Comment Summary and Responses Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals … · 2014-11-07 · from...

Comment Summary and ResponsesLos Angeles River and Tributaries Metals TMDL

July 12, 2004 Draft

1. Rita L. Robinson, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation2. Rodney Andersen, City of Burbank, Department of Public Works3. John R. Mundy, La Virgenes Municipal Water District4. Victoria O. Conway, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County5. Michael Flake, California Department of Transportation6.a: Don Wolfe, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works6. Rod H. Kubomoto, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works7. Dezi Alvarez, Executive Advisory Committee, Stormwater Program – LA County8. Gerald E. Greene and Eduard Schroder, City of Downey and TECS Environmental9. Gerald E. Greene, City of Downey10. John J. Harris, Richards Watson Gershon, representing City of Monrovia11. Pat Malloy City of Arcadia, Public Works Service Department12. Manuel E. Guillen, City of Paramount13. David Fike, City of Monrovia, Department of Public Works14. Robert T. Dickey, City of South Gate, Department of Public Works15. Martin R. Cole, City of Temple City16. Richard Montevideo, Rutan & Tucker , representing CPR Cities17. Mike Wang, Western States Petroleum Association18. G. Scott Koken, Southern California Gas Company19. Carolyn M. Casavan, West Coast Environmental and Engineering20. Michael Cross, Glendale Galleria21. William R. La Marr, California Small Business Alliance

22. Terri Canales, California Auto Dismantlers & Recyclers Alliance, Inc.23. Martha Cowell, State of California Auto Dismantlers Association24. Sam Bell, Metal Surfaces, Inc.25. Daniel A. Cunningham, Metal Finishing Association of Southern California, Inc.26. Carol Floss McCracken, Foss Plating Company, Inc.27. Timothy Piasky, Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality28. Jerry Livingston, Building Industry Association of San Diego et al.29. Robert W. Lucas, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance30. Shelly Luce and Mark Gold, Heal the Bay31. Wynn Miller32. Susan M. Damron, Department of Water and Power, the City of Los Angeles33. Michael Rogge, California Manufacturers & Technology Association34. Mike Eng, City of Monterey Park35. Geoffrey Blake, Drilube36. Jason Booth, Metal Recyclers Stormwater Monitoring Group37. Rufus Young, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, representing City of Alhambra et al.38. Chris Albrecht39. Sarah Connick, Sustainable Conservation/Brake Pad Partnership40. Eduard Schroder, TECs Environmental, representing City of Azusa et al.41. Heal the Bay member form letters (sample comment)

No. Author Date Comment Response

1.1 City of LosAngeles,Bureau ofSanitation

8/25/04 The State has no obligation or authority to perform a TMDL for watersnot included on the 303(d) List. RWQCB and U.S. EPA did not presentsufficient information to justify the inclusion and regulation of allmetals in all reaches, as instructed by U.S. EPA in letters written as partof the Trash TMDL settlement (May 6, 2003). The data analysis is

The proposed TMDL does not regulate allmetals in all reaches. Instead, the RegionalBoard has the authority to assignallocations to upstream reaches in order tomeet TMDLs for downstream impaired


distorted and does not support the inclusion of non-listed metals. TheTMDL should be scaled back to apply only to impaired reaches andonly for the pollutants listed in those reaches.

reaches. Reach 1 is listed for cadmium,copper, lead and zinc. The Regional Boardcan therefore assign waste load allocationsto all upstream reaches and tributaries inorder to meet the TMDL in Reach 1.Furthermore, a review of recent dataindicates impairments in reaches notincluded on the 1998 and 2002 303(d) lists.The data review section of the staff reporthas been updated to include findings ofthese additional impairments. The staffreport and Basin Plan Amendment (BPA)have been revised to clarify for whichreaches TMDLs are developed and forwhich reaches allocations are developed tomeet downstream TMDLs.

The staff report and BPA have also beenrevised to state that the data review couldnot confirm dry-weather impairments forcadmium in any reach or dry-weatherimpairments for zinc in any reach exceptRio Hondo Reach 1.

The proposed TMDL is not inconsistentwith the May 6, 2003, USEPA letter.Moreover, the issues presented by thisTMDL are far different. The metals TMDL


protects some listed, impaired water bodyfrom metals loading by upstream, unlistedwater bodies that are contributing to thedownstream impairment. That was not thesubject of the May 6, 2003, letter.


8/25/04 Copper numeric targets should be implemented as effluent limits inNPDES permits in three phases: 1) impose interim, performance-basedeffluent quality limits. 2) phase in targets based on Water Effects Ratio(WER), translator, and hardness studies downstream of the POTWs. 3)adjust WLAs based on WER, translator, and hardness studiescompleted in all reaches of the River.

The Staff report and BPA have beenrevised to state that compliance schedulesmay allow up to 5 years to meet permitrequirements. If a POTW demonstrates thatadvanced treatment will be required to meetfinal waste load allocations, the RegionalBoard will consider extending theimplementation schedule to allow thePOTW up to 10 years from the effectivedate of the TMDL.

The results of special studies will be due 4years from the effective date of the TMDL.The TMDL will be reconsidered at year 5to allow for potential revised waste loadallocations and implementation schedulesbased on information obtained in thespecial studies, including WER, translator,and hardness studies. Therefore, there is noneed for interim waste load allocations forPOTWs in the TMDL.

1.3 City of LosAngeles,

8/25/04 Stormwater and urban runoff requirements should be implemented asmanagement practices (BMPs), or source control requirements. All

The implementation section of theproposed BPA and staff report have been


Bureau ofSanitation

references to numeric limits for evaluation of compliance should beremoved from the Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) and staff report, asthere is insufficient evidence that numeric limits can be feasiblyattained or scientifically monitored.

Also, all references to “compliance points” should be replaced with“TMDL effectiveness monitoring points” to be determined during thedevelopment of the monitoring plan.

revised to clarify how waste loadallocations will be translated into NPDESpermits. The revised BPA and staff reportreflect the expectation that storm waterpermit writers will translate waste loadallocations into permit limits in the form ofBMPs. Permit writers must provideadequate justification and documentation todemonstrate that specified BMPs areexpected to result in attainment of thewaste load allocations.

All references to “compliance assessment”have been replaced with “TMDLeffectiveness” in the BPA and staff report.


8/25/04 The WLAs for the entire river should not be based on a critical flowthat is less than the design flow of the three treatment plants. Thisunreasonably limits POTWs from fully utilizing existing capacity thathas been approved and funded by U.S. EPA and permitted by theRWQCB. The dry weather critical flow should be based on currentdesign flow from the POTWs, plus an allocation for storm water flow(20 percent of the current stream flow). Design flows have already beenpermitted through a public process and a minimum stream flow will bepresent. Periodic reassessment of the TMDL should includeconsideration of POTW expansion as part of the IRP implementationand adjusts the WLAs accordingly.

The critical flow has been revised to equalthe combined design capacity of the threetreatment plants (169 cfs) plus the existingaverage stormwater flow (34 cfs, based onthe median flow at Wardlow minus existingmedian flow from POTWs.)

Potential POTW expansion would beincluded in the reconsideration of wasteload allocations required in the re-evaluation of the TMDL at year 5.


8/25/04 Because of existing conservative assumptions in the development ofCTR-based targets, there is no need to set the critical flow in the

See response to Comment No. 1.4.


Bureau ofSanitation

TMDL at less than design capacity to allow a margin of safety. Dryweather flows in the Los Angeles River are by far represented byPOTW flow. Setting the TMDL critical flow at less than design flow istantamount to a growth cap for the City, absent significant upgrades totreatment processes.


8/25/04 Daily maximum limits have been determined to be illegal (City of LosAngeles vs. State Water Resources Control Board, et al., SuperiorCourt No. BS060957) and should not be a part of the waste loadallocations or permit limits for POTWs unless and until animpracticability analysis is done on longer term limits. See 40 C.F.R.§122.45(d)(2). Since the TMDL is based predominantly on chroniccriteria, there is no reason why longer-term average limits (e.g.,monthly average) are not practicable as WLAs or effluent limits. Dailymaximum limits should be removed unless an impracticability analysisis done and it can be demonstrated that longer-term averages will infact cause aquatic toxicity.

Daily maximum effluent limitations areallowed in NPDES permits for POTWswhen it has been demonstrated that weeklyaverage effluent limitations areimpracticable. Several years have past sincethe City filed suit. In that time, the USEPAhas promulgated the California Toxics Rule(CTR), the State Board has adopted theState Implementation Policy’s (SIP), andthe Regional Board has renewed NPDESpermits for POTWS consistent with the SIPand the CTR. The fact sheets for thoseNPDES permits explain why it isimpracticable to use weekly averageeffluent limitations for toxic pollutants andjustify the use of daily maximum effluentlimitations. In cases where the discharge ofa pollutant has an acute toxic effect onsensitive aquatic life and on otherdesignated beneficial uses, it isimpracticable to express the effluentlimitation as a weekly average, because theweekly average effluent limitation would


not be protective of the beneficial uses. Itis therefore more appropriate to express theeffluent limitation as a daily maximum. Inaddition, the SIP contains a detailedprocedure for calculating daily maximumeffluent limitations, rather than weeklyaverage effluent limitations. The recentlyadopted NPDES permits for POTWscontaining CTR-based daily maximumeffluent limitations have withstood thepetition process and have not beenchallenged in court. Finally, the commentershould recall that the requirements ofsection 303(d) of the Clean Water Act aredesigned to recognize the total maximumdaily load—expressing WLAs as dailymaxima and requiring a POTW's NPDESpermits to contain pollutant restrictionsconsistent with the TMDL is appropriate.There may be instances where WLAs areexpressed as something other than dailymaxima, but in dealing with continuousdischarges of toxic pollutants (as thisTMDL necessarily does when addressingWLAs for POTWs), it is appropriate andlawful to have daily maxima.


8/25/04 Interim limits will be necessary for POTWs to meet the concentration-based limits as well as mass limits when the treatment plants are at or

The critical flow has been revised toinclude the combined design capacity of the


Bureau ofSanitation

near design capacity. POTWs may be required to construct newtreatment facilities to meet these limits. In addition, these limits arebased on factors such as translators, hardness, and WERs, which theTMDL acknowledges will require more study to clarify the technicaluncertainties present in the calculations of these numeric targets.Interim, performance-based targets should be established, whileuncertainties are resolved in the first phase of TMDL implementation.

three treatment plants in order to addressconcerns that setting the critical flow at lessthan the design capacity would limit growthor require significant upgrades. See alsoresponse to comment No. 1.2.


8/25/04 There is a need to clarify the maximum amount of volume or stormevent size that MS4 dischargers are expected to capture and treat. It isnot feasible to try and manage stormwater from extreme events,because the volume of water is so large, nor is it necessary to meetnumeric water quality objectives at all times, because acute and chronicobjectives allow exceedances of numeric objectives at frequencies ofonce every three years or longer.

Staff will address the issue of defining amaximum volume or storm event sizethrough the wet-weather task force, whichthey committed to establishing as part ofthe Triennial review. Based on the taskforce’s recommendation, staff will bringthe definition of a storm that will addressmultiple TMDLs to the Board for theirconsideration as a Basin Plan amendment.


8/25/04 It is difficult to understand how the load capacity curves will be used todetermine wet-weather compliance, and what actions should be taken iffound to be out of compliance. The load capacity curves should not beused to determine compliance by MS4s and Caltrans, instead definewet-weather compliance as management of smaller more frequentflows to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The loading capacitycurves should be drawn on a normal scale, not a log scale, so that themagnitude of the mandated load reductions is apparent to non-scientists.

The BPA and staff report have been revisedto include equations that describe loadcapacity curves and allocations. If theTMDL effectiveness monitoring showsexceedances of waste load allocations, theMS4 and Caltrans storm water permits willbe revised in the next permit cycle toincorporate additional requirements toachieve compliance with the waste loadallocation. The removal of references to“compliance monitoring” in the BPA andstaff report clarify that the TMDL is not


self-executing and that the MS4 andCaltrans permittees will not be subject toenforcement actions if waste loadallocations are not met.

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to better describe the loadcapacity curves. The curves are expressedas load per daily volume, rather than perrainfall event, eliminating the effects of thespatial variability of rainfall. The curves arenow presented in the implementationsection of the revised staff report. However,the curves are still presented on a log scale,as loads vary over orders of magnitude andcannot be clearly seen on a normal scale.


8/25/04 Lead data should be examined to see if some of the historicalexceedances occurred when leaded gasoline was legal. If that is thecase, perhaps the data set should be shortened to exclude those years.This is consistent with the draft 303(d) listing policy that discourageslistings for historic loadings. Lead is also one of the trace metals thatmost easily produces analytical artifacts. Trace metal clean techniqueshave only recently been standardized, so only the most recent lead datashould be used to evaluate exceedances.

The reaches listed for lead were includedon the 1998 303(d) list. The water qualityassessment for this listing was completed in1996 and contained data from 1988 to1994. The phase out of added lead ingasoline began in 1978. It is conceivablethat the data used in the 1996 assessmentcontained data collected prior to thecompletion of the added lead phase out.However, the newer monitoring data usedin the water quality data review for thisTMDL confirms current lead impairments.



8/25/04 Due to the number of responsible municipalities, the monitoring planschedule should be extended to at least 12 months after the effectivedate of the TMDL.

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to allow 12 months to submita monitoring plan.


8/25/04 Due to the number of responsible municipalities, the deadline for thecompliance plan schedule should be extended to 24 months after theeffective date of the TMDL for the draft schedule and 30 months afterthe effective date for the final schedule.

Staff believes that 12 months for the draftand 16 months for the final implementationschedule is sufficient time.


8/25/04 The TMDL defines the duration of a rain event as the start of rain untilreturn to base flow of 145 cfs. There is no need for prescriptivedefinitions of the wet weather monitoring triggers in the BPA and staffreport. The appropriate place for the triggers to be defined is in themonitoring plan. The BPA and staff report should state that the triggersshould consider both flow and rainfall and should be defined in thewet-weather monitoring plan.

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to exclude the definition of astorm from the TMDL effectivenessmonitoring section. However, staff added adefinition of dry and wet weather to theNumeric Targets section to clarify thedistinction between wet and dry weather.


8/25/04 The TMDL should use the copper translators for dry weather derived inthe Larry Walker study downstream of both the Tillman andLAGlendale POTWs. The sentence in the staff report that says “LWAproposed partition coefficients for use as copper translators,” should bedeleted and replaced with the following: “LWA used partitioncoefficients to validate copper translator study. RWQCB staff decidedto use the partition coefficients in lieu of the copper translator studycoefficients.” The translators from the original study should be used tocalculate targets as they are the best available data and research done todate.

The translators proposed in the originalLWA study, which were based on directmeasurement of dissolved to total metals,showed a weak correlation downstreamfrom Tillman. The partition coefficientmodeling conducted by LWA did notvalidate the original translators but ratherprovided alternative translators based onEPA guidance and allowed for by the SIP.Please note that the staff report has beenrevised to clarify the selection oftranslators. Also note that theimplementation plan allows for further


study to evaluate and refine the translatorsthrough special studies.


8/25/04 Although U.S.EPA policy allows waste load allocations for stormwater to be expressed in numeric form, it is not required. All languagespecifying that U.S. EPA requires numeric limits for storm watershould be removed. Also, since new data or results from special studiesmay affect either waste load allocations or implementation methods,the implementation plan should be allow reconsideration of theimplementation schedule at the six-year point in addition toreconsidering the WLAs.

EPA guidance on establishing WLAs forstorm water (11/22/02) states that WLAsmust be numerical but that most waterquality-based effluent limitations(WQBELs)—the permit requirements thatimplement the WLAS—for municipal andsmall construction storm water dischargeswill be in the form of BMPs, and thatnumeric limits will be used only in rareinstances. Considering that the federalregulations define a TMDL as “[t ]he sum ofthe individual WLAs for point sources andLAs for nonpoint sources and naturalbackground,” (40 C.F.R. 130.2( i)) it onlymakes sense that individual componentsthat are “added” together are numeric. Thearithmetic sum would be difficult if notimpossible to calculate if the WLAs andLAs were not expressed numerically.

The proposed BPA and staff report andhave been revised to allow forreconsideration of the implementationschedule at year 5.

1.16a City of LA,Bureau of San

8/25/04 The State Water Code explicitly forbids the RWQCB from prescribingthe method or manner of compliance with any requirement or order of

Prescriptive monitoring requirements havebeen removed from the staff report and


the RWQCB, including a TMDL. Water Code §13360(a). BPA.1.16 City of Los

Angeles,Bureau ofSanitation

8/25/04 The burden of all monitoring requirements, including cost, must beweighed against the benefits to be obtained and the relationshipbetween the two must be reasonable. Water Code §13267 and§13225(c).

The TMDL does not contain self-executingmonitoring program requirements, and anappropriate analysis of benefits and burdenswill be undertaken when the regional boardorders the preparation of a monitoring andreporting program. The TMDL is notadopted pursuant to Water Code section13267, but subsequent orders may be.Those orders would require an analysisunder Water Code section 13267 forentities discharging waste—such asmunicipal dischargers. The regional boarddoes not anticipate relying on the authorityin Water Code section 13225, subdivision(c)—which allows it to require cities toinvestigate the quality of waters, even if thecities did not cause or contribute to thewaste.

The BPA does not specify a compliancemonitoring program or report, but insteadanticipates a further order from theRegional Board's Executive Officer. Atthis time, it is not possible to evaluate theburdens of any such report, because theparameters of the program and reports havenot been specified in a Water Code section


13267 order. Moreover, the revised BPAshall make clear that the responsibleagencies will propose reportingrequirements to the Regional Board. Assuch, the responsible agencies will have arole in determining the actual burden. Indeveloping the 13267 order, the ExecutiveOfficer will consider costs in relation to theneed for data. With respect to benefits tobe gained, the TMDL staff reportdemonstrates the significant impairmentand metals loading. This impairmentmakes the Los Angeles River toxic toaquatic life, contrary to express nationalpolicy and goals. Further documentingsuccess or failure in achieving waste loadallocations will benefit the responsibleagencies and beneficial uses, so that theyknow when to scale back or reducecompliance efforts.


Source investigations in the event of an exceedance per provisions inthe monitoring plan should be required beginning 6 years after theeffective date of the TMDL (after the first compliance milestone),rather than immediately.

References to source investigations havebeen removed from the proposed BPA andstaff report.


8/25/04 The description of how the dry weather load allocations were derivedfor both the POTWs and storm water permittees is not clear.

The staff report has been revised to clarityhow the dry weather load allocations werederived for both the POTWs and stormwater permittees.



8/25/04 There is not a consistent use of hardness. The SIP does not containhardness-related justification for using the 10th percentile of hardness.The closest statement is related to translator derivation. Therefore,since the selection of the 10th percentile of hardness is arbitrary, themedian of the hardness data is more reasonable.

The selection of hardness is not arbitrary,To clarify, the staff report has been revisedto read, “methods similar to the SIPprocedures for choosing translator valuesare used to choose the percentile hardnessvalues in calculating dry-weather targets.”10th percentile hardness values are used tocalculate acute criteria and median hardnessvalues are used to calculate chronic criteria.This results in lower chronic criteria for allmetals except zinc. The dry-weather targetsare based on the most protective of thechronic or acute criteria. Therefore, thechronic criteria are the dry-weather numerictargets for copper and lead and the acutecriterion is the dry-weather numeric targetfor zinc.

Because of the variability in hardnessvalues during wet weather, staff proposedthat the 10th percentile of hardness datawould not accurately represent the hardnessvalues during storm water conditions. Stafftherefore chose the 50th percentile hardnessvalues to use in calculating the wet weathernumeric targets.


8/25/04 The cost analysis was not provided until August 2, 2004. An extensionof the commenting period should be allowed in order to address overall

An extension has been provided by re-noticing the TMDL.


Bureau ofSanitation

difficulties in the review and commenting process caused by this delay.The cost analysis for stormwater should include data to support theeffectiveness of each BMP specific to land uses, data that was used toestablish the per unit cost included in the BMP, and assumptions thatwere used to determine the extent of BMP deployment and runoffcapture required to achieve the load allocations. No potential costimpacts to POTWs were analyzed.

The BMP effectiveness and cost data isreferenced in the staff report and AppendixIII. The structural BMPs that were selectedfor the purposes of a cost analysis arespecifically designed for an ultra urbanenvironment. Since the TMDL cannotdictate the means of compliance, staff madeassumptions about reasonably foreseeablemeans of compliance. These assumptionswere based on estimates of the proposedextent of the IRP and literature about theapplicability of structural and non-structural BMPs. The references cited in theCost Analysis have been included in theReference section in the revised staffreport.

At this time, it would be premature andspeculative to assess the costs associatedwith treatment alternatives. Pastexperience with individual POTW permitshas shown that design/build cost estimatesare grossly inflated. Most POTWs in theLos Angeles region seem to have been ableto meet CTR-based effluent limitationswithout the installation of treatment.Therefore, effective source control


approaches through the pretreatmentprogram is not only cost-effective(essentially no-cost to the POTWs), but isalso effective.


8/25/04 Regarding the Integrated Resources Plan, the reference to a goal of50% of the annual average wet-weather urban runoff is not entirelycorrect. The language referencing a goal of using “50% of the annualaverage wet-weather urban runoff” should be replaced with the moreaccurate IPWP goal of “increasing the amount of wet weather urbanrunoff that can be captured and beneficially used in Los Angeles.”

The staff report has been revised toincorporate the suggested language.


8/25/04 There are critical calculation errors in the dry weather waste loadallocations.

Calculations have been reviewed andcorrections have been made to the staffreport and proposed BPA, where necessary.


8/25/04 The TMDL waste load allocations should be revised as soon as moreaccurate, scientifically based information on the WERs becomesavailable and the peer review is complete. Also, reconsideration of thecompliance schedule should be allowed so that agencies will haveadditional time to modify the plan and to design and constructstructural BMPs based on new waste load allocations.

The peer review has already beencompleted. The results of special studiesare required by year 4. The reconsiderationof the WLAs and implementation schedulehave been pushed back to year 5 in therevised BPA. This will allow forconsideration of the results of specialstudies and a reconsideration of the WLAsand implementation schedule prior to thefirst compliance deadline at year 6.


8/25/04 The City will attempt to “treat” deposited air emissions, which enter theMS4, in order to comply with this TMDL, but the RWQCB shouldrecognize the importance of source prevention by gaining participationfrom agencies with authority over air issues. Alternatively, air sources

Comment noted. Please not that directatmospheric deposition has been assigned aload allocation in the revised BPA and staffreport.


should be treated as background sources and addressed as stated in thenext section.


8/25/04 A reference system/antidegradation approach should be allowed uponcompletion of reference system studies in our region, if such studiesindicate that significant amounts of metals come from background non-anthropogenic sources. A reference system approach was used forbacterial TMDLs in our region, in which a reasonable amount ofexceedances was allowed for wet weather and winter dry weather.

A study by SCCWRP is already under wayto quantify natural contributions, includingmetals, during wet and dry weather. Theresults of studies on background loadingsof metals studies will be considered prior toTMDL reconsideration at year 5.


8/25/04 The Regional Board cannot adopt this BPA without a Peer Review anda public review of the Peer Review Report. Access to the Peer ReviewReport should be provided for public review and an adequate commentperiod should be allowed prior to conducting a hearing for the adoptionof this TMDL.

The proposed TMDL staff report andtechnical appendices were reviewed by twopeer reviewers. Peer review commentswere included in the September 2, 2004Board workshop package. Copies of peerreview comments have also been providedupon request. The staff has made the peerreview comments available, even thoughthere is no requirement to allow publiccomments on the peer review. Peer reviewand public comment serve two different,but complementary purposes. Peer reviewis designed to provide an objective,independent, and scientific analysis of thescientific portion of the TMDL.


8/25/04 In a letter to the Los Angeles City Council dated May 6, 2003 (seeEnclosure 2), U.S. EPA Region IX agreed to publish draft TMDLs inthe Federal Register. The TMDL should be renoticed for publiccomment in the Federal Register.

According to the referenced memo, FederalRegister notices would be published forTMDLs established by EPA, not forTMDLs being adopted by the Regional


Board and submitted to EPA for approval.1.28 City of Los


8/25/04 Smaller cities were not involved in the development of this TMDL andmay disagree with portions of the TMDL. The RWQCB shouldcontinue its outreach to interested cities and address their concernsregarding the TMDL. The City has a collaborative stakeholder processthat can support such outreach in the future.

Comment noted.


8/25/04 Table 31 in the staff report should be revised to identify those reachesand tributaries that are listed versus non-listed since the waste loadallocations should only apply to listed portions of the Los AngelesRiver.

See response to comment No. 1.1


8/25/04 The RWQCB should lead the charge to sponsor legislative actions topursue the development of alternative brake pad materials.

The staff report has been revised to removethe suggestion that permittees work withstate and federal agencies to pursuealternative brake pad materials. Staffacknowledges the efforts of the Brake PadPartnership to understand and address asnecessary the impacts on surface waterquality that may arise from break pad weardebris.


8/25/04 The section of the staff report (page 67 ) that discusses BMPimplementation in stormwater permits should be revised to say“selected BMPs” not “required BMPs”

The referenced language means thatpermits will require BMPs in general, notnecessarily specific BMPs.


8/25/04 The re-evaluation of the TMDL waste load allocations does not occuruntil 6 years after the TMDLs effective date. The special studies duedate should be adjusted to 5 years after the TMDL effective date toallow more time for the studies to be conducted, thus allowing for amore thorough evaluation.

It is necessary that the special studies besubmitted by year 4 in order to allow timefor review prior to reconsideration of theTMDL, which has been revised to occurduring year 5. Staff notes that many special


studies are already underway.1.33 City of Los


8/25/04 Fifteen years is not enough time to comply with the wet-weatherportion of this TMDL. This TMDL requires extensive coordinationeffort among over than 30 agencies. More time is needed to properlyidentify the pollutant sources and appropriate control strategies, todetermine whether the impairment even exists, and to conduct furtherwater quality studies. The City requests 22 years to comply with thewet-weather waste load allocations. This is reasonable in comparisonwith the Santa Monica Beaches Bacterial TMDL implementationschedule, which allows up to 18 years.

