SR-11-A (15)
!
.
.
\ , --A.
JAN 2 7 1987
GS:SES:NM:ak
council Meeting: January 27, 1987
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to adopt Resolution Endorsing the
proposed Program of the pico-Kenter storm Drain Task
Force to Reduce Pollution of the Santa Monica Bay
INTRODUCTION
This report presents information regarding the general problems
associated with urban runoff and the specific problems of
pollution of runoff waters of the Pico-Kenter storm Drain. This
report also discusses efforts of City staff and the Pico-Kenter
storm Drain Task Force to evaluate these problems and recommend
measures to reduce the effects of storm drain pollution.
In addition, this report also recommends that council adopt a
resolution supporting the five point pollution reduction program
proposed by the Task Force and requests that Council conceptually
commit financial resources to this effort not to exceed $150,000
for installation costs and $85,000 for annual operating costs
thereafter, as its share of costs for this important program.
BACKGROUND
Pollution problems associated with surface water runoff into
the rivers, lakes and oceans of the world have been present for
the past several hundred years.
It is a natural cycle in some
areas for the silt runoff to so pollute a river or lake that much
of the plant and animal life dies during the rainy season.
- 1 -
\\-~
JAN 2 7 1987
.
.
Problems of surface runoff in some farm areas have led to
pollution of rivers or lakes due to the high concentrations of
nitrates and phosphates being added to the soil as fertilizer.
Urban areas such as Santa Monica also experience problems of
pollution of runoff waters. However, unlike the runoff caused by
precipitation that results in the silting and fertilizer
pollution referred to above, urban areas have runoff throughout
the year. Low flow contamination results from runoff water which
picks up bacteria and chemical contamination from road dust, oil
residue in streets and parking lots, decomposed plant materials,
animal dropp ings and food wastes that make their way to runoff
waterways such as gutters, catch basins, streets, parking lots,
private driveways and lawns. In addition, there are occasional
accidental or intentional spills of larger quantities of
pollutants ranging from petroleum products to raw sewage. All
urban storm drains face these problems and these have been
addressed to some extent in the recently passed (by Congress)
Clean water Bill. However, this bill will not solve the problems
of the Pico-Kenter storm Drain.
There are five storm drains in the City of Santa Monica that
empty into the ocean at Santa Monica Bay. There are a total of
sixty-four storm drain outlets which empty into Santa Monica Bay.
The Pico-Kenter storm drain is but a single element in this vast
system constructed to channel and control flood waters. However,
the Pico-Kenter drain is somewhat unique in that its outlet is
several hundred feet from the surfl ine . Al though many other
- 2 -
.
.
drains on the Westside have this same configuration, they are not
located at one of the most heavily-used beaches in the world.
The Pico-Kenter drain was constructed in 1935. County flood
Control staff state that at the time the drain was constructed
the outlet was near the surfline. Over the years, however, sand
has built-up to extend the distance the runoff waters must travel
before reaching the surf. Newer storm drains such as the Ashland
Avenue drain in Santa Monica, were constructed with an outlet
structure that reaches into the surf at all times.
A separate but related pollution problem of any storm drain
system is the accidental or intentional spilling of chemicals
into the system. This has occurred several times in the
Pico-Kenter storm drain system over the past couple of years as
evidenced by the presence of oil slicks and odors of petroleum
products witnessed by lifeguards, beach users and City and county
staff. Although the exact source of these spills has not been
determined, City and County staff concur that the most likely
source is from one or more of the automobile-related businesses
located in the area served by the Pico-Kenter drainage system.
The awareness of these continuing pollution problems by the
public, city Council and City staff led to the formation of a
mUlti-agency Task Force to evaluate the problems and develop
recommendations to mitigate the problems.
For approximately one year the Task Force, led by the city of
Santa Monica, the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los
Angeles, has been meeting to evaluate problems of bacterial and
- 3 -
.
.
chemical pOllution associated with the urban runoff in the
Pico-Kenter storm drain system. Representatives of other
agencies and organizations including the County Health
Department, state Fish and Game Department, County Lifeguards,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Assemblyman Hayden's
Office, Heal the Bay and Los Angeles. City Councilman Braude's
Office have attended these meetings on a regular basis. However,
since the Pico-Kenter storm drain serves drainage areas in both
the City of Santa Monica and the City of Los Angeles, and since
the County of Los Angeles owns and maintains the storm drain, the
City of Los Angeles, the City of Santa Monica and the County are
the principal agencies responsible for identifying pollution
problems and taking appropriate action to mitigate these
problems. The state & Regional Water Quality Control Board must
approve any remedial measures and have indicated conceptual
approval of the program described below. The program
incorporates concepts and ideas provided by Task Force members
and other interested parties.
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
The Task Force has agreed upon a five point program designed to
reduce the effects of and/or affect reduction of pollutant levels
for both bacterial and chemical contaminants. These program
elements include many of the concerns council has requested staff
to study. These concerns and Staff I s findings will be
highlighted in the discussion to follow. It should be noted that
this program, if implemented, could become a model for other
- 4 -
.
.
local storm drains with similar problems.
The five points are
described below:
1. Placement of a sub surface low flow pine from the end of the
storm drain to a point 600 feet beyond the surf line and
installation of a sensor/alarm system within the Pico/Kenter
storm drain.
The drain extension will remove bacteria-contaminated low flow
run-off effluent from the surf area so that bathers will not come
into contact with contaminated water. An additional benefit of
the extension is that live bacteria counts of the varieties of
concern (fecal coliform and enterococcus) are greatly diminished
in the presence of seawater.
Therefore, allowing discharge of
these waters at a point well beyond the surf line results in
cleaner waters near the shore for recreational use, and
eliminates the safety problem that occurs when the runoff forms
pools on the beach.
The sensor/alarm component of the program is designed to
accomplish several objectives. It will provide an early warning
detection system whereby sensors installed in the drain will
detect the presence of concentrations of hydrocarbon vapors
indicating the presence of petroleum products. This will warn
the appropriate agencies that a spill is occurring and that the
pollutants should be intercepted before they reach the ocean
water.
The sensing devices will act as a continual monitoring
system, providing valuable data about background levels of
hydrocarbon presence and patterns of changing amounts of such
contaminants.
Placing enough sensors incrementally along the
drain will assist in determining the source of any spills by
- 5 -
.
.
limiting the search area to the point of entry into the system
and upstream from that point. This system is primarily directed
at detecting and controlling petroleum pollution.
