Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
98.06-12-2019 Administration Committee Item 3 Attachment 6 - Marine Monitoring Annual Report.pdf
. m©? � �/ ^ � 2 » r � \ . .» � \ . . �y c � � . .�2 \ \ �>� \ � � � � �y>> � � > � . . . . � \ � \ \ �? � d� ^ � � � , � \{ © � �\ � y ° . » \ \ » � � � � m � � � \ . � . y \� � � � > ��! \ :5 . � � � � ` � � \ \ \ � \ ' � add \ � z � . < d � `� \� <� � � � e % � / . ® �zee � � e � � ' � , $ e - . � 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 714.962.2411 www.ocsewers.com Grange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 714,962,2411 1 w ocsd.corn March 12, 2019 Hope Smythe Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 8 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside. CA 92501-3348 SUBJECT: Board Order No. R8-2012-0035, NPDES No. CA0110604, 2017-18 Marine Monitoring Annual Report Dear Ms. Smythe, Enclosed is the Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD) 2017-18 Marine Monitoring Annual Report. This report focuses on the findings and conclusions for the monitoring period July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. The results of the monitoring program document that the discharge of our combined secondary-treated wastewater and water reclamation flows (collectively, the final effluent) into the coastal waters off Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, California, does not affect the environment and human health. The results of the 2017-18 monitoring effort showed minor changes in the coastal receiving water. Plume-related changes in dissolved oxygen, pH, and transmissivity beyond the zone of initial dilution (ZID) were well within the range of natural variability and compliance with numeric receiving water criteria was achieved over 96% of the time. This demonstrated that the receiving water outside the ZID was not been degraded by OCSD's final effluent discharge. The low concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria in water contact zones, together with the low concentrations of ammonium at depth, also suggest that the final effluent discharge posed no human health risk and did not compromise recreational use. There were no impacts to the benthic animal communities within and adjacent to the ZID. Infauna and fish communities in the monitoring area were healthy based on respectively, the low Benthic Response Index and Fish Response Index values. In addition.. contaminants in nearly all sediment samples remained at background levels and no measurable toxicity was observed in whole sediment toxicity tests. The low levels of contaminants in fish tissues and the low incidence of external abnormalities and diseases in fish populations demonstrated that the outfall was not an epicenter of disease. Should you have questions regarding the information provided in this report, or wish to meet with OCSD's staff to discuss any aspect of our ocean monitoring program, please feel free to contact me at(714) 593-7550 or at Itvner+Tncsd corr JHw SFNnq rro o , N 2 y 90 f fir/NC THE EHV`POt` However, you may also contact Dr. Jeff Armstrong, the supervisor of our Ocean Monitoring section, who may be reached at (714) 593-7455 or at jrmstrong(jIlocsd cam. Lorenzo Ty r Assistant General Manager JA ja Enclosure cc. Alexis Strauss, U.S. EPA, Region IX Our Mission: To protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling. Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 714.962 2411 ( w v ocsd.com March 12, 2019 Certification Statement The following certification satisfies Attachment E of the Orange County Sanitation District's Monitoring and Reporting Program. Order No. R8-2012-0035, NPDES No. CA0110604, for the submittal of the attached OCSD Annual Report 2019— Marine Monitoring. I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for known violations. Lorenzo Tyr Assistant General Manager e, This page intentionally left blank. Contents Contents List of Tables v List of Figures vill Acknowledgments x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 WATER QUALITY ES-1 SEDIMENT QUALITY ES-1 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ES-1 Infaunal Communities ES-1 Demersal Fishes and Epibenthic Macroinvertebrates ES-2 Fish Bioaccumulation ES-2 Fish Health ES-2 CONCLUSION ES-2 CHAPTER 1 The Ocean Monitoring Program 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF OCSD'S OPERATIONS 1.5 REGULATORY SETTING FOR THE OCEAN MONITORING PROGRAM 1.6 REFERENCES 1.8 CHAPTER 2 Compliance Determinations 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1 WATER QUALITY 2.1 Offshore bacteria 2.1 Floating Particulates and Oil and Grease 2.1 Ocean Discoloration and Transparency 2.2 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 2.3 Acidity(pH) 2.3 Nutrients (Ammonium) 2.3 COP Water Quality Objectives 2.4 Radioactivity 2.4 Overall Results 2.4 Contents SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY 2.6 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 2.6 Infaunal Communities 2-6 Epibenthic Macroinvertebrate Communities 2-9 Fish Communities 2.10 FISH BIOACCUMULATION AND HEALTH 2-15 Demersal Fish Tissue Chemistry 2.15 Sport Fish Muscle Chemistry 2.15 Fish Health 2.15 Liver Histopathology 2.21 CONCLUSIONS 2.21 REFERENCES 2.22 CHAPTER 3 Regional Monitoring and Special Studies 3-1 INTRODUCTION 3-1 REGIONAL MONITORING 3-1 Regional Nearshore (Surfzone) Bacterial Sampling 3-1 Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program 3-2 Bight Regional Monitoring 3-3 Regional Kelp Survey Consortium—Central Region 3.4 Ocean Acidification Mooring 3-5 SPECIAL STUDIES 3-5 California Ocean Plan Compliance Determination Method Comparison 3-5 Fish Tracking Study 3-5 REFERENCES 3.14 APPENDIX A Methods A-1 INTRODUCTION A-1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING A-1 Field Methods A-1 Laboratory Methods A-3 Data Analyses A-3 Compliance Determinations A-3 SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY MONITORING A-7 Field Methods A-7 Laboratory Methods A-7 Data Analyses A-8 Contents BENTHIC INFAUNA MONITORING A-9 Field Methods A-9 Laboratory Methods A-9 Data Analyses A-10 TRAWL COMMUNITIES MONITORING A-10 Field Methods A-10 Laboratory Methods A-11 Data Analyses A-11 FISH BIOACCUMULATION MONITORING A-12 Field Methods A-12 Laboratory Methods A-13 Data Analyses A-13 FISH HEALTH MONITORING A-14 Field Methods A-14 Data Analyses A-14 REFERENCES A-15 APPENDIX B Supporting Data B-1 APPENDIX C Quality Assurance/Quality Control C-1 INTRODUCTION C-1 WATER QUALITY NARRATIVE C-1 Ammonium C-2 Bacteria C-4 SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY NARRATIVE C-5 PAHs, PCBs, and Organochlorine Pesticides C-5 Trace Metals C-5 Mercury C-10 Dissolved Sulfides C-10 Total Organic Carbon C-10 Grain Size C-10 Total Nitrogen C-10 Total Phosphorus C-11 FISH TISSUE CHEMISTRY NARRATIVE C-11 Organochlorine Pesticides and PCB Congeners C-11 Lipid Content C-11 iii Contents Mercury C•11 Arsenic and Selenium C-12 BENTHIC INFAUNA NARRATIVE C-13 Sorting C-13 Taxonomy C-13 REFERENCES C-15 iv List of Tables Table 2-1 Listing of compliance criteria from OCSD's NPDES permit (Order No. R8-2012-0035, NPDES No. CA0110604) and compliance status for each criterion for 2017-18. N/A= Not Applicable. 2-2 Table 2-2 Summary of offshore water quality compliance testing results for dissolved oxygen, pH, and light transmissivity for 2017-18. 2.5 Table 2-3 Physical properties and chemical contaminant concentrations of sediment samples collected at each semi-annual and annual (*) station in Summer 2017 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM)and regional values. ND = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable. 2.7 Table 2-4 Metal concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected at each semi-annual and annual (*) station in Summer 2017 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) and regional values. ND = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable. 2-8 Table 2-5 Physical properties and chemical concentrations of sediment samples collected at each semi-annual station in Winter 2018 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) and regional values. NO = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable; = ERM exceedance. 2-10 Table 2-6 Metal concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected at each semi-annual station in Winter 2018 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) and regional values. N/A= Not Applicable. 2-11 Table 2-7 Whole-sediment Eohaustorius estuarius (amphipod) toxicity test results for 2017-18. The home sediment represents the control; N/A= Not Applicable. 2-11 Table 2-8 Community measure values for each semi-annual and annual (*) station sampled during the Summer 2017 infauna survey, including regional and historical values. N/A= Not Applicable, NC = Not Calculated. 2-12 Table 2-9 Community measure values for each semi-annual station sampled during the Winter 2018 infauna survey, including regional and historical values. NC = Not Calculated. 2-13 Table 2-10 Summary of epibenthic macroinvertebrate community measures for each semi-annual and annual (*) station sampled during the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys, including regional and OCSD historical values. NC = Not Calculated. 2-15 Table 2-11 Summary of demersal fish community measures for each semi-annual and annual (*) station sampled during the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys, including regional and OCSD historical values. NC = Not Calculated. 2.17 v List of Tables Table 2-12 Means and ranges of tissue contaminant concentrations in selected flatfishes collected by trawling in 2017-18 at Stations T1 (Outfall)and T11 (Non-outfall), as well as historical values. NO = Not Detected. 2.19 Table 2-13 Means and ranges of muscle tissue contaminant concentrations in selected scorpaenid fishes collected by rig-fishing in September 2017 at Zones 1 (Outfall)and 3 (Non-outfall), as well as historical values and state and federal tissue thresholds. ND = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable. 2-20 Table 3-1 Number of stations comparison using OCSD and SCCWRP California Ocean Plan compliance determinations methodologies for dissolved oxygen, pH, and light transmissivity for 2017-18. 3-6 Table 3-2 Number of fishes tagged at the ouffall and reference area for OCSD's fish tracking study. 3-7 Table A-1 Water quality sample collection and analysis methods by parameter for 2017-18. A-2 Table A-2 Sediment collection and analysis summary for 2017-18. A-7 Table A-3 Parameters measured in sediment samples for 2017-18. A-8 Table A-4 Benthic infauna taxonomic aliquot distribution for 2017-18. A-9 Table A-5 Fish tissue handling and analysis summary for 2017-18. A-12 Table A-6 Parameters measured in fish tissue samples for 2017-18. A-13 Table B-1 Depth-averaged total coliform bacteria (MPNl100 mL) collected in offshore waters and used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance criteria for 2017-18. B-1 Table B-2 Depth-averaged fecal coliform bacteria (MPN7100 mL) collected in offshore waters and used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance criteria for 2017-18. B-2 Table B-3 Depth-averaged enterococci bacteria (MPN7100ml-) collected in offshore waters and used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance criteria and EPA Primary Recreation Criteria in Federal Waters for 2017-18. B-3 Table B-4 Summary of floatable material by station group observed during the 28-station grid water quality surveys for 2017-18. Total number of station visits = 336. B4 Table B-5 Summary of floatable material by station group observed during the REC-1 water quality surveys for 2017-18. Total number of station visits = 105. B-4 Table B-6 Summary of monthly Core COP water quality compliance parameters by season and depth strata for 2017-18. B-5 Table B-7 Species richness and abundance values of the major taxonomic groups collected at each depth stratum and season for the 2017-18 infauna surveys. Values represent the mean and range (in parentheses). B-6 vi List of Tables Table B-8 Abundance of epibenthic macroinvertebrates by station and species for the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys. B-7 Table B-9 Total biomass (kg) of epibenthic macroinvertebrates by station and species for the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys. B-8 Table B-10 Abundance of demersal fishes by station and species for the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys. B-9 Table B-11 Total biomass (kg) of demersal fishes by station and species for the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys. B-10 Table B-12 Summary statistics of legacy OCSD Core nearshore stations for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci bacteria (CFU/100 ml-)by station and season for 2017-18. B-11 Table B-13 Summary statistics of Orange County Health Care Agency nearshore stations for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci bacteria (CFU/100 ml-) by station and season for 2017-1& B-13 Table C-1 Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and Reporting Limits (RLs)for 2017-18. C-2 Table C-2 Water quality QA/QC summary for 2017-18, C-4 Table C-3 Acceptance criteria for standard reference materials for 2017-18. C-6 Table C-4 Sediment QA/QC summary for 2017-18. N/A= Not Applicable. C-8 Table C-5 Fish tissue QA/QC summary for 2017-18. C-12 Table C-6 Percent error rates calculated for the July 2017 infauna QA samples. C-13 vii List of Figures Figure 1-1 Regional setting and sampling area for OCSD's Ocean Monitoring Program. 1-2 Figure 1-2 Annual Newport Harbor rainfall (A) and Santa Ana River flows (B), 1993-2018. 1.3 Figure 1-3 Monthly 2017-18 beach attendance and air temperature (A)and annual beach attendance (B) for the City of Newport Beach, California. 1.4 Figure 1-4 OCSD's average annual influent and ocean discharge, OCWD's reclamation, and annual population for Orange County, California, 1974-2018, 1-6 Figure 2-1 Offshore water quality monitoring stations for 2017-18. 2.3 Figure 2-2 Benthic (sediment geochemistry and infauna) monitoring stations for 2017-18. 2-4 Figure 2-3 Trawl monitoring stations, as well as rig-fishing locations, for 2017-18. 2.5 Figure 2-4 Summary of mean percent compliance for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and light transmissivity for all compliance stations compared to reference stations, 1985-2018. 2.6 Figure 2-5 Dendrogram (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling plot (bottom panel) of the infauna collected at within- and non-ZID stations along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2017(S)and Winter 2018(W) benthic surveys. Stations connected by red dashed lines in the dendrogram are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The 5 main clusters formed at a 45% similarity on the dendrogram are superimposed on the nMDS plot. 2-14 Figure 2-6 Dendrogram (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling plot (bottom panel) of the epibenthic macroinvertebrates collected at outfall and non-outfall stations along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2017 (S) and Winter 2018 (W) trawl surveys. Stations connected by red dashed lines in the dendrogram are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The 2 main clusters formed at a 60% similarity on the dendrogram are superimposed on the nMDS plot. 2-16 Figure 2-7 Dendrogram (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling plot (bottom panel) of the demersal fishes collected at outfall and non-outfall stations along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2017 (S) and Winter 2018 (W) trawl surveys. Stations connected by red dashed lines in the dendrogram are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The 2 main clusters formed at a 60% similarity on the dendrogram are superimposed on the nMDS plot. 2.18 Figure 3-1 Offshore and nearshore (surfzone) water quality monitoring stations for 2017-18, 3-2 viii List of Figures Figure 3-2 Annual (April 1-October 1) Posted Days (orange bars) and Beach-Mile Days (blue line) from Seal Beach to Crystal Cove State Beach, California (2000-2018). 