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to allow 22 years for wetweather compliance. Interim compliancedeadlines have been revised as well.


8/25/04 As of Monday, August 2nd, Appendix III, which provides an analysisof costs was not available on the RWQCB website.

This comment has been addressed by re-noticing the TMDL.


8/25/04 A breakdown of the Total Construction and Maintenance Costs inTable 40 of the staff report should be provided based on BMP. Also, isthe 30% reduction from the IRP included?

The maintenance costs were broken downbased on BMP in Tables 38 and 39 (Tables7-6 and 7-7 in the revised staff report). Thecost of implementing the IRP is notincluded in the analysis.


8/25/04 The sentence on page 77 of the staff report should be modified to read:“The City plans to extend and modify their program to include metalssampling of the tributaries in the future.”

The staff report has been revised to makethis change.


8/25/04 This CEQA Checklist does not identify or discuss the environmentalimpacts of siting and constructing a new stormwater treatment plantwith reverse osmosis, which may be required to comply with these newregulations.

The CEQA checklist and staff reportdiscuss the potential impacts ofconstruction and operation of urban runofftreatment facilities. The extent to whichtreatment facilities would be required,


including facilities with reverse osmosis, ispurely speculative at this point. TheRegional Board has located no evidencethat reverse osmosis is required to achievecompliance with waste load allocations.Based on the metals removal efficienciesreported by EPA, FHWA, and Caltrans asdiscussed in Section 7 of the staff report, itis reasonably foreseeable that the structuraland non-structural BMPs considered wouldachieve compliance with the waste loadallocations.


8/25/04 Two subwatersheds, divided by the Arroyo Seco tributary, arerecommended for ease of coordination and implementation: one for theupper LA River and one for the lower LA River. The lead jurisdicationfor each subwatershed would be the one with highest percentage area ofthe subwatershed under their jurisdiction.

The proposed BPA has been revised toreflect that this suggestion could beconsidered by the responsible jurisdictionsin the monitoring and compliance plans.


8/25/04 The sentence on page 68 of the staff report that reads, The RegionalBoard does not intend to revise the waste load allocations untilreductions have been achieved,” should be revised to allow thepossibility of revising waste load allocations prior to the reopener of theTMDL or indication of any reductions. The Regional Board should notbe restricted to revise the waste load allocations until some kind ofreduction is achieved, but rather on the basis of any new data that iscompiled from the special studies.

This language has been removed from thestaff report.

1.40 City of LosAngeles,Bureau of

8/25/04 All state and national park system areas within the watershed should beincluded as a part of the compliance area due to potential sedimentcontributions. In addition, the approach that the Regional Board has

The staff report and proposed BPA havebeen revised to include load allocations foropen space and direct air deposition.


Sanitation taken to exclude atmospheric deposition in the areas except for whatoccurs directly over the river does not give a accurate representation ofwhat is really happening. With a watershed this large, a large portion ofthe entire area needs to be accounted for.

However, no load allocation is developedfor indirect air deposition on the urbanizedportion of the watershed. This deposition isaccounted for in the waste load allocationsfor the storm water permittees. Once metalsare deposited on land under the jurisdictionof a permittee, they are within a permittee’scontrol and responsibility. Permittees areresponsible for the storm water theydischarge to the river.

The TMDL allows for special studies tofurther characterize loadings frombackground or natural sources. The resultsof these studies will be considered whenthe TMDL is reconsidered in year 5.


8/25/04 The assumption the TMDL uses that 20% of the watershed would betreated by infiltration trenches and 20% of the watershed would betreated by sand filters may not be realistic. The Upper LA Riverwatershed area may not be able to implement such projects throughouta majority of the area because of regulations set by the Watermasterthat limit infiltration.

See response to comment No. 1.20.


8/25/04 The storm year should be revised to reflect the LACDPW water year,which is October 1st through September 30th.

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to remove the definition of astorm year. Details of the monitoring planwill be submitted by responsiblejurisdictions pursuant to a subsequent orderissued by the Regional Board’s Executive


Officer.1.43 City of Los


8/25/04 It is our understanding that the low flow channelized gaging stations(e.g. Tujunga Ave) are accurate. The first bullet of the Special Studiessection in the staff report should therefore be revised to read, “Refinedflow estimates for the Los Angeles River mainstem and tributarieswhere there presently are no flow gages and improved gaging of low-flow conditions where needed.”

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to reflect this change.


8/25/04 Page 11 of the staff report, discussing the Reach 4 and 5 boundaries,should be revised so that “Riverside St.” reads “Riverside Dr.”

The staff report have been revised to reflectthis change.


8/25/04 The ambient monitoring program should be a responsibility shared byall dischargers to the river, which includes all POTWs, minor andgeneral NPDES dischargers, industrial permittees, and national forestand state parks in addition to the MS4s and Caltrans.

Regional Board stall will consider ways toexpand participation in the ambientmonitoring program when a subsequentmonitoring order is issued.


8/25/04 There is a need to unequivocally define the term total metals. Thecurrently used version of EPA Method 200.7 (metals by ICP-AES)contains a sample preparation procedure for “total recoverable metals”but not for total metals. Standard Method for the Examination ofWater and Wastes contains sample preparation procedures for bothtotal and total recoverable metals. CTR references total recoverablemetals. This document should contain a statement that the terms totalmetals and total recoverable metals are used interchangeably.

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to reference total recoverablemetals.


8/25/04 There may be a typographical error on page 12 of the staff reportregarding the discharge by Southern California Edison Company toReach 1. The flow, 720 mgd, seems unreasonably large.

The sentence with the incorrect flow hasbeen deleted from the staff report.

1.48 City of Los 8/25/04 There is a typographical error on page 13 of the staff report regarding The staff report has been revised to state



flow data from the Wardlow station. There is probably a typographicalerror in the listing of the dates as October 1998 – December 2000.

“October 1988 through December 2000.”


8/25/04 On page 79 of the staff report, regarding sampling of metals forcompliance assessment, one assumes that the TMDL refers to the303(d) listed metals. This should be stated explicitly.

This section of the staff report, containingspecific monitoring requirements, has beendeleted.


8/25/04 The reference to Figure 2 on page 21 of the staff report should bechanged to Figure 1.

The staff report has been revised to reflectthis change.


8/25/04 The implementation schedule for this TMDL should be reviewed whenthe San Pedro Bay and LA River Estuary TMDLs are developed. Theimplementation schedule for this TMDL extends over 10 (dry weather)to 15 (wet weather) years. Some efforts (e.g., non-structural BMPs)should be implemented regardless of the status of additional TMDLdevelopment, but it probably would be better if other efforts (e.g.,major structural BMPs) were implemented after all relevant TMDLsare developed.

Staff agrees that compliance efforts shouldbe coordinated. The Regional Board mayreconsider the TMDL at any time. Pleasenote that the final wet-weather compliancedeadline has been extended to 22 years inthe revised BPA.


8/25/04 The following statement from the Source Assessment section of thestaff report on page 40 needs clarification: “Not all the metalsdeposited on the land from the atmosphere are loaded to the river. Themass loading in stormwater is typically 10 to 20% of the mass loadingfrom atmospheric deposition (compare Table 16 and Table 17).” Thepercentages seem closer to one-third or more based on the “Typicalyear” values (SCCWRP) or the average of LACDPW data (Table 16).It appears indirect aerial deposition makes a larger contribution thansuggested on page 40.

This comparison is not presented to suggestthat indirect aerial deposition isinsignificant. It is intended to show that notall of the total metals deposited on land arewashed off and carried to the river (i.e., thevalues in Table 17 are greater than thevalues in Table 16.) The percentage ofmetals present in storm water due toatmospheric deposition is unknown.


However, all of the metals present in stormwater are the responsibility of the stormwater permittees. The staff report has beenrevised for clarification.


8/25/04 The reference to Table 33 in the sentence on page 62 of the staff reportis incorrect.

The staff report has been revised to reflectthis change.


8/25/04 The cost estimate assumes that compliance could be achieved in anurbanized portion of the watershed using an integrated resourcesapproach (30%), non-structural BMPs (30%), and structural BMPs(40%). There should be a discussion of how these percentages weredetermined.



8/25/04 The references section is incomplete. The entire reference sectionshould be reviewed and corrected for the final report.

The reference section has been revised.

2.1 City ofBurbank,Department ofPublic Works

8/26/04 An Implementation Schedule is proposed in Exhibit I. Interim Limitsand an implementation schedule are needed because there has been achange in the way hardness is used to calculate chronic criteria, theplant was recently upgraded to implement the Nutrient TMDL, whichreduced copper removal efficiency, time is needed to pursue sourcereduction through the pretreatment program, the ongoing developmentof a WER study, the development of the IRP, and the time required todesign, bid, build and start-up an advanced treatment process, ifnecessary.


2.2 City ofBurbank,

8/26/04 Since the Regional Board assumed the POTWs could immediatelycomply with their allocations, the proposed TMDL does not include an

See response to comment No. 1.2 and 1.20.


Department ofPublic Works

implementation strategy or any associated costs of additional treatmentthat will be incurred at the POTWs to meet these allocations. TheTMDL should include language that addresses these necessaryupgrades and takes into account the projected costs of compliance.Exhibit 3 has provides the language that can be inserted into theTMDL.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL includes allocations for metals where there are noimpairments. In all, there was only one exceedance of the CTR criteriafor cadmium in 202 dry-weather samples taken from four locations inthe watershed. In the stormwater monitoring data for cadmium (takenfrom only one station in the watershed), only three of forty-twomeasurements exceeded the CTR criteria. Clearly, a review of thisimpairment should be made, and the metal should be de-listed from thetwo reaches in the watershed where the impairment is listed. Zincexceeded the chronic criteria only seven times out of 240 samples andshould also be de-listed.

Because the detection levels for cadmiumwere higher than the chronic criteria for alarge number of samples, there are notenough data to de-list cadmium. However,the staff report and BPA language havebeen revised to reflect that the data reviewcould not confirm cadmium listings duringdry weather. No dry-weather numerictargets or allocations are developed forcadmium. A review of storm water datacollected at Wardlow indicates severalexceedances of acute and chronic cadmiumcriteria. Therefore, wet-weather allocationsare assigned for cadmium. By the sameargument, dry-weather numeric targets andallocations have been removed for zinc inall reaches of and tributaries to the Riverexcept Rio Hondo Reach 1. There was noadditional data to assess the dry-weatherimpairment in Rio Hondo Reach 1, so thedry-weather numeric targets and allocationsremain.



8/26/04 The proposed TMDL should focus on Best Management Practices(BMPs) for stormwater rather than numeric limits and compliancemonitoring. All references to numeric limits for evaluation of wetweather compliance by MS4 stormwater programs and Caltrans shouldbe removed, as there is insufficient evidence that numeric limits forstormwater can be feasibly attained or even scientifically monitored.



8/26/04 A reconsideration of the critical flow for the entire river is warrented.The WLAs for the entire river should not be based on a flow that is lessthan the design flow of the three treatment plants. The dry weathercritical flow should be based on current design flow from the POTWs,plus an allocation for stormwater flow (20-40 percent of the currentstream flow).



8/26/04 The claim in the proposed Resolution that the numeric targets are notwater quality objectives (paragraph 4) conflicts with a later statement inparagraph 12 that “the amendment is consistent with the StateAntidegradation Policy (State Board Resolution No. 68-16), in that thechanges to the water quality objectives…” Either the objectives arebeing changed or not, and the Resolution must make clear which is thecase. If the targets are new objectives, then the Regional Board mustcomply with Water Code § 13241 prior to imposing requirements basedupon these objectives. The claim that the targets create no new basesfor enforcement is also unfounded since the numeric targets are anindirect regulation of the discharges.

The tentative Resolution has been revisedfor clarification. The TMDL isimplementing existing objectives—namely,the federal water quality standardscontained in the California Toxics Rule.


8/26/04 The Resolution is legally infirm for not complying with GovernmentCode §11353. The Resolution at paragraph 15 concludes, with nocitation of evidence to support this conclusion, that the “regulatoryaction meets the ‘Necessity” standard of the Administrative ProceduresAct (APA), Government Code, Section 11353, Subdivision (b).” It is

The TMDL staff report and recorddemonstrate the necessity of this action.TMDLs were developed for each metal thatcontributes to an impairment of a reach andits tributaries. There is a necessity to assign


unclear from the record how a TMDL for all metals is a necessity forwaters that are not included on the state’s 303(d) for each of the metals,or why WLAs for each metal need to be applied to all point sourceswhether or not they are in compliance with the objectives or aredischarging into reaches that are not deemed impaired.

waste load allocations all sources to allupstream reaches in order to meet TMDLsfor impaired reaches downstream. Reach 1is listed for cadmium, copper, lead andzinc. The Regional Board can thereforeassign waste load allocations to allupstream reaches and tributaries becausethey cause or contribute to impairments indownstream reaches. Furthermore, a reviewof recent data indicates impairments inreaches not included on the 1998 and 2002303(d) lists. The data review section of thestaff report has been updated to includefindings of these additional impairments.The staff report and Basin PlanAmendment language have been revised toclarify for which reaches TMDLs aredeveloped and for which reaches wasteload allocations are developed to meetdownstream TMDLs.


8/26/04 The problem statement should be corrected to read that no reach of theRiver or the tributaries is listed for all of these metals. In addition, itshould state that the water supply and groundwater recharge uses do notexist throughout all reaches of the River and its tributaries.

There needs to be some explanation of how each of these uses isimpaired by each of these metals. Just because a criterion is exceeded,this is not necessarily conclusion of a use impairment since the CTR

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to clearly describe theProblem Statement.

The CTR criteria are set to protect thebeneficial uses of the water body. If thecriteria are exceeded, then the uses arebeing impaired. The Los Angeles River and


criteria were not set specifically to address waters that are effluentdominated and flow through concrete-lined channels.

its tributaries are waters of the state andCTR-based targets shall apply.


8/26/04 It is unclear why dry-weather numeric targets are necessary. For manyreaches, there were “zero exceedances of the CTR limits, whenadjusted for hardness, for cadmium during dry weather.” Since TMDLsare supposed to recognize seasonal variation (33 U.S.C. §1313(d)(1)(c)), the targets should only apply to each of the metals inthe actual reaches that are impaired.

See response to comment 2.3.


8/26/04 The explanation of why both concentration and mass WLAs are neededis lacking as is whether the concentrations for the POTW loads aredissolved or total.

The waste load allocation section does not explain why both daily andmonthly limits are needed. The daily WLAs may result in effluentlimits that are inconsistent with 40 C.F.R. §122.45 (d)(2), unless theRegional Board includes an analysis at some point as to why longerterm limits are impracticable.

The concentration- and mass based POTWwaste load allocations are for totalrecoverable metals. The proposed BPA andstaff report have been revised to updatedry-weather loading capacity and wasteload allocation tables to present totalrecoverable metals. Mass-based waste loadallocations are included to better allocatethe loading capacity among the differentsources in the watershed and to recognizedownstream sediment impairments, whichwill be addressed in a future TMDL.

See also response to comment No. 1.6.2.11 City of

Burbank,Department ofPublic Works

8/26/04 The information contained in the source assessment is not based uponsubstantial evidence. The findings containing phrases such as “unlikelyto contribute significantly” and “believed to be minor” should be deleteif not supported by evidence in the record. See also Staff Report page58 (“thought to be” and “expected to be”) and 61 (“believed to be” and“do not believe”).

The statements in the staff report are notfindings but are general assumptions aboutthe contribution form various sources basedon available data. The assumptions arebased on the staff’s scientific and technicalexpertise applied to the available data on


metals impairments in the Los AngelesRiver. As accurate statements of the staff’stechnical understanding, they areappropriate in the staff report. Similarstatements are common in scientificliterature, where certainty is often rare. Thespecial studies allow for additional sourcecharacterization that will be reviewedduring reconsideration of the TMDL in year5.


8/26/04 The Implementation section is incorporating a regulatory requirementspecifically rejected by the federal government. The requirement thatthe stormwater permittees “provide reasonable assurance” was part ofthe TMDL regulations promulgated by USEPA that were overturned bycongressional order. Therefore, it is inappropriate to include such arequirement in this TMDL. (See also Staff Report page 67.)

The BPA has been revised to state, “Theadministrative record and the fact sheets forthe MS4 and Caltrans storm water permitsmust provide reasonable assurance...” Thislanguage is intended to explain that thepermit writer will provide assurance thatthe selected BMPs will meet WLAs. Thislanguage is necessary to effect the expresslanguage of Congress in section303(d)(1)(C) of the CWA that the TMDLsmust implement water quality standards.


8/26/04 The alternative compliance determination for stormwater of assessingcompliance with targets at the storm drain outlet or the requirement ofeffluent monitoring for POTWs ignores that the TMDL and its WLAsare receiving water targets that should be based on the receiving water,not end of pipe for effluent or stormwater to which the CTR criteria donot apply.

The implementation section of theproposed BPA and staff report have beenrevised to clarify that waste load allocationsare not end of pipe effluent limits.Language has been added stating that stormwater permit writers may translate waste


load allocations into permit limits in theform of BMPs and non-storm water permitwriters may translate waste load allocationsinto effluent limits by applying the SIPprocedures or other applicable engineeringpractices.


8/26/04 The front cover and the Introduction of the Staff Report identify theUSEPA Region IX and the Regional Board as jointly issuing thisdocument. However, USEPA Region IX did not publish notice in theFederal Register of this draft TMDL. In a letter dated May 6, 2003,USEPA Region IX agreed to publish draft TMDLs in the FederalRegister. Since the USEPA Region IX is listed as jointly establishingthis TMDL with the Regional Board, it did not comply with itsagreement to publish this draft TMDL in the Federal Register.

See response to comment No. 1.27.Nothing in the letter precludes USEPAfrom participating in the preparation ofTMDLs at the Regional Board level.


8/26/04 The TMDL improperly adopts a TMDL for unlisted waters andpollutants. Only Reach 1 of the LA River is listed for five of the sixmetals discussed in the Staff Report. The State has no obligation orauthority to perform a TMDL for waters not included on the State’s303(d) List. Both the Regional Board and USEPA Region IX seem tobe ignoring the statutory requirements as well as the recommendationsand commitments made in EPA’s May 6, 2003 letter (Exhibit 5). Forthese reasons, the TMDL must be scaled back to comply with statutoryrequirements.



8/26/04 For those waters where it is determined that the TMDL is not requiredconsistent with the federal requirements, the Regional Board shouldstop work on the TMDL and propose to de-list the waterbody and/orpollutant. In this TMDL, the Regional Board found that there are no



applicable water quality standards for aluminum being exceeded andthereby needing a TMDL. However, the Regional Board makes noattempt to de-list this water and merely states that there “are not waterquality standards requiring TMDL development at this time.” Similarly,cadmium should be de-listed.


8/26/04 CTR criteria are ambient water quality criteria applicable to thereceiving water, not to direct samples of stormwater or wastewater thathave not been fully mixed in the receiving water. Any listings of metalsbased on this comparison of effluent or stormwater to the CTR criteriashould be overturned and not included in this TMDL. It is questionablewhether episodic exceedances should be listed.

The Wardlow mass emission station islocated in the receiving water and samplestaken at this station represent receivingwater samples. The data used in the listingsand in the staff report are receiving waterdata, not effluent data. These data providesufficient evidence to support theimpairment findings. In addition, POTWreceiving water data, which are expresslydesigned to demonstrate condition of thereceiving water, not wastewater, supportthe impairments.


8/26/04 The Clean Water Act expressly provides that permits for dischargesfrom MS4s are not to require compliance with the requirements setforth in CWA section 301(b) or water quality standards set forth inCWA sections 301(b) or water quality standards set forth in CWAsection 302 and 303, but rather, such permits shall contain therequirements set forth in CWA §402(p), namely controls to reducedischarges “to the maximum extent practicable.”

TMDLs are planning tools under section303 of the CWA that shall be establishedsolely “to implement the applicable waterquality standards with seasonal variationsand a margin of safety.” (33 U.S.C.1313(d)(1)(C).) TMDLs are not limited bythe maximum extent practicable technologystandard of section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of theCWA. Moreover, CWA section402(p)(3)(B)(iii) requires that MS4dischargers “shall require controls to reduce


the discharge of pollutants to the maximumextent practicable, including managementpractices, control techniques and system,design and engineering methods, and suchother provisions as the Administrator orthe State determines appropriate for thecontrol of such pollutants.” (Emphasisadded.) Even if section 402(p)(3)(B)applied to this TMDL, federal and statecourts have uniformly held that theitalicized portion of section 402(p)(3)(B)allows NPDES permitting authorities (suchas the state) to require compliance withwater quality standards. (Defenders ofWildlife v. Browner (9th Cir.1999) 191F.3d 1159 & BIA v. SWRCB (2004) 124Cal.App.4th 866.) When dealing with animpaired water body, it is not only“appropriate” under section 402(p)(3)(B) toinclude other water quality-basedrequirements, but consistent with the CleanWater Act’s purposes of restoring andprotecting our nations waters and thenational policy to prohibit discharges oftoxic pollutants in toxic amounts, theadditional water quality-based requirementswould be compelled under section 303(d)of the CWA.


The revised BPA and staff report reflect theexpectation that storm water permit writerswill translate waste load allocations intopermit limits in the form of BMPs. Permitswill only contain WQBELs if permitwriters cannot provide adequatejustification and documentation todemonstrate that specified BMPs areexpected to result in attainment of thewaste load allocations.


8/26/04 The standard flow measurements are using the Wardlow River Roadstation. (See e.g., Staff Report page 31.) However, the TetraTechReport (May 2004) on page 21 states that “it is presumed that thisstation is associated with the incorrect flow measurements.” It isunclear why this apparently incorrect station is being used as the flowgauge for the TMDL.

To the extent that any incorrect flowmeasurements occur, the special studieswill allow for refined flow estimates andimproved gauging of flow conditions.These will all occur prior to the need forsubstantial load reductions by municipalpermitting agencies.


8/26/04 The Regional Board must under CWA Section 303(d) identify theactual “uses to be made” of these waters. The proposed TMDL isimproperly being developed to address the impairment of potential andintermittent beneficial uses. Under natural conditions the LA Rivercannot support many of the designated sues assigned to it during dryweather, such as warm freshwater habitat. No evidence exists in therecord indicating the method by which the Regional Board determinedhow any particular level and type of metals impairs the beneficial usesof the LA River Watershed, and how that impairment figured into theallocations contained therein.

The commenter misreads and misappliessection 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.Consideration of specific “uses to be made”is only relevant in establishing the prioritylist required under section 303(d)(1)(A). Itwould make sense to focus on “uses to bemade” in determining whether to tackle oneTMDL before another. However, section303(d)(1)(A) makes clear that the a waterbody is impaired if existing conditions “are


not stringent enough to implement anywater quality standard applicable to suchwaters.” Moreover, section 303(d)(1)(C)requires the TMDL to be “established at alevel necessary to implement the applicablewater quality standard.” This TMDL isbeing developed to meet water qualityobjectives set to protect the past, present,and probable beneficial uses (CWC §13241) of the Los Angeles River asidentified in the Basin Plan, and tospecifically implement the numeric waterquality standards established in the CTR.These beneficial uses must be protectedyear-round. (Basin Plan page 2-1)Moreover, the toxicity standards (which area reflection of national policy prohibitingthe discharge of toxic pollutants in toxicamounts) are designed to protectpresumptive uses under section 101 of theClean Water Act. The CTR criteria are setto protect both existing and potentialbeneficial uses of the water body.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL is a “Rule” that must comply with APA. ThePublic Notice did not include the legally required Peer Review [CAHealth and Safety Code, § 57004]

The adoption of a BPA to incorporate a TMDL into the Basin Plan

See response to comment No. 1.26. Theboard has complied with Health and SafetyCode section 57004. Nothing requires aspecific “public notice” of the availabilityof a peer review, and in light of the


prior to, and without the USEPA’s approval of the TMDL is contrary toCWA section 303(d)(2) and 40 C.F.R §130.7 (d)(2).

requirements of section 57004, such arequirement would not make sense. Thepurpose of the peer review is to ensure thatthe board has considered the comments ofan independent peer review of the scientificportions of the rule. Here, the Board hasconsidered the peer review comments and,where appropriate, made revisions to thescientific portion of the TMDL.

The TMDL will not become effective untilU.S. EPA approves the TMDL and stafffiles the Notice of Decision document andfinal Certificate of Fee Exemption.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL violates the Foundational Requirements of theClean Water Act. These foundational requirements include developinga Continuing Planning Process, developing an approved area-widewaste treatment planning process and developing a proper 305(b)Report that meets all of the statutory requirements. Additionally, theTMDL attempts to impose standards under section 301 of the CWA tofor discharges from municipal storm drains, while discharges frommunicipal storm drains are only subject to the requirements set forth insection 402(p)(3)(B) of the CWA.

See response to comment Nos. 2.18 & 2.20.Regional Board staff disagree that anyfoundational requirements have beenviolated the continuing planning process ofsection 303(e) is regularly updated by theState Water Resources Control Board andhas been submitted to and approved byUSEPA. The area-wide waste treatmentplan is established under section 208 of theClean Water Act. While the area-widewaste treatment plan was particularlyimportant in the initial development andplanning of local treatment facilities, it haslargely been subsumed by other clean water


planning programs. In this case, thedesignated planning agency is the SouthernCalifornia Association of Governments(SCAG), of which the commenter is amember. Any failure to maintain an area-wide treatment would be a failure onSCAG’s part. Similarly, section 305(b)reports are regularly submitted by the StateWater Resources Control Board.