The County Department of Public Works has prepared a conceptual
description and preliminary cost estimate for the pipeline
portion of this project and city staff has obtained sensor
equipment and prepared cost estimates for this portion of the
project. The project will include installation (below grade at
the beach) of approximately 900 feet of 24 inch diameter pipe
which will transport low flow runoff from the existing mouth of
the storm drain to a point 600 feet beyond the surf line. The
pipe will be equipped with a suitable baffle on the ocean end to
prevent sand intrusion. The design will also include a valve and
dam system that can be activated should a spill of hazardous
material be detected upstream. This will allow the contaminant
to be contained within the storm drain before reaching the ocean
so that the material can be analyzed and properly disposed of,
most probably using a licensed hazardous waste pumper and hauler.
The Task Force proposed that the low flow drain extension should
not be installed without the sensing system. This is recommended
because, with the pipe extension, the flow would no longer be
visible on the beach and oil spills would be deposited 600 feet
beyond the surf without detection. This would not be consistent
with the objective of reducing the amount of pollutants reaching
the Bay.
- 6 -
.
.
The cost for design and construction of this drain extension is
roughly estimated at $300,000 to $400,000. In addition to design
and construction costs, other on-going costs associated with this
system will include the costs of inspections, of monitoring the
recording devices and analyzing the data, of leasing data lines
if necessary, and of system repairs.
In addition, it is estimated that an additional $20,000 per year
will be required to maintain the sensor alarm system. Other
storm drain extension maintenance costs will be absorbed by the
County Flood Control Department.
2. An Increased Pollution Control Enforcement Program.
This element of the program is designed to make better use of the
codes and statutes available to agencies to enforce compliance
with these laws. Each of the agencies involved will need to
develop a program that best suits their requirements and budget
constraints. However, there is a commitment from the three lead
agencies to increase current enforcement activities related to
pollution of storm water runoff.
Santa Monica proposes to spend approximately $50,000 annually to
enforce the recently adopted industrial waste control ordinance.
This program will include requiring each hazardous or noxious
waste-generating business which is not equipped with clarifiers
for proper effluent separation to install and maintain such
devices. This will affect nearly 400 businesses and almost every
- 7 -
.
.
restaurant and automotive facility in the city as well as many
others. Other increased enforcement efforts will include:
- Increased enforcement of Ifpooper scooper" ordinances
designed to reduce the amount of animal fecal material
coming in contact with runoff waters.
In addition, the
city of Santa Monica will enforce a new ordinance making it
unlawful to place animal droppings in streets and gutters.
- staff of the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation have
indicated that they will conduct quarterly surveys of
businesses and catch basins in the drainage area in an
effort to identify evidence of willful pollution and to
increase the visibility of enforcement efforts related to
waste control ordinances.
3. Development and Implementation of an Education Program
Designed to Reduce Non-Point Source Pollution.
This aspect of the program is intended to inform the public as to
the purpose of storm drains and sewers, how they differ, what the
allowable discharges to each system are, and what the effects of
illegal dumping can be. If properly done, this program can help
reduce both bacterial and chemical contamination. Each involved
agency will need to develop its individual approach with some
common messages developed where appropriate.
Santa Monica proposes the following activities:
- Develop and distribute instructional mailer to Seascape
mailing list. COST: $10,000
- 8 -
. .
- Incorporate wastewater system education within the current
ongoing program of water conservation education. A
full-time Water Conservation coordinator is currently on
staff to do this.
Paint signs at the catch basins warning the public of the
illegality and the effects on the environment of dumping
chemicals into the system.
- Produce an educational video film regarding the subject of
ocean pollution resulting from storm drain contamination
and air the video on public access channels in the impact
areas.
- prepare public service announcements about the dangers of
dumping chemicals or wastes into the storm drain system.
Much of the staff time required to implement these programs can
be absorbed into current operations.
However, it is estimated
that approximately $20,000 will be needed to provide professional
services (graphics, video production technicians, etc.) required
to produce effective educational materials.
The estimated total annual cost for Santa Monica for the public
education program is $30,000.
The Task Force recommends that, in addition to education efforts
on the part of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, a county-wide or
even regional promotional campaign designed to reduce non-point
source pollution of runoff waters should be implemented.
suggested components of this program include:
Some
- 9 -
.
.
- A IIWe Tip" program similar to the current City of Los
Angeles program whereby rewards are offered for
information submitted by individuals leading to the arrest
and conviction of willful polluters.
- A public education program with a consistent or common
theme or even a symbol similar to Woodsy Owl or McGruff the
Crime Dog.
- More publicity about the penalties available for convicted
polluters.
Under this category of informing the public, Council requested
that Staff improve signing at the drain outlet, including
temporary mobile signs near or at the surf line. In an
information item presented to Council on October 14, 1986, Staff
recommended posting two additional cautionary signs north and
south of the existing County Health Department signs, to provide
increased visibility to the public. staff intends to install
these signs before the summer season.
staff is also developing methods of placing similar "mobile"
signs to be placed near the surf line to alert those persons
located at a distance from the permanent signs. These signs will
be mounted on a base light enough for life guards (or other
authorized personnel) to readily relocate them to conform with
changing surf conditions, yet resistant to being carried away by
vandals.
- 10 -
.
.
council also requested the increased use of human guarding to
prevent the public from coming into contact with the effluent
from the drain. Los Angeles County lifeguards who are posted on
beaches within the Santa Monica city limits are currently
following an established policy of IIred flagging" the area of the
storm drain
outlet to
prohibit swim/surf
activities
in
conjunction with the posted County Health signs. Their policy is
also to attempt to keep all waders, swimmers and children outside
the area marked by the area flags.
This policy is effective
during days of low beach usage, but on high usage days up to
100,000 people may be on the santa Monica beaches, and the 17
lifeguards available are hard pressed to effectively apply the
policy. For the guards to be asked to increase the frequency of
their patrols or otherwise increase the enforcement activities
would probably be unproductive since, during the high usage
period, they are by necessity occupied with their first
responsibility which is protecting swimmers. However, City staff
discussions with the lifeguards indicate that the lifeguards are
quite sensitive to the problems associated with the drain and are
usually the first agency to become aware when a spill occurs.
Their prompt notification of City and County staff has been most
invaluable in the past.
4. An Increased Effluent Monitorinq Program.
This feature is included so that further problem identification
can occur and the status of currently identified contaminants can
be tracked. Preliminary indications are that random testing for
any and all toxic substances is very expensive ($1,000 per
- 11 -
.
