL).

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-173
ͳǤͺ െ ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺݔଽሻିͳͲݔǤͺʹሺݔܴܧܹ ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݐ݅݉݅ܮݐ݁݊ݑ݂݂݈ܧ Setting the two equations equal and rearranging the variables to solve for the “effective concentration,” the equation becomes:
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺݔሻ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧሺ
ൌ ܹܧܴݔሺʹǤͺݔͳͲିଽሻݔሺ݈݀ܽ݅ݕ݋ݒ݈ݑ݉݁ሻ െ ͳǤͺ
ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧ
ܹܧܴݔሺʹǤͺݔͳͲିଽሻݔሺ݈݀ܽ݅ݕ݋ݒ݈ݑ݉݁ሻ െ ͳǤͺ
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺ
ͳǤͺ െ ଽሻିͳͲݔǤͺʹሺݔܴܧܹ ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧ
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺ
This equation results in an effective concentration for cadmium expressed as kg/L; to convert to μg/L, apply the conversion factor 1 kg = 1 x 109 μg:
ͳǤͺ െ ଽሻିͳͲݔǤͺʹሺݔܴܧܹ൤ ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧ
ሺ݈݀ܽ݅ݕ݋ݒ݈ݑ݉݁ሻ൨ ቆ
ͳݔͳͲଽߤ݃
ͳ݇݃ ቇ
ቀ ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔʹǤͺ െ 
ͳǤͺݔͳͲଽ
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺ
The concentration WQBELs for the Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL based on this methodology are the following:
ቀ ݉ݑܽ݀݉݅ܥ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔʹǤͺ െ 
ͳǤͺݔͳͲଽ
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺ
ቀ ݎ݁݌݌݋ܥ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔͳͷ െ 
ͻǤͷݔͳͲଽ
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺ
ܮ݁ܽ݀ ቀ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔͺͷ െ 
͵ǤʹݔͳͲଵ଴
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺ
ܼ݅݊ܿ ቀ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔͳͶͲ െ 
ͺǤ͵ݔͳͲଵ଴
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺ
The Los Angeles River Metals TMDL defines wet weather as any day when the maximum daily flow instream is equal to or greater than 500 cfs at the Wardlow station. A flow of 500 cfs results in a daily volume of 1.22 x 109 L. Using this daily volume, a WER default value of 1 except for copper, which has a site-specific WER of 3.97, in these equations result in the following effective concentrations:
ܥܽ݀݉݅ݑ݉ǣͳݔʹǤͺ െ 
ͳǤͺݔͳͲଽ
ͳǤʹʹݔͳͲଽ ൌ ͳǤ͵ʹ ߤ݃
ܮ
݌݌݋ܥ݁ݎǣ͵Ǥͻ͹ݔͳͷ െ 
ͻǤͷݔͳͲଽ
ͳǤʹʹݔͳͲଽ ൌ ͷͳǤ͹͸ ߤ݃
ܮ
ܮ݁ܽ݀ǣͳݔͺͷ െ 
͵ǤʹݔͳͲଵ଴
ͳǤʹʹݔͳͲଽ ൌ ͷͺǤ͹͹ ߤ݃
ܮ
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-174
ܼ݅݊ܿǣͳݔͳͶͲ െ 
ͺǤ͵ݔͳͲଵ଴
ͳǤʹʹݔͳͲଽ ൌ ͹ͳǤͻ͹ ߤ݃
ܮ
The equations for the wet-weather mass-based WQBELs for the Ballona Creek Metals TMDL, San Gabriel River Metals TMDL, and Los Cerritos Channel Metals TMDL are simpler than for the Los Angeles River Metals TMDL because they do not account for the allocations for wastewater treatment plants. Thus, when the equations for the Ballona Creek Metals TMDL, San Gabriel River Metals TMDL, and Los Cerritos Channel Metals TMDL are rearranged, the effective concentration is a value. As an example, the grouped wet-weather effluent limitation for copper in Ballona Creek is a load expressed as grams per day:
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺݔହሻିͳͲݔ͹ͻʹሺͳǤݔܴܧܹ ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݐ݅݉݅ܮݐ݁݊ݑ݂݂݈ܧ As in the previous example, the effluent limitation is expressed as an “effective concentration”:
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺݔሻ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧሺ ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݐ݅݉݅ܮݐ݁݊ݑ݂݂݈ܧ Setting the two equations equal and rearranging the variables to solve for the “effective concentration” the equation becomes:
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺݔሻ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧሺ
ൌ ܹܧܴݔሺͳǤʹͻ͹ݔͳͲିହሻݔሺ݈݀ܽ݅ݕ݋ݒ݈ݑ݉݁ሻ
ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧ
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺݔହሻିͳͲݔ͹ͻʹሺͳǤݔܴܧܹ
ሻ݉݁ݑ݈݋ݒݕ݈݀ܽ݅ሺ
ହିͳͲݔ͹ͻʹͳǤݔܴܧܹ ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧ
This equation results in an effective concentration for copper expressed as g/L; to convert to μg/L, apply the conversion factor 1 g = 1 x 106 μg:
݃ߤ଺ͳͲݔହሻቆͳିͳͲݔ͹ͻʹͳǤݔܴܧܹሺ ൌ ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧ ͳ݃ ቇ
ቀ ݊݋݅ݐܽݎݐ݊ܿ݁݊݋ܥ݁ݒ݅ݐ݂݂݁ܿܧ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔͳʹǤͻ͹
The concentration WQBELs for the Ballona Creek Metals TMDL based on this methodology are the following:
ቀ ݎ݁݌݌݋ܥ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔͳʹǤͻ͹
ܮ݁ܽ݀ ቀ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔʹ͹Ǥ͸ͷ
ܼ݅݊ܿ ቀ
݃ߤ
ܮ ቁ ൌ ܹܧܴݔͻͻǤͳ͹
This methodology for determining effective concentrations to be used as the alternative wet-weather concentration-based WQBELs is consistent with the assumptions and requirements of these TMDLs because the equations are the same as the WLA equations assigned by the TMDLs; the terms have merely been rearranged for ease of compliance determination.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-175