8/26/04 The Regional Board failed to adequately comply with CEQA. TheEnvironmental Impacts checklist and discussion of EnvironmentalEvaluation fail to provide any explanation or grounds supporting theconclusions that no potential, short-term significant, or cumulativeenvironmental impacts may be associated with this TMDL.Furthermore, these conclusions contradict the Regional Board’s laterdeclaration the “specific projects employed to implement the TMDLmay have significant impacts,” and defers these projects to a “separateenvironmental review.” This deferral of review is contrary to reviewingthe cumulative impacts at the earliest possible point.

The implementation of the TMDL may cause potentially substantialadverse changes in the environment that have not been adequatelyaddressed and for which no alternatives or mitigation measures havebeen analyzed, suggested, or required.

The method by which a discharger decidesto achieve compliance is a project-leveldecision that will require an independentenvironmental review (Pub. Res. C. §21159.2) which is beyond the scope ofanalysis that the Regional Board is requiredto take (Pub. Res. C. § 21159(d).)However, staff has indicated reasonablyforeseeable environmental impacts of theTMDL as an overall program, andreasonably foreseeable environmentalimpacts of feasible methods ofimplementing the TMDL. Theenvironmental checklist draws on analysiscontained in and conclusions reached in thestaff report. Because the Regional Boarddoes not prescribe the method of achievingcompliance with the TMDL, staff cannotidentify all project-level impacts (and


associated mitigation measures) that mightoccur from the myriad of structural andnon-structural implementation strategiesthat could be used to achieve the TMDL.However, staff considered substantialevidence when conducting CEQA reviewand could find no fair argument that therecould be project-level significantenvironmental impacts.

3.1 La VirgenesMunicipalWater District

8/26/04 A complete analysis should include data gathered as part of CTR,which began in 2001. LVMWD collected 18 months of data at theofficial westerly edge of the Los Angeles River (Reach 6). We wouldlike to submit this data again, in a more data-friendly summary. Thedata set includes both metal and hardness data that will fill a void in thecurrent data set. The data may not change the conclusion of the WLA’sfor the TMDL, but would add vital information to the analysis.

Comment noted.

3.2 La VirgenesMunicipalWater District

8/26/04 The draft TMDL did not include a contribution from Tapia’s dischargein the modeling analysis, because there was no discharge from Tapiareleased to the Los Angeles River during the two days of water qualitysampling in September 2000 and July 2001. While the three majorpoint source dischargers do account for the vast majority of flow in theRiver, there are times when Tapia may need to discharge severalmillion gallons of recycled water per day. Current discharge volumesshould be considered the minimum flow inputs from Tapia. Thedischarge is usually highest in the months of April and May or Octoberand November. This consideration would be consistent with the findsof the Los Angel River Nutrient TMDL.

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to include a concentration-based WLA for Tapia.


4.1 CountySanitationDistricts of LosAngelesCounty

8/26/04 The proposed TMDL improperly includes allocations for somepollutants in some reaches where there is no applicable listing, and forsome pollutant-waterbody combinations where the waterbody is listedbut is not impaired. Even if the Regional Board believes it is justifiedto keep cadmium and zinc on the 303(d) list, the alleged impairmentsare limited to wet weather only. Aluminum should not only beexcluded from this TMDL, it should be delisted from the waters thatare currently identified because no applicable water quality standardsare being exceeded.

See response s to comment Nos. 1.1 and2.3.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL should be revised to assign the POTWsappropriate interim waste load allocations, sufficient complianceschedules to sequentially implement source control and pollutionprevention measures, and then allow sufficient time to design and buildend-of-pipe treatment facilities if necessary, and to take into accounttheir projected costs of compliance.

See response to comment No. 1.2 and 1.20.


8/26/04 All stormwater wasteload allocations in the TMDL should beimplemented through an iterative Process of BMP implementation. Thecommentor suggested language for the implementation and waste loadallocation sections of the BPA.



8/26/04 The basis of the dry weather mass-based wasteload allocations for theproposed TMDL is ill-founded and not protective of water quality.Notwithstanding the Districts belief that the Metals TMDL would bemore effective for the protection of water quality if concentration basedwasteload and load allocations were implemented, the Districtsrecommend that a minimum critical flow based on POTW design flowplus an allocation for stormdrain flow contribution be used todetermine the dry weather mass-based wasteload allocations.

See response to comment No. 1.4. Mass-based waste load allocations are included inrecognition of downstream sedimentimpairments, which will be addressed in afuture TMDL.


Furthermore, the Districts recommend that the TMDL have periodicreopeners to reassess and adjust wasteload allocations in the future,coincident with treatment plant expansions due to growth.


8/26/04 While load allocation curves may provide a useful tool for watershedmanagers, the use of the curves to determine allowable wet weatherloads is technically flawed, and does not meet the "clarity" standardunder the California Administrative Procedures Act. Since the rainfallaxis is not to scale, interpolation to the measured rainfall is notpossible. It appears that the extreme fluctuations in the allowable loads(mostly the case with the smaller storms) are an artifact of the spatialnature of storms. The authors should move the load duration curves tothe Implementation section, where these issues should be discussed.

The proposed BPA should be modified to define a threshold stormevent consistent with water quality standard calculations which accountfor magnitude, frequency, and duration, above which capture,treatment, or other action is not needed due to the allowable once-in-three year exceedance frequency and feasibility issues.

See response to comment Nos. 1.8 and 1.9.

5.1 CaliforniaDepartment ofTransportation

8/26/04 The Los Angeles River is an effluent dominant system, which wouldhave little or no flow during substantial parts of the year. Under naturalconditions the LA River cannot support many of the designated suesassigned to it during dry weather, such as warm freshwater habitat.Consequently, the development of a TMDL for dry weather conditionsto support aquatic life is not appropriate.

See response to comment No. 2.20. WhilePOTW flow may constitute the majority offlow in the Los Angeles River, there isnonetheless a viable aquatic environmenteven in these low-flow conditions.Although there is evidence of fish andfishing in the portions of the river receivingPOTW flow, the protections for warm


freshwater habitat are not limited to high-level organisms such as fish. The WARMdesignation includes “aquatic habitats,vegetation, fish, or wildlife, includinginvertebrates.” These are viable in low-flow waterways that receive POTW flow,and are entitled to the protection affordedin national policy that discharges of toxicpollutants in toxic amounts shall beprohibited.


8/26/04 The TMDL draft staff report and the Basin Plan amendmentacknowledge assigning load and waste load allocations based onwatersheds. Approximately 6,950 acres of the Department’s Right-of-Way within Region 4 drains to Los Angeles River. This area representsapproximately 1.3% of the total watershed (834 square miles) thatflows to Los Angeles River. Given the small fraction of the runoff theDepartment contributes to the watershed, the Department’s equitableannual loading and share allocation must be based on tangible data.

The wet-weather waste load allocationshave been revised to allocate loadingsamong the different storm water permitteesbased on their percent area of thewatershed, including the area served byCaltrans, as provided by the commentor.The dry-weather waste load allocationsshall be shared by the MS4 and Caltranspermittees because there was insufficientdata on their relative reach-specific extentto assign individual waste load allocations.


8/26/04 The economic analysis described in the TMDL staff report discountsthe actual cost of installation of infiltration and sand filter systemsdocumented by the Caltrans BMP Retrofit Report. Although a thirdparty study did find that reported costs were lower in other areas, onlythe Department’s facilities had actual bid cost estimate based on unitprices compiled from historical highway projects were very similar tothe actual costs incurred. The TMDL draft staff project report grossly

The cost analysis is provided as a generalestimate of the costs based on reasonableforeseeable compliance methods with theTMDL. The staff report does not discountthe costs documented by Caltrans in theirBMP retrofit study. The staff reportcompares the costs reported by Caltrans


underestimates the cost of BMP implementation and does not considerlifecycle costs including operation and maintenance costs.Furthermore, the Department is limited in available land within itsright-of-way, which may require purchase of additional land toaccommodate the installation of BMPs.

with costs calculated based on FHWA andEPA estimates then discusses possiblereasons for the differences in costs based onconclusions drawn from the third partystudy. The staff report does provide ageneral estimate operation and maintenancecosts (see Tables 7-6, 7-7, and 7-8 of thestaff report and Appendix III.)


8/26/04 The LA River is concrete lined over much of its length and would notfully support a natural aquatic system even if the water was ofsufficient quality. Consequently, the TMDL proposed will not achievethe desired result.

See response to comment Nos.2.20 & 5.1.Moreover, if implemented, the TMDL willachieve the congressional policy that thedischarges of toxic pollutants in toxicamounts be prohibited.


8/26/04 Calibration and verification of the low flow model is based on only thedata for a single day. This is an insufficient sample on which to base amodel.

The dry weather hydrodynamic model wascalibrated and validated using the datacollected during two separate two-daysampling events (September 10 and 11,2001 and on July 29 and 30, 2001).


8/26/04 Although the report states the Publicly Owned Treatment Works(POTWs) “are generally discharging effluent that meets the waterquality standards, “ it is clear from Table 20, in the TMDL Staff Reportpage 43, that these discharges routinely exceed water quality standardsfor dissolved copper.

According to Table 20 (Table 5-2 in revisedstaff report), the POTW discharges do notexceed the reach specific hardness targetsfor total or dissolved copper for reaches 3,4, 5 or the Burbank Western Channel.


8/26/04 Since the dry weather model is not able to represent all the temporaland spatial variability observed in the in-stream metals concentrations,it seems contradictory to conclude that the model provides a reasonableassurance that the relationship between in-stream loads and targets isunderstood.

The model performs well at predicting thelong-term average concentrations of metals.The staff report explains possible reasonsfor the temporal and spatial variability ofthe model on shorter time scales and


supports the conclusion that the modelpresents a reasonable assurance that therelationship between in-stream loads andtargets is understood.

5.8 and5.13

CaliforniaDepartment ofTransportation

8/26/04 The calibrated wet weather model does a poor job at predicting streamconcentrations and is not sufficiently accurate for developing a TMDL.In general, the model predicts maximum concentrations that far exceedany observed concentrations. The TMDL reports that the wet weather“model tends to overestimate loads, actual reductions required to meetthe waste load allocations are likely less than predicted by the load-duration curves. “ Consequently, the required reductions should bedecreased to reflect this bias.

The staff report has been revised to clarifythat the wet-weather model is not used indeveloping loading capacities. The onlytime the model is used is to assign wet-weather load allocations to open space. Theover prediction of loading from open spaceis applied to the margin of safety.


8/26/04 Table 30, page 56 of the TMDL Staff Report, allows the POTW todischarge copper during dry weather at concentrations that exceed thewater quality objective for copper. By allowing the POTWs todischarge a disproportionate share of the copper loading, the MS4permittees are unfairly penalized.

The staff report and BPA have been revisedto state that POTW concentration-basedwaste load allocations are equal to reach-specific numeric targets.


8/26/04 Transportation is not among the land use categories entered into thewet-weather model, but represents a hydrologically discrete land usethat should be incorporated into the model. This is especially true sincethe Department and MS4s are held to specific Waste Load Allocations(WLAs).

Many of land use categories that sharedhydrologic or pollutant loadingcharacteristics were grouped into similarclassifications. Transportation was groupedwith the industrial land use since thepotency factors from SCCWRP were verysimilar.


8/26/04 The TMDL assumes a water effects ration of 1, meaning that all of themeasured metals are biologically available and toxic. This assumptionmay drastically over-state the actual toxicity of the concentrations thatare observed onsite. A site-specific ecotoxicological evaluation of the

The TMDL allows for special studies, dueat year 4, to determine site specificobjectives. These special studies will beevaluated prior to reconsideration of the


water effects ratios at LA River should be undertaken to ensure theaccuracy of the aquatic life criteria.

TMDL at year 5.


8/26/04 The method of presentation of wet weather load reductions i.e. theload-duration curve), is ineffective and confusing. The concentration-based targets that are supposedly derived from these model-generatedcurves are apparent, but their determinations not clearly elaborated.More detail needs to be added to allow for comprehension of the modeloutputs.

See response to comment No. 1.9. Pleasenote that the concentration-based targetswere used as input for the generated curves,and were not derived from them.


8/26/04 The economic analysis is based on an unsubstantiated assumption thatcompliance can be achieved without structural controls for 60 percentof the watershed. The basis for this determination needs to be clarified.



8/26/04 The economic analysis assumes that 20 percent of the watershed couldbe treated with infiltration facilities. The technical feasibility forimplementing infiltration devices needs to consider site constraintssuch as soils conditions, proximity to groundwater, adequatemaintenance access, and safety standards for motorists along theDepartment’s facilities

Staff agrees. Comment noted.

6.a. County of LA 8/16/04 The length of the public comment period is inadequate. The adoption ofthe proposed TMDL should be postponed.

The item proposed for Board action at theSeptember 2, 2004 Board meeting waschanged to a workshop and action on theitem was continued. The proposed BPAand staff report have been revised to reflectcomments and re-noticed to allowadditional public comment on the proposedchanges. At the public workshop,interested persons were notified that therewould be an additional comment period.Interested persons have therefore had


nearly a year to consider and comment onthe proposed TMDL and its underlyingmethodology.

6.1 County of LAPublic Works

8/26/04 The proposed BPA should be considered at a future Board hearing. See response to comment No. 6.a.


8/26/04 The attached Flow Science report describes some of the deficiencies ofthe proposed amendment. The proposed amendment should besubjected to the requisite scientific peer review prior to its adoption bythe Regional Board.

See specific responses to Flow Sciencereport. See also response to comment No.1.26.


8/26/04 If comments cause staff to propose significant changes to the proposedamendment, it will be necessary to re-notice the hearing for itsconsideration.

See response to comment No. 6.a.


8/26/04 The CTR or SIP was never intended to apply to storm water dischargesnor was it intended to be applied without consideration of dilution or asnever to be exceeded values.

It is anticipated that Regional Board staff’s response to this comment isthat because the CTR standard is intended for specified receivingwaters in the LA River watershed, it must be employed as thenumerical objective for the TMDL. However, during wet weather, it isplain that the receiving waters are merely conduits for storm waterflows. Were the Regional Board to adopt the CTR criteria as numericalobjectives for wet weather flows, it would be doing so in clear violationof the rationale for the CTR criteria, without evidence in the record,and in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

The commenter misstates the CTR andfederal law. The CTR establishes federal,numeric water quality criteria for inlandsurface waters in California, including theLos Angeles River. As a result, they are apart of the applicable water qualitystandards and, hence, the TMDL must beestablished at levels necessary toimplement the CTR. (33 U.S.C.1313(d)(1)(C); see also Response toComment 2.20.) The CTR criteria are setat levels designed to protect aquatic life andimplement Congressional policyprohibiting toxic discharges in toxicamounts. The CTR contains no wetweather exception. The CTR-based targets


apply to the receiving water, which is awater of the State, and not merely a conduitfor storm water flows. In fact, if that werethe case, it would be a violation of federallaw which prohibits waters of the U.S. frombeing used merely for waste transport orassimilation. The beneficial uses of thatreceiving water must be protected in wetand dry weather. Given that the CTRcriteria are expressed as concentration, theconcentrations at which metals are toxicsdoes not change because there is morewater (i.e., the toxicity concentration doesnot change in wet weather) becauseexpressing the metals load as aconcentration inherently controls for thevolume of water. (Only contactrecreational uses are suspended duringhigh-flows, and only under very specificcircumstances.)

The TMDL does not apply CTR-basedeffluent limits to permit holders but ratherCTR-based waste load allocations. Becausethe Los Angeles River is impaired due toexceedances of CTR objectives, there is noexcess assimilative capacity to providedilution during critical conditions.


Therefore, waste load allocations based onapplicable CTR criteria are the leaststringent waste load allocations that couldbe applied.

The TMDL acknowledges that waste loadallocations for storm water will likely beimplemented through MS4 NPDES permitsas BMPs.

The citation to the SIP is irrelevant. TheSIP was the State Board’s approach forimplementing the CTR in certain NPDESpermits and programs of the water boards.The SIP did not, and in fact could not,exempt storm water from the water qualitystandards established in the CTR.


8/26/04 The proposed BPA proposes to establish waste load allocations forseveral reaches, including 3, 5, and 6 for all metals covered by theTMDL, even where such reaches are not listed as impaired for variousmetals. We note that the San Diego Superior Court recently held thatthe Regional Board abused its discretion when it included he LosAngeles River Estuary in the TMDL for trash, even though the estuaryhad not been listed.



8/26/04 The listing of the Burbank Western Channel as impaired for cadmiumis improper. The staff report indicates that the channel was listed asimpaired for a single exceedance of the chronic criteria for dissolvedcadmium in 96 sampling events. Staff should revise the 303(d) listings



upon which the TMDL is based to ensure that those reaches trulyimpaired by metals be included in the TMDL.


8/26/04 The proposed BPA fails to establish load allocations for non-pointsources of metals. It does not account for atmospheric deposition ofmetals on the urbanized portion of the watershed nor the loadings ofmetals coming from non-urbanized areas, which account for some 44%of the watershed.



8/26/04 As the attached Flow Science report notes, the failure to includeatmospheric deposition as a non-point source beyond the control of theMS4 and Caltrans dischargers may violate law. Atmospheric depositionwas characterized as a non-point source in the Regional Board’s “DraftStrategy for Developing TMDLs and Attaining Water QualityStandards in the Los Angeles Region.”



8/26/04 As the attached Flow Science report notes, the Regional Board’s failureto identify load allocations for non-point sources in the proposed BPAviolates the Clean Water Act. This identification also is required byUSEPA guidance for the development of TMDLs in California. (SeeExhibit 1 to Rutan & Tucker comment letter, filed concurrentlyherewith). Moreover, it is arbitrary and capricious for the RegionalBoard to assume, without any evidence or analysis, that metals sourcesin the non-urbanized areas may be ignored.



8/26/04 There is little evidence that construction sites have any reasonablepotential to contribute to exceedances of water quality standards.Applying waste load allocations to construction storm water runoff isinconsistent with previous State Board determinations that it isinfeasible to impose numeric effluent limits on construction runoff.State Board Order 99-08-DWQ and EPA state that the only pollutantspresent in storm water discharges from construction sites are sediment,

The wet weather model simulated land-usebased sources of sediment and associatedmetals loads and, as discussed in the staffreport, metals loadings are often associatedwith sediment, especially during wetweather. Construction sites are a potentialsource of sediment loading and metals


TSS and turbidity. Nearly all metals associated with construction areassociated with sediment, while biologically toxic effects of metals areassociated with the dissolvedfraction.

loading where metals exist in the soil orwhere metals are washed off constructionequipment. Additional references regardingconstruction sources of metals are includedin the source assessment section of therevised staff report.

A waste load allocation must be assigned toall construction storm water permittees.Because the Los Angeles River is impaireddue to exceedances of CTR objectives,there is no excess assimilative capacity toprovide dilution during critical conditions.Previously, general storm water permitteeswere assigned concentration-based wasteload allocations. In order to better allocateloading among sources, the staff report andBPA have been revised to assign mass-based waste load allocations to all stormwater permittees, including the generalconstruction and industrial permittees. Theallocations are divided among thepermittees based on their percent area ofthe watershed. General construction andindustrial storm water permittees have beengiven a 10-year compliance schedule toachieve wet-weather allocations andinterim waste load allocations based on


EPA benchmarks. General construction andindustrial storm water permittees have beengiven a dry-weather WLA equal to zero.

The TMDLs must establish numeric WLAsfor general construction permit activities.While historically many storm waterpermits have not included strict numericwater quality-based effluent limitations, theTMDLs are designed to serve as a waterquality backstop. The definition of aTMDL recognizes that a TMDL is the sumof the individual WLAs and LAs. (40 CFR130.2(i).) Appropriate numeric WLAs forconstruction storm water are established toimplement section 303(d)(1)(C) of theClean Water Act.


8/26/04 The proposed amendment violates the Requirements of Water Code §13242 because it contains no description of the nature of actions whichare necessary to achieve the objectives of the metals TMDL. Instead,the Staff Report contains a series of loosely described non-structuraland structural BMPs. Staff conducted no analysis of the ability of theseBMPs to achieve compliance with the objectives.

The proposed TMDL implements existingwater quality objectives in conformancewith section 13242. The TMDL contains adescription of likely structural andnonstructural BMPs that would be used tocomply with the existing water qualityobjectives. Section 13242 only requires a“description of the nature of actions,”which is what the TMDL staff reportdescribes. Furthermore, the RegionalBoard cannot prescribe the method of


achieving compliance with the TMDLbecause of the restrictions in Water Codesection 13360, and is unable to describe thenature of all potential actions to achievecompliance. However, the staff report takesinto account a reasonably foreseeablemeans of compliance and the costsassociated with compliance.


8/26/04 The proposed amendment violates water code sections 13225 and13267 by failing to conduct a cost benefit analysis for thecompliance/ambient monitoring programs the proposed special studiesrequired by the amendment.

See response to 1.16.


8/26/04 At the August 19 workshop, staff, including Interim Executive OfficerJon Bishop, indicated that the purpose of compliance monitoring was toestablish BMP effectiveness. If initial monitoring indicated that thewaste load allocation was being exceeded, additional BMPs would berequired, with further monitoring to establish the effectiveness of theadditional BMPs. However, the proposed BPA instead requirespermittees to monitor for compliance at four specific monitoringlocations. This suggests instead that strict compliance with receivingwaters limitations would be required of the permittees. The proposedamendment also requires ambient monitoring of unimpaired reaches(3,5,6 and Arroyo Seco), which violates section 13267 of the WaterCode.

See response to comment Nos. 1.3 and1.16. Further, as discussed in Response toComment No. 1.1 the upstream reachescause or contribute to impairments in thelower reaches. As a result, effectivemonitoring will require an understanding ofwhat load is being contributed by upstreamreaches. There will be significant benefitsto the dischargers because the monitoringwill allow dischargers to tailor BMPs tothose areas cause or contributing to specificimpairments. The proposed TMDLimplements existing water qualityobjectives in conformance with section13242. The TMDL contains a descriptionof likely structural and nonstructural BMPs


that would be used to comply with theexisting water quality objectives. Section13242 only requires a “description of thenature of actions,” which is what theTMDL staff report describes. Furthermore,the Regional Board cannot prescribe themethod of achieving compliance with theTMDL because of the restrictions in WaterCode section 13360, and is unable todescribe the nature of all potential actionsto achieve compliance. However, the staffreport takes into account a reasonablyforeseeable means of compliance and thecosts associated with compliance. TheTMDLs must establish numeric WLAs forgeneral construction permit activities.While historically many storm waterpermits have not included strict numericwater quality-based effluent limitations, theTMDLs are designed to serve as a waterquality backstop. The definition of aTMDL recognizes that a TMDL is the sumof the individual WLAs and LAs. (40 CFR130.2(i).) Appropriate numeric WLAs forconstruction storm water are established toimplement section 303(d)(1)(C) of theClean Water Act.


Further, as discussed in Response toComment No. 1.1 the upstream reachescause or contribute to impairments in thelower reaches. As a result, effectivemonitoring will require an understanding ofwhat load is being contributed by upstreamreaches. There will be significant benefitsto the dischargers because the monitoringwill allow dischargers to tailor BMPs tothose areas cause or contributing to specificimpairments.


8/26/04 The Resolution proposing to adopt the amendment does not indicatethat the Regional Board considered, or will consider the factors setforth in section 13241 of the Water code. Moreover, the staff reportcontains no assessment of economic factors beyond a cursorydescription of potential costs for certain non-structural and structuralBMPs, which does not even include land acquisition costs.

The proposed TMDL does not establish oralter water quality objectives. Therefore,the analysis set forth in §13241 is notrequired here, since section 13241 applieswhen “ establishing a water qualityobjective.” Because the TMDL is requiredunder federal law, and is necessary toimplement water quality criteria (i.e., waterquality objectives) established by USEPA,there can be no serious argument that theTMDL establishes an objective.

Furthermore, the Regional Board cannotprescribe the method of achievingcompliance with the TMDL and is unableto describe the nature of all potentialactions to achieve compliance. However,


the staff report takes into account areasonable range of economic factors inestimating potential costs associated withTMDL compliance.

Despite its position that Water Codesection 13241 does not apply, the RegionalBoard has developed information relevantto the section 13241 factors and consideredthem where appropriate. For example, theregional board has no discretion not toestablish the TMDL at a level that willimplement the CTR. Consideration ofeconomics in establishing the TMDL couldnot result in a different total maximumdaily load; however, the economics areconsidered in establishing a lengthy andflexible implementation schedule. This isparticularly true of municipal storm waterdischargers, where the TMDLimplementation anticipates the use ofBMPs. (See also the economic discussionsset out in See Devinny, Kamieniecki, andStenstrom “Alternative Approaches toStorm Water Quality Control” (2004),included as App. H to Currier et al.“NPDES Stormwater Cost Survey” (2005).Similarly, the past, present, and probable


future beneficial uses have been consideredextensively in the staff document. Again,though, the TMDL must implement theexisting, federal criteria, federal toxicspolicy, and protect aquatic life. Theenvironmental characteristics of the LosAngeles River are carefully consideredthrough the TMDL staff document tosupport the various modeling andimplementation strategies. Achievingwaters that are free of toxic compounds intoxic amendments is Congressional policy,but by adopting a TMDL that applies to alldischargers to the Los Angeles River’simpaired reaches, the TMDL establishes aframework for the coordinated control ofall factors affecting water quality. It isreasonable to establish this coordinatedframework to implement federal policy ontoxic water pollutants. With respect tohousing, the Los Angeles region draining tothe Los Angeles River is alreadysubstantially built out, but new housingdevelopments are able to incorporate newstructural BMPs that would facilitatecompliance with the TMDL. The record inthe municipal storm water casedemonstrates that SUSMP-type measures


can be effective and do not preclude thedeveloping housing. Finally, the TMDLmay encourage the development and use ofrecycled water, as the TMDL createsincentives to beneficially reuse water.


8/26/04 State Board Office of Chief Counsel has concluded that the RegionalBoard has an affirmative obligation to consider economics whenadopting a TMDL (see memorandum prepared by Sheila K. Vassey ofthe Office of Chief Counsel attached as Exhibit 4 to the Rutan &Tucker letter.)

