Upper Santa Clara River CIMP (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) — Santa Clarita City Council, June 23, 2026

Revised September 2023

UPPE R SANT A CLARA RIVER WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT GROUP

Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program (CIMP)
Submitted by:

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program i September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Program Area ................................. 3

2.1 TMDLs ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Existing Watershed Monitoring Programs ...................................................................... 6 3 Monitoring Program Elements and Objectives ................................................................. 7

3.1 Receiving Water Monitoring .......................................................................................... 7

3.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring ...................................................................................... 7

3.3 Non-Stormwater Outfall Program ................................................................................... 8

3.4 Regional Studies ............................................................................................................. 8

3.5 Optional Special Studies ................................................................................................. 8 4 Monitoring Locations ........................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Receiving Water Monitoring Sites.................................................................................. 9

4.1.1 Mass Emission Receiving Water Site ......................................................................... 9

4.1.2 TMDL Sites .............................................................................................................. 10

4.2 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites ............................................................................ 12

4.3 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites ................................................................... 15 5 Monitoring Frequency and Schedule ................................................................................ 17

5.1 Monitoring Frequency .................................................................................................. 17

5.2 Timing of Sample Collection ........................................................................................ 17 6 Monitoring Parameters ...................................................................................................... 19 7 Monitoring Procedures Overview ..................................................................................... 24

7.1 Sampling Methods ........................................................................................................ 24

7.2 Analytical and QA/QC Procedures ............................................................................... 25

7.3 Toxicity Monitoring and Toxicity Investigation Evaluations ....................................... 25 8 Non-Stormwater Screening and Monitoring Program ................................................... 26

8.1 Initial NSW Outfall Screening Process......................................................................... 26

8.2 Identification of Outfalls with Significant Non-Stormwater Discharges ..................... 27

8.3 Source Identification for Outfalls with Significant Non-Stormwater Discharge .......... 27

8.4 Non-Stormwater Discharge Monitoring ....................................................................... 28

8.5 NSW Outfall Re-Screening Determination .................................................................. 29 9 Other CIMP Components .................................................................................................. 30

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ii September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

9.1 Optional Special Studies ............................................................................................... 30

9.2 Regional Studies ........................................................................................................... 30

9.3 Non-CIMP Monitoring Data ......................................................................................... 31 10 Reporting and Compliance Evaluation ............................................................................. 32 11 Adaptive Management........................................................................................................ 34

11.1 Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Program .......................................................... 34

11.2 CIMP Revision Process ................................................................................................ 34 12 Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 36

List of Figures
Figure 1. Water Bodies and Geographic Boundary of the USCRWMG ....................................... 4 Figure 2. Overview of Receiving Water Monitoring Sites .......................................................... 11 Figure 3. Overview of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites ...................................................... 14 Figure 4. Overview of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites .............................................. 16

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program iii September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
List of Tables
Table 1. Land Area within WMP and Other Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Areas ............. 3 Table 2. Summary of TMDLs for the USCR WMP ....................................................................... 5 Table 3. Summary of USCRWMG Receiving Water Monitoring Sites ...................................... 12 Table 4. Summary of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites ......................................................... 13 Table 5. Outfall Monitoring Location Land Use Comparison ..................................................... 13 Table 6. Summary of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site .................................................. 15 Table 7. Monitoring Frequency ................................................................................................... 17 Table 8. Summary of MS4 Permit Required Monitoring Parameters ......................................... 19 Table 9. Summary of Water Quality Priority Characterization for Waterbodies Applicable to the USCRWMG CIMP ............................................................................................................... 20 Table 10. Summary of Monitoring Program for USCRWMG .................................................... 22 Table 11. Source ID Endpoints for Outfalls with Significant NSW Discharges .......................... 28

List of Attachments
Attachment A. Watershed Management Plan Area Background Attachment B. Monitoring Location Fact Sheets
Attachment C. Reporting and Data Management
Attachment D. Monitoring Procedures
Attachment E. Los Angeles County Flood Control District Background Information

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program iv September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
List of Acronyms
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CIMP Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EO Executive Officer
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSW Non-Stormwater
RW Receiving Water
RWL Receiving Water Limitation
SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project SCR Santa Clara River
SMC Stormwater Monitoring Coalition
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TIE Toxicity Identification Evaluation
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USCR Upper Santa Clara River
USCRWMG Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WBPC Water Body-Pollutant Combination
WLA Waste Load Allocation
WQBEL Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-1 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Executive Summary
This Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) document is a part of compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit No. R4-2021-0105 (Permit) was adopted July 23, 2021 by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and became effective September 11, 2021. Permit No. R4 -2021-0105 replaced Permit No. R4 -2012-0175, which was effective from December 28, 2012 until September 10, 2021 (2012 Permit). Geographically, the CIMP covers the portion of the Upper Santa Clara River in Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita that is regulated by the Permit (Figure ES-1). This area encompasses approximately 121,423 acres. The entire Santa Clara River watershed is approximately 1,634 square miles that drains into the Santa Clara River, flowing from Los Angeles County, through Ventura County, and terminating at the Pacific Ocean between the cities of Ventura and Oxnard. Nearly ninety percent of the watershed is open space with approximately eighty- eight percent being undeveloped raw land.

Included in the Permit are requirements for a Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP). The MRP specifications are listed in Attachment E to the Permit. The stated Primary Objectives for the MRP are listed in Part I.A of the MRP, as follows:

1. Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of discharges from the MS4 on receiving waters.

2. Assess compliance with receiving water limitations (RWLs) and water quality -based effluent limitations (WQBELs) established to implement total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) during wet weather and dry weather.

3. Characterize pollutant loads in MS4 discharges.

4. Identify sources of pollutants in MS4 discharges.

5. Assess the overall health and evaluate long-term trends in receiving water quality.

6. Measure and improve the effectiveness of pollutant controls implemented under the Permit.

Per the Permit, the Permittees have the option to develop a CIMP in lieu of the generic MRP as original written in the Permit. The CIMP offers the option to utilize alternative approaches to meet the Primary Objectives, if sufficient justification is provided. The CIMP is designed to provide the information necessary to guide management decisions in addition to providing a means to measure compliance with the Permit and is composed of five elements:

1. Receiving Water Monitoring

2. Stormwater Outfall Monitoring

3. Non-Storm Water (NSW) Outfall Screening and Monitoring

4. Optional Special Studies

5. Regional Studies
The CIMP provides a detailed discussion of the monitoring approaches for each element. The Attachments to the CIMP describe additional background information and detail specific analytical and monitoring procedures that will be used to comply with the spec ific MRP requirements. The

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-2 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
monitoring program is summarized below and Table ES - 1 provides an overview of the constituents and monitoring frequency at each monitoring location.

Site Selection:

1. The current mass emission station is maintained as a receiving water monitoring location (SNTCLR_6_ME) to determine if RWLs are achieved, assess trends in pollutant concentrations over time, and determine whether designated uses are supported. In addition, the mass emission station is used to meet TMDL monitoring requirements and evaluate attainment of or progress in attaining applicable TMDLs.

2. Two TMDL receiving water monitoring locations (Reach 5 and Reach 7) are also included.

TMDL monitoring locations are intended to meet TMDL monitoring requirements and evaluate attainment of or progress in attaining the TMDL. Additionally, water quality priorities in the applicable reach will also be monitored at these locations.

3. Three stormwater outfall monitoring locations, one per reach in the Upper Santa Clara River, determined to be representative of the land uses and characteristics of the WMP area.

4. One stormwater outfall monitoring location at Lake Elizabeth to identify whether or not the WQBELs for the Lake Elizabeth Nutrient TMDL are being attained.

5. NSW outfall monitoring site determined through the NSW outfall screening and source identification process required by the Permit.

Parameters to be Collected:

1. Parameters were determined based on the constituents required in the MRP and the water quality prioritization process specific to each reach.

2. For the mass emission receiving water location , all constituents required to be monitored in the MRP will be collected except those that have not been exceeded in the past five years based on the evaluation conducted during the water quality prioritization.

3. Constituents identified as on the 303(d) list or exceeding water quality objectives within the last five years during the water quality prioritization process will be monitored at the TMDL receiving water monitoring location in the reach where the listing exists, or the exceedances were observed.

4. All constituents identified in a TMDL monitoring requirement will be monitored at the TMDL monitoring locations.

Monitoring Frequency

1. Monitoring frequency of three wet weather events and two dry weather events per year in the receiving waters with corresponding three wet weather events at the stormwater outfall sites and two dry weather events at the NSW outfall sites.

2. For Table E-6 and Category 3 constituents that are being monitored due to identification through the water quality priority process as having observed exceedances in the receiving water, the monitoring will be reduced or eliminated if continued exceedances are not observed within two years . If needed, t he monitoring of 303(d) listed constituents may continue to support de -listing. Additionally, f low and field parameters will not be discontinued unless flow and field parameters are the only parameters to be measured at the site.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-3 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Other Elements

1. Current participation in the SMC bioassessment monitoring program. Please note that if the SMC decides to discontinue bioassessment monitoring, the USCRWMG will review the costs and resources needed to complete bioassessment monitoring and may decide to complete the discontinued monitoring separate from this CIMP.

2. Optional special studies

3. Reporting and compliance evaluation procedures.

In addition, the CIMP outlines an adaptive management process that describes the procedures that will be used to evaluate data gathered through the CIMP and modify the monitoring program in response to the results.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-4 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure ES-1. Receiving Water and Outfall Monitoring Sites for USCRWMG

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-5 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table ES- 1. Summary of Proposed Monitoring Program for USCRWMG Constituent
Annual Frequency (number wet events/number dry events)1 Santa Clara River Lake
Elizabeth Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7
SNTCLR_5_RE
PD 2443
SNCLR_6_ME
PD 0717
PD 2507
SNTCLR_7_R-A
PD 0494
Lake Elizabeth
East
Flow and field parameters2 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2 3/2 3/0 3/2 Pollutants identified in Table E-6 of the MRP 13/13 4 4 Aquatic Toxicity 5 5 1/1 5 5 5 5
TSS 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2 3/2 3/0
Hardness 6 6 6 6 6 3/2 3/0
Ammonia 3/2 3/0

3/2
Nitrate-Nitrogen 3/2 3/0
3/2 3/0 3/2
Nitrite-Nitrogen 3/2 3/0
3/2 3/0 3/2
Chloride 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2

TDS 3/2 3/0
E. coli 3/12 3/07 3/12 3/07 0/2 3/12 3/07
Copper 3/2 3/0
Iron 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2 3/2 3/0
Mercury 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2 3/2 3/0
Selenium 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 3/2
Orthophosphate-Phosphorus 3/2
Total Phosphorus 3/2
Sulfate 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program ES-6 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Constituent
Annual Frequency (number wet events/number dry events)1 Santa Clara River Lake
Elizabeth Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7
SNTCLR_5_RE
PD 2443
SNCLR_6_ME
PD 0717
PD 2507
SNTCLR_7_R-A
PD 0494
Lake Elizabeth
East
Cyanide 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 3/2 3/0
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3/2 3/0 0/2

1. Annual frequency listed as number of wet/dry-weather events per year, respectively (e.g., 3/2 signifies three wet and two dry weather events per year).

2. Field parameters are defined as DO, pH, temperature, and specific conductivity.

3. Monitoring frequency only applies during the first year of monitoring. Table E-6 constituents will be monitored during the first significant wet event and one dry weather event that occurs during the historically driest month (July). For pollutants that are at or below the Reporting Limit per Part II.H.7 of the MRP or the result is below the lowest applicable water quality objective, additional monitoring will not be conducted (i.e., the monitoring frequency will become 0/0). For pollutants that are detected above the lowest applicable water quality objective, additi onal monitoring will be conducted for the condition under which the exceedance occurred (wet or dry), at the frequency specified in the MRP (i.e., the monitoring frequency will become 3/0 for a wet weather exceedance, 0/2 for a dry weather exceedance, or 3/2 for exceedances during both event types ) beginning the next monitoring year.

4. Table E-6 constituents will be monitored at each respective outfall if an exceedance is observed at SNCLR_6_ME during the corresponding weather condition during the Table E-6 screening event. The frequency at stormwater outfalls will become 3/0 and the frequency at NSW outfalls will become 0/2.

5. Aquatic toxicity outfall monitoring will follow the process outlined in Section 7.3.

6. Hardness will only be monitored when hardness-dependent metals monitoring is also being conducted during the same monitoring event.

7. This will be the initial monitoring frequency for this permit term. The monitoring frequency will change to weekly in November 2028 to evaluate attainment of the geometric mean WQBELs.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 1 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
1 Introduction
This Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) document for the Upper Santa Clara River (USCR) Watershed Management Group (USCRWMG or Group) is a part of compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit No. R4-2021-0105 (Permit), which was adopted July 23, 2021 by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and became effective September 11, 2021. This CIMP replaces the previous version of the CIMP that was implemented to meet the requirements of Permit No. R4 -2012-0175 (2012 Permit), which was effective from December 28, 2012 until September 10, 2021.

The City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles Flood Control District (LACFCD) comprise the USCRWMG. The geographic scope of this monitoring program is the portion of the Upper Santa Clara River in Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita that is regulated by the Permit (Figure 1 ), which is approximately 121,423 acres . This excludes state and federal lands, such as the Angeles National Forest and the state parks lands. The entire Santa Clara River (SCR) Watershed is 1,634 square miles that drains into the SCR, one of the last remaining natural rivers in Southern California. Nearly ninety percent of the watershed is open space with approximately eighty -eight percent being undeveloped land. At approximately 100 miles long, the SCR originates in the northern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County, continuing west through Ventura County, and entering the Pacific Ocean between the cities of Ventura and Oxnard.

Flows in SCR reaches that pass through the CIMP area are predominantly storm water runoff during wet weather months and water reclamation plant (WRP) effluent discharges in the drier months. In years of significant rainfall, ephemeral springs and year-round flows exist in some tributaries and natural upstream areas. Dry season flows tend to percolate into the subsurface in the vicinity of Lang Station Road. The Valencia and Saugus WRPs ’ effluent tends to seep underground near Castaic Creek. These flows resu rface further west near Torrey Road. While effluent volumes remain relatively consistent, their proportional contribution to flow in the river is greater during dry conditions.

Most of the monitoring in the Upper Santa Clara River prior to implementation of the CIMP in 2015 had been done related to impacts of water reclamation plant discharge. Stormwater m ass emission station monitoring in Reach 6 provided the basis of MS4 monitoring prior to the 2012 Permit. The USCRWMG CIMP greatly expanded upon previous efforts to achieve the monitoring goals in the 2012 Permit. Additionally, the CIMP fulfills all MS4 monitoring requirements for effective Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) within the WMP area.

The purpose of the Permit is to ensure the MS4s in Los Angeles County are not causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality objectives set to protect the beneficial uses in the receiving waters. Included as Attachment E to the Permit are requirements for a Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP). The stated Primary Objectives for the MRP, listed in Part I.A of the MRP, are as follows:

1. Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of discharges from the MS4 on receiving waters.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 2 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

2. Assess compliance with receiving water limitations (RWL s) and water quality -based effluent limitations (WQBELs) established to implement TMDL s during wet weather and dry weather.

3. Characterize pollutant loads in MS4 discharges.

4. Identify sources of pollutants in MS4 discharges.

5. Assess the overall health and evaluate long-term trends in receiving water quality.

6. Measure and improve the effectiveness of pollutant controls implemented under the Permit.

Extensive default monitoring requirements are specified in the MRP. However, Permittees have the option to develop a CIMP that may be used to specify alternative approaches for meeting the Primary Objectives. The USCRWMG members have selected to continue the approach of implementing a CIMP. This document provides a discussion of the monitoring locations (Section 4), monitoring frequency (Section 5), monitoring parameters (Section 6), and general monitoring procedures (Section 7). Section 8 details the non-stormwater screening program and Section 9 outlines the other required components of the MRP. Section 10 outlines the reporting procedures and Section 11 identifies the approach to adaptively managing this CIMP. Finally, Section 12 provides a schedule for implementation of this CIMP during and following the Regional Board’s approval process. The attachments and appendices to this CIMP describe additional background information and detail specific analytical and monitoring procedures that will be used to implement this CIMP. The CIMP provides Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) to meet the requirements detailed in MRP Part II.J.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 3 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management
Program Area
The USCRWMG is addressing MS4 water quality issues through a Watershed Management Program (WMP) and CIMP process. The USCRWMG WMP area is displayed on Figure 1 along with the named water bodies. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the land area within the USCR watershed by USCRWMG member and by state and federal lands that are not included in the WMP. Additional background information for the USCRWMG WMP area is presented in Attachment A.

Table 1. Land Area within WMP and Other Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Areas Watershed
Area Agency WMP
Agency
Approximate
Land Area
(acres)
Watershed
Land within
WMP under

USCRWMG
Member
Jurisdiction
County of Los Angeles Yes 153,361
City of Santa Clarita Yes 47,138
Los Angeles County Flood Control District Yes N/A
Approximate Area of WMP Agencies 200,499
Watershed
Land outside of
WMP and
NPDES Permit
Conditions
Lake Elizabeth Watershed No 3,323
Forested Areas, Including Angeles National Forest
and State Parks No 214,884
Approximate Total Upper Santa Clara River
Watershed 418,706

2.1 TMDLS
There are five TMDLs currently effective within the USCRWMG WMP area. Table 2 lists the schedule and applicable interim and final WQBELs and all other final WQBELs and RWLs established by TMDLs and identified in Attachment M of the Permit.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 4 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure 1. Water Bodies and Geographic Boundary of the USCRWMG

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 5 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table 2. Summary of TMDLs for the USCR WMP
TMDL Waterbody Constituent Weather
Condition
Schedule
Final WQBEL
2021 2023 2029 2032
Salts
Santa Clara
River
Reaches 5
and 61
Chloride Dry Final2 100 mg/L
Bacteria
Santa Clara
River
Reaches 5,
6, 7
E. coli
Dry Final
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 5 exceedance
days (daily sampling), 1 exceedance day
(weekly sampling)
Wet Final
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 126 MPN/100
mL geomean WQBEL, 16 exceedance
days (daily sampling), 3 exceedance days
(weekly sampling), 126 geomean RWL
Nutrients
Santa Clara
River
Reaches 5
3 Ammonia Final2 1-hr average 5.2 mg/L
30 day average 1.75 mg/L
Nitrate and
Nitrite
Final2 30 day average 6.8 mg/L
Lake
Nutrients
Lake
Elizabeth
Total
Nitrogen Final 2,536.8 lb-N/yr
Total
Phosphorus Final 436.7 lb-P/yr
Trash Lake
Elizabeth Trash Final2 Zero trash discharged

1. TMDL applies to Reaches 4B, 5, and 6, but only WQBELs for Reaches 5 and 6 apply to the USCR WMP Group per Part III of Attachment M of the Permit.

2. Final applicable on Effective Date of Permit.

3. TMDL includes load allocations and monitoring requirements for other reaches, but wasteload allocations and WQBELs only apply to Reach 5.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 6 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

2.2 EXISTING WATERSHED MONITORING PROGRAMS
Watershed monitoring programs implemented prior to the implementation of the USCRWMG CIMP provided historical data and information that was used to support site selection and identification of constituents for monitoring. Prior to CIMP implementation in 2016, there we re two existing monitoring programs and two proposed monitoring programs in the watershed that monitor in the main stem of the Santa Clara River. Other discharger specific monitoring programs exist in the watershed, but they do not contain moni toring in the main stem of the Santa Clara River. The existing watershed monitoring programs include:
• MS4 Permit Monitoring (Mass Emission Monitoring)
• Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) Monitoring • Proposed Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Plan
1 • Proposed Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Water Quality Monitoring Plan The CIMP is written to meet the monitoring requirements of the MS4 Permit. Coordination with other monitoring programs currently occurs (e.g., coordination with Santa Clarita Valley LACSD) and will continue at the discretion of the USCRWMG where data from other programs may be used to fulfill USCRWMG monitoring requirements. Please note that the area commonly referred to as “Newhall Ranch” which may discharge directly or indirectly to SCR Reach 5 has traditionally not been included in the CIMP due to it development status. At this time, the Newhall Ranch area is not included in this CIMP for compliance monitoring. At such time in the future that Newhall Ranch requests to be a part of this plan (e.g., for land use monitoring), this CIMP may require revision.

1 2006 Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Plan for the Santa Clara River Watershed was initiated in November 2003 by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD)

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 7 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
3 Monitoring Program Elements and Objectives
The primary purpose of this CIMP is to outline the process for collecting data to meet the goals and requirements of the MRP. The CIMP provides information on sample collection and analysis methodologies. The CIMP is designed to provide the USCRWMG the information necessary to guide water quality program management decisions. Additionally, the monitoring will provide a means to measure compliance with the Permit. The MRP, as outlined in the Permit, is composed of the following elements:

1. Receiving Water Monitoring

2. Stormwater Outfall Monitoring

3. Non-Stormwater (NSW) Outfall Screening and Monitoring

4. Regional Studies
An overview of each of the monitoring types and their monitoring objectives are described in the following subsections . Specifics regarding each monitoring element including monitoring locations, frequency, parameters, and procedures are provided in the subsequent sections.

3.1 RECEIVING WATER MONITORING
The objectives of receiving water monitoring include the following:
• Determine whether the RWLs are being achieved including RWLs derived from TMDL wasteload allocations (WLAs) that apply in-stream;
• Assess trends in pollutant concentrations over time, or during specified conditions; and, • Determine whether the designated beneficial uses are fully supported as determined by water chemistry, as well as aquatic toxicity and bioassessment monitoring.

The receiving water monitoring approach will provide data to determine whether RWLs are being achieved in the Santa Clara River. Receiving water monitoring also allows for the assessment of trends in pollutant concentrations over time . Receiving water monitoring consists of the mass emission receiving water site designed to meet all receiving water permit requirements and additional TMDL monitoring locations necessary to evaluate TMDL requirements and 303(d) listings.

3.2 STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING
MS4 stormwater outfall monitoring supports two permit objectives, including:
• Determine whether a Permittee’s discharge is in compliance with applicable stormwater WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs that apply at the outfall; and, • Determine whether a Permittee’s discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of RWLs that apply in-stream.

The stormwater outfall monitoring program is designed to characterize stormwater discharges from MS4s at representative outfall locations within the USCRWMG WMP area. Three stormwater outfall monitoring locations have been selected for the USCRWMG WMP area.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 8 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

3.3 NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL PROGRAM
Objectives of the NSW outfall monitoring include the following:
• Determine whether a Permittee’s discharge is in compliance with applicable NSW WQBELs derived from TMDL WLAs that apply at the outfall; • Determine whether a Permittee's discharge contributes to or causes an exceedance of RWLs that apply in-stream; and,
• Assist a Permittee in identifying illicit discharges as described in Part VIII.I of the Permit.

The NSW Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program is focused on dry weather discharges to receiving waters from major outfalls. The program fills two roles . The first is to provide data to allow determination of whether the NSW constituent load is adversely impacting the receiving water. The second is to assess the Permit requirement to effectively prohibit NSW discharges.

To fulfill these two roles, two elements of the NSW program have been defined. The first is NSW outfall monitoring to assess compliance with NSW WQBELs and the potential for a discharge to cause or contribute to a RWL exceedance. The second element is the NSW screening program.

The NSW screening program is designed to be complimentary to the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program. As outlined in the screening program included in Section 8, the screening process identified NSW outfall monitoring locations which are monitored as part of the NSW outfall monitoring program.

3.4 REGIONAL STUDIES
The MRP encourages participation in regional studies, including participation in the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition (SMC) Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (bioassessment) and Southern California Bight Project. The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) oversees the SMC. LACFCD currently participates in the SMC regional program. The SMC consists of stormwater agencies in southern California which collaborate on stormwater quality related research projects of importance to the region with the goal to enhance scientific knowledge and develop management solutions. More details on the SMC program and workplan can be found at https://socalsmc.org/ . Initiated in 2008, the SMC’s
Regional Bioassessment Program is designed to run over a five-year cycle. Please note that if the SMC decides to discontinue bioassessment monitoring, the USCRWMG will review the costs and resources needed to complete bioassess ment monitoring and may decide to complete the discontinued monitoring separate from this CIMP.

3.5 OPTIONAL SPECIAL STUDIES
Special studies may be conducted if needed to answer specific questions and/or if localized water quality concerns are identified thr ough the CIMP and WMP process, helping the USCRWMG better implement the WMP.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 9 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
4 Monitoring Locations
The CIMP monitoring locations consist of receiving water and outfall monitoring locations.

Monitoring locations have been identified to achieve the monitoring objectives.

4.1 RECEIVING WATER MONITORING SITES
The requirements in the MRP include receiving water monitoring sites at previously designated mass emission stations, TMDL receiving water compliance points, and additional receiving water locations representative of the impacts from MS4 discharges. To meet these requirements, t wo types of monitoring locations are included in the CIMP. • Mass Emission Receiving Water – The mass emission receiving water (ME) monitoring location is intended to determine if RWL s are achieved, assess trends in pollutant concentrations over time, and determine whether designated beneficial uses are fully supported.
• TMDL Receiving Water– TMDL receiving water monitoring locations (TMDL) were selected to evaluate attainment of , or progress in attaining the TMDL , and support evaluating the status of 303(d) listings and other RWL exceedances specific to other reaches in the watershed.

While not explicitly established in the MRP, the monitoring types proposed distinguish between the different end goals of monitoring for specific constituents within specific water bodies in the USCRWMG WMP area. ME monitoring provides a long- term record to understand conditions within the USCRWMG WMP area for a robust suite of parameters. TMDL monitoring addresses TMDL-related constituents and provides monitoring locations to assess other identified exceedances of RWLs determined through an analysis of existing data.

The receiving water monitoring sites meet the MRP objectives and support an understanding of potential impacts associated with MS4 discharges. However, as described in the MRP (Part I.C.1), receiving water sites are intended to assess receiving water conditions. An exceedance of a RWL at a receiving water site may not on its own indicate MS4 discharges caused or contributed to the RWL exceedance. As the receiving water sites also receive ru noff from non- MS4 sources, including open space and other permitted discharges, the exceedance of a RWL may have been caused or contributed to by a source other than the USCRWMG . A determination regarding whether MS4 discharges caused or contributed to a RWL exceedance should be made using receiving water monitoring data, representative outfall monitoring data, and other pertinent data and information.

4.1.1 Mass Emission Receiving Water Site
One of the primary objectives of receiving water monitoring is to a ssess trends in pollutant concentrations over time, or during specified conditions. As a result, the primary characteristic of an ideal receiving water assessment monitoring site is a robust dataset of previously collected monitoring results so that trends in pollutant concentrations over time, or during specified conditions, can be assessed.

The Santa Clara MS4 Mass Emission Station, S29, will provide representative measurement of the effects of the MS4 discharges on the receiving water for the upper portion of the watershed which

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 10 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
is covered by the USCRWMG WMP area. The location of the proposed ME monitoring site can be seen on Figure 2. Photographs of the ME site and flow monitoring locations for the ME site are included in Attachment B.

4.1.2 TMDL Sites
Within the USCRWMG WMP area, TMDL monitoring sites are required in SCR Reaches 5, 6, and 7 to meet the requirements of the Bacteria TMDL . In addition, Part V.C of Attachment M to the Permit specifies WQBEL s for the County of Los Angeles’ discharges to Elizabeth Lake for the Trash TMDL. The County of Los Angeles has installed six full capture devices to achieve the final WQBELs. As such, per the requirements of the Trash TMDL, a monitoring site within Lake Elizabeth is not required.

Given the Bacteria TMDL has the most stringent monitoring requirements, the in- stream site selection has been centered on meeting the requirements of the Bacteria TMDL. The Bacteria TMDL requires at least one monitoring location per impaired reach. As this CIMP details the monitoring to be conducted within the U SCRWMG WMP area and not the downstream reaches, Reaches 5, 6, and 7 will ea ch have one monitoring location. Table 3 lists the TMDL monitoring sites and Attachment B provides a summary of the monitoring locations and associated attributes.