3.3 Figure 3-3 Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program monitoring stations for 2017-18. 3-4 Figure 3-4 Acoustic receiver locations for OCSD's fish tracking study. 3.7 Figure 3-5 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Citharichthys sordidus (Pacific Sanddab; n=34)displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAT in pg/kg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 29.0±56.7 (SD)days before they left the array. 3-9 Figure 3-6 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Parophrys vetulus (English Sole; n=6) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAH in pg/kg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 38.0±27.6 (SD)days before they left the array. 3-10 Figure 3-7 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Pleuronichthys verticalis (Hornyhead Turbot; n=15) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAR in pgfkg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 46.5±35.6 (SD) days before they left the array. 3-11 Figure 3-8 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Scorpaena guttata (California Scorpionfish; n=2) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAT in pgikg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the ouffall array were detected for an average of 8.0 days before they left the array. 3.12 Figure 3-9 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Sebastes miniatus (Vermilion Rockfish; n=55) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAT in pgikg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 151.1±104.0 (SD) days before they left the array. 3-13 Figure A-1 Offshore water quality monitoring stations and zones used for compliance determinations. A-4 ix Acknowledgments The following individuals are acknowledged for their contributions to the 2017-18 Marine Monitoring Annual Report: Orange County Sanitation District Management: Jim Colston.........................................................Director, Environmental Services Department Ron Coss...... ...Manager, Laboratory, Monitoring, and Compliance Division Dr. Jeffrey L.Armstrong.........................Environmental Supervisor, Ocean Monitoring Section Ocean Monitoring Team: George Robertson.... Son ior Scientist Dr. Danny Tang.............................................................................................................Scientist Kelvin Barwick.......................................................................Principal Environmental Specialist Ken Sakamoto.........................................................................Senior Environmental Specialist Hai Nguyen..............................................................................Senior Environmental Specialist Robert Gamber........................................................................Senior Environmental Specialist Laura Terriquez........................................................................Senior Environmental Specialist Ernest Ruckman......................................................................Senior Environmental Specialist Benjamin Ferraro.....................................................................Senior Environmental Specialist Geoffrey Daly......................................................................................Environmental Specialist MarkKibby............................................................................................................Boat Captain MeganNguyen.................................................................................................................Intern Laboratory Team: Miriam Angold, Jim Campbell, Dr. Sam Choi, Arturo Diaz, Joel Finch, Elaine Galvez, Thong Mai, Joe Manzella, Ryan McMullin, Dawn Myers, Canh Nguyen, Thomas Nguyen, Paulo Pavia, Vann Phonsiri,Anthony Pimentel, Luis Ruiz, Dr. Yu-Li Tsai, Norman Whiteman, and Brandon Yokoyama. IT and LIMS Data Support: Emmeline M°Caw and Matthew Garchow. Contributing Authors: Kelvin Barwick, Dr. Sam Choi, Benjamin Ferraro, Robert Gamber, Thang Mai, Joe Manzella, Dawn Myers, Hai Nguyen,Vann Phonsiri,Anthony Pimentel,George Robertson, Ernest Ruckman, Ken Sakamoto, Dr. Danny Tang, Laura Terriquez, and Dr Yu-Li Tsai. x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)conducts extensive water quality,sediment quality,fish and invertebrate community, and fish health monitoring off the coastal cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach,California.The purpose ofthis monitoring program istoevaluate potential environmental and public health risks from OCSD's ocean discharge of combined secondary-treated wastewater and water reclamation flows(final effluent). The final effluent is released through a 120-in outfall extending 4.4 miles offshore in 197 ft of water. The data collected are used to determine compliance with receiving water conditions as specified in OCSD's 2012 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit (Order No. R3-2012-W35, NPDES No. CA0116604), issued jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8. This report focuses on monitoring results and conclusions from July 2017 through June 2018. WATER QUALITY The public health risks and measured environmental effects to the receiving water continue to be negligible. Consistent with previous years, minor changes in measured water quality parameters related to the discharge of final effluent to the coastal ocean were detected. Plume-related changes in temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and light transmissivity were measurable beyond the initial mixing zone (<1.2 miles) during some surveys. These changes were within the ranges of natural variability for the study area and reflected seasonal and yearly changes of large-scale regional influences. Furthermore,the limited observable plume effects occurred primarily at depth,even during the winter when stratification was weakest. All state and federal offshore bacterial standards were met during the monitoring period. In summary, the 2017-18 discharge of final effluent did not greatly affect the receiving water environment; therefore, beneficial uses were protected and maintained. SEDIMENT QUALITY As in previous years, mean concentrations of organic contaminants and metals tended to increase with increasing depth, with the highest in depositional areas (>656 ft). Sediment parameter values were comparable between stations situated within and beyond the zone of initial dilution (ZID), and nearly all values were below the Effects Range-Median guidelines of biological concern. In addition, whole sediment toxicity tests showed no measurable toxicity. These results together with the presence of diverse fish and invertebrate communities adjacent to and farther afield from the outfall (see below) indicate good sediment quality in the monitoring area. BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES Infaunal Communities As with previous years, the community measures of infauna were markedly lower at stations deeper than 394 ft. Infaunal communities were similar at within-ZID and non-ZID stations based on multivariate analyses. Moreover, the infaunal communities within the monitoring area can be classified as reference condition based on their low Benthic Response Index values and high Infaunal Trophic Index values. These results indicate that the outfall discharge had an overall negligible effect on the benthic community structure within the monitoring area. ES-1 Executive Summary Demersal Fishes and Epibenthic Macroinvertebrates Community measure values of the epibenthic macroinvertebrates (EMIs) and demersal fishes collected at outfall and non-outfall stations were generally comparable. Furthermore,fish communities at all stations were classified as reference condition based on their low Fish Response Index values. These results indicate that the monitoring area supports normal fish and EMI populations. Fish Bioaccumulation Concentrations of trace metals and chlorinated pesticides in muscle and/or liver tissues of flatfishes and rockfishes were similar between ouffall and non-ouffall locations. Furthermore, concentrations of these contaminants in muscle tissue of rockfishes were below federal and state human consumption guidelines. These results suggest that demersal fishes residing near the outfall are not more prone to bioaccumulation of contaminants and demonstrate there is negligible human health risk from consuming demersal fishes captured in the monitored areas. Fish Health The color and odor of demersal fishes appeared normal during the monitoring period. The absence of tumors, fin erosion, and skin lesions in demersal fishes showed that fishes in the monitoring area were healthy. External parasites and morphological abnormalities occurred in less than 1% of the fishes collected, which is comparable to southern California Bight background levels. These results indicate that the outfall is not an epicenter of disease. CONCLUSION California Ocean Plan criteria for water quality, as well as State and federal bacterial standards, were met within the monitoring area. Sediment quality was not degraded by chemical contaminants or by physical changes from the discharge of final effluent. This was supported by the absence of sediment toxicity in controlled laboratory tests, the presence of normal invertebrate and fish communities throughout the monitoring area, and no exceedances in federal and state fish consumption guidelines in rockfish samples. In summary, OCSD's discharge of final effluent to coastal waters neither affected the marine environment nor posed a risk to human health. ES-2 CHAPTER1 The Ocean Monitoring Program INTRODUCTION The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) operates 2 wastewater treatment facilities located in Fountain Valley (Plant 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant 2), California. OCSD discharges treated wastewater to the Pacific Ocean through a 120-in (305-cm) submarine outfall located offshore of the Santa Ana River (Figure 1-1). This discharge is regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region 8 under the Federal Clean Water Act, the California Ocean Plan, and the RWQCB Basin Plan. Specific discharge and monitoring requirements are contained in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit issued jointly by the EPA and the RWQCB(Order No. R8-2012-0035, NPDFS No. CA0110604) on June 15, 2012. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OCSD's ocean monitoring area is adjacent to one of the most highly urbanized areas in the United States, covering most of the San Pedro Shelf and extending off the shelf (Figure 1-1). These nearshore coastal waters receive wastes from a variety of human-related sources, such as wastewater discharges, dredged material disposal, oil and gas activities, boat/vessel discharges, urban and agricultural runoff, and atmospheric fallout. The majority of municipal and industrial sources are located between Point Dume and San Mateo Point (Figure 1-1) while discharges from the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers are responsible for substantial surface water contaminant inputs to the Southern California Bight (SCB) (Schafer and Gossett 1988, SCCWRP 1992, Schiff and Tiefenthaler 2001). The San Pedro Shelf is primarily composed of soft sediments (sands with silts and clays) and is inhabited by biological communities typical of these environments (OCSD 2004). Seafloor depths increase gradually from the shoreline to approximately 80 m (262 ft), after which it increases rapidly down to the open basin. The outfall diffuser lies at about 60 m (197 ft)depth on the shelf between the Newport and San Gabriel submarine canyons, located southeast and northwest, respectively. The area southeast of the San Pedro Shelf is characterized by a much narrower shelf and deeper water offshore (Figure 1-1). The 120-in outfall represents one of the largest artificial reefs in this coastal region and supports communities typical of hard substrates that would not otherwise be found in the monitoring area (Lewis and McKee 1989, OCSD 2000). Together with OCSD's 78-in (198-cm) outfall, approximately 1.1x106 ft' (102,193 m2) of seafloor was converted from a flat, sandy habitat into a raised, hard-bottom substrate. Conditions within OCSD's monitoring area are affected by both regional- and local-scale currents. Large regional climatic and current conditions, such as El Nino and the California Current, influence 1-1 The Ocean Monitoring Program OCSn's S,,,,..Area �sx _ a, . —x seam a,nana OCSEYs Monibtl BA ao a A NOM avt vs ,c sss � , OCSO MvcM1 20�9 rl �� { Figure 1-1 Regional setting and sampling area for OCSD's Ocean Monitoring Program. the water characteristics and the direction of water flow along the Orange County coastline (Hood 1993). Locally, the predominant low-frequency current flows in the monitoring area are alongshore (i.e., either upcoast or downcoast) with minor across-shelf (i.e., toward the beach) transport (OCSD 1997, 1998, 2004, 2011: SAIC 2001, 2009, 2011). The specific direction of the flows varies with depth and is subject to reversals over time periods of days to weeks (SAIC 2011). Other natural oceanographic processes, such as upwelling, coastal eddies and algal blooms, also influence the characteristics of receiving waters on the San Pedro Shelf. Tidal flows, currents, and internal waves mix and transport OCSD's wastewater discharge with coastal waters and resuspended sediments. Tidal currents in the study region are relatively weak compared to lower frequency currents, which are responsible for transporting material over long distances (OCSD 2001, 2004). Combined, these processes contribute to the variability of seawater movement observed within the monitoring area. Harmful algal blooms, while variable, have both regional and local distributions that can Impact human and marine organism health (UCSC 2018, CeNCOOS 2019). Episodic storms, drought, and climatic cycles influence environmental conditions and biological communities within the monitoring area. For example, stormwater runoff has a large influence on sediment movement in the region (Brownlle and Taylor 1981, Warrick and Mllllkan 2003). Major storms contribute large amounts of contaminants to the ocean and can generate waves capable of extensive shoreline erosion, sediment resuspension, and movement of sediments along the coast as well as offshore. Some of the greatest effects are produced by wet weather cycles, periods of drought, 1-2 The Ocean Monitoring Program and periodic oceanographic events, such as El Nino and La Nina conditions. An understanding of the effects of the inputs from rivers and watersheds, particularly non-point source runoff, is important for evaluating spatial and temporal trends in the environmental quality of coastal areas. River flows, together with urban stormwater runoff, represent significant, episodic sources of freshwater, sediments, suspended particles, nutrients, bacteria and other contaminants to the coastal area (Hood 1993, Grant at al. 2001, Warwick at al. 2007), although some studies indicate that the spatial impact of these effects may be limited (Ahn at al. 2005, Reifel et al. 2009). While many of the materials supplied to coastal waters by rivers are essential to natural biogeochemical cycles, an excess or a deficit may have important environmental consequences. For example, in 2016-17, total rainfall for Newport Beach and annual Santa Ana River flows were nearly 1.5 times their historical averages (OCSD 2018a), which led to significant negative impacts on local beach bacteria levels (Heal the Bay 2017). For 2017-18, both annual rainfall (NCEI 2018) and Santa Ana River flows (USGS 2018) were well below historical average values (Figure 1-2A, B). A 30 25 y 20 r V_ 15 N By c Mean(1920-2018) 10 5 0 Be B 1,000,000 100,000 Be Mean(1923-2018) wa 10,000 0 O 2 1,000 0 u- 100 10 1 ov+ m m T m T o 0 9 0 o 0 0 0 q m m m m m m o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 N OCSD Program Year(July-June)N Figure 1-2 Annual Newport Harbor rainfall (A) and Santa Ana River flows (B), 1993-2018, 1-3 The Ocean Monitoring Program Beaches are a primary reason for people to visit coastal California (Kildow and Colgan 2005, NOAA 2015). Although highest visitations occur during the summer, Southern California's Mediterranean climate and convenient beach access results in significant year-round use by the public; over 250,000 beachgoers can visit the City of Newport Beach (CNB) during the typically cooler, rainier winter months of December to February (Figure 1-3A; City of Newport Beach 2018). As a result, a large percentage of the local economies rely on beach use and its associated recreational activities, which are highly dependent upon water quality conditions (Turbow, and Jiang 2004, Leeworthy and Wiley 2007, Leggett at al. 2014). In 2012,Orange County's coastal economy accounted 75 A 3.0 70 Pmg,am Yea,Mean 'mav 192M1201B Mean W 2.5 65 c m .E 2.0 \\ 55 \\ Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun i c \ Q 1.0 ♦♦ 1993-2018 L ♦♦ —Mean \ ♦ --- Range m 0.5 \ 0.0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month B 12 10 Mean 11993-2018) O E 8 m U m 6 N Q 4 U m N m 2 0 m o Y C C m m m m m m m OCSD Program Year (July-June) m Figure 1-3 Monthly 2017-18 beach attendance and air temperature (A) and annual beach attendance (B)for the City of Newport Beach, California. 