See response to comment No. 6.14. Inaddition, the cited memorandum does notsupport the commenter. Ms. Vassey’smemorandum identifies when economicsmust be considered, but only the CEQAobligation comes into play with thisTMDL. As discussed in Ms. Vassey’smemorandum and in response to Comment6.14, economics must be considered whenestablishing a water quality objective. ThisTMDL does not establish a water qualityobjective. Instead, as required by section303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act andsection 13242 of the Water Code itestablishes a waste load allocation toimplement an existing water qualityobjective. Here the objective is the CTRcriteria established by USEPA.

Again, economics have been extensivelyconsidered in developing the TMDLimplementation program. For example, theTMDL recognizes that the use of BMPs


will be the anticipated means of compliancefor municipal dischargers--which makesclear that costly treatment plants do notneed to be pursued initially. The TMDLalso provides a lengthy implementationperiod which reflects the economicconsiderations that a longer period of timewill allow a cost-effective mix ofimplementation measures and BMPs to bedeveloped. A shorter timeframe wouldlikely trigger a need for treatment plants. In addition, the economic discussion in thestaff report satisfies not only the CEQArequirements described in Ms. Vassey’smemo, but that analysis would also satisfyany economic “consideration” required bysection 13241. Economics were plainlyconsidered in proposing the TMDL;otherwise, the regional board would nothave delayed compliance with the finalwaste load allocations for more than adecade.


8/26/04 The analysis of economic impacts from the proposed amendment areinsufficient. The staff report makes no attempt to calculate the cost ofland acquisition for BMPs and these costs are not considered in theCEQA checklist. A rough estimate of land acquisition costs equal to $3billion can be made based on the median house price in Los AngelesCounty. Similarly, the staff report contains no estimate of costs for

Since the Regional Board cannot prescribethe method of achieving compliance withthe TMDL, the cost analysis is provided asa general estimate of the costs of selectedstructural and non-structural BMPs. Thestaff report clearly states the assumptions


diversion/treatment BMPs. made for the cost analysis. An analysis ofthe costs associated with the diversion ofresources is not required by CEQA becauseit is an economic impact, which does notcontribute to and is not caused by physicalimpacts on the environment. An estimationof the costs associated with land acquisitionor treatment devices such as reverseosmosis would be speculative. The staffreport provides an analysis of sizeconstraints for each type of structural BMPconsidered (see Appendix III). Althoughland acquisition costs were not calculatedbased on these size requirements, staffassumes that the permittess would sitestructural BMPs so as not to displacehousing. An estimate of land acquisitioncost based on median house price would beunreasonable. Furthermore, staff evaluatedstructural BMPs that were suitable for anurban setting. For example, Delaware sandfilters are subsurface BMPs that aredesigned to accommodate limited land area.

The staff report has been revised to statethat the costs of the BMPs analyzed for theMS4 WLAs could generally be applied toother permittees such as the general


construction and industrial storm waterpermittees.


8/26/04 The County incorporates the comments of Rutan & Tucker on theCEQA compliance issues found in their comment letter, filedconcurrently herewith.

The City of Los Angeles recently issued a Notice of Preparation of anEIR for their Integrated Resources Program (IRP). If this program,which is considered a chief implementation strategy in the staff report,requires an EIR, how could staff determine that there are feasiblealternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantiallylessen any significant adverse impacts of the entire TMDL.

Comment noted. Staff will respond toRutan & Tucker comments specifically(Comment Nos. 16.1 to 16.31). Also seeresponse to comment No. 2.23.

The staff report supports the IRP but doesnot require it as an implementation strategy.The cost analysis assumes that compliancein 30% of the watershed would be achievedthrough IRP in order to provide areasonable estimate of potential costsassociated with compliance.


8/26/04 The CEQA checklist notes that a separate CEQA review process willlikely be required. However, the Regional Board must analyze theentire project and cannot avoid responsibilities by deferring them toother agencies who will be legally bound to implement split offsegments of that project.

Moreover, the Checklist wrongly assumes that there are feasiblemitigation measures for every potential adverse impact. Future actionsthat will be required in order to carry out the TMDL may result insignificant unavoidable impacts.

See response to comment No. 2.23. Asnoted in that response, there are myriadways individual discharges could choose toselect, combine, and optimize BMPs. Anymore detailed analysis at this time would bepurely speculative, and CEQA does notrequire speculative assumptions to bemade.


8/26/04 The CEQA checklist fails to adequately note and evaluate theenvironmental impacts from the proposed amendment. Commentssubmitted by Dr. Gerald Greene of the City of Downey and EduardSchroder, P.E., of TECs Environmental and Kimberly Colbert of

See responses to the incorporatedcomments. (Comment Nos. 8.1 to 8.33)


Charles Abbot Associates are incorporated as a good overview of thedeficiencies in the Checklist.


8/26/04 The Checklist Does not Meet the Statutory Requirements for aSubstitute Environmental Document. The determination that while theproposed BPA "could have a significant adverse effect on theenvironment," there are "feasible alternative and/or feasible mitigationmeasures that would substantially lessen any significant adverseimpact" is not supported in the Checklist or the Staff Report. Neitherthe checklist nor the Staff Report sets forth any specific mitigationmeasures, only vague assurances that have no empirical basis.

See response to comment No.2.23.


8/26/04 The Checklist and Staff Report do not discuss alternatives to the"project" represented by the TMDL, in direct violation of CEQA andthe Regional Board's own regulations in Title 23 of the Code ofRegulations.

The BPA, together with the staff report andbackup materials, are a substitute documentfor an EIR or negative declaration andinitial study. Included in these backupmaterials is the agenda item summaryprepared prior to the Board’s considerationof the proposed BPA. The item summarywill discuss alternatives to the proposedaction, including a “no action” alternative.It is important to recall that there is nodiscretion in establishing WLAs derivedfrom the CTR. The discretion, for whichappropriate alternatives are considered, iscontained within the program ofimplementation.


8/26/04 As noted in the Staff Report, the TMDL, when implemented, willrequire significant outlays of funds by local governments to design,install, construct and maintain both non-structural and structural BMPs.

The entire TMDL is compelled by federallaw, and as such, is not an unfunded statemandate. First, the reductions in loading


No funding mechanism has, however, been provided for the TMDL bythe State. The TMDL also goes far beyond the specific requirements ofthe Clean Water Act or USEPA's regulations, and represents in fact astate program not a federal program. (In that regard, we note that theCTR criteria which form the basis for the TMDL numerical objectives,were adopted specifically as not creating a federal mandate on anystate, local or tribal government, or on the private sector. See 65 Fed.Reg. 31682, 31708.

will be required as part of the NPDESpermits. The State Board has previouslyfound that the requirement to reimburselocal agencies for state-mandated costsdoes not apply to NPDES permits.SWRCB Order No. WQ 90-3 (In the Matterof San Diego Unified Port District).Second, the requirement that states developTMDLs for impaired waters is clearly setforth at 33 U.S.C. 1313(d)-(e). Theproposal includes several years for theaffected agencies to conduct planning andimplementation activities, and to exploreand select any necessary funding options,including loans, grants and revenueincreases.

Moreover, the TMDL implements theapplicable water quality standard, andmakes all dischargers (regardless ofwhether they are private individuals,corporations, or public agencies)responsible for meeting the water qualitystandard. As a result, the TMDL isgenerally applicable and not subject tosubvention requirements in Article XIII.

Finally, whether a USEPA regulatory


action is a “federal mandate” is irrelevant toanalyzing this TMDL under Article XIII ofthe California Constitution. USEPA foundthat the CTR did not meet the specificdefinitions set forth in the federal“ Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.”Those standards are irrelevant to Californialaw.


8/26/04 The implementation schedule should be changed to allow 300 days, or10 months, rather than 120 days to prepare a coordinated monitoringplan for compliance and ambient monitoring.



8/26/04 The 12 months allowed for a draft implementation plan is not enoughtime and should be expanded to 30 months.



8/26/04 The final implementation plan should be required after 36 months, not16 months, after the adoption of the TMDL.



8/26/04 To the extent that the special studies will be conducted by the regulatedcommunity, the studies should be required to be completed within fiveyears of the effective date instead of four years.



8/26/04 The reopener should be scheduled for five years instead of six years asthis will coincide with the completion of special studies.



8/26/04 The first compliance deadline should be at a minimum, 8 years after theeffective date, with the second deadline at 11 years, the third deadlineat 15 years, and the final deadline at 20 years.

Staff agrees. See response to comment No.1.33.


8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: The SIP does not apply toregulation of stormwater discharges and was not intended to be appliedwithout consideration of dilution or as never-to-be exceeded values.Further, in adopting the CTR, EPA intended to allow periodic



exceedances of CTR criteria. The Los Angeles River TMDL appliesCTR concentration-based limits to all NPDES permit holders andmass-based allocations for the Wardlow gaging station to storm flows.


8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: The Board would beoverstepping its authority (see Statement of Decision and Judgement inthe Cities of Arcadia et al v. State Water Resources Control Board) byspecifying waste load allocations for reaches that are not on the 303(d)list.



8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: The data for the BurbankWestern Channel are inadequate to support a cadmium listing. Out of96 samples taken, only one exceeded the chronic dissolved criterion.Since the City of Burbank samples quarterly, this means only oneexcursion in 24 years of sampling. The WMP data is irrelevant sincehardness was not sampled, but based on concentrations reported, wouldlikely not exceed the criteria. Since total metals concentrations werecompared to dissolved criteria, the one measurement may not truly bean exceedance. It is inappropriate to use grab sample data to establishan exceedance because the CTR chronic criterion is understood as a 4-day average.

See response to comment No. 2.3.Comparison of totals metals concentrationsobtained from a grab sample to thedissolved criteria provides a conservativeassessment of compliance.


8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: It is inappropriate to requirestormwater discharges to assume responsibility for metals in stormwater that originate from aerial deposition. The commentor citedCommunities for a Better Env’t v. State Water Resources Control Bd assupport for this conclusion.



8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: No data are used to support theassumption that loads from non-urban areas are insignificant and datafrom other sources suggest that this assumption may be invalid. Aerialdeposition is a significant source of trace metals in storm water runoff



and is likely to occur at high rates in the non-urban portions of thewatershed. Native soils in the natural areas of the watershed containsignificant quantities of copper, lead, and zinc, assuming typicalconcentrations in soil and typical storm conditions. Although littleresearch has been conducted, natural soils may contribute even higherloads under post-fire conditions. The fact that Monrovia Canyon Creekis listed as impaired for lead and is dominated by natural and open landuse suggests that natural areas may make significant contributions tometals concentrations in storm water.


8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: The application of waste loadallocations to construction storm water is inconsistent withdeterminations by the SWRCB that it is infeasible to impose numericeffluent limits on construction runoff. There is little evidence thatconstruction sites have reasonable potential to contribute toexceedances of water quality standards.

See response to 6.10.


8/26/04 The low-cost, non-diversion and treatment BMPs anticipated by staffmay not be capable of achieving the requirements of the TMDL, eitheralone or in conjunction with nonstructural BMPs. Typical BMPs suchas detention basins are not able to remove a significant proportion ofdissolved metals. The BMPs that are most effective at removingdissolved metals are retention basins, treatment wetlands, andbiofilters, which are impractical for use in Southern California.Dissolved metals removal is particularly important since dissolvedmetal is the fraction that contributes to toxicity in receiving waters.Infiltration trenches and sand filters, which are more suited to SouthernCalifornia, are only capable of 11% removal of dissolved copper, 21%removal of dissolved zinc, and 50% removal of dissolved lead.

The staff report included total anddissolved metals removal efficiencies asreported by U.S. EPA, FHWA, andCaltrans. The removal efficiencies of eachtype of BMP vary from study to studydepending on site specific conditions. Thatis why a successful approach to compliancewill involve a matrix of structural and non-structural BMPs that take into account sitespecific factors. It is important to note thatwhile the CTR standards are expressed interms of dissolved metals, the waste loadallocations are expressed in terms of total


metals. Therefore, total metals, not justdissolved metals, removal is important forTMDL compliance.


8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: The proposed BPA’srequirement for additional compliance monitoring in addition to theWardlow station is unspecified, as is the mode of determining whethera flow (or a particular discharger) is out of compliance. Leaving thedetermination of compliance up to the dischargers and failing to specifymonitoring requirements potentially would create the need for veryextensive monitoring, such as multiple water quality and flowmeasurements over many hours.

The Regional Board cannot prescribemonitoring requirements or the method ofachieving compliance with the TMDL. Thestaff report and BPA have been revised torequire the MS4 and Caltrans permittees todemonstrate TMDL effectiveness inprescribed percentages of the watershed,without specifying the method ofcompliance or monitoring.


8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: The modeling was generallyconducted according to sound engineering principles. However, manyof the calibrations and validations are poor and the models fail topredict the variability that occurs in the watershed. The modeling doesnot appear sufficient or appropriate for supporting the implementationactions proposed by the TMDL. Indeed, the modeling was not reliedupon in any substantive way in determining load or waste loadallocations.

The purpose of the model is to present areasonable assurance that the relationshipbetween in-stream loads and targets isunderstood, which it does. The TMDLallows for special studies to provide data torefine the model and account for anyweaknesses.


8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: The flow calibration in the dryweather modeling appears to be inadequate. The model is not able toreproduce dry weather flow rates in a precise way and tends to predicthigh and not average or median dry weather flows. Figure 5 ismislabeled in the staff report.

The water quality comparison of the dry weather model is alsoinadequate. There are very few data points for cadmium and lead and

The staff report acknowledges thelimitations of the hydrology and waterquality portions of the dry-weather model.Neither the hydrology nor the water qualityportions of the model were used todetermine dry weather waste loadallocations. The TMDL allows for specialstudies to provide data to refine the model


the model results are ‘compared’ to concentrations of these elementsdespite a lack of measured data for all but one value. The model is notable to reproduce dry weather concentrations of copper or zinc with anyprecision. In Figure 6, both copper and zinc are presented on graphswith y-axes that are longer than necessary, leaving the impression thatobserved data are clustered closer to the model results than actually isthe case.

and account for any weaknesses. Thereference to and caption for Figure 5 hasbeen revised in the staff report. The y-axeslabels for Figure 6 clearly represent thedistribution of data for copper and zinc.


8/26/04 From the attached Flow Science report: Comparison of observed andmodeled data were not made on timescales that allowed realisticassessment of the watershed. The caption for 9a. indicates that thefigure compares monthly flows, which is inadequate for such adynamic watershed.

The statement that “during model calibration the model predicted stormvolumes and storm peaks well” is misleading. In multiple cases, themodel did a poor job of reproducing monthly flow rates and annualflow volumes and in most cases the model did a poor job ofreproducing the observed average daily flow rate record. Theinadequacies of the calibration of the wet weather model are mostevident on the time scale of individual storm events.

The water quality calibration is even poorer than the hydrologicalcalibration. For none of the events and for none of the constituents wasthe model able to reproduce observed data with any precision. Wetweather water quality model results were compared to observedconditions for only one legitimate event at the Wardlow gage.

Use of a single potency factor for a given land use type precludes

The caption for Figure 9a. shall be revisedto read “comparison of daily” flows

The staff report states that “ overall, duringmodel calibration the model predictedstorm volumes and storm peaks well.” Italso states that the model occasionallyover-predicted or under-predicted runoffdepending on the spatial variability of themeteorological and gage stations.

The staff report acknowledges thelimitations of the model and allows forupdates and revisions to the model basedon the results of special studies. Specialstudies will allow for refinement of themodel to account for the poor correlationbetween rainfall and flow and will allowfor the validation of potency factors.Certain graphs are plotted on a log scalebecause there is much variability in


simulation of variability in concentrations and wrongly assumes that alltrace metals are completely particle bound during washoff.

Some data are inappropriately presented on logarithmic scales,disguising significant disparities between model results and observeddata.

observed data and modeled data. EMCs arenot required as a measure of compliance.

The staff report has been revised to clarifythat the wet-weather model is not used indeveloping loading capacities. The onlytime the model is used is to assign wet-weather load allocations to open space. Theover prediction of loading from open spaceis applied to the margin of safety.


8/26/04 The modeling is essentially irrelevant to the discharge requirements forsmall discharges in the watershed. The TMDL simply imposes CTRconcentration-based requirements on all but several select points in thewatershed. If properly implemented and utilized by the Regional Board,both the dry and the wet weather modeling could be used as tools toproperly establish waste load and load allocations throughout thewatershed, to identify the true sources of water quality impairment, andto establish allocations that are based on firm science and that areconsistent with available data and known impairments.

The model will continue to be refined asmore data becomes available. For thepurpose of the proposed TMDL, the modelis an effective tool in the linkage analysis.The model presents a reasonable assurancethat the relationship between in-streamloads and targets is understood.

7.1 ExecutiveAdvisoryCommittee

8/26/04 We are taking this opportunity to submit comments on the subjectBasin Plan Amendment and request that the record indicate that theEAC directed preparation of this letter with no dissenting votes.

Comment noted.


8/26/04 The April 23, 2004 CEQA Scoping meeting for this amendmentinadequately outlined the proposed TMDL, which limited the ability ofthe participants to characterize the environmental impacts needingevaluation by the Board. As an example the “Implementation” slidelisted: “Source Reduction”; “Target hot spots”; “Structural and Non-structural BMPs”; and “Improving site design to prevent/minimize dry

The purpose of the CEQA scoping meetingwas for stakeholders to provide input to theRegional Board in determining the scopeand content of the TMDL documents—which serve as CEQA substitutedocuments. Because the Regional Board


and wet water flows”. cannot prescribe the method of achievingcompliance with the TMDL, staff wasunable to describe the nature of all potentialactions necessary to achieve compliancewith the TMDL at the CEQA scopingmeeting. Staff did however present anoverview of reasonably foreseeable meansof compliance to facilitate the scopingdiscussion. Stakeholders providednumerous constructive comments based onthis presentation. All comments received atthe scoping meeting were considered inpreparing the CEQA checklist, anddeveloping additional information withinthe TMDL documents that serve as theCEQA substitute documents.


8/26/04 The staff report and CEQA checklist ignored most of the impacts thatlocal agencies identified during the Scoping meeting. One examplewould be the impact on existing housing, due to ignoring the need tosacrifice an unknown number of residential units to construct the nearly12,000 infiltration trenches identified in the report. A similar assertioncan be made in regards to the sand filters identified as being used in anequal area of the urban watershed.

While it is reasonably foreseeable that theinstallation of infiltration trenches, sandfilters, or other structural BMPs will benecessary to achieve compliance with theTMDL, it is not reasonably foreseeable thatthe installation of these BMPs would leadto sacrificed housing. This is becausestructural BMPs can be suitable for anultra-urban setting and can be specificallydesigned to accommodate limited land area,such as the subsurface Delaware sandfilters. Furthermore, based on the estimated


size constraints discussed in Appendix IIIof the staff report, the area required to sitestructural BMPs is significantly less thanthe total urbanized portion of thewatershed. It is not reasonably foreseeablethat there would be a need to displacehousing for this limited area. The extent towhich housing would be affected byimplementation of the TMDL would bepurely speculative.


8/26/04 The LARWQCB estimate of $ 1 billion can easily balloon to over $20billion based on local agency experience. The EAC recommends thatBoard staff review the financial impacts projected in the November2002 USC Study.

Costs were estimated based on a reasonablyforeseeable means of compliance. The 2002USC Study is based on one potentialmethod of compliance, which is neitherrequired nor supported by the proposedTMDL. Further, a subsequent analysis byprofessors from USC and UCLA hasdetermined that a cost-effective mix ofBMPs can achieve water quality standardsat a significantly lower cost and withsubstantial environmental and economicbenefits. (See Devinny, Kamieniecki, andStenstrom “Alternative Approaches toStorm Water Quality Control” (2004),included as App. H to Currier et al.“NPDES Stormwater Cost Survey” (2005).)

7.5 ExecutiveAdvisory

8/26/04 For a TMDL based on total, rather than dissolved, metal concentrationsand acknowledging the impact of aerial deposition, it is unconscionable



Committee to not have developed a load allocation for the 44% or 367 square milesof the watershed within the open land use category. The AngelesNational Forests are renown for their erosion potential.


8/26/04 Table 14 of the Staff Report acknowledges the presence of over 1,500General Industrial and Construction Activities Stormwater Permitholders in the watershed, many of which have already submittedmonitoring data demonstrating them to be in violation due to excessivemetal contamination in their runoff. We propose that the Board staffreview the monitoring data, identify sources of excessive runoffdischarge concentrations and work with municipal staff to identify andcontrol these sources.

The staff report and BPA have been revisedto assign load-based waste load allocationsto the general industrial and constructionstorm water permittees. Compliance withthe permit requirements established toachieve these waste load allocations willlikely lead to reductions in MS4 loadings.The Regional Board looks forward toworking cooperatively with municipalitiesto identify and control these sources,whether they be direct dischargers toreceiving waters or dischargers that relyupon the MS4.


8/26/04 No credit for past and continuing efforts (many cities have used non-structural BMPs, like weekly vacuum sweeping for years) andinadequate source investigation. This TMDL continues with theapproach of ignoring the most recalcitrant sources, while those who tryto work with the Board to achieve common goals are seriallyhammered with iterative BMPs and subject to additional compliancemeasures regardless of efficacy or cost.

The proposed implementation schedule forthe TMDL has been extended to 22 years inorder to acknowledge the past andcontinuing efforts of MS4 permittees. Allpotential sources have been assigned awaste load allocation in the revised BPA.No recalcitrant sources are being ignored.


8/26/04 The EPA (CTR) translator is inaccurate and flawed. As demonstratedby Tables 10 and 12 of the staff report, the overestimate can be as muchas 75% (lead during dry-weather) with copper and zinc in wet weatherbeing overestimated by 48 and 61% respectively. The EAC believesthat for the foreseeable future, there is no need to evoke some

The TMDL addresses both dissolved andtotal metals concentrations because of thepotential for transformation between thetwo. The overestimate is applied to themargin of safety, which is required by


conservative Margin of Safety Assumptions and the analysis shouldconcentrate on dissolved metals and the BMPs that will sufficientlycontrol them. It will do little good to install sand filters if the translatorsare correct.

CWA section 303(d)(1)(c). Total metalsloadings are also controlled because offuture TMDLs to address sediment metalslistings downstream.

8.1a City ofDowney andTECSEnvironmental

8/26/04 The CEQA checklist is irreparably shallow and flawed, due to theapparent disregard for the many concerns shared with Regional Boardstaff by the commentors.


8.2a City ofDowney andTECSEnvironmental

8/26/04 While the checklist makes a finding of “no” significant impact onhousing, the City of Los Angeles IRP EIR Notice of Preparation(NOP), which the subject amendment is dependent upon, identifieshousing loss as a potential project impact. The Santa Monica UrbanRunoff Reclamation Facility occupies 19,000 square feet or about 3typical residential lots. Based on typical media filter designparameters, a projected 1 in 500 single-family residential lots would besacrificed for runoff filtration.


8.1 City ofDowney andTECSEnvironmental

8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Earth” as large stormrunoff detention basins may be built below grade, treatment plants maybe constructed and the subsoil compacted, and structural BMPs may beconstructed below grade or require soil removal and disposal. The Cityof LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “maybe” answer tothis question in the CEQA checklistbecause to the extent that project-levelimpacts may exist, staff recommendedcertain mitigation measures, in accordancewith 14 CCR 15091, such as the properdesign and siting of structural BMPs, thatcould be adopted by to avoid negativeimpacts. Furthermore, the benefits toaquatic life and wildlife habitat outweighany potential negative impacts.

8.2 City of 8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Earth” because even Staff responded with a “no” answer to this


Downey andTECSEnvironmental

with BMPs, most construction projects are susceptible to the loss ofsilts, clays and other fine materials, as well as organic and biologic soilconstituents. This project will result in many construction projectssuch as filters and treatment plants. The City of LA NOP noted similarissues for the IRP.

question in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be significant or reasonablyforeseeable impacts on erosion associatedwith the implementation of the TMDL bypermittees. To the extent that constructionof structural BMPs would be needed tocomply with the TMDL, construction sitesare required to retain sediments on site,either by a general construction storm waterpermit or through the construction programof the applicable MS4 permit - both ofwhich are already designed to minimize oreliminate erosion impacts on receivingwater. See also response to Comment No.7.3.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Earth” because thegreatest metal mass loading in runoff is from particulates, not dissolvedmetals. Ignoring source control, the most effective metal controlstrategy is to remove the particles of sediment that would otherwisesettle in the bay or harbor. This will exacerbate the already sedimentstarved condition of the Los Angeles River System, although the harborwould be dredged less frequently.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact onsedimentation. The removal of sedimentsand sediment-bound metals will have apositive impact on the river and willaddress impaired sediments in the harbor.

8.4 City ofDowney andTECS

8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Earth” becausealthough much of the watershed soil is poor for infiltration, to theextent that basins and trenches are successful, adjacent areas may

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that there


Environmental become more susceptible to liquifaction. During construction sandfilters and new drain lines are susceptible to ground failures, whichmust be mitigated with engineering and construction measures. TheCity of LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

would be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact on groundstability. The commentors’ assertion thatthe use of infiltration trenches will causeincreased risk of liquefaction is anunsubstantiated opinion and a speculativepossibility. In fact, infiltration trenches,when properly sited, can have a positiveimpact by addressing the effects ofdevelopment and increased impervioussurfaces in the watershed.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Air” because duringconstruction, air emissions and fugitive dust can be expected to reduceair quality. State Boards have precipitated other errors inenvironmental judgement (e.g. MTBE and Carver Greenfield). TheCity of LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “maybe” answer tothis question in the CEQA checklistbecause to the extent that project-levelimpacts may exist, staff recommendedcertain mitigation measures to avoidnegative impacts, in accordance with 14CCR 15091, such as consulting with andobtaining appropriate permits from theapplicable air pollution control agency.Furthermore, the benefits to aquatic life andwildlife habitat outweigh any potentialnegative impacts.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Air” because publicresources (state and local) are insufficient to deal with current pollutionand homeless issues. The project would further consume thoseresources while constructing in more problematic facilities. The City ofLA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist because thediversion of resources is an economicimpact, which does not contribute to and isnot caused by physical impacts on the


environment.8.7 City of


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Water” becauseinfiltration basins and trenches, potable and wastewater treatmentfacilities will move water from surface receiving waters into ground ordifferent receiving water locations. As reclaimed water replaces oceancooling water, this may result in less available surface waters.