As the monitoring locations are situated upstream of one another, their drainage areas overlap, so each monitoring location’s drainage area includes the drainage areas for all upstream monitoring locations. The sites are shown on Figure 2. Photographs of the TMDL sites are included in Attachment B.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 11 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure 2. Overview of Receiving Water Monitoring Sites

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 12 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table 3. Summary of USCRWMG Receiving Water Monitoring Sites Site ID Water Body
Coordinates
Monitoring
Type
Latitude Longitude ME TMDL
SNTCLR_5_R-E SCR Reach 5 34.41856 -118.63569 X
SNTCLR_6_ME SCR Reach 6 34.42611 -118.58583 X X
SNTCLR_7_R-A SCR Reach 7 34.42403 -118.53956 X

4.2 STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING SITES
The Permit requires the identification of monitoring locations for stormwater outfall monitoring.

Outfall monitoring locations were selected to represent discharges upstream of the receiving water monitoring location within each reach of the Santa Clara River. The primary criteria for selecting monitoring sites was that the drainage areas to the sites are representative of the range of land uses in the USCRWMG WMP area and provide accurate data for characterizing pollutant loads. While the permit includes default requirements for one outfall s ite per HUC- 12 within the Permittee’s jurisdiction, identification of alternative approaches is allowed as part of the CIMP development.

The site selection process was utilized to identify sites that are representative based on land uses and characteristics of the development of the USCRWMG WMP area.

Monitoring one stormwater outfall site per HUC -12 in the USCRWMG WMP area results in an overly burdensome number of stormwater outfall sites given the number of USCRWMG member agencies. Also, the number of stormwater outfall sites being monitoring by the USCRWMG should be relatively consistent with the number of stormwater outfall sites being monitored by other Los Angeles County Watershed Management Groups of similar size and characteristics. As such, t he analysis was conducted to select one outfall per reach of the Santa Clara River with catchment land uses that were similar in characteristics to the overall USCRWMG WMP area. In addition, to determine whether the County’s discharge to Lake Elizabeth is attaining applicable WQBELs in Attachment M of the Permit for the Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrient TMDL, the analysis was conducted to also select one outfall which discharges to Lake Elizabeth.

Once potential outfalls were identified with representative land uses, the sites were field checked to ensure that it was safe and possible to monitor at the location. P otential sites were evaluated to consider the jurisdiction draining to the site and the characteristics of the drainage area. Based on the site selection process, one outfall was selected as representative of discharges upstream of each reach of the Santa Clara River . The site selection approach is appropriate due to the similar land uses between the two jurisdictions in the USCRWMG WMP. If representative samples cannot be collected or conditions are prohibitive of safe sampling at any of the outfall sites, an alternative previously evaluated site, which discharges upstream of the same reach of the Santa Clara River , will be used in subsequent events. The Regional Board will be notified of any monitoring site location changes in the Annual Report for the period when the change took place. Justification and any relevant documentation, such as field photos, will be included.

The four selected outfall monitoring sites are presented in Figure 3 and summarized in Table 4.

Three of the outfall monitoring sites comprise the Permit -required stormwater outfall monitoring

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 13 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
program, the fourth outfall discharging to Lake Elizabeth will be monitored solely for the determination of whether the County’s discharge to Lake Elizabeth is attaining applicable WQBELs in Attachment M of the Permit for the Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrient TMDL . A summary of the land use for each of the sites as compared to the USCRWMG WMP area land use is included in Table 5. Detailed maps and photographs of each of the stormwater outfall monitoring sites are included in Attachment B.

The selected sites are representative of the land uses within the USCRWMG as shown in Table 5.

The data collected at the monitored outfalls will be representative of all MS4 discharge upstream of the applicable receiving water monitoring locations . The resulting data will be applied to all USCRWMG members represented by the site, regardless of whether a site is located within a particular jurisdiction or received flow from that land area.

Table 4. Summary of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites Site ID / Drain
Name
Jurisdiction
the Outfall is
Located In
Owner/
Operator of
the Outfall
Site ID of
Downstream
RW Location Latitude Longitude
PD 2443 County LACFCD SNTCLR_5_R-E 34.49705 -118.61252
PD 0717 City LACFCD SNTCLR_6_ME 34.38176 -118.55110
PD 0494 City LACFCD SNTCLR_7_R-A 34.406088 -118.470119
Lake Elizabeth East County LACFCD N/A1 34.66196 -118.38712

1. Lake Elizabeth outfall site will only be sampled to determine whether the County’s discharge to Lake Elizabeth is attaining applicable WQBELs in Attachment M of the Permit for the Santa Clara River Lakes Nutrient TMDL.

Table 5. Outfall Monitoring Location Land Use Comparison Land Use USCRWMG WMP Area PD 2443 PD 0717 PD 0494
Residential 12% 26% 53% 88%
Commercial 12% 38% 11% 12%
Open 76% 36% 36% 0%

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 14 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure 3. Overview of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 15 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

4.3 NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING SITES
As required by the permit, significant NSW discharge outfall monitoring locations have been identified through the NSW outfall screening program described in Section 8. As discussed in Section 8, monitoring for certain types of discharges was required after source investigations .

Significant NSW discharge outfall monitoring locations have been identified through the screening and source investigation process and are presented in Figure 4 and summarized in Table 6.

Monitoring will continue to be conducted at this site to assess whether the discharge exceeds NSW WQBELs and whether the discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of RWLs.

Table 6. Summary of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Site ID /Drain
Name
Jurisdiction
the Outfall
is Located
In
Owner/Operator of
the Outfall
Site ID of
Downstream RW
Location Latitude Longitude
PD 2507 City City SNTCLR_6_ME 34.45467 -118.55839

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 16 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure 4. Overview of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 17 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
5 Monitoring Frequency and Schedule
The MRP clearly defines the minimum required frequency and duration of receiving water and outfall monitoring. This section provides the proposed frequency of monitoring, monitoring schedule, and timing of sample collection for the CIMP.

5.1 MONITORING FREQUENCY
A general summary of the CIMP monitoring frequency for receiving water and outfall monitoring is included in Table 7.

Table 7. Monitoring Frequency
Monitoring Program Element Dry Frequency Wet Frequency
Receiving Water 21 32
Stormwater Outfall - 33
NSW Outfall 23 -

1. Aquatic toxicity to be monitored once per year during the historically driest month (July) . E. coli to be monitored monthly.

2. Aquatic toxicity to be monitored once per year during the first significant rain event of the water year.

3. Consistent with the requirements of Attachment G of the Permit, outfall aquatic toxicity monitoring may be required. If triggered, outfall aquatic toxicity monitoring will be conducted concurrently with receiving water aquatic toxicity monitoring. The monitoring frequency for E. coli at the stormwater outfall sites will change to weekly in November 2028 to evaluate attainment of the geometric mean WQBELs.

Stormwater and non-stormwater outfall monitoring will be conducted concurrently with receiving water monitoring to allow consideration of the potential impacts of the outfall discha rges on the receiving waters. Part IV.E of Attachment M of the Permit states the following related to geometric mean monitoring associated with the Bacteria TMDL: “Geometric mean values shall be calculated on each sample day based on a statistically sufficient number of samples (generally not less than 5 samples equally spaced over a 30 -day period) consistent with the REC -1 bacteria objectives.” Since the geometric mean objectives require a statistically suffic ient number of samples for
calculation, weekly sampling is needed to meet this Permit requirement. As per Part IV.E of Attachment M of the Permit, the geometric mean objectives are not required to be met until March 2029 and there are no interim geometric mean limits. As such, weekly monitoring is not necessary at this time.

5.2 TIMING OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
One of the dry weather monitoring events will occur during the historically driest month (July) and the additional dry weather monitoring events will occur on days with less than 0.1 inch of rain in the past 72 hours as measured from the nearest Los Angeles County controlled rain gauge within the watershed. For dry weather toxicity monitoring, sampling will be conducted during the dry weather monitoring event that occurs during the historically driest month.

The USCR watershed has vast areas of undeveloped land and significant areas of high infiltration rates, which include the channels themselves, as most are natural, sandy -bottomed. As such, for the first significant rain event of the water year, mobilizatio n for w et weather sample collection will be triggered by the prediction of a storm of 1 inch or greater with a 70 percent probability of

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 18 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
rainfall at least 24 hours prior to the event start time. 2 Mobilization for subsequent wet weather events will be conducted at the discretion of the USCRWMG based on 1) soil saturation conditions, 2) the forecasted intensity and duration of each storm, and 3) a consideration of the likelihood that additional storms of sufficient strength will arrive later in the wet season so as to ensure that the USCRWMG mobilizes for at least three wet weather events each water year. Wet weather sampling events will be separated by a minimum of three days of dry conditions (<0.1 inch of rain each day).

For NSW outfall monitoring events, samples will not be collected if the discharge from the outfall is not hydrologically connected and not affecting the receiving water body. The NSW outfall site is only being sampled to identify potential impacts on receiving waters. As a result, if the discharge is not reaching the receiving water, collection of a sampl e is not necessary. The field conditions will be documented and photographed to demonstrate that the outfall discharge is not reaching receiving waters.

2 Because a significant storm event is based on predicted rainfall, it is recognized that this monitoring may be triggered without 1” of rainfall actually occurring. In this case, the monitoring event will still qualify as meeting this requirement provided that sufficient sample volume is collected to meet the data completeness objectives of this CIMP.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 19 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
6 Monitoring Parameters
The parameters outlined in the MRP to be monitored at receiving water and outfall monitoring locations are summarized in Table 8. As part of the WMP, the USCRWMG have conducted a data analysis to determine water quality priorities for the watershed (Attachment A). The water quality priorities analysis is utilized in the CIMP to define the parameters that will be monitored at each site. Since the analysis is reach-specific, different parameters will be monitored at different monitoring locations. The analysis used to develop the parameters to be monitored at each site is shown in Table 9. As previously mentioned, there are no MS4 discharges from the USCR WMG to the Los Angeles River w atershed. As a result, the Los Angeles River Watershed TMDLs for which the City has allocations are not included in the analysis.

Table 8. Summary of MS4 Permit Required Monitoring Parameters Classification Identified in Permit Receiving Water 1
Stormwater
Outfall 2
Significant NSW
Outfall 2
Flow X X X
Field measurements: DO, pH, temp,
specific conductivity X X X
Hardness and TSS X X X
Pollutants assigned TMDL WLAs X X X
Pollutants identified for 303(d)-listed
receiving waters X X X
Aquatic Toxicity X X3 X3
Parameters in Table E-6 of the MRP X X4 X4

1. All parameters will be monitored at SNTCLR_6_ME. The parameters monitored at the other locations will vary based on the water quality priority analysis.

2. The parameters monitored at the outfall locations are set equal to the constituents to be sampled in the reach to which the outfall discharges for the first year of monitoring. After the first year, receiving water monitoring results and toxicity analysis will be used to refine the constituents to be monitored.

3. Toxicity monitoring is only required when triggered by receiving water toxicity monitoring as outlined in Attachment D. Additional constituents may be added based on the results of a TIE completed consistent with requirements of Attachment G of the Permit.

4. Parameters in Table E -6 are only monitored at outfall locations if they are identified as exceeding applicable water quality objectives at SNTCLR_6_ME during the same weather condition (i.e., wet weather for stormwater outfalls and dry weather for NSW outfalls).

All constituents that were identified as a water quality priority will be included in the monitoring program.
3 Table E -6 of the MRP lists the constituents that will be monitored during the first receiving water monitoring event for each weather condition . The constituents in Table E -6 that are not water quality priorities will be assessed with applicable water quality objectives after the first event. If the constituents are not detected during the first event at levels above applicable water quality objectives, monitoring for those constituents will cease. Additionally, the monitoring parameters may be modified throughout the monitoring process as outlined in the adaptive management process (Section 11).

3 Except for water quality priorities which are indicators of pollution and not pollutants (e.g., eutrophic conditions), which have not exceeded in the past five years, and trash.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 20 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
A summary of the monitoring frequencies and parameters for each monitoring site are shown in Table 10.

Table 9. Summary of Water Quality Priority Characterization for Waterbodies Applicable to the

USCRWMG CIMP
Class1 Constituent Santa Clara River Reach Lake Elizabeth 5 6 7 Category 1A: WBPCs with past due or upcoming (i.e., prior to July 2026) TMDL deadlines with exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Bacteria E. coli (dry) F F F
Salts Chloride F F
Category 1B: WBPCs with future (i.e., beyond July 2026) TMDL deadlines and with exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Bacteria E. coli (wet) F F F
Category 1D: WBPCs with past due, upcoming, or future TMDL deadlines without exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Nutrients
Ammonia F 3
Nitrate plus Nitrite F 3
Total Nitrogen F
Total Phosphorus F
Trash Trash F
Category 2A: 303(d) Listed WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.2 Metals Iron 303(d) L L
Mercury L
Category 2B: 303(d) Listed WBPCs that are not a “pollutant” (e.g., toxicity).

Toxicity Toxicity 303(d)
Other
pH 303(d)
Eutrophic 303(d)
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
303(d)
Temperature 303(d)
Category 2C: 303(d) Listed WBPCs without exceedances in past 5 years2 or that could be delisted.

Pesticides Chlorpyrifos D
Trash Trash 303(d)

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 21 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Class1 Constituent Santa Clara River Reach Lake Elizabeth 5 6 7 Category 3A: WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.2 Nutrients Nitrate plus Nitrite X
Metals
Copper X
Mercury X X
Selenium X X
Other Cyanide X X
Salts TDS X
Sulfate X X
Phthalates Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate X
PAHs Indeo(1,2,3-cd)pyrene X
Category 3B: All other WBPCs that are not a “pollutant” (e.g., toxicity).

Other
pH X X X
Dissolved Oxygen X X
Temperature X
Category 3C: All other WBPCs with exceedances in the past 10 years4, but without exceedances in past 5 years.2
Metals Copper X
Zinc X
Salts TDS X
Pesticides PCBs X

1. Pollutants are considered in a similar class if they have similar fate and transport mechanisms, can be addressed via the same types of control measures, and within the same timeline already contemplated as part of the Watershed Management Program for the TMDL.

2. Date range for the past 5 years is July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020.

3. Reach 6 is included in the Nutrients TMDL, but no WLAs for MS4 discharges are assigned for this waterbody in the TMDL.

4. Date range for the past 10 years is July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020.

F = Final TMDL
D = 303(d) listing that could now be delisted and has no exceedances in last 5 years 303(d) = 303(d) Listing for which data is unavailable to suggest that it could now be delisted L = WBPC that meets the listing criteria, but is not currently on the 303(d) list

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 22 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table 10. Summary of Monitoring Program for USCRWMG
Constituent
Annual Frequency (number wet events/number dry events)1 Santa Clara River Lake
Elizabeth Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7
SNTCLR_5_RE
PD 2443
SNCLR_6_ME
PD 0717
PD 2507
SNTCLR_7_R-A
PD 0494
Lake Elizabeth
East
Flow and field parameters2 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2 3/2 3/0 3/2 Pollutants identified in Table E-6 of the MRP 13/13 4 4 Aquatic Toxicity 5 5 1/1 5 5 5 5
TSS 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2 3/2 3/0
Hardness 6 6 6 6 6 3/2 3/0
Ammonia 3/2 3/0

3/2
Nitrate-Nitrogen 3/2 3/0
3/2 3/0 3/2
Nitrite-Nitrogen 3/2 3/0
3/2 3/0 3/2
Chloride 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 23 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Constituent
Annual Frequency (number wet events/number dry events)1 Santa Clara River Lake
Elizabeth Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7
SNTCLR_5_RE
PD 2443
SNCLR_6_ME
PD 0717
PD 2507
SNTCLR_7_R-A
PD 0494
Lake Elizabeth
East
Cyanide 3/2 3/0 3/2 3/0 0/2
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 3/2 3/0
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3/2 3/0 0/2

1. Annual frequency listed as number of wet/dry-weather events per year, respectively (e.g., 3/2 signifies three wet and two dry weather events per year).

2. Field parameters are defined as DO, pH, temperature, and specific conductivity.

5. Aquatic toxicity outfall monitoring will follow the process outlined in Section 7.3.

6. Hardness will only be monitored when hardness-dependent metals monitoring is also being conducted during the same monitoring event.

7. This will be the initial monitoring frequency for this permit term. The monitoring frequency will change to weekly in November 2028 to evaluate attainment of the geometric mean WQBELs.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 24 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
7 Monitoring Procedures Overview
Detailed monitoring procedures are outlined in Attachment D. This section provides an overview of the content of Attachment D and highlights key elements of the monitoring procedures.

7.1 SAMPLING METHODS
The MRP requires the following sampling methods:
• Grab samples shall be taken for constituents that are required to be collected as such (e.g., pathogen indicator bacteria, oil and grease, cyanides, and volatile organics) ; in instances where grab samples are generally expected to be sufficient to characterize water quality conditions (primarily dry weather); and where the sample location limits Permittees’ ability to install an automated sampler.
• Flow-weighted composite samples shall be taken for stormwater outfall samples.

For implementation of this USCR CIMP, grab samples will be collected at all monitoring locations except the mass emission site ( SNTCR_6_ME) where 3- hour time -weighted grab sample composites will be collected, consistent with the protocols established during the previous permit term. Grab samples will be collected for both wet and dry weather. Grab samples are justified for this watershed as most of the receiving water limitation exceedances occur during dry weather.

Additionally, the chloride and nutrient TMDLs are only of concern during dry weather when grabs can be considered representative, and bacteria samples are collected as grab samples. Therefore, all TMDL sampling is appropriately characterized by grab samples. Additionally, most areas of the USCRWMG consist of soft bottom, meandering channel(s), which would make installation of composite sampling equipment difficult to locate and ensure flows were collected. Predicting flow patterns is also difficult in this watershed as the river and tributaries remain dry for the majority of the year. Manual composites are prohibitive due to the staffing, cost, and geographic spread of the monitoring sites that would need to be visited multiple times within a single monitoring event.

Samples will be collected at all applicable outfall and receiving water monitoring locations during a given event to the extent feasible to allow comparison between outfall and receiving water data.

For NSW outfall monitoring, samples will only be collected if the discharge is reach ing the receiving water. If the receiving water is not flowing or if the discharge is not reach ing the receiving water, then the non- stormwater discharge will not impact the receiving water and does not need to be monitored.

The sampling methods in Attachment D include protocols for sample collection using grab and composite sampling methods, flow measurement procedures, sample volume, time of sample collection and other procedures outlined in the MRP to encompass any methods that may be used during CIMP monitoring.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 25 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

7.2 ANALYTICAL AND QA/QC PROCEDURES
Attachment D also includes detailed analytical and Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures using sufficiently sensitive analytical test methods that are consistent with 40 CFR Parts 122 and 136, and 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N for the analysis of pollutants.4

7.3 TOXICITY MONITORING AND TOXICITY INVESTIGATION EVALUATIONS Detailed procedures for toxicity monitoring are outlined in Attachment D. This section provides an overview of the process that will be used to evaluate receiving water toxicity data, conduct toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs) if triggered, and initiate outfall monitoring if needed.

Dry weather t oxicity monitoring will be conducted using Chironomus dilutus and wet weather toxicity monitoring will be conducted using Hyalella azteca (refer to Attachment D Section 7.4.1 Sensitive Species Selection for additional details regarding the selection of the most sensitive species). Toxicity samples will be collected at receiving water locations at the frequency outlined in Table 7 and according to Table 10. The procedure outlined in Attachment D will be used to evaluate the results of the sample, determine if a TIE is necessary, and utilize the results of a TIE (if conducted) to adapt the monitoring program.

4 Unless another test procedure is required under 40 CFR subchapter N or is otherwise specified in the Permit for such pollutants [40 CFR sections 122.41(j)(4) and 122.44(i)(1)(iv)] or if local commercial laboratories do not offer these analytical test methods at the same sensitivity . If local commercial laboratories do not offer these analytical test methods at the same sensitivity, the most sensitive analytical test method offered by local commercial laboratories will be used.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 26 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
8 Non-Stormwater Screening and Monitoring Program
The NSW Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program is a multi -step process to identify and address NSW discharges to the receiving waters. The outfall screening and monitoring process is intended to meet the following objectives (Part VII.A of the MRP):

1. Develop criteria or other means to ensure that all outfalls with significant NSW discharges are identified and assessed during the term of the Permit.

2. For outfalls determined to have significant NSW flow, determine whether flows are the result of illicit discharges, authorized or conditionally exempt NSW flows, natural flows, or from unknown sources.

3. Address illicit discharges in accordance with the IDDE Program (Part VIII.I of the Permit) for appropriate action.

4. Prioritize monitoring of outfalls considering the potential threat to the receiving water and applicable TMDL compliance schedules.

5. Based on existing screening or monitoring data or other institutional knowledge, assess the impact of NSW discharges (other than identified illicit discharges) on the receiving water.

6. Conduct monitoring and assess the monitoring data to determine the impact of NSW discharges on the receiving water.

7. Conduct monitoring or other investigations to identify the source of pollutants in NSW discharges, consistent with the IDDE Program.

8. Use results of the screening process to evaluate the conditionally exempt NSW discharges identified in Parts III.A.2 and III.A.3 of the Permit and take appropriate actions pursuant to Part III.A.5.c of the Permit for those discharges that have been found to be a source of pollutants.

9. Maximize the use of Permittee resources by integrating the screening and monitoring process into existing monitoring and/or screening efforts.

8.1 INITIAL NSW OUTFALL SCREENING PROCESS
The NSW outfall screening and monitoring program began in 2015 with a field check of all major outfalls as defined in the permit
5 to gather the necessary field information. During the field screening, outfalls were observed during dry weather, at least 72 hours after a rain event of 0.1 inches or greater. The following information was gathered:

1. Date, Time, Weather

2. Photos of outfall and receiving water using a GPS-enabled camera

3. Coordinates of outfall

4. Physical descriptions of outfall, site condition, and accessibility

5. Discharge characteristics, such as odor and color

6. Presence of flow

7. Receiving water characteristics

5 Major outfalls defined as 36” or greater (or equivalent with drainage area of more than 50 acres) or 12” or greater (or equivalent with drainage area of 2 acres or more) that drain areas zoned as industrial.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 27 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
After the initial event, NSW outfalls where flow greater than a trickle was observed during the initial screening event were revisited for two more events. During the second and third screening events, all of the information listed above , in addition to visual field estimates of flow , was gathered. Additional outfall screening event s were conducted in 2017, 2018, and 2020. In total, the County screened 60 major outfalls and the City screened 218 storm drain outlets in 2015.

8.2 IDENTIFICATION OF OUTFALLS WITH SIGNIFICANT NON- STORMWATER

DISCHARGES
The three outfall screening events wer e used to define the outfalls that require no further assessment and outfalls with significant NSW discharges. Outfalls were noted as requiring “ No Further Assessment” if:

1. No flow is observed from the outfall.

2. The source is confirmed to be from NPDES permitted, categorically exempt essential flow or natural flow, or

3. Flow is categorized as not significant.

The data collected during the outfall screening process, along with other information about the outfall catchment area, was used to determine which outfalls observed to be flowing during the screening process were categorized as having “significant discharge.” Many factors were taken into consideration when determining significant outfall discharges and include the following criteria:
• Proximity of the outfall to the main stem of the Santa Clara River where TMDLs apply. • Outfall has persistent flows, meaning flow was observed on two or more of the three screenings at a rate “greater than a garden hose”.
6 o Flows were categorized as follows:
 No Flow/Wet (0 gpm)
 Trickle (<2 gpm)
 Garden Hose (2-10 gpm)
 Greater than Garden Hose (>10 gpm)
• Characteristics of the catchment area, including but not limite d to, presence of permitted discharges in the area, land use characteristics, and previous IDDE (formerly I llicit Connection/Illicit Discharge) results.

Outfalls with significant NSW discharge were designated in an inventory.

8.3 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION FOR OUTFALLS WITH SIGNIFICANT NON-

STORMWATER DISCHARGE
The screening and source identification component s of the program are used to identify the source(s) and point(s) of origin of the NSW discharge. Based on the list of major outfalls with

6 Inaccessible outfalls observed to have persistent flows “greater than garden hose” at the nearest downstream receiving water or nearest upstream manhole would also be considered significant.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 28 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
significant NSW discharges, investigations were conducted to identify the source(s) or potential source(s) of non-stormwater flows.

Part VII.A.2 of the MRP requires Permittees to classify the source investigation results into the following endpoints:

A. Illicit discharges: If the source is determined to be an illicit discharge, the Permittee must implement procedures to eliminate the discharge consistent with IDDE requirements (Permit Part VIII.I) and document actions.

B. No n -essential Conditionally Exempt : If the source is determined to be a non -essential conditionally exempt discharge, the Permittee must conduct monitoring consistent with Part VII.E of the MRP to determine whether the discharge should remain conditionally exempt or be prohibited.

C. E ssential Conditionally Exempt : If the source is determined to be a conditionally exempt essential discharge, the Permittee must document the source.

D. A uthorized : If the source is determined to be an NPDES permitted discharge or a discharge subject to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Permittee must document the source.

E. N atural flows : If the source is determined to be natural flows, the Permittee must document the source.

F. U nknown sources: If the source is unknown, the Permittee must conduct monitoring consistent with Part VII.E of the MRP.

Source investigations were conducted using site-specific procedures based on the characteristics of the NSW discharge. Investigations included:
• Identifying permitted discharges within the catchment area. • Identifying if the flow is from a channelized stream or creek. • Following dry weather flows from the location where they are first observed in an upstream direction along the conveyance system.
• Compiling and reviewing available resources including past monitoring and investigation data, land use/MS4 maps, aerial photography, and property ownership information. • Gathering field measurements to characterize the discharge.

The outfall shown in Table 11 was found to have significant non-stormwater discharges. Source investigations were conducted and the outfall endpoint w as found to be Non-Essential, Conditionally Exempt.

Table 11. Source ID Endpoints for Outfalls with Significant NSW Discharges Jurisdiction
Major Outfalls with
Significant NSW Discharges Source Identification Endpoint City PD 2507 Non-Essential, Conditionally Exempt

8.4 NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE MONITORING
As identified in Table 11, the outfall has been determined to convey significant NSW discharges where the source investigations concluded that the source is attributable to non-essential

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 29 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
conditionally exempt discharges (Endpoint B) and must be monitored. Constituents to be monitored, monitoring frequency, and monitoring procedures are outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 7 respectively.

Monitoring for NSW discharges will be more dynamic than either the receiving water or stormwater outfall monitoring. As non -stormwater discharges are addressed, monitoring at the outfall will cease. Thus, the number and location of outfalls monitored has the potential to change on an annual basis. The process for adapting monitoring locations and frequency is presented in Section 11.

8.5 NSW OUTFALL RE-SCREENING DETERMINATION
Part VII.D.2.b of the MRP requires that Los Angeles County Permittees consider dry weather receiving water monitoring data downstream of the outfalls and other relevant information to determine if re-screening is necessary for any of the previously screened outfalls that did not have significant NSW discharge. As detailed in the previous sections, previously screened outfalls that did not have significant NSW discharge were re- screened in 2017, 2018, and 2020 and no significant NSW discharges were observed at any of the outfalls. As such, additional re-screening is not warranted during this Permit term. Additionally, the dry weather trends analysis conducted by the USCRWMG and presented within their Annual Reports has repeatedly shown that the dry weather receiving water quality and non- stormwater outfall quality is almost entirely either improving or staying the same for all dry weather monitoring locations . Given the lack in variability in receiving water and non- stormwater outfall quality between monitoring events, conducting a re-screening for any of the previously screened outfalls that did not have significant NSW discharge is unnecessary at this time . As such, additional re -screening is not warranted during this Permit term, but re-screening will be conducted when trends in receiving water quality or non-stormwater outfall water quality indicate that dry weather conditions within the watershed may be changing.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 30 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
9 Other CIMP Components

9.1 OPTIONAL SPECIAL STUDIES
The USCRWMG is not proposing to implement any optional special studies at this time . As previously noted, special studies may be conducted if needed to answer specific questions and/or if localized water quality concerns are identified through the CIMP and WMP process, helping the USCRWMG better implement the WMP. Please note that the Regional Board may implement a special study in relation to nutrients in Lake Elizabeth which would be outside of the scope of the monitoring conducted by the USCRWMG as part of this CIMP . In the previous version of this CIMP, two optional special studies were identified, and data were collected to answer the questions which were the impetus of those studies.