.
sample.} An increased testing schedule for bacterial
contaminants is feasible and selective testing for certain other
compounds can be done on a request basis. Again, however, the
limitation is budgeted funds. Certainly, if evidence of
contamination of a certain chemical is found, extensive testing
must be done to determine concentrations, possible origin, and
possible effects on the public. But universal testing for any
and all toxic compounds on a regular basis is not feasible.
other activities proposed to increase monitoring are:
1. Increase County Health monitoring for coliform bacteria
(including enterococci) from weekly to twice weekly.
Increase City monitoring of volatile hydrocarbons and
coliform bacteria from monthly to bi-weekly. Maintain city
of Los Angeles daily coliform bacteria tests. It is believed
that tests for lead and other heavy metals is not necessary
since previous tests have consistently shown levels which are
below EPA limits for drinking water.
2. Recently, the EPA released the results of a study undertaken
to find a more reliable method of determining the probability
of the presence of pathogenic organisms in marine waters.
The study was based on comparisons of the incidence of
intestinal disorders resulting in bathers using heavily
polluted beaches with those utilizing relatively unpolluted
ones. The results indicated that Uenterococci showed the
strongest relationship to gastroenteritis", which is the most
common health effect associated with swimming in polluted
- 12 -
.
.
marine waters. In view of these findings, the EPA "strongly
recommends that states begin the transition process to the
use of enterococci.. II as the indicator organism for marine
waters (as opposed to to the use of E-col i and/or fecal
coliform for fresh water recreational areas).
It is emphasized that the presence of these various organisms
(including enterococci) in themselves do not represent a
threat to the public. Rather it is their presence in certain
quantities (as established by the EPA and other studies) that
indicate an increase in the probability of the presence of
disease causing organisms.
city Council has asked Staff for information on the health
risks for Bay users presented by the presence of enterococci
in water samples analyzed by County Health authorities.
While a comprehensive discussion of microbial water quality
indicators is beyond the scope of this document, the
following information should clarify somewhat the role of the
bacteria and its use in the measurement of water quality.
Enterococci is defined as a bacteria normally present in the
intestinal tract of mammalian life, as is the e-coli and
fecal coliform bacteria. All three are utilized by health
authori ties as II indica tors. II These organisms are II counted II
in laboratory analysis to indicate the "probability" of the
possible presence of pathogenic (disease causing) organisms,
since, due to their rarity, the detection and measurement of
the pathogens themselves is considerably more difficult and
- 13 -
.
.
laborious. The total of these coliforms formed the basis for
the development of a state Health Standard (1000 colonies/lOO
ml) I and this standard has been used by health authorities
for determination of beach suitability for swimmers for some
years.
However, coliform bacteria are also found elsewhere
than in the intestinal tract, such as in common dirt, for
example. It is not, then, surprising that the test results
of storm drain runoff and the sea waters it enters show not
only high but sometimes erratic counts of coliform content,
as many types of foreign materials are contacted by the
effluent en route to the Bay.
5. An Improved street Debris Removal Program.
This aspect of the program is included because it is an operation
under the control of both the City of Santa Monica and the City
of Los Angeles.
The task force agrees that effective street
sweeping can reduce the amount of pollu ants entering a storm
drain system. Dirt, organic material such as leaves and grass
clippings, animal droppings, and discarded food can be removed
from the street by the mechanical street sweeper before the
material has a chance to be washed into the storm drain. It
stands to reason that effective street sweeping will reduce the
amount of pollutants which will reach the Bay. In addition, and
possibly more important than street sweeping, is the necessity of
regular cleaning of catch basins. Dirt, leaves, paper, and any
other debris that is deposited in the street can eventually be
washed to catch basins, which are openings to the storm drain.
These catch basins act as traps for some of the debris and, if
- 14 -
. .
not regularly cleaned out (manually or by using vacuum trucks),
can be the source of bacterial contamination due to the
decomposition of organic materials that accumulate.
Currently I Santa Monica sweeps each street gutter lane in the
city at least once per week. Commercial areas are swept three to
six times per week depending on the area.
The city of Santa Monica already uses wet sweeping methods and
has a very functional vacuum sweeper. staff sees no significant
improvements that can be made to the current street sweeping
program in Santa Monica.
The City of Los Angeles is still
considering whether or not to increase street sweeping. The City
of Santa Monica and City of Los Angeles will also evaluate the
benefits of increasing catch basin cleaning as a further effort
to reduce possible contaminants from the storm drain effluent.
city Council has requested that staff investigate the feasibility
of continuing to paint warning signs at catch basins.
staff's
investigations revealed that roughly 50 % of the 1,200 catch
basins (storm drain inlets) in Santa Monica belong to the Los
Angeles County Flood Control unit of the Los Angeles Public Works
Department, and the remainder are owned by the City of Santa
Monica. Approximately two years ago, the County began painting
stenciled signs in the area of each of their catch basins warning
that II dumping" materials in the catch basin is prohibited and
perpetrators could be subject to a $500 fine. The painting of
these signs is done any time County crews are working or cleaning
a basin, but there is no full-time effort being made to complete
- 15 -
. .
the signing in Santa Monica (or in the West Los Angeles basins
contributing to the Pico/Kenter effluent) as their program is
County-wide and contains 68,000 catch basins.
City staff has embarked on a program to paint similar signs on
all City-owned basins, beginning with the PiCO-Kenter storm drain
system and then encompassing all others. The County-owned basins
will also be signed utilizing stencils borrowed from them. A
contract painter will be assigned full-time until the signing is
complete. The message being painted on the City inlets is:
NO DUMPING
FINE/JAIL
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
STORM DRAIN
A contractor will be used so that all City-owned basins can be
marked in a relatively short time period rather than using City
maintenance forces and marking a few each week. The total cost
will not exceed $10,000.
PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS
The information outlined above is presented as a plan in concept
for a program designed to reduce bacterial and chemical
contamination of the Pico-Kenter Storm Drain. A great deal of
inter-agency coordination and cooperation will be required. For
example, City of Santa Monica and City of Los Angeles Staff have
discussed the possibility of executing a Memorandum of
Understanding that would provide for administrative details such
- 16 -
.
.
as which agency will pay the cost of disposal if a spill occurs.