Staff responded with a “maybe” answer tothis question in the CEQA checklistbecause to the extent that project-levelimpacts may exist, they are positive effects.The use of infiltration devices reverses thenegative effects of development byincreasing pervious surfaces in thewatershed.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Water” becauseinfiltration basins and trenches will directly add surface runoff intoregional groundwater basins. If groundwater levels rise, there may thenbe a subsequent, and potentially beneficial, increase in ground waterwithdrawals

Staff responded with a “maybe” answer tothis question in the CEQA checklistbecause to the extent that project-levelimpacts may exist, staff recommendedcertain mitigation measures to avoidnegative impacts, in accordance with 14CCR 15091, such as proper design andsiting of infiltration devices andgroundwater monitoring. Furthermore, thebenefits to aquatic life and wildlife habitatoutweigh any potential negative impacts.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Animal Life” becausereaches upstream of POTWs may no longer receive dry-weather runoff,depriving wildlife of this water source. (Water may still be found instreet gutters and yards, but with greater risk exposure.) The City of LANOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “maybe” answer tothis question in the CEQA checklistbecause to the extent that project-levelimpacts may exist, staff recommendedcertain mitigation measures to avoidnegative impacts, in accordance with 14CCR 15091. Furthermore, the CEQAchecklist states that critical flow in the river


would be maintained despite a potentialdry-weather diversion because of thecontinual dry-weather flow from POTWsand groundwater discharge. Evendiscounting POTW flow, there would stillbe dry-weather flow from groundwaterdischarge and other permitted NPDESdischarges within the watershed. This issupported by the staff report. To the extentthat negative impacts may exist, they areoutweighed by the benefits to aquatic lifeand wildlife habitat of removing toxicdischarges of pollutants to the river.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Noise” because theproject will result in numerous residential area construction projects.Pumps may be required, needing soundproofed facilities. The City ofLA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “maybe” answer tothis question in the CEQA checklistbecause to the extent that any limited,short-term project-level impacts may exist,staff recommended certain mitigationmeasures to avoid negative impacts, inaccordance with 14 CCR 15091, such aslimiting or restricting hours of construction.The commentors assertion that pumpswould be required needing soundproofingfacilities is an unsubstantiated opinion anda speculative possibility. To the extent thatpumps would be used to supplementstructural BMPs (although they are notrequired) negative noise impacts could be


avoided by properly siting facilities.Furthermore, the benefits to aquatic life andwildlife habitat of removing toxicpollutants from the river outweigh anypotential negative impacts.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Noise” because theproject will result in numerous residential area construction projects,often needing heavy earthmoving equipment. The City of LA NOPnoted similar issues for the IRP.

See response to comment Nos. 8.10 and8.14.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Light and Glare”because to the extent that the project facilities, including ancillarystructures, may be attractive nuisances, lights maybe used to increasesafety. The City of LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact on light andglare. The assertion that lights used toincrease safety at project facilities wouldproduce new light or glare is anunsubstantiated opinion and a speculativepossibility. To the extent that light wouldbe needed to increase safety at a projectfacility, the facility could be sited in an areawhere any potential increased lightingcould not pose a significant impact.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Risk of Upset”because treatment plants often use a variety of disinfectants andcaustics to maintain efficient process operation. Despite great care,there is a small risk that these contaminants might escape. The City ofLA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable risk of upset. The assertion that


there could be a potential escape ofdisinfectants and caustics used to maintainefficient operation of treatment facilities isan unsubstantiated opinion and aspeculative possibility. The staff reportconsiders a potential means of compliancethat uses a mix of non-structural BMPs andinfiltration devices which would not requiredisinfectants and caustics. This approach issupported by a separate study. (SeeDevinny, Kamieniecki, and Stenstrom“Alternative Approaches to Storm WaterQuality Control” (2004), included as App.H to Currier et al. “NPDES StormwaterCost Survey” (2005).) Furthermore, the“small risk” of escape of contaminantscould be mitigated by proper maintenanceand oversight.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Transportation”because despite the vague staff report, it is clear the project calls forhundreds of new construction projects. This will generate substantiallymore traffic primarily in residential areas. The City of LA NOP notedsimilar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact ontransportation. The assertion that therecould be a significant increase in traffic dueto hundreds of construction projects is anunsubstantiated opinion and a speculativepossibility. The extended nature of the


proposed implementation schedule allowsfor construction projects to be spread outboth spatially and temporally. To the extentthat any limited, short-term, project-levelimpacts may exist, they could be mitigatedby limiting or restricting hours ofconstruction.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Transportation”because the most common location for drainage facilities is the publicright of way. In addition to foreseeable traffic detours, bicyclists andpedestrians often use access roads along channels. Even withappropriate signage/barricades, the public risk factor is significant. TheCity of LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact ontransportation. The assertion that therecould be a significant risk to bicyclists andpedestrians by locating drainage facilitiesalong the public right of way is anunsubstantiated opinion and a speculativepossibility. To the extent that any limited,short-term, project-level impacts may exist,they could be mitigated by limiting orrestricting hours of construction.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Public Service”because without a significant increase in public support, a diversion ofover 1 billion local dollars is likely to reduce the supply of most publicservices. It is notable that Los Angeles City has prepared a $500million bond measure for other TMDL related projects. Detours mayimpact traffic and further increase response times. The City of LA NOPnoted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist because thediversion of resources is an economicimpact, which does not contribute to and isnot caused by physical impacts on theenvironment. See response to comment No.8.14 regarding potential traffic detours.



8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Public Service”because without a significant increase in public support, a diversion ofover 1 billion local dollars is likely to reduce the supply of most publicservices. This project has the potential to greatly increase the numberof public facilities, which law enforcement must protect from variousforms of vandalism and vagrancy. The City of LA NOP noted similarissues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist because thediversion of resources is an economicimpact, which does not contribute to and isnot caused by physical impacts on theenvironment. The assertion that therewould be a significant effect on lawenforcement because they would have toprotect treatment facilities is anunsubstantiated opinion and a speculativepossibility.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Public Service”because without significant support, a diversion of over 1 billiondollars is likely to reduce the supply of public services. Los AngelesCity has installed an infiltration structure at a Pacoima school. Thisimpact may be short term, but cannot be determined from the projectreport. The City of LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist because thediversion of resources is an economicimpact, which does not contribute to and isnot caused by physical impacts on theenvironment.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Public Service”because while the checklist identifies additional maintenance, theproject mandates the construction of new government services. Thisproject imposes construction of detention basins, infiltration trenches,sand filters, pump stations, and dedicated runoff treatment facilities.The City of Los Angeles proposes to greatly expand existing POTWs,such as Hyperion, while excluding water from other communities. TheCity of LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff addressed this potential impact bychecking “yes” in the CEQA checklist. Theenvironmental checklist draws on analysiscontained in and conclusions reached in thestaff report. Because the Regional Boarddoes not prescribe the method of achievingcompliance with the TMDL, staff cannotidentify all project-level impacts (andassociated mitigation measures) that mightoccur at the project level.

8.20 City of 8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Public Service” See response to comment No. 8.19.



because the checklist identifies monitoring, public outreach, additionalsweeping and structural BMP maintenance. To this we would addspecialized treatment plant and pump station operators, laboratory staff,construction inspectors, hydrologic modelers and inspectors. The Cityof LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Energy” because theproject creates a significant demand for heavy equipment fuel and longterm demand for electricity to operate pumps, dedicated runofftreatment plants, and expanded POTWs.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact on energy. Theassertion that there could be a significantimpact to energy due to the demand forheavy equipment fuel and electricity forpumps, treatment plants, and expandedPOTWs is an unsubstantiated opinion and aspeculative possibility. The staff reportconsiders a potential means of compliancethat uses a mix of non-structural BMPs andinfiltration devices which would not requiresuch demands. See also response tocomment No. 8.13.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Energy” because somefacilities could be constructed with solar cells/roofing, but this wouldneed to be balanced against increased maintenance, construction, andprotection costs. Alternatives such as recreation and wildlife habitatmight also have to be abandoned or modified in some in frequent cases.


8.23 City ofDowney and

8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Utilities and servicesystems” because telemetry systems may need to be developed to



TECSEnvironmental

monitor flows, sand filters and treatment plant operation. Increasedsecurity monitoring maybe required to protect these facilities and thepublic from vandalism and vagrancy.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Utilities and servicesystems”. It is unclear from the staff report whether the detention basinand treatment plants might be used to produce supplemental potablewater. The incremental cost of producing treated runoff and potablewater is diminished by this proposal and may cause new reclamationopportunities to develop.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact on utilities andservice systems - water. The impact due tonew reclamation opportunities would be apositive impact.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Utilities and servicesystems”. It is unclear whether the Board staff considered a runofftreatment plant or diversion to be an altered part of the sewer system ora new public service, but it should be included somewhere in thechecklist. Los Angeles City plans to expand the Hyperion POTW animpact. The City of LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact on utilities andservice systems – sewer or septic tanks.Diversion of runoff to a treatment plant isone potential means of compliance. Theneed for a treatment plant to alter or expandits design capacity is an unsubstantiatedopinion and a speculative possibility. Infact, staff has received comments thatcertain POTWs would not accept additionalinflow from dry-weather diversions thatwould cause them to expand their facilities.

8.26 City of 8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Utilities and service Staff has indicated reasonably foreseeable



systems”. A one sentence mitigation statement doesn’t convey themagnitude of impacts associated with a Public Works programprojected by LARWQCB at > $1 billion. The City of LA NOP notedsimilar issues for the IRP.

environmental impacts of the TMDL as anoverall program, and reasonablyforeseeable environmental impacts to stormwater drainage (and associated mitigationmeasures) at the project level. See alsoresponse to comment No. 8.19.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Utilities and servicesystems” because the project proposes removal of multiple pollutants atthe proposed facilities. Solid waste might be collected at some or alland would need to be collected and properly disposed of on a regularschedule. The sand filter schmutzdecke needs to be regularly disposedof. The City of LA NOP noted similar issues for the IRP.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact on new oraltered solid waste disposal. The referencescited in the staff report discuss theoperation and maintenance requirements ofinfiltration trenches and sand filters. Forexample, sand filters in Austin are testedprior to disposal and it has been shown thatthe media is not toxic and can be safelylandfilled. Removal of sand media istypically required every 3 to 5 years.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Human health”because vector production is a foreseeable impact attributable to thisproject. Public resources are too scarce to support the required level offilter, trench, and wet well inspection and maintenance activities.

Staff responded with a “maybe” answer tothis question in the CEQA checklistbecause to the extent that project-levelimpacts may exist, staff recommendedcertain mitigation measures to avoidnegative impacts, in accordance with 14CCR 15091, such as minimizing stagnantwater and consulting with vector control


agencies.8.29 City of


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Human health”because many of the facilities and habitat areas contemplated by thisproject, will be located in residential areas where the exposure riskfrom zoonotic and vector borne diseases will be greatest.



8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Aesthetics” becausethe proposed project contemplates constructing over $1 billion oftreatment and ancillary facilities in the Los Angeles River watershed.Many sites will be in residential areas, becoming attractive nuisanceswith graffiti, trash, homelessness and potential criminal activityoccurring within the public view.

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonablyforeseeable negative impact on aesthetics.The assertion that the installation ofstructural BMPs will cause graffiti, trash,homelessness, and potential criminalactivity in residential areas is anunsubstantiated opinion and a speculativepossibility. In fact, many structural BMPsare designed to provide habitat, recreationalareas, and green spaces, which wouldincrease the quality of life for residents. Asdiscussed in the staff report, these BMPsare effective at removing trash, not creatingtrash. The commentor offers no evidence tosupport the claim that green spaces andrecreational areas attracts criminal activity.


8/26/04 Checklist review: There would be an impact on “Recreation” becauseto the extent that lot size exceeds treatment demands, open space maybe created; but this implies that more lots will be sacrificed to reach therequired treatment area. Parks and schoolyards maybe preferentially

Staff responded with a “no” answer to thisquestion in the CEQA checklist becausethere is no substantial evidence that therewould be a significant or reasonably


sacrificed to preserve the existing housing stock. The City of LA NOPnoted similar issues for the IRP.

foreseeable negative impact on recreation.While it is reasonably foreseeable that theinstallation of infiltration trenches, sandfilters, or other structural BMPs will benecessary to achieve compliance with theTMDL, it is not reasonably foreseeable thatthe installation of these BMPs would leadto sacrificed parks and schoolyards. This isbecause structural BMPs can be suitable foran ultra-urban setting and can bespecifically designed to accommodatelimited land area, such as the subsurfaceDelaware sand filters. They can servemultiple land use purposes. See alsoresponse to comments 7.3 and 8.30.


8/26/04 While parks and wildlife habitat may constitute an impact mitigationmeasure to Regional Board Staff, residents will reject their insertion,into what had been quiet uniform neighborhoods, just as vigorously asstorage basins, sand filters, diversion stations, and even industrial styletreatment plants.



8/26/04 The CEQA analysis must seriously consider alternative strategies, andtheir respective mitigation measures, before implementing significantintrusive facilities in existing residential areas. The undersignedstrongly believe that LARWQCB Staff should have made a MandatoryFinding of Significant, Substantially Adverse, and Cumulative Impacts,leading to the preparation of a project EIR commensurate with theconstruction of a billion-dollar regional drainage project. The captureand treatment of runoff water should not be so benignly trivialized and



to certify the subject reports as being Functionally Equivalent inaddressing “all activities and impacts associated with a project”, doesirreparable harm to the watershed Permittees. This is especially trueconsidering that one municipality has apparently committed to a costlyEIR on a portion of the Board project that occurs within its jurisdiction.

9.1 and9.2

City ofDowney

8/26/04 The data used in calculating numeric targets for Rio Hondo Reach 1 isold and is not consistent with the hardness values from municipal waterproviders. City staff advised Board staff of additional municipalhardness data that could be used to calculate numeric targets at theApril 23, 2004, CEQA Scoping meeting. Unfortunately, the same dataappeared in Table 8 of the July 9, 2004 staff report, impacting many ofthe subsequent tables and report sections.

While the hardness data is from 1988 to1995, the staff report explains thejustification and support for using the olderdata. The hardness data used in calculatingreach specific numeric targets werecollected from the receiving water.Hardness data provided by a municipalprovider would not be useful in calculatingnumeric targets. However, staff recognizesthe inconsistency between the municipalsupply data and receiving water data.Numeric targets may be revised ifadditional receiving water hardness databecomes available.

9.3 and9.4

City ofDowney

8/26/04 Based on updated hardness data, there is no indication that the surfacerunoff from the cities is the primary water in Reach 1 of the Rio Hondo.Our 6 cities should not be penalized if a soft, but metal containingupper aquifer ground water is leaking into the channel, or if asignificant discharger to this reach cannot be located by any of theregulatory agencies.

The hardness of the municipal water supplydoes not necessarily rule out thecontribution of municipal storm water as asource of water in the Rio Hondo. There isno data to support the suggestion that softgroundwater is the major source of flow inthe Rio Hondo. However, special studieswill allow better characterization of thecontribution of groundwater, storm drains,


and other discharges to the flow in the RioHondo.

10.1 RichardsWatsonGershon (Cityof Monrovia)

8/26/04 While we presume that the implementation of the wasteload allocationswas intended for those MS4 Permittees within the Los Angeles RiverWatershed, we would appreciate if the Regional Board could clarify itsintention in this regard.

The BPA has been revised to make thisclarification.

10.2,10.6,10.9,and10.19

RichardsWatsonGershon (Cityof Monrovia)

8/26/04 The Staff Report does not provide adequate facts to support theassignment of waste load allocations to cities upstream of MonroviaCanyon Creek and the Rio Hondo. There are serious questionsregarding the quantity of flow of urban runoff originating in upstreamcities that actually makes it to the impaired reach of the Rio Hondo.The draft TMDL does not take into account any natural or man-madebarriers to water flow such as dams, lakes or spereading grounds. Citiesabove these areas may not contribute significantly to a downstreammetals problem.

The staff report and BPA have been revisedto clarify for which reaches TMDLs areassigned and for which reaches waste loadallocations are assigned. Because flowabove Whittier Narrows does not reach RioHondo Reach 1 or the main stem in dry-weather, no dry-weather copper waste loadallocations are assigned to MonroviaCanyon Creek or Rio Hondo Reach 2.During wet weather, flow from alltributaries reaches the main stem of theriver so waste load allocations for allmetals are assigned throughout thewatershed to meet the TMDL for Reach 1.

10.3and10.4


8/26/04 No allocation is assigned to the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamationplant. If the basis for the conclusion to not assign a waste loadallocation to the Whittier Narrows WRP is that less than one percent ofthe effluent from the plant “remains in the channel downstream of thespreading grounds”, what is the factual basis for concluding that anyurban runoff flows from MS4 Permittees upstream from the Whittiernarrows Dam is greater than that amount? The Staff Report containsno analysis, as far as we can tell, of this point.

The BPA and staff report have beenclarified to explicitly state that aconcentration based waste load allocationhas been assigned to the Whittier NarrowsReclamation Plant.



8/26/04 No allocation has been assigned to non-point sources and non-jurisdictional sources. Considering that a significant portion of thewater volume entering the Rio Hondo originates in that portion of thewatershed within the National Forest, we fail to understand the basisfor no allocation to nonpoint sources and other non-permitted sources.


10.7and10.10


8/26/04 The Regional Board staff should specifically identify all data uponwhich it is relying to assign any waste load allocation to the City ofMonrovia or any other upstream cities. In this regard, you may considerthis request to be a request under the California’s Public Records Act.

All data relied upon is contained in the staffreport, appendices, and references cited inthe staff report and appendices. Please notethat the reference section has been updated.

10.8,10.11,and10.12


8/26/04 The Regional Board staff should specifically identify the factual basisfor assigning one hundred percent of the waste load allocation to MS4Permittees. Little, if any, effort appears to have been made to identifyeither other point sources or non-point sources for metals, other thanPOTWs, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 130.2(h) and 40 C.F.R. §130.7c(1).

The staff report and BPA have been revisedto assign wet- and dry-weather waste loadallocations to all sources in the watershed,including nonpoint sources. Mass-basedwaste load allocations are developed for thethree POTWs (Tillman, Glendale, andBurbank) and mass-based load allocationsare developed for open space and directatmospheric deposition. A grouped mass-based waste load allocation is developedfor storm water permitees (Los AngelesCounty MS4, Long Beach MS4, Caltrans,General Industrial and GeneralConstruction) by subtracting the mass-based waste load and load allocations fromthe total loading capacity. Concentration-based waste load allocations are assigned toall other point sources in the watershed.

10.13 Richards 8/26/04 The proposed TMDL is not based on sound science and has not been The proposed TMDL is based on sound


WatsonGershon (Cityof Monrovia)

established in accordance with state and federal regulations, whichprovide for informed decision making and opportunities for meaningfulpublic input. An adequate basis for numeric targets has not beenspecifically documented in the submittal and the relationship betweennumeric target(s) and identified pollutant sources, and estimate totalassimilative capacity have not been provided. Furthermore, seasonalvariations and critical conditions have not been accounted for.

The Regional Board is adopting a “rule” within the meaning of Health& Safety Code § 57004 without having subjected the rules to therequisite scientific peer review. That process should take place beforemoving forward on this TMDL.

science and was based on the input ofnumerous stakeholders. Numeric targetshave been set to achieve water qualityobjectives as contained in CTR and arebased on site specific conditions in theriver. The assimilative capacity of the riverwas assessed by calculating the loadingcapacity of the river during dry and wetweather. Seasonal variation has beenaddressed by developing separate wasteload allocations for dry and weather.Critical conditions were addresses byassigning a critical flow during dry-weatherand by using a load-duration curveapproach for wet weather. The scientificportions of the TMDL have been peerreviewed by two external peer reviewers. inconformance with Health & Safety Codesection 57004.


8/26/04 We are very concerned about the time schedule for implementing theprograms set forth in the TMDL. Moreover, the proposed TMDL isestablishing the target reduction goals before the baseline studies arecompleted. The feasibility of attaining these goals may be dependentupon what is determined in the baseline studies.

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to allow 22 years for wetweather compliance by the MS4 andCaltrans permittees. The TMDL will bereconsidered at year 5 to allow for potentialrevised waste load allocations andimplementation schedules based oninformation obtained in the special studies,which are due by year 4.



8/26/04 The MS4 Permittees’ cost of implementing the TMDL, as drafted,would be very high. Moreover, alternative methods of achieving thegoal of litter reduction [sic] must be considered for potentialenvironmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Furthermore, the Federal Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.§ 601 et seq.) requires a determination of the cost of implementing theTMDL.

The Regional Board is not required toconsider the costs of all potential means ofcomplying with the requirements of theTMDL. It is required to consider the costsof a reasonably foreseeable means ofcompliance, which it has done. FederalRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601et seq.) is a requirement on federalagencies, and has no applicability to theregional board. As set forth in the TMDLdocuments, the reasonably foreseeablecosts of compliance have been documentedto satisfy CEQA requirements. This sameanalysis provides sufficient information forthe board to consider “economics”associated with the TMDL.

See also response to comment No. 6.16.10.16 Richards

WatsonGershon (Cityof Monrovia)

8/26/04 The draft of the TMDL contains new programs and mandates which gobeyond the specific requirements of either the Clean Water Act or theEPA’s regulations implementing the CWA. If the RWQCB wishes toimpose these programs, it needs to provide a means to pay for theirimplementation. The California Commission on State Mandates shouldbe allowed to hear and determine a test case and to decide whether theprograms proposed in the draft of the TMDL are reimbursable.

See response to comment No. 6.22. As setforth previously, the TMDL is compelledunder federal law, the WLAs are compelledunder federal law, and the TMDL generallyapplies to municipal and nonmunicipaldischargers by requiring all dischargers tocomply with federal water qualitystandards.

10.17 RichardsWatson

8/26/04 The additional information collection requirements of the TMDL werenot contemplated nor are they consistent with the requirements of the

The Federal Paperwork Reduction appliesonly to federal agencies. The federal act


Gershon (Cityof Monrovia)

federal Paperwork Reduction Act. Accordingly, these requirementsmay be invalid for failure to comply with the Paperwork ReductionAct.

has no application to data collectionrequirements issued by the Regional Board.


8/26/04 CEQA requirements that the RWQCB review any significant potentialenvironmental impacts have not been fulfilled. Furthermore, the draftTMDL does not reflect any serious analysis of the individual factors setforth in Water Code § 13241, and specifically, the requirements that theRWQCB take into account economic consideration in establishingwater quality objectives.

See response to comment Nos. 2.23 and6.14 & 7.4. No water quality objective isbeing established by the TMDL. Instead, afederal water quality standard establishedby USEPA is being implemented through aTMDL that includes WLAs and LAs.Further, there have been extensivediscussion and consideration of economicsin establishing a lengthy timeline to complywith federal law.


8/26/04 The TMDL should focus on the implementation of BMPs rather thanestablishing inflexible numeric requirements.



8/26/04 The TMDL should focus on permittee action to address metals onlywhen the primary causes of violations are sources over whichindividual cities have actual jurisdiction and control.

Permittees are responsible for storm waterthat they discharge to the river. Forexample, although permittees may havelittle control over sources of indirect airdeposition of metals, once metals aredeposited on land under the jurisdiction ofa permittee, they are within a permittee’scontrol and responsibility. Please note thatpermittees will not be deemed out ofcompliance if WLAs are not achieved.Permittees must only demonstrate


compliance with their permit requirements.The revised staff report and BPA clarifythat permit requirements will likely be inthe form of BMPs.


8/26/04 The City of Monrovia has no particular desire to be continually forcedinto an adversarial position with respect to the RWQCB or its staff.However, it is absolutely necessary that any TMDL be adopted incompliance with proper administrative procedures, that full publicparticipation be allowed, and that the TMDL which is the result of thatprocess realistically reflects cities’ individual capabilities. Regrettably,the current TMDL does not achieve those objectives.

The TMDL shall be adopted in accordancewith applicable administrative procedures,with full public participation andconsideration of the capabilities of allpermittees.

11.1 City of Arcadia 8/26/04 The 45-day comment period offered for detailed regulation such as thistruly appears insufficient. Related, the first compliance point for theTMDL is 120 days from the effective date of the TMDL itself- thisrequirement is seen as unworkable.

See responses to comment Nos. 1.11 and6.a.

11.2 City of Arcadia 8/26/04 The inclusion of several metals in the TMDL for specific watersegments appears to be tenuous and unjust. Specific metals should beremoved (or be able to be easily removed) from monitoring/compliancerequirements if they do not show reproducible exceedances.


11.3 City of Arcadia 8/26/04 The suggestion that cities take the lead in the promulgation and passageof legislation regulating industries know to contribute significantly tothe deposition of metals is an unfair placement of ultimateresponsibility on the cities.


11.4 City of Arcadia 8/26/04 Exactly how compliance will be achieved is left to the individualpermittees. Although many strategies are recommended, there is no trueguidance on which BMPs would assist the local agencies on the road tocompliance. There is analysis of the cost of individual compliancemeasures, but no analysis of the ultimate cost to actually meet the

The Regional Board cannot prescribe themethod of achieving compliance with theTMDL. Staff is therefore unable to describethe nature of all potential actions which arenecessary to achieve compliance with the


proposed limits. Without this information, long-term budgets cannotbe developed in the best manner.