The first study was included to support characterization of receiving water quality and identification of sources for a USCRWMG identified water quality priority (pyrethroids in Bouquet Canyon). The USCRWMG collaborated with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) regarding pesticides in Bouquet Canyon. The City supported the CDPR implementation of the Stream Pollution Trends (SPoT) Monitoring Program, which conducts statewide monitoring to provide information on the condition of California waterways with respect to trends in sediment toxicity and contamination. SPoT data are currently used by the California State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards to assess the levels to which aquatic life beneficial uses are supported in California streams and rivers. Monitoring events were conducted by CDPR to narrow down the possible drainage areas that are causing or contributing to the issue, and also to characterize the pesticide types and their relative concentrations. Finally, the City has also been working with the Pyrethroids Working Group and CDPR on outreach.

Training seminars have been held for pesticide applicators to re-enforce proper application as well as for them to provide guidance to residents for proper aftercare to prevent pesticide runoff to the storm drain . Outreach included television commercials regarding the harmful impacts that pesticide usage can have on fish, advertisements in local magazines, billboards, posters in the area, and message-banners. The City also participates in the CASQA Our Water, Our World Program to train garden centers and hardware store employees on integrated pest management and reducing overall pesticide use.

The second study was included to support characterization of Reach 7 upstream of the USCRWMG WMP area. A ssessing natural bacteria contributions from relatively uninhabited, rural areas is consistent with optional special studies outlined in the Bacteria TMDL. As presented in the updated USCR WMP (June 2021) , alternative measures may be needed to address E. coli impairments. Multiple bacteria source investigations have been conducted by the Permittees regarding the source of E. coli exceedances and the studies have indicated that non-anthropogenic or natural sources are the main cause of exceedances. With a significant number of projects having been implemented in Reach 7 and consistently dry outfalls to Reach 7 , no special studies are currently proposed at this time.

9.2 REGIONAL STUDIES
The MRP identifies two regional studies: the SMC Regional Watershed Monitoring Program and the Southern California Bight Program. SCCWRP oversees the SMC. LACFCD currently participates in the SMC regional program. The SMC consists of stormwater agencies in southern

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 31 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
California which collaborate on stormwater quality related research projects of importance to the region with the goal to enhance scientific knowledge and develop management solutions. More details on the SMC program and workplan can be found at https://socalsmc.org/ . Initiated in 2008,
the SMC’s Regional Bioassessment Program is designed to run over a five-year cycle. Please note that if the SMC decides to discontinue bioassessment monitoring, the USCRWMG will review the costs and resources needed to complete bioassessment monitoring and may decide to complete the discontinued monitoring separate from this CIMP.

9.3 NON-CIMP MONITORING DATA
Water quality data collected through other monitoring programs (e.g., NPDES WRP) in the watershed will be incorporated to the extent practicable. The extent practicable will be dictated by the cost of gathering and compiling information from outside programs. Data reported by these entities will be evaluated for suitability for inclusion in the CIMP database. If the data are deemed to be suitable, they will be included in the CIMP database.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 32 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
10 Reporting and Compliance Evaluation
Attachment C details the procedures for managing and reporting data to meet the goals and objectives of this CIMP and the Permit. The details contained in Attachment C serve as a guide for ensuring that consistent protocols and procedures are in place for successful data management and reporting. Data management procedures include data review, verification, and validation.

Annual monitoring reports are required to be submitted by December 15 of each year. The annual monitoring reports will cover the monitoring period of July 1 through June 30. The annual monitoring reports will include the following:
• Monitoring Results
• Certification
• Summary of Sampling Events
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control
• Summary of Exceedances
• Summary of Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
Trash Report Forms will also be submitted annually with each Permittee’s Annual Report Form (Sections 2 through 8 of Attachment H of the Permit) and shall report on compliance with the Lake Elizabeth Trash TMDL and Trash Discharge Prohibitions using the Trash TMDL Reporting Form and/or Trash Discharge Prohibition Reporting Form (contained in Attachment I of the Permit or a revised form approved by the Regional Board).

The WMP Progress Report Form (Section 1 of Attachment H of the Permit) will be submitted on a semi-annual basis no later than December 15 and June 15 of each year for the preceding January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31 reporting period, respectively.

Analytical data reports are required to be submitted on a semi -annual basis and will include the following:
• Receiving water and outfall monitoring results (includes QA/QC results); • Corresponding sample dates and monitoring locations;
• Exceedances applicable to WQBELs, RWLs, or aquatic toxicity thresholds; and • Precipitation data from the nearest rain gauges to the sampling locations.

Semi-annual data reports will be submitted with the annual report and six months prior to the annual report (June of each year). The June data reports will cover the monitoring period of July 1 through December 31 and the December data reports will cover the monitoring period of January 1 through June 30.

Although not required to be submitted, the outfall -based database will be maintained and include the information required in Part VIII.A.1-9 of Attachment E of the Permit.

Furthermore, if any of the authorized or conditionally exempt essential NSW discharges are determined to be a source of pollutants that causes or contributes to an exceedance of applicable

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 33 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
limitations in Part IV, Part V, and Attachments K through S of the Permit, Part III.A.8 of the Permit requires that the Regional Board be notified within 30 days of any such determination.

The compliance evaluation will be conducted as outlined in Attachment C. However, the analysis will also take into consideration the relationship between the types of monitoring and the pathways for determining compliance outlined in the Permit. As a result, while t he Mass Emission station will serve to help evaluate the receiving water objectives and support an understanding of potential impacts associated with MS4 discharges, an exceedance of a RWL at a receiving water site does not on its own represent a n exceedance of a RWL that was caused by or contributed to by MS4 discharges as these sites also receive runoff from non-MS4 sources, including open space and other permitted discharges. Additionally, consistent with Part X of the Permit , an exceedance at an outfall location when the corresponding downstream receiving water location meeting the RWLs does not constitute a Permit violation . Finally, reporting of compliance will be accomplished by evaluating the data per Part X of the Permit.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 34 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
11 Adaptive Management
The adaptive management process will be utilized on an annual basis to evaluate the CIMP and update the monitoring requirements as necessary. S everal monitoring elements are dynamic and may require modifications to the monitoring sites, frequency, or parameters. This section lays out a range of possible modifications to this CIMP and the process for CIMP revision and update.

11.1 INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
The monitoring specified in the CIMP is in part dynamic. The specified monitoring program is based on analysis of existing data and the MRP requirements. As CIMP monitoring occurs, more information will be gathered that will require modifications to the procedures outlined in the CIMP. Every year, an evaluation of the CIMP will be conducted to identify potential modifications resulting from the following:
• Source investigations determine that MS4 discharges are not a source of a constituent. • TIEs result in the identification of additional constituents that need to be monitored. • Additional outfall monitoring is needed in response to RWL exceedances. • NSW outfall sites may change as discharges are addressed. • Monitoring data demonstrates that water quality objectives are not being exceeded in the receiving waters.

The results from the monitoring are meant to tie into the WMP as feedback for the water quality changes resulting from control measures implemented by the Group Members. So additional changes may be considered during the evaluation based on the control mea sure implementation needs.

11.2 CIMP REVISION PROCESS
This CIMP identifies a range of sampling that will likely result in data that will require changes to ensure monitoring meets the requirements and intent of the MRP and supports WMP implementation. However, since many of those potential changes are identified in this CIMP, it should not be necessary to obtain Regional Board approval of modifications already considered in this CIMP to ensure timely implementation of appropriate modifications to monitoring. These changes are outlined in this section. Changes identified in this section will be discussed in the annual monitoring report and implemented starting no later than the first CIMP monitoring event of the next monitoring year ( i.e., the first event after July 1 of the year following the annual monitoring report submittal), including:

1. Adding constituents, increasing monitoring frequency, or adding sites as a result of any requirements in the MS4 Permit (e.g., TIE results), procedures outlined in the CIMP, or to further support meeting the monitoring objectives.

2. Discontinuing monitoring for Table E -6 constituents that are not otherwise identified for monitoring and are at or below the Reporting Level (RL) listed in Attachment D or the result is below the lowest applicable water quality objectives in the first year of monitoring following approval of this revised CIMP.

3. Discontinuing monitoring of any non-TMDL constituent at a specified site if there are two years with no exceedances of non-303(d) listed constituents (e.g., Table E-6 and Category

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 35 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
3 constituents) observed for the same condition (i.e., wet or dry weather). Flow and field parameters will not be discontinued unless flow and field parameters are the only parameters to be measured at the site.

4. Changing the monitoring procedure from grabs to manual composite or automated sampling.

5. Modifying the methods for consistency with US EPA method requirements or to achieve lower detection limits.

6. Changing analytical laboratories.

7. Modifications to sampling protocols resulting from coordination with other watershed monitoring programs.

8. Coordination with additional non-USCRWMG agencies and/or incorporation of entities into the USCRWMG CIMP.

Should additional modifications be identified that are not specified in this section that would be major changes to the approach (e.g., moving or removing a receiving water location), the modifications will be proposed in a separate letter to the Regional Water Board requesting Executive Officer (EO) approval of the change. Upon receipt of written approval from the EO, this CIMP will be updated and a revised CIMP will be provided to the Regional Board.

Revised Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program 36 September 2023 Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
12 Schedule
Monitoring conducted under the currently approved CIMP will continue to be conducted during the CIMP update approval process. Implementation of modifications will commence after approval by the EO of the Regional Board. For monitoring of constituents identified in Table E-6 of the MRP during wet weather, the screening event will be conducted during the first significant storm event of the first monitoring year following Regional Board approval of this revised CIMP, so long as that approval comes at least 30 days prior to the first storm event of the season. If not, the Table E-6 wet weather screening event will be conducted during the next storm event that is at least 30 days after approval. For monitoring of constituents identified in Table E -6 of the MRP during dry weather, the screening event will be conducted during the first July following Regional Board approval of this revised CIMP, so long as that approval comes at least 30 days prior to the end of July. If not, the Table E -6 dry weather screening event will be conducted during the next July.

Revised CIMP A-1 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment A: Watershed Management Plan Area
Background
1 WATERSHED BACKGROUND
The following subsections summarize the hydrology, geographic boundaries, and existing monitoring programs in the watershed management area covered by the CIMP .

1.1 Watershed Management Program Area Overview
The WMP addresses the portion of the Upper Santa Clara River in Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita that is regulated by the Permit. State and federal lands, including the Angeles National Forest and the state parks lands, are outside Permit regulation and, therefore, not included in the scope of the WMP . The Upper Santa Clara River watershed covered by the WMP encompasses approximately 199,811 acres. The entire Santa Clara River Watershed is 1,045,760 acres, which includes the land area within Ventura County as well as national forest and state park land.

Reaches 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Santa Clara River receive drainage from the USCRWMG members.

Please note that the area commonly referred to as “Newhall Ranch” which may discharge directly or indirectly to SCR Reach 5 has traditionally not been included in the CIMP due to it development status. At this time, the Newhall Ranch area is not included in this CIMP for compliance monitoring.

At such time in the future that Newhall Ranch requests to be a part of this plan (e.g., for land use monitoring), this CIMP may require revision. Receiving waters within the WMP area include:

1. Santa Clara River Reaches 5, 6, 7, and 8;

2. South Fork Santa Clara River;

3. Agua Dulce Canyon Creek;

4. Mint Canyon Creek;

5. Bouquet Canyon Creek;

6. Dry Canyon Creek;

7. San Francisquito Canyon Creek; and

8. Castaic Creek.

Although there are a number of lakes with 303(d) listings in the WMP area, there are no MS4 discharges to those lakes, with the exception of Lake Elizabeth. As a result, only Lake Elizabeth is covered in the CIMP . Likewise, there are no MS4 discharges to the Los Angeles River (LAR) from the portion of the City of Santa Clarita located in the LAR watershed. As such, monitoring in the LAR is not proposed in the CIMP .

1.1.1 Participating Permittees
The participating Permittees in the USCRWMG include the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and the City of Santa Clarita. These Permittees are collectively referred to as the USCRWMG or Group Members. Although the Los Angeles County Flood Control District has MS4 facilities within the WMP boundaries, it does not have jurisdiction over land use.

Approximate land area and land use summaries for the Group Members are listed in Table A-1.

Revised CIMP A-2 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-1. Land Area within WMP and Other Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Areas Watershed
Area Agency WMP
Agency
Approximate
Land Area
(acres) 1
Watershed
Land within
WMP under
Permittee
Jurisdiction
County of Los Angeles Yes 153,361
City of Santa Clarita Yes 47,138
Los Angeles County Flood Control District Yes N/A
Approximate Area of WMP Agencies 200,499
Watershed
Land outside of
WMP and
NPDES Permit
Conditions
Lake Elizabeth Watershed No 3,323
Forested Areas, Including Angeles National Forest
and State Parks No 214,884
Approximate Total Upper Santa Clara River
Watershed 418,706

1.1.2 Geographic Boundaries
The WMP area is primarily located in the Santa Clara River Valley within the northern section of Los Angeles County as shown in Figure A-1. The majority of the WMP area is located within the Santa Clara River Watershed Management Area (WMA); however, an extremely small rural and undeveloped area (0.09 square miles or 0.233 square kilometers) within the LAR watershed is located within the City of Santa Clarita and is included in the WMP area. There are no storm drains, gutters, catch basins, or other types of MS4 infrastructure in the portion of the City within the LAR watershed. When it rains, the single paved road within this area sheds water by sheet-�low to the surrounding open space.

Like the portion of the City of Santa Clarita in the LAR watershed, other areas within the City and County in the Santa Clara River watershed are rural and undeveloped, and do not have MS4 infrastructure. While these areas are included in the WMP because they are within the Permittees’ jurisdictions, these areas do not contain MS4 infrastructure that can generate discharges to receiving water bodies. In some cases, the areas are primarily natural open space.

The jurisdictional boundaries for the Group Members are shown on Figure A-2 along with the major water bodies and reach breaks. Additionally, the HUC-12 subwatershed boundaries and land use for the USCRWMG are shown in Figures A-3 and A-4, respectively.

Revised CIMP A-3 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure A-1. Location of the WMP Group within the Los Angeles Basin

Revised CIMP A-4 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure A-2. Water Bodies and Geographic Boundary of the USCRWMG.

Revised CIMP A-5 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Figure A-3. HUC-12 Boundaries of the USCRWMG.

Revised CIMP A-6 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure A-4. USCRWMG Land Use.

Revised CIMP A-7 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
2 TMDL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Historical watershed monitoring programs provided data and information used to support site selection and identi�ication of constituents for monitoring during the development of the 2015 CIMP . Such programs included MS4 Permit monitoring (Mass Emission monitoring), monitoring conducted by LACSD, the Santa Clara River Watershed-Wide Monitoring Program, the Newhall Ranch Water Quality Monitoring Program, and the TMDL Monitoring Plans. Elements of these monitoring programs were incorporated into the 2015 CIMP .

One primary objective of CIMP monitoring is ful�illing the monitoring requirements established in TMDL Basin Plan Amendments (BPAs) and/or in Part XV of the MRP , which establishes reporting requirements and associated monitoring requirements in association with adopted TMDLs in the region. Attachment M to the Permit lists the TMDLs directly applicable in the WMP area. The applicable TMDLs are listed in Table A-2. The water bodies within the WMP area with established TMDLs are highlighted in Figure A-5.

Revised CIMP A-8 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-2. TMDLs Applicable to the WMP Area.

TMDL
Effective Date or
EPA Approval Date
Regional Board
Resolution Number
Santa Clara River Nitrogen Compounds TMDL
(Nitrogen TMDL) 3/23/2004 2003-011
TMDL for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River
(Chloride TMDL)
5/4/2005 2004-004
6/12/2008 2006-016
4/6/2010 2008-012
4/28/2015 R14-010
Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash
TMDL (Trash TMDL)
3/6/2008 2007-009
6/1/2022 R19-005
TMDL for Indicator Bacteria in the Santa Clara River
Estuary and Reaches 3, 5, 6, and 7 (Bacteria TMDL) 3/21/2012 R10-006 TMDL for Nutrients in the Santa Clara River Lakes
(Elizabeth Lake, Lake Hughes, and Munz Lake)
(Lakes Nutrients TMDL)
6/27/2017 R16-006
Revised CIMP A-9 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure A-5. TMDLs Within the WMP Area

Revised CIMP A-10 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

2.1 Santa Clara River Nitrogen Compounds TMDL
The Permit includes WQBELs for discharges to Santa Clara River Reach 5 (Los Angeles Regional Basin Plan Reach Designation) for Total Ammonia and Nitrate-N plus Nitrite-N. Allocations and monitoring requirements are included for other reaches in the TMDL, but wasteload allocations and WQBELs only apply to Reach 5. A summary of the monitoring requirements identi�ied in the TMDL BPA is presented in Table A-3. Compliance with the Nitrogen TMDL has been achieved in the Santa Clara River since the addition of nitri�ication/denitri�ication processes at the Saugus and Valencia Water Reclamation Plants. Per the TMDL Staff Report, the MS4 is considered a minor source of nitrogen compounds.

Table A-3. Summary of Nitrogen TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the USCRWMG Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location
Total Ammonia,
Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N Not Specified
Dry Weather
Water Santa Clara River Reach 5
Wet Weather

2.2 TMDL for Chloride in the Upper Santa Clara River
The Chloride TMDL applies to Reaches 4B, 5, 6, and 7, but the Permit only lists reach speci�ic WQBELs for chloride in Reach 5 and 6 of the Santa Clara River. In addition to chloride, the TMDL also requires monitoring of total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfate. A summary of the monitoring requirements identi�ied in the TMDL is presented in Table A-4.

Table A-4. Summary of Chloride TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the USCRWMG Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location(s)
Chloride, TDS,
and Sulfate Not Specified Dry weather Water Santa Clara River Reach 5 and 6

2.3 Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Nutrients TMDL For the Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Nutrients TMDL, the only TMDL waterbody to which USCRWMG members discharge is Lake Elizabeth. The Permit includes WQBELs for discharges to Lake Elizabeth for total nitrogen and phosphorus. A summary of the monitoring requirements identi�ied in the TMDL BPA is presented in Table A-5.

Table A-5. Summary of Lake Nutrients TMDL Monitoring Requirements Applicable to the

USCRWMG
Constituents Frequency Condition Matrix Location
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus Not Specified
Dry Weather
Water Lake Elizabeth
Wet Weather

Revised CIMP A-11 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

2.4 Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDLs For the Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDLs, the only TMDL waterbody to which USCRWMG members discharge is Lake Elizabeth. Compliance with the Lake Elizabeth Trash TMDL has been met through the installation of full capture devices on all conveyances that discharge to Lake Elizabeth at the MS4 catch basins.

2.5 Santa Clara River Indicator Bacteria TMDL
The Bacteria TMDL states that compliance with interim WLAs must be assessed using in-stream monitoring while compliance with �inal WLAs must be assessed using in-stream and outfall monitoring. A summary of monitoring requirements is presented in Table A-6.

Table A-6. Summary of Bacteria TMDL Monitoring Requirements applicable to the USCRWMG Constituent Frequency Condition Matrix Location(s)
E. coli
Adequate to assess
compliance with the 30-day
geometric mean objectives
Dry Weather
Water Santa Clara River
Reach 5, 6, and 7 Wet Weather

2.6 Summary of TMDL Compliance Points
The City of Santa Clarita is identi�ied in Attachment J of the Permit as being a responsible party for the Los Angeles River Bacteria TMDL. However, as discussed in the geographic scope, the City has no MS4 discharges to the Los Angeles River. Table A-7 lists the schedule and applicable �inal WQBELs and RWLs established by TMDLs and identi�ied Attachment M of the Permit.

Revised CIMP A-12 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-7. Summary of TMDLs for the USCRWMG
TMDL Waterbody Constituent Weather
Condition
Schedule
Final WQBEL
2021 2023 2029 2032
Salts Santa Clara River
Reaches 5 and 61 Chloride Dry Final2 100 mg/L
Bacteria Santa Clara River
Reaches 5, 6, 7 E. coli
Dry Final
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 5 exceedance days
(daily sampling), 1 exceedance day (weekly
sampling)
Wet Final
235 MPN/100 mL daily max, 126 MPN/100 mL
geomean WQBEL, 16 exceedance days (daily
sampling), 3 exceedance days (weekly sampling),
126 geomean RWL
Nitrogen Santa Clara River
Reaches 53
Ammonia Final2 1-hr average 5.2 mg/L
30-day average 1.75 mg/L
Nitrate and
Nitrite
Final2 30-day average 6.8 mg/L
Lake
Nutrients Lake Elizabeth
Total
Nitrogen Final 2,536.8 lb-N/yr
Total
phosphorus Final 436.7 lb-P/yr
Trash Lake Elizabeth Trash Final2 Zero trash discharged

1. TMDL applies to Reaches 4B, 5, and 6, but only WQBELs for Reaches 5 and 6 apply to the USCR WMP Group per Part III of Attachment M of the Permit.

2. Final applicable on Effective Date of Permit.

3. TMDL includes load allocations and monitoring requirements for other reaches, but wasteload allocations and WQBELs only apply to Reach 5.

Revised CIMP A-0 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
3 WATER QUALITY PRIORITIES
Water quality priorities for the WMP area are based on TMDLs, the 303(d) List, and monitoring data. Based on available information and data analysis, WBPCs were classi�ied in one of the three Permit de�ined categories. WBPCs are categorized as Category 1 if they are subject to established TMDLs, Category 2 if they are on the 303(d) List or have suf�icient exceedances to be listed, and Category 3 if exceedances have been observed but are not frequent enough to meet the threshold for placement on the 303(d) List.

Subcategories were identi�ied and created to re�ine the prioritization process. Those pollutants with measurements exceeding water quality objectives are further evaluated and categorized based on the frequency, timing, and magnitude of exceedances. The subcategories are listed in Table A-8. The WBPCs are placed in the respective subcategories in Table A-9. Please see the WMP for additional details on the determination of water quality priorities.

Table A-8. Details for Water Body-Pollutant Combination Subcategories Category Water Body-Pollutant Combinations (WBPCs)
1 Category 1A: WBPCs with past due or upcoming (i.e., prior to July 2026) TMDL deadlines with exceedances in the past 5 years.

Category 1B: WBPCs with future (i.e., beyond July 2026) TMDL deadlines and with exceedances in the past 5 years.

Category 1C: WBPCs addressed in USEPA TMDL without a Regional Board Adopted Implementation Plan.

Category 1D: WBPCs with past due, upcoming, or future TMDL deadlines without exceedances in the past 5 years.
2 Category 2A: 303(d) Listed WBPCs or WBPCs that meet 303(d) Listing requirements with exceedances in the past 5 years.

Category 2B: 303(d) Listed WBPCs or WBPCs that meet 303(d) Listing requirements that are not a “pollutant”1 (i.e., toxicity).

Category 2C: 303(d) Listed WBPCs or WBPCs that meet 303(d) Listing requirements without exceedances in past 5 years or that could be delisted.

Category 2D: 303(d) Listed WBPCs for which MS4 discharges are not causing or contributing. 2
3 Category 3A: All other WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.

Category 3B: All other WBPCs that are not a “pollutant”1 (i.e., toxicity).

Category 3C: All other WBPCs that have exceeded in the past 10 years, but not in past 5 years.

Category 3D: WBPCs identified by the USCR WMP Group Members.

1. While pollutants may be contributing to the impairment, it currently is not possible to identify the specific pollutant/stres sor.

2. Pollutants in this category are in reaches within the WMP area that do not receive MS4 discharges but are included in the WMP for completeness and to acknowledge all 303(d) listings within the watershed. There are no compliance expectations with Category 2D WBPCs.

Revised CIMP A-1 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table A-9. Summary of Water Quality Priority Characterization for Waterbodies Applicable to the

USCRWMG CIMP
Class1 Constituent Santa Clara River Reach Lake
Elizabeth 5 6 7
Category 1A: WBPCs with past due or upcoming (i.e., prior to July 2026) TMDL deadlines with exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Bacteria E. coli (dry) F F F
Salts Chloride F F
Category 1B: WBPCs with future (i.e., beyond July 2026) TMDL deadlines and with exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Bacteria E. coli (wet) F F F
Category 1D: WBPCs with past due, upcoming, or future TMDL deadlines without exceedances in the past 5 years.2
Nutrients
Ammonia F 3
Nitrate plus Nitrite F 3
Total Nitrogen F
Total Phosphorus F
Trash Trash F
Category 2A: 303(d) Listed WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.2 Metals Iron 303(d) L L
Mercury L
Category 2B: 303(d) Listed WBPCs that are not a “pollutant” (e.g., toxicity).

Toxicity Toxicity 303(d)
Other
pH 303(d)
Eutrophic 303(d)
Organic Enrichment/Low DO 303(d)
Temperature 303(d)
Category 2C: 303(d) Listed WBPCs without exceedances in past 5 years2 or that could be delisted.

Pesticides Chlorpyrifos D
Trash Trash 303(d)
Category 3A: WBPCs with exceedances in the past 5 years.2 Nutrients Nitrate plus Nitrite X
Metals
Copper X
Mercury X X
Selenium X X
Other Cyanide X X
Salts TDS X
Sulfate X X
Phthalates Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate X
PAHs Indeo(1,2,3-cd)pyrene X
Category 3B: All other WBPCs that are not a “pollutant” (e.g., toxicity).

Other
pH X X X
Dissolved Oxygen X X
Temperature X

Revised CIMP A-2 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Class1 Constituent Santa Clara River Reach Lake
Elizabeth 5 6 7
Category 3C: All other WBPCs with exceedances in the past 10 years4, but without exceedances in past 5 years.2
Metals Copper X
Zinc X
Salts TDS X
Pesticides PCBs X

2. Date range for the past 5 years is July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020.

3. Reach 6 is included in the Nutrients TMDL, but no WLAs for MS4 discharges are assigned for this waterbody in the TMDL.

4. Date range for the past 10 years is July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020.

F=Final TMDL
D=303(d) listing that could now be delisted and has no exceedances in last 5 years 303(d)= 303(d) Listing for which data is unavailable to suggest that it could now be delisted L=WBPC that meets the listing criteria, but is not currently on the 303(d) list

Changes to the subcategorization of WBPCs may be made as additional data are collected by the CIMP and as BMP implementation continues. WBPCs may be moved to a lower priority category or removed from the list of water quality priorities if the frequency of exceedances decreases over time. WBPCs may also be moved to a higher priority category or added to the list of water quality priorities if the frequency of exceedances increases. Due to a high rate of in�iltration of the natural sandy soil, many segments of the Santa Clara River are dry with the exception of storm �lows. Many discharges from outfalls to the river and its tributaries do not reach the main stem of the river due to this naturally high in�iltration rate. Future monitoring will assess if and how different portions of the watershed are hydrologically connected during dry weather and minor storm events.

WBPCs identi�ied as water quality priorities are included in this CIMP and monitored as follows:
• Category 1 WBPCs: All WBPCs required to be monitored by a TMDL through either a Basin Plan Amendment approved by the Regional Board or through monitoring requirements speci�ied in the MRP will be monitored as part of this CIMP, except as described below:
o Total nitrogen and total phosphorus in Lake Elizabeth are not prioritized at this time given that the �inal TMDL deadline is in 2032 and that additional efforts are underway to evaluate the contribution of various sources in the watershed. These activities are expected to improve understanding of the fate and transport of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the Lake Elizabeth watershed. • Category 2 WBPCs: All WBPCs that are included on the current 303(d) list will be monitored unless they could now be delisted and have no exceedances in the last �ive years. • Category 3 WBPCs: All WBPCs for which there are insuf�icient data to indicate impairment in the receiving water according to the Listing Policy, but which have exceeded applicable receiving water limitations in the past �ive years and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance will be monitored as part of this CIMP.