1-4 The Ocean Monitoring Program for$3.8 billion (2%)of the County's Gross Domestic Product(NOAA 2015). It has been estimated that a single day of beach closure at Boise Chica State Beach would result in an economic loss of$7.3 million (WHOI 2003). For 2017-18, annual CNB beach attendance exceeded 9 million (Figure 1-36; City of Newport Beach 2013). Monthly visitations ranged from 260,000 in December 2017 to over 2.3 million in July 2017 (Figure 1-3A) with monthly visitation patterns near historical averages for most of the year. Average monthly air temperatures were higher than average for much of the year (Figure 1-3A). DESCRIPTION OF OCSD'S OPERATIONS OCSD's mission is to safely collect, process, recycle, and dispose of treated wastewater while protecting human health and the environment in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. These objectives are achieved through extensive industrial pre-treatment (source control), secondary treatment processes, biosolids management, and water reuse programs. OCSD's 2 wastewater treatment plants receive domestic sewage from approximately 80% of the County's 3.2 million residents and industrial wastewater from 688 permitted businesses within its service area. Under normal operations, the treated wastewater(final effluent)is discharged through a 120-in diameter ocean outfall, which extends 4.4 miles (7.1 km)from the Huntington Beach shoreline (Figure 1-1). The last 1.1 miles (1.8 km) of the outfall consists of a diffuser with 503 ports that discharge the final effluent at an approximate depth of 60 m. Since 1999, OCSD has accepted a total of 9 billion gallons of dry-weather urban runoff from various locations in North and Central Orange County that would otherwise have entered the ocean without treatment (OCSD 2018b). The collection and treatment of dry-weather runoff, which began as a regional effort to reduce beach bacterial pollution associated with chronic dry-weather flows, has grown to include accepting diversions of high selenium flows to protect Orange County's waterways. Currently there are 21 active diversions including stormwater pump stations, the Santa Ana River, several creeks, and 3 flood control channels. For 2017-18, the monthly average daily diversion flows ranged from 0.29-1,90 million gallons per day (MGD) (1.1-7.2xl06 Liddy) with an average daily amount of 1.66 MGD (6.3x106 L/day). OCSD has along history of providing treated wastewater to the Orange County Water District(OCWD) for water reclamation starting with Water Factory 21 in the late 1970s. Since July 1986, 3-10 MGD (1.1-3.8x107 L/day)of the final effluent has been provided to OCWD where it received further(tertiary) treatment to remove residual solids in support of the Green Acres Project (GAP). OCWD provides this water for a variety of uses including public landscape irrigation (e.g., freeways, golf courses) and for use as a saltwater intrusion barrier in the local aquifer OCWD manages. In 2007-08, OCSD began diverting additional flows to OCWD for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) totaling 35 MGD (1.3xl08 L/day). Overtime, the average net GAP and GWRS diversions (diversions minus return flows to OCSD)increased to 44 MGD (1.7x108 L/day) in 2008-09, 61 MGD (2.3008 L/day) in 2013-14, and 97 MGD (3.7x108 L/day) in 2017-18 (Figure 1-4). During 2017-18, OCSD's 2 wastewater treatment plants received and processed influent volumes averaging 185 MGD (7.0x1W L/day). After diversions to the GAP and GWRS and the return of OCWD's reject flows (e.g., brines), OCSD discharged an average of 87.6 MGD (3.3x101 L/day) of treated wastewater to the ocean (Figure 1-4). The year's peak flow of 134.9 MGD (5.1 x 10s Uday) in February of 2017 was well below the historical peak of 550 MGD (2.1x101 L/day)that occurred during an extreme rainfall event in the winter of 1996. Reductions in influent and effluent flows have been attributed to improved water efficiency and decreases in water use. 1-5 The Ocean Monitoring Program 300 3.5 250 3.0 2.5 200 0 2.0 m 0 150 0 3 LL 1.5 , c m m 100 —Ocean Discharge 1.0 —Influent OCWD Reclamation 50 ®OC Population 0.5 0 up R NMVt mr-W O O?7 mM V! �OFm m mm�m 66 mm mmm mmmmo oo'u nn`rb�nnmmmw'mmmrom m m m m..m mrn m m o o oo�00000dr«°"6".°� RRi,OCSO Program Year (July-June) Figure 1-4 OCSD's average annual influent and ocean discharge, OCWD's reclamation, and annual population for Orange County, California, 1974-2018. Prior to 1990, the annual wastewater discharge volumes increased faster than Orange County population growth (Figure 1-4; CDF 2018). Wastewater flows decreased in 1991-92 due to drought conditions and water conservation measures and then rose at the same rate as the population until the end of the late 1990s. Since then, influent flows have decreased. The combined effect of reduced influent and greater water reclamation flows have dramatically reduced ocean discharge flows. REGULATORY SETTING FOR THE OCEAN MONITORING PROGRAM OCSD's NPDES permit includes requirements to monitor influent, effluent, and the receiving water. Effluent flows, constituent concentrations, and toxicity are monitored to determine compliance with permit limits and to provide data for interpreting changes to receiving water conditions. Wastewater impacts to coastal receiving waters are evaluated by OCSD's Ocean Monitoring Program (OMP) based on 3 inter-related components: (1) Core monitoring; (2) Strategic Process Studies (SPS); and (3) Regional monitoring. In addition, OCSD conducts special studies not required under the existing NPDES permit. Information obtained from each of these program components is used to further the understanding of the coastal ocean environment and improve interpretations of the monitoring data. These program elements are summarized below. The Core monitoring program was designed to measure compliance with permit conditions and for temporal trend analysis. Four major components comprise the program: (1) coastal oceanography and water quality, (2) sediment quality, (3) benthic infaunal community health, and (4) demersal fish and epibenthic macroinvertebrate community assessments, which include fish health and bioaccumulation assessments. OCSD conducts SPS, as well as other smaller special studies, to provide information about relevant coastal and ecotoxicological processes that are not addressed by Core monitoring. Recent studies 1-6 The Ocean Monitoring Program have included contributions to the development of ocean circulation and biogeochemical models and fish tracking. Since 1994, OCSD has participated in 6 regional monitoring studies of environmental conditions within the SCB: 1994 Southern California Bight Pilot Project, Bight'98, Bight'03, Bight'08, Bight'13, and Bight'18. OCSD plays an integral role in these regional projects by leading many of the program design decisions and conducting field sampling,sample analysis,data analysis,and reporting. Results from these efforts provide information that is used by individual dischargers, local, state, and federal resource managers, researchers, and the public to improve understanding of regional environmental conditions. This provides a larger-scale perspective for comparisons with data collected from local, individual point sources. Program documents and reports can be found at the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project's (SCCWRP)website (httf>11ss�rp.org). Other collaborative regional monitoring efforts include: • Participation in the Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program (previously known asCentral Bight WaterQuality Program),awaterqualitysampling effortwith the City of Oxnard, the City of Los Angeles, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles, and the City of San Diego. • Develop projects to analyze historical data from large publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). • Supporting and working with the Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System to upgrade sensors on the Newport Pter Automated Shore Station (hJp vq vo^.socoos org data/ autos). • Partnering with the Orange County Health Care Agency and other local POTWs to conduct regional nearshore (aka surfzone) bacterial monitoring used to determine the need for beach postings and/or closure. • Collaborating on a regional aerial kelp monitoring program. The complexities of the environmental setting and related difficulties in assigning a cause or source to a pollution event are the rationale for OCSD's extensive OMP. The program has contributed substantially to the understanding of water quality and environmental conditions along Orange County beaches and coastal ocean reach. The large amount of data collected provides a broad understanding of both natural and anthropogenic processes that affect coastal oceanography and marine biology, including the near-coastal ocean ecosystem and its related beneficial uses. This report presents OMP compliance determinations for data collected from July 2017 through June 2018. Compliance determinations were made by comparing OMP findings to the criteria specified in OCSD's NPDES permit. Any related special studies or regional monitoring efforts are also documented. 1-7 The Ocean Monitoring Program REFERENCES Ann, J.H., S.B. Grant, C.Q. Surbeck, P.M. Digiacomo, N.P. Nezlin, and S. Jiang. 2005. Coastal water quality impact of stormwater runoff from an urban watershed in Southern California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:5940-5953, Brownlie, W.D. and B.D. Taylor. 1981. Sediment management for Southern California mountains, coastal plains, and shorelines. Part C. Coastal Sediment Delivery by Major Rivers in Southern California. Environmental Quality Laboratory Report 17C. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. CDF (California State Department of Finance). 2018. Demographic Reports. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year-July 1, 2010-2016. Internet address: httpJh,Nv, dol. ca goviForc.ccst ng F ir.;grap^ics Estimates'E-220'0 '01. (December 19, 2017), CeNCOOS (Central and Northern California Ocean Observation System. 2019. Harmful Algal Bloom Impacts. Internet address nti). .,r... ,onaxs otu 4uamrt k „ t., hags'lwp�.cts. (January 2019). City of Newport Beach. 2018. Fire DepartmenUMarine Operations Division Beach Monthly Statistics. Unpublished data. Grant, S.B., B.F. Sanders,A.B. Boehm, J.A. Redman, J.H. Kim, R.D. Mrse,A.K. Chu, M. Gouldin, C.D. McGee, N.A.Gardiner, B.H.Jones,J.Svejkovsky,G.V. Leipzig,and A. Brown. 2001. Generation of enterococci bacteria in a coastal saltwater marsh and its impacts on surf zone water quality. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:2407-2416, HealtheBay. 2017. 2016-17 Annual Beach Report Card. Internet addressnps 'horlthooay rig il ri ;er✓ rl gads 2017 (71ERG 20'7 FINAL ;vRes 07 t 3 '7 pof. (December 19, 2017). Hood, D. 1993. Ecosystem relationships. ln: Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation (M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson - Fee.). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. p. 782-835. Kildow, J.T. and C.S. Colgan. 2005. California's Ocean Economy. Publications. 8. Internet address: httos:i' cbo.mu(s odc w: ep Ft t I cations 9 . (December 19, 2018). Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley, 2007. Economic Value and Impact of Water Quality Change for Long Beach in Southern California. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report, Silver Spring, MD. Leggett,C.,N.Scherer,M.Curry,R.Bailey,and T.Haab. 2014. Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris: A Pilot Study of Beach Recreation in Orange County, California. Final, Marine Debris Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Cambridge: Industrial Economics Incorporated. Internet address: ht Fs ma,ned&bns rraa got reprit cconor r c st,A,, snov,s manne- deorls-casts ca itornla r. side ns-mull „ col ars. (December 17, 2018). Lewis, R.D.and K.K. McKee. 1989. A Guide to the Artificial Reefs of Southern California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2015. The National Significance of California's Ocean Economy. Final Report Prepared for the NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Internet address hUps coast n raa g.,, cata d gitalc ast pc' .,al or im ocean _e loam:4df. (November 30, 2016). NCEI (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information). 2018. Daily Global Historical Climatology Network, Newport Harbor, California (Station USC00046175). Internet address: htipsalwww.ncdc. maa.pc ,d�r mch dal t ot., 0-ION )stations`GH9NL USCG 1004G1 re d;tau. (October 6, 2018). OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District). 1997. Annual Report, July 1995 June 1996. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 1998. Annual Report, July 1996-June 1997. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD, 2000. Annual Report, July 1998-June 1999. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD, 2001. Annual Report, July 1999-June 2000. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. 1-8 The Ocean Monitoring Program OCSD. 2004. OCSD Annual Report 2003: Ocean Monitoring Program Science Report(July 1985-June 2003). Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 2011. Annual Report, July 2009-June 2010. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 2018a. Annual Report, July 2016-June 2017. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 2018b. 2017-18 Annual Report. Resource Protection Division, Pretreatment Program. Fountain Valley, CA. Reifei, K.M., S.C. Johnson, P.M. DiGiacomo, M.J. Mengel, N.P. Nezlin, J.A. Warrick, and B.H. Jones. 2009. Impacts of stormwater runoff in the Southern California Bight-Relationships among plume constituents. Cont. Shelf Res. 29:1821-1835. SAID (Science Applications International Corporation). 2001. Strategic Processes Study#1: Plume Tracking- Ocean Currents. Final Report Prepared for the Orange County Sanitation District. Fountain Valley,CA. SAIC. 2009. Orange County Sanitation District Ocean Current Studies: Analyses of Inter- and Intra-Annual Variability in Coastal Currents. Final Report Prepared for the Orange County Sanitation District. Fountain Valley, CA. SAID, 2011. Statistical Analysis of Multi-Year Currents at Inshore Locations in San Pedro Bay. Final Report Prepared for the Orange County Sanitation District. Fountain Valley, CA. SCCWRP (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project). 1992. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Biennial Report 1990-91 and 1991-92 (J.N. Cross and C. Francisco- Eds.). Long Beach, CA. Schafer, H.A. and R.W. Gossett. 1988. Characteristics of stormwater runoff from the Los Angeles and Ventura Basins. Technical Report Number 221. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA. Schiff, K. and L. Tiefenthaler. 2001. Anthropogeno versus natural mass emissions from an urban watershed. In: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report, 1999-2000(S.B.Weisberg and D. Elmore-Eds.). Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA. p. 63-70, Turbow, D.T and L.S. Jiang. 2004. Impacts of beach closure events on perception of swimming related health risks in Orange County, California. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48:312-316, UCSC(University of California, Santa Cruz).Biological and Satellite Oceanography Laboratory. 2018. A Primer on California Marine Harmful Algal Blooms. Internet address hrlu ecea dMamewnr.u,, n, . ,uu srei cutrea;,h IiAl3west oa,t2013.pdf. (January 2019). USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2018. Santa Ana River: USES, 5th Street Station, Santa Ana. Internet address: hUp no-11078000. (November-2018). Warrick, J.A. and J.D. Miliikan. 2003. Hyperpycnal sediment discharge from semiarid southern California rivers. Implications for coastal sediment budgets. Geology 31:781-784. Warrick,J.A.,P.M. DiGiacomo,S.B.Weisberg,N.P. Neziin, M. Mengel,B.H.Jones,J.C.Ohlmann, L.Washburn, E.J. Terrill, and K.L. Farnsworth. 2007. River plume patterns and dynamics within the Southern California Bight. Cont. Shelf Res. 27:2427-2448. WHOI (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute). 2003. An Inventory of California Coastal Economic Sectors. intemetaddress.hUr, rrwwrtivhrn .;du mar,;vet asaar�h NOII (,al ., nia,..Nrr.r,isrP�o'< t. �.,u�c,<';,?0 rey do?t;.,an05 pdf. (November 30, 2016). 1-9 This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 2 Compliance Determinations INTRODUCTION This chapter provides compliance results for the 2017-18 monitoring year for the Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD) Ocean Monitoring Program (OMP). The program includes sample collection, analysis, and data interpretation to evaluate potential impacts of treated wastewater discharge on the following receiving water characteristics: • Bacterial • Physical • Chemical • Biological • Radioactivity Each of these characteristics have specific criteria (Table 2-1) for which permit compliance must be determined each monitoring year based on the Federal Clean Water Act, the California Ocean Plan (COP), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan. The Core OMP sampling locations include 28 offshore water quality stations, 68 benthic stations to assess sediment chemistry and bottom-dwelling communities, 14 trawl stations to evaluate demersal fish and macroinvertebrate communities, and 2 rig-fishing zones for assessing human health risk from the consumption of sport fishes (Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3). Monitoring frequencies varied by component and ranged from 2-5 days per week for nearshore (also called surfzone)water quality to annual assessments of fish health and tissue analyses. WATER QUALITY Offshore bacteria For all 3 fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), over 99% of the samples were below their 30-day geomean values(1,000,200,and 35 MPNl100 mL for total coliform,fecal coliform and enterococci, respectively) with the majority (61-91%) below detection (<10 MPN). The highest density observed for any single sample at any single depth for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci was 2613, 493, and 75 MPN(100 mL, respectively. As a result, the majority of the depth-averaged values used for water contact compliance were below detection (Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3). Compliance for all 3 FIB was achieved 100%for both state and federal criteria, indicating no impact of bacteria to offshore receiving waters. Floating Particulates and Oil and Grease There were no observations of oil and grease or floating particles of sewage origin at any inshore (Zone A) or offshore (Zone B) station in 2017-18 (Tables B-4 and B-5). Therefore, compliance was achieved. 2-1 Compliance Determinations Table 2-1 Listing of compliance criteria from OCSD's NPDES permit (Order No. R8-2012-0035, NPDES No. CA0110604) and compliance status for each criterion for 2017-18. N/A= Not Applicable. Criteria Criteria Met de used Cbaruolen'tum V A a.For the Ocean Plan Water-Conmat Standards,toll random m density shell not exceed a 30-day Geometry Mean of 1,0 W per 100 mL are a single sample maximum of 10,000 per 100 mL.The total colitorm hardly shall not exceed 1.000 per we 100 mL when the single sample maximum fecal dellfr mJioml corfonn ratio exceeds 0.1, VAA lb For the Ocean Plan Water Content Commerce.fecal muffin m density shall not exceed a 30-day Geometrlo Mean of 200 yes per 100 mL nor a niggle sample maximum of 400 per 100 mL. VA.t.a.For the Ocean Plan WasruCantect Standards Enfem bwor,density shall not exceed a 30-day Geometrlo Mean of 35 Yes per 1Un mL nor a single sample,maximum of 104 par 100 mL. V A.i.b.For the USEPA Primary Recreation Chteda In Federal Waters proceceepos density shall act exceed a30 day Geometric Mean(per 100 sm)of 35 nor a single sample maximum(per tine mL)of 104 for designated bathing beach, 158 for Yes moderate use.276 for light use,and 501 for infrequent use. VAA 1.b For the Ocean Plan Shellfish Harvesting Standards,the median total western density shell not exceed 70 per 100 min N/A and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 230 per 100 pi Physical tolumeierlstko VA.2.a.Floating particulate,and grease and or shall not be table. Yes VA26.The discharge of waste shall not cause aesmedcaliy undesirable discoioatlon of the ocean surface yes boxy Neutral light shall not be significantly reduced at any point notaidethe initial dilution zone,as a result of the disdlarge,of Yos waste. V A 2d.The date of deposition of Inert solids and the characteristics of Inert solids in ocees sediments shall not be changed such that vendors communities are degraded. Ye,, Ch oy eal Gendn'te..Ncs VA Is,The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not at any time be depressed more than 10 percent from that which occurs Yw naturally,as the result of the discharge of oxygen demanding was,a materiels. VA 3.b.The and shell not be changed at any time more than 02 unit,from that which occurs namrally. Yes VA.3.c.The dissolved sulfide consensus,of waters in and near sediments shall hot be ognlfi0antly Increased above that Yaw present under natural conandas- VA.3d.The anceunion of substances,setforth in Chapter 11,Table I(fomierly Table B)othe Ocean Plan,in marine sediments Yes shall not be increased to levels which would degrade Indigenous biota_ VA.3.e.The eomentation of organic materiels In marine sediments shall not be increased to levels which would degrade marine ye, life VA 3 f.Nutrient nabobs shall not cans,objectionable agoure growths or degrade Indigenous biota Vas VA 3 ,The conominations of substances,set forth In Chapter II,Table i (formerly Table B)of me Ocean Plan,shall not be Yaw exceeded In the arBe within the.,,in field where Iwhal dilwass is completed. Birxi repurchases, Veda Marine communities,imposing vertebrate,invertebrate and plant species,shall not be,degraded. Ye,s VAA.b.The natural taste.cup,and wlot of fish,smatioh,or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not be Yes shared VA do The concentration of organic materials in her,shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shell not Ycu bloaaomulate to levels that are harmful to human health. VA5 Discharge ofradiuclAN,waste shau not nearby,marine life. Yes Ocean Discoloration and Transparency The water clarity standards were met, on average, 100% and 97% of the time for Zone A and B station groups, respectively (Table 2-2). Overall compliance was met 93% of the time for all stations combined. Compliance was essentially the same asthe previous year's value of97.7d/o and was well within the annual ranges since 1985, ranking 12 of 33 since 1985 (Figure 2-4). All light transmissibility values (Table B-6) were within natural ranges of variability to which marine organisms are exposed (OCSD 1996a). Hence, there were no impacts from the treated wastewater discharge relative to ocean discoloration at any offshore station. 2-2 Compliance Determinations mm zom R 1amat.n PIan11 Hunpn Beach 30m $J61P / �ltaeMBnf ' zgonN PI-12 NawPort <Om a3wm.. l 8eaah ns m Y -- 2405P Rrzzaa v3E3w - SOm i sa0220 —1 XiOAP / �faaP SOm r zoom zlena y._zlgs® mam 'AIL ft { j o OC OCSO Md2h 2098 Figure 2-1 Offshore water quality monitoring stations for 2017-18. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) In 2017-18, compliance was met, on average, 96.0% for both Zone A and B station groups and for all stations combined (Table 2-2). This represents a decrease in compliance of 1.7% from the 2016-17 monitoring year and rank 24 since 1985 (Figure 2-4). The DO values (Table B-6) were well within the range of long-term monitoring results (OCSD 1996b, 2004). Thus, it was determined that there were no environmentally significant effects to DO from the treated wastewater discharge. Acidity(pH) Compliance was met 99% for both zones, separately and combined (Table 2-2; Figure 2-4). There were no environmentally significant effects to pH from the treated wastewater discharge as the measured values (Table B-6)were within the range to which marine organisms are naturally exposed. Nutrients (Ammonium) During 2017-18, over 87°/ of the samples(n=2,572) were below the Reporting Limit(0.02 mg/L). Detectable ammonium concentrations, including estimated values, ranged from 0.011 to 0.198 mg/L (Table B-6). Plume-related changes in ammonium were not considered environmentally significant as maximum values were 20 times less than the chronic (4 mg/L) and 30 times less than the acute (6 mg/L) toxicity standards of the COP (SWRCB 2012). In addition, there were no detectable plankton-associated impacts (i.e., excessive plankton blooms caused by the discharge). 2-3 Compliance Determinations mro T��tmelt P�ant 2 I m 1,_r I x I 4� Figure 2-2 Benthic (sediment geochemistry and infauna) monitoring stations for 2017-18. COP Water Quality Objectives OCSD's NPIDES permit contains 8 constituents from Table 1 (formerly Table B) of the COP that have effluent limitations(see Table 9 of the permit). During the period from July 2017 through June 2018, none of these constituents exceeded their respective effluent limitations, so receiving water compliance was met. Radioactivity Pursuantto OCSD's NPDES permit, OCSD measures the influent and the effluent for radioactivity but not the receiving waters. The results of the influent and the effluent analyses during 2017-18 indicated that both state and federal standards were consistently met and are published in OCSD's Discharge Monitoring Reports. As fish and invertebrate communities are diverse and healthy, compliance was met. Overall Results Overall, results from OCSD's 2017-18 water quality monitoring program detected minor changes in measured water quality parameters related to the discharge of treated wastewater to the coastal ocean. This is consistent with previously reported results (e.g., OCSD 2017). Plume-related changes in temperature, salinity, DO, pH, and transmissivity were measurable beyond the initial mixing zone during some surveys. This usually extended only into the nearfield stations, typically <2 km 2-4 Compliance Determinations bnnn -\ i24 A T2 y Jftr f7 ®ns ® Y C D f j na �/.usy, A A U. Du y up wam �RCfEMIGe ®s 0 �J` tr' ) J -- t x � a t f} �OUHaII) -son �� Seviii-Iniiisunona16) - Annual5 ns, NORTH ----I up IIIDI ones Oc 0,1 on, OC60 Mamh 2019 Figure 2-3 Trawl monitoring stations, as well as rig-fishing locations, for 2017-18. away from the outfall, consistent with past findings. None of these changes were determined to be environmentally significant since they fell within natural ranges to which marine organisms are exposed (OCSD 1996a, 2004; Wilber and Clarke 2001, Chavez et al. 2002, Jarvis et al. 2004, Allen of al. 2005, Hsieh at al. 2005). Overall, the public health risks and measured environmental effects to the receiving water continue to be small. All values were within the ranges of natural variability for the study area and reflected seasonal and yearly changes of large-scale regional influences. The limited observable plume effects occurred primarily at depth, even during the winter Table 2-2 Summary of offshore water quality compliance testing results for dissolved oxygen, pH, and light transmissivity for 2017-18. Number of Number of Percent Number Percent Parameter Observations Ou0o0.Range Ouuof-Range Opt-0-Compliance Out-of.Compliance occurrences Occurrences Zone A Sphons Gosdore stoes,croup) DlatoNed D,ygen 471 49 in% 19 41/. pH 471 33 7% 5 1% Lou TreremlssNlty 471 144 31% o 0% Zone B Stanous(Offshore Station O(oup) Dissolved oxygen 455 45 10% 17 4% pH 455 10 2% 4 1% Light Tansmisenty 455 76 17% 15 30 Zone Aend Zone B stations combrhed Dlsaolved Oxygen 926 g4 10% 36 4% pH 926 43 5% 9 10 Light TmosmlsslNty 926 220 24% 15 27. 2-5 Compliance Determinations ®DO ®pH a Light Transmissivity 100 95 m � 90 m a E 0 85 80 75 w w m w m m m m rn m m m m o 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m o+ m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCSD Program Year (July-June) Figure 2-4 Summary of mean percent compliance for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and light transmissivity for all compliance stations compared to reference stations, 1985-2018. when stratification was weakest. In summary, OMP staff concluded that the discharge in 2017-18 did not greatly affect the receiving water environment and that beneficial uses were protected and maintained. SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY The mean concentration of most chemical contaminants and metals in 2017-18 were highest in the Upper Slope/Canyon stratum as in previous years (Tables 2-3 and 2-4; OCSD 2016, 2017, 2018). Nearly all chemical contaminant concentrations were well below the Effects Range-Median (ERM) guidelines of biological concern (Tables 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6; Long et al. 1995). The single dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) exceedance in the winter survey was not cause for concern as the measured concentration is within historical ranges (OCSD 2010, 2013) and DDT itself is a known legacy contaminant with the Southern California Bight (Schiff 2000). In addition, there was no measurable sediment toxicity at any of the 9 stations monitored in the winter(Table 2-7). As a result, we conclude that compliance was met. BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES Infaunal Communities Atotal of 697 invertebrate taxa comprising 33,266 individuals were collected in the 2017-18 monitoring year. As with previous years(OCSD 2017, 2018), there were noticeable declines in the mean species number (richness) and mean abundance of infauna at stations deeper than 120 m (Table 2-8) and 2-6 Compliance Determinations Table 2-3 Physical properties and chemical contaminant concentrations of sediment samples collected at each semi-annual and annual (*) station in Summer 2017 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) and regional values. ND = Not Detected; N/A = Not Applicable. Station Oep1h Median Phi Fines TOC SUlfdes TotalP TotaiN £PAH £NOT LPest iPC6 (m) (0) Ou (%) (m911,9) (m91k9) (m91k9) (m91kg) (m9189) Im91k9) (m91k9) Middle SheeZo 1(3150 m) 7` 41 3.57 17.1 0.42 243 990 3% 45.5 2.17 399 3.30 6' 44 3.56 174 0.38 1.87 950 390 372 475 NO 0.86 21" 44 344 165 040 4.19 1000 390 427 1131 NO 040 22, 45 367 209 0.38 3.98 1000 380 397 2.06 NO 0.19 30' 46 346 18.2 0.39 433 1000 440 44.3 22.35 NO NO 36" 45 3.29 14.1 038 3.09 840 350 40.5 236 NO 111 55' 40 2.57 32 0.17 174 600 21D 12o NO NO NO 59' 40 294 10.2 037 178 930 410 306 NO NO NO Mean 3.31 14.7 0.36 3.68 914 370 36.6 5.62 0.50 0.73 Middle Shelf Zone 2,Wfhlo-ZID(51-90 mj 0 56 3.12 14.6 0.55 5.01 1700 610 344.6 NO NO 24.75 4 55 304 10.8 037 215 860 520 499 NO NO 094 76 58 3.19 12 7 0.34 3.51 1000 340 27 9 NO 2.08 3.50 ZB 56 312 90 038 690 970 420 351.8 NO NO 159 Mean 3.12 1t8 0A1 4.39 1132 472 193.6 NO 0.52 7.70 Meddle SWf Zone 2.Nal-ZID(5190 mJ 1 56 3.39 15.0 0.37 230 1000 470 56.8 552 NO 1,50 3 60 3.14 7.3 035 4.26 890 390 240A NO NO 2.73 5 59 3.54 167 0.39 1.87 980 500 2573 NO NO 070 9 59 3% 127 035 3.14 910 450 351 NO 648 NO 1➢' 62 3.56 123 039 3.71 950 370 36d NO NO 103 12 58 3.12 16.5 0.33 1.18 800 430 218 NO NO NO is- 59 357 176 039 NO 890 380 590 289 NO 022 37 56 2.55 75 0.35 10.10 530 480 416 NO NO ND 68 52 3.39 137 0.41 2.64 970 470 400 1.94 NO NO 69 52 3.38 15.5 0.38 407 950 520 42.3 NO NO NO 70 52 322 12.5 0.39 529 930 450 31.5 NO NO 0.52 71 52 3.15 128 040 258 860 350 297 178 NO 0.30 72 55 334 128 0.35 301 990 380 654 NO NO 1.55 73 55 305 72 0,42 695 1200 420 60.5 2.65 NO 65.39 74 57 3.27 165 033 228 950 450 398 NO NO NO 75 60 307 104 0.39 3.85 850 3% 2102 NO NO NO 77 60 3-05 91 038 379 1100 390 431 NO NO NO 78 63 3.12 12A 039 3.28 1100 340 25.5 NO NO 1.01 79 65 3.2B 11,2 0.34 282 910 420 394 NO NO 1.17 80 65 336 15.2 039 387 890 370 448 NO NO 135 81 65 321 10.8 0.35 4.04 940 330 29.6 NO NO 0.38 82 65 3.19 124 036 4.79 850 40D 259 NO NO 125 64 54 3.11 133 0.42 594 1000 510 155.5 NO NO 6,98 B5 57 318 123 0.44 970 1200 460 261.4 NO NO 13.19 86 57 3.17 125 039 702 1000 420 2847 NO NO 829 87 60 321 12.2 0.36 4.17 930 410 461 NO NO 0.97 C 56 3.15 115 0.33 623 910 380 38.9 NO NO NO C2' 56 541 616 270 3370 1000 1200 4888 686 NO 7039 CON 59 323 122 0.42 7.07 990 420 468 2.26 NO 043 Mean 3.29 14.3 0.46 5.49 947 447 96.5 0.82 0.22 6.25 Middle Shett Zo 3(91-120m) 17' 91 3.11 9.1 0.45 258 BID 400 190 1.77 NO 0.19 18' 91 3.25 114 0,45 NO B60 390 23.1 NO NO 0,25 20` 100 376 185 047 607 890 460 409 257 NO 367 23` 10D 322 152 0.38 2.81 830 380 248 NO NO NO 29' 100 389 22.2 0.56 5.15 950 550 67.2 2,49 NO 8.17 33" 100 257 11,7 044 6.33 640 300 25.5 NO NO NO 38' 1D0 3.52 151 0.54 11.20 660 32D 800 NO NO 0.33 56' 100 354 17.1 051 448 990 490 570 346 NO 392 60' 100 392 24.6 076 8.09 1000 680 689 408 NO 226 93' 100 3.38 1t0 0.48 749 810 480 310 NO NO 0.90 Mean 3.42 156 0.50 6.02 a" 445 438 1.44 NO 1.47 Ouler She f(121-200 m) 24' 200 4.59 41.7 091 4.97 900 7% 698 763 NO 3.02 25- 200 4.86 48.5 1.16 1100 B50 1100 1089 8.95 NO 556 27' 200 389 26A 075 334 970 760 50A 404 NO 1.52 39` 2DD 4.66 24.5 0.66 1,79 820 620 739 NO NO NO 57- 200 5 36 597 1 74 4440 670 1600 175.5 622 NO 11 59 61' 200 4.78 468 1.26 1570 940 1100 724 NO NO ND 63= 200 4.55 407 101 745 920 810 752 3.63 NO 1.09 65' 200 4A3 396 095 11A0 980 960 707 2.10 NO NO C4' 187 531 59.5 171 23.30 930 1300 272.3 5.99 NO 4.98 Mean 4.71 43.1 1.13 13.67 909 1004 107.7 4.28 NO 3.12 - Table 2-3 continues. 