TMDL. The staff report takes into accounta reasonably foreseeable means ofcompliance and the costs associated withcompliance. Water board staff willcontinue to be available to provideinformation on BMPs and to share theresults of research from throughout thestate and country.

Additional discussions of costs and BMPsection can be found in response tocomment Nos. 6.14 and 7.4.

11.5 City of Arcadia 8/26/04 There is analysis of the cost of individual compliance measures, but noanalysis of the ultimate cost to actually meet the proposed limits.Without this information, long-term budgets cannot be developed in thebest manner. In addition, the compliance goals based upon drainageareas, rather than city-by-city, seem to be challenging and should berevisited. Under this scenario, a few permittees expending considerableresources could conceivably achieve compliance for others. This mayresult in some jurisdictions unfairly waiting for someone else to act.

The MS4 and Caltrans permittees arerequired to submit a joint finalimplementation plan 16 months after theeffective date of the TMDL that will outlinehow compliance will be achieved in thedrainage areas. Regional Board staff willoversee the development of theimplementation plan, which is subject toapproval by the Executive Officer. See alsoresponse to comment No. 6.11, 6.14, and7.4.

11.6 City of Arcadia 8/26/04 The concept of discharging storm drain flow to structural BMPs, suchas infiltration trenches, is seen as problematic because the City ofArcadia relies almost entirely on its own groundwater sources. Inaddition, the placement of any needed structural BMPs would requiregreat capital and dedicated space. Sub-regional efforts are best left to

The use of infiltration trenches is discussedin the staff report as one possible means ofcompliance and is not required by theTMDL. Cities may chose the best way tomeet allocations. The identification of


the coordination of cities on their own accord, as opposed to the forcedunions as mentioned previously.

jurisdictional groups for the purposes ofmonitoring and implementation isvoluntary.

11.7 City of Arcadia 8/26/04 There is concern for the “piecemeal” approach given to the issuanceand implementation of TMDLs on the whole. While it is understoodthat the TMDLs and their subsequent tight timelines are a result of theConsent Decree, it must be noted how difficult it is for cities to plan forchange, one piece at a time. A much more workable approach would beto coordinate all of the proposed requirements for all necessaryTMDLs, and forward these to the cities for thorough comment andsubsequent implementation.

Comment noted. Regional Board staffhave, where appropriate, attempted tosynchronize the implementation plans fordifferent TMDLs so effective, multi-pollutant approaches can be employed.

11.8 City of Arcadia 8/26/04 We strongly encourage the Regional Board to withdraw the adoption ofthe proposed Metals TMDL from the September 2nd Board Meeting,until it has addressed the many issues raised by the permittedcommunity. In addition, the City of Arcadia requests furtherexplanation by the Board in reference to exactly how the proposedMetals TMDL, and its available monitoring data, justify application toour city specifically-noting applicable reaches and/or tributaries aslisted in the TMDL.

This comment was addressed by continuingand re-noticing the TMDL. The City ofArcadia, which is located in the LosAngeles River watershed and which is as aco-permittee of the Los Angeles CountyMS4 permit, is subject to the requirementsof the proposed TMDL. The staff reportand BPA have been revised to clarify forwhich reaches TMDLs are assigned and forwhich reaches waste load allocations areassigned. Please also see response tocomment No. 10.2.

12.1 City ofParamount

8/26/04 On behalf of the Paramount City Council, I would like to request someinformation regarding the TMDL regulations on storm water regardingmetals. Paramount is a heavily Latino populated community and manyof our population do not speak English. As Mayor, I would like torequest a copy of these TMDL regulations in Spanish. This would

The Regional Board is sensitive to ensuringaffected individuals can understand actionsbeing taken by the Regional Board.However, the proposed TMDL does notregulate any specific populations. Instead,


allow me to better share this information with my constituents to solicittheir input.

the TMDL establishes a framework thatwill be carried out through other state andfederal permits, and in many respects willbe carried out by municipal entities. Ifmunicipalities subsequently rely on BMPsthat will impact specific communities, itmay be appropriate to have multilingualcommunity outreach.

13.1 City ofMonrovia

8/26/04 There are many sources of metals in the watershed that are beyond thecontrol of local municipalities. To simply recognize them and then passtheir regulation onto local municipalities through this TMDL is notreasonable, attainable or equitable, and comes at price beyond thefinancial capabilities of local government.

See response to comment No. 10.21. Inaddition, the TMDL establishes WLAs fora variety of discharges and LAs fornonpoint sources that contribute metalloading. It is anticipated that these willreduce metal loading through the MS4. Tothe extent sources outside the legalauthority of local municipalities arecontributing metals loading, the regionalboard will work with the affecteddischargers to develop an effective strategyto address the metals loading. If necessary,the Regional Board can and will take directenforcement action against other sources.


8/26/04 Within the staff report, there is a reference that “based on a review ofindustrial stormwater monitoring data, it appears that substantialreductions will be required at several industrial facilities to meet theapplicable CTR values. These reductions will translate to reductions inthe existing load to the MS4 system”. Given that this is a recognitionthat an inherent problem exist and its impacts to the overall MS4



system, it is unfair to expect local municipalities to absorb these loadsand then have to remedy them.


8/26/04 Question 8 on the CEQA checklist provides a response of “Maybe”concerning impacts to Land Use. Within the staff report, infiltrationtrenches are identified as a BMP to utilize. As these trenches requireland area to construct, this response should be Yes. If land is notavailable, existing development will be impacted if the State mandatestheir installation to achieve TMDL compliance.



8/26/04 Question 14 on the CEQA checklist does not consider funding of aTMDL and if effects of all public services. The answer here must beYes. Within the staff report, estimated costs for implementation andcompliance are cited in the millions-$500M (concerning constructionof infiltration trenches and sand filter). If municipalities are unable toraise funding (through storm drain utilities), then general funds will beimpacted.

See responses to comment Nos. 8.16, 8.17,and 8.18.


8/26/04 The staff reports states “The proposed TMDL will not degrade waterquality, and will in fact improve water quality as it is designed toachieve compliance with existing water quality standard”. However,within the report, infiltration is cited as BMP to be used to achievecompliance. There has always been a concern over infiltration BMPsand its affects on groundwater quality. Has the Board staff workedclosely with agencies such as “Water Master” regarding the potentialaffects the proposed BMPs will have on groundwater supplies? Sincesubstantial amounts of structural BMPs have been cited as potentiallybeing use, should they not be consulted?

If a discharger were to choose to installinfiltration trenches to comply with theTMDL, staff has recommended certainmitigation measures in the CEQA checklistand staff report, such as proper design,siting and monitoring and consultation withapplicable groundwater agencies. See alsoresponse to comment No. 2.23.


8/26/04 A review of Figure 2 (Sampling Stations) shows the closest samplingstation (Beverly far beyond the City limits. If sampling is outside theCity, how can this be assessed to Monrovia Canyon Creek?




8/26/04 Although many strategies are recommended, there is no true guidanceon which BMPs would assist the local agencies on the road tocompliance.



8/26/04 This section also recommends permitees sponsor legislative actions toreduce copper loadings. Are the municipalities now expected to “lead”the fight against the brake pad industry to address this problem. TheState and Federal agencies are the agencies that must proposelegislative action, with the support from local agencies.



8/26/04 The 120-day timeframe to submit a coordinated monitoring plan (thatincludes both compliance assessment and ambient monitoring) to theExecutive Officer is unrealistic.



8/26/04 Cost estimates only address specific costs for compliance methods andnot overall costs for complying with this TMDL. This must be fullyexamined.

The Regional Board is not required toconsider the costs of all potential means ofcomplying with the requirements of theTMDL. It is required to consider the costsof a reasonably foreseeable means ofcompliance, which it has done. See alsoresponse to comment Nos. 6.14, 6.16, and7.4.


8/26/04 Who will perform and fund special studies? Are these studies necessaryfor compliance or simply studies desired by the Regional Board?

Comments provided by County of Los Angeles and the ExecutiveAdvisory Committee of the Los Angeles River Watershed aresupported.

The special studies are voluntary studies,which may be conducted and/or funded bydischargers or other interested parties. TheRegional board may be able to providefunding for certain special studies.

Comments by the County of Los Angelesand EAC are addressed specifically.

13.12 City of 8/26/04 The adoption of the proposed TMDL should be postponed until the See response to comment No. 6.a.


Monrovia many issues raises by the permitted community have been addressed.14.1 City of South

Gate8/26/04 While we understand that the consent decree the Board is following has

tight deadlines, nonetheless the review and comment period should beextended for 90 days.


14.2 City of SouthGate

8/26/04 The CTR (California Toxic Rule) should not be used as the mostappropriate guideline in establishing TMDL limits on urban runoff.Also, naturally occurring background levels should be taken intoaccount.

See responses to comment Nos. 6.4 and1.40.


8/26/04 The inclusion of several metals in the TMDL for specific watersegments appears to be tenuous in several instances. Specific metalsshould be removed (or be able to easily be removed) frommonitoring/compliance requirements if they do not show reproducibleexceedances.



8/26/04 The use of a “translator” to account for any dissolving of metals fromparticulates is very confusing. If testing is for either the dissolved orsolid phase, the testing should be directly for that phase.

The CTR criteria are expressed in terms ofdissolved metals. However, NPDESpermits are required in most cases to havelimits stated as total recoverable metals (see40 CFR 122.45(c). The WLAs in theproposed TMDL are therefore expressed interms of total recoverable metals. Howthese WLAs are translated into permitrequirements will be determined by thepermit writer. It is likely that the MS4 andCaltrans storm water permittees willdemonstrate TMDL effectiveness bysampling for total recoverable metals toshow that WLAs are being met.



8/26/04 The proposed use of enhanced street sweeping or the use of diversion iseither unproven to be successful or far too costly. The TMDL shouldnot be issued until a clear method of achieving the goals is set forth.



8/26/04 It is very optimistic to expect a monitoring plan for metals to bedeveloped within 120 days. This should be extended for a minimum of9 months.

See response to comment Nos. 1.11.


8/26/04 The compliance goals based upon drainage areas seem to be inherentlyunworkable and should be revisited. Under this scenario, a fewpermittees expending considerable resources could conceivably achievecompliance for others. This will result in everyone waiting forsomeone else to act.



8/26/04 There is analysis of the cost of individual compliance measures, but noanalysis of the ultimate cost to actually meet the proposed limits.Without this information, long-term budget projects cannot bedeveloped.



8/26/04 If exceedances occur, it is not clear how dischargers within the samejurisdictional segment implementing differing degrees of controlmeasures will be differentiated. In other words, how will a cityimplementing one compliance strategy be differentiated from anothercity implementing an entirely different compliance strategy?

The TMDL is not self-executing. Thecompliance of and propriety of enforcementagainst individual jurisdictions will bedetermined by the permit terms establishedin MS4 permits.

15.1 City of TempleCity

8/26/04 The comment period should be extended for 90 days. See response to comment No. 6.a.


8/26/04 CTR may not be the most appropriate guideline in establishing TMDLlimits on urban runoff. Also limits should take naturally occurringbackground levels into account.


15.3 City of Temple 8/26/04 The inclusion of several metals in the TMDL for specific water See response to comment No. 2.3


City segments appears to be tenuous in several instances. Specific metalsshould be removed (or be able to easily be removed) frommonitoring/compliance requirements if they do not show reproducibleexceedances.


8/26/04 The use of conversion factors is not adequately detailed in the TMDL. See response to comment No. 14.4.


8/26/04 The lack of clear guidance of effective alternative methods will resultin an inefficient “try something, if it doesn’t work, try something else”approach.



8/26/04 It is very optimistic to expect a monitoring plan for metals to bedeveloped within 120 days. This should be extended for a minimum of9 months.



8/26/04 The compliance goals based upon drainage areas seem to be inherentlyunworkable and should be revisited. Under this scenario, a fewpermittees expending considerable resources could conceivably achievecompliance for others. This will result in everyone waiting forsomeone else to act.



8/26/04 There is analysis of the cost of individual compliance measures, but noanalysis of the ultimate cost to actually meet the proposed limits.Without this information, long-term budget projects cannot bedeveloped.



8/26/04 There is no provision for differentiating between dischargers within thesame jurisdictional segment implementing differing degrees of controlmeasures.


16.1 Rutan &Tucker (Cities)

8/26/04 The proposed TMDL is contrary to federal and state law and representsimpracticable and ambiguous regulatory requirements, developedwithout appropriate consideration of the economic, social, and

The proposed TMDL shall be adopted inaccordance with applicable federal andstate laws. The requirements are clear and


environmental impacts that may result, and without reliance uponscientifically valid data.

their implementation is detailed in theproposed BPA. The proposed TMDL isbased upon scientifically valid data and hasundergone peer review. The economic,social, and environmental impacts shall beconsidered as required by law and in orderto address the concerns of numerousstakeholders.


8/26/04 The CWA only permits California to develop a TMDL for a listedwater body, and TMDLs established for unlisted water bodies may beadopted for informational purposes only. (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(3).)


16.3,16.14,and16.26

Rutan &Tucker (Cities)

8/26/04 The proposed TMDL is contrary to law. The staff report provides noestimates of the amount of pollutants entering the Los Angeles River.No assimilative capacity study has been conducted. Insufficient“scientifically valid data” exists on the true sources of the pollutants inquestion. The TMDL appears to be based on limited data. Numerousassumptions are developed to address “occasional exceedances” ofCTR. Numeric objectives are not yet “suitable for calculation” and theTMDL has not been developed based on scientifically valid data. TheTMDL fails to include a defined “translator” necessary to allow for theconversion of a narrative water quality standards into a pollutantspecific numeric effluent limitation as required by 40 C.F.R. §122.44(d)(1)(vi). The TMDL is based on data which indicates that thereare only occasional exceedances of copper and lead during dry-weatherconditions, a single exceedance for cadmium in the Burbank WesternChannel during dry weather and occasional exceedances of CTRcriteria from storm water for copper, lead, and to a lesser extent forzinc and cadmium.

The proposed BPA and staff report analyzethe amount of pollutants entering thewatershed (see for example the SourceAssessment, Linkage Analysis andPollutant Allocation sections of the staffreport.) An assimilative capacity study wasconducted. The assimilative capacity isequal to the hardness-adjusted, reach-specific, CTR-based numeric target times acritical flow for dry weather and a range offlows for wet weather. Sufficient data wasused, and where data was limited,assumptions were clearly stated.Translators were used to convert fromdissolved CTR objectives to totalrecoverable metals numeric targets.


The commenter appears to conflatenarrative and numeric water qualitystandards in discussing translators. Herethe specific water quality standards thatmust be implemented pursuant to section303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act are thenumeric water quality standards establishedin the CTR.

The data review section showed significantexceedances of copper and lead during dryand wet weather. The staff report and BPAhave been revised to state that the datareview could only confirm wet-weatherimpairments for cadmium and zinc inReach 1 and a dry-weather impairment forzinc in Rio Hondo Reach 1.


8/26/04 Contrary to federal law, the TMDL provides no load allocation orimplementation measures for non-point sources.



8/26/04 EPA’s national policy is that all TMDLs are expected to providereasonable assurances that they can and will be implemented in amanner that results in attainment of water quality standards and thewaste load allocations are to be technically feasible. The state is toevaluate how waste load allocations will be translated into NPDESpermit limits as part of the implementation plan.

See response to comment No. 1.3. Section303(d)(1)(C) and USEPA policy require asan absolute minimum that the TMDL andits load allocations meet standards. ThereEPA guidance acknowledges flexibility inconsidering different allocation schemes toachieve the TMDL, and technical feasibilityamong different sources may be taken intoaccount in choosing among different


allocation schemes. Here the TMDL andWLAs are set at the level necessary to meetthe applicable water quality standards, andby incorporating an implicit margin ofsafety the TMDL provides a reasonableassurance that the water quality standardswill be met. Regional Board staff are notaware of any “technical feasibility”considerations that would result in adifferent allocation scheme that wouldnonetheless meet water quality standards.


8/26/04 EPA recommends that the consideration of potential non-point sourcemeasures and approaches and the effectiveness of availablemanagement practices will assist in the evaluating the practicability ofload allocations.

Comment noted.


8/26/04 According to the November 22, 2003 EPA guidance memo, waterquality based effluent limits for NPDES-regulated municipal stormwater discharges should be in the form of BMPs and the TMDL reflectthis. The proposed TMDL sets numeric water quality targets based onCTR objectives. According to EPA, with respect to CTR, end-of-pipetreatment costs for storm water are inappropriate. The proposed TMDLis contrary to law as it in issue is a set of water quality based effluentlimits to be imposed through municipal NPDES permits for occasionalexceedances of CTR criteria.

See response to comment Nos. 1.3 and 6.4.The comment distorts the plain language ofthe EPA guidance memorandum. Thememorandum, by its own terms is not aregulation and is not applicable to states, soeven if the commenter correctly construedthe memorandum, it would not provide abasis for deeming the TMDL “contrary tolaw.” However, the regional board hasconsidered the memorandum inestablishing this TMDL. Thememorandum explicitly states that WLAsshould be expressed numerically. The


memorandum continues by noting EPA’sexpectation is that the TMDL will includelanguage allowing WLAs to be convertedinto non-numeric BMPs in individualpermits. The TMDL specifically allowsthis for municipal storm water dischargers.Contrary to the commenters assertion, theTMDL is not a set of “water quality-basedeffluent limitation.” The commenter isconflating WLAs in a TMDL, with a morespecific “water quality-based effluentlimitation,” which is derived in a permit.EPA recognizes in their regulations that aWLA is a “type” of water quality-basedeffluent limitation, but that they clearlyhave different applications. WLAs are aplanning concept. WQBELs are apermitting concept. The November 22guidance memorandum from USEPAacknowledges this distinction.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL violates CWC section 13241 and CEQA becauseeconomic factors were not considered.

See response to comment Nos. 6.14, 6.16,and 7.4.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL violates CWC sections 13165, 13225(c) and13267 because a cost benefit analysis was not performed.

See response to comment No. 1.16. WaterCode section 13165 is not applicable to thisTMDL. Not only does the TMDL not relyupon Water Code section 13165, but itcould not. The TMDL is being established


by the Regional Board. Water Codesection 13165, does not apply to theRegional Board; it only applies to the StateBoard. Further, the proposed BPA does notspecify a technical monitoring program orreport to be provided by local agencies.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL violates CEQA because not all potentiallysignificant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measureshave been considered.

See response to comment No. 2.23, andresponses to specific CEQA commentsthroughout this document.


8/26/04 The Metals TMDL is improperly based on CTR as the CTR and SIP arenot to be applied to storm water discharges. In response to commentson CTR, EPA stated that it is premature to project that storm waterdischarges would be subject to strict numeric water quality basedeffluent limits and that the applicability of water quality standards isoutside the scope of the rule.

See response to comment No. 6.4. EPA’scomment is taken out of context. Inestablishing the CTR, the EPA wascarrying out its obligation to establishnumeric water quality criteria for prioritypollutants. Those numeric criteria are nowa component of California’s water qualitystandards, and they are the applicable waterquality standards that must be implementedunder section 303(d)(1)(C) of the CleanWater Act.

The reference to EPA’s rulemaking for theCTR simply states that EPA was notdeciding how storm water dischargers mustmeet water quality standards—that wasbeyond the scope of the rulemaking.EPA’s comment does not mean the subjectwater quality standards are not water


quality standards applicable to storm waterdischarges. Clearly under section 303(c)and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, theCTR is the applicable water qualitystandard.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL fails to include in the implementation planmaximum extent practicable BMPs as required by 1342(p)(3)(B) of theCWA. The TMDL Document includes no discussion of the MEPstandard and there is no consideration of the practicability of complyingwith the end-of-pipe treatment approaches set forth in theimplementation portion of the TMDL.


16.13,16.16,and16.17


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL is inconsistent with requirements under CWCsections 13241 and 13000 to only impose “reasonable”. There is nodiscussion in the TMDL Document or BPA of obtaining the highestwater quality which is reasonable, considering all of the demands beingmade on those waters, and the total values involved, beneficial anddetrimental, economic and social, tangible and intangible. Moreover,federal law required an economic analysis for both point and non-pointsources when TMDLs are adopted (40 CFR 130.6(c).).

See response to comment Nos. 6.14 &17.10.

Regional Board staff believe it is not onlyreasonable, but necessary to carry out theexpress requirements of Congress toestablish TMDLs at a level that implementexisting water quality standards (33 U.S.C.1313(d)(1)(C)) and to carry out nationalpolicy to prohibit the discharge of toxicpollutants in toxic amounts (33 U.S.C.1251(a)(1)(3).) While no cost-benefitanalysis is required, economic studiesdemonstrate that that are a variety of meansto achieve water quality standards, but tothe extent there are significant costsassociated with achieving water quality


standards, those costs are outweighed bythe relative benefits to be gained. To theextent there is any objective reasonablenessrequirement in Water Code section 13000,the TMDL is reasonable. However, it isimportant to recall that this generalstatement, which appears amongst loftgoals such as “waters of the state shall beprotected for use and enjoyment by thepeople of the state,” must give way tospecific requirements. In this case, thespecific requirement is spelled out insuperior federal law, which requires that theTMDL implement the federal CTR.Moreover, the citation to 40 CFR 130.6(c),is misleading. Subdivision (c) of section130.6 does not place any requirements onthe development of TMDLs. In fact, theonly portion of that subdivision relevant toTMDLs is that they be incorporated intowater quality management plans (40 CFR130.6(c)(1)). The other provisions that thecommenter is presumably relying upon aresubsections applicable to areawide wastetreatment plans; however, those section 208plans are the responsibility of the SouthernCalifornia Association of Governments.

16.15 Rutan & 8/26/04 The Metals TMDL in question is contrary to law as a cost/benefit See response to comment No. 1.16 and


Tucker (Cities) analysis has not been conducted and as the other requirements ofsections 13267, 13225, and 13165 have not been met.

16.9. Further, when the regional boardsubsequently issues monitoring orders, itwill only need to consider whether there isa reasonable relation between the burdensof providing the technical reports andmonitoring programs and the benefits to begained from the information. In otherwords, these sections have no application toanything other than monitoring


8/26/04 The requirements of CEQA have not been met as discussed in thefollowing specific comments.

See responses to specific comments.


8/26/04 The Board has segmented the project in violation of CEQA. The Boardhas done this by adopting individual TMDLs as separate projects forthe Los Angeles River. The Board should evaluate the environmentalimpacts of developing all the TMDLs for the river at once.



8/26/04 The substitute documents fail to identify and evaluate individualimpacts of the project. The Board has failed to apply the “fairargument” standard to potential environmental impacts, to analyze theimpacts of potential compliance methods, or to take into accountspecific sites. The checklist ignores impacts to many categories. Whereimpacts are identified, the checklist neglects to propose adequatemitigation measures or improperly defers evaluation of impacts to someundetermined future time.



8/26/04 The substitute documents fail to identify and evaluate cumulativeimpacts and growth-inducing impacts of the project.



8/26/04 There is no assessment of alternatives, including a no projectalternative, in the substitute documents. The substitute documentsshould have evaluated the Aerial Deposition approach as set forth in



Exhibit “20”.16.23 Rutan &

Tucker (Cities)8/26/04 The substitute documents contain no mitigation measures to lessen any

of the significant impacts of the Project, and has improperly deferredmitigation analysis to an undetermined future time.



8/26/04 The TMDL is contrary to law as it improperly applies to water bodiesnot listed as being impaired in accordance with the CWA.



8/26/04 The metals TMDL is contrary to law as it was not developed based onthe uses to be made of the identified water bodies as required by theCWA. The proposed TMDL is improperly being developed to addressthe impairment of “potential” beneficial uses. In addition, as the TMDLis a numeric water quality objective, as found by the Superior Court inthe Trash TMDL litigation, the requirements and factors under WaterCode Section 13241 apply.

See responses to comment Nos. 2.20 and6.14. Like the Burbank commenter, thecommenter is taking a provision of section303(d)(1)(A) regarding the “priority” forvarious TMDLs, which allowsprioritization based on “the uses to bemade,” and adding that requirement toanother subsection of the Clean Water Act.Section 303(d)(1)(C) specifically requiresthe TMDL to implement the applicablewater quality standard. Here the applicablenumeric standard was established byUSEPA in the CTR. This TMDL “shall”be established at a level to implement thestandard. “Uses to be made” is not aconcept in the congressional requirementsfor TMDLs

Any reliance on the Trash TMDL ismisplaced. First, as the commenter knowsthat decision is under appeal. Second, thefacts are substantially different. Here the


TMDL is implementing specific numericcriteria established by USEPA. TheRegional Board is not and could not beconstrued as “establishing” a water qualityobjective under Water Code section 13241.


8/26/04 The TMDL is improper as local agencies have not been fully consultedand there has been a lack of intergovernmental coordination as requiredby law (under 40 C.F.R. 130.4 and CWC sections 13240 and 13144.The record is devoid of substantial evidence showing sincereconsultation with local agencies in the development of the TMDL. TheCities request an additional 90 days to further analyze the full impactsand implications of the proposed TMDL and to further work with theRegional and State Boards.

Numerous municipal stakeholdersparticipated in the process leading to thedevelopment of this TMDL. Local andstate agencies have been consulted atnumerous steps. The Regional Board is notbound by Water Code section 13144, but ittakes its outreach efforts to local agenciesseriously. These efforts have satisfied therequirements of section 13240 of the WaterCode. These consultations have resulted inlengthy compliance schedules formunicipal dischargers, and significantadjustments to the TMDL.

See also response to comment No. 6.a.16.28and16.29


8/26/04 The TMDL was not developed in accordance with the APA and iscontrary to law. The metals TMDL lacks clarity as it is not easilyunderstandable, it does not specify compliance methods, and itrecommends the IRP approach, when the IRP does not apply to metals.The proposed regulation fails the necessity standard as the requirementsare not necessary under existing statutory law and are not necessary toachieve the goals of the TMDL project. The TMDL is being issuedwithout authority as the TMDL covers unlisted water bodies and

The proposed BPA and staff report havebeen revised to provide clarity. TheRegional Board cannot prescribe themethod of achieving compliance with theTMDL. Staff is therefore unable to describethe nature of all potential actions which arenecessary to achieve compliance with theTMDL. The staff report states that the


requires the cities to address atmospheric deposition. The proposedregulation fails the reference requirement as there is no statutoryauthority to compel TMDLs to be adopted as Basin Plan Amendments.