Revised CIMP B-1 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment B: Monitoring Location Fact Sheets
Monitoring location fact sheets are presented for the receiving water, stormwater outfall, and non-stormwater outfall monitoring sites identi�ied in Section 4 of the CIMP . The monitoring location fact sheet for each site contains relevant information regarding the site’s location (e.g., coordinates), a general description, aerial satellite imagery, and a photograph. For the stormwater outfall locations, land use information and a map of the catchment area are also included.
4 RECEIVING WATER SITES
The receiving water monitoring sites in the USCRWMG’s WMP area and the type of monitoring conducted at each site are summarized in Table B-1. Section 4 of the CIMP details the site selection process which resulted in the selection of the identi�ied sites. Please note that the area commonly referred to as “Newhall Ranch” which may discharge directly or indirectly to SCR Reach 5 has traditionally not been included in the CIMP due to it development status. At this time, the Newhall Ranch area is not included in this CIMP for compliance monitoring. At such time in the future that Newhall Ranch requests to be a part of this plan (e.g., for land use monitoring), this CIMP may require revision.

Table B-1. Summary of Receiving Water Monitoring Sites Site ID Water Body
Coordinates Monitoring Type
Latitude Longitude ME TMDL
SNTCLR_5_R-E SCR Reach 5 34.41856 -118.63569 X
SNTCLR_6_ME SCR Reach 6 34.42611 -118.58583 X X
SNTCLR_7_R-A SCR Reach 7 34.42403 -118.53956 X
RWA – Receiving Water Assessment

Revised CIMP B-2 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

4.1 Receiving Water Assessment Site
Waterbody
Name
Waterbody
Type Site ID
Historical
Site ID Site Type Latitude Longitude
SCR Reach
6 Main Stem SNTCLR_6_ME MS4 ME
S29 ME, TMDL 34.42636 -118.58655
General Description: ME and TMDL monitoring site located at the downstream end of Reach 6 at The Old Road. This site coincides with the S29 Mass Emission Station. This location is also upstream of the Valencia WRP’s discharge location. Samples from this monitoring location characterize water quality in Reach 6, including approximately 80% of the discharge from the urbanized areas of the USCRWMG (i.e., MS4 discharges).

SNTCLR_6_ME Aerial View

SNTCLR_6_ME Ground-Level View

Revised CIMP B-3 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

4.2 Santa Clara River Reach 5 TMDL Site
Waterbody
Name
Waterbody
Type Site ID Historical
Site ID Site Type Latitude Longitude
SCR Reach
5 Main Stem SNTCLR_5_R-E LACSD
R-E TMDL 34.41856 -118.63569
General Description: TMDL monitoring site located downstream of the City of Santa Clarita approximately in the middle of Reach 5. This monitoring site coincides with a current LACSD monitoring location, which is approximately three miles downstream of the Valencia WRP’s discharge point.

Samples from this monitoring site characterize water quality of Reach 5, including approximately 90% of the MS4 discharges.

SNTCLR_5_R-E Aerial View

SNTCLR_5_R-E Ground-Level View

Revised CIMP B-4 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

4.3 Santa Clara River Reach 7 TMDL Site
Waterbody
Name
Waterbody
Type Site ID Historical
Site ID Site Type Latitude Longitude
SCR Reach
7 Main Stem SNTCLR_7_R-A LACSD
R-A TMDL 34.42403 -118.53956
General Description: TMDL monitoring site located at the downstream end of Reach 7. The site coincides with a LACSD receiving water monitoring location just upstream of the Saugus WRP discharge point. Samples from this monitoring location characterize water quality of Reach 7, including approximately 40% of the MS4 discharges.

SNTCLR_7_R-A Aerial View

SNTCLR_7_R-A Ground-Level View

Revised CIMP B-5 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
5 STORMWATER OUTFALL SITES
The stormwater outfall monitoring sites in the USCRWMG’s WMP area are summarized in Table B-2. Section 4 of the CIMP details the process which resulted in the selection of the identi�ied sites.

Table B-2. Summary of Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Sites Site ID / Drain
Name
Jurisdiction the
Outfall is
Located In
Owner/
Operator of
the Outfall
Site ID of
Downstream
RW Location Latitude Longitude
PD 2443 County LACFCD SNTCLR_5_R-E 34.49705 -118.61252
PD 0717 City LACFCD SNTCLR_6_ME 34.38176 -118.55110
PD 0494 City LACFCD SNTCLR_7_R-A 34.406088 -118.470119
Lake Elizabeth
East County LACFCD N/A1 34.66196 -118.38712

Revised CIMP B-6 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

5.1 PD 2443
Waterbody Location Drain
Name Size Site Type Latitude Longitude
SCR
Reach 5 County PD 2443 60 inches SW Outfall 34.49705 -118.61252 General Description: Stormwater outfall monitoring site discharging to Castaic Creek just downstream of Lake Hughes Road. The PD 2443 drain monitoring site only receives drainage from the County. Land uses include: 26 percent residential, 38 percent commercial, and 36 percent open space.

PD 2443 Aerial View

PD 2443 Ground-Level View

Revised CIMP B-7 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure B-1. Catchment Land Use for PD 2443

Revised CIMP B-8 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

5.2 PD 0717
Waterbody Location Drain Name Size Site Type Latitude Longitude SCR Reach
6 City PD 0717 120 inches SW Outfall 34.38176 -118.55110 General Description: Stormwater outfall monitoring site discharging to the South Fork Santa Clara River between Lyons Avenue and Orchard Village Road. The PD 0717 drain monitoring site only receives drainage from the City. Primary land use types include: 53 percent residential, 11 percent commercial/industrial, and 36 percent open space.

PD 0717 Aerial View

PD 0717 Ground-Level View

Revised CIMP B-9 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure B-2. Catchment Land Use for PD 0717

Revised CIMP B-10 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

5.3 PD 0494
HUC-12 Location Drain Name Size Site Type Latitude Longitude Sand
Canyon City PD 0494 78 inches SW Outfall 34.406088 -118.470119 General Description: SW outfall monitoring site discharging to an unnamed tributary to Santa Clara River Reach 7 and is located on Friendly Valley Golf Course which is privately owned and located near the intersection of Via Princesa and Sierra Highway. The PD 0494 drain monitoring site only receives drainage from the City. Primary land use types include: 88% residential; 12% commercial/industrial; and less than 1 percent open space.

PD 0494 Aerial View

PD 0494 Ground-Level View

Revised CIMP B-11 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure B-3. Catchment Land Use for PD 0494

Revised CIMP B-12 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

5.4 Lake Elizabeth (East)
Waterbody Location Drain Name Size Site Type Latitude Longitude Lake
Elizabeth County Unknown 30 inches SW Outfall 34.66196 -118.38712 General Description: Stormwater outfall monitoring site discharging to Lake Elizabeth just west of the intersection of Ranch Club Road and Montello Drive. The Lake Elizabeth (East) drain monitoring site only receives drainage from the County.

Lake Elizabeth (East) Aerial View

Lake Elizabeth (East) Ground-Level View

Revised CIMP B-13 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure B-4. Outfall Monitoring Location for Lake Elizabeth East

Revised CIMP B-14 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
6 NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL SITES
The non-stormwater outfall monitoring sites in the USCRWMG’s WMP area are summarized in Table B-3. Section 4 of the CIMP details the process which resulted in the selection of the identi�ied sites.

Table B-3. Summary of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Site Site ID / Drain
Name
Jurisdiction
the Outfall is
Located In
Owner/
Operator of
the Outfall
Site ID of
Downstream RW
Location Latitude Longitude
PD 2507 City LACFCD SNTCLR_6_ME 34.45467 -118.55839

Revised CIMP B-15 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

6.1 PD 2507
Waterbody Location Drain Name Size Site Type Latitude Longitude Santa Clara
River Reach
6 City PD 2507 108
inches
NSW
Outfall 34.45467 -118.55839
General Description: Non-stormwater outfall monitoring site discharging to San Francisquito Creek just south of Village Circle Drive.

PD 2507 Aerial View

PD 2507 Ground-Level View

Revised CIMP B-16 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure B-5. Outfall Drainage Area for PD 2507

Revised CIMP C-1 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment C: Reporting and Data Management
7 REPORTING
The MRP includes a number of reporting requirements to summarize CIMP implementation efforts, the data collected as part of the CIMP , as well as to report on implementation of the Permit requirements as a whole. The following sections detail monitoring and reporting requirements outlined in the MRP and provides information on how the data collected as part of this CIMP are to be used.

7.1 Annual Report Form
As outlined in Part XIV.A.1 of the MRP , each USCRWMG member will complete and submit an Annual Report using the Annual Report Form (contained in Sections 2 through 8 of Attachment H of the MS4 Permit) no later than December 15 of each year for the preceding July 1 to June 30 reporting period. Unless otherwise speci�ied by the Regional Board, each Group member will submit its Annual Report to the Regional Board in pdf �ile format via an electronic method (e.g., CD, USB drive, attachment/link in email
1, etc.).

7.2 Semi-Annual Watershed Management Program Progress Report As outlined in Part XIV.A.2 of the MRP , a WMP Progress Report, as contained in Section 1 of Attachment H of the MS4 Permit, will be submitted on a semi-annual basis no later than December 15 and June 15 of each year for the preceding January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31 reporting period, respectively. Unless otherwise speci�ied by the Regional Board, the USCRWMG will submit a WMP Report to the Regional Board in pdf �ile format via an electronic method (e.g., CD, USB drive, attachment/link in email2, etc.).

7.3 Annual Trash Reporting Forms
As outlined in Part XIV.A.3 of the MRP, the USCRWMG will annually report on compliance with the Lake Elizabeth, Munz Lake, and Lake Hughes Trash TMDL using the Trash TMDL Reporting Form (contained in Attachment I of the MS4 Permit or a revised form approved by the Regional Board) and submit completed forms as attachments to the Annual Report Form identi�ied in Section 7.1.

7.4 Annual Monitoring Reports and Certification
As required by Part XIV.B of the MRP , a Monitoring Report will be submitted no later than December 15 of each year for the preceding July 1 to June 30 reporting period and contain the following:

1. Summary of each sampling event including
a. Dates

1 Emailed to [email protected].
2 Ibid.

Revised CIMP C-2 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
b. Site ID (i.e., station ID or monitoring location ID) c. Monitoring Location Type (i.e., outfall or receiving water) d. Sample Media (e.g., water column, bed sediment, �ish tissue, storm-borne sediment) e. For receiving water monitoring locations, Site ID of the upstream outfall. f. For outfall monitoring locations, the receiving water the outfall discharges to and if being monitored, the Site ID of the receiving water monitoring location. g. Missed monitoring events and justi�ication.
h. Weather Condition (i.e., wet or dry). For applicable TMDLs with a speci�ic de�inition, the weather condition per the TMDL will be indicated.
i. Station ID of rain gage station(s) and/or �low gage station(s) used to determine the weather condition.
j. Wet weather sampling events will contain the following additional information:
i. Storm start time
ii. Storm duration (hours)
iii. Highest storm intensity – 15 minutes (inches/hour) iv. Total storm volume (inches)
v. Whether the sample event occurred during the �irst signi�icant storm. vi. Whether the sampling event was preceded by at least three days of dry weather (less than 0.1 inches of rain each day).
k. Dry weather sampling events will contain the following additional information:
i. Whether the sample event occurred during the historically driest month. ii. Whether the sampling event occurred at least three days after a rain event of

0.1 inches or greater.

1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
a. QA/QC results
b. Actions to address any QA/QC issues that arose

2. Summary of exceedances of applicable WQBELs, receiving water limitations, and aquatic toxicity thresholds for all test results, with corresponding sampling dates, monitoring site IDs, and weather conditions. Quantitative descriptions of trends in water quality (e.g., improving, staying the same, declining) in the receiving water and outfalls, using statistical analysis and/or graphical presentation of data, for wet and dry weather conditions. A summary of efforts taken to address exceedances where it is determined that outfall discharges are causing or contributing to receiving water exceedances.

3. Summary of Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
a. If aquatic toxicity was con�irmed and a TIE was conducted, the toxic chemicals as determined by the TIE will be identi�ied. All relevant data of the TIE will be included including, but not limited to, the sample(s) date, sample(s) start and end time, sample type(s) (�low-weighted composite, grab, or �ield measurement), sample location(s), the parameters, the analytical results, and the applicable limitation. b. A full laboratory report for each toxicity test prepared according to the appropriate test methods manual chapter on Report Preparation, including:

Revised CIMP C-3 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
i. The toxicity test results for the t-test, reported as “Pass” or “Fail” , and the “Percent Effect” ,
ii. The dates of sample collection and initiation of each toxicity test, iii. Test species with biological endpoint values for each concentration tested, iv. Reference toxicant test results,
v. Water quality measurements for each toxicity test (e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, hardness, salinity, chlorine, ammonia), vi. TRE/TIE testing results, and
vii. A printout of CETIS (Comprehensive Environmental Toxicity Information System) program results.
c. TIEs (Phases I, II, and III) that have been completed or are being conducted, by monitoring location.
d. The development, implementation, and results for each TRE Corrective Action Plan, beginning the water year following the identi�ication of each pollutant or pollutant class causing toxicity.

In addition, a certi�ication and signature as outlined in Section 7.6 shall be submitted with each annual monitoring report submittal.

7.5 TMDL Reporting
As required by Part XV of the MRP, the USCRWMG will report on compliance with TMDLs contained in Attachment M of the MS4 Permit in the USCRWMG’s Annual Monitoring Report.

7.6 Signatory and Certification Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Regional Board, State Board, and/or USEPA will be signed and certi�ied in accordance with Attachment D of the MS4 Permit as follows:

1. All permit applications shall be signed by either a principal executive of�icer or ranking elected of�icial. For purposes of this provision, a principal executive of�icer includes: (i) the chief executive of�icer of the agency, or (ii) a senior executive of�icer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency.

2. All reports required by the Permit and other information requested by the Regional Board, State Board, or USEPA shall be signed by a principal executive of�icer, a ranking elected of�icial, or by a duly authorized representative of a principal executive of�icer or ranking elected of�icial. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a principal executive of�icer or ranking elected of�icial.
b. The authorization speci�ies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a well �ield, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.)

Revised CIMP C-4 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
c. The written authorization is submitted to the Regional Board and State Board.

3. If an authorization of a duly authorized representative is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization will be submitted to the Regional Board and State Board prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications, to be signed by an authorized representative.

4. The following certi�ication will be made by any person signing an application or report:
“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that quali�ied personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are signi�icant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of �ine and imprisonment for knowing violations.”

5. Any person providing the electronic signature for documents described above that are submitted electronically shall meet all relevant requirements as outlined above and shall ensure that all relevant requirements of 40 C.F.R. part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting) and 40 C.F.R. part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Requirements) are met for that submission. (40 C.F .R § 122.22(e).)

7.7 Use of Submitted Data
As stated in Part I.A.2 of the MRP , a Primary Objective of the Monitoring Program is to assess compliance with RWLs and WQBELs established to implement TMDLs during dry and wet weather.

As such, a discussion of how the compliance evaluation will be conducted is warranted and is presented below.

7.8 Compliance Evaluation
The compliance evaluation will take into consideration the relationship between the types of monitoring and the pathways for determining compliance outlined in the Permit. For example, the receiving water monitoring sites meet the MRP objectives and support an understanding of potential impacts associated with MS4 discharges. However, as described in the MRP (Part I.C.1), receiving water sites are intended to assess receiving water conditions. An exceedance of a RWL at a receiving water site does not on its own indicate MS4 discharges caused or contributed to the RWL exceedance. As the receiving water sites also receive runoff from non-MS4 sources, including open space and other permitted discharges, the exceedance of a RWL may have been caused or contributed to by a non-MS4 source. Additionally, consistent with Part X of the Permit, an exceedance at an outfall location when the corresponding downstream receiving water location is meeting water quality objectives and RWLs does not constitute that WQBELs are not being met.

Finally, reporting of compliance will be accomplished by evaluating the data, in addition to the status of WMP implementation consistent with the Permit (Parts IX and X). Generally, reporting of compliance will consider whether the following conditions, as applicable, are met:

1. There are no exceedances of the WQBEL for the speci�ic pollutant in the discharge at the Permittee’s compliance point(s), including an outfall to the receiving water that collects

Revised CIMP C-5 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
discharges from multiple Permittees’ jurisdictions.

2. There are no exceedances of the receiving water limitation for the speci�ic pollutant in the receiving water(s) at, or downstream of, the Permittees’ compliance point(s).

3. There is no direct or indirect discharge from the Permittee’s MS4 to the receiving water during the relevant time period.

4. The exceedance is the result of an authorized or exempt non-stormwater discharge speci�ied in Part III.A.2 of this Order during a speci�ic sampling event. The water quality characteristics must be based on the source speci�ic water quality monitoring data from the authorized or conditionally exempt essential non-stormwater discharge or other relevant information documenting the characteristics of the speci�ic non-stormwater discharge.

5. The approved USCRWMG WMP is being implemented pursuant to Part IX of the Permit.

6. Conditions of effective Time Schedule Orders (TSOs) are met.

In addition, evaluation of compliance for pollutants subject to TMDLs will consider the requirements speci�ied in the applicable TMDLs.

Revised CIMP D-1 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment D: Monitoring Procedures
Attachment D details the monitoring procedures that will be utilized to collect and analyze samples to meet the goals and objectives of the CIMP and, in turn, the Permit. The details contained herein serve as a guide for ensuring that consistent protocols and procedures are in place for successful sample collection and analysis. This attachment is divided into the following six sections:
• Analytical Procedures
• Sample Collection and Handling
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control
• Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency
• Data Management, Validation, and Usability
• Monitoring Procedures References

Revised CIMP D-2 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
8 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The following subsections detail the analytical procedures for data generated in the �ield and in the laboratory.

8.1 Field Parameters
Portable �ield meters will measure within speci�ications outlined in Table D-1.

Table D-1. Analytical Methods and Project Reporting Limits for Field Measurements Parameter/Constituent Method Range Project RL
Current velocity Electromagnetic -0.5 to +20 ft/s 0.05 ft/s pH Electrometric 0 – 14 pH units NA
Temperature High stability thermistor -5 – 50 oC NA
Dissolved oxygen Membrane or Optical 0 – 50 mg/L 0.5 mg/L Turbidity Nephelometric 0 – 3000 NTU 0.2 NTU
Specific Conductivity Graphite electrodes 0 – 10 mmhos/cm 2.5 umhos/cm RL – Reporting Limit NA – Not applicable

8.2 Methods and Detection and Reporting Limits
Method detection limits (MDL) and reporting limits (RLs) must be distinguished for proper understanding and data use. The MDL is the minimum analyte concentration that can be measured and reported with a 99% con�idence that the concentration is greater than zero. The RL represents the concentration of an analyte that can be routinely measured in the sampled matrix within stated limits and with con�idence in both identi�ication and quantitation.

For this CIMP, RLs must be veri�iable by having the lowest non-zero calibration standard or calibration check sample concentration at or less than the RL. As described in Part II.H.7 of the MRP , attainment of the recommended RLs in Table E-6 of the MRP are not required, but Permittees are encouraged to attain the recommended RLs to ensure that analytical test methods are capable of detecting and measuring constituents at, or below the applicable RWLs and/or WQBELs. RLs have been established in this CIMP based on the veri�iable levels and general measurement capabilities demonstrated for each method. These RLs should be considered as maximum allowable reporting limits to be used for laboratory data reporting. Note that samples diluted for analysis may have sample-speci�ic RLs that exceed these RLs. This will be unavoidable on occasion. However, if samples are consistently diluted to overcome matrix interferences, the analytical laboratory will be required to notify the Project Manager how the sample preparation or test procedure in question will be modi�ied to reduce matrix interferences so that project RLs can be met consistently.

Analytical methods, MDLs, and RLs required for samples analyzed in the laboratory are summarized in Table D-2. For organic constituents, environmentally relevant detection limits will be used to the extent practicable. Alternative methods with RLs that are at or below the project RLs listed in Table D-2 are considered equivalent and can be used in place of the methods presented. Alternative methods shall be among those listed in the most current version of 40 CFR Part 136 at the time of

Revised CIMP D-3 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
analysis. This requirement does not apply for constituents for which no methods are listed in 40 CFR Part 136.

Prior to the analysis of any environmental samples, the laboratory must demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum performance requirements for each analytical method presented in Table D-2.

The initial demonstration of capability includes the ability to meet the project RLs, the ability to generate acceptable precision and accuracy, and other analytical and quality control parameters documented in this CIMP . Data quality objectives for precision and accuracy are summarized in Section 10.

Table D-2. Analytical Methods, Project Reporting Limits (RLs) and MRP Table E-6 Reporting Levels (RLs) for Laboratory Analysis of Water Samples
Parameter/Constituent Method(1) Units Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Toxicity
Ceriodaphnia dubia EPA-821-R-02-013 NA NA NA
Pimephales promelas EPA-821-R-02-013 NA NA NA
Hyalella azteca EPA-821-R-02-012 NA NA NA
Chironomus dilutus EPA-821-R-02-012 NA NA NA
Bacteria
E. coli (freshwater) SM 9221/SM 9223 B MPN/100mL 100 100 Conventionals
Oil and Grease EPA 1664A mg/L 5 5
Total Phenols EPA 625.1 mg/L 0.2 0.1
Cyanide SM 4500-CNE/EPA 335.4 mg/L 0.01 0.005
Total Hardness SM 2340C mg/L 2 2
Turbidity SM 2130B/EPA 180.1 NTU 0.1 0.1
Dissolved Organic Carbon SM 5310B mg/L 0.6 0.2
Total Organic Carbon SM 5310B mg/L 1 1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon EPA 1664 mg/L 5 5
Chemical Oxygen Demand SM 5220D mg/L 20 20
Biochemical Oxygen Demand SM-5210B mg/L 5 2
Alkalinity SM 2320B mg/L 2 2
MBAS SM 5540C mg/L 0.5 0.5
Fluoride EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.1 0.1

Revised CIMP D-4 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent Method(1) Units Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Perchlorate EPA 314.0 mg/L 0.004 0.006
Ammonia (as N) SM 4500-NH3 C mg/L 0.1 0.1
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.1 0.1
Nitrate (as N) EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.1 0.1
Nitrite (as N) EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.1 0.1
Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen (TKN) SM 4500-NH3 C mg/L 0.4 0.1 Total Phosphorus (as P) SM 4500-P E mg/L 0.05 0.05
Orthophosphate as P, (Dissolved) SM 4500-PE/EPA 300.0 mg/L 0.2 0.05 Sulfate EPA 300.0 mg/L 1 NA
Chloride EPA 300.0 mg/L 2 2
Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) SM 2540C mg/L 2 2
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) SM 2540D mg/L 2 2
Suspended Sediment Concentration ASTMD 3977-97 mg/L 5 5 Metals in Freshwater (dissolved and total)
Aluminum EPA 200.8 µg/L 100 87
Antimony EPA 200.8 µg/L 0.5 0.5
Arsenic EPA 200.8 µg/L 1 1
Beryllium EPA 200.8 µg/L 0.5 0.5
Cadmium EPA 200.8 µg/L 0.25 0.25
Chromium (total) EPA 200.8 µg/L 0.5 0.5
Chromium (Hexavalent)
SM 3500-Cr B/
EPA 218.6
µg/L
10/
5 2
Iron EPA 200.8 µg/L 100 100
Lead EPA 200.8 µg/L 0.5 0.5
Silver EPA 200.8 µg/L 0.25 0.25
Thallium EPA 200.8 µg/L 1 0.24
Copper EPA 200.8 µg/L 0.5 0.5

Revised CIMP D-5 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent Method(1) Units Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Nickel EPA 200.8 µg/L 1 1
Selenium EPA 200.8 µg/L 1 1
Zinc EPA 200.8 µg/L 1 1
Mercury EPA 1631E µg/L 0.05 0.04
Organochlorine Pesticides
Aldrin EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.005 0.005
alpha-BHC EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.01
beta-BHC EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.005 0.005
delta-BHC EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.005 0.005
gamma-BHC (Lindane) EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.02 0.01
alpha-chlordane EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.1 0.025
gamma-chlordane EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.1 0.025
Oxychlordane EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.2 NA
Cis-nonachlor EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.2 NA
Trans-nonachlor EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.2 NA
2,4’-DDD EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 NA
2,4’-DDE EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 NA
2,4’-DDT EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 NA
4,4'-DDD EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 0.025
4,4'-DDE EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 0.025
4,4'-DDT EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.005
Dieldrin EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.005
alpha-Endosulfan EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.02 0.02
beta-Endosulfan EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.01
Endosulfan sulfate EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 0.01
Endrin EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.005
Endrin aldehyde EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.01
Heptachlor EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.01

Revised CIMP D-6 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent Method(1) Units Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Heptachlor Epoxide EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.01
Toxaphene EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.5 0.5
PCBs
Total PCBs(2) EPA 625.1 pg/L 2000 170
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Chlorpyrifos EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 0.01
Diazinon EPA 614/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.01 0.01
Malathion EPA 614/EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 0.1
Atrazine EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 1
Cyanazine EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 2
Prometryn EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 2
Simazine EPA625.1 µg/L 2 2
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine EP 625.1 µg/L 1 1
2-Chlorophenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 1
2-Chloronapthalene EPA 625.1 µg/L 10 7.5
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 5
2-Nitrophenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 10 10
2,4-Dinitrophenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 4
2,4-Dichlorophenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
2,4-Dimethylphenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 2
2,4-Dinitrotoluene EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 10 1
2,6-Dinitrotoluene EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 5
3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 5
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 5
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 5

Revised CIMP D-7 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent Method(1) Units Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
4-Nitrophenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 5
Acenaphthene EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
Acenaphthylene EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 1
Anthracene EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 1
Benzidine EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 5
Benzo(a)anthracene EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 1
Benzo(a)pyrene EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene EPA 625.1 µg/L 10 1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 1
Butyl benzyl phthalate EPA 625.1 µg/L 10 1
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 5
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 4.4
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 2
Chrysene EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.1 0.1
Diethyl phthalate EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 2
Dimethyl phthalate EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 2
Di-n-butyl phthalate EPA 625.1 µg/L 10 3
Di-n-octyl phthalate EPA 625.1 µg/L 10 3
Fluoranthene EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 0.05
Fluorene EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.1 0.1
Hexachlorobenzene EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
Hexachlorobutadiene EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
Hexachloroethane EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 0.05

Revised CIMP D-8 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent Method(1) Units Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Isophorone EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
Naphthalene EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.2 0.2
N-Nitrosodimethyl amine EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 1
N-Nitrosodiphenyl amine EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
N-Nitrosodi-n-propyl amine EPA 625.1 µg/L 5 1
Nitrobenzene EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
Pentachlorophenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 2 1
Phenanthrene EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 0.05
Phenol EPA 625.1 µg/L 1 1
Pyrene EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.05 0.05
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 624 µg/L 1 1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA 624 µg/L 1 1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 624 µg/L 1 1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 624 µg/L 1 1
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether EPA 624 µg/L 10 1
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) EPA 624 mg/L 0.013 0.013 Herbicides
Glyphosate EPA 547 µg/L 5 5
2,4-D EPA 615 µg/L 10 10
Dacthal (DCPA) EPA 608.3/EPA 625.1 µg/L 0.1 0.1
2,4,5-TP(SILVEX) EPA 615 µg/L 0.5 0.5
Pyrethroid Pesticides
Bifenthrin EPA 625.1-MRM µg/L 0.002 0.002
Cyfluthrin EPA 625.1-MRM µg/L 0.002 0.002
Cypermethrin EPA 625.1-MRM µg/L 0.002 0.002
Esfenvalerate EPA 625.1-MRM µg/L 0.002 0.002
Lambda-cyhalothrin EPA 625.1-MRM µg/L 0.002 0.002

Revised CIMP D-9 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter/Constituent Method(1) Units Project
RL
MRP Table
E-6 RL
Permethrin EPA 625.1-MRM µg/L 0.005 0.005
Total Pyrethroids NA µg/L NA NA
Fipronil and its Degradates
Fipronil EPA 625.1-NCI µg/L 0.002 0.002
Fipronil Sulfide EPA 625.1-NCI µg/L 0.002 0.002
Fipronil Sulfone EPA 625.1-NCI µg/L 0.002 0.002
Fipronil Desulfinyl EPA 625.1-NCI µg/L 0.002 0.002
Neonicotinoids
Imidacloprid EPA 625.1-MRM µg/L 0.5 0.5
RL – Reporting Limit NA – Not applicable

1. Methods provided in this table are recommendations. They are subject to change depending upon the analytical laboratory selected for the project, as long as project MDLs and RLs are achieved.