3. Expression of Nutrient TMDLs as Permit Limitations
Twelve nutrient TMDLs are incorporated into the Regional MS4 Permit as listed below:
ƒ TMDL for Algae, Eutrophic Conditions, and Nutrients in the Ventura River and its Tributaries (Attachment K)
ƒ Santa Clara River Nitrogen Compounds TMDL (Attachment M) ƒ Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrients TMDL (Lake Elizabeth) (Attachment M) ƒ TMDLs for Nutrients - Malibu Creek Watershed – U.S. EPA Established TMDLs (Attachment O)
ƒ Malibu Creek and Lagoon TMDL for Sedimentation and Nutrients to Address Benthic Community Impairments – U.S. EPA Established TMDLs (Attachment O)
ƒ Machado Lake Eutrophic, Algae, Ammonia, and Odors (Nutrient) TMDL (Attachment P)
ƒ Los Angeles River Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects TMDL (Attachment Q)
ƒ LA Area Lakes TMDLs: Echo Park Lake Nutrient TMDL – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment Q)
ƒ LA Area Lakes TMDLs: Peck Road Park Lake Nutrient TMDL – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment Q)
ƒ LA Area Lakes TMDL: Legg Lake System Nutrient TMDL – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment Q)
ƒ LA Area Lakes TMDLs: Lake Calabasas Nutrient TMDL – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment Q)
ƒ LA Area Lakes TMDL: Puddingstone Reservoir Nutrient TMDL – U.S. EPA Established (Attachment R)
The following TMDLs require additional discussion either because the manner of incorporation has changed from previous MS4 permits or there is inconsistent information in the TMDL about the naming of responsible Permittees.

Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrients TMDL (Lake Elizabeth only). The Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrients TMDL assigns grouped WLAs to all MS4 discharges for Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes. Only WLAs for Lake Elizabeth were incorporated in Attachment M of the Order because there are no Permittee discharges subject to the Order into Lake Hughes or Lake Munz.192 The WLAs for MS4 discharges to Munz Lake and Lake Hughes were assigned to additional responsible entities in the future under Phase II of the U.S. EPA Stormwater Permitting Program; or the residual designation authority of the state under Clean Water Action section 402(p)(2)(E), and other applicable regulatory programs.193 Los Angeles River Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects TMDL. In the Los Angeles River Nitrogen Compounds and Related Effects TMDL (LAR Nitrogen 192 Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Elizabeth Lake, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes in the Santa Clara River Watershed [Staff Report]. September 8, 2016. Table 4 pp. 16-17. 193 Los Angeles Water Board. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