For example, in the case of a spill, it was discussed whether, if
the origin of the spill could be detected, either by the sensor
system or by some other means, the agency where the spill
occurred would pay the cost of disposal. If the origin could not
be determined the cities would share the cost. Many details such
as these will need to be agreed upon.
SUMMARY
Santa Monica Staff, via this staff report, are presenting the
Task Force proposal to City Council, asking for endorsement of
the program and a commitment to participate proportionately in
the funding of the program.
It is anticipated that Staff of the City of Los Angeles and
County of Los Angeles will also request such endorsement. If
these endorsements take place, budget estimates for implementing
the program will be prepared so that requests for budget
appropriations can be made.
Should some or all of these program elements be implemented and
the effects evaluated, valuable information will be gathered that
should assist in improving storm drain effluent quality in other
regions.
- 17 -
.
.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
above are as follows:
preliminary cost estimates for the five point program outlined
Item
Capital
Cost
1. Lowflow pipe extension
and sensor/alarm system
$400,000
2. Increased pollution control
enforcement
3. Education Program
4. Increase Effluent Monitoring
5. Improved street Debris Removal
TOTALS
$400,000
Less:
Contribution from City of L.A.
and County
(267,000)
Permit Fees from Industrial
Waste Control Program
NET TOTALS
133,000
Footnotes:
Annual
Operating
Cost
$ 25,000 (l)
50,000 (2)
30,000 (3)
20,000 (4)
10,000
$135,000
( 50,000)
$ 85,000
1) Some portion of this cost will be assumed by County Public
Works Flood Control Division as part of their system
maintenance.
2} All Santa Monica costs are intended to be recovered through
user fees.
3) This is a maximum figure depending on the need for outside
consultants. other agencies will bear their own costs.
4) This will provide approximately 20 quantitative and
qualitative tests in addition to current levels of testing.
- 18 -
.
.
To allow for a margin of error, it is estimated that City of
Santa Monica costs will not exceed $l50,000 for a one-third share
of the capital costs and $85,000 for annual operating costs.
staff is not asking for an appropriation at this time. Staff is,
however, requesting City Council conceptual commitment of funds
to implement the pollution mitigation program.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Assuming appropriate approvals are received from the governing
bodies of the city of Santa Monica, the City of Los Angeles and
the county of Los Angeles, the des ign and construction of the
drain extension and sensor/alarm system could be completed within
eight months of the date of funding approval.
Several of the
other efforts such as the Public Education component can begin
immediately upon receipt of endorsement from the respective
governing bodies.
PLANS FOR SUMMER, 1987
It is very unlikely that all of the necessary agency approvals
and subsequent design of the drain extension improvements can be
made prior to the upcoming summer season.
Therefore, the
agencies involved are again faced with decisions as to how to
reduce the level of contact beach users have wi th low flow
run-off~ The alternatives available are:
1. Reinstalling the temporary 161r pipe extension which moves the
low flow waters for the drain outlet to the surf. This keeps
the low flow waters from running across the sand and helps
reduce the ponding that occurs.
2. Increasing the number of warning signs. Staff is planning to
do this for the coming summer season.
- 19 -
.
.
3. Fence off or close a section of the beach in the vicinity of
the drain.
4. continue efforts to channelize the path of the low flow water
across the sand to prevent ponding. This can be done by
hiring a private contractor to use a large bulldozer to cut a
path in the sand from the permanent drain outlet to the surf.
This needs to be done daily because of tide and surf action.
The Pico-Kenter Task Force will be studying these alternatives
and will make recommendations as to the desired configuration of
activities that will reduce the hazard to beach users.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Pico-Kenter Canyon Task Force has spent many hours evaluating
the pollution problems associated with the Pico-Kenter storm
Drain and have culminated this study with the five point proposal
to reduce pollution discussed in this report.
The Task Force and involved staff now need direction from their
respective governing bodies to continue the planning of this
program and to receive a commitment that funding will be
forthcoming.
Therefore, staff is recommending that Council adopt the attached
resolution which endorses the five point program and conceptually
commits City funds, pending approval of a detailed program, in an
amount not to exceed $l50,000 in capital costs and $85,000 in
annual operating costs.
Attachment:
Resolution
Prepared by:
Stan Scholl, Director of General Services
Neil Miller, Assistant Director of General services
Ed Lash, utility Manager
- 20 -
1 .
<..
.
.
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTENT OF
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOLUTION # i7~~S'
Council Meeting Date Yo/?Jr7'
Agenda Item # /1- A-
Was It amended? j\;lo
ALL FOR CITY CfERK'S ACTION
ORDINANCE It
Introduced~
Adopted:
Ali^lAYS PUBLISH A!X)P'l'!ill ORDINANCES*
*Cross out Attorney's approval
VOTE: Affirmative:
Negative~
Abstain:
Absent:
-::i) PROOF VO'TE~ WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING
DISTRInuIIuN': ORIGINAL 1:0 be signed, sealed and filed in Vault.
~-d
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: )
Department orIginating staff report ( * )
*CIty Attorney does not want copies of his OrdJ.nancesor reso.Lutions.
i~anaryement SerYJices Lvnne Barrette -urdInances only
b ... _ L- I ~ _
{;,
.
Agency mentioned In document or staff report
(certified?)
Subject file (agenda packet)
1
Counter file
1
Others -: (Review for departments who need to krlow).
Airport
Parking Auth.
AudItorum
Personnel
Building Dept.
Planning
Cullnuni ty and Econanic [)eV.
FInance
Police (en-
forcement?)
General Servo
/
Purchasing
Recr/Parks
.
Fire
Library
Transportation
Treasurer
Manager
SE~D FOU~ COPIES OF ALL QRDINANCES TO:
CODpD SYSTEMS, Attn Peter Macfearie
1. :_0 \fain' ,C't.r~et ~
" Avnl7 ~'~~v.' ~ersey_O'Z717
SEND FOUR COPIES OFAT.T. ORDTNA.NrFS TO:
b~b.ra \1yr1.ck
SAN'rA MO:JICA MUNICIPAL COURT
" 725 MAIN STREEt Room ll8
SA;.lTA MONICA, CA 9040l
*Check COde SectIOns before sending.
-3
TOTAL COPIES
, .