2. Analysis for PCB congeners includes the following constituents: PCB-8, 18, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 44, 49, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 70, 74, 77, 87, 95, 97, 99, 101, 105, 110, 114, 118, 126, 128, 137, 138, 141, 146, 149, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 169, 170, 174, 177, 180, 183, 187, 189, 194, 195, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 206, and 209.

Revised CIMP D-10 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

8.2.1 Method Detection Limit Studies
Any laboratory performing analyses under this program must routinely conduct MDL studies to document that the MDLs are less than or equal to the project-speci�ied RLs. If any analytes have MDLs that do not meet the project RLs, the following steps must be taken:

1. Perform a new MDL study using concentrations suf�icient to prove analyte quantitation at concentrations less than or equal to the project-speci�ied RLs per the procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit presented in Revision 2. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 136, 1984.

2. No samples may be analyzed until the issue has been resolved. MDL study results must be available for review during audits, data review, or as requested. Current MDL study results must be reported for review and inclusion in project �iles.

An MDL is developed from seven aliquots of a standard containing all analytes of interest spiked at �ive times the expected MDL. These aliquots are processed and analyzed in the same manner as environmental samples. The results are then used to calculate the MDL. If the calculated MDL is less than 0.33 times the spiked concentration, another MDL study should be performed using lower spiked concentration.

8.2.2 Project Reporting Limits
Laboratories generally establish RLs that are reported with the analytical results-these may be called reporting limits, detection limits, reporting detection limits, or several other terms by the reporting laboratory. These laboratory limits must be less than or equal to the project RLs listed in Table D-2. Wherever possible, project RLs are lower than the relevant numeric criteria or toxicity thresholds. Laboratories performing analyses for this project must have documentation to support quantitation at the required levels.

8.2.3 Laboratory Standards and Reagents
All stock standards and reagents used for standard solutions and extractions must be tracked through the laboratory. The preparation and use of all working standards must be documented according to procedures outlined in each laboratory’s Quality Assurance Manual; standards must be traceable according to U.S. EPA, A2LA or National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) criteria. Records must have suf�icient detail to allow determination of the identity, concentration, and viability of the standards, including any dilutions performed to obtain the working standard.

Date of preparation, analyte or mixture, concentration, name of preparer, lot or cylinder number, and expiration date, if applicable, must be recorded on each working standard.

8.3 Sample Containers, Storage, Preservation, and Holding Times Sample containers must be pre-cleaned and certi�ied free of contamination according to the USEPA speci�ication for the appropriate methods. Typical requirements for sample container, storage and preservation, and holding time are provided in Table D-3 based on the methods listed in Table D-2, but are subject to change based on the method selected and consultation with the analytical laboratory. The analytical laboratories will supply sample containers that already contain preservative per Table D-3, including ultra-pure hydrochloric and nitric acid, where applicable.

After collection, samples will be stored at 4
oC until arrival at the contract laboratory.

Revised CIMP D-11 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-3. Sample Container, Volume, Initial Preservation, and Holding Time Requirements for Parameters Analyzed at a Laboratory (1)
Parameter Sample
Container
Sample
Volume(2)
Immediate
Processing
and Storage
Holding Time
Water
Aquatic Toxicity
Initial Screening Glass or
FLPE-lined
jerrican
20 L Store at 40C 36 hours(3) Follow-Up Testing
Phase I TIE
E. coli (freshwater) PE 120 mL Na2S2O3 and
Store at 4ºC 8 hours
Oil and Grease Glass 1 L
HCl or H2SO4 to
pH<2 and Store
at 40C
28 days
Total Phenols Glass 2 x 1 L Store at 40C 7/40 days(4)
Cyanide PE 500 mL
NaOH to
pH>10, Add
reducing agent
if oxidizer
present, and
Store at 40C
14 days
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) PE 250 mL
H2SO4 to
pH<2(5) and
Store at 40C
28 days
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) PE 250 mL Store at 4°C Filter(6)/28 days Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Glass 1 L
HCl or H2SO4
and Store at
40C
7/40 days(4)
Chemical Oxygen Demand PE 500 mL
H2SO4 to pH<2
and Store at
40C
28 days
Biochemical Oxygen Demand PE 1L Store at 40C 48 hours
MBAS PE 1 L Store at 40C 48 hours
Nitrate Nitrogen
PE 250 mL Store at 40C 48 hours Nitrite Nitrogen
Orthophosphate-P (Dissolved)
Ammonia Nitrogen
PE or Glass 250 mL H2SO4 and
Store at 40C 28 days
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen (TKN) PE or Glass 250 mL H2SO4 and Store at 40C 28 days
Sulfate PE 250 mL Store at 4°C 28 days

Revised CIMP D-12 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Parameter Sample
Container
Sample
Volume(2)
Immediate
Processing
and Storage
Holding Time
Chloride PE 250-mL Store at 40C 28 days
Fluoride PE 500 mL None required 28 days
Perchlorate PE 500 mL Store at 40C 28 days
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) PE 250 mL Store at 40C 7 days Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) PE 250 mL Store at 40C 7 days Suspended Sediment Concentration
(SSC) PE 250 mL Store at 40C 120 days
Alkalinity PE 500 mL Store at 40C 14 days
Total Hardness
PE 1 L
HNO3 to pH<2
(or H2SO4 to
pH<2 for
Hardness) and
Store at 40C (5)
180 days
Metals 6 months(6,7)
Chromium (Hexavalent) PE 250 mL
NH4SO4 to pH
9-9.5 and Store
at 4° C
24 hours/28
days(8)
Mercury Glass 500 mL
HNO3 to pH<2
and Store at
40C (4)
28 days
PCBs, OC Pesticides, OP
Pesticides, Triazine Pesticides Amber glass 4 x 1 L Store at 40C 7/40 days(4) Semivolatile Organic Compounds Glass 2 x 1 L Store at 40C 7/40 days (4) Volatile Organic Compounds VOA 3 x 40 mL HCl and Store
at 40C 14 days
Herbicides Glass 2 x 40mL Thiosulfate and
Store at 40C 14 days
Pyrethroids, Fipronil and its
Degradates, Neonicotinoids Glass 2 x 1 L Store at 4°C 7/40 days(4) PE – Polyethylene VOA – Volatile Organic Analysis

1. Typical requirements are provided here based on the methods listed in Table D-2 but are subject to change in consultation with the analytical laboratory and the analytical method performed.

2. Additional volume may be required for QC analyses.

3. The 36-hour sample hold time for test initiation shall be targeted. However, no more than 72 hours shall elapse before the conclusion of sample collection and test initiation. The hold time does not apply to subsequent analyses for TIEs. For interpretation of toxicity results, samples may be split from toxicity samples in the laboratory and analyzed for specific chemical parameters. All other sampling requirements for these samples are as specified in this document for the specific analytical method. Results of these analyses are not for any other use (e.g. characterization of ambient conditions) because of potential holding time exceedances and variance from sampling requirements.

4. 7/40 = 7 days to extract and 40 days from extraction to analysis.

5. To avoid the hazards of strong acids in the field, transport restrictions, and possible contamination samples may be collected without preservative and preserved upon receipt by the analytical laboratory, if allowed for in the applicable analytical method. Samples collected for analysis of constituents in the dissolved fraction will not be acidified until after filtration.

6. All samples to be analyzed for constituents in the dissolved fraction must be filtered upon arrival at analysis laboratory.

Revised CIMP D-13 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

7. 6 months after preservation

8. To achieve the 28-day holding time, use the ammonium sulfate buffer solution specified in EPA Method 218.6.

8.4 Aquatic Toxicity Testing and Toxicity Follow Up Actions Aquatic toxicity testing supports the identi�ication of best management practices (BMPs) to address sources of toxicity in urban runoff. The following outlines the approach for conducting aquatic toxicity monitoring and evaluating results. Monitoring begins in the receiving water and the information gained is used to identify constituents for monitoring at outfalls to support the identi�ication of pollutants that need to be addressed in the WMP . The subsections below describe the detailed process for conducting aquatic toxicity monitoring, evaluating results, and the technical and logistical rationale. Control measures and management actions to address con�irmed toxicity caused by urban runoff are addressed by the WMP , either via currently identi�ied management actions or those that are identi�ied via adaptive management of the WMP .

8.4.1 Sensitive Species Selection
The MRP (page E-31) states that, to determine the most sensitive test species, Permittee(s) shall conduct two wet weather and two dry weather toxicity tests with the species listed. Sensitive species determinations may result in one most sensitive test species for wet weather and a different most sensitive test species for dry weather or the same most sensitive test species for both dry and wet weather. The following sub-sections discuss the species selection process for assessing aquatic toxicity in receiving waters.

As described in the MRP (page E-30), if samples are collected in receiving waters with salinity less than 1 part per thousand (ppt) or from outfalls discharging to receiving waters with salinity less than 1 ppt, toxicity tests should be conducted on the most sensitive test species in accordance with species and short-term test methods in Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Ef�luents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (EPA/821/R-02/013, 2002; Table IA, 40 CFR Part 136) and Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Ef�luents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA/821/R-02/012, 2002; Table IA, 40 CFR Part 136). In no case shall the following test species be substituted with another organism unless written authorization from the Regional Water Board Executive Of�icer is received:
a. Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow): Larval Survival and Growth Test Method EPA-821- R-02-013
b. Ceriodaphnia dubia (freshwater crustacean: Survival and Reproduction Test Method EPA- 821-R-02-013
c. Hyalella azteca (freshwater amphipod): Survival Test Method EPA-821-R-02-012 d. Chironomus dilutus (midge): Survival Test Method EPA-821-R-02-012 Wet weather test species sensitivity screening events were conducted in December 2021. Dry weather test species sensitivity screening events were conducted in July 2021 and 2022, as July represents the historically driest month. Table D-4 summarizes the results of the test species sensitivity screening events conducted during dry and wet weather. As noted in Table D-4, toxicity was only observed during dry weather in the Chironomus dilutus test. Given the observance of Chironomus dilutus toxicity during dry weather, Chironomus dilutus was selected as the most sensitive test species and will be utilized during toxicity testing in dry weather conditions. As noted in Table D-4, toxicity was not observed in any of the test species during wet weather. As such, other

Revised CIMP D-14 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
relevant information must be utilized to select the species which will be utilized during toxicity testing in wet weather conditions. As noted in the USCRWMG WMP , pyrethroids are a prioritized waterbody-pollutant combination in the USCRWMG WMP area. As such, it is important to use a test species which is sensitive to pyrethroids. Given that Hyalella azteca has frequently shown toxicity due to pyrethroid pesticides, Hyalella azteca will be utilized during toxicity testing in wet weather conditions.

Table D-4. Summary of Toxicity Sensitive Test Species Screening [1] Site
Ceriodaphnia dubia Chironomus
dilutus
Hyalella
azteca Fathead minnow
Acute Chronic Acute Acute Acute Chronic
Dry
SNTCLR_6_ME
0/2
(Not Toxic)
0/2
(Not Toxic)
1/2
(92.1%)
0/2
(Not Toxic)
0/2
(Not Toxic)
0/2
(Not Toxic)
Wet
SNTCLR_6_ME
0/2
(Not Toxic)
0/2
(Not Toxic)
0/2
(Not Toxic)
0/2
(Not Toxic)
0/2
(Not Toxic)
0/2
(Not Toxic)

1. Toxic samples, defined as a failure of the TST, are indicated by the number of samples that failed and the number of tests completed (e.g., 1/2 signifies one of two tests failed the TST). The value inside of the parentheses is the percent effect measured relative to the laboratory control.

8.4.2 Toxicity Endpoint Assessment and Toxicity Identification Evaluation Triggers Per the MRP , toxicity test endpoints will be analyzed using the Test of Signi�icant Toxicity (TST) t-
test approach speci�ied by the USEPA (USEPA, 2010). The Permit speci�ies that the critical acute and chronic in-stream waste concentration (IWC) is set at 100% receiving water for receiving water samples and 100% ef�luent for wet and dry weather outfall samples. Using the TST approach, a t- value is calculated for a test result and compared with a critical t-value from USEPA’s TST Implementation Document (USEPA, 2010). Follow-up triggers are generally based on the Permit speci�ied statistical assessment as described below.

The toxicity identi�ication evaluation (TIE) trigger is de�ined as when the survival or sublethal endpoint demonstrates a ≥ 50 Percent Effect at the instream waste concentration as per the MRP (page E-32).

TIE procedures will be initiated as soon as possible (i.e., preferably within 48 hours) after the toxicity trigger threshold is observed to reduce the potential for loss of toxicity due to extended sample storage. If the cause of toxicity is readily apparent or is caused by pathogen related mortality (PRM) or epibiont interference with the test, the result will be rejected and will not be used to trigger TIEs. If necessary, a modi�ied testing procedure will be developed for future testing to address such interferences.

In cases where there is a ≥50% effect in the original sample, but the follow-up TIE baseline treatment is not statistically signi�icant, the cause of toxicity will be considered non-persistent. No

Revised CIMP D-15 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
immediate follow-up toxicity testing is required on the sample. However, future test results should be evaluated to determine if parallel TIE treatments are necessary to provide an opportunity to identify the cause of toxicity.

8.4.3 Toxicity Identification Evaluation Approach
The results of toxicity testing will be used to trigger further investigations to determine the cause of observed laboratory toxicity. The primary purpose of conducting TIEs is to support the identi�ication of management actions that will result in the removal of pollutants causing toxicity in receiving waters. Successful TIEs will direct monitoring at outfall sampling sites to inform management actions. As such, the goal of conducting TIEs is to identify pollutant(s) that should be sampled during outfall monitoring so that management actions can be identi�ied to address the pollutant(s).

The TIE approach is divided into three phases as described in USEPA’s 1991 Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identi�ication Evaluations – Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures – Second Edition (EPA/600/6-9/003) and brie�ly summarized as follows:
• Phase I utilizes methods to characterize the physical/chemical nature of the constituents which cause toxicity. Such characteristics as solubility, volatility and �ilterability are determined without speci�ically identifying the toxicants. Phase I results are intended as a �irst step in speci�ically identifying the toxicants, but the data generated can also be used to develop treatment methods to remove toxicity without speci�ic identi�ication of the toxicants.
• Phase II utilizes methods to speci�ically identify toxicants. • Phase III utilizes methods to con�irm the suspected toxicants.

A Phase I TIE will be conducted on samples that exceed a TIE trigger described above. Water quality data will be reviewed to further support evaluation of potential toxicants. A range of sample manipulations may be conducted as part of the TIE process. The most common manipulations are described in Table D-5. When determining the TIE treatments to use on a given sample that meets the TIE trigger threshold, information from previous chemical testing and/or TIE efforts will be used to determine which of these (or other) sample manipulations are most likely to provide useful information for identification of primary toxicant(s). TIE methods will generally adhere to USEPA procedures documented in conducting TIEs (USEPA, 1991, 1992, 1993a-b).

The WMG will identify the cause(s) of toxicity using a selection of treatments in Table D-5 and, if possible, using the results of water column chemistry analyses. After any initial determinations of the cause of toxicity, the information may be used during future events to modify the targeted treatments to more closely target the expected toxicant or to provide additional treatments to narrow the toxicant cause(s). Moreover, if the toxicant or toxicant class is not initially identi�ied, toxicity monitoring during subsequent events will con�irm if the toxicant is persistent or a short- term episodic occurrence.

As the primary goal of conducting TIEs is to identify pollutants for incorporation into outfall monitoring, narrowing the list of toxicants following Phase I TIEs via Phase II or III TIEs is not necessary if the toxicant class determined during the Phase I TIE is suf�icient for: (1) identifying additional pollutants for outfall monitoring; and/or (2) identifying control measures. Thus, if the speci�ic pollutant(s) or the analytical class of pollutant(s) (e.g., metals that are analyzed via USEPA

Revised CIMP D-16 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Method 200.8) are identi�ied then suf�icient information is available to inform the addition of pollutants to outfall monitoring.

Table D-5. Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluation Sample Manipulations TIE Sample Manipulation Expected Response
No Manipulation Baseline test for comparing the relative effectiveness of other manipulations
Filtration or centrifugation Removes particulates and associated toxicants Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) with
C18 column
Removes non-polar organics (including pesticides) and some relatively non-polar metal chelates
Sequential Solvent Extraction of
C18 column
Further resolution of SPE-extracted compounds for chemical analyses
Ethylenediamine-Tetraacetic Acid
(EDTA) or Cation Exchange
Column
Chelates trace metals, particularly divalent cationic metals Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO)
Reduces toxicity from organophosphate pesticides such as diazinon, chlorpyrifos and malathion, and enhances
pyrethroid toxicity
pH Adjustment (pH 7 and 8.5) Alters toxicity in pH sensitive compounds (i.e., ammonia and some trace metals)
Carboxylesterase addition(1) Hydrolyzes pyrethroids
Temperature adjustments(2) Pyrethroids become more toxic when test temperatures are decreased

1. Carboxylesterase addition has been used in studies to help identify pyrethroid-associated toxicity (Wheelock et al., 2004; Weston and Amweg, 2007). However, this treatment is experimental in nature and should be used along with other pyrethroid- targeted TIE treatments (e.g., PBO addition).

2. Temperature adjustments are another manipulation used to evaluate pyrethroid-associated toxicity. Lower temperatures increase the lethality of pyrethroid pesticides. (Harwood, You and Lydy, 2009)

Phase II TIEs may be utilized to identify speci�ic constituents causing toxicity in a given sample if the results of Phase I TIE testing and a review of available chemistry data fails to provide information necessary to identify constituents that warrant additional monitoring activities or management actions to identify likely sources of the toxicants and lead to elimination of the sources of these contaminants. Phase III TIEs may be conducted following any Phase II TIEs.

For the purposes of determining whether a TIE is inconclusive, TIEs will be considered inconclusive if:
• The toxicity is persistent (i.e., observed in the baseline), and • The cause of toxicity cannot be attributed to a constituent or class of constituents (e.g., metals, insecticides, etc.) that can be targeted for monitoring even after conducting appropriate TIE treatments.

If (1) a combination of causes that act in a synergistic or additive manner are identi�ied; (2) the toxicity can be removed with a treatment or via a combination of the TIE treatments; or (3) the

Revised CIMP D-17 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
analysis of water quality data collected during the same event identify the pollutant or analytical class of pollutants, the result of a TIE is considered conclusive.

In cases where signi�icant endpoint toxicity effects ≥50% are observed in the original sample, but the follow-up TIE baseline “signal” is not statistically signi�icant, the cause of toxicity will be considered non-persistent. No immediate follow-up testing is required on the sample. However, future test results should be evaluated to determine if parallel TIE treatments are necessary to provide an opportunity to identify the cause of toxicity.

Per Attachment G of the Permit, no more than two TIEs are required at one receiving water site during the permit term if the TIEs identify the same constituent or class of constituents as the cause of toxicity.

Note that the MRP (page E-32) allows a TIE Prioritization Metric (as described in Appendix E of the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition’s (SMC) Model Monitoring Program) for use in ranking sites for TIEs. However, as the extent to which TIEs will be conducted is unknown, prioritization cannot be conducted at this time. However, prioritization may be utilized in the future based on the results of toxicity monitoring and an approach to prioritization will be developed through the CIMP adaptive management process and will be described in future versions of the C I M P.

8.4.4 Follow Up on Toxicity Testing Results
Follow-up monitoring requirements in response to observed toxicity or inclusive TIEs can be found in Attachment G of the Permit, which outlines the requirements for follow-up monitoring in four receiving water scenarios where toxicity is present:
• Toxicity is present, but not above the TIE trigger as de�ined in Attachment E, Part IX.J.1; • Toxicity is present above the TIE trigger and the TIE identi�ies the constituent(s) causing the toxicity;
• Toxicity is present above the TIE trigger during wet weather, but the TIE is inconclusive; and • Toxicity is present above the TIE trigger during dry weather, but the TIE is inconclusive.

Toxicity testing may be required at upstream receiving water monitoring site(s) and/or upstream monitoring sites(s) when toxicity is observed below the TIE threshold or if a TIE is conducted but is inconclusive. Details regarding the process for adding toxicity monitoring at additional sites is provided in Attachment G and incorporated into this CIMP by reference.

If a toxicant or class of toxicants is identi�ied through a TIE, the toxicant(s) should be sampled at the monitoring site where the toxicity was identi�ied, upstream receiving water site(s), and upstream outfall site(s). The list of constituents monitored at outfalls identi�ied in the CIMP will be modi�ied based on the results of the TIEs. Monitoring for constituents identi�ied based on the results of a TIE will occur as soon as feasible following the completion of a successful TIE (i.e., the next monitoring event that is at least 45 days following the toxicity laboratory’s report transmitting the results of a successful TIE).

A toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) must be performed as outlined in the MRP (page E-32) if the toxicant is present in the discharge from the outfall at levels above the applicable limitation or in response to an inclusive TIE as outlined in Attachment G. If a TRE is required, the TRE report will be

Revised CIMP D-18 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
submitted concurrently with the Annual Monitoring Report submitted by December 15th of each year.

8.5 Bio-Assessment/Macrobenthic Community Assessment
LACFCD currently participates in the SMC regional program. The SMC consists of stormwater agencies in southern California which collaborate on stormwater quality related research projects of importance to the region with the goal to enhance scienti�ic knowledge and develop management solutions. More details on the SMC program and workplan can be found at https://socalsmc.org/ .

Initiated in 2008, the SMC’s Regional Bioassessment Program is designed to run over a �ive-year cycle. Please note that if the SMC decides to discontinue bioassessment monitoring, the USCRWMG will review the costs and resources needed to complete bioassessment monitoring and may decide to complete the discontinued monitoring separate from this CIMP .

8.6 Laboratory Identification
Laboratories will be chosen based on their ability to meet the project RLs described in Table D-2 as well as the measurement quality objectives in Section 10 of this CIMP. Laboratories are required to meet ELAP and/or NELAP certi�ications and any data quality requirements speci�ied in this document. The current quali�ied laboratories carrying out analytical responsibilities described in this CIMP are Euro�ins Calscience, Inc., in Tustin, CA, Pat-Chem Laboratories in San Fernando, CA, Enthalpy Analytical Laboratories in Orange, CA and Aquatic Bioassay Consulting Laboratories, Inc., in Ventura, CA. Upon approval of the revised CIMP , and on an annual basis thereafter, the Project Manager and Project QA Manager will assess the laboratories’ performance and ability to meet the project reporting limits, and at that time new laboratory(ies) may be chosen.

8.7 Alternate Laboratories
In the event that the laboratories selected to perform analyses for the USCR CIMP are unable to ful�ill data quality requirements outlined herein (e.g., due to instrument malfunction), alternate laboratories need to meet the same requirements that the primary labs have met. A quali�ied laboratory may be hired or act as a substitute. The consultant may decide to use an alternative laboratory based on data, quality, management, or performance.

Revised CIMP D-19 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
9 SAMPLING METHODS AND SAMPLE HANDLING
The following sections describe the steps to be taken to properly prepare for and initiate water quality sampling for the USCRWMG C I M P.

9.1 Monitoring Event Preparation
Monitoring event preparation includes preparation of �ield equipment, placing bottle orders, and contacting the necessary personnel regarding site access and schedule. The following steps will be completed prior to each sampling event:

1. Contact laboratories to order sample containers and to coordinate sample transportation details.

2. Con�irm scheduled monitoring date with �ield crew(s), and set-up sampling day itinerary including sample drop-off.

3. Prepare equipment.

4. Prepare sample container labels and apply to bottles.

5. Prepare the monitoring event summary and �ield log sheets to indicate the type of �ield measurements, �ield observations and samples to be collected at each of the monitoring sites.

6. Verify that �ield measurement equipment is operating properly (i.e., check batteries, calibrate, etc.)
Table D-6 provides a checklist of �ield equipment to prepare prior to each monitoring event.

Revised CIMP D-20 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-6. Field Equipment Checklist
 Monitoring Plan
 Sample Containers plus Extras with Extra Lids
 Pre-Printed, Waterproof Labels (extra blank sheets)
 Event Summary Sheets
 Field Log Sheets or Electronic Device (e.g., laptop or tablet)  Chain of Custody Forms
 Bubble Wrap
 Coolers with Ice
 Headlight
 Tape Measure
 Paper Towels or “Rags in a Box”
 Safety Equipment
 First Aid Kit
 Cellular Telephone
 Gate Keys
 Hip Waders
 Plastic Trash Bags
 Sealable Plastic Bags
 Grab Pole
 Maintenance hole puller
 Cable Ties (assorted sizes)
 Clean Secondary Container(s)
 Field Measurement Equipment
 Spare Batteries for Field Meters
 New Powder-Free Nitrile Gloves
 Pens and Pencils
 Stop Watch
 Blank Water
 Calibrated Bucket or Container

Revised CIMP D-21 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

9.1.1 Bottle Order/Preparation
Sample container orders will be placed with the appropriate analytical laboratory at least two weeks prior to each sampling event. Containers will be ordered for all water samples, including quality control samples, as well as extra containers in case the need arises for intermediate containers or a replacement. The containers must be the proper type and size and contain preservative as appropriate for the speci�ied laboratory analytical methods (presented previously in Table D-3). The �ield crew must inventory sample containers upon receipt from the laboratory to ensure that adequate containers have been provided to meet analytical requirements for each monitoring event. After each event, any bottles used to collect water samples will be cleaned by the laboratory and either picked up by or shipped to the �ield crew for the next event, if necessary

9.1.2 Container Labeling and Sample Identification Scheme All samples will be identi�ied with a unique identi�ication code to ensure that results are properly reported and interpreted. Samples will be identi�ied such that the site, sampling location, matrix, sampling equipment and sample type (i.e., environmental sample or QC sample) can be distinguished by a data reviewer or user. Sample identi�ication codes should consist of a site identi�ication code, a matrix code, and a unique sample ID number. Alternative sample and data management schemes can be used, if they provide the essential information listed here. Using the format previously described, sample ID codes may be structured as SCR- ###.# - AAAA - XX, where:

1. SCR indicates that the sample was collected as part of the USCR C I M P.

2. ###- identi�ies the sequentially numbered monitoring event, and # is an optional indicator for re-samples collected for the same event. Sample events are numbered from 001 to 999 and will not be repeated.

3. AAAA indicates the unique site identi�ication code assigned to each site.

4. XX identi�ies if the sample collected at the site is a QA sample. Field duplicates are represented as FD and �ield blanks are represented as FB.

Custom bottle labels should be produced using blank waterproof labels and labeling software.

Labels will be placed on the appropriate bottles in a dry environment; applying labels to wet sample bottles should be avoided. Labels should be placed on sides of bottles rather than on bottle caps. All sample containers will be pre-labeled before each sampling event to the extent practicable. Pre- labeling sample containers simpli�ies �ield activities, leaving only sample collection time and date and �ield crew initials to be �illed out in the �ield. Custom labels will be produced using blank water- proof labels. This approach will allow the site and analytical constituent information to be entered in advance and printed as needed prior to each monitoring event. Labels should include the following information:

Program Name
Station ID
Sample ID
Date
Collection Time
Sampling Personnel and Agency/Firm
Analytical Requirements
Preservative Requirements
Analytical Laboratory

Revised CIMP D-22 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

9.1.3 Field Meter Calibration
Calibration of �ield measurement equipment is performed as described in the owner’s manuals for each individual instrument. Each individual �ield crew will be responsible for calibrating their �ield measurement equipment. Field monitoring equipment must meet the requirements outlined in Table D-1 and be calibrated before �ield events based on manufacturer guidance, but at a minimum prior to each event. Table D-7 outlines the typical �ield instrument calibration procedures for each piece of equipment requiring calibration. All calibrations will be documented on each event’s calibration log sheet.

If calibration results do not meet manufacturer speci�ications, the �ield crew should �irst try to recalibrate using fresh aliquots of calibration solution. If recalibration is unsuccessful, new calibration solution should be used and/or maintenance should be performed. Each attempt should be recorded on the equipment calibration log. If the calibration results cannot meet manufacturer’s speci�ications, the �ield crew should use a spare �ield measuring device that can be successfully calibrated. If a spare �ield measuring device that can be successfully calibrated is unavailable, �ield crews shall note the use of unsuccessfully calibrated equipment on each appropriate �ield log sheet.