2-7 Compliance Determinations Table 2-3 continued. Delhi Median Fines TOC Suili Total P Total N £PAH £DDT £Peal £PCB Slelion (ml (91 Phi (%) (%) (igi (m81k9) (m93k8) (m9✓k9) tm9189) (higi (m81k9) Upper Slope7Canyon(201-500in) 40 303 2.19 447 1,24 317 880 110D 659 243 ND 0.24 41 ' 303 474 45U 1.49 383 880 1300 97.3 322 ND 0.47 42' 303 548 52.2 1 TO 8.13 850 1500 1129 2.58 ND 0.50 44' 241 6.67 664 216 21.60 910 1500 1946 1.90 ND 187 58' 300 574 67.9 2.19 10.30 880 1400 168.5 1413 NO 6.68 62` 300 5.58 64.7 2.23 36.90 Boo 1900 160.0 632 ND 4.19 64' 300 551 622 100 2310 900 460 583 365 ND 369 C5' 296 5.76 70.8 2.50 4460 1000 2300 162.9 443 NO 3.12 Mean 5.08 60.6 1.81 18.95 888 1432 127.6 4.78 No 2.60 Setlimen(quehfy.nidelinee ERM NIA WA NIA N/A WA N/A 44792.0 46.10 NIA 180.00 Regional summer values(area welghte0 mean) Bight 13 Middle Shelf WA 480 070 NIA NIA WA 550 1800 NIA 270 Blght 13 Onter Shelf NIA 49.0 0.93 NIA WA N/A 92.0 79.00 NIA 4.50 Bight 13 Upper Slope WA 75.0 1,90 NIA WA WA 160.0 490.00 NIA 15.00 Table 2-4 Metal concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected at each semi-annual and annual (") station in Summer 2017 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) and regional values. ND = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable. Station Depth S4 AS Be Be Cd Cr Cu Ph H9 Ni Se Ag Zn Mlddle Shoff Zone 1(31-50 m) 7` 41 ND 354 49.1 0.19 0.12 1770 8.35 6.98 0.D2 8.9 1,26 011 37.2 1. 44 NO 350 51a 017 0.16 1830 815 6-85 003 90 135 010 399 21' 44 NO 4.06 45.9 0.18 0.10 1880 8.11 727 002 6.5 1.55 0.10 407 22" 45 ND 393 483 0.18 0.13 1870 8.05 717 0.D2 9.2 147 0.09 42.1 30. 46 ND 4.12 383 0.17 0.10 18.30 722 6.67 0.01 60 106 009 365 36' 45 NO 4.41 49.9 0.19 0.13 16.50 7.50 7.10 002 8.9 1.20 0.05 407 55 40 NO 233 301 013 004 1250 3.87 3.81 0.01 B-3 0-66 0-02 242 59' 40 ND 3.08 35.2 0.14 0.06 1490 SS0 52 001 7.1 114 006 307 Mean ND 3.62 43.6 0.17 OLIO 16.96 7.09 6.38 0.02 U2 1.21 0.08 36S Middle Shelf Zone 2 Wilhil Zip (51-90 m) 0 56 069 448 500 021 027 4130 1500 712 004 95 089 0.17 508 4 56 NO 378 36.9 0.20 0.13 1920 796 582 001 8.8 1.57 0.06 40.4 76 58 ND 340 40.9 021 014 1910 8.64 4.99 D-0t 8-8 149 010 417 ZB 56 ND 3.80 35.6 0.21 0.23 18D0 842 5.33 002 84 170 OLIO 427 Mean 0.17 3.66 43A 0.21 049 24.40 10.00 21.83 0.02 US 1.41 0.11 4119 Middle ShellZooe 2 NdO ZID(51-90 j 1 56 NO 320 394 020 019 1970 938 619 002 90 133 0.14 402 3 60 NO 2.89 38.2 0.20 0.12 1940 876 5.58 002 8.9 1.28 0.12 43.9 5 59 ND 2.89 491 023 017 2070 10.10 6.59 0-02 10-0 136 015 455 9 59 ND 3.40 36.1 0.21 0.10 18.60 7D4 550 nUI 87 136 007 400 10' 62 NO 3.16 48.6 0.18 0.16 20.50 9.51 667 002 9.8 1.24 0.14 47.8 12 58 NO 297 341 a19 0.10 1660 6.55 532 0Of 78 156 0-07 35.9 13` 59 ND 353 51.5 0.20 0.16 20DO 899 674 0.01 9.8 1,10 0.10 43.7 37' 56 NO 2.69 39,4 0.18 0.10 14,10 610 480 001 83 114 0.04 39.6 68 52 ND 401 429 021 .15 1960 868 644 0.02 9A 171 0.12 41.1 69 52 NO 327 43.6 0.20 0.16 1920 1 6.46 0.02 9.1 168 0.11 42.1 70 52 NO 372 423 021 0.16 1940 9-09 617 0-01 92 1.02 010 419 71 52 ND 371 372 0.19 0.16 1850 787 5.72 001 64 0.92 0.08 40.6 72 55 ND 3.08 39.9 0.19 0.15 1990. 9.58 6.35 O'D2 9.3 153 0.13 415 73 55 NO 412 359 0.19 036 2170 2490 770 005 157 1.13 0.17 490 74 57 NO 3.56 454 0.21 0.20 1860 8.18 5.59 002 87 146 all 40.9 75 60 ND 3.66 40.1 021 0.21 1930. 844 5.29 0.01 9.1 138 0.09 42.6 77 60 ND 3A2 339 0.20 0.12 19.50 7o6 5.11 002 86 1.10 009 405 78 63 NO 2.86 35.2 0.22 0.10 1860 7.87 502 001 8.6 1.67 0.08 40.8 79 65 NO 322 388 021 0.10 1970 9.25 5.87 001 93 1$4 011 443 80 65 ND 354 44.1 0.24 0.09 1920 9>9 570 0.01 99 126 008 466 Bi 65 NO 2.64 40.9 0.22 0.09 18.50 7.75 524 003 87 1.10 BOB 40.4 82 65 ND 250 416 023 009 1990 799 504 0.01 10A 1.25 0.10 43.2 84 54 NO 346 38.0 0.19 0.28 20AO 9.94 749 0.03 9.0 1,45 0.13 45.1 85 57 NO 349 45.0 024 0.08 1890 922 576 002 9.8 172 009 475 86 57 ND 308 369 0.19 029 1970 1180 724 0.03 85 1.63 GLIB 43.6 87 60 ND 2.80 37.2 0.20 0.12 18.80 7.99 5.05 O'Di BS 1,87 013 40.0 C 56 NO 297 465 0.18 010 1910 756 579 002 9.1 147 008 403 C2' 56 0.13 825 141.0 0,49 0.63 3300 2760 2110 0.04 21] 330 0.17 132 CON 59 ND 299 567 022 0.13 2020. 8.17 6.53 0.02 10.3 161 0.10 417 Mean 0.004 3.40 "A 0.21 9.17 19]1 9.83 6.48 0.02 Us 143 011 45.6 Tabel 2-4 continues. 2-8 Compliance Determinations Table 2-4 continued. Station Depth Sb As ea Be Cal Cr Cu Pb Ng Ni Se Ag Zo par Meddle Shelf Zone 3(91420 r f 17 91 ND 273 424 0.22 0.10 1840 7.81 5.58 0.01 99 141 006 44.6 18, 91 ND 2]9 43.5 022 Oil 1870 790 593 001 97 1.19 007 454 20' 100 ND 3,58 558 0,20 0.17 2170 10.50 7.06 0.02 107 1.16 0.14 47.1 23' 100 ND 298 420 0.20 014 1800 679 555 004 92 140 005 418 29' IUD ND 2.98 69.6 022 021 22,90 11.60 7.73 0.02 114 1,39 0.33 50.6 33• 100 ND 321 453 020 0.21 1760 730 531 0.01 10.0 1.21 006 433 38' 10O NO 364 504 0.20 0,29 17,00 8,47 6,47 0.02 9S 1A4 069 426 56' IUD ND 2.85 67.1 022 0.17 22,70 10.40 7,40 0.02 33A 1,50 0.14 49.1 60' 100 NO 339 74.8 023 03O 27,20 1490 9,02 0.03 loll 1]2 023 550 83• 100 ND 274 514 021 0.11 2020 862 655 001 too 150 009 458 Mean ND 3.09 54.2 0.21 0.18 20.44 9.43 6.66 0.02 12.7 1.36 0.13 46.57 Oufershel((121-200mj 24• 200 ND 342 934 026 034 2620 1430 9.04 0.03 14.0 197 0.21 559 25' 20O NO 419 127.0 0.29 0,45 32,40 19,60 11.90 0.04 ion 2.35 0.30 67.6 27' 200 ND 3.45 684 023 0.23 23,40 1150 7.39 0.02 12a 201 0.10 52.1 39• 200 ND 348 554 024 0.17 21.80 921 6.56 001 11.5 146 007 48-3 57' 200 ND 564 155.0 039 0,58 39,90 26,60 1540 0.04 18S 2S3 0.51 799 61' 20O 0.12 5.17 14lo 0.31 0,56 34.00 24,50 1410 0.04 199 2,19 044 715 63• 200 ND 390 1920 025 985 2890 1650 10.10 0 03 15 3 207 0.24 604 65, 200 ND 4.74 at 026 043 2590 13.70 998 0.02 14.8 1So 0.15 58.a (A• 197 ND 6.56 122.0 0.at 036 29-90 1790 13.90 0.04 175 232 013 85.0 Mean 001 4.51 1159 0.28 0.39 2916 17D9 1093 0.03 15A 2a5 (24 64.39 Upper Slope/Canyon(201500 m) 40' 3D3 DAI 3.86 lo3.D 0.27 0,33 2870 15,00 2,27 0.02 158 240 0,14 594 41 303 ND 393 1030 037 032 3130 1690 1020 002 166 217 0.16 64_8 42' 303 0.11 4.90 135.0 0.31 044 35,90 20.10 12.50 0.02 18A 2.55 025 72.5 44' 241 0.12 7.64 2120 0.57 0,91 49,10 37,80 2120 0.06 2.3 286 088 953 58' 300 ND 681 211.0 045 053 4520 2680 1650 003 220 284 045 el 62' 300 0.11 5.56 180.0 043 0.61 43,00 2690 16.20 0.03 21A 323 0.39 86.6 64' 300 0.10 699 1230 037 030 3360 2200 1220 0.02 211 317 016 754 C5' 296 0.12 6.87 143.0 044 069 4130 2430 1560 003 216 3.13 030 91 1 Mean 008 5.82 151.2 0.40 0.52 38,51 23.72 14.08 0.03 198 2,79 0,34 78.89 Sedfineo(9oeffty 9u'dgIrfes ERM WA 70.00 NIA NIA 960 37000 27000 21800 070 516 WA 370 4100 Regional hummer value,(area n e(gthed neorp Bightl3Mol lbShelf 090 270 130.0 0.21 0.88 3)00 790 700 0.05 15-0 010 029 48.0 part 13 Outer Shelf lAo 5.30 130E nS6 082 3700 11GO 1000 007 180 021 039 57A Evil 13 Upper Slope 1.40 5.40 160.0 027 150 57,00 21.00 1200. 0.08 300 089 024 68.0 the Annelida (segmented worms) was the dominant taxonomic group at all depth strata (Table B-7). Mean community measure values were comparable between within-and non-ZID stations, and most station values were within regional and OCSD historical ranges in both surveys (Tables 2-8 and 2-9). The infaunal community at within-ZID and non-ZID stations in both surveys can be classified as reference condition based on their low (<25) Benthic Response Index (BRI) values and/or high (>60) Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI) values. The community composition at within-ZID stations was similar to non-ZID stations based on multivariate analyses of the infaunal species and abundances (Figure 2-5). These multiple lines of evidence suggest that the outfall discharge had an overall negligible effect on the benthic community structure within the monitoring area. We conclude, therefore,that the biota was not degraded by the outfall discharge, and as such, compliance was met. Epibenthic Macroinvertebrate Communities A total of 45 epibenthic macroinvertebrate (EMI) species, comprising 7,949 individuals and a total weight of 30.4 kg, was collected from 20 trawls conducted in the 2017-18 monitoring period (Tables B-8 and B-9). As with the previous monitoring period, Ophiura luetkenii (brittlestar) and Strongylocentrotus fragilis (sea urchin) were the most dominant species in terms of abundance (n=4,982; 63% of total) and biomass (12.4 kg; 41% of total), respectively. Among the strata sampled in summer, the average abundance of EMIs was highest at Middle Shelf Zone 2 due to large catches (>1,100) of Ophiura luetkenii at Stations T1 and T11 (Tables 2-10, B-8, and B-9). By contrast, the average biomass of EMIs was highest at the Outer Shelf due to large catches of Strongylocentrotus fragilis and/or Sicyonia ingentis (shrimp) at all stations. Within the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum, the overall EMI community composition at the ouffall stations was 2-9 Compliance Determinations Table 2-5 Physical properties and chemical concentrations of sediment samples collected at each semi-annual station in Winter 2018 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) and regional values. ND = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable; " = ERM exceedance. Station Depth Median Phi Fines TOO Sulfides Total P Total N £PAH £DDT £Pest £PCB (m) (A) (%) (%) (m91k9) (m91k9) im9lk9) (m91k9) (roll ) (m9/k9) (m9(k9) MMdlle Shelf2 en,2 With.OR)(51-90 m) 0 56 3.05 94 0.49 2.01 1400 580 346.1 1.83 NO 27.81 4 56 3-06 7.3 031 153 900 400 1015 ND NO 050 76 58 309 92 NoM 2.11 960 360 fail 1.77 ND 279 ZB 56 312 94 0,35 3.99 880 390 63.2 5825- ND 7.17 Mean 3.08 88 US 2At 1035 432 145.E 15.46 ND 9S7 Middle Shelf Zone 2.Ni(51-90 M) 1 56 322 9.5 0.35 NO 1000 560 635 ND NO 4.80 3 60 314 10.5 038 NO 1100 440 619 ND NO 747 5 59 342 1n3 OAS 1.94 1000 370 44.6 ND NO 285 9 59 291 71 0,34 2.18 250 380 24.1 ND ND 0.46 12 58 279 6.1 032 200 770 370 246 ND NO 016 68 52 3.23 78 0.38 173 1100 440 39.8 ND ND 1.79 69 52 3.24 107 0,38 2.08 980 500 89.1 ND ND 2.01 70 52 3,19 111 036 195 950 440 899 ND NO 2.47 71 52 300 5.6 0.30 2.83 910 350 993 ND NO 0,49 72 55 323 91 0-36 213 980 420 502 ND ND 63.17 73 55 3.14 10.1 0.43 4.24 1300 410 37B.6 2.17 NO 16.89 74 57 3,07 8.9 0.34 3.08 970 380 954 ND NO 0.21 75 60 307 100 0.32 2.82 930 410 680 ND NO 0.19 77 60 3.03 A6 0.29 2.37 970 420 27.B ND ND NO 78 63 3-or 61 029 3.51 920 350 83.6 ND NO 015 79 65 320 9.6 O44 2.43 940 450 38.9 ND NO 372 60 65 326 111 0,31 181 920 380 34.5 ND ND ND 81 65 319 107 031 225 as0 360 32.1 537 NO NO 82 65 310 9.6 0.32 3.24 830 380 304 3.59 ND 0.23 84 54 3.12 81 O,40 3.32 1000 500 80.2 ND ND 8.51 65 57 302 56 040 396 1200 450 177.4 1293 NO 711 86 57 314 8.0 0.43 8.59 1100 490 1623 ND NO 6.33 87 60 303 65 032 254 910 400 56-5 ND ND 073 O 56 3.11 104 0.34 455 920 410 27.0 ND NO 0.21 CON 59 3.21 10.9 0.34 346 970 440 397 184 NO 0.17 Mean 3,12 8.9 0.35 2,91 976 420 76.9 104 ND 5.2 Sed,ifinf queLY ,Me6oes ERM NIA NIA NIA WA N/A NIA 44792.0 4610 NSA 180.00 fte9ion.I Summer values(a,ea.,htod mean) Bight l3 Middle Shelf N/A 48.0 OSC N/A NIA N/A 550 1800 NIA 270 similar to those at other non-outfall stations in both Summer and Winter surveys based on the results of the multivariate analyses (cluster and non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) analyses) (Figure 2-6). Furthermore, the community measure values at the outfall stations are within regional and OCSD historical ranges (Table 2-10). These results suggest that the outfall discharge had an overall negligible effect on the EMI community structure within the monitoring area, and as such, we conclude that the EMI communities within the monitoring area were not degraded by the outfall discharge, and consequently, compliance was met. Fish Communities A total of 36 fish taxa, comprising 5,081 individuals and a total weight of 109.0 kg, was collected from the monitoring area during the 2017-18 trawling effort (Tables B-10 and B-11). The mean species richness, abundance, biomass, Shannon-Wiener Diversity (K), and Swartz's 75% Dominance Index (SDI) values of demersal fishes were comparable between outfall and non-outfall stations in both surveys,with values failing within regional and/or OCSD historical ranges(Table 2-11). More importantly, the fish communities at outfall and non-outfall stations were classified as reference condition based on their low (<45) mean Fish Response Index (FRI) values in both surveys. Multivariate analyses (cluster and nMDS) of the demersal fish species and abundance data further demonstrated that the fish communities were similar between the outfall and non-outfall stations regardless of season (Figure 2-7). These results indicate that the outfall discharge had no adverse effect on the demersal fish community structure within the monitoring area. We conclude that the demersal fish communities within the monitoring area were not degraded by the outfall discharge, and thus, compliance was met. 2-10 Compliance Determinations Table 2-6 Metal concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected at each semi-annual station in Winter 2018 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) and regional values. N/A= Not Applicable. Station Depth(m) Sb As B. Be Cd Ca Cu Pb Hg Ni Se Ag Zn Middle Shett Zone Z Wlthln-ZID(51-90 m) 0 56 0,08 397 31A 025 035 20,90 1220 794 0.04 82 1,82 0,17 42.5 4 56 007 3,81 316 025 0.12 1760 7,21 597 002 79 150 009 382 76 58 0.08 323 34.5 028 0.13 1750 7.B1 5.35 0.03 8.0 135 0.10 404 Z6 55 010 343 33-8 028 00, 1710 774 5.64 0.02 82 155 012 40.6 Mean OM 3.61 328 0.26 031 18.28 8.74 632 OM 8A 1.50 0.12 40.42 M(ddfe Shelf Aoi.2.Non-CID(5190 m) 1 56 0,07 322 CIA 025 0.18 17,70 9,04 6.31 0.02 7.9 1,51 022 377 3 60 0.8 375 35.1 027 0.14 184. 