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 7369(CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA ENDORSING AND PROVIDING
FUNDING COMMITMENTS FOR THE FIVE POINT PROGRAM
PROPOSED BY THE PICO KENTER STORM DRAIN TASK
FORCE DESIGNED TO REDUCE CONTAMINATION OF
WATERS FLOWING THROUGH THE PICO KENTER STORM
DRAIN
WHEREAS, the city of Santa Monica recognizes the problems
of urban water run off and the contamination of low flow waters
which run through the City's storm drain system: and
WHEREAS, the pico Kenter Storm Drain is a major regional
drainage channel which has become the focal point of urban run
off issues for this region: and
WHEREAS, the city Council has previously endorsed the
formation of a mUlti-agency task force to study the problems of
chemical and bacterial contamination of the Pi co Kenter Storm
Drain: and
WHEREAS, the pico Kenter Storm Drain Task Force
recommends the funding and implementation of a five point program
designed to reduce levels of contamination of the low flow waters
running through the storm drain to the Santa Monica Bay,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Santa Monica hereby endorses the
recommendations of the pico Kenter storm Drain Task Force
designed to reduce contamination of the low flow run off water
passing through the Pico Kenter storm drain.
i .Ii:. :p
.
.
SECTION 2. The City of Santa Monica commits to funding
on a pro rata share with the city of Los Angeles and the County
of Los Angeles the cost of capital improvements to the pico
Kenter storm Drain as proposed by the Task Force in an amount not
to exceed $150,000.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Monica will provide
funding, not to exceed $75,000 per year, to maintain and operate
the storm drain improvements and provide funds for the purposes
of:
a) Increased public education regarding storm drain
contamination,
b} Increased enforcement of industrial wastes ordinances,
and,
c) Increased monitoring of contamination levels in the drain
waters.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Monica requests that the
City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles provide similar
endorsements and funding commitments to this vital problem.
SECTION 5. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~\--..~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
... ~
.
.
I hereby certify th t the foregoing Resolution No. 7369(CCS)
27th
January, 1987.
. --..........
"
was duly adopted by the
the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on January 27, 1987 by the following
council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers:
Finkel, Jennings, A. Katz, H.
Katz, Reed, Zane and Mayor Conn
Noes: Councilmembers:
None
Abstain: Councilmembers:
None
Absent: councilmembers:
None
ATTEST:
~7'h~
City Clerk
.
5oS-f!)O~-O/
.
,---
-,
, ~J-><)
"--..."~ '-- -~_...-
"
'\...J.JCt. _
. 'r-
t ~.~"",---.,J' I..
/
-'
5-E 13-A 14-A: PICO KENTER STORM DRAIN SANTA MONICA BAY:
presented were the request of councilmember Zane to discuss the
pica Kenter storm drain signage and testing information,
continued from October 14, 1986 (5-E); the request of Carl
Byker, Heal the Bay, to address council regarding pollution in
county storm drains (13-A); and a report from Mayor Reed
regarding appointment to the santa Monica Bay study committee
(14-A) . councilmember Zane moved to hear from the public for
three minutes each and combine li-A with this item. Second by
councilmember A. Katz. The motion was approved by a voice vote.
~ayor Reed move~ to pull Item l4-A at the same time. The motion
was duly seconded and unanimously approved. Discussion was held.
During discussion, it was agreed to hold a study session in
regard to the matter. Members of the public Carl Byker, AnguS
Alexander, and Mike Frazer spoke regarding pollution in the bay
from storm drain discharge. John Jurenka recommended a water
truck to clean the streets. councilmember Zane moved to direct
staff to (1) pursue improved signage, including Councilmember
Conn's suggestion of temporary mobile signs that could be moved
with the tide, (2) investigate the prospect of improving human
guarding , conceivably using lifeguards of the area, (3 )
introduce more frequent testing for toxics several times a day
for a period of time and intermittently to get randomized, better
coverage of toxics in the storm drain, and (4) try to find out
more about interococcis bacteria, the results of the County test
and the possibility of finding ways to do our own testing of the
bacteria to provide more accurate information on the safety of
the beach area around the storm drain. second by H. Katz.
During discussion, and there being no objection from the second,
councilmember Zane accepted as friendly an amendment by Mayor
Reed to add direction to staff to report on the possibility of
painting signs on all the inlets warning that there is a fine for
improper disposal into the storm drain. The motion was approved
by the following vote:
Council vote: unanimously approved 7-0
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 28, 1986
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
.
.
/L/-A
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OCT 2 8 1986
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO
October 28, 1986
Council Members
Mayor Chrlstine E. Reed
Santa Monica Bay Steering Committee
Some months ago Maureen Klndel, Presldent of the Board of Public
Works for the City of L.A., called a meetlng of all official
parties interested In the state of Santa Monlca Bay. At the tlme
I notlced the Councll and staff Vla E-Mall and have been attendlng
Slnce then.
The report on the flrst meeting of thlS work effort was clrculated
to Councll and lS attached for your lnformatlon.
From this lnltial effort, 1n which our Assemblyman Tom Hayden's
staff partlclpated, has come a study to be undertaken by SCAG,
and funded from the Envlronmental Trust Fund of the C1ty of
Los Angeles. This study 15 speciflcally aimed at answerlng the
questlons about the safety of the waters In the Bay -- especlally
wlth regard to publlC health concerns.
I have agreed to serve on the Steerlng Commlttee for thlS study.
The Clty Manager has asslgned Kenyon Webster to serve as staff for
thlS effort. For your informatlon I have also attached a copy of
the Study Work Plan and other material distributed wlth the agenda
of the flrst meeting.
There wlll be a serles of publ1C workshops conducted to provlde a
forum for the publlC to pose their questions about the state of
Santa Monlca Bay.
The flrst workshop wll1 be here. 10 our (Dunell Chambers, on
Saturday mornlng, November 8.
/'-I-A
OCT 2 8 1986
.
CITY
.
OF Los ANGELES
CALIFORNIA
SOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
MfMSERS
F'1=!:E:S'::':E:1't1""
OFFICE OF THE
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
485 3376
373 CITY H"LL
Los A"GELES CI< 900 1 ~
8 .J '1cI{ELVEY
5E:'CRET AR'P
'-IAUqEEN A K'NCEL
t-'O....E"l c e"lOOME.JR
....ICE PFlES"DE,"'T"
GENERAL INFORMAT:ON
413$-338 ,
485 3378
ROYAL 0 SCHWE:r-<OINGER
PRE$I::f:.....r ::l!fO ..~fotPORE:'
48!5 3379
EDWARD J AVILA
485 3377
STEVE HARRr"'GTON
4B!5-3375
TO:v1 BRADLEY
MAYOR
APt< 2 { 1986
~ /L~ ~L",-;ty--
(J -0--
l o--U-,r-- ~f
./r2c if01~- - r
'-/~~ '
d+ '--I ,0-G---/l/1 C\/)
, J
l
~"\
"'-"
Honorable Chr~stlne Reed,
Clty of Santa MaUlea
1685 Maln Street ~ .
Santa Monica, Cal~fornla
Mayor
~
/k
90401
.L
r..J
Dear t4ayor Reed:
Enclosed please find a copy of the statement of the outcome of the Santa Monica
Bay meeting of March 25, 1986. Thank you fot your participation.