Additionally, the Project Manager should be noti�ied.

Calibration should be veri�ied using at least one calibration �luid within the expected range of �ield measurements immediately following calibration. Individual parameters should be recalibrated if the �ield meters do not measure a calibration �luid within the range of accuracy presented in Table D-7.

Revised CIMP D-23 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-7. Calibration of Field Measurement Equipment

9.1.4 Weather Conditions
Monitoring will occur during conditions that are de�ined as “dry” and “wet” . Antecedent conditions will be based on one or more of the LA County Department of Public Works (LACPW) rain gages listed in Table D- 8. The rain gage stations are owned and operated by the County of Los Angeles.

Data can be obtained at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Precip/index.cfm by clicking the ‘See Data’ link in the “Near Real-Time Precipitation Map” section. The web page displays a map showing real- time rainfall totals (in inches) for different rain gages. Although the default precipitation period is 24 hours, the user can view rainfall totals over different durations. Data from the rain gages is updated every 10 minutes.

Equipment /
Instrument Calibration and Verification Description
Frequency
of
Calibration
Frequency of
Calibration
Verification
Responsible
Party
pH Probe
Calibration for pH measurement is
accomplished using standard buffer
solutions. Analysis of a mid-range buffer will
be performed to verify successful
calibration.

Day prior to
1st day or 1st
day of
sampling
event
After each
day’s
calibration and
at the end of
the sampling
day
Individual
Sampling
Crews
Temperature Temperature calibration is factory-set and
requires no subsequent calibration.

Dissolved
Oxygen
Probe
Calibration for dissolved oxygen
measurements is accomplished using a
water saturated air environment. Dissolved
oxygen (DO) measurement of water-
saturated air will be performed and
compared to a standard table of DO
concentrations in water as a function of
temperature and barometric pressure to
verify successful calibration.

Conductivity
Conductivity calibration will follow
manufacturer’s specifications. A mid-range
conductivity standard will be analyzed to
verify successful calibration.

Turbidity
Turbidity calibration will follow
manufacturer’s specifications. A mid-range
turbidity standard will be analyzed to verify
successful calibration.

Revised CIMP D-24 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D- 8. Real-Time Rain Gage Used to Define Weather Conditions for CIMP Monitoring1 Jurisdictional Group Rainfall Gage Gage Type
Santa Clara River Watershed 32C Newhall – Soledad Canyon

LACPW ALERT
Rainfall Gage Santa Clara River Watershed 390 Bouquet Cyn @ Urbandale Santa Clara River Watershed 1012B Castaic Junction

1. Station information for these rain gages can be found at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Precip/alertlist.cfm

Dry weather occurs on days with less than 0.1 inch of rain as measured from the nearest Los Angeles County controlled rain gauge within the watershed. One dry weather event will be conducted during the historically driest month of July, which was determined by analyzing rainfall data collected at rain gage AL390 Bouquet Canyon at Urbandale. The �irst signi�icant rain event of the storm year (�irst �lush) will be monitored. The targeted storm events for wet weather sampling will be selected based on a reasonable probability that the events will result in substantially increased �lows in the Santa Clara River over at least 12 hours.

Suf�icient precipitation is needed to produce runoff and increase �low. The decision to sample a storm event will be made in consultation with weather forecasting information services. All efforts will be made to collect wet weather samples from all sites during a single targeted storm event.

However, safety or other factors may make it infeasible to collect samples from the same storm event. For a storm to be tracked, the �irst �lush event will have a predicted rainfall of at least one inch or greater with a 70 percent probability of rainfall at least 24 hours prior to the event start time. The USCR watershed has vast areas of undeveloped land and signi�icant areas characterized by high in�iltration rates. This includes the channels and tributaries, which are mostly natural, sandy-bottomed, and with high in�iltration rates that necessitate signi�icant rainfall to produce sustained and measurable �lows in the river and its tributaries. Also, the 85 th percentile rainfall
depth in the Upper Santa Clara River Watershed ranges between 0.65 and 1.44 inches. Therefore, the predicted one inch rainfall trigger for storm sampling coincides with the average 85th percentile rainfall depth for the watershed. Mobilization for subsequent wet weather events will be conducted at the discretion of the USCRWMG based on 1) soil saturation conditions, 2) the forecasted intensity and duration of each storm, and 3) a consideration of the likelihood that additional storms of suf�icient strength will arrive later in the wet season so as to ensure that the USCRWMG mobilizes for at least three wet weather events each water year. Wet weather sampling events will be separated by a minimum of three days of dry conditions (<0.1 inch of rain each day). 3 Publicly available meteorological forecasting systems are suggested for identifying and anticipating storm event sampling. The sampling decision protocol begins when the sampling crew recognizes an approaching storm through monitoring of forecasts. The National Weather Service’s weather forecast for Santa Clarita can be accessed on-line at:

3 Because a signi�icant storm event is based on predicted rainfall, it is recognized that monitoring may be triggered without the predicted rainfall actually occurring. In this case, the monitoring event will still qualify as meeting this requirement provided that suf�icient sample volume is collected to conduct all required laboratory analyses.

Revised CIMP D-25 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/ then click on “Santa Clarita” on the area map From the forecast page, the link to “Quantitative Precipitation Forecast” provides forecasted precipitation in inches for the next 24 hours, in 3-hour increments for the �irst 12 hours and in 6- hour increments for the last 12 hours. The “SAUC1:SAUGUS” Los Angeles County site is located in the City of Santa Clarita and will be used to forecast precipitation in the WMP Group area.

9.2 Sample Handling
Proper sample handling ensures that samples will comply with the monitoring methods and required analytical hold times and that traceable documentation throughout the history of the sample will be generated.

9.2.1 Documentation Procedures
The USCRWMG is responsible for ensuring that each �ield sampling team adheres to proper custody and documentation procedures. Field logs documenting sample collection and other monitoring activities for each site will be recorded for each event. Field personnel have the following responsibilities:

1. Keep an accurate record of sample collection activities on the �ield log sheets.

2. Ensure that all �ield log sheet entries are legible and contain accurate and inclusive documentation of all �ield activities.

3. Note errors or changes using a single line to cross out the entry and date and initial the change.

4. Ensure that a label is af�ixed to each sample collected and that the labels uniquely identify samples with a sample ID, site ID, date and time of sample collection and the sampling crew initials.

5. Complete the chain of custody forms accurately and legibly.

9.2.2 Field Documentation/Field Log
Field crews will keep �ield logs (or electronic �ile(s) if tablets or laptops are used) for each sampling event that contains a calibration log sheet, a �ield log sheet for each site, and appropriate contact information. The following items should be recorded on the �ield log sheet for each sampling event:

1. Monitoring station location (Site ID);

2. Date and time(s) of sample collection;

3. Name(s) of sampling personnel;

4. Sample ID numbers and unique IDs for any replicate or blank samples;

5. QC sample type (if appropriate);

6. Sample type, (e.g., grab or composite);

7. The results of �ield measurements (e.g., �low, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity) and the time that measurements were made;

8. Qualitative descriptions of relevant water conditions (e.g., water color, �low level, clarity) or weather (e.g., wind, rain) at the time of sample collection;

9. Trash observations (presence/absence);

Revised CIMP D-26 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

10. A description of any unusual occurrences associated with the sampling event, particularly those that may affect sample or data quality.

The �ield log will be scanned into a PDF and transmitted along with the Post-Event Summary Report to the Project Manager within one week of the conclusion of each sampling event. Appendix 1 contains an example of the �ield log sheet.

9.2.3 Sample Handling and Shipment
The �ield crews will have custody of samples during each monitoring event. Chain-of-custody (COC) forms will accompany all samples during shipment to contract laboratories to identify the shipment contents. All water quality samples will be transported to the analytical laboratory by the �ield crew or by courier. The original COC form will accompany the shipment, and a signed copy of the COC form will be sent, typically via email, by the laboratory to the �ield crew to be retained in the project �ile.

While in the �ield, samples will be stored on ice in an insulated container. Samples shipped to analytical laboratories must be examined to ensure that container lids are tight and placed on ice to maintain the appropriate temperature. The ice packed with samples must be approximately 2 inches deep. The original COC form(s) will be double-bagged in re-sealable plastic bags and either taped to the outside of the cooler or to the inside lid. Samples must be shipped to the contract laboratory according to Department of Transportation standards. The courier name and other pertinent information should be entered in the “Received By” or “Remarks” section of the COC form.

Coolers must be sealed with packing tape before shipping, unless transported by �ield or lab personnel and must not leak. It is assumed that samples in tape-sealed ice chests are secure whether being transported by common carrier or by commercial package delivery. The laboratory’s sample receiving department will examine the shipment of samples for correct documentation, proper preservation, and compliance with holding times.

The following procedures are used to prevent bottle breakage and cross-contamination:

1. Bubble wrap or foam pouches are used to keep glass bottles from contacting one another to prevent breakage, re-sealable bags may be used if available.

2. All samples are transported inside hard plastic coolers or other contamination-free shipping containers.

3. The laboratory’s sample receiving personnel must be noti�ied prior to sample delivery or shipment.

All samples remaining after successful completion of analyses will be disposed of properly. It is the responsibility of the personnel of each analytical laboratory to ensure that all applicable regulations are followed in the disposal of samples or related chemicals.

Samples will be stored and transported as noted previously in Table D-3. Samples not analyzed locally will be sent on the same day that the sample collection process is completed, if possible. The individual sample containers containing the water samples for chemical analysis will be shipped to the analytical chemistry laboratory for analysis.

Revised CIMP D-27 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

9.2.4 Chain-of Custody Forms
Sample custody procedures provide a mechanism for documenting information related to sample collection and handling. Sample custody must be traceable from the time of sample collection until results are reported. A sample is considered under custody if:

1. It is in actual possession.

2. It is in view after in physical possession.

3. It is placed in a secure area (accessible by or under the scrutiny of authorized personnel only after in possession).

A COC form must be completed after sample collection and prior to sample shipment or release. The COC form, sample labels, and �ield documentation will be cross-checked to verify sample identi�ication, type of analyses, number of containers, sample volume, preservatives, and type of containers. A complete COC form is to accompany the transfer of samples to the analyzing laboratory. A typical COC form is illustrated in Appendix 1.

9.2.5 Laboratory Custody Procedures
Laboratories will follow sample custody procedures as outlined in the laboratory’s Quality Assurance (QA) Manual. A copy of each contract laboratory’s QA Manual should be available at the laboratory upon request. Laboratories shall maintain custody logs suf�icient to track each sample received and to analyze or preserve each sample within speci�ied holding times. The following sample control activities must be conducted at the laboratory:

1. Initial sample login and veri�ication of samples received with the COC form;

2. Document any discrepancies noted during login on the COC;

3. Initiate internal laboratory custody procedures;

4. Verify sample preservation (e.g., temperature);

5. Notify the Project Manager if any problems or discrepancies are identi�ied; and,

6. Perform proper sample storage protocols, including daily refrigerator temperature monitoring and sample security.

Laboratories shall maintain records to document that the above procedures are followed. Once samples have been analyzed, samples will be stored at the laboratory for at least 30 days (excluding bacteria samples). After this period, samples may be disposed of properly.

9.3 Field Protocols
Brie�ly, the key aspects of quality control associated with �ield protocols for sample collection for eventual chemical, microbiological, and toxicological analyses are as follows:

1. Field personnel will be thoroughly trained in the proper use of sample collection gear and will be able to distinguish acceptable versus unacceptable water samples in accordance with pre-established criteria.

2. Field personnel will be thoroughly trained to recognize and avoid potential sources of sample contamination (e.g., engine exhaust, ice used for cooling, touching the inner surfaces of sample bottles or caps).

Revised CIMP D-28 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

3. Field personnel will follow the most up-to-date health protocols for sampling determined by the personnel’s current agency or consultant �irm (e.g., wearing a mask, social distancing, washing hands).

4. Sampling gear and utensils which come in direct contact with the sample will be made of non-contaminating materials (e.g., borosilicate glass, high-quality stainless steel and/or Te�lon™, according to protocol) and will be thoroughly cleaned between sampling stations according to appropriate cleaning protocol (rinsing thoroughly with laboratory reagent water at minimum).

5. Sample containers will be of the recommended type and will be free of contaminants (i.e., pre-cleaned and/or sterile).

6. Conditions for sample collection, preservation and holding times will be followed.

Field crews will be comprised of two people per crew, minimum. For safety reasons, sampling will occur during daylight hours, when possible. Sampling on weekends and holidays will also be avoided, if possible. Other constraints on sampling events include, but are not limited to, lab closures and toxicity testing organism availability. Sampling events should proceed in the following manner:

2. Before leaving the sampling crew base of operations, con�irm number and type of sample containers and the complete equipment list.

3. Proceed to the �irst sampling site.

4. Fill-out the general information on the �ield log sheet.

5. Collect the environmental and QA/QC samples indicated on the event summary sheet in the manner described in the CIMP and store samples as described in the CIMP . Using the �ield log sheet, con�irm that all appropriate containers were �illed.

6. Collect �ield measurements and observations, and record these on the �ield log sheet.

7. Repeat the procedures in steps 3, 4, and 5 for each of the remaining sampling sites.

8. Complete the COC forms using the information on the �ield log sheets.

9. After sample collection is completed, deliver and/or ship samples to appropriate laboratory.

9.3.1 Invasive Species
Quagga mussels were found in Lake Piru, nearby the USCRWMG area. Should the mussel infestation spread, there is potential for �ield staff to come in contact with this invasive species. Field personnel have the potential to further spread invasive species if proper precautions are not taken prior to, during, and after a sampling event. Information and procedures for controlling the spread of these organisms have been outlined by the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Quagga and Zebra Mussels Invasive Species Program (
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Quagga-
Mussels) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Invasive Species Program (https://fws.gov/initiative/invasive-species). The Monitoring Manager may want to consider tracking this infestation and developing a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning document speci�ic to the CIMP .

9.3.2 Endangered Species
As previously described, the CIMP includes monitoring of receiving waters and outfalls. Monitoring is performed under both wet and dry weather conditions. There is potential during these monitoring activities for �ield staff to encounter threatened or endangered species found within the Santa Clara River. Fish species Catostomus santanae (Santa Ana sucker) is on the federal threatened

Revised CIMP D-29 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
species list and Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni (unarmored three-spined stickleback) is federally listed as endangered. Sampling crews may also encounter the endangered least Bell’s vireo or other species of concern while performing sampling and screening activities.

Sampling crews are least likely to encounter endangered species during wet weather monitoring.

Flows are at their peaks during storm events, allowing �ish unimpeded movement in channels.

Under these conditions, it may not be safe for �ield staff to enter the channels and work will likely be performed from the banks. Dry weather sampling and screening are the critical period for endangered species consideration. Least Bell’s vireo nesting and rearing of young takes place in spring and summer. These are also the periods when channel and river �lows are lowest; �ish may be con�ined to ponds and pools between dry river sections.

To avoid harming these sensitive species, annual training of �ield staff that will be performing water sampling is recommended. Fact sheets may also be developed and provided to �ield staff for review prior monitoring events. The training topics should include the importance of not harming or harassing native wildlife or natural habitats, avoidance of any pools or ponded areas, and safety precautions.

9.4 Sample Collection
All samples will be collected in a manner appropriate for the speci�ic analytical methods to be used.

The proper sampling techniques, outlined in this section, will ensure that the collected samples are representative of the water bodies sampled. Should �ield crews feel that it is unsafe to collect samples for any reason, the �ield crews SHOULD NOT COLLECT the sample and note on the �ield log the sample was not collected, why the sample was not collected, and provide photo documentation, if possible.

9.4.1 Overview of Sampling Techniques
As described below, the method used to collect water samples is dependent on the depth, �low, and type of outfall. Nonetheless, in all cases:

1. Throughout each sample collection event, the sampler should exercise aseptic techniques to avoid any contamination (i.e., do not touch the inner surfaces or lip edges of the sample bottle or cap).

2. The sampler should use clean, powder-free, nitrile gloves for each site to prevent contamination.

3. When collecting the sample, he or she should not breathe in the direction of the container.

4. Gloves should be changed if they are soiled or if the potential for cross-contamination exists from handling sampling materials or samples.

5. While the sample is collected, the bottle lid shall not be placed on the ground.

6. No eating or drinking during sample collection.

7. No smoking.

8. Do not breathe, sneeze, or cough in the direction of an open sample bottle.

9. Each person on the �ield crew will wear clean clothing that is free of dirt, grease, or other substances that could contaminate the sampling apparatus or sample bottles.

10. To the extent practical, sampling should not occur near a running vehicle. Vehicles should not be parked within the immediate sample collection area, even non-running vehicles.

Revised CIMP D-30 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

11. When the sample is collected leave ample air space (about 1 inch) in the bottle to facilitate mixing by shaking for lab analysis, unless otherwise required by the method.

12. After the sample is collected and the cap is tightly screwed back on the bottle, the time of sampling should be recorded on the �ield tablet or log sheet.

13. Any QA/QC samples that are collected should also be noted on the �ield log sheet or electronic �ield recording and labeled according to the convention described in Section 9.1.2.

14. Store samples as described previously.

15. Fill out COC form as described in Section 9.2.4 and deliver to the appropriate lab within suf�icient time for the laboratory to meet the shortest hold time of all the constituents they are analyzing.

To prevent contamination of metals samples, clean metal sampling techniques using USEPA protocols outlined in USEPA Method 16694 will be used throughout all phases of the metals water sample collection. The protocol for clean metal sampling, based on USEPA Method 1669, is summarized below:

1. Samples are collected in rigorously pre-cleaned sample bottles with any tubing specially processed to clean sampling standards.

2. At least two persons, wearing clean, powder-free nitrile or latex gloves at all times, are required on a sampling crew.

3. One person, referred to as “dirty hands” , opens only the outer bag of all double-bagged sample bottles.

4. The other person, referred to as “clean hands” , reaches into the outer bag, opens the inner bag and removes the clean sample bottle.

5. Clean hands rinses the bottle three times by submerging the bottle, removing the bottle lid, �illing the bottle approximately one-third full, replacing the bottle lid, gently shaking and then emptying the bottle. Clean hands then collects the sample by submerging the bottle, removing the lid, �illing the bottle and replacing the bottle cap while the bottle is still submerged.

6. After the sample is collected, the sample bottle is double-bagged in the opposite order from which it was removed from the same double-bagging.

7. Clean, powder-free gloves are changed whenever something not known to be clean has been touched.

9.5 Field Measurements and Observations
Field measurements will be collected, and observations will be made, at each sampling site after a sample is collected. Field measurements will include the parameters identi�ied in the CIMP for which laboratory analysis is not required. Field monitoring equipment must meet the requirements outlined in Table D-1. All �ield measurement results and �ield observations will be recorded on a �ield log sheet (or electronic device) similar to the one presented in Appendix 1 and as described in Section 9.2.1 of this Attachment.

4 USEPA. April 1995. Method 1669: Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels. EPA 821-R-95-034.

Revised CIMP D-31 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Measurements (except for �low) will be attained at approximately mid-stream, mid-depth at the location of greatest �low (if feasible) with a YSI ProDSS multi-probe meter, or comparable instrument(s). If at any time the collection of �ield measurements by wading appears to be unsafe, �ield crews will not attempt to collect mid-stream, mid-depth measurements. Rather, �ield measurements will be made either directly from a stable, unobstructed area at the channel edge, or by using a telescoping pole and intermediate container to obtain a sample for �ield measurements and for �illing sample containers. For safety reasons, �ield staff will not enter the channel to collect �ield measurements during wet weather conditions. For situations where �lows are not suf�iciently deep to submerge the probes, an intermediate container will be utilized. The location of �ield measurements will be documented on the �ield log sheet.

Flow measurements will be collected as outlined in the following subsections at receiving water and outfall monitoring sites. Regardless of measurement technique used, the gage height will be noted if a staff gage is present. Field crews may not be able to measure �low at several sites during wet weather because of inaccessibility of the site. If this is the case, site inaccessibility will be documented on the �ield log sheet.

The �ield sampling crew has the primary responsibility for responding to failures in the sampling or measurement systems. Deviations from established monitoring protocols will be documented in the comment section of the �ield log sheet and noted in the post event summaries. If monitoring equipment fails, monitoring personnel will report the problem in the notes section of the �ield log sheet and will not record data values for the variables in question. Broken equipment will be replaced or repaired prior to the next �ield use, if feasible. Data collected using faulty equipment will not be used.

9.5.1 Velocity Meter Flow Measurements
For sampling sites where water is deep enough (>0.1-foot) a velocity meter will be utilized. For these cases, velocity will be measured at approximately equal increments across the width of the �lowing water using an appropriate velocity measurement device. A “�low pole” will be used to measure the water depth at each measurement point and to properly align the sensor so that the depth of each velocity measurement is 0.6 * total depth, which is representative of the average velocity. The distance between velocity measurements taken across the stream is dependent on the total width. No more than 10% of the �low will pass through any one cross section.

9.5.2 Shallow Sheet Flow Measurements
If the depth of �low does not allow for the measurement of �low with a velocity meter (<0.1-foot) a “�loat” will be used to measure the velocity of the �lowing water. The width, depth, velocity, cross section, and corresponding �low rate will be estimated as follows:

Sheet �low width: The width (W) of the �lowing water (not the entire part of the channel that is damp) is measured using a tape measure at the “top” , “middle” , and “bottom” of a marked-off distance – generally 10 feet (e.g., for a 10-foot marked-off section, TopW is measured at 0-feet, MidW is measured at 5 feet, and BottomW is measured at 10 feet).

Revised CIMP D-32 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Sheet �low depth: The depth of the sheet �low is measured at the top, middle, and bottom of the marked-off distance. Speci�ically, the depth (D) of the sheet �low is measured at 25%, 50%, and 75% of the �lowing width (e.g.,
MidD % 50is the depth of the water at middle of the section in the middle of the sheet �low) at each of the width measurement locations. It is assumed that the depth at the edge of the sheet �low (i.e., at 0% and 100% of the �lowing width) is zero.

Representative cross-section: Based on the collected depth and width measurements, the representative cross-sectional area across the marked-off sheet �low is approximated as follows:

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) }
{
)]2222(4[
)],2222(4[
)],2222(4[
Re
% 75% 50% 75% 25% 50% 25
% 75% 50 % 75% 25 % 50% 25
% 75% 50 % 75% 25 % 50% 25
BottomBottomBottomBottomBottomBottom
Bottom
MidMidMidMidMidMid
Mid
TopTopTopTopTopTop
Top

D D D D D D W

D D D D D D W
D D D D D DWAverage
SectionCross ve presentati
+++++ ×
+++++ ×
+++++ ×
=

Sheet �low velocity: Velocity is calculated based on the amount of time it took a �loat to travel the marked-off distance (typically 10-feet or more). Floats are normally pieces of leaves, litter, or �loatables (suds, etc.). The time it takes the �loat to travel the marked-off distance is measured at least three times. Then average velocity is calculated as follows:

Average Surface Velocity =
Distance Marked off for Float Measurement
Average Time for Float to Travel Marked off Distance
Flow Rate calculation: For sheet �lows, based on the above measurements/estimates, the estimated �low rate, Q, is calculated by:

Q = f x (Representative Cross Section) x (Average Surface Velocity) The coef�icient f is used to account for friction effects of the channel bottom. That is, the �loat travels on the water surface, which is the most rapidly traveling portion of the water column. The average velocity, not the surface velocity, determines the �low rate, and thus f is used to “convert” surface velocity to average velocity. In general, the value of f typically ranges from 0.60 – 0.90.

9.5.3 Free-flowing outfalls
Some storm drain outfalls are free-�lowing, meaning the runoff falls from an elevated outfall into the channel, which allows for collection of the entire �lowing stream of water into a container of known volume (e.g., graduated bucket or Ziploc® bag). The time it takes to �ill the known volume is measured using a stopwatch and recorded on the �ield log. The time it takes to �ill the container will be measured three times and averaged to ensure that the calculated discharge is representative. In some cases, a small portion of the runoff may �low around or under the container. For each measurement, “percent capture” , or the proportion of �low estimated to enter the bucket, will be recorded.

For free-�lowing outfalls, the estimated �low rate, Q, is calculated by:

Revised CIMP D-33 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
])( )([ Capt ureEstimatedContainerFill to Time
VolumecontainerFilledAverageQ ×=

9.6 Sample Collection Techniques
The following subsections provide details on the various techniques that can be utilized to collect water quality samples. Should �ield crews feel that it is unsafe to collect samples for any reason, the �ield crews SHOULD NOT COLLECT a sample and note on the �ield log that the sample was not collected, why the sample was not collected, and provide photo documentation, if feasible.

9.6.1 Direct Submersion: Hand Technique
Where practical, all grab samples will be collected by direct submersion at mid-stream, mid-depth using the following procedures:

1. Follow the standard sampling procedures described in Section 9.4.1.

2. For sample bottles with preservatives, remove the lid and submerge the container to mid- stream/mid-depth, let the container �ill and secure the lid. In the case of mercury samples, remove the lid underwater to reduce the potential for contamination from the air.

3. For sample bottles without preservatives, triple rinse sample bottles before collecting the �inal sample.

4. Place the sample on ice.

5. Collect the remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the same protocols described above.

6. Follow the sample handling procedures described in Section 9.2.

9.6.2 Intermediate Container Technique
Samples may be collected with the use of a specially cleaned intermediate container, if necessary, following the steps listed below. An intermediate container may include a container that is similar in composition, such as a pre-cleaned pitcher made of the same material as the sample container, or a Ziploc® bag. An intermediate container should not be reused at a different site without appropriate cleaning.

1. Follow the standard sampling procedures described in Section 9.4.1.

2. Before each sample, triple rinse the intermediate container.

3. Submerge the intermediate container to mid-stream/mid-depth (if possible), let the container �ill, and quickly transfer the sample into the individual sample container(s) and secure the lid(s).

4. Place the sample(s) on ice.

5. Collect remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the same protocols described above.

6. Follow the sample handling procedures described in Section 9.2.

9.6.3 Shallow sheet flows
Some �lows may be too shallow to �ill the bottle without using an intermediate sterile container.

When collecting samples from shallow sheet �lows it is very important to not scoop up algae, sediment, or other particulate matter on the bottom of the channel because such debris is not representative of �lowing water. To prevent scooping up such debris, either (1) �ind a spot where the

Revised CIMP D-34 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
bottom is relatively clean and allow the sterile intermediate container to �ill without scooping, or (2) lay a clean sterile Ziploc® bag on the bottom and collect the water sample from on top of the bag. A fresh sterile Ziploc® bag must be used at each site.

9.6.4 Pumping
The use of a peristaltic pump is not anticipated to be necessary at the CIMP sites; however, information is included here in case pump use becomes necessary due to safety concerns. Samples may be collected with the use of a peristaltic pump and specially cleaned tubing following the steps listed below. Sample tubing should not be reused at a different site without appropriate cleaning.

1. Follow the standard sampling procedures described in Section 9.4.1.

2. Attach pre-cleaned tubing into the pump, exercising caution to avoid allowing tubing ends to touch any surface known not to be clean.

3. Place one end of the tubing below the surface of the water. To the extent possible, avoid placing the tubing near the bottom so that settled solids are not pumped into the sample container.

4. Hold the other end of the tubing over the opening of the sample container, exercising care not to touch the tubing to the sample container.

5. Pump the necessary sample volume into the sample container and secure the lid.

6. Place the sample on ice.

7. Collect remaining samples including quality control samples, if required, using the same protocols described above.

8. Follow the sample handling procedures described in Section 9.2.

9.6.5 Autosamplers
Automatic sample compositors (autosamplers) are used to characterize the entire flow of a storm in one analysis. They can be programmed to take aliquots at either time- or flow-based specified intervals.

To setup and install an autosampler it is recommended to read the manufacturer’s instructions before beginning setup in the field. The general steps to setup the autosampler are described below.

1. Connect power source to autosampler computer. This can be in the form of a battery or a power cable.

2. Install pre-cleaned tubing into the pump. To the extent practicable, clean tubing will be used at each site and for each event, in order to minimize contamination. For some stations, it may be more practical to replace tubing on an annual or every other year basis. In those instances, it may be appropriate to collect equipment blanks prior to sampling events.