8,22 598 .02 7.9 155 0.12 412 5 59 0.09 371 403 027 0.15 18.60 8.50 677 0.03 8.9 159 0.13 408 9 59 0-08 346 325 026 012 1710 678 621 0.01 78 147 0-09 380 12 58 006 3,42 286 024 0.09 1620 6,09 531 001 7A 152 006 348 68 52 0.09 3,59 35.2 0.25 0.18 1770 8.11 6,56 0.03 8,2 1TO 0.13 305 69 52 008 333 365 025 0.17 1800 790 605 015 85 1 0.11 394 70 52 0.09 3.88 34,9 025 0.16 18.10 8.01 651 0.02 8.5 1.50 0.10 409 71 52 0.08 374 296 0.24 0.17 1630 6,52 561 0.02 74 157 0.10 359 72 55 0,07 3.18 34S 025 0.15 17,20 1290 620 0.02 83 1,49 OA4 380 73 55 0.08 3.68 32.6 025 0.36 21.40 13.50 825 0.05 7.9 166 020 445 74 57 007 289 32 0 0.25 023 1740 744 537 0 03 8-0 143 0.1 D 40 7 75 60 0.08 303 352 026 0.18 1690 6.B9 541 0.03 78 140 0.09 387 77 6D 0,07 313 32A 026 0.12 17,40 893 572 0.01 7.8 1'" 0,09 39.2 78 63 0.7 333 294 0.26 009 16 20 635 499 .01 75 1 50 007 36 7 79 65 0.08 3.62 35.1 US 0.13 17.50 828 612 0.01 8.3 10 0.11 402 80 65 010 324 343 031 011 1670 724 5.51 0.01 89 151 0-08 401 81 65 007 3A2 359 027 0.08 1670 6,69 538 001 8A 146 009 37S 82 65 0.07 3,27 35.1 0.28 0.08 17.80 7D8 587 0.01 87 143 0.07 399 84 54 0ID 486 343 126 02. 1930 1030 7.27 003 85 1SO 014 413 85 57 0.10 346 313 026 0.24 1930. 1020 6.84 0.05 83 146 0.15 40A 86 57 0.09 3,45 327 0.25 0.30 18.90 10,50 867 0.03 8,0 1_60 0.17 420 87 60 0,07 297 32.3 028 0.11 17,10 ZOt 522 0.02 77 145 055 39.1 C 56 0.08 320 40.9 024 0.11 17.70 6Sf[ 6.39 0.02 84 149 0.07 38A CON 59 010 285 44.8 0.25 0.10 1890 710 6-54 0.2 8-6 153 0.08 387 A9ean 0.08 3.41 34.4 0.26 O46 17.75 8.18 6.14 0.03 84 1.52 0.13 39.28 Sedfmont"u N' 0ldeLbos ERM WA 7DA0 N/A N/A 9.60 370.00 27DA0 21800 070 51.6 N/A 37D 410,0 fteglonelsummer.1"0(ere.we"hled mean) NOW 13 Mddle Shelf 090 270 130.0 021 068 30.00 790 700 0.05 ISO 0.10 029 480 Table 2-7 Whole-sediment Eohaustorius estuanus (amphipod) toxicity test results for 2017-18. The home sediment represents the control; N/A= Not Applicable. Station %Survival %of home p-value Assessment home 100 NIA WA NIA 0 95 95 028 NomoXm 1 99 99 0.75 Nomoxic 4 92 92 0.28 N.,W0 C 72 94 94 O11 Nont,.. 73 97 97 0.52 Nontoxic 76 99 99 075 Nihi. c 77 98 98 075 NontaOc CON 98 98 075 Nontoxic ZB 96 96 028 Nantha ZB Dup 95 95 028 NOn[oxic 2-11 Compliance Determinations Table 2-8 Community measure values for each semi-annual and annual (") station sampled during the Summer 2017 infauna survey, including regional and historical values. N/A= Not Applicable, NC = Not Calculated. Total Total Station Depth(in) No.of Abundance H' SDI ITI 8H1 Species Meddle Sher Zone 1(3150 mJ 7 41 ill 588 3.62 28 81 13 8' 44 102 507 375 28 64 17 21 ' 44 99 415 379 31 82 13 22' 45 105 504 357 29 82 14 30, 46 105 460 366 29 79 17 36` 45 108 475 3.99 35 34 12 55' 40 95 441 365 26 88 14 59' 40 95 512 3.64 25 83 13 Mean 103 488 3.71 29 80 14 Middfe Shel/Zone 2 Wth.ZID 151-90 m) 0 56 109 418 398 33 74 18 4 56 87 359 3.45 24 69 17 76 58 109 586 347 25 74 13 as 56 116 456 4.10 38 75 14 Mean 105 455 3.75 30 73 16 Middee Shelf Zone 2,Nio ZID(51-90 m) 1 55 85 373 339 22 80 13 3 60 82 437 3.27 19 72 15 5 59 80 360 326 21 79 19 9 59 114 560 3.64 28 77 12 10, 62 72 298 3.25 21 38 13 12 58 1 W 478 3.83 31 76 12 13' 59 86 338 3.39 24 81 17 37` 56 92 300 405 35 77 14 68 52 107 590 3.54 23 74 15 69 52 100 500 376 27 78 16 70 52 109 518 371 25 73 15 71 52 116 433 4.04 39 60 16 72 55 99 453 3.61 25 73 17 73 55 102 559 337 23 65 19 74 57 93 395 378 27 78 15 75 60 94 285 3.86 34 86 15 77 60 81 336 3.38 23 82 14 78 83 122 573 372 27 78 13 79 65 105 469 376 33 76 12 80 65 92 375 3.57 26 88 10 81 85 91 361 370 27 85 12 82 65 79 388 358 21 79 11 84 54 110 596 3.60 23 78 15 85 57 103 477 382 31 71 19 86 57 102 505 3.43 25 60 16 87 60 101 407 3.55 29 88 15 C 55 94 355 387 30 82 15 C2' 56 20 115 2.27 6 40 45 CON 59 122 635 3.66 30 74 17 Mean 95 430 3.57 26 77 16 Meddle Shett Zone 3(91-120 mJ 17' 91 83 378 3.68 23 87 11 18• 91 72 380 359 22 84 10 20' 100 83 398 372 25 86 12 23' 106 69 350 357 21 77 13 29' 100 fig 319 361 21 83 18 33' 100 102 416 3.90 33 30 15 38' 100 65 320 358 19 58 26 56, too 65 214 3.65 25 86 19 60' 100 80 278 4.00 34 31 23 89' 100 58 238 3.41 19 80 10 Mean 75 329 357 24 81 16 Older Shall(124-200 an 24' 200 33 74 322 16 54 30 25' 200 39 86 3.37 18 67 26 27` 200 44 116 331 18 69 20 39' 200 53 228 3.25 17 49 21 57' 200 19 38 2.69 10 60 32 61 ' 200 28 59 3 06 15 54 35 63' 200 34 83 3.13 14 73 21 65' 200 38 80 3.32 20 61 24 C4- 187 42 231 285 9 66 34 Mean 37 in 3.13 15 61 27 Table 2-8 continues. 2-12 Compliance Determinations Table 2-8 continued. Total Total Sto l Depth(m) No.of Abundance H' S01 In BRI Species Upper Slope/Csnyop(201500 in) 40' 303 38 70 341 21 NIA NO 41 W3 37 81 3,29 17 NIA WA 42' 303 30 61 3.13 15 NIA NIA 44' 241 17 30 268 10 NIA WA 59, 300 24 38 2,99 15 NIA WA 62' 300 17 30 2,71 10 WA NIA 64' 390 21 37 293 13 NIA NIA C5' 296 27 54 2.96 14 NIA WA Mean 26 50 3.01 14 NIA NIA Re9iooel srmmer✓slues pneao hudir g) Bight 13 Middle Shelf on(45-171) 491(142-2719) 3,60 IS 104A D) NC NO 18(780) BIghlOuter Shelf 66(24-129) 289(51-1492) 3,40(2.30-4,10) ND NC 18(8-28) Bight'13 Upper Slope 30(6-107) 96(12 470) 270is603Sh NC NIA NIA OCSD h sfOr d1 summer values(2007-2017 Rscal Years)jmesn(sngo) Middle Shelf Zone l 106(7-157) 395(12-820) 3,95(1.594,46) 35(4-51) 85(67-98) 16(8-21) Middle Shelf Zane 2,BilMn-ZIU 88(33-136) 498(212-1491) 337(0.364) 22(1-35) 56(1-91) 26(13-52) Middle Shelf Zone 2.NOn-ZID 94(29-142) 407(90-785) 3.71IS29-4.43) 28(5-52 77(154) 18(li Middle Shelf Zen63 92(45-346) 434(177 800 374(306-023) 27115-43) 82(6594) 18(926) Outer Shelf 43(19-79) 125(38-367) 326(233-374) 18(8-30) 69(42-91) 24(14-39) Upper Slope dd,dn 25r1 38) 56(22-106) 2.86M29-3.30) 12(6-19) NIA NIA Table 2-9 Community measure values for each semi-annual station sampled during the Winter 2018 infauna survey, including regional and historical values. INC = Not Calculated. Total Total Station Depth(m) No.of Abuntlance H' SDI in BRI Species Middle ShePZone 2, Wtthe-ZID(5190 m) 0 56 85 294 4.03 32 81 14 4 56 93 307 393 33 85 11 76 55 54 134 355 23 89 15 ZB 56 88 446 345 19 73 2D Mean 80 295 3,74 27 82 15 Middle Sh ff Zona 2,Non ZID(51-90 m) 1 56 90 459 3.76 24 73 13 3 60 87 455 353 21 75 13 5 59 77 263 379 29 79 12 9 59 83 226 4.01 33 75 12 12 58 85 341 375 26 79 13 63 52 90 329 3.83 28 76 14 69 52 87 460 338 21 68 10 70 52 98 592 3,62 23 71 17 71 52 71 288 3.59 22 82 16 72 55 70 228 371 25 78 14 73 55 94 379 391 30 78 13 74 57 105 623 3,37 21 69 19 75 60 73 227 376 24 84 11 77 60 61 269 299 13 73 20 78 63 53 136 3354 23 83 14 79 65 76 318 380 25 82 12 80 65 89 411 3.90 30 78 9 61 65 100 575 378 24 73 14 82 65 78 375 3.69 22 78 14 84 54 102 580 3.83 27 72 13 85 57 127 523 4,08 35 77 15 86 57 96 363 3.69 30 75 11 87 60 80 338 373 24 80 12 C 56 68 211 3,78 25 74 16 CON 60 76 239 3,76 28 77 13 Mean 85 368 3.70 25 76 14 Royoval summon.1i(moan(range)) Bight 13 Middle Shelf 90(45-171) 491 (142-2718) 3.60(2.10410) NO NO 18(7-30) OCSD bislorical winter values(2007 2017 Furl Years))mean( d,gj Middle Shelf Zane 2,BilMn-ZID 81 (35-135) 384(88-1230) 3A2(0,99468) 24(1-76) 56(389) 25(9-45) Middle Shelf Zone 2,Non DID 86(45142) 325(96-634) 3.75(2,87-4.32) 29(9-48) 79(47-95) 17(9-46) 2-13 Compliance Determinations 20- �2.: ZID ■Non-ZID 40- E 80 100- ............ ............. Station 2D SU,ss 0 21 FSimi18rity (w - 45 E z,CS �.SZID a N.�ZID • 9 w CO w 75S ■ a 5 E S 0 w 4-S 5-w o w� CANSa 87-S 8 TB7-W Z W S 012-S4'-' 7AV 77) 8•2 1_S 7*� - 83-,A%-1 6-S a x • vh 051Z ■ 77M 78_� 7A N 71 W 73-W RW 68-S W a w '74 S ■ 75W Figure 2-5 Dendrogram (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling plot (bottom panel) of the infauna collected at within- and non-ZID stations along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2017 (S) and Winter 2018 (W) benthic surveys. Stations connected by red dashed lines in the dendrogram are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The 5 main clusters formed at a 45% similarity on the dendrogram are superimposed on the nMDS plot. 2-14 Compliance Determinations Table 2-10 Summary of epibenthic macroinvertebrate community measures for each semi-annual and annual(*)station sampled during the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys, including regional and OCSD historical values. NC = Not Calculated. Nominal Total Biomaas Quarter Station Depth No.of Bpecles Total Abundance (k91 H' SDI (a,) Middle Shelf Zone 1(31-50 M) T2 35 11 459 052 036 1 T24` 36 15 837 1.10 1,28 2 T6' 36 18 624 0,78 1.16 2 T18' 36 8 59 005 1,08 2 Mean 13 495 0.61 0.97 2 Middle ShOfZooe 2,WWI(51-90 m) T22 60 10 152 0.13 1 at 4 T1 55 11 1251 2.10 0,55 1 Mean 11 702 1.11 1.18 3 Sniff, Middle Shell Zone 2.Non-ou(f60(51-90 de) T23 58 14 122 0.36 1,90 4 T12 57 12 96 024 2.00 5 T17 60 12 146 062 1,68 3 Tll 60 12 2408 2.90 0.19 1 Mean 13 693 1,03 1,44 3 OUNr Shel((121-200m) T10` 137 7 132 5.74 0,60 1 T25' 137 6 131 566 0.85 2 T14` 137 10 166 236 0,62 1 T19' 137 11 310 5.59 0.78 1 Mean 9 185 484 0,71 1 Middle Shelf Zone 2.041eA(51-90 m) T22 60 13 210 0.36 1,38 3 T1 55 it 254 029 1.82 4 Mean 12 232 0.32 1.60 4 Wmter Middle Shelf Zone 2,Non-dWA(5190 m) T23 58 11 223 060 1.11 2 T12 57 11 162 030 207 5 T17 60 9 77 0.27 1,59 3 Tit 60 13 130 0,39 2.10 5 Mean 11 149 0.39 1.72 4 Re9looal svnmef rain,,jam'-.h"hled meon(rouge)( Bight 13 Middle Shelf 12(3-23) 1093(19-17973) 5(0.31-36) 1,11(0,09-2.49) NC BhMdC 13 Out,Shelf 15(3-29) 728(45160) 27(03983) 126(0.10239) NC OCSD hd,te,,ai velus(2007-2017FAsnal S,,,d f e,o(r,op,)( Middle Shelf Zone 1 11 (2-18) 435(2-2592) 0,80(0,003.44) 131 (001-2,22) 3(15) Middle Shelf Zone 2.Outlall 12(7-18) 292(49-1436) 1,54 if 08567) 139 M 22-215) 3(1-5) Middle Shelf Zone 2,Non-outfol 11 (5-19) 344(12-249B) 1 69(OT4-11.16) 1.31 (0.06-243) 3(1-9) Site,Shelf lop 15) 168(26-54B) 3 73 h)09-19.31) 1.07 M 152.12) 2(l 8) FISH BIOACCUMULATION AND HEALTH Demersal Fish Tissue Chemistry Muscle and liver contaminant concentrations in Hornyhead Turbot and English Sole were generally similar between outfall and non-outfall stations (Table 2-12). Only 1 English Sole individual was collected at the outfall from 7 hauls. All mean contaminant concentration values for muscle and liver tissues were within OCSD historical ranges within the monitoring area. Sport Fish Muscle Chemistry Muscle tissue contaminant concentrations were generally similar in sport fishes collected at the outfall and non-outfall zones (Table 2-13). More importantly, all muscle tissue contaminant levels at both zones were well below federal and/or state human consumption guidelines. These results indicate there is little risk from consuming fish from the monitored areas and compliance was achieved. Fish Health Fishes appeared normal in both color and odor in 2017-18, thus compliance was met. Furthermore, no external parasites were observed and less than 1% of all fishes collected showed evidence of morphological irregularities. 2-15 Compliance Determinations 5 60 70 ........... ........... so- 90- 100- a M 0 M 0 M Stations 20 SIIII 0 09 SYmilatlly 60 snas Ouifall 3S �Non-wtfall T23- T22-S T22-W T WU T11-W 2_S T17-VV T17-S Figure 2-6 Dendrograrn (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling plot (bottom panel) of the epieenthic macroinvertebrates collected at outfall and non-outfall stations along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2017 (S) and Winter 2018 (W) trawl surveys. Stations connected by red dashed lines in the dendrogram are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The 2 main clusters formed at a 60% similarity on the dendrogram are superimposed on the nMDS plot. 2-16 Compliance Determinations Table 2-11 Summary of demersal fish community measures for each semi-annual and annual (') station sampled during the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys, including regional and OCSD historical values. NC = Not Calculated. Nominal Total Biomass Quarter Stahl Depth No.of Total Abundance (M9) N' SDI FRI (m) Species Middle Shelf Zen,1(31-50 m) T2 35 9 87 482 167 3 19 T24` 36 10 134 2,16 170 3 23 T6' 36 a 138 0.85 1,57 3 19 T1V 36 8 114 036 1.33 3 29 Mean 9 118 2.15 1.57 3 20 Meddle Shelf Zone 2,Outfa l(51-90 in)T22 60 9 110 242 1 71 4 22 T1 55 12 129 261 197 4 16 Mean 11 120 2.54 1.83 4 19 Summer Meddle SheirZone 2 N,o eund4(5190 mf T23 58 8 45 143 1,48 3 25 T12 57 9 131 456 1.51 3 16 T17 80 9 152 386 184 4 12 T11 60 11 101 1 25 161 3 17 Mean 9 107 2,80 1.61 3 18 Oet,Shelf(121-200 m) T10' 137 19 717 is76 1,61 3 19 T25' 137 14 546 1221 1.53 3 27 T14` 137 12 461 910 148 2 27 T19' 137 16 732 1030 1,79 4 37 Mean 15 614 11.84 1.60 3 28 Middle Sheff Zone 2 Outiall(51 90 m) T22 60 10 216 739 1.94 5 14 T1 55 10 222 8.05 1.B5 4 13 Mean 10 219 6.72 1.9D 5 13 Wlntar Mill le Shel2one 2.Abe le fdfl(51-90 m) T23 58 10 116 395 1.76 3 17 T12 59 12 192 4,08 1,81 4 15 T17 60 9 91 440 195 5 16 T11 60 15 647 10.89 1.98 5 20 Mean 12 262 5.83 1.88 4 17 fte9iat.I Summer-0,er[,re.d,.,ht.mean(fen,, Sight 13 Middle Shelf 15(5-24) 506(12-2446) 12(0,706420) 1 65(0.67-2 35) NO 28(1761) Blghf13Outer Shelf 14(2-21) 790(2-3088) 16(0.20-54.50) 135(059-2.01) NC 20(-1-51) ocSD nleroncal vewe5(2007 ton Feral veers)[thee,(nge)] Mltldle Shelf Zone l 11 (2-16) 247(83-470) 5.24(146-1186) 1.59 h)69-220) 3(2-5) 22(17-26) Middle Shelf Zone 2 Ootfall 13(2-18) 463(147-3227) 19.64(4.34 78 72) 1.63(0-39214) fill 6) 24(18 33) Middle Shelf Sure 2,Non-otheal 15(3-25) 607(41-12274) 14A4(I 01-135.64) 173In 14-222) 4(16) 23(13- 4) Outer Shelf 15(2-22) 630(260-1610) 16.07(2.60-54.92) 138in65-1.91) 3(1-5) 15(441) 2-17 Compliance Determinations s0 Sres ®o�ttall •Non-owran 60 70 so- Stations 2D Stress:0.07 Similenty 6G Sites 1-$ •NonroWlall • T1-$ T17-$ T12-W ■ T1-W • T23-S T22-W T17-W ® ■ T12-S T23-W T11-W Figure 2-7 Dendrogram (top panel)and non-metric multidimensional scaling plot(bottom panel)of the demersal fishes collected at outfall and non-outfall stations along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2017 (S) and Winter 2018 (W)trawl surveys. Stations connected by red dashed lines in the dendrogram are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The 2 main clusters formed at a 60% similarity on the dendrogram are superimposed on the nMDS plot. 2-18 Table 2-12 Means and ranges of tissue contaminant concentrations in selected flatfishes collected by trawling in 2017-18 of Stations T1 (Outfall) and T11 (Non-outfall), as well as historical values. ND = Not Detected. Standard mercury LDDT LPoe Lohmraane Die)drin Species Tissue station a Length Percent Lipid (.911 fpgikg) (pglkg) (pglkg) fpgikg) (mm) OOSD 201 valves Nonouifall 6 160 NO Soy 1.87 NO NO NO Mus019 (150-178) (All NO) (0.03-0.12) (0-9.68) (All NO) (All NO) (All NO) 153 NO 595 179 NO NO NO Pleurotb(hys veRicefis Oulfell 10 019-190 (All ND) a01-0]D) (0-422) (All ND) (AIIND) (AIIND) (Hornyhead Turbot) NonnuHall 6 160 19➢ 026 13520 670 NO NO Liver (150-178) (038-3.SS) (0.19-0A4) (4320-368.10) (0-4020) (All NO) (All NO) Oudall 10 153 5.67 0.14 17448 NO NO NO 1i9190 2.0618 0060.31 175.60503 AIIND AIIND AIIND Nonrouifall 10 194 0.63 0D7 6228 820 NO NO Muaale (168-268) (a139) (004-0.111 (7.65-28299) (g-3883) (All NO) (AIIND) Pemph,.vets!", Oulfall 1 217 NO 0.09 14S 253 NO NO (English Sole) Non-ouHall 10 194 8.94 007 927.83 199.65 NO NO Liver (168-268) (295-22.40) (0.03-0.16) (9620356730) (9.4 0-1131 2 0) (All NO) (All NO) Outfall 1 217 295 014 201.1 38.9 NO NO o(sD nlsmdcal value,(2007-2017 Fi„el rear,) Non surrvil 62 151 0.18 0 D5 11.64 276 0.07 NO Muscle (98-217) (0-0.68) (Doi 030) (0-3875) N, is36) in 1.45) (AII ND) 100 0.15 0.08 775 1.71 0.01 020 Pl .,hehys Aufaalls Oulall 91 (110.204) (0-0.77) W01042) S54.50) (01257) (0071) (01270) N (Hornyhead Turbos) Non-ouifall 62 156 641 020 60842 51.14 NO ND _ Liver (99-217) (042-3040) (0.050,79) (02100) (0432-59) (All NO) All NO) Outtall 91 158 973 CAB 54502 11829 4A4 NO � 1110.204) (0-24.60) (0.02-0.59) (0-1822701 (0-4578D) (0-8170) (All NO) Non-ooifoll 69 182 0.81 005 7575 8.21 NO 005 Muscle (124-247) (0-6.22) (0.01-012) (0-52430) (0-612D) (All NO) S445) 183 1.09 005 10786 14.53 NO NO Panno)"c velulos Outfall 87 (136-290) (0-623) L)010.11) (3.97633.46) (0-130.90) WIND All NO) (English Sole) N000uHell 89 181 10.12 0-06 138492 17108 0-09 NO Liver (124-247) (1 63-26.80) (0.02-0.19) (71.10-14300) (0-1694.70) (0-527) (All NO) OuffiII 87 182 11.31 0.D6 1559,02 207.16 127 NO (136290) go27 10) (002016) (957020967) N)162729) (030.50) (MIND) 0 O 3 v ti m 0 m m 3 fU O N Table 2-13 Means and ranges of muscle tissue contaminant concentrations in selected scorpaenid fishes collected by rig-fishing in a September 2017 at Zones 1 (Outfall)and 3 (Non-outfall), as well as historical values and state and federal tissue thresholds. ND = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable. 