Regional Board supports an integratedresources approach in concept but does notrequire the implementation of such anapproach. The proposed TMDLs andupstream WLAs, are necessary to protectbeneficial uses and to achieve water qualityobjectives set to protect these uses. Thestaff report and BPA have been revised toclarify for which reaches TMDLs aredeveloped and for which reaches wasteload allocations are developed to meetdownstream TMDLs. Indirect airdeposition on the urbanized portion of thewatershed is accounted for in the wasteload allocations for the storm waterpermittees. Once metals are deposited onland, they are within a permittee’s controland responsibility. Permittees areresponsible for the storm water theydischarge to the river. See also response tocomment No. 10.21.

For purposes of state law, the authority andreference for the TMDL is expresslyspelled out in the draft resolution. TheTMDL is a program of implementation foran existing water quality objective and isnecessary under Water Code section 13242.


Moreover, as detailed at length in theTMDL document, Basin Plan amendment,and response to comments, the TMDL isnecessary to comply with section303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act. Theneed and reference for it to be a Basin Planamendment is provided not only by WaterCode section 13242, but also by 40 CFR130.6(c)(1) (requiring incorporation intothe state’s water quality management plan,of which the Basin Plan is the only portionwithin the responsibility of the Los AngelesRegional Board).


8/26/04 The TMDL is contrary to law as it fails to develop an implementationplan for non-point sources and fails to include non-point source controltrade offs. The TMDL improperly reallocates the load allocation for allnon-point sources onto the Cities, County, and Caltrans, forcing theseentities alone to address such non-point sources of metals asatmospheric deposition and unregulated stormwater discharges fromthe Los Angeles National Forest. Because the unregulated storm waterwhich flows from 44.6% of the watershed is not included as part of themetals TMDL, these non-point source areas of the watershed willbecome largely the responsibility of the municipalities. No justificationis provided for the contention that the National or State parks areunlikely to contribute significantly to the overall pollutant load,whether by atmospheric deposition to these areas or otherwise. Byfailing to include a load allocation for atmospheric deposition, theTMDL fails to coordinate with the appropriate authorities and to

See response to comment Nos. 1.40, 10.2113.1, and 19.9.

Concentration-based waste load allocationshave been assigned to all permitteddischarges in the watershed, includinguniversities, school districts, state facilities,federal facilities, and other similarinstitutions.


include any air quality implementation strategies. The TMDL fails toassign load allocations to universities, school districts, State facilities,federal facilities, and other similar institutions, nor has any waste loadallocation been assigned to these facilities.


8/26/04 The Cities and the Public have been denied a fair hearing and dueprocess of law. The lack of available time, in light of the complexity ofthe TMDL Document and the Proposed BPA has deprived the Cities ofa fair opportunity to evaluate this regulation and to provide meaningfulcomments to the Board. The Cities request a 90-day continuance.


17.1 Western StatesPetroleumAssociation

8/26/04 The proposed TMDL improperly, arbitrarily, and unreasonably imposesconcentration-based allocations at the CTR levels for storm waterdischarges without any translation mechanism suggesting that they willbe implemented as never-to-be-exceeded end of pipe limits.



8/26/04 The proposed TMDL improperly, arbitrarily, and unreasonably fails toconsider that the reduction of some metals requires actions beyond thedischargers control.



8/26/04 Smaller storm water dischargers are improperly, arbitrarily andunreasonably treated more stringently than the larger dischargerswithout commensurate environmental benefit.

All permitted dischargers must be assigneda waste load allocation under a TMDL. (40CFR 130.2(i)). With respect to benefits tobe gained, the TMDL staff reportdemonstrates the significant impairmentand metals loading. Achieving waste loadallocations will benefit the environment bymeeting CTR objectives in order to restoreaquatic life beneficial uses. Previously,general storm water permittees wereassigned concentration-based waste loadallocations. The larger dischargers were


assigned both concentration- and mass-based allocations. In order to better allocateloading among sources, the staff report andBPA have been revised to assign mass-based waste load allocations to all stormwater permittees, including the smallergeneral permittees. The allocations aredivided among the permittees based ontheir percent area of the watershed. Generalconstruction and industrial storm waterpermittees have been given a 10-yearcompliance schedule to achieve wet-weather allocations and interim waste loadallocations based on EPA benchmarks.


8/26/04 Natural sources were not properly considered. See response to comment No. 1.40.


8/26/04 Waste load allocations are being improperly imposed on non-listedreaches.



8/26/04 Economic impacts were not properly considered. See responses to comment Nos. 1.16, 6.14,6.16, and 13.10.

17.7and17.9

Western StatesPetroleumAssociation

8/26/04 The technical analysis and models fail to support the Regional Board’sdecision making.

The technical analysis is scientificallysound and supports the TMDL. Allassumptions are clearly stated in the staffreport. The staff report acknowledges thelimitations of the models and allows for


updates and revisions based on the resultsof special studies. The staff report has beenrevised to clearly state the purpose of themodeling analysis. Further, the TMDL’sscientific portions have been subjected toexternal scientific peer review inconformance with Health and Safety Codesection 57004.


8/26/04 The Regional Board did not follow the proper process for establishingTMDLs. The proper process is to scientifically determine a TMDL“number” and then develop discharge criteria by which individualdischargers can help meet that goal. CTR allocations were assignedrather than scientifically determining the pollutant contribution from allthe sources and equitably assigning allocations.

The staff report and BPA have been revisedto assign allocations to all point andnonpoint sources in the watershed.However, the total loading capacity of theriver is still based on CTR-based numerictargets. Because the Los Angeles River isimpaired due to exceedances of CTRobjectives, there is no excess assimilativecapacity to provide dilution during criticalconditions. The loading cacpity is thereforeequal to the critical flow times the CTR-based numeric target. Each source isassigned a portion of the total loadingcapacity.


8/26/04 The TMDL does not meet the underlying requirement of“Reasonableness”. The State Board and Regional Boards are statutorilymandated to regulate water quality in a reasonable manner which takesinto account all demands on those waters as well as the total valuesinvolved including economic factors. (CWC sections 13160, 13225,13000, and 13001.)

Regional Board staff disagree that therequirements are not reasonable. It isexpress national policy that the dischargesof toxic pollutants in toxic amounts beprohibited. (33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(3).) Inlight of Congressional policy, it would be


unreasonable to allow the prohibition tocontinue to be disregarded. Further, theproposed TMDL allows some latitude forBMPs and includes a lengthyimplementation period to achieve theCongressional policy. These are reasonableactions.

The commentor’s citation to Water Codesection 13160 is inappropriate because theportion of section 13160 the commenterrelies upon applies only to water qualitycertifications—not to NPDES permits orTMDLs. Likewise, Water Code section13225 is not a basis for the TMDL. To theextent there is any subsequent monitoringrequired of a discharger, it would bepursuant to Water Code sections 13267 and13383 —which apply to all dischargers.Finally, Water Code sections 13000 and13001 establish broad policies for the state.Implementing the Federal Clean Water Actis consistent with that policy and required.The TMDL is reasonable.


8/26/04 It is inappropriate to directly apply CTR numeric standards as never-to-be-exceeded end-of-pipe limitations, especially without considerationof dilution in the receiving water, as this was never contemplated whenCTR was adopted. Without clear guidance that specifies iterative BMPs

See response to comment No. 6.4. Alsorecall that the TMDLs WLAs weredeveloped after extensive modeling todetermine the relationship between in-


as the translation of CTR allocations, CTR numeric values are likely tobe the default permit conditions.

stream loads and numeric targets.


8/26/04 The TMDL unfairly holds permittees responsible for sources that areout of their control and does not consider background and ambient airdeposits of metals. The commentor cited Communities for a BetterEnv’t v. State Water Resources Control Bd as precedent that WSPAmember companies’ storm water may serve as a “conveyance of metalsfrom other sources.”



8/26/04 Smaller storm water dischargers are treated disproportionately to largerdischargers and natural sources. The largest storm water dischargers areprovided more flexibility than smaller dischargers. The TMDLindicates that the criteria will not be enforced against large dischargersfor storms greater than 10-year storms, and they will be allowed aphased compliance plan. Smaller dischargers will have waste loadallocations incorporated into their permits immediately upon renewal oftheir NPDES permits. Natural sources are not adequately addressed as asource, including aerial deposition of metals on natural areas andmetals concentrations in natural soils.



8/26/04 The TMDL specifies waste load allocations for metals that are not onthe 303(d) list. Many of the impaired water listings are unsupported orcontradicted by available data. Imposing waste load allocations for non-impaired waters or unproblematic constituents is arbitrary, capricious,unsupported by evidence, contrary to law, and unreasonable.

See responses to comment No. 1.1 and 2.3.


8/26/04 The economic analysis is incomplete under CEQA. It does not take intoaccount the “reasonable range” of economic consequences of thereasonable foreseeable methods of compliance. The estimated costs failto include the real costs of land required to implement structural BMPs.A rough estimate provides land acquisition costs equal to

See response to comment Nos.6.16 and 7.4.


approximately $3 billion. (See LA County comment No. 6.16.) There isno discussion of more stringent and costly treatment such as reverseosmosis. There is no analysis of the impact on the local economythrough costs incurred by industrial and construction dischargers. Muchof the analysis has no application to affected stakeholders such asWSPA member companies.


8/26/04 There are numerous deficiencies in the technical analyses used tojustify the TMDLs. The models used have various flaws of lackrequisite information needed to derive the conclusions. Included incomments is a technical review completed by Flow Science, Inc, whichprovides proof that the TMDLs are arbitrary and capricious,unsupported by evidence, contrary to law, and unreasonable.

See response to Flow Science comments(Nos. 6.29 to 6.40.)

18.1 SouthernCalifornia GasCompany

8/26/04 Putting waste load allocations on each construction site and eachindustrial permittee is not necessary to meet water quality objectivesand places an unnecessary economic burden on the permittee. 40 CFR130.2(h) does not require that every individual point source have aportion of the allocation. It is only necessary to allocate the loadingcapacity among individual point sources. A facility or site should beallowed to show that their storm water is not impairing the waterquality or that BMPs are effective.



8/26/04 The cost analysis does not discuss the increased costs to NPDESpermittees for additional monitoring and reporting.

See responses to comment Nos. 1.16 and13.10. Those costs are not part of thisTMDL, and will be developed in furtherregional board actions. Further, to theextent monitoring is required in an NPDESpermit to assure compliance with a TMDLor with any other NPDES permitrequirements, those requirements are


established pursuant to Water Code section13383 and 13383.5—neither of which issubject to the restrictions of Water Codesection 13267.


8/26/04 The applicability of CTR to storm water is not discussed and needs tobe addressed before the adoption of this TMDL.

See responses to comment No. 6.4.


8/26/04 The occasional and episodic impairments may be due to metalautomotive components (brake linings, tire manufacture, leak freeautomotive fittings, etc.) and due to atmospheric deposition. Theseneed to be fully addressed and we should not shift the responsibility ofthese sources to MS4 and NPDES permits.


19.1,19.5,19.6,and19.8

West CoastEnvironmental& Engineering

8/26/04 The concentration-based load allocations for industrial and constructionstorm water dischargers will not be achievable because there is nopractical technology that will consistently achieve CTR levels. TheTMDL should be revised to ensure that BMPs are explicitly recognizedas the appropriate method to meet allocations and to include acompliance schedule. The TMDL process should be an iterativeprocess that adjusts allocations as more is known about the waterquality, pollutant loads and sources and effectiveness of controls.

Concentration-based load allocations are nolonger assigned to general industrial andconstruction storm water dischargers. Inorder to better allocate loading amongsources, the staff report and BPA have beenrevised to assign mass-based waste loadallocations to all storm water permittees,including the smaller general permittees.The allocations are divided among thepermittees based on their percent area ofthe watershed. General construction andindustrial storm water permittees have beengiven a 10-year compliance schedule toachieve wet-weather allocations andinterim waste load allocations based on


EPA benchmarks. The BPA and staff reporthave been revised to reflect the expectationthat permit writers will translate waste loadallocations into permit limits in the form ofBMPs. Permit writers must provideadequate justification and documentation todemonstrate that specified BMPs areexpected to result in attainment of thewaste load allocations.

19.2 West CoastEnvironmental& Engineering

8/26/04 Industrial and storm water dischargers should not be required toaddress pollutants outside of their control. The proposed TMDL doesnot address background concentrations of pollutants.



8/26/04 Significant costs are imposed on small industrial and constructionstorm water discharges that will not result in significant water qualityimprovements. Loadings from open space and national forest areas(45% of the watershed by area) are not considered.



8/26/04 The modeling was deficient and the load allocations were notappropriately assessed.



8/26/04 The TMDL should address background sources and provide fordiminimus sources.



8/26/04 Trading and offsets should be allowed to allow alternative cost-effective controls.

A TMDL does provide a framework toestablish a meaningful trading and offsetprogram. Any trading program would needto meet state and federal environmentaljustice requirements. While the currentimplementation does not expressly permit a


trading and offset program, the RegionalBoard may consider proposals put forwardby the discharger community or any otherinterested person.

20.1 GlendaleGalleria

8/26/04 The TMDL will impose significant costs on small and insignificantstormwater dischargers that will not lead to water qualityimprovements.



8/26/04 There are no allocations for open space and national forests, whichcomprise 45% of the watershed by area (industrial and constructionsources are only 10% of the watershed by area).



8/26/04 The concentration-based allocations cannot be met by storm waterdischargers.



8/26/04 All sources and dischargers need to be addressed fairly, withallocations made based on amount of a source’s discharge.



8/26/04 The TMDL should be revised to ensure that BMPs are explicitlyrecognized as the appropriate method to meet allocations and to includea compliance schedule.


21.1 CaliforniaSmall BusinessAlliance

8/26/04 The concentration-based load allocations for industrial and constructionstormwater dischargers will not be achievable because there is nopractical technology that will consistently achieve CTR levels.



8/26/04 The TMDL requires industrial and stormwater dischargers to addresspollutants outside of their control, i.e. background concentrations.



8/26/04 The TMDL places companies involved in construction and industry atsignificant economic disadvantage to those companies in the rest ofCalifornia.

The CTR applies to all inland surfacewaters in California. Further, for non-municipal storm water dischargers, federalcourts have already recognized (see


Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner) that theClean Water Act already requires strictcompliance with quality standards. As aresult, the impacts of the TMDL should beno more onerous than the remainder of thestate. What is different about this TMDL isthat because of the unprecedented waterquality impairments in this region, theregional board was required to movequickly to address these impairments.Construction and industry should alsorecognize that in Southern California weuniquely benefit from our coastalenvironment, which relies on waters thatare not toxic.


8/26/04 TMDL modeling was deficient and the load allocations were notappropriately assessed.



8/26/04 The TMDL process should be an iterative process that adjustsallocations as more is known about the water quality, pollutant loadsand sources and effectiveness of controls.



8/26/04 The TMDL should state that BMPs are the control approach forcompliance with all stormwater waste load allocations.





21.8 California 8/26/04 An adequate compliance timeframe should be assessed and See response to comment No. 19.1.


Small BusinessAlliance

incorporated into permit development.




22.1 CA AutoDismantlers &RecyclersAlliance

8/26/04 The proposed TDML will impose significant costs on small and minorstorm water dischargers and it will not result in meaningful waterquality improvement.



8/26/04 The TMDL assigns concentration-based allocations that will beimpossible for industrial and construction dischargers to meet.



8/26/04 The TMDL should be amended to ensure that BMPs are the methodused to meet the TMDL allocations.


23.1 State of CAAutoDismantlersAssociation






23.3 State of CAAuto

8/26/04 Small and insignificant industrial and construction dischargers arebeing required to compensate for loadings from open space and



DismantlersAssociation

national forest (45% of the watershed by area).














8/26/04 An adequate compliance timeframe should be assessed andincorporated into permit development.





24.1 Metal 8/26/04 The TMDL will impose significant costs on small storm water See response to comment No. 17.3.


Surfaces, Inc. dischargers that will not lead to water quality improvements.24.2 Metal

Surfaces, Inc.8/26/04 Small and insignificant industrial and construction dischargers are

being required to compensate for loadings from open space andnational forest (45% of the watershed by area).


24.3 MetalSurfaces, Inc.

8/26/04 The concentration-based load allocations for industrial and constructionstormwater dischargers will not be achievable.



8/26/04 All sources and dischargers need to be addressed fairly, i.e. allocationsmade based on amount of discharge.





25.1 MetalFinishingAssociation ofSouthern CA







8/26/04 Small and insignificant industrial and construction dischargers arebeing required to compensate for loadings from open space andnational forest (45% of the watershed by area).



8/26/04 The TMDL places companies involved in construction and industry atsignificant economic disadvantage to those companies in the rest ofCalifornia.


25.5 Metal 8/26/04 The modeling was deficient and the load allocations were not See response to comment No. 17.7.


FinishingAssociation ofSouthern CA

appropriately assessed.

















8/26/04 MFASC’s group monitoring program has performed extremely wellover the past 12 years.

Comment Noted.


26.1 Foss PlatingCompany




8/26/04 The TMDL requires industrial and stormwater dischargers to addresspollutants outside of their control.



8/26/04 The TMDL will impose significant costs on small and insignificantstormwater dischargers that will not lead to water qualityimprovements.

















27.1 CICWQ 8/26/04 The proposed BPA inappropriately applies CTR to storm waterdischarges. CTR criteria were not intended to apply to storm waterdischarges, especially those not typically subject to numeric effluentlimits, such as construction sites. Compliance should be based onBMPs.


27.2 ConstructionIndustryCoalition onWater Quality

8/26/04 Numeric effluent limits are infeasible for construction storm waterrunoff. The proposed BPA provides no evidence that construction sitesare a significant source of pollutants, resulting in waste load allocationsfor construction runoff that are arbitrary and capricious. The fact sheet

See response to comment No. 6.10. Whilethe CTR standards are expressed in termsof dissolved metals, the TMDL targets areexpressed in terms of total recoverable to


for 99-08-DQW states that there is little evidence of pollutants presentin storm water discharges from construction sites other than sediment,TSS and turbidity. EPA has also concluded that construction sites arenot thought to be important sources of metal contamination. We areunaware that the Regional Board undertook any analysis thatdemonstrated a reasonable potential for construction site pollutants tocause or contribute to an excursion of water quality standards formetals. Nearly all metals that are associated with construction sitedischarges are generally tightly bound to suspended sediment, while thebiologically toxic effects of heavy metal contamination have beenassociated with the dissolved fraction. Existing erosion controlpractices are required to reduce or prevent suspended sediment anderosion particles from reaching downstream waters.

address the potential for transformationbetween the total recoverable and thedissolved metals fraction.


8/26/04 The Regional Board has failed to adequately comply with sections13241 and 13242 of the California Water Code.



8/26/04 The proposed BPA violates CEQA on two grounds: 1)The initialstudy/checklist prepared by the Regional Board is deficient andinadequately identifies potential significant impacts of the ProposedAmendment: and 2) the Regional Board failed to prepare and adopt thefunctional equivalent of and Environmental Impact Report or at aminimum a mitigated negative declaration despite the fact that theproject will have significant environmental impacts.



8/26/04 The proposed Amendment specifies metals waste load allocations forreaches that are not on the 303(d) list.




8/26/04 In some cases the TMDL develops allocations for reaches listed asimpaired even through available data is inadequate to support theunderlying listing. This is inconsistent with the NRC’srecommendations to Congress, stating listings should be evaluated forappropriateness and consistency prior to TMDL development.


28.1 BuildingIndustryAssociation ofSan Diego etal.

8/26/04 The TMDL inappropriately applies CTR water quality objectives tostormwater-EPA never intended for CTR criteria to be applied throughpermit limits to storm water discharges, and the state SIP for CTRclearly states that the SIP does not apply to stormwater. Furthermore,neither the state and federal apply CTR limits in their generalstormwater permits.



8/26/04 The CEQA economic analysis fails to take into account land costs forpublic dischargers to implement BMPs, essentially ignores compliancecosts for POTWs and private dischargers and does not evaluate theimpacts on the local economy.



8/26/04 The TMDL fails to provide a reasonable assurance that itsimplementation will result in significant improvements in waterquality, or in attainment of water quality standards.

The TMDL is specifically designed toachieve water quality standards. Technicalaspects of the TMDL document that themetals loading that occur in wet and dryweather and the reductions necessary toachieve federal water quality standards.Because the TMDL is reduction based (i.e.,it focuses on reducing the metals loading),it by definition provides a framework forattaining water quality standards. Theimplementation period has been structuredto provide sufficient time for these


activities to occur. While the staffanticipate that BMPs may be sufficient toachieve water quality standards for manydischargers, the implementation periodprovides time for treatment technologies tobe used, if subsequently found to benecessary.


8/26/04 There are deficiencies in both dry and wet weather modeling. Althoughthe models used were scientifically valid, their utility is severelyhampered by a lack of data and by inadequate calibration andvalidation. It seems that the modeling was not even used to developallocations.



8/26/04 The modeling did not consistently or accurately reproduce thehydrologic behavior of the watershed, such that the modeling cannot beused to determine the impacts of the TMDL or of the implementationmeasures proposed. There are also inconsistencies between the mass-and concentration–based waste load allocations, such that water qualitystandards may not be attained through their implementation.



8/26/04 Allocations should not be assigned for storm water discharges. Rather,reliance on a BMP-based approach would be most appropriate for thesehighly variable, intermittent, and complex wet weather flows.



8/26/04 The TMDL improperly holds dischargers accountable for sourcesbeyond their control or influence such as aerial deposition andbackground levels.




8/26/04 The TMDL fails to address how the concentration-based allocationswill be implemented in NDPES permits-it is difficult to envision amethod that does not impose the concentration-base allocations asnumeric limits in NPDES permits.



8/26/04 Industrial storm water dischargers likely cannot consistently meet theproposed concentration-based load allocations given the substantialvariability of storm water volume and pollutant loading.



8/26/04 No de-listing was done for reaches where the data do not supportlisting.



8/26/04 Allocations were inappropriately developed for reaches that are notlisted.



8/26/04 The TMDLs were developed with limited stakeholder involvementfrom the discharger community, counter to SWRCB draft guidance forTMDL development.

See responses to comment Nos. 6.a. and10.22.

28.13 BuildingIndustryAssociation of

8/26/04 The TMDL does not propose a watershed improvement action plan thattreats dischargers equitably-rather, small and large dischargers shouldreceive similar compliance schedules, BMPs should be specified as the

The implementation section of theproposed BPA and staff report have beenrevised to clarify how waste load


San Diego etal.

appropriate control mechanism for storm water dischargers, andmonitoring and compliance requirements should be established. Mostimportantly, TMDL goals for dischargers should be established onlywhen there exists a sufficient and defensible scientific and technicalbasis.

allocations will be translated into NPDESpermits. The revised BPA and staff reportreflect the expectation that storm waterpermit writers will translate waste loadallocations into permit limits in the form ofBMPs. Permit writers must provideadequate justification and documentation todemonstrate that specified BMPs areexpected to result in attainment of thewaste load allocations. Generalconstruction and industrial storm waterpermittees have been given a 10-yearcompliance schedule to achieve wet-weather allocations and interim waste loadallocations based on EPA benchmarks. Theproposed BPA has been revised to state thatcompliance schedules may allow up to 5years within NPDES permit cycles.


8/26/04 The SIP does not apply to regulation of stormwater discharges and wasnot intended to be applied without consideration of dilution or as never-to-be exceeded values. Further, in adopting the CTR, EPA intended toallow periodic exceedances of CTR criteria. The application of CTR tostormwater in the metals TMDL is inappropriate.



8/26/04 The TMDL overreaches its authority in establishing waste loadallocations for reaches that are not on the 303(d) list.




8/26/04 In some cases the TMDL develops allocations for reaches listed asimpaired even though available data are inadequate to support such alisting. The data for the Burbank Western Channel are inadequate tosupport a cadmium listing.



8/26/04 The economic analysis in the TMDL is deficient on several counts.First, the estimated costs of structural BMPs neglect the cost of landthat would be required to implement the BMPs. Second, conventionalstructural BMPs may be inadequate to consistently achieve CTRlimitations, in which case more expensive treatment options-such asreverse osmosis (RO)- would need to be considered, pushing costs farbeyond those estimated in the TMDL. Third, the analysis makes noeffort to evaluate the impact of the TMDL on the local economythrough loss of jobs caused by increased costs of compliance andincreased taxes and assessments for local residents and businesses.



8/26/04 The concentration-based waste load allocations in the TMDL forfacilities and operations under an NPDES permit will impose permitconditions that cannot be consistently complied with under allconditions likely to be encountered. We do not believe that currenttechnology for the control of storm water can, on a consistent basis,discharge storm water with pollutants at CTR levels due to the highlyvariable nature of storm water.



8/26/04 NPDES permittees will be required to spend significant amount ofmoney, even though it will likely make little difference in improvingwater quality in the short-term. The TMDL acknowledges thatindustrial and construction NPDES permit holders comprise about 10%of the land use in the watershed, while the National Forest and openspace is about 44% and other urban uses are 46% of the watershed.



Several major sources of metals, such as aerial deposition, affect all ofthese land uses.


8/26/04 The TMDL provides non-NPDES regulated storm water discharges a15-year compliance schedule to meet allocations as proposed.However, no compliance schedule has been included for other sourcessuch as industrial activities.

General construction and industrial stormwater permittees have been given a 10-yearcompliance schedule to achieve wet-weather allocations and interim waste loadallocations based on EPA benchmarks.