Yours Very Truly,
/'
I
-;
<::::--~
..7
//1/1 ~~ 1
;[ ,~ 1...---____
I
I
I
!
/' /' /f "" I <
/ '-.. L", l./~~
--' v -
Qla.u.JULU-J~d
~UREE~ A. KI1~EL. President
Board of Public Works
Enclosure
--~--
,/1 t..-- ,,"--
\ ~ J'--
)/1 LL--
1"
i j
. r
v\; \
r i
r '1 r..-G\. /t {~
i
,
d~
---r--~
don/84
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
.
.
SANTA MO~ICA BAY MEETING OF ~~RCH 25, 1986
STATEMENT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE ~EETIXG
All attendees at this meet1ng agree that Southern California
Coastal waters (SCCW) must be adequately protected. There have been
many studies of the SCCW but there has not been a coordinated
interact10n between public/env1ronmental groups/sc1entific
co~~unity/public po11cy makers which utilizes scientif~c data as a base
for establ~sh1ng exist1ng public policy.
We bel1eve that SCAG can assume a leadership role 1n bringing
together the public, env1ronmental groups, SC1ent1fic community and
public policy makers to deternine what appropriate mechanisms are
necessary to accompl~sh the protect1on of the SCCW and, further, we
request that SCAG return to this group with a specific proposal as to
how this might be accomplished.
It is expected that proaucts of th1s effort would be useful to
local, state and federal regulatory agenc~es in develop1ng responslble
pub11c policy and sU1table long term water quality protect1on programs
for our coastal waters.
don/82
(
.
IOUTHERn CALIfORniA
AI/OCIATlon OF GOVERnmEnTI
600 kMllh Commonwealth Avenue .Juile 1000 .lo, Angele;. CallfornlO. 90005.213/385-1000
'++-1 {t'" _ .1,
I .'-;.+-- . / / \
~ 'I.~-.-/ .........
MEETING NO. 1
SANTA MONICA BAY STEERING CCM4ITTEE
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1986
2:00 P.M.
-s;:/ -j
j--
\
Southern California Association of Governments
600 ~ . Commonwealth Avenue. Suite 1000
10th Floor Main Conference Room
Los Angeles. California 90005
~~~~~~~~~~~**********************************************************~...*
Please contact Marianne Yamaguchi regarding attendance {213} 739-5791
AGE N 0 A
1. We 1 come
2. Introductions
3. Election of Chair/Vice-Chair
4. Purpose of Study I Phase r Work Program
The overall purpose of the study will be
discussed. as well as the Phase I Work
Program approved by the Santa Monica
Bay Organizing Committee, and antici-
pated Phase II work.
5. Study Area Boundaries
The Committee will be asked to approve
the proposed study area boundaries for
Santa Monica Bay contained in Attach-
ment 2A. Background information on
the Bay 1s included in Attachment 2B.
Hon. Pat Russell
2:00-2:10
2:10-2:25
2:25-2:35
Gloria McGregor
2:35-2:50
Information/Discussion
Attachment 1
Jack Anderson
2:50-3:05
Action
Attachment 2A/2a
~i;b~r 15, 1986 ,,~ ~/, ' iY-(
Vr' ~V / '::"vO'-
\ \j / Yl
6. Public Workshops - November 8, 10, 17
The basic approach to the workshops will
be discussed, as outlined in the Phase I
Work Program. and the committee will be
asked to give input on format, resource
people and publicity~
7. Scientific Review Committee (SRC)
The initial role of this Committee will
be to recommend to the Steering Com-
mittee the format and scope of Phase II
work, based on issues identified by
the public~ A list of SRC members will
be distributed at meeting. The list was
developed based on recommendations by
various agencies and groups.
8. Preliminary Identification of Public
Questions/Issues Pertalning to Bay
A primary objective of the Phase I
study is to determine from the public
what it views as the key issues pertaining
to the Bay (via the workshops) to serve
as the foundation for Phase II Work.
SCCWRP and SCAG have put together
a preliminary list of issues to be
circulated as background material for
the workshops.
9. Next Meeting Date(Adjournment
The next meeting is sc~u]ect fo~__
December 17, 1986 at F:ce-p~~
.
Marianne Yamaguchl
3:05-3:15
Discussion
Joanne Freilich
3:15-3:25
Information
Joanne Frei11ch/
Jack Anderson
3:25-3:50
Discussion
Attachment 3
.
.
Attachment 1
/1 ~ ' l I
'M-.,'~ \
i
SANTA MONICA BAY STUDY
PHASE I WORK PLAN
--!~ ..-...
~ /-
.-/
Phase I Objective: To understand and clarIfy PUbl,c concerns a~d questions
about the Santa Monica Bay environment and Its potent,al effects on human
and marine organlsms~ as well as the managementJregu1atory act,ons relevant
to the Bay. To use these concerns a~d questions to provide the focus for
identifying~ reviewing, and consolidating informat~on cur~~~tiy availaole
doout the condition of the Bay.
Task I Identifying Study Area
Identify the boundaries of the study area based on relevant information
such as currents, location of maJor discharges and other Jurisdict,onal
concerns. Prepare prel,m,nary maD dnd f,nalize after Steer,ng Committee
has approved the boundaries (Task 2).
Product:
Schedule:
Agency(s) :
Study Area Map
September 16 - October 1
SCCWRP
_Task 2 Identifying Steering Committee and Hold Meeting
Identify Santa Monica Bay Steerlng Committee (SMBASC) members from public~
environmental groups, scient,fic communlty and public policy members.
Convene initial meeting to discuss Phase I objectlves, prellminary public
issues and concerns regarding the conditIon of the Bay, study area
boundaries and public workshop format/content. SCCWRP to assist SCAG in
developing agenda materlals illustrating prelimlnary issues and concerns.