Chapter 7 pp. 7-564-565
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-176
TMDL) the total ammonia as nitrogen WLAs are dependent on the temperature and pH of receiving waters as well as the presence of early life stages (ELS) of fish. The WQBELs incorporated into the Regional MS4 Permit for total ammonia as nitrogen are based on the calculation procedure for translation of objectives into effluent limits in Chapter 3 of the Basin Plan, page 3-16 to 3-25. Following this procedure is consistent with the LAR Nitrogen TMDL, which states, “It would be consistent with the findings and assumptions of this TMDL to calculate total ammonia WLAs based on temperature and pH data from the most recent three years of monitoring data when incorporating WLAs into permits. In applying this approach, 90th percentile pH data shall be used to establish one-hour average WLAs and the 50th percentile of pH and temperature data shall be used to establish 30-day average WLAs. The procedure for translation of objectives into effluent limits specified in Chapter 3 of this Basin Plan, as amended by Resolution R02- 011 and R04-022, shall be used to translate WLAs into effluent limitations.” The three years of receiving water monitoring data used to calculate the ammonia WQBELs were from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), the Los Angeles-Glendale WRP, and the Whittier Narrows WRP.

The Donald C. Tillman WRP is located at the Sepulveda Basin and discharges to Reach 5. There are receiving water monitoring stations in Reach 5 (Sepulveda Basin) and Reach 4 (below Sepulveda Basin). Monitoring data from receiving water monitoring stations RSW-LATT628 (Reach 5) and RSW-LATT630 (Reach 4) were used to calculate the ammonia site specific 30-day average limitations. The Los Angeles-Glendale WRP discharges to Los Angeles River Reach 3. Monitoring data from receiving water monitoring station RSW-LAGT650 (Reach 3) were used to calculate the ammonia site specific 30-day average limitations. Whittier Narrows WRP is located adjacent to Rio Hondo Reach 3 (above Whittier Narrows Dam).

Monitoring data from receiving water monitoring station RSW-006 (Rio Hondo Reach 3) were used to calculate the ammonia site specific 30-day average limitations. For the three WRPs, the receiving water monitoring data from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020, were used to calculate the 50th percentile for pH and temperature values, which were used to calculate the ammonia WQBELs.

4. Expression of Salts TMDLs as Permit Limitations
Three salts TMDLs are incorporated into the Regional MS4 Permit as listed below:
ƒ Santa Clara River Reach 3 Chloride TMDL – U.S. EPA Established TMDL (Attachment M)
ƒ Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL (Attachment M)
ƒ Calleguas Creek Watershed Salts TMDL (Attachment N)
The following TMDLs require additional discussion either because the manner of incorporation has changed from previous MS4 permits or there is inconsistent information in the TMDL about the naming of responsible Permittees.

Santa Clara River Reach 3 Chloride TMDL. The SCR Reach 3 Chloride TMDL recommends incorporating WLAs as an instantaneous maximum. However, the WLAs were incorporated into Attachment M of the Order as a daily maximum.

Based on the monitoring frequency required in the MRP of the Order, the daily maximum is effectively the same as an instantaneous maximum WQBEL.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-177
Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL. The Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL (USCR Chloride TMDL) includes a 3-month rolling average WLA for chloride. However, the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit includes WLAs as an instantaneous maximum. Based on the monitoring frequency required in the MRP of the Order, the daily maximum is effectively the same as an instantaneous maximum. Therefore, consistent with the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, the WLA for chloride is incorporated in Attachment M of the Order as a daily maximum WQBEL.

Although the USCR Chloride TMDL did not specifically list individual responsible Permittees, it assigned WLAs to “Other NPDES discharges.” Consistent with the SCR Bacteria TMDL, Ventura County Permittees have not been assigned chloride WQBELs for discharges to the upper reaches of the Santa Clara River (Reaches 4Band 5) because there are no MS4 discharges from Ventura County MS4 Permittees to these reaches.194
Boron, Chloride, Sulfate, and TDS (Salts) in the Calleguas Creek Watershed TMDL (Calleguas Creek Salts TMDL). Among the other Permittees specifically named in the Calleguas Creek Salts TMDL, the Los Angeles Water Board has determined that the Cities of Oxnard and Simi Valley are responsible Permittees for this TMDL because their MS4s discharge to the subwatersheds to which the TMDL assigns WLAs (Pleasant Valley (Revolon) and Simi)195. This determination was made based on current GIS information on MS4s and their drainage areas.

5. Expression of Toxic Pollutants and Sediment TMDLs as Permit Limitations There are twenty-one (21) toxic pollutants and sediment TMDLs that are incorporated into the Regional MS4 Permit as listed below:
ƒ Calleguas Creek OC Pesticides and PCBs TMDL (Attachment N) ƒ Calleguas Creek Toxicity TMDL (Attachment N)
ƒ TMDLs for Pesticides, PCBs, and Sediment Toxicity in Oxnard Drain 3 – U.S.