Tubing that is not newly installed should be �lushed with clean water prior to each sampling event.

3. Attach strainer to intake end of the tubing and install in sampling channel.

4. If running �low-based composite samples; install �low sensor in sampling channel and connect it to the autosampler.

5. Label and install composite bottle(s). If sampler is not refrigerated, then add enough ice to the composite bottle chamber to keep sample cold for the duration of sampling or until such time as ice can be refreshed. Make sure not to contaminate the inside of the composite bottle with any of the ice.

6. Program the autosampler as to the manufacturer’s instructions and make sure autosampler is powered and running before leaving the site.

Revised CIMP D-35 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
After the sample collection is completed, the following steps must be taken to ensure proper sample handling:

1. Upon returning to the site, check the status of the autosampler and record any missed samples. Note on the �ield log the time of the last sample, as this will be used for �illing out the COCs.

2. Remove composite bottle and store on ice. If dissolved metals are required then begin the sample �iltration process outlined in the following subsection within 15 minutes of the last composite sample, unless compositing must occur at another location, in which case the �iltration process should occur as soon as possible upon sample compositing.

3. Power down autosampler and leave sampling site.

4. The composite sample will need to be split into the separate analysis bottles before being shipped to the laboratory. This is best done in a clean and weatherproof environment, using clean sampling techniques.

9.6.6 Dissolved Metals Field Filtration
When feasible, samples for dissolved metals will be �iltered in the �ield. The following describes an appropriate dissolved �ield �iltration method. An alternative, equivalent method may be utilized if necessary. A 50 mL plastic syringe with a 0.45µm �ilter attached would be used to collect and �ilter the dissolved metals sample in the �ield. The apparatus would either come certi�ied pre-cleaned from the manufacturer and con�irmed by the analytical laboratory or be pre-cleaned by and con�irmed by the analytical laboratory at least once per year. The apparatus would be double bagged in Ziploc® plastic bags.

To collect the sample for dissolved metals in the �ield, �irst collect the total metals sample using clean sampling techniques. The dissolved sample would be taken from this container. Immediately prior to collecting the dissolved sample, shake the total metals sample. To collect the dissolved metals sample using clean sampling techniques, remove the syringe from the bag and place the tip of the syringe into the bottle containing the total metals sample and draw up 50 mL of sample into the syringe. Next, remove the �ilter from the Ziploc® bag and screw it tightly into the tip of the syringe. Then, put the tip of the syringe with the �ilter into the clean dissolved metals container and push the sample through the �ilter taking care not to touch the inside surface of the sample container with the apparatus. The sample volume needs to be a minimum of 20 mL. If the �ilter becomes clogged prior to generating 20 mL of sample, remove and dispose of the used �ilter and replace it with a new clean �ilter. Continue to �ilter the sample. When at least 20 mL has been collected, cap the sample bottle tightly and store on ice for delivery to the laboratory.

9.7 Receiving Water Sample Collection
A grab sample is a discrete individual sample. A composite sample is mixture of grab samples collected over a period weighted either based on time or �low. A time-weighted composite is created by mixing multiple aliquots collected at speci�ied time intervals. A �low-weighted composite is created by mixing multiple aliquots collected at time intervals based on �low rate but where the volume of the aliquot is equal. Should �ield crews feel that it is unsafe to collect samples for any reason, the �ield crews SHOULD NOT COLLECT samples and note on the �ield log the sample was not collected, why the sample was not collected, and provide photo documentation, if feasible.

Revised CIMP D-36 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Grab samples will be used for dry and wet weather sampling events at all sites except SNTCLR_6_ME. Grab samples will be collected as described in Section 9.6. Monitoring site con�iguration and consideration of safety will dictate the grab sample collection technique.

The potential exists for monitoring sites to lack discernable �low. The lack of discernable �low may generate unrepresentative data. To address the potential confounding interference that can occur under such conditions, sites sampled should be assessed for the following conditions and sampled or not sampled accordingly:

1. Pools of water with no �low or visible connection to another surface water body should not be sampled. The �ield log should be completed for non-water quality data (including date and time of visit) and the site condition should be photo-documented.

2. Flowing water (i.e., based on visual observations, �low measurements, and a photo- documented assessment of conditions immediately upstream and downstream of the sampling site) should be sampled.

It is the combined responsibility of all members of the sampling crew to determine if the performance requirements of the speci�ic sampling method have been met, and to collect additional samples if required. If the performance requirements outlined above or documented in sampling protocols are not met, the sample will be re-collected if the data completeness objectives outlined in Section 10 are not already being met. If contamination of the sample container is suspected, a fresh sample container will be used. The Project Manager will be contacted if at any time the sampling crew has questions about procedures or issues based on site-speci�ic conditions.

9.8 Stormwater Outfall Sample Collection
Stormwater outfalls will be monitored with similar methods as discussed in the receiving water sampling section. Sampling will not be undertaken if the outfalls are not �lowing or if conditions exist where the receiving water is back-�lowing into the outfall. It is the combined responsibility of all members of the sampling crew to determine if the performance requirements of the speci�ic sampling method have been met, and to collect additional samples if required. If the performance requirements outlined above or documented in sampling protocols are not met, the sample will be re-collected if the data completeness objectives outlined in Section 10 are not already being met. If contamination of the sample container is suspected, a fresh sample container will be used. The Project Manager will be contacted if at any time the sampling crew has questions about procedures or issues based on site-speci�ic conditions.

9.9 Non-Stormwater Outfall Sample Collection
Non-stormwater outfall water quality samples will be collected consistent with the grab sample techniques previously described, using direct submersion, intermediate container, shallow sheet �low, or pumping methods. The potential exists for non-stormwater outfall monitoring sites to lack discernable �low or for �low emanating from outfalls to not be connected to a receiving water. Sites sampled should be assessed for the following conditions and sampled or not sampled accordingly:

1. Flowing water from outfalls with no visible connection to a receiving water should not be sampled. The �ield log should be completed for non-water quality data (including date and time of visit) and the site condition should be photo-documented.

Revised CIMP D-37 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

2. Flowing water within an outfall connected to a receiving water (i.e., based on visual observations, �low measurements, and a photo-documented assessment of conditions immediately downstream of the sampling site) should be sampled.

9.10 Quality Control Sample Collection
Quality control samples will be collected in conjunction with environmental samples to verify data quality. Quality control samples collected in the �ield include �ield blanks and duplicates. The frequency of quality control sample collection is presented Section 10.

Revised CIMP D-38 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
10 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
This section describes the quality assurance and quality control requirements and processes associated with the CIMP. Quality control samples will be collected in conjunction with environmental samples to verify data quality. Quality control samples collected in the �ield will generally be collected in the same manner as environmental samples. Table D-9 presents the quality assurance parameters that will be evaluated, associated data quality objectives, and corrective action(s) that may be taken if data quality objectives are not met. For �ield measured parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH), there are no Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) requirements for quality. However, �ield crews will be required to calibrate equipment as outlined in Section 9.1.3 to meet the data quality objectives shown in Table D-10. For aquatic toxicity samples, quality assurance/quality control will involve evaluation against performance criteria for the reference toxicant test and sample replicates.

Table D-9. Quality Control Requirements and Data Quality Objectives for Water Samples Quality
Control
Sample Type
QA Parameter Frequency(1) Data Quality Objective(2) Corrective Action Quality Control Requirements – Field
Equipment
Blanks Contamination 5% of all
samples(3) < MDL Identify equipment contamination
source. Qualify data as needed.

Field Blank Contamination 5% of all
samples < MDL
Examine field log. Identify
contamination source. Qualify
data as needed.

Field
Duplicate Precision 5% of all
samples
RPD < 25% if |Difference|
> RL(4)
Reanalyze both samples if
possible. Attempt to identify and
mitigate source of variability.

Qualify data as needed.

Document if high RPD potentially
caused by sample heterogeneity.

Quality Control Requirements – Laboratory
Method Blank Contamination
1 per
analytical
batch
< MDL
Identify and address
contamination source. Reanalyze
method blank and all samples in
batch. Qualify data as needed.

Lab Duplicate Precision
1 per
analytical
batch
RPD < 25% if |Difference|
> RL
Review Laboratory Control
Sample duplicate and potentially
recalibrate and reanalyze. Qualify
results and document if high RPD
caused by matrix heterogeneity.

Revised CIMP D-39 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Quality
Control
Sample Type
QA Parameter Frequency(1) Data Quality Objective(2) Corrective Action Matrix Spike Accuracy
1 per
analytical
batch
80-120% Recovery for
Conventionals (Including
Nutrients) and Solids
Check LCS/SRM recovery.

Attempt to correct matrix problem
and reanalyze samples. Qualify
data as needed.
75-125% for Metals
50-150% Recovery for
Pesticides, Herbicides,
Volatile / Semivolatile
Organics, and PCBs(5)
Matrix Spike
Duplicate Precision
1 per
analytical
batch
RPD < 30% if |Difference|
> RL
Check lab duplicate RPD. Attempt
to correct matrix problem and
reanalyze samples. Qualify data
as needed.

Laboratory
Control
Sample (or
CRM or Blank
Spike)
Accuracy
1 per
analytical
batch
80-120% Recovery for
Conventionals (Excluding
Nutrients) and Solids
Recalibrate and reanalyze LCS/
CRM and samples.
90-110% for Nutrients
75-125% for Metals
50-150% Recovery for
Pesticides, Herbicides,
Volatile / Semivolatile
Organics, and PCBs(5)
Blank Spike
Duplicate Precision
1 per
analytical
batch
RPD < 25% if |Difference|
> RL
Check lab duplicate RPD. Attempt
to correct matrix problem and
reanalyze samples. Qualify data
as needed.

Surrogate
Spike
(Organics
Only)
Accuracy
Each
environmental
and lab QC
sample
30-150% Recovery(5)
Check surrogate recovery in LCS.

Attempt to correct matrix problem
and reanalyze sample. Qualify
data as needed.

MDL = Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit RPD = Relative Percent Difference LCS = Laboratory Control Sample/Standard CRM = Certified/ Standard Reference Material

1. “Analytical batch” refers to a number of samples (not to exceed 20 environmental samples plus the associated quality control samples) that are similar in matrix type and processed/prepared together under the same conditions and same reagents (equivalent to preparation batch).

2. Data quality objectives may be substituted by those specified in the applicable analytical method.

3. Equipment blanks may be collected by the field crew before using the equipment to collect samples.

4. Data quality objective for field duplicate RPD does not apply to fecal indicator bacteria.

5. Alternatively, control limits set at + 3 standard deviations based on actual laboratory data.

Revised CIMP D-40 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Table D-10. Data Quality Objectives for Field Parameters Parameter Accuracy Precision
Water Velocity (for Flow calc.) NA ± 10%
pH ± 0.2 pH units ± 0.2 pH units
Temperature ± 0.2 °C ± 10%
Dissolved Oxygen ± 0.5 mg/L ± 10%
Turbidity ± 1 NTU ± 10%
Conductivity ± 2 µS/cm ± 10%

10.1 QA/QC Requirements and Objectives

10.1.1 Comparability
Comparability of the data can be de�ined as the similarity of data generated by different monitoring programs. For this monitoring program, this objective will be ensured mainly through use of standardized procedures for �ield measurements, sample collection, sample preparation, laboratory analysis, and site selection; adherence to quality assurance protocols and holding times; and reporting in standard units. Additionally, comparability of analytical data will be addressed through the use of standard operating procedures and extensive analyst training at the analyzing laboratory.

10.1.2 Representativeness
Representativeness can be de�ined as the degree to which the environmental data generated by the monitoring program accurately and precisely represent actual environmental conditions. For the CIMP , this objective will be addressed by the overall design of the program. Representativeness is attained through the selection of sampling locations, methods, and frequencies for each parameter of interest, and by maintaining the integrity of each sample after collection. Sampling locations were chosen that are representative of various areas within the watershed which will allow for the characterization of the watershed and impacts discharges may have on water quality.

10.1.3 Completeness
Data completeness is a measure of the amount of data that is successfully collected and validated by a project relative to the amount of data planned for collection. Typically, completeness is expressed as a percentage value and represents the percentage of samples needed for the project to reach valid conclusions. For this project, the completeness objective is 90% for all constituents and matrices.

Because the CIMP is intended to be a long-term monitoring program, data that are not successfully collected during a speci�ic sample event will not be recollected at a later date. Rather, subsequent events conducted over the course of the monitoring program will provide robust data sets to appropriately characterize conditions at individual sampling sites and the watershed in general.

Revised CIMP D-41 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
However, some reasonable objectives for data are desirable, if only to measure the effectiveness of the program when conditions allow for the collection of samples (i.e., �low is present). The program goal for data completeness, 90%, is based on the planned sampling frequency, SWAMP recommendations, and a subjective determination of the relative importance of the monitoring element within the CIMP . If the conditions at particular sampling sites do not allow for the collection of enough samples to achieve the data completeness objective, alternate sites will be considered.

Data completeness will be evaluated on a yearly basis.

10.2 QA/QC Field Procedures
For basic water quality analyses, quality control samples to be prepared in the �ield will consist of equipment blanks, �ield blanks, and �ield duplicates as described below.

10.2.1 Equipment Blanks
The purpose of analyzing equipment blanks is to demonstrate that sampling equipment is free from contamination. Equipment blanks will consist of laboratory-prepared blank water (certi�ied to be contaminant-free by the laboratory) processed through the sampling equipment that will be used to collect environmental samples.

Equipment blanks will be analyzed using the same analytical methods speci�ied for environmental samples. If any analytes of interest are detected at levels greater than the MDL, the source(s) of contamination will be investigated and eliminated, if possible. Depending on the level of contamination, contaminated equipment may need to be re-cleaned or replaced and/or new equipment blanks may need to be prepared and analyzed.

10.2.2 Field Blanks
The purpose of analyzing �ield blanks is to demonstrate that sampling procedures do not result in contamination of the environmental samples. Field blanks are to be collected as follows:

1. At a frequency of 5% of samples collected for the following constituents: trace metals in water (including mercury) and VOA samples in water, and bacteria samples. At a minimum, one bacteria �ield blank should be collected per sampling event, even if this leads to a percentage of �ield blanks greater than 5%.

2. Field blanks for other media and analytes should be conducted upon initiation of sampling, and if �ield blank performance is acceptable (as described in Table D-9), further collection and analysis of �ield blanks for these other media and analytes need only be performed on an as-needed basis, or during �ield performance audits. An as-needed basis for the USCR CIMP will be annually.

Blanks will consist of laboratory-prepared blank water (certi�ied to be contaminant-free by the laboratory) processed through the sampling equipment using the same procedures used for environmental samples.

If any analytes of interest are detected at levels greater than the MDL, the source(s) of contamination should be investigated and eliminated, if possible. The sampling crew should be noti�ied so that the source of contamination can be identi�ied (if possible) and corrective measures taken prior to the next sampling event.

Revised CIMP D-42 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

10.2.3 Field Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing �ield duplicates is to demonstrate the precision of sampling and analytical processes. Field duplicates will be prepared at the rate of 5% of all samples and analyzed along with the associated environmental samples. Field duplicates will consist of two grab samples collected simultaneously, to the extent practicable. If the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) of �ield duplicate results is greater than the percentage stated in Table D-9 and the absolute difference is greater than the RL, results should be quali�ied. If possible (which may not always be the case), consider reanalyzing the samples. Document if high �ield duplicate RPD may be caused by matrix heterogeneity. The sampling crew should be noti�ied so that the source of sampling variability can be identi�ied (if possible) and corrective measures taken prior to the next sampling event.

10.3 QA/QC Laboratory Analyses
Quality control samples prepared in the laboratory will consist of method blanks, laboratory duplicates, matrix spikes/duplicates, laboratory control samples (standard reference materials), and toxicity quality controls.

10.3.1 Method Blanks
The purpose of analyzing method blanks is to demonstrate that sample preparation and analytical procedures do not result in sample contamination. Method blanks will be prepared and analyzed by the contract laboratory at a rate of at least one for each analytical batch. Method blanks will consist of laboratory-prepared blank water processed along with the batch of environmental samples. If the result for a single method blank is greater than the MDL, or if the average blank concentration plus two standard deviations of three or more blanks is greater than the RL, the source(s) of contamination should be corrected, and the associated samples should be reanalyzed.

10.3.2 Laboratory Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing laboratory duplicates is to demonstrate the precision of the sample preparation and analytical methods. Laboratory duplicates will be analyzed at the rate of one pair per sample batch. Laboratory duplicates will consist of duplicate laboratory forti�ied method blanks. If the RPD for any analyte is greater than the percentage stated in Table D-9 and the absolute difference between duplicates is greater than the RL, results should be quali�ied. Samples should be reanalyzed to con�irm the RPD results. If the lab duplicate RPD is high due to matrix heterogeneity, results should be quali�ied and the heterogeneity should be documented.

10.3.3 Matrix Spikes and Matrix Spike Duplicates
The purpose of analyzing matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates is to demonstrate the performance of the sample preparation and analytical methods in a particular sample matrix.

Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates will be analyzed at the rate of one pair per sample batch.

Each matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate will consist of an aliquot of laboratory-forti�ied environmental sample. Spike concentrations should be added at �ive to ten times the reporting limit for the analyte of interest.

If the matrix spike recovery of any analyte is outside the acceptable range, potential causes of high or low recovery should be evaluated and addressed, if possible. Recovery of laboratory control samples should be reviewed to determine whether high or low recovery is the result of inadequate

Revised CIMP D-43 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
method performance. If recovery of laboratory control samples is outside of the acceptable range, issues with method performance should be addressed as described in the following subsection and matrix spike recovery should be reanalyzed, if possible. If recovery of laboratory control samples is acceptable, high or low matrix spike recovery can most likely be attributed to the sample matrix. If possible, the analytical laboratory will attempt to correct the problem (e.g., by dilution, concentration, etc.), and the environmental samples and matrix spikes should be re-analyzed.

Results should be �lagged as estimates if recovery issues cannot be resolved and the data quality objective is not met.

10.3.4 Laboratory Control Samples
The purpose of analyzing laboratory control samples (or a standard reference material) is to demonstrate the accuracy of the sample preparation and analytical methods. Laboratory control samples will be analyzed at the rate of one per sample batch. Laboratory control samples will consist of laboratory forti�ied method blanks or a standard reference material. If recovery of any analyte does not meet the applicable data quality objective, method performance should be reviewed for potential issues, the sample batch should be prepared again, and the laboratory control sample should be reanalyzed.

10.3.5 Surrogate Spikes
Surrogate recovery results are used to evaluate the accuracy of analytical measurements for organics analyses on a sample-speci�ic basis. A surrogate is a compound (or compounds) added by the laboratory to method blanks, samples, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates prior to sample preparation, as speci�ied in the analytical methodology. Surrogates are generally brominated, �luorinated, or isotopically labeled compounds that are not usually present in environmental media. Results are expressed as percent recovery of the surrogate spike. Surrogate spikes are applicable for analysis of PCBs and pesticides.

10.3.6 Toxicity Quality Control
For aquatic toxicity tests, the acceptability of test results is determined primarily by performance- based criteria for test organisms, culture and test conditions, and the results of control bioassays.

Control bioassays include monthly reference toxicant testing. Test acceptability requirements are documented in the method documents for each bioassay method.

Revised CIMP D-44 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
11 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY
Frequencies and procedures for calibration of analytical equipment used by each contract laboratory are documented in the QA Manual for each contract laboratory. Any de�iciencies in analytical equipment calibration should be managed in accordance with the QA Manual for each contract laboratory. Any de�iciencies that affect analysis of samples submitted through this program must be reported to the Project Manager, or designee. Laboratory QA Manuals are available for review at the analyzing laboratory.

Revised CIMP D-45 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
12 DATA MANAGEMENT, VALIDATION AND USABILITY
The following sections details the procedures for managing and reporting data to meet the goals and objectives of the CIMP and in turn the Permit. The details contained herein serve as a guide for ensuring that consistent protocols and procedures are in place for successful data management and reporting.

12.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Requirements The acceptability of data is determined through data veri�ication and data validation. Both processes are discussed in detail in the following subsections. In addition to the data quality objectives presented in Table D-9, the standard data validation procedures documented in the contract laboratory’s QA Manual will be used to accept, reject, or qualify the data generated by the laboratory. Each laboratory’s QA Of�icer will be responsible for validating data generated by the laboratory.

Once analytical results are received from the analyzing laboratory, the USCRWMG will perform an independent review and validation of analytical results. Appendix 2 provides equations that are used to calculate precision, accuracy, and completeness of the data. Decisions to reject or qualify data will be made by the USCRWMG, based on the evaluation of �ield and laboratory quality control data, according to procedures outlined in Section 13 of Caltrans document No. CTSW-RT-00-005, Guidance Manual: Stormwater Monitoring Protocols, 2
nd Edition. Section 13 of the Caltrans Guidance
Manual is included as Appendix 3.

12.2 Data Verification
Data veri�ication involves verifying that required methods and procedures have been followed at all stages of the data collection process, including sample collection, sample receipt, sample preparation, sample analysis, and documentation review for completeness. Veri�ied data have been checked for a variety of factors, including transcription errors, correct application of dilution factors, appropriate reporting of dry weight versus wet weight results, and correct application of conversion factors. Veri�ication of data may also include laboratory quali�iers, if assigned.

Data veri�ication should occur in the �ield and the laboratory at each level (i.e., all personnel should verify their own work) and as information is passed from one level to the next (i.e., supervisors should verify the information produced by their staff). Records commonly examined during the veri�ication process include �ield and sample collection logs, COC forms, sample preparation logs, instrument logs, raw data, and calculation worksheets.

In addition, laboratory personnel will verify that the measurement process was "in control" (i.e., all speci�ied data quality objectives were met or acceptable deviations explained) for each batch of samples before proceeding with the analysis of a subsequent batch. Each laboratory will also establish a system for detecting and reducing transcription and/or calculation errors prior to reporting data.

Revised CIMP D-46 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

12.3 Data Validation
In general, data validation involves identifying project requirements, obtaining the documents and records produced during data veri�ication, evaluating the quality of the data generated, and determining whether project requirements were met. The main focus of data validation is determining data quality in terms of accomplishment of measurement quality objectives (i.e., meeting QC acceptance criteria). Data quality indicators, such as precision, accuracy, sensitivity, representativeness, and completeness, are typically used as expressions of data quality. The USCRWMG will review veri�ied sample results for the data set as a whole, including laboratory quali�iers, summarize data and QC de�iciencies and evaluate the impact on overall data quality and assign data validation quali�iers as necessary. The validation process applies to both �ield and laboratory data.

In addition to the data quality objectives presented in Table D-9, the standard data validation procedures documented in the analyzing laboratory’s QA Manual will be used to accept, reject, or qualify the data generated. The laboratory will submit only data that have met data quality objectives or data that have acceptable deviations explained. When QC requirements have not been met, the samples will be reanalyzed when possible, and only the results of the reanalysis will be submitted, if they are acceptable. Each laboratory’s QA Of�icer is responsible for validating the data it generates.

12.4 Data Management
Analytical Data Reports will be sent by the laboratories and kept by the USCRWMG. Each type of report will be stored separately. The original �ield logs shall be retained in paper or electronic form.

The contract laboratory shall retain original COC forms. The contract laboratory will retain copies of the preliminary and �inal data reports. Concentrations of all parameters will be calculated as described in the laboratory SOPs or referenced method document for each analyte or parameter.

The �ield log and analytical data generated will be converted to a standard database format. After data entry or data transfer procedures are completed for each sample event, data will be validated.

After the �inal quality assurance checks for errors are completed, the data will be added to the �inal database.

Revised CIMP D-47 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
13 MONITORING PROCEDURES REFERENCES
Harwood, A. D., You, J., & Lydy, M. J. (2009). Temperature as a toxicity identi�ication evaluation tool for pyrethroid insecticides: toxicokinetic con�irmation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry:

An International Journal, 28(5), 1051-1058.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identi�ication Evaluations: Phase I. Toxicity Characterization Procedures. 2nd Edition. EPA-600-6- 91-003. National Ef�luent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Toxicity Identi�ication Evaluation:

Characterization of Chronically Toxic Ef�luents, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005F. May 1992. National Ef�luent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.

United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1993a. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identi�ication Evaluations- Phase II Toxicity Identi�ication Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. EPA-600-R-92-080. National Ef�luent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993b. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identi�ication Evaluations- Phase III Toxicity Con�irmation Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. EPA-600-R-92-081. National Ef�luent Toxicity Assessment Center, Duluth, MN.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Ef�luents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition.

October. EPA-821-R-02-013.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002b. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Ef�luent and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fifth Edition.

October. EPA-821-R-02-012.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Test of Signi�icant Toxicity Technical Document. EPA/833-R-10-004, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Of�ice of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.

Weston, D.P . and E.L. Amweg. 2007. Whole sediment toxicity identi�ication evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: II. Esterase addition. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26:2397- 2404.

Wheelock, C., Miller, J., Miller, M., Gee, S., Shan, G. and Hammock, B. 2004. Development of Toxicity Identi�ication Evaluation (TIE) procedures for pyrethroid detection using esterase activity.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23:2699-2708.

Revised CIMP E-1 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group
Attachment E: Los Angeles County Flood Control
District Background Information
In 1915, the Los Angeles County Flood Control Act established the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and empowered it to manage �lood risk and conserve stormwater for groundwater recharge. In coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers the LACFCD developed and constructed a comprehensive system that provides for the regulation and control of �lood waters through the use of reservoirs and �lood channels. The system also controls debris, collects surface storm water from streets, and replenishes groundwater with stormwater and imported and recycled waters. The LACFCD covers the 2,753 square-mile portion of Los Angeles County south of the east-west projection of Avenue S, excluding Catalina Island. It is a special district governed by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, and its functions are carried out by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The LACFCD service area is shown in Figure E-1.

Unlike cities and counties, the LACFCD does not own or operate any municipal sanitary sewer systems, public streets, roads, or highways. The LACFCD operates and maintains storm drains and other appurtenant drainage infrastructure within its service area. The LACFCD is exempt from implementing the Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program and Planning and Land Development Program identi�ied in Permit Part VIII.E and Part VIII.F. The permittees that have such land use authority are responsible under the Permit for inspecting and controlling pollutants from industrial and commercial facilities, development projects, and development construction sites.

As a purveyor of storm and non-storm water discharges, the LACFCD remains subject to the Public Information and Participation Program and the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program.

Further, as the owner and operator of certain properties, facilities and infrastructure, the LACFCD remains subject to requirements of a Public Agency Activities Program.

The [E]WMPs and CIMPs re�lect the opportunities that are available for the LACFCD to collaborate with permittees having land use authority over the subject watershed area. In some instances, the opportunities are minimal, however the LACFCD remains responsible for compliance with certain aspects of the MS4.