Product:
Schedule:
Agency(s}:
Preliminary issues/concerns, final study area
boundaries, workshop format and content
September 16 - October 15
SCAG; SCCWRP
Task 3 Conduct Public Workshops/Evaluate
Conduct 3 public workshops at different locations adJacent to the Santa
Monica Bay study area. Workshops to be approximately 2-1/2 hours eachy
aimed at recelving from the publ1C its questions and concerns regarding the
condition of the Bay. Wor~shops to include a facilitator/moderator and
resou~ce panel representing agencies such as wQes, Department of Fish &
Game~ Department of Health Services.
Product:
Schedule:
Agency{s) :
Report outlinlng public lssues and concerns raised
in workshops
November 8~ 10. 17 (Workshops)
SCAG
September 23. 1986
.
.
Task 4 Scientific Review Committee Selection and Recommendations
Es:aclish SClentific Review Commlttee (SRC) of scie~tists familiar wi~n the
marine envlronment and ~elated DUbl;c health concerns to reVleN q~es:1cnsl
issues identlfied in wo~Kshop report; and to forward recommercatlons :0 the
SM6ASC regarding scope of Phase II worK program, based on results vf
workshops.
Pr~duct:
Schedule:
Agency(s}:
Preliminary recommendations on Phase II work program
October 1 - December 10
SCAG; SCCWRP
Task 5 Steering Committee Workshops Evaluation
Provide staff support, and organize 5MBASC meeting to review wor~shop
results and SRC recommendations; develop 5MBASC overall comments and
recommendations on outcome of Phase I and parameters for Phase II
literature review.
Product:
Schedule:
Agency(s):
Recommendations for format and subject matter focus
of literature review of Santa Monica Bay related studles
December 17 {meetlng); December 30 (Report)
SCAG
Task 6 Progress Report Meetings
Meet with Santa Monica Bay Organlzing Committee established by City of Los
Angeles to report progress.
Product:
Schedule:
Agency(s):
Progress reports
September 16, Octobey 21, December 18, January 6
SCAG; SCCWRP
Total Budget: $25,500
.
;1.-./
/
\
~
\
\
1
I
i j {
i I
~ ~ ~
--~ ------~--
1I3AI1l9U!Jl'lo"Yscn
~
~
U5
'"
z
""=
r/1
,....,
""
-J
o
c-
.c zr";
:z- ,..-
~;z~ .... <(
... =-z Clio.!
:~;:;S~=
:~ ~<~ 0:
_ or ",;,.,,,, 0
z: =.-;
..... """.
~ ... ~;~
"':~::t~:t
i= -< ~
";:!- -
--
--
--
("i
V
\J
\j
."..-c,
,.....
.~
.,
,.,- 'l.I
?
.-J ,-
--'
\ .-.~<
{: /
~
"... -"-,.-....> ~
~ -~ //
'.f': //
. ..J .~ -:::-/"
"~ /'-...J
/
---
....-:
V C
-""
c Z
"
V
,J ;;
.::-J Q ;n
:.:
- Z ;oj
< ...
'-.J -
-' ,. ::i
~ r ~
r .-'- ~
I -' < '"
I ..- ~ ~
I -"
'-' Z \fI
.k '. ~....O l.i.l ..., ....
C. IX ....
.-- '-' .::I: i
\ .,..J ,/ ~ "-l ~
\ r-
I -- -----::-- !
-' z
~ < ::: ....
.--' '" ~
- '0 -:::-"" (I:J 0(
-0. z
j r <I
.."
C=.-- -<" ""
. ----)-----<
!
Attachment 2f.
:,8
/;/~
J' (J/
I /
I ! (
I
---
[I(!
, I
I I
] ) )
( , I
I \
1\ \
, I {
11/
i \ \
I \ \
I \ \
1\ \.A/
/\ \
/ \ '
'\ \. \
/ ,"-
\ \ i:
r ... ~
I .
'"
-1 -.r
_ E-:r
_t _" ~ :: :r
-' " :3 in :!
,- ~ ,~::L-
-'-fIlZ~~
=z-:.:.l~-
0l.;:J Z ,:::::E
.."...;~::=
<:..1---1'""\
~, (.l".=:~:::
~~=:;...:=::-:
;...;.;.:~~~
<~~;:;:~~
~~rz;:i
J __v~
.OO<1;..~
%
.~
=::
;.=
-
-
~~
.;;~
~::
....-
--
~~
-...
......
~~
:;~
~::
;-
~
.,
:;
<
z
'"
~
'"
"
z
.
.
Attachment 2B
The Santa Monica Bay
Background
The Santa Monica Bay Study area is a part of the Southern California aight~
which extends from Point Conception to Cabo Colnatl on the Baja Coast.
locally, the Bay is the result or a complex fauit system dominated by the
San Anreas Fault, which has resulted in unusual sea floors of baslns.
troughs and canyons. This topography allows deep~ cold waters and related
nutrients to encroach shoreward 1n the continental shelf area. The oceanlC
conditions are affected by countercurrents, several weather reglmes and
various periods of extreme weather conditions. As a result. the typical
condition of a completely balanced ecological system~ with steady mlxing
and stable transport are not characteristlc of the Bay environs.
~:
Manis intervention in the natural ecology of the Bay is tYPlfied by
regulation of sediment loads in major rivers and streams~ fishing
activities which have interrupted the natural ecologlcal chaln and
deposition of wastes into the ocean. The regulation of sediment loads has
interrupted the normal deposition of sediments on the beaches and 1n the
ocean~ thereby significantly altering the shoreline.
Continuous discharge of industrial and muniCipal wastewaters is an
important source of fresh water to the Bay, as well as emissions of various
biological and non organic constituents. These include such metallics as
iron~ lead. chromium, silver, nickel, copper~ mercury, zinc~ manganese and
cadmium; PCBls and DOT. Other wastewater constituents lnclude chemical
oxygen demand, oil. grease. suspended solids~ ammonla nitrogen. phophate,
phosporous~ biological oxygen demand, organlc nitrogen, dissolved silica~
detergents. cyanide dnd phenols.
Contaminants are also contributed by surface runoff~ vessel antifouling
paint and fuel consumption~ ocean dumping. airborne inputs and transport of
pollutants from other areas by the California current. Ocean dumping in
the past included refinery wastes, chemical wastes. filter cake, oil
drilling wastes, refuse and garbage. radioactive wastes, military
explosives~ dredge spoils~ and others. Some of these activities may still
be occurring tod~.