EPA Established (Attachment N)
ƒ Santa Monica Bay TMDLs for DDTs and PCBs – U.S. EPA established (Attachment O)
ƒ Ballona Creek Estuary Toxic Pollutants TMDL (Attachment O) ƒ Ballona Creek Wetlands TMDLs for Sediment and Invasive Exotic Vegetation – U.S. EPA established (Attachment O)
ƒ Marina del Rey Harbor Toxic Pollutants TMDL (Attachment O) ƒ Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL (Attachment P)
ƒ Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL (Attachment P)
ƒ LA Area Lakes TMDLs: Echo Park Lake Chlordane, Dieldrin and PCBs TMDL – U.S. EPA Established (Attachment Q)
ƒ LA Area Lakes TMDLs: Peck Road Park Lake Chlordane, Dieldrin, DDTs and PCBs TMDL – U.S. EPA Established (Attachment Q)
ƒ LA Area Lakes TMDLs: Puddingstone Reservoir Chlordane, Dieldrin, DDTs and PCBs TMDLs – U.S. EPA Established (Attachment R)
ƒ Colorado Lagoon OC Pesticides, PCBs, Sediment Toxicity, PAHs, and Metals TMDL (Attachment S)
194 Ventura County GIS data and MS4 drainage area maps (July 15, 2016). 195 Los Angeles Water Board. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

Chapter 7 p 7-273
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-178
The following TMDLs require additional discussion either because the manner of incorporation has changed from previous MS4 permits or there is inconsistent information in the TMDL about the manner of incorporation.

Organochlorine (OC) Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and Siltation in Calleguas Creek, its Tributaries, and Mugu Lagoon TMDL (Calleguas Creek OC Pesticides and PCBs TMDL). The Calleguas Creek OC Pesticides and PCBs TMDL includes a siltation WLA, which is allocated to all NPDES permitted MS4s, including Caltrans. The WLA is expressed as a reduction from the baseline sediment yield to Mugu Lagoon. The TMDL states on page 7 that “the [waste] load allocation will apply after the baseline is established, as described in the Implementation Plan.” The TMDL Implementation Plan requires Ventura County Permittees to propose a baseline load per Special Study #1. Ventura County Permittees have completed Special Study #1. However, the study did not determine the baseline sedimentation yield but rather claimed that Mugu Lagoon is unimpaired for sedimentation based on habitat conversion and benthic community degradation. Mugu Lagoon has not been removed from the 303(d) list for sedimentation. Nonetheless, until a baseline sedimentation yield is calculated, it is not possible to incorporate the sedimentation WLA into the Order because of the way the WLA is expressed in the TMDL. Therefore, the siltation WLA for Mugu Lagoon is not incorporated into Attachment N of the Order. The Los Angeles Water Board will reopen the Order to incorporate a siltation WLA depending upon the decision regarding the impairment status of Mugu Lagoon.

Calleguas Creek Toxicity TMDL. The Toxicity, Chlorpyrifos, and Diazinon in the Calleguas Creek, its Tributaries, and Mugu Lagoon TMDL (Calleguas Creek Toxicity TMDL) includes 1-hour (acute) and 4-day (chronic) WLAs for both chlorpyrifos and diazinon. Based on the monitoring frequency required in the MRP of the Order, the daily maximum is effectively the same as the 1-hour and 4-day frequency. Hence, WLAs are incorporated as a daily maximum. Consistent with other Los Angeles Water Board-adopted toxics TMDLs, acute WLAs were interpreted to apply to wet weather and chronic WLAs were interpreted to apply to dry weather.

E. WQBELs for Trash

1. Previous Permit Requirements
The Los Angeles Water Board amended the 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit (Order No. 01-182) on December 10, 2009 to incorporate provisions implementing the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL. At that time, the Los Angeles Water Board incorporated the WLAs from the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL into the 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit as numeric WQBELs.196 The 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit stated: “Each Permittee identified in Appendix 7-1 shall comply with the interim and final effluent limitations set forth in Appendix 7-1 hereto.”197 Appendix 7-1 expressed the numeric effluent limitations for trash as progressively decreasing allowable amounts of trash discharged from each applicable permittee’s jurisdictional area within the watershed. Each applicable permittee was 196 See generally 2001 Permit, Part 7, pp. 79-84, Appendix 7-1, and Appendix 7-2. See also, 2001 Permit, Findings Related to the Incorporation of the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL, pp. 15-20; see also 2012 Permit, Fact Sheet, pp. F-13, F-23..
197 2001 Permit, Part 7, p. 79 and Appendix 7-1.