'O m Standard J Percent Mercury Arsenic Shlet,um £DDT £PCB £Chlordane Dieldnn n Zone Species n Length Lipid (mg(kg) (mgikg) (mglkg) (pg(kg) (pglkg) (Pgfkg) (pg(kg) (mm) O OCSD 2n17 201e vanes n, Sebesles naorinus 267 0.86 011 1,12 0.30 650 ND ND ND A Non-oN(all Co ae ROGcfisM1 3 243282 0551 oB 9D6 g.18 062216 D_16049 561Z9] All ND MIND NIND SebaMas minlelos 243 0.81 0L7 209 0.is 955 ND ND ND 1 lion ROckfieM1) 7 (228-255) 1036-125) (005010) (10Z-3241 (0-07031) (4-16) (MIND) (MIND) (MIND) Sabastes caodnus 305 1.00 oil I so 0.58 10.29 074 ND ND ,d„ WWI (Copper Rockfish) 2 (286325) in719 .21) (009al3) il73L86) l0.57-058) (8.38-12201 (OcWi (MIND) (All NO) sebastea mmWas 285 t29 0D6 302 035 1148 0A3 ND ND j (Vennpion Rockfish) 8 (285315) is42-3.82) (0.05SO.07) (2.19-4671 D.17-0.60) (478-35.101 (03,4T (MIND) (VINO OCSDMstm l valuss(20072017 Fiscal Yoays) Sebastos caurinus 3 0.57 0.12 1.86 0.85 2133 229 ND ND Nook,, l (Copper Rockfh) 7 (22`,29 ) (0097) (0-07-0191 (149221) M42-1.64) (60543) (0760) (MIND) (MIND) Sebasles mirtla0is 246 062 008 3.41 1L5 2537 0,63 ND ND (Vepnifion Reck(whl t1 (215295) (034126) (0050201 (1.84-10-30) (0.68-1.54) (6919920) (0246) (All K)i (All NO) Sebasfar caunnus 277 061 0.11 1.64 9.84 995 3.55 ND ND Oulfell (Copper Rockf hl 15 (223-820) (0-2) (0.05-0.16, 109213.1a) (0.51-9OT is2b20.771 10-8.14) (AII NDI (AII NO) Sebesles""stf s 261 , 7 605 260 059 1353 232 0.29 NO (Vermifion Rockf h) 35 (148-317) (0.307) 0.02-0.081 (068-5.89) (623-0.881 (0.68.30) (0-17.24) (0-8.80) (MIND) Tissue TMesbolds N CAAdvlsory Tissue Level NIA NIA OA4 WA 15 2100 120 560 46 N Federal Mt.,Level in, dhI,llssue NIA NIA 1 N/A NIA 5000 2000 300 300 O Compliance Determinations Liver Histopathology No histopathology analysis was conducted for the 2017-18 monitoring period (see Appendix A). CONCLUSIONS COP criteria for water quality were met, and state and federal bacterial standards were also met at offshore stations. Sediment quality was not affected as evidenced by the generally low concentration of chemical contaminants, the absence of sediment toxicity in controlled laboratory tests, and the presence of normal infaunal communities throughout the monitoring area. Fish and trawl invertebrate communities in the monitoring area were also diverse and healthy, and federal and state fish consumption guidelines were met. These results suggest that the receiving environment was not degraded by the discharge of treated wastewater, and as such, all permit compliance criteria were met in 2017-18 and environmental and human health were protected. 2-21 Compliance Determinations REFERENCES Allen, M.J., R.W. Smith, E.T. Jarvis, V Raco-Rands, B.B. Bernstein, and K.T. Heminson. 2005. Temporal trends in southern California coastal fish populations relative to 30-year trends in oceanic conditions. In: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report 2003-2004 (S.B. Weisberg - Ed.). Southern California Coastal Water Research Project,Westminster, CA. p. 264-285. Chavez, F.P., J.T. Pennington, C.G. Castro, J.P. Ryan, R.P. Michisaki, B. Schlining, P. Walz, K.R. Buck, A. MCFadyen, and C.A. Collins. 2002. Biological and chemical consequences of the 1997-1998 El Nino in central California waters. Prog. Oceanogr. 54:205-232. Hsieh, C., C. Reiss,W. Watson, M.J.Allen, J.R. Hunter, R.N. Lea, R.H. Rosenblatt, PE. Smith,and G. Sigihara. 2005. A comparison of long-term trends and variability in populations of larvae of exploited and unexploited fishes in the southern California region: A community approach. Frog. Oceanogr. 67160-185. Jarvis, E.T., M.J.Allen, and R.W. Smith. 2004. Comparison of recreational fish catch trends to environment- species relationships and fishery-independent data in the Southern California Bight, 1980-2000. CaICOFI Rep. Vol.45. Long, E.R., D.D. McDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.C. Calder 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ. Manage. 19:81-97. OCSD(Orange County Sanitation District). 1996a. Science Report and Compliance Report,Ten YearSynthesis, 1985-1995. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA, OCSD. 1996b. Water Quality Atlas. Ten-Year Synthesis, 1985-1995. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 2004. Annual Report, Science Report,July 2002-June 2003. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 2010. Annual Report, July 200E-June 2009. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD, 2013. Annual Report, July 2011-June 2012. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 2016. Annual Report, July 2014-June 2015. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley CA. OCSD. 2017. Annual Report, July 2015-June 2016. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 2018. Annual Report, July 2016-June 2017. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. Schiff, K.C. 2000. Sediment chemistry on the mainland shelf of the Southern California Bight. Mar. Poll. Bull. 40:268-276. SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2012. Water Quality Control Plan - Ocean Waters of California. Sacramento, CA. Wilber, D.H. and D.G. Clarke. 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: A review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. No.Am.J. Fish. Manage. 21:855-875. 2-22 CHAPTER Regional Monitoring and Special Studies INTRODUCTION The Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)operates under the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued jointly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Order No. R8-2012-0035. NPDES Na CA0110604) in June 2012. To document the effectiveness of its source control and wastewater treatment operations in protecting the coastal ocean, OCSD conducts an Ocean Monitoring Program (OMP) that includes Strategic Process Studies (SPS) and regional monitoring programs. In addition, OCSD performs special studies, which are generally less involved than SPS and have no regulatory requirement for prior approval or level of effort. SPS are designed to address unanswered questions raised by the Core monitoring program results and focus on issues of interest to OCSD and its regulators,such as the effect of contaminants of emerging concern on local fish populations. SPS are proposed and must be approved by RWQCB to ensure appropriate focus and level of effort. For the 2017-18 program year, no SPS were conducted. Regional monitoring studies focus on the larger areas of the Southern California Bight (SCB). These may include the"Bight"studies coordinated by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)or studies conducted in coordination with other public agencies and/or non-governmental organizations in the region. Examples include the Central Region Kelp Survey Consortium and the Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program. This chapter provides overviews of recently completed and ongoing studies and regional monitoring efforts. Unlike other chapters in this report, these summaries are not restricted to the most recent program year (i.e., July 2017-June 2018) and include the most recent information available to date. When appropriate, this information is also incorporated into other report chapters to supplement Core monitoring results. Links to final study reports, if available, are listed under each section below. REGIONAL MONITORING Regional Nearshore (Surfzone) Bacterial Sampling OCSD partners with the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), the South Orange County Wastewater Authority, and the Orange County Public Works in the Ocean Water Protection Program, a regional bacterial sampling program that samples 126 stations along 42 miles (68 km) of coastline (from Seal Beach to San Clemente State Beach) and 70 miles (113 km) of harbor and bay frontage. OCSD samples 38 stations along 19 miles (31 km) of beach from Seal Beach to Crystal Cove State Beach (Figure 3-1). OCHCA reviews bacteriological data to determine whether a station meets Ocean Water-Contact Sports Standards (i.e., Assembly Bill 411; AB411), and uses these results as the basis for health 3-1 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring 5 a'�aa m l 00 mo o ' 241, ' a 'aodNmal m .n s45i p NUB...h n Plant Beach 2sa g®a¢°y s Jsm Z102a Ita eg�S hea,men, 2'Md je. I m n Plent2 255o _ 9 0' / xas zeoa e,o... Ye 4� �?`0 N.w .B e rcx �py4' Beach C:m N98�— 19g6 9W6 11 / e o5 2Csb I.I. 'Il .$ e .,a. S 46j Nr 0Into E.,. b11 10 ancl an. m Ica ac � -��"' " aa,° ' d+`a°cl r Irva _aom, m° m »>m srrea e zal sa 1.0 NQR}!t— f j a aw a Ocso March 2019 eM I Figure 3-1 Offshore and nearshore (surfzone) water quality monitoring stations for 2017-13. advisories, postings, or beach closures. In 2018, there were similar numbers of postings as in 2017 (88 versus 86), but a drop in the beach-mile days' (7.1 versus 11.5) (OCHCA 2018). Overall, since 2000,the area sampled by OCSD has seen a significant drop in both beach postings and beach-mile days (Figure 3-2). Of the 38 OCSD-sampled regional surfzone stations, 18 are legacy (Core) stations sampled since the 1970s (Figure 3-1). For 2017-18, these stations (Table B-12) were analyzed separately from OCSD's regional surfzone stations (Table B-13). Results forthe 18 legacy stations were similar to those of previous years (OCSD 2017, 2018)with fecal Indicator counts varying by season, location, and bacteria type. A general spatial pattern was associated with the mouth of the Santa Ana River. Seasonal geomeans peaked near the river mouth and tapered off upcoast and downcoast. Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program OCSD is a member of a regional cooperative sampling effort known as the Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program (SCBRWQP; previously known as the Central Bight Regional Water Quality Monitoring Program) with the City of Oxnard, City of Los Angeles, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles, and the City of San Diego. Each quarter, the participating agencies sample 301 stations that cover the coastal waters from Ventura County to Crystal Cove State Beach and from Point Loma to the United States—Mexico Border(Figure 3-3). The participants use comparable ' Beach-Mile Days= number of days x number of miles posted or closed. 3-2 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring 350 100 90 300 80 i 250 70 o W so ow m 200 a a° 50 _ ° 150 a 40 � N z 100 30 so JL20 0 0 hon'WE0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Figure 3-2 Annual (April 1-October 1) Posted Days (orange bars) and Beach-Mile Days (blue line)from Seal Beach to Crystal Cove State Beach, California (2000-2018). conductivity-temperature-depth (aka CTD) profiling systems and field sampling methods. OCSD samples 66 stations,which includes the 28 Core water quality program stations,as part of this program (Figure 3-1). The SCBRWQP monitoring provides regional data that enhances the evaluation of water quality changes due to natural (e.g., upwelling) or anthropogenic discharges (e.g., outfalls and stormwater flows) and provides a regional context for comparisons with OCSD's monitoring results. The SCBRWQP serves as the basis for SCCWRP's Bight water quality sampling (see section below). Additionally, the group has been evaluating the establishment of data quality assurance guidelines and data quality flags for submitting data to the Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System in order to comply with national Integrated Ocean Observing System guidelines. Bight Regional Monitoring Since 1994,OCSD has participated in 5 regional monitoring studies of environmental conditions within the SCB: 1994 Southern California Bight Pilot Project, Bight'98, Bight'03, Bight'08, and Bight'13. OCSD has played a considerable role in all aspects of these regional projects, including program design, sampling, quality assurance, data analysis, and reporting. Results from these efforts provide information that is used by individual dischargers, resource managers, and the public to improve region-wide understanding of environmental conditions and to provide a regional perspective for comparisons with data collected from individual point sources. During the summer of 2013, OCSD staff conducted field operations, ranging from Orange County south to Camp Pendleton in northern San Diego County and west to the southern end of Santa Catalina Island, as part of the Bight'13 sampling effort. Subsequent project activities included sample analysis, data quality review, data analysis, reporting, and designing the next Bight'18 regional program. Detailed project information and documentation are available on SCCWRP's website (Ntp Ywr^v, sccwm urg'about research- areas,regional-mon i Loring,), 3-3 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring Ventura Los Angeles San Bernartlino County County County � . Riverside „ Orange County County J e San nego County m no jnj� a sQCSD Ma cM120i r � � - u { ln a' Figure 3-3 Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program monitoring stations for 2017-18. Regional Kelp Survey Consortium— Central Region OCSD is a member of the Central Region Kelp Survey Consortium (CRKSC), which was formed in 2003 to map giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) beds off Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties via aerial photography. The program is modeled after the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region Nine Kelp Survey Consortium, which began in 1983. Both consortiums sample quarterly to count the number of observable kelp beds and calculate maximum kelp canopy coverage. Combined, the CRKSC and San Diego aerial surveys provide synoptic coverage of kelp beds along approximately 81%of the 270 miles(435 km)of the southern California mainland coast from northern Ventura County to the United States—Mexico Border. Survey results are published and presented annually by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences(MBC 2018)to both consortium groups, regulators, and the public. Reports are available on SCCWRP's website (htp) ,kelp sccrvrp.orgfre,,,,orts.Mml). 