A recent NOAA study (March 1986) states that the highest concentration of
total DOT on the West Coast has and continues to be in marine organisms in
the Palos Verdes Penninsula area. Levels of DOT have declined
dramatically, but levels of PCB's appear to have remained constant at
unacceptably high levels.
Land uses along the coast are varied, inCluding residential, commercial,
industrial, public. agrlcultural and wilderness. Recreational activities
are extensive and include swimming, boating (or sailing)~ wading, surfing,
skin and scuba diving~ sunbathlng. plcnicking. camping, fishing and
aesthetic enjoyment of the land. ocean and aquatic and bird life. Most
activlties occur in re1atively sha110w water. over 90% within the 20 meter
contour. (The continental shelf ranges from less than 1 km to 16 km.
averaging about 5 km) Many marinas dot the coast.
.
.
Page 2
Attac~ment 28
Offsnore oil production~ although not occurri~g in the Santa Monica Bay
area, ;5 present in nearby waters; Santa Ba~bara to the north and Long
Beach to t~e south. All drilling activities have been proposed 1n the
Paclfic Palisaaes. There has been mining in the adjacent coastal lands in
the past, and it is possible that surface transport of exposed m1ne~als
could occur and affect the ocean waters in tne Bay.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the City of Los Angeles have
recently agreed to settle a long standing suit, by providing that the City
will give full secondary treatment to municlpal and industrial wastewaters
being discharged into the Bay by 199B and will cease the discharge of
sewage sludge into the Bay by 1987. Other sewage treatme~t plarts and
storm water drains are located along the coast and discharge wastewaters
which have received varying levels of treatment. The Bay condition has
improved somewhat since the 1970's, evidenced by the recovery of kelp beds
and the reappearance of various marine biota. However~ various soort
fishes still appear ;-:0 be contaminated with toxic substances and are not
considered suitable for human consumption. A recent request that the Bay
be declared a Superfund s1te was denied by the EPA.
The Southern California Coastal Waters Research Project (SCCWRP), founded
in 1969 by five sanitation districts in Ventura, Los Angeles and San Diego
Counties, has extensively studied the Santa Monica Bay since that time. It
has produced d maJor amount of research data. The EPA, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Regional Water Quality Control
Boards, Department of the Interior, Ca11forn1a Department of Fish and Game,
Coastal Commissions~ academics and others have researched and written
reports about the Bay, giving the Bay the clalm of being one of the most
studied bodies of water in the world. The reports all indicate that the
Bay has unacceptable levels of pollutants~ although there is not general
agreement about the effects of these pollutants on marine and human life~
nor is there agreement on what managem~nt techniques should be recommended.
The wide range of conditions, natural fluctuations and human impacts on the
Santa Monica Bay and its environs have made easy answers to questions about
the Bay not possible. There have been both negatlve and positive effects
from man's influence on coastal waters. Marine ecosystems may be severely
stressed. Human health may be adversely affected through fish consumpt1on
and body contact with ocean waters. The identification of technological
responses and/or perhaps changes ;n current management practlces ;s of
1mportance to bath affected involved agencies and the pub11c.
'. .
.
.
Attachment 3
October 79 1986
TO: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: SCCWRP and SCAG Staffs
Subject: Preliminary List of Questions and Issues Regarding Santa Monica
Bay and Vie,nity
~~~~~;~~~~~****************************************************************
The major objective of Phase I of the Santa Monica Bay Study is to identlfy
and clarify those issues and questions of concern to the public regarding
the condition of the Bay. These concerns will be utilized as a focus for
the r~v;ew of available informatlon on the Bay during a future phase of the
Study. While there currently exists much information and research on the
BdY9 it has never been consolidated into a form that has been readlly
-~available or understandable to the non-scientific community. Through this
latter effort 9 it is expected that there will be a better understanding of
what is known and what is still unknown about the condition of the Bay and
its effects on humans9 and marine life. and what additional research might
be necessary to "fill the gaps'l in information. The outcome of this work
;s also expected to aid in the development of appropriate policy actions
for the Bay.
Therefore~ during Phase I~ staff will be seeking input in the
identification of issues fram the Steering Committee and through the publlC
workshops. To initiate that process, the following preliminary list of
questions and issues has been developed by SCCWRP and SCAG staffs. Please
be prepared to discuss, clarify and prioritlze at the Steering Committee
meeting.
'. '
Da.ge 2
A.ttachmer:t 3
~ Is Santl Mcn~ca Bay getting cleaner or dirtier?
.
.
2. What changes have occurred in the Bay over time--blol~glc~ ecologls,
levels of contaminants, turbldityjclarity of water?
3. ~re areas contiguous to Santa Monica Bay gett1ng cleane~ or dirtier?
How much ccntimlnation do these contiguous areas contribute to Santa
r-1omca Bay?
4. How does the condition of the Bay compare with other maJor coastal
water bOdies along the West Coast?
'r5:\
.;0
Is it safe to s~im a~d fish in Santa Monica Bay?
wastewater outfalls is it safe to SWlm or fish?
drains ;s it safe to swim or fish?
How c10se to the
How close to the storm
~
~ 00 pathogenic viruses or bacteria travel from the outfalls to the
~ beach?
/' ..........
~) Can contaminants be absorbed through the skin? Through mucous
membranes? How do these contamlnants affect human health?
8. Should sportfishing guidelines concerning the taking and consumption
of contaminated fish be applied to commercial fishing? Should
sportfishing (sport & commercial) be restricted to specific geo-
graphical areas? Should fishing guidelines be applled to specific
l~speCies or all species in each area?
~What contam1nants or pathogens are present 1n storm dra1n runoff?
-10. What are the sources of contaminants, in order of increasing importance
(how do wastewater outfalls compare to other sources of contaminants)?
What contaminants have reduced or increased? Over what period Of time?
11. How do the effects on marine life from wastewater outfalls and storm
drains compare to those caused by other factors (e.g. commercial
fisheries, climate, currents)?
12. If the two major wastewater facilities went to complete secondary
treatment, what changes in the environment could we expect to see,
over what period of time?
13. What are the effects of thermal pollution on the marine ecosystem and
what do these effects mean to the general populatlon?
14. How does entrainment (i.e. power plant intake) affect marine life?
(~hat is known about the old dump sites in the Bay? How are they
.~regulated and/or monltored? What impact do they have on the Bay
envlronment?
16. What is the extent Of the DOT/PCB problem in the Bay, and how does it
affect marine biota/human health?