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-179
required to make annual reductions of its discharges of trash over a 7-year period (2010-2016), until the final effluent limitation of zero trash discharged from the MS4 was achieved. “Permittees shall achieve their final effluent limitation of zero trash discharge for the 2015-2016 storm year and every year thereafter.”198 Consistent with the TMDL, the Los Angeles Water Board provided Permittees the option to be deemed in compliance with the numeric effluent limitations through the installation of certain BMPs (i.e., certified full capture devices).199 In the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, the Los Angeles Water Board carried over the effluent limitations and compliance deadlines, as well as the compliance approaches, established in the 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit.200 Part A of Attachment O of the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit included the interim and final numeric WQBELs and compliance deadlines implementing the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL. Applicable permittees were required to “comply with the final water quality-based effluent limitation of zero trash discharged to the Los Angeles River no later than September 30, 2016 and every year thereafter.”201 The 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit also included provisions implementing 8 other trash TMDLs, including interim and final numeric WQBELs and compliance deadlines and provisions outlining the method of compliance for all trash TMDLs.

The 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit included similar requirements for the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL. As discussed in Part II.F of this Fact Sheet, the 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 Permit was reopened in 2016 to incorporate revisions to the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL and Ballona Creek and Wetlands Trash TMDL.

At the same time, the 2014 City of Long Beach MS4 Permit was also reopened to incorporate the same revisions to the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL. The 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit included provisions for the Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash Trash TMDL and the Ventura River Estuary Trash TMDL. These provisions in the Ventura County MS4 Permit included WLAs expressed as WQBELs of “zero trash”, compliance monitoring, and actions and special studies.

2. Manner of Trash TMDLs Incorporation
There are eleven (11) trash TMDLs that are incorporated into the Regional MS4 Permit, listed below, consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL WLAs.
x Ventura River Estuary Trash TMDL (Attachment K)
x Lake Elizabeth Trash TMDL (Attachment M)
x Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash Trash TMDL (Attachment N) x Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL (Attachment O) x Malibu Creek Watershed Trash TMDL (Attachment O)
198 Id., Part 7, Appendix 7-1, footnote 3.
199 Id., Part 7, pp. 79-84 and Appendix 7-2.
200 2012 Permit, Part VI.E.5, pp. 151-157 and Attachment O, Part A, pp. O-1 to O-3.. See also id., Fact Sheet, p. F-37 (“This Order carries over the final receiving water limitations and WQBELs that were included to implement the Marina del Rey Harbor Back Basins and Mothers’ Beach Bacteria TMDL and the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL, respectively, in the 2007 and 2009 amendments to Order No. 01- 182.”).
201 Id., Part A.2, p. O-1..

MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-180
x Ballona Creek Trash TMDL (Attachment O)
x Machado Lake Trash TMDL (Attachment P)
x Los Angeles River Watershed Trash TMDL (Attachment Q) x Legg Lake Trash TMDL (Attachment Q)
x LA Area Lakes TMDLs: Echo Park Lake Trash TMDL – U.S. EPA Established (Attachment Q)
x LA Area Lakes TMDLs: Peck Road Park Lake Trash TMDL – U.S. EPA Established (Attachment Q)
The WLAs for trash are expressed as progressively decreasing allowable amounts of trash discharged from a Permittee’s jurisdictional area within the drainage area to the impaired water body. The Trash TMDLs require each Permittee to make annual reductions of its discharges of trash over a set period, until the numeric target of zero trash discharged from the MS4 is achieved. The Trash TMDLs specify a specific formula for calculating and allocating annual reductions in trash discharges from each jurisdictional area within a watershed. The formula results in specified annual amounts of trash that may be discharged from each jurisdiction into the receiving waters. Translation of the WLAs or compliance points described in the TMDLs into jurisdiction-specific load reductions from the baseline levels, as specified in the TMDL, logically results in the articulation of an annual limitation on the amount of a pollutant that may be discharged. The specification of allowable annual trash discharge amounts meets the definition of an “effluent limitation”, as that term is defined in subdivision (c) of section 13385.1 of the California Water Code. Alternatively, if Permittees choose to comply with the WLAs for trash by progressively installing full capture systems to address 100% of the drainage area to the impaired waterbody within their jurisdiction, the specification of the percentage of the drainage area (or percentage of catch basins) that must be addressed meets the definition of an “effluent limitation.” Specifically, the trash discharge limitations or, alternatively, percentage of area addressed by full capture systems constitute a “numeric restriction … on the quantity [or] discharge rate … of a pollutant or pollutants that may be discharged from an authorized location.”