2017 CRKSC Results While the total combined kelp surface canopy increased slightly (by 1.9%) in 2017, more individual beds decreased in size. Of the 26 beds, 10 exceeded 40%of their historical maximum size, including 3 that reached maximum levels recorded. Six beds declined to less than 10% of their maximum size. Overall, total kelp coverage has been at or above the long-term average every year for the past 3-4 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring 10 years, although for the past 3 years it has been 18 to 27% below the peak 2009 coverage (6.406 km2). For the 4 survey areas nearest to OCSD's outfall, 3 (Horseshoe Kelp, Huntington Flats, and Huntington Flats to Newport Harbor)continued to show no surface canopy. The NewporUlrvine Coast beds showed a 1-year decrease of 8.3% in 2017 (0.036 km2 to 0.033 km2). It represented only 7.9% of the maximum canopy area recorded in 2011. There was no evidence of any adverse effects on giant kelp resources from any of the region's dischargers. Rather, the regional kelp surveys continue to demonstrate that most kelp bed dynamics in the Central region are influenced by the large-scale oceanographic environment and micro-variations in local topography and currents that can cause anomalies in kelp bed performances. Ocean Acidification Mooring OCSD's Ocean Acidification Mooring was deployed for just over 7 months during the program year; routine service and maintenance, vessel scheduling, and technical issues with a telemetry modem prevented continuous deployment. During the course of the year, a second mooring was procured to address the primary issues of non-deployment status. Rotating the 2 moorings—swapping one with the other—should improve deployment and recovery schedules while allowing for routine maintenance and repairs of sensors on the off-cycle mooring. SPECIAL STUDIES California Ocean Plan Compliance Determination Method Comparison Southern California ocean dischargers maintain extensive monitoring programs to assess their effects on ambient receiving water quality and to determine compliance with California Ocean Plan (COP) standards. However, historically each agency used a different approach for analyzing these data and determining COP compliance. In 2009, in collaboration with Southern California ocean dischargers, the State Water Resources Control Board and SCCWRP began developing a new method to establish an out-of-range occurrence (ORO) for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and light transmissivity. Appendix A contains the steps on how the comparison was compiled. For 2017-18, the SCCWRP approach identified greater numbers of reference stations and fewer stations that did not meet COP criteria (Table 3-1). The probable source of these differences is the different approaches used in identifying reference stations, out-of-range values and statistical significance testing,and subsequently out-of-compliance(OOC). OCSD uses multiple parameters and contextual information (e.g., Is the station up-current of the outfall? Was there a large phytoplankton bloom?) and divides up the stations into 2 zones with one reference station per zone. SCCWRP's approach identifies plume impacted stations using CDOM only and compares those stations to a larger set of reference stations. As a result, SCCWRP can identify stations `impacted" due to natural variability. For example, in May 2018 SCCWRP identified an out-of-range value at a station 5 miles (8 km) up-current of the outfall. One benefit of using the SCCWRP approach is its ability to be standardized among agencies. A disadvantage is disregarding plume transport by currents and changes due to natural variability. OCSD's approach identified a greater number of OROsfOOCs but it involved significant staff effort to interpret OROs, which would be harder to replicate across agencies. Fish Tracking Study Background OCSD's OMP assesses discharge effects on marine communities, including bioaccumulation analyses of contaminants in tissue samples of flatfishes (predominantly Hornyhead Turbot and 3-5 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring Table 3-1 Number of stations comparison using OCSD and SCCWRP California Ocean Plan compliance determinations methodologies for dissolved oxygen, pH, and light transmissivity for 2017-18. Plume Impacted Reference 0u1o0.4Nmga Out-of-Compliance Survey OCSD SCCWRP OCSD SCCWRP OCSD SCCWRP OCSD SCCWRP DsspNed OxY9en _ Jai2017 N/A 4 2 12 8 2 4 2 Aug2017 NIA 4 2 13 12 0 5 0 Sep2017 NIA 5 2 12 0 0 0 0 Oct2017 N/A 4 2 11 2 0 1 0 Nov2017 N/A 4 2 13 3 a 1 0 Dac2017 NIA 4 2 15 0 0 0 0 Jac 2018 WA 5 2 10 8 0 4 0 'Pb 2018 WA 3 2 16 0 a 0 0 Mar 2018 NIA 5 2 12 7 0 3 0 Apr2018 WA 4 2 16 1 0 1 a May 2018 N/A 5 2 11 17 0 5 0 Jun 2018 NIA 5 2 13 11 2 3 2 pN Ju12017 N/A 4 2 12 1 0 0 0 Aug2017 NIA 4 2 13 4 a 2 0 Sep2017 NIA 5 2 12 0 0 0 0 Oct2017 N/A 4 2 11 0 0 0 0 Nov2017 NIA 4 2 13 0 a 0 0 Dac2017 NIA 4 2 15 1 0 0 0 Jan 2018 NIA 5 2 10 2 0 1 0 rab2o18 WA a 2 16 11 a o 0 Mar 2018 NIA 5 2 12 4 0 2 0 Apr2018 WA 4 2 16 2 0 0 0 May 2018 N/A 5 2 11 3 0 1 0 Jun 2018 NIA 5 2 13 6 0 1 0 Light TransmiesimYy Ju12017 N/A 4 2 12 7 3 1 3 Aug2017 NIA 4 2 13 7 1 0 0 Sep2017 NIA 5 2 12 14 0 0 0 Oct2017 N/A 4 2 11 3 1 0 1 Nov2017 NIA 4 2 13 3 1 0 1 Dac2017 NIA 4 2 15 18 0 1 0 Jae 2018 N/A 5 2 10 16 1 0 1 Feb2o18 WA 3 2 16 18 a 0 0 Mar 2018 NIA 5 2 12 12 0 0 0 Apr2018 WA 4 2 16 25 0 9 0 May 2018 N/A 5 2 11 5 2 0 2 Jun 2018 N/A 5 2 13 3 3 0 3 NIA=NOI Applicabl,. English Sole; occasionally Pacific Sanddab) and rockfishes relative to background levels and human health consumption guidelines. In making these comparisons it is assumed that the location of capture is also the location of exposure. However, little is known about the movement patterns of sentinel fish species within OCSD's monitoring area. As such, OCSD contracted Professor Chris Lowe from California State University, Long Beach to conduct a fish tracking study using passive acoustic telemetry from 2017-2018 to understand the site fidelity and potential risk exposure of sentinel fishes at the outfall and a reference area. Methods Study area and instrumentation Vemco Ltd. VR2W automated, omnidirectional acoustic receivers and 69 kHz Vemco Ltd. sync transmitters were deployed together in a grid at depths ranging from 35-65 an in January 2017 at the outfall and an upcoast reference area (Figure 3-4). The receivers and transmitters were moored together using 2 biodegradable sand bags and cotton rope fitted with a Sub Sea Sonics AR-50 underwater acoustic release. Four of these moorings also contained temperature loggers to aid in positional rendering of fish locations. 3-6 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring 71 or. idd forte to to to e to to je e o p a _ 1 e ,gym, f r Po a OCso Moom 201 i 1u t nnoo Figure 3-4 Acoustic receiver locations for OCSD's fish tracking study. Fish collection and tagging Atotal of 149 fishes were internally (i.e., California Scorpionfish and Vermilion Rockfish) or externally (i.e., English Sole, Hornyhead Turbot, and Pacific Sanddab) fitted with a Vemco Ltd. V9 coded tag (Table 3-2). Fish samples were caught either by trawls or rig fishing from OCSD's MN Nerissa at the outfall and reference area between January 2017 and August 2018. Twenty Pacific Sanddab were tagged at the outfall but were subsequently released at the reference area; all other fish samples were released at the site of capture. Table 3-2 Number of fishes tagged at the outfall and reference area for OCSD's fish tracking study. Study area Hah Family Fish Species Common Name Number Tagged ParaOchthyldae Citharlchthys sooldus Pdof,Sanddab 54- Pleumnegidee Pamphryav Ud" Engliah Svle B Outfall Pleeroniohthys verticalie Hornyhead Temot 15 Sre"ad'oidae Scmpaeoa guttata Carooda Scorpionflch 2 Sebastes mutietoa Vermilion Rough 55 Total 132 Paalichuyldae Cithartchfhys"mdimta Pad(ic Samidab 5 Pleuronetlldne Peroph's vm'M English Sole 7 Reference Ple,ect moo,veNeaUa Hernyhead Tomet 2 Scorpasnidae Sompaena goltafa Caiaoma Scnrp"mh 0 sebostes mwama vermmon Rom h 3 Total n Twentynt the° Paroo snndeeb togged of re ootodr were doneiocateo to lhereterence erect. 3-7 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring Data collection and analyses Acoustic receivers were recovered in May 2017, October 2017, and March 2018 at the outfall and in April 2017, October 2017, and February 2018 at the reference area. Receivers were redeployed immediately after data from the receivers were downloaded to a laptop on the boat. Receiver data, tag information, and water temperature data were sent to Vemco Ltd. for position rendering after each download. Rendered fish positions were layered over detailed habitat maps (i.e., bathymetry and sediment parameters) in a geographic information system (aka GIs) for movement analysis. Preliminary calculations included: Euclidean distance measurements and selectivity indices to examine site selectivity, Brownian Bridge Kernel Utilization Distributions at 50% and 95% to examine area use on a variety of scales (i.e. entire track duration, each 24-hour period, each daylight period, each night period), and contaminant exposure calculations based on sediment-bound organochlorine concentrations gathered from OCSD's Core sediment geochemistry monitoring. Results Of the 149 fishes tagged, 145 were able to be positioned by VPS rendering. Ninety-five individuals were positioned in the outfall array only, 23 individuals were positioned in the reference array only, and 27 individuals were positioned in both arrays. Preliminary data suggest that flatfishes are not appropriate indicator species of contaminant exposure. Individuals moved large distances and used different habitats each day (Figures 3-5 to 3-7). In addition, most individuals left receiver range within 2 months of tagging. The movement patterns that these species exhibit suggest a low likelihood of prolonged sediment-bound contaminant exposure at areas surrounding the outfall. Rockfishes, on the other hand, are appropriate indicator species to monitor effluent effects because they used the same areas daily(Figures 3-8 and 3-9). These"resident" individuals spent the majority of their time within 150 m of the outfall diffuser section, which suggests that these individuals have a high probability of being persistently exposed to the effluent and the relatively higher sediment-bound contaminants in the outfall area. 3-8 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring h f m '1 m . y . a Figure 3-5 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Citharichthys sordidus (Pacific Sanddab; n=34) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAH in pg(kg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 29.0t56.7 (SD) days before they left the array. 3-9 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring JJ O r �o Figure 3-6 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Parophrys vetulus(English Sole;n=6) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAH in pgfkg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 38.0t27.6 (SD) days before they left the array. 3-10 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring µg/kg r i, . f +a sri. r in.. Figure 3-7 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Pleuronichthys verticalis (Hornyhead Turbot; n=15) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlonne concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAH in pg/kg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 46.5±35.6 (SD) days before they left the array. 3-11 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring Figure 3-8 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Scorpaena guttata (California Scorpionfish; n=2) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAH in pg/kg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 8.0 days before they left the array. 3-12 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring z1 O Figure 3-9 Euclidean distance measurement distributions for Sebastes miniatus (Vermilion Rockfish; n=55) displayed over a base map of total observed sediment organochlorine concentrations (total PCB, total DDT, and total PAH in pg/kg). Colored rings represent the areas in which a single individual spent 95% of its time while detected. Individuals tagged in the outfall array were detected for an average of 151.1±104.0 (SD) days before they left the array. 3-13 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring REFERENCES MBC (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences). 2018. Status of the Kelp Beds 2017: Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Prepared for the Central Region Kelp Survey Consortium and Region Nine Kelp Survey Consortium. OCHCA(Orange County Health Care Agency). 2018. OCHCA 2017 and 2018 AB411 posting data, Santa Ana Region. Unpublished data.(November 15, 2018). OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District). 2017. Annual Report, July 2015—June 2016. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD, 2018. Annual Report, July 2016—June 2018. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. 3-14 APPENDIX A Methods INTRODUCTION This appendix contains a summary of the field sampling, laboratory testing,and data analysis methods used for the Ocean Monitoring Program(OMP)at the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD). The methods also include calculations of water quality compliance with California Ocean Plan (COP) criteria. WATER QUALITY MONITORING Field Methods Offshore Zone Permit-specified water quality monitoring was conducted 3times per quarter at 28 stations (Figure 2-1). Eight stations located inshore of the 3-mile line of the coast are designated as areas used for water contact sports by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (i.e., waters designated as REC-1), and were sampled an additional 3 days per quarter for 3 fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), total and fecal coliform and enterococci. The additional surveys were conducted in order to calculate a 30-day geometric mean. Each survey included measurements of pressure (from which depth is calculated), temperature, conductivity (from which salinity is calculated), dissolved oxygen (DO), acidity/alkalinity (pH), water clarity (light transmissivity, beam attenuation coefficient [beam-c], and photosynthetically active radiation [PAR]), chlorophyll-a fluorescence, and colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM). Measurements were conducted using a Sea-Bird Electronics SBE911 plus conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) profiling system deployed from the M/V Nerissa. Profiling was conducted at each station from 1 m below the surface to 2 m above the bottom or to a maximum depth of 75 m when water depths exceeded 75 m. SEASOFT V2 (2017a) software was used for data acquisition, data display, and sensor calibration. PAR was measured in conjunction with chlorophyll-a because of the positive linkage between light intensity and photosynthesis per unit chlorophyll (Hardy 1993). Wind condition, sea state, and visual observations of floatable materials or grease that might be of sewage origin were also noted. Discrete water samples were collected using a Sea-Bird Electronics Carousel Water Sampler(SBE32)equipped with Niskin bottles for ammonium (NH3-N; for all 6 surveys per quarter) and FIB (for 5 of 6 surveys per quarter) analyses at specified stations and depths. All discrete samples were kept on wet ice in coolers and transported to OCSD's laboratory within 6 hours of collection. A summary of the sampling and analysis methods is presented in Table A-1. A-1 Table A-1 Water quality sample collection and analysis methods by parameter for 2017-18. C rD Sampling Parameter Method Method Reference Preservation Container Holding Time Sampling Depth Fred Replicates 0 6 Meersfiore hand zoneJ Total Oollforma Standard Methods 9222 D- 125mLHOPE Foral Entrectorm5 grab Standard Mais00... Ice('6"C) (Sterile container) Bhra.(n¢Itl+lab) Ankle deep water at least do,of Samples Enterocoxl EPA Method 1600"' Offshore le Temperature' oalfoprobe LMC SOP 15001-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not opplorph, everytm' at least 10%of stations Salinity(wndmtivity)' ."In Probe LMC SOP 1500.1-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable hot...trouble everytm' at least l0%of stations pH' o-sfoprobe LMC SOP 15001-CTD Operations not applicable net applicable net applicable everytm' at least 10%of stations Light Oxygen' rbslfu probe LIVE SOP 1500.1-CTD Operators not applicable not applicable not applicable everytm' at least10%of stations LitosTmnsically Active rn-sttu probe LMG SOP 1500.i-CID Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable everytm' at least l0%of stations Photosynthetically(PAR)I ive nslfuprobe LIVE SOP 1500.1-CTD Operators not applicable not applicable not applicable everytm' at least 10%of stations Radiation(PAR) Snooped-0.... l rd Organce` ro-ffifo probe LMC BOP 15W.1-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable n01 applicable everytm' at least 18%of stations Colortter Ol Organic In-slNprobe LMC SOP 1500.1-CTD Operations not applicable net applicable not appnc.ble everytm' at least 10%of stations Matter(CDOM) surf40 50h Santa. Ammonlnm(NH1NJ bass, LMC SOP 4500.NHB.G,Re¢J" I'd(<6'C) 125 mL HOPE 28 days 30m.dOm,50m.60m, at leas!W%of aamplds Bottom Total concepts and 125 mL HOPE Shifted,10m,20m, Eschetlama wlf' Nlskln Standard Methotle 9223C" Ice(�6"C) (Sterile dentionst 6hre Held i lab) 3gm,40m50m,60m, at least l0%oframples Bottom 10m Santa, . , Enterowxl pear,pear, 125 mL HDPE Surace Standard Methods 9230D toe(<B°C) (Sterile container) B hire pold+lab) San ,40m.50m.60m, at god l0%ofsample, Bottom D Surface Observations ra uel observations Permit span. not applicable not applicable not applicable surface not applicable N 'canmatea m refroonw calls p 000S C swum annually. cannrntea N wPso 8landeM and awmlrha cache Fwose annualy. 'Referenced and calibrated to NIST buffers of pH],8,and 9 prior to every survey. 'Relareeced and oallbmted dard survey by 1wrick,11n with the lab DO pmbe,wnion is ca,bmletl daily. Referenced and urb l amtl to known Vonamlrlande In air. peaary almmted annnanb Fecal ooiffoim whet raffI.,IEsoOeritliia bull MPN/lchmL x 1.1) 'Sampled bounnuo my is 