Revised CIMP E-2 September 2023
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group

Figure E-1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District Service Area

Appendix 1: Example Field, Calibration, and Chain-of-
Custody Forms
EXAMPLE Field Log Page 1 of 2

OBSERVATIONS
Weather:

Water Color: In stream Activity:

Water Characteristics (flow type, odor, turbidity, floatables):

Other comments (trash, wildlife, recreational uses, homeless activity, etc. – Use notes section if more room is needed):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

GENERAL INFORMATION Date: __________

Site ID: Sampling Personnel: ________________________

GPS Coordinates: (lat) ____________________ (lon) ________________________ Picture/Video #: __________ In situ WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS

Time Temp
(0C) pH D.O.
(mg/L)
D.O.
% Sat
Elec Cond.
(uS/cm)
Turbidity
(NTU)

COLLECTED WATER QUALITY SAMPLES
Sample ID Analysis Time Volume Notes

Field blank

Field duplicate

ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING NOTES:

Example Field Log Page 2 of 2
FLOW MEASUREMENTS WITH FLOAT AND STOPWATCH Number of Flow Paths:______

Fill out Path #  Path# Path# Path# Path# Path#
Width of Flow at Top of Marked Section:

Width of Flow at Middle of Marked Section:

Width of Flow at Bottom of Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 0% of Top Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 25% of Top Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 50% of Top Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 75% of Top Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 100% of Top Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 0% of Middle Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 25% of Middle Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 50% of Middle Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 75% of Middle Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 100% of Middle Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 0% of Bottom Marked Section
Depth of Flow at 25% of Bottom Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 50% of Bottom Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 75% of Bottom Marked Section:

Depth of Flow at 100% of Bottom Marked Section
Distance Marked-off for Velocity:

Time 1:

Time 2:

Time 3:

Specify if measurements are in inches or feet using “in” or “ft”

FLOW MEASUREMENTS WITH VELOCITY METER
Estimated Total Width of Flowing Water (ft): ____________ Distance measured from (circle): RIGHT or LEFT

Measurement Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from Bank (ft)
Depth (ft)
Velocity (ft/s)

ADDITIONAL FLOW MEASUREMENT NOTES:

FLOW MEASUREMENT WITH GRADUATED CONTAINER
Container Volume: Percent Capture:

Time to fill container:

Minutes Seconds
Time1
Time2
Time3

EXAMPLE Field Meter Calibration Logsheet

Field Measurement Equipment Post Event Calibration Verification Log

Date:

Parameter Meter ID Verification
Standard Measurement Calibration
Valid if: Time Initials
Dissolved
Oxygen
______ mmHG
_______ oC
________mg/L 1
__________ mg/L
(water-sat’d air)
D.O. reads within
10% of value from
D.O. tables 1

Conductivity ______ uS/cm

___________uS/cm
(1,000 uS/cm)
EC of 1,000 std =
900 – 1,100 uS/cm
pH ________Units ___________Units
(pH = 8.0)
pH 8.0 = 7.8 - 8.2
(or w/in manuf’s
specs)

Turbidity _______ NTU __________NTU
(1,000 NTU) NTU = 900 – 1,100
Notes:

1 “D.O. tables” refers to tables of dissolved oxygen in water as a function of temperature and barometric pressure, typically found in wastewater engineering text books.

Field Measurement Equipment Calibration Log & Initial Calibration Verification

Date:

Parameter Meter ID Calibration
Standard
Post-Cal
Measurement
Calibration
Valid if: Time Initials
Dissolved
Oxygen
______ mmHG
_______ oC
________mg/L 1
__________ mg/L
(water-sat’d air)
D.O. reads within
10% of value from
D.O. tables 1

Conductivity
0 uS/cm (air)
10,000 uS/cm ___________uS/cm
(1,000 uS/cm) 900 – 1,100 uS/cm
pH

7.0 Units

10.0 Units ___________Units
(pH = 8.0)
pH 8 = 7.8 - 8.2
(or w/in manuf’s
specs)

Turbidity
0 NTU
3000 NTU __________NTU
(1000 NTU) NTU = 900 - 110
Notes:

Larry Walker Associates
2151 Alessandro Drive, Suite 100 Ventura, CA 93001 805-585-1835 805-585-1840 Fax CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Date: Lab ID:

Destination Lab: FGL Environmental
David Terz
Address: 853 Cor poration St.

Santa Paula, CA 93060
Phone: 805-392-2024
Fax: 805-525-4172
Sampled By:

LWA Contact: Amy Storm
Project: VCAILG Monitoring Program
Client Sample Id
Sample
Date
Sample
Time
Sample
Matrix
Container
# Type Pres. Notes
Sender Comments:

Laboratory Comments:

Relinquished By (1): Relinquished By (2):

Received By (1): Received By (2):

Signature:

Print:

Signature:

Organization:

Print:

Date:

Organization:

Date:

Time:

Date: Time:

Date: Time:
1) Prior approval must be obtained if methods or RLs other that those specified in the QAPP are used.
2) Please email a PDF copy of the COC on completion of the sample login to Amy Storm at [email protected].

Crew:

Appendix 2: Calculations for Data Quality
Assessment

This appendix documents the calculations used to assess precision, accuracy, and completeness of the data.

Precision

Precision is a measure of the degree to which replicate measurements differ from one another. Precision assessed through calculation of field and laboratory duplicates, and matrix spike duplicates is expressed as the Relative Percent Difference (RPD).

RPD for laboratory and field duplicates is calculated as follows:

RPD for matrix spike duplicates is calculated as follows:

where Recovery is calculated as described for matrix spikes, below.

If assessed with three or more replicate measurements, precision should be expressed as Relative Standard Deviation (RSD). RSD is calculated as:

Accuracy

Accuracy is the degree to which a measured value agrees with a true or expected value for a parameter. Accuracy is typically assessed using standard reference materials, laboratory control samples, and matrix spikes. Recovery of laboratory control samples and standard reference materials is calculated as:

Recovery of matrix spikes is calculated as:

⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
÷+= 2 2) replicate 1 (replicate
2 replicate - 1 replicate x 100RPD
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
÷+= 2 2)recovery 1(recovery
2recovery - 1recovery x 100RPD
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛= tsmeasuremen replicate of average
tsmeasuremen replicated ofdeviation standard x 100 RSD ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛= ionconcentrat spike true
ionconcentrat recovered x 100 Recovery %
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛= ionconcentrat spike true
ionconcentrat sample -ionconcentrat recovered total x 100 Recovery %

When sample concentrations are less than the method detection limit, a value of "0" (zero) will be used as the sample result concentration for purposes of calculating spike recoveries.

Completeness

Completeness may be defined as the number of valid measurements compared to the total number of measurements collected. Completeness is calculated as:

⎟
⎠
⎞⎜
⎝
⎛= tsmeasuremen ofnumber total
tsmeasuremen validofnumber x 100 ssCompletene %

Appendix 3: Chapter 13 QA/QC Data Evaluation from
Caltrans Guidance Manual: Stormwater Monitoring
Protocols, 2nd Edition
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-1 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
SECTION 13

QA/QC DATA EVALUATION
All data reported by the analytical laboratory must be carefully reviewed to determine whether the project’s data quality acceptability limits or objectives (DQOs) have been met. This section describes a process for evaluation of all laboratory data, including the results of all QA/QC sample analysis.

Before any results are reported by the laboratory, the deliverable requirements should be clearly communicated to the laboratory, as described in the “Laboratory Data Package Deliverables” discussion in Section 12.

The current section discusses QA/QC data evaluation in the following two parts:
ä Initial Data Quality Screening
Data Quality Evaluation
The initial data quality screening identifies problems with laboratory reporting while they may still be corrected. When the data reports are received, they should be immediately checked for conformity to chain of custody requests to ensure that all requested analyses have been reported. The data are then evaluated for conformity to holding time requirements, conformity to reporting limit requests, analytical precision, analytical accuracy, and possible contamination during sampling and analysis. The data evaluation results in rejection, qualification, and narrative discussion of data points or the data as a whole. Qualification of data, other than rejection, does not necessary exclude use of the data for all applications. It is the decision of the data user, based on specifics of the data application, whether or not to include qualified data points.

INITIAL DATA QUALITY SCREENING
The initial screening process identifies and corrects, when possible, inadvertent documentation or process errors introduced by the field crew or the laboratory. The initial data quality control screening should be applied using the following three-step process:

1. Verification check between sampling and analysis plan (SAP), chain of custody forms, and laboratory data reports: Chain of custody records should be compared with field logbooks and laboratory data reports to verify the accuracy of all sample identification and to ensure that all samples submitted for analysis have a value reported for each parameter requested. Any deviation from the SAP that has not yet KEY
TOPICS
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-2 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
been documented in the field notes or project records should be recorded and corrected if possible.

Sample representativeness should also be assessed in this step. The minimum acceptable storm capture parameters (number of aliquots and percent storm capture) per amount of rainfall are specified in Section 10. Samples not meeting these criteria are generally not analyzed; however, selected analyses can be run at the Caltrans task manager’s discretion. If samples not meeting the minimum sample representativeness criteria are analyzed, the resulting data should be rejected (“R”) or qualified as estimated (“J”), depending upon whether the analyses were approved by Caltrans.

Grab samples should be taken according to the timing protocols specified in the SAP.

Deviations from the protocols will result in the rejection of the data for these samples or qualification of the data as estimated. The decision to reject a sample based on sample representativeness should be made prior to the submission of the sample to the laboratory, to avoid unnecessary analytical costs.

2. Check of laboratory data report completeness : As discussed in Section 12 , the end product of the laboratory analysis is a data report that should include a number of QA/QC results along with the environmental results. QA/QC sample results reported by the lab should include both analyses requested by the field crew (field blanks, field duplicates, lab duplicates and MS/MSD analysis), as well as internal laboratory QA/QC results (method blanks and laboratory control samples).

There are often differences among laboratories in terms of style and format of reporting.

Therefore, it is prudent to request in advance that the laboratory conform to the style and format approved by Caltrans as shown in Section 14. The Caltrans data reviewer should verify that the laboratory data package includes the following items:
4 A narrative which outlines any problems, corrections, anomalies, and conclusions.
4 Sample identification numbers.
4 Sample extraction and analysis dates.
4 Reporting limits for all analyses reported.
4 Results of method blanks.
4 Results of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses, including calculation of percent recovered and relative percent differences. 4 Results of laboratory control sample analyses.
4 Results of external reference standard analyses.
4 Surrogate spike and blank spike analysis results for organic constituents.

Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-3 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
4 A summary of acceptable QA/QC criteria (RPD, spike recovery) used by the laboratory.

Items missing from this list should be requested from the laboratory.

3. Check for typographical errors and apparent incongruities : The laboratory reports should be reviewed to identify results that are outside the range of normally observed values. Any type of suspect result or apparent typographical error should be verified with the laboratory. An example of a unique value would be if a dissolved iron concentration has been reported lower than 500 µg/L for every storm event monitored at one location and then a value of 2500 µg/L is reported in a later event. This reported concentration of 2500 µg/L should be verified with the laboratory for correctness.

Besides apparent out-of-range values, the indicators of potential laboratory reporting problems include:
• Significant lack of agreement between analytical results reported for laboratory duplicates or field duplicates.
• Consistent reporting of dissolved metals results higher than total or total recoverable metals.
• Unusual numbers of detected values reported for blank sample analyses. • Inconsistency in sample identification/labeling.

If the laboratory confirms a problem with the reported concentration, the corrected or recalculated result should be issued in an amended report, or if necessary the sample should be re-analyzed. If laboratory results are changed or other corrections are made by the laboratory, an amended laboratory report should be issued to update the project records.

DATA QUALITY EVALUATION
The data quality evaluation process is structured to provide systematic checks to ensure that the reported data accurately represent the concentrations of constituents actually present in stormwater. Data evaluation can often identify sources of contamination in the sampling and analytical processes, as well as detect deficiencies in the laboratory analyses or errors in data reporting. Data quality evaluation allows monitoring data to be used in the proper context with the appropriate level of confidence.

QA/QC parameters that should be reviewed are classified into the following categories:
4 Reporting limits
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-4 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
4 Holding times
4 Contamination check results (method, field, trip, and equipment blanks) 4 Precision analysis results (laboratory, field, and matrix spike duplicates) 4 Accuracy analysis results (matrix spikes, surrogate spikes, laboratory control samples, and external reference standards)
Each of these QA/QC parameters should be compared to data quality acceptability criteria, inalso known as the project’s data quality objectives (DQOs). The key steps that should be adhered to in the analysis of each of these QA/QC parameters are:

1. Compile a complete set of the QA/QC results for the parameter being analyzed.

2. Compare the laboratory QA/QC results to accepted criteria (DQOs).

3. Compile any out-of-range values and report them to the laboratory for verification.

4. Prepare a report that tabulates the success rate for each QA/QC parameter analyzed.

This process should be applied to each of the QA/QC parameters as discussed below.

Reporting Limits
Stormwater quality monitoring program DQOs should contain a list of acceptable reporting limits that the lab is contractually obligated to adhere to, except in special cases of insufficient sample volume or matrix interference problems. The reporting limits used should ensure a high probability of detection. , Table 12-1 provides recommended reporting limits for selected parameters.

Holding Times
Holding time represents the elapsed time between sample collection time and sample analysis time. Calculate the elapsed time between the sampling time and start of analysis, and compare this to the required holding time. For composite samples that are collected within 24-hours or less, the time of the final sample aliquot is considered the “sample collection time” for determining sample holding time. For analytes with critical holding times (≤48 hours), composite samples lasting longer than 24-hours require multiple bottle composite samples. Each of these composite samples should represent less than 24 hours of monitored flow, and subsamples from the composites should have been poured off and analyzed by the laboratory for those constituents with critical holding times ( see Section 12 ). It is important to review sample holding times to ensure that analyses occurred within the time period that is generally accepted to maintain stable parameter concentrations. Table 12-1 contains the holding times for selected parameters. If holding times are exceeded, inaccurate concentrations or false negative results may be reported.

Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-5 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Samples that exceed their holding time prior to analysis are qualified as “estimated”, or may be rejected depending on the circumstances.

Contamination
Blank samples are used to identify the presence and potential source of sample contamination and are typically one of four types:

1. Method blanks are prepared and analyzed by the laboratory to identify laboratory contamination.

2. Field blanks are prepared by the field crew during sampling events and submitted to the laboratory to identify contamination occurring during the collection or the transport of environmental samples.

3. Equipment blanks are prepared by the field crew or laboratory prior to the monitoring season and used to identify contamination coming from sampling equipment (tubing, pumps, bailers, etc.).

4. Trip blanks are prepared by the laboratory, carried in the field, and then submitted to the laboratory to identify contamination in the transport and handling of volatile organics samples.

5. Filter blanks are prepared by field crew or lab technicians performing the sample filtration. Blank water is filtered in the same manner and at the same time as other environmental samples. Filter blanks are used to identify contamination from the filter or filtering process.

If no contamination is present, all blanks should be reported as “not detected” or “non- detect” (e.g., constituent concentrations should not be detected above the reporting limit).

Blanks reporting detected concentrations (“hits”) should be noted in the written QA/QC data summary prepared by the data reviewer. In the case that the laboratory reports hits on method blanks, a detailed review of raw laboratory data and procedures should be requested from the laboratory to identify any data reporting errors or contamination sources. When other types of blanks are reported above the reporting limit, a similar review should be requested along with a complete review of field procedures and sample handling. Often times it will also be necessary to refer to historical equipment blank results, corresponding method blank results, and field notes to identify contamination sources. This is a corrective and documentative step that should be done as soon as the hits are reported.

If the blank concentration exceeds the laboratory reporting limit, values reported for each associated environmental sample must be evaluated according to USEPA guidelines for data evaluations of organics and metals (USEPA, 1991; USEPA, 1995) as indicated in Table 13-1.

Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-6 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Table 13-1. USEPA Guidelines for Data Evaluation
Step Environmental
Sample
Phthalates and
other common
contaminants
Other Organics Metals

1. Sample > 10X
blank concentration No action No action No action

2. Sample < 10X
blank concentration
Report associated
environmental
results as “non-
detect” at the
reported
environmental
concentration.

No action Results considered
an “upper limit” of
the true
concentration (note
contamination in
data quality
evaluation narrative).

3. Sample < 5X blank
concentration
Report associated
environmental
results as “non-
detect” at the
reported
environmental
concentration.

Report associated
environmental
results as “non-
detect” at the
reported
environmental
concentration.

Specifically, if the concentration in the environmental sample is less than five times the concentration in the associated blank, the environmental sample result is considered, for reporting purposes, “not-detected” at the environmental sample result concentration (phthalate and other common contaminant results are considered non-detect if the environmental sample result is less than ten times the blank concentration). The laboratory reports are not altered in any way. The qualifications resulting from the data evaluation are made to the evaluator’s data set for reporting and analysis purposes to account for the apparent contamination problem. For example, if dissolved copper is reported by the laboratory at 4 µg/L and an associated blank concentration for dissolved copper is reported at 1 µg/L, data qualification would be necessary. In the data reporting field of the database (see Section 14), the dissolved copper result would be reported as 4 µg/L), the numerical qualifier would be reported as “<”, the reporting limit would be left as reported by the laboratory, and the value qualifier would be reported as “U” (“not detected above the reported environmental concentration”).

When reported environmental concentrations are greater than five times (ten times for phthalates) the reported blank “hit” concentration, the environmental result is reported unqualified at the laboratory-reported concentration. For example, if dissolved copper is reported at 11 µg/L and an associated blank concentration for dissolved copper is reported at 1 µg/L, the dissolved copper result would still be reported as 11 µg/L.

Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-7 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Precision
Duplicate samples provide a measure of the data precision (reproducibility) attributable to sampling and analytical procedures. Precision can be calculated as the relative percent difference (RPD) in the following manner:

RPDi = 2* Oi − Di
Oi + Di( ) *100%
where:

RPDi = Relative percent difference for compound i
Oi = Value of compound i in original sample
Di = Value of compound i in duplicate sample
The resultant RPDs should be compared to the criteria specified in the project’s DQOs.

The DQO criteria shown in Table 13-2 below are based on the analytical method specifications and laboratory-supplied values. Project-specific DQOs should be developed with consideration to the analytical laboratory, the analytical method specifications, and the project objective. Table 13-2 should be used as a reference point as the least stringent set of DQO criteria for Caltrans monitoring projects.

Laboratory and Field Duplicates
Laboratory duplicates are samples that are split by the laboratory. Each half of the split sample is then analyzed and reported by the laboratory. A pair of field duplicates is two samples taken at the same time, in the same manner into two unique containers.

Subsampling duplicates are two unique, ostensibly identical, samples taken from one composite bottle (see Section 10). Laboratory duplicate results provide information regarding the variability inherent in the analytical process, and the reproducibility of analytical results. Field duplicate analysis measures both field and laboratory precision, therefore, it is expected that field duplicate results would exhibit greater variability than lab duplicate results. Subsampling duplicates are used as a substitute for field duplicates in some situations and are also an indicator of the variability introduced by the splitting process.

The RPDs resulting from analysis of both laboratory and field duplicates should be reviewed during data evaluation. Deviations from the specified limits, and the effect on reported data, should be noted and commented upon by the data reviewer. Laboratories typically have their own set of maximum allowable RPDs for laboratory duplicates based on their analytical history. In most cases these values are more stringent than those listed in Table 13-2. Note that the laboratory will only apply these maximum allowable RPDs to laboratory duplicates. In most cases field duplicates are submitted “blind” (with pseudonyms) to the laboratory.

Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-8 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Environmental samples associated with laboratory duplicate results greater than the maximum allowable RPD (when the numerical difference is greater than the reporting limit) are qualified as “J” (estimated). When the numerical difference is less than the RL, no qualification is necessary. Field duplicate RPDs are compared against the maximum allowable RPDs used for laboratory duplicates to identify any pattern of problems with reproducibility of results. Any significant pattern of RPD exceedances for field duplicates should be noted in the data report narrative.

Corrective action should be taken to address field or laboratory procedures that are introducing the imprecision of results. The data reviewer can apply “J” (estimated) qualifiers to any data points if there is clear evidence of a field or laboratory bias issue that is not related to contamination. (Qualification based on contamination is assessed with blank samples.)
Laboratories should provide justification for any laboratory duplicate samples with RPDs greater than the maximum allowable value. In some cases, the laboratory will track and document such exceedances, however; in most cases it is the job of the data reviewer to locate these out-of-range RPDs. When asked to justify excessive RPD values for field duplicates, laboratories most often will cite sample splitting problems in the field.

Irregularities should be included in the data reviewer’s summary, and the laboratory’s response should be retained to document laboratory performance, and to track potential chronic problems with laboratory analysis and reporting.

Accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement to an accepted reference or true value. Accuracy is measured as the percent recovery (%R) of spike compound(s).

Percent recovery of spikes is calculated in the following manner:
%R = 100% * [(Cs – C) / S]
where:
%R = percent recovery
Cs = spiked sample concentration
C = sample concentration for spiked matrices
S = concentration equivalent of spike added
Accuracy (%R) criteria for spike recoveries should be compared with the limits specified in the project DQOs. A list of typical acceptable recoveries is shown in Table 13-2. As in the case of maximum allowable RPDs, laboratories develop acceptable criteria for an allowable range of recovery percentages that may differ from the values listed in Table 13-

2. Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-9 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Percent recoveries should be reviewed during data evaluation, and deviations from the specified limits should be noted in the data reviewer’s summary. Justification for out of range recoveries should be provided by the laboratory along with the laboratory reports, or in response to the data reviewer’s summary.

Laboratory Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples Evaluation of analytical accuracy and precision in environmental sample matrices is obtained through the analysis of laboratory matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples. A matrix spike is an environmental sample that is spiked with a known amount of the constituent being analyzed. A percent recovery can be calculated from the results of the spike analysis. A MSD is a duplicate of this analysis that is performed as a check on matrix recovery precision. MS and MSD results are used together to calculate RPD as with the duplicate samples. When MS/MSD results (%R and RPD) are outside the project specifications, as listed in Table 13-2, the associated environmental samples are qualified as “estimates due to matrix interference”. Surrogate standards are added to all environmental and QC samples tested by gas chromatography (GC) or gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). Surrogates are non-target compounds that are analytically similar to the analytes of interest. The surrogate compounds are spiked into the sample prior to the extraction or analysis. Surrogate recoveries are evaluated with respect to the laboratory acceptance criteria to provide information on the extraction efficiency of every sample.

External Reference Standards
External reference standards (ERS) are artificial certified standards prepared by an external agency and added to a batch of samples. ERS’s are not required for every batch of samples, and are often only run quarterly by laboratories. Some laboratories use ERS’s in place of laboratory control spikes with every batch of samples. ERS results are assessed the same as laboratory control spikes for qualification purposes (see below). The external reference standards are evaluated in terms of accuracy, expressed as the percent recovery (comparison of the laboratory results with the certified concentrations). The laboratory should report all out-of-range values along with the environmental sample results. ERS values are qualified as biased high” when the ERS recovery exceeds the acceptable recovery range and “biased low” when the ERS recovery is smaller than the recovery range.

Laboratory Control Samples
LCS analysis is another batch check of recovery of a known standard solution that is used to assess the accuracy of the entire recovery process. LCSs are much like ERS's except that a certified standard is not necessarily used with LCSs, and the sample is prepared internally by the laboratory so the cost associated with preparing a LCS sample is much lower than the cost of ERS preparation. LCSs are reviewed for percent recovery within Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-10 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
control limits provided by the laboratory. LCS out-of-range values are treated in the same manner as ERS out-of-range values. Because LCS and ERS analysis both check the entire recovery process, any irregularity in these results supersedes other accuracy-related qualification. Data are rejected due to low LCS recoveries when the associated environmental result is below the reporting limit.

A flow chart of the data evaluation process, presented on the following pages as Figures 13-1 (lab-initiated QA/QC samples) and 13-2 (field-initiated QA/QC), can be used as a general guideline for data evaluation. Boxes shaded black in Figures 13-1 and 13-2 designate final results of the QA/QC evaluation.

Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-11 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation (Revised May 2002)
Table 13-2. Typical Control Limits for Precision and Accuracy for Analytical Constituents
Analyte EPA Method Number
or Standard Method
Maximum
Allowable
RPD
Recovery
Upper Limit
Recovery
Lower Limit
BOD 405.1; SM 5210B 20% 80% 120%
COD 410.1; 410.4; SM 5220C;
SM 5220D 20% 80% 120%
Hardness 130.2; 130.1; SM 2340B 20% 80% 120%
pH 150.1 20% NA NA
TOC/DOC 415.1 15% 85% 115%
TDS 160.1 20% 80% 120%
TSS 160.2 20% 80% 120%
Turbidity 180.1 20% NA NA
NH3-N 350.2; 350.3 20% 80% 120%
NO3-N 300.0 20% 80% 120%
NO2-N 300.0 20% 80% 120%
NO3/NO2-N 353.2 20% 80% 120%
P 365.2 20% 80% 120%
Ortho-P 365.2; 365.3 20% 80% 120%
TKN 351.3 20% 80% 120%
Ag 272.2; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Al 200.9; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Cd 213.2; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Cr 218.2; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Cu 220.2; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Ni 249.2; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Pb 239.2; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Zn 289.2; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
As 206.3; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Fe 200.9; SM 3500-Fe B 20% 75% 125%
Se 200.9; 270.3; 200.8 20% 75% 125%
Hg 1631 21% 79% 121%
TPH (gasoline) 21% 45% 129%
TPH (diesel) 21% 45% 129%
TPH (motor oil) 21% 45% 129%
Oil & Grease 1664 18% 79% 114%
Glyphosate 547 30% 70% 130%
OP Pesticides
(esp. diazinon
and chlorpyrifos)
8141; ELISA 25%
OC Pesticides 8081 25%
Chlorinated
Herbicides 8150; 8151 25%
Carbamate
Pesticides 8321 25%
Base/Neutrals
and Acids 625; 8270
PAHs 8310
Purgeables 624; 8260 20%
Purgeable
Halocarbons 601 30% see method, Table 2
Purgeable
Aromatics 602 20%
Cyanide 335.2 20% 75 125
Fecal Coliform SM 9221E - - -
Total Coliform SM 9221B - - -
8015b
Conventionals
Nutrients
Metals
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Pesticides and Herbicides
Miscellaneous Organic Constituents
Miscellaneous Constituents
Bacteriological
see method for constituent
specific
see method for constituent
specific
see method for constituent
specific
30% to 50%
(analyte
dependent)
Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-12 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Figure 13-1. Technical Data Evaluation for Lab-Initiated QA/QC Samples Holding time
compliance?
Are Method blanks
ND or within project
specs?
Are MS recoveries
within project specs?
Qualify results as estimated if holding
time variance allowed, or reject
results. Proceed to next step.

Are sample
results ND?
If MS result is >UL,
qualify detected associated environmental sample results as estimates due to matrix interference.

If MS result is <LL,
qualify associated environmental sample results as estimates due to matrix interference and consider rejecting associated environmental sample data below detection based on other supporting QA/QC data.

No qualification.

Proceed to next step.

Qualify associated detected
environmental sample results as “U”.

Proceed to next step.
no
no
no
no
yes
Are Lab duplicate RPDs
within project specs?
Qualify sample results as estimates
due to analytical variability.

Proceed to next step.

Are measured differences between samples
less than the reporting limit?
No qualification.

Proceed to next step.
no
yes
Are sample results
<10x (phthalates & common contaminants) or
<5x (semi- & non-volatiles & metals*)
blank concentration?

1. 2.

3. 4.
yes
no
No qualification.

Proceed to next step.
yes
no
yes
Are MSD RPDs within
project specs?
Qualify sample results as estimates
due to matrix interfernce.

Proceed to next step.

5. no
yes yes
no6.
yes
LCS & ERS recoveries
within project specs?
No qualification.

Proceed to field-initiated QA/QC data evaluation.
yes
If spike recovery result is >UL,
qualify associated environmental sample results above detection levels as estimates due to high analytical bias.

If spike recovery result is <LL or more than half of recoveries are outside acceptability limits,
qualify associated detected environmental sample results as estimates due to low analytical bias and reject associated environmental sample data below detection. *Environmental results between 5x and 10x the blank concentration are qualified as “an upper limit on the true concentration” and the data user should be cautioned.

Implementing the Monitoring Plan 13-13 May 2000
QA/QC Data Evaluation
Figure 13-2. Technical Data Evaluation for Field-Initiated QA/QC Samples Do overall QC results
indicate systematic
problems?
No
qualificati
on.

Proceed
to next
step.

Results
considered
ND.

Proceed to
next step.
no

9. No limitation on use of
unqualified data.

Qualified data should be
noted and reported.
*Environmental results between 5x and 10x the blank concentration are qualified as “an upper limit on the true concentration” and the data user should be cautioned.

Are field blanks ND? Are sample
results ND? No qualification.

Proceed to next step.

Qualify associated detected
environmental sample results as “U”.

Proceed to next step.
no no
Are sample results
<10x (phthalates & common contaminants) or
<5x (semi- & non-volatiles & metals*)
blank concentration?

7. yes
no
No qualification.

Proceed to next step.
yes
yes
Are field duplicate RPDs
within project specs?
Report patterns in data report
narrative. Remediate field and lab
protocols as necessary. Qualify
results if deemed necessary.

Proceed to next step.

Are measured differences between samples
less than the Reporting Limit?
No qualification.

Proceed to next step.
no
yes

8. no
yes
Make additional data qualifications as
necessary matrix, method, etc.

Qualified data should be noted and reported.
yes

Santa Clarita City CouncilJune 23, 2026

Santa Clarita City Council
June 23, 2026