8/26/04 In some cases, actions that would most directly and thoroughly reducemetals concentrations in the river, such as the development ofaltenative brake pad materials, are beyond the regulatory control of theagencies responsible for implementing the TMDL.



8/26/04 The dry-weather modeling followed a generally defensible approachand seemed to be based on a reasonable quantity of calibration andvalidation data. However, the model calibration and validation wereimproperly presented. The hydrologic calibration and validationsuggest that the model is not able to reproduce dry weather flow ratesin a precise way; the model tends to predict high and not average ormedian dry weather flows. The water quality calibration and validationsuggest that the model is not able to reproduce dry weatherconcentrations of copper or zinc in a precise way.



8/26/04 The wet weather modeling generally followed sound engineeringmethodology. However, he wet weather model is inconsistent in itsability to reproduce observed annual and monthly flow volumes. Themodel is unable to adequately reproduce observed hydrologic and waterquality conditions on the time scale of individual storm events fortributary reaches. Some data are inappropriately presented onlogarithmic scales, disguising significant disparities between model



results and observed data. EMCs may be an inappropriate measure ofcompliance since compliance will likely be based on grab samples, nota time-averaged mean concentration over the course of the event.


8/26/04 It appears that the dry and wet weather modeling described in theTMDL staff report were not utilized in the development of load andwaste load allocations. Wet weather load allocations at the primarycompliance point (Los Angeles River at Wardlow) seem to consistsimply of the modeled flow for a given storm event multiplied by theCTR concentration.



8/26/04 The TMDL makes the assumption that loads from non-urban areas inthe watershed-such as Angeles National Forest and open areas of theSanta Monica Mountains- would be insignificant under both dryweather and wet weather conditions (p.58, 61). However, no data areused to support this assumption, and data from another study seems callthis assumption into question.



8/26/04 In summary, there are serious shortcomings in the TMDL andaccompanying documentation. Data are lacking, the modeling hassignificant uncertainties, and the load allocation are inappropriate andinconsistent. In fact the TMDL recognizes these and other deficienciesby stating that it is expected the TMDL will be reopened sometime inthe future as more data and the better science are developed.

See responses to comment Nos. 10.13, 16.3and 17.8

29.1 CaliforniaCouncil forEnvironmentaland EconomicBalance

8/26/04 A more thorough economic analysis must be performed. The TMDLdoes not consider the costs of treatment technologies that may benecessary to achieve applicable CTR values on a consistent basis, underall storm conditions. Without a more thorough analysis, fullconsiderations cannot be given to factors such as use attainability,technical achievability, equity, or whether costs are commensurate withbenefits.

See responses to comment Nos. 1.16, 6.16,6.14, and 13.10.



8/26/04 The TMDL should specify that CTR allocations for storm water will betranslated into iterative BMP requirements and implemented throughNPDES permits.



8/26/04 The TMDL should ensure that the implementation plan and actions areflexible and should allow for an iterative BMP process for storm waterdischarges.



8/26/04 The scientific basis of the TMDL’s implementation plan should besubject to external peer review.



8/26/04 The TMDL should incorporate alternative compliance methodologiessuch as pollutant trading.


30.1 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 A discussion of detection levels (DLs) and how these affect theapparent number of exceedances of CTR criteria is essential in the datareview section. Values that were below detection levels were countedas zeros. If detection levels were greater than CTR criteria, then everymeasurement counted a “zero” could in fact be an exceedance of CTRcriteria. This analysis was provided in the Ballona Creek Metals TMDLbut is not even mentioned in this section of the LA River TDML. Theanalysis of LACDPW storm water data requires further explanation in

It is possible that values that were belowdetection levels could be exceedances ofthe CTR criteria. This is briefly discussedin the data review section for cadmium andlead (detection levels were not and issue forcopper or zinc). Even with thiscomplication, the data review sectionconfirms dry weather lead impairments in


general. the listed reaches and finds impairments inadditional reaches. The most recent data forcadmium are based on detection limitsbelow CTR criteria and contain noexceedances. The dry-weather impairmentsfor cadmium could therefore not beconfirmed. The discussion of storm waterdata has been expanded the staff report.The storm water data review confirm wet-weather impairments for all metals. Asummary has been added to the staff reportexplaining the results of the data reviewand for which reaches TMDLs aredeveloped and for which reaches wasteload allocations are developed to meetdownstream TMDLs.

30.2 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 Figure 3 shows median, minimum and maximum values of metalscollected from January 2002 to May 2003 by the City of LA’sWatershed Monitoring Program (WMP). The figure is provided toillustrate the variability of metals in the system, but there is noindication of frequency of sampling or number of samples. Thereshould also be a reference to Figure 1 where the sampling stations forthe City’s WMP are shown.

The staff report has been revised to statethat samples were collected monthly for atotal f 17 samples at each station. There isnow a reference to the figure illustratinglocations of the WMP stations (Figure 2).

30.3 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 The analysis of hardness data (p.27) needs to be clarified. Were thehardness data collected by LWA during dry weather only? Table 8summarizes hardness data from LWA and LACDPW. These datashould be either dry-or wet-weather, but should not be combined.Please clarify this analysis.

The Larry Walker study collected both dry-and wet-weather hardness data, but onlydry-weather data was used in developingdry-weather targets. The caption for Table8 (Table 3-1 in the revised report) states


that the hardness data in the table wascollected during dry-weather. Please notethat the staff report has been revised toinclude the Larry Walker study in thereference section.

30.4 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 Considering that the 10th percentile values for hardness are oftensubstantially lower than the median values, dry-weather targets basedon the median hardness will lead to acute toxicity to aquatic organismsat time of low hardness. Using the median hardness value could alloweach metal to be present up to half the time at levels that are toxic toaquatic life, while still complying with the TMDL. This would fail toprotect aquatic life in the river is and unacceptable in waterbodiesdesignated with multiple aquatic life beneficial uses. We urge theRWQCB to use 10th percentile hardness values to calculate the dry-weather numeric targets.

The chronic criteria were calculated usingthe 50th percentile hardness values becausethe chronic criteria are based on long termexposures. This is consistent with SIPmethod for choosing translator values.

30.5 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 A better explanation is needed for the partitioning factors selected asconversion factors for copper in certain reaches of the LA River. Howdid LWA re-analyze the data “to account for the partitioning of thecopper between the dissolved and particulate range”? This is exactlywhat the regression analyses should do. The regression analysesshowed there was no relationship between particulate and dissolvedcopper in reach 4(r2+0.2), but the LWA re-analysis showed arelationship and resulted in conversion factors of 0.74 and0.92 forchronic and acute criteria. What are the strengths of the relationshipscalculated by LWA? An explanation of the re-analysis, and some suchmeasure of the statistical significance of the propose relationships, suchas an r2 value, must be provided to show that these relationships arevalid. Otherwise the default conversion factors (0.96) from CTR must

The staff report has been revised to betterdescribe the development of the translator.After a regression analysis showed thatthere was poor correlation betweendissolved and total metals, LWA usedpartition coefficient modeling to calculate atranslator that accounted for TSS, asallowed by the SIP. In this approach, thetranslator is the dissolved fraction (fd)calculated using a site a specific partitioncoefficient (Kp) and TSS, where fd =1/(TSS x Kp +1). This is in accordancewith EPA guidance entitled “The Metals


be used. Translator: Guidance for Calculating aTotal Recoverable Permit Limit from aDissolved Criterion. EPA 823-B-96-007.LWA proposed a Kd = 20,000 forGlendale, which provided the best fit forthe data and a Kd = 10,000 for Tillman,which was a conservative estimate. Theyused median and 10th percentile TSSvalues to calculate the chronic and acutetranslators, respectively.

30.6and30.14

Heal the Bay 8/26/04 Please clarify, in the second paragraph on p. 31, that the calculatedconversion factors for lead, and for copper in reaches other than reaches4 and 5, were not used because the relationships between dissolved andparticulate concentrations were not statistically significant in a pairwiseregression. This is different from rejecting them in order to build in aconservative assumption and apply it to the margin of safety as stated inthis paragraph.

Using the CTR default conversion factors isstill a conservative assumption. Evaluationof the WMP data compared to the defaultconversion factor showed that the defaultconversion factor over estimates thefraction of metal in the dissolved form.When measured values of dissolved metalswere plotted against measured values oftotal metals, most of the measured valuesfell below the line CTR-based trend lines ofy = 0.96x for copper and y = 0.79x for lead.

30.7 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 We applaud the Regional Board’s decision to defer consideration ofsite-specific objectives based on the biotic ligand model until at leastthe USEPA and Regional Board approve this method.

Comment noted.

30.8 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 In setting the wet-weather numeric target, the median hardness value isused, with the dubious explanation that “it is representative of averagestorm conditions.” (See p. 32) A median certainly is not an average, letalone the 10th percentile hardness value recommended in the SIP.

The SIP does not directly recommend thatthe 10th percentile of the hardness data beused to calculate acute criteria. As noted inresponse to comment No. 1.19, the staff


report has been revised to read, “methodssimilar to the SIP procedures for choosingtranslator values are used to choose thepercentile hardness values in calculatingdry-weather targets.” For dry weather, thismethod was used, but because of thevariability in hardness values during wetweather, the 10th percentile of hardnessdata would not accurately represent thehardness values during storm waterconditions. Instead, the 50th percentile ofthe hardness values is used in calculatingthe wet weather numeric targets. The staffreport has been revised for clarification andto remove the word “average.”

30.9 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 The wet-weather numeric targets calculated using the 10th percentilehardness values are substantially lower than those calculated using themedian harness value. The wet-weather targets are based on acutetoxicity levels, which are much higher than chronic toxicity levels, andwill lead to lethal wet-weather toxicity in the river up to half the timeduring storms. This will fail to protect aquatic life from the toxiceffects of metals in stormwater runoff. The use of acute targets, and themedian hardness data are combined “double-whammy” to aquatic lifeand there is no justification for providing such minimal protection ofbeneficial uses in the LA River. The 10th percentile hardness valuesshould be used to calculate the wet-weather numeric targets.

Due to the brief nature of storms in the LARiver watershed, the acute criteria, whichare based on a shorter exposure time, aremore applicable. See also response tocomment No. 30.8.

30.10and

Heal the Bay 8/26/04 The draft TMDL proposed using site-specific conversion factors forcopper, lead and zinc for the entire LA River. The calculated

The literature supports the assumption thata greater percentage of metals is in the total


30.15 conversion factors have r2 values of 0.69 and 0.61for copper and zincrespectively, which are not generally considered statistically significant.The r2 for lead is higher (0.98) but the sample size for lead was only 13,which is likely too small to provide a robust statistical analysis.Therefore in all three cases, the conservative choice would be to use theCTR default conversion factors. Site-specific conversion factors arestatistically unsound and must not be used.

form during wet weather and justifies theuse of translators based on the ratio ofdissolved to total concentrations.

30.11 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 The WLAs for the minor and general NPDES permits in the watershed,for which flow data are insufficient to calculate mass-based loads, areexpressed as concentrations of total metals. We will have no way ofdetermining whether the combined loads from all the minor and generalNPDES permittees exceed the dry-weather loading capacity allocatedto “ stormwater and other permittees.” This must be clarified and ameans of reliably determining (measure discharge flows) total loadsfrom “other permittees” must be included in the TMDL.

The staff report and BPA have been revisedto assign mass-based waste load allocationsto the general industrial and constructionstorm water permittees for the purposes ofbetter allocating the loading capacity.Based on a review of discharge monitoringreports for the other permittees, it is notpossible to assign mass-based allocationsbased on their variable intermittent flows.While the combined loads of the otherpermittees are unknown, the overall TMDLeffectiveness will be known based on themonitoring conducted by the MS4 andCaltrans permittees.

30.12 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 The wet-weather allocations illustrate the problem with developing awater column TMDL for metals in isolation from a sediment TMDL formetals. As written in the draft TMDL, the wet-weather allocations forPOTWs are concentration-based, and the mass based limits will notapply when in-stream flows exceed the design capacities of thetreatment plants. This may allow in-stream water quality standards forthe various metals to be met, but it ignores the total mass loading of

This TMDL was developed to addressmetals impairments in the water column.The fact that there are load–basedallocations under all conditions for theMS4 permittees and under most conditionsfor the POTWs reflects theacknowledgement of the upcoming


metals to the system. This is irresponsible given the toxic conditions inestuarine sediments, and the acknowledged need to develop a sedimentTMDL for toxicity at a later date.

sediment TMDL and the link betweenmetals concentrations in the water columnand in the sediments of the estuary. Thereconsideration of this TMDL will occurafter the development of the Long BeachHarbor sediment toxicity TMDL, which isdue in 2008. The waste load allocations inthis TMDL may require re-evaluation basedon the findings of the sediment TMDL.

30.13 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 The draft TMDL explains that there is no historical modeling andtherefore no calculation of required load reductions for cadmiumbecause the data review “indicated that there was little evidence of wet-weather exceedances”. This is based entirely on the problematicassumption, discussed above, that undetectable levels of cadmium werebelow the CTR criterion. The modeling should be conducted usingcadmium concentrations set at equal to, or at least half of, the detectionlimits whenever detection limits were higher that CTR criteria andrequired load reductions should be set based on that modeling.

The wet-weather waste load allocation foreach metal is equal to the load capacitycurve (also represented as an equation inthe revised TMDL). The load reductionsare calculated to assist permittees withimplementation but are not required by theproposed TMDL. Permittees mustdemonstrate that the in-stream pollutantconcentrations or loads are meeting theconcentration- or load-based waste loadallocations based on the load capacitycurves.

30.16 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 An explicit margin of safety must be applied to the numeric targets toprovide at least a 10% margin of safety.

TMDLs may include implicit and/orexplicit margins of safety. The proposedmetals TMDLs apply an implicit margin ofsafety through several conservativeassumptions made in calculating thenumeric target.

30.17 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 Ten to 15 years is a very long time to meet water quality standards. The The staff report and BPA have been revised


implementation schedule should require, as the first major milestone,that 50% of the total developed land shall achieve dry-weathercompliance, and 25% of the total developed land shall achieve wet-weather compliance. This avoids giving credit for compliance in openspace areas which are largely non-contributors of metals.

to reflect this change.

30.18 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 The first milestone of 50% dry-weather compliance and 25% wet-weather compliance for total developed areas should be achieved at 5years after the effective date of the TMDL. The re-opener is schedule at6 years, and it only makes sense to re-evaluate the TMDL immediatelyafter the first milestones are reached, rather that in the very same yearthey are required.

Due to the nature of the waste loadallocations and the implementationschedule for the MS4 and Caltranspermittees, the first compliance deadline isnot proposed to occur prior to thereconsideration. The proposed metalsTMDL is different from the Trash TMDL,in which permittees are required to achievepercent reductions in trash until the finalallocation is met. The final allocations fortrash are not likely to change in thereconsideration. It is possible for the metalsallocations to change in the reconsiderationof the proposed metals TMDL.Furthermore, the percent-based reductionsin the metals TMDL are area-based. Theimplementation schedule still requirescompliance with the final waste loadallocation in each percentage area.Permittees could potentially be required tomeet waste load allocations in year 5 thatcould increase a year later based on theresults of special studies. Please not that the


reconsideration of the TMDL has beenrescheduled to occur in year 5, while thefirst compliance milestone for the MS4 andCaltrans permittees remains at year 5.

30.19 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 The first paragraph on p. 11 of the draft TMDL should clarify that theD.C. Tillman WRP discharges to reach 4, which is impaired by lead.The paragraph currently reads as though the Tillman plant discharges toreach 5 which is upstream of reach 4 and is not listed for any metalimpairment.

The staff report has been revised to statethat Tillman discharges to Reaches 4 and 5.Tillman discharges directly to Reach 4 andindirectly through a recreation and wildlifelake to Reach 5.

30.20 Heal the Bay 8/26/04 In the second paragraph on p. 13 please clarify the flow measurements.The mean monthly dry-weather contributions of POTWs are stated,followed by the median flow for the LA River over a 12-year period. Isthis the dry-weather median flow, or is this the median of all flowsincluding storms over the 12 years?

As reported on page 13 (page 12 in therevised draft), 145 cfs is the median of allflows, including storm flows. Please notethat this is not the flow used to determinethe dry-weather loading capacity. The dry-weather loading capacity is calculated forlow flows (when flow in the river is lessthan 500 cfs). The critical dry-weather flowis equal to the median dry-weather non-POTW flow (34 cfs) plus the designcapacity of the treatment plants (169 cfs).

31.1 Wynn Miller 8/26/04 The Regional Board must set meaningful limits on the accumulation oftoxic heavy metals in the water and sediment of the LA River.


32.1,32.2,32.3,and32.4

Department ofWater andPower

8/26/04 The reliance upon infiltration trenches must be carefully considered andshould not be a proposed BMP for the entire region as they may haveadverse impacts upon the receiving groundwater quality. Infiltrationconflicts with determinations made by the Watermaster’s officeregarding San Fernando Valley. Infiltrating urban runoff to



groundwater may conflict with the State’s Anti-Degradation Policy”should the transfer of pollutants occur. While the water quality of theLos Angeles River is of utmost importance, it cannot come at theexpense of the quality of our ground waters.

33.1 CaliforniaManufacturers& TechnologyAssociation

8/26/04 The proposed TMDL does not provide for the use of an iterative BMPprocess for industrial NPDES permit holders. Because the TMDL doesnot include a process for how to translate the concentration-basedallocations into permit conditions, it must be assumed thatconcentration-based allocations will become numeric end-of-pipelimits. There is currently no technology that can consistently meetdischarge limits at CTR levels.


33.2 CaliforniaManufacturers& TechnologyAssociation

8/26/04 The CEQA economic analysis is extremely deficient because it did notinclude any economic analysis for industrial discharges with NPDESpermits. Further, it does not address the regional economic impacts.


34.1 City ofMonterey park

8/27/04 The proposed TMDL places an undue level of responsibility on localjurisdictions to remove pollutants that are beyond their regulatorycontrol, such as metals in brake pads, fuel, and tires, and from aerialdeposition.



8/27/04 No assimilative capacity study or study of natural sources wasconducted.

The assimilative capacity of the river wasassessed by calculating the loading capacityof the river during dry and wet weather.The staff report and proposed BPA havebeen revised to include load allocations foropen space and direct air deposition. Seealso response to comment No. 1.40.


8/27/04 Allocations have been inappropriately established for portions of thewatershed not identified on the 303(d) list. Instead of accounting for

See response to comment No. 1.1. MS4permittees will allocate responsibility for


cities that have less metal loading, all parties will be held equallyresponsible. The TMDL does not address unregulated industries, whichthe TMDL states are a significant source of metals.

their combined waste load allocations in theimplementation plan. The TMDL does notstate that unregulated industries are asignificant source of metals. All potentialsources (including nonpoint sources) havebeen assigned a waste load allocation in therevised BPA.


8/27/04 The TMDL inappropriately applies CTR to storm water, contrary toEPA’s record adopting CTR and the SIP.



8/27/04 Implementation costs are underestimated as they do not include the costof land purchases or the possibility that additional treatment deviceswill be needed to meet CTR standards. This contradicts EPA’srecommendation that cities concentrate on low cost controls such asefficient street sweeping, public education, business inspections, andexiting storm water programs.

Since the Regional Board cannot prescribethe method of achieving compliance withthe TMDL, the cost analysis is provided asa general estimate of the costs of selectedstructural and non-structural BMPs. Thestaff report clearly states the assumptionsmade for the cost analysis. An estimation ofthe costs associated with land acquisition ortreatment devices would be speculative.The staff report provides an analysis of sizeconstraints for each type of structural BMPconsidered (see Appendix III), which couldbe used to estimate land acquisition costs.The implementation section of the staffreport discusses and recommends low-costsource control measures in addition tostructural treatment devices.


8/27/04 The economic analysis was inadequate as impacts from new taxes andassessments, diversion of funds from other City services, financial



constraints in raising funds were not addressed.35.1 All Metals

Processing8/27/04 There is no currently practical technology that can meet the proposed

CTR levels for storm water discharges.See response to comment No. 19.1.

35.2 All MetalsProcessing

8/27/04 The TMDL requires industrial and storm water discharges to addresspollutants outside of their control and background concentrations arenot addressed.



8/27/04 The TMDL imposes significant costs on small and insignificantdischarges that will not result in significant water qualityimprovements. The TMDL does not even consider loadings from nearly45% of the watershed.



8/27/04 The modeling was deficient and the load allocations were notappropriately done.



8/27/04 The implementation plan should include an iterative BMP process andan adequate timeframe for compliance.



8/27/04 The TMDL should allow for pollutant trading and offsets. See response to comment No. 19.9.

36.1,36.2,and36.3

MetalRecyclersStorm WaterMonitoringGroup

8/27/04 The proposed TMDL imposes significant and unnecessary costs onindustrial storm water permittees. The implementation of the TMDLwill result in concentration-based limits based on CTR which are notconsistently achievable using conventional BMPs and will requireadditional costly monitoring.


37.1 City ofAlhambra et al.

8/26/04 It should be noted for the record that the City of Alhambra requested a90-day extension to the comment period, to which there was noresponse. The comment deadline provides inadequate notice.



8/26/04 The proposed TMDL may only be applied to navigable waters of theUnited States.

Navigable waters has been broadlyconstrued by USEPA and federal courts.Navigable waters includes the waters


tributary thereto, and the TMDL does notaddress any water bodies that are nottributary to the Los Angeles River.Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has construed“navigable waters” to extend to ephemeralwater bodies that flow to navigable waters.Under the most conservative reading, allthe waters regulated by this TMDL aretributary to the Pacific Ocean and subject toregulation under the Clean Water Act.


8/26/04 The proposed TMDL may only be applied to a federally-listed waterbody.



8/26/04 The costs analyses in the TMDL staff report bear no indication of costsof the costs of acquisition or reallocation of the use of real property onwhich structural BMPs are to be installed.



8/26/04 A meaningful study of the assimilative capacity of the river has notbeen conducted.



8/26/04 The proposed TMDL inappropriately applies CTR to storm waterdischarges.



8/26/04 The proposed TMDL specifies metals waste load allocations forreaches not on the 303(d) list, contrary to 40 CFR § 130.7(c)1.



8/26/04 The requirement to submit a monitoring plan in 120 days is too short. See response to comment No. 1.11.

37.11,37.12,and37.13

City ofAlhambra et al.

8/26/04 The CEQA checklist fails to adequately address the numerous “yes”and “maybe” responses and there is evidence in the record to support afair argument that the TMDL would cause an adverse environmentalimpact. The statements in the CEQA checklist that a separate CEQA



review process will be required violates CEQA’s mandate that a leadagency must realize the entire project. The checklist does not meet therequirements of a mitigated negative declaration because neither thechecklist nor the staff report sets forth mitigation measures.

37.14and37.15

City ofAlhambra et al.

8/26/04 The proposed amendment violates CWC § 13241 because it fails toinclude a “description of the nature of actions that are necessary toachieve the objectives…” The proposed amendment violates CWC §13241’s requirement to consider, inter alia, “economic considerations”when establishing water quality objectives in Basin Plans.



8/26/04 There are significant questions as to how water-quality samples aretaken, processed and analyzed in the studies cited to justify vacuumstreet sweepers; an on-going study by the USGS hopes to clear some ofthese issues.

Comment noted.

38.1 Chris Albrecht 8/27/04 The Regional Board must set meaningful limits on the accumulation oftoxic heavy metals in the water and sediment of the LA River.


39.1 SustainableConservation/Brake PadPartnership

9/1/04 The potential implementation strategy that “permittees could sponsorlegislative actions with state and federal agencies to pursue thedevelopment of alternative materials for brake pads” could underminethe efforts of the Brake Pad Partnership. The Board should recommendparticipation in the Brake Pad Partnership, a multstakeholder effort inthe San Francisco Bay as a potential implementation strategy.

The staff report has been revised to removethe suggestion that permittees work withstate and federal agencies to pursuealternative brake pad materials. The revisedstaff report acknowledges the efforts of theBrake Pad Partnership.

40.1 TECsEnvironmental(Cities ofAzusa et al.)

9/1/04 The potential implementation strategy does not identify a reasonablecompliance plan. MS4 permittees do not possess the legal authority toadopt legislation requiring alternative brake pad material. Several of thestructural BMPs discussed were not included in the CEQA evaluationnor the cost analysis. The design capacity of the BMPs does not addressthe critical condition (high weather flows). Diversion and treatmentdoes not address the fact that most MS4 permittess do not have

See responses to comment Nos. 1.30, 2.23,and 11.4.


facilities to treat storm water.40.2 TECs

Environmental(Cities ofAzusa et al.)

9/1/04 The cost analysis does not discuss a feasible method of compliance.The construction of new facilities as part of the IRP was not included inthe analysis. The modeling report states that the type of soil found overthe basin is not suitable for groundwater recharge of infiltration. Theuse of sand filters requires special treatment and disposal.



9/1/04 The environmental checklist fails to properly consider the impacts ofreasonably foreseeable compliance activities as it only considers theimpacts of the compliance plan discussed in the staff report.



9/1/04 The deadlines for the compliance report and special studies should bemoved to 6 years after the effective date of the MOU to allow forconsideration of reductions in metals caused by compliance with theTMDL by the non-municipal storm water permittees.



9/1/04 The staff report erroneously assumes that all urban runoff is completelycovered under the MS4 permits. Sources such as copper from brakes,zinc from tires, and lead from gasoline are beyond the control of theMS4 permittees.



9/1/04 The TMDL does not consider sediment transport in the river. Thesystematic removal of sediment will produce a sediment starvedcondition of river flows, which will scour the soft bottom portion of theriver and destroy the vegetation and habitat for benthic organisms andcause resuspension of previous pollutants.


41.1 Heal the Baymembers formletter

The Regional Board must set meaningful limits on the accumulation oftoxic heavy metals in the water and sediment of the LA River.


Comment Summary and Responses Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals … · 2014-11-07 · from...

Documents

Transcript of Comment Summary and Responses Los Angeles River and Tributaries Metals … · 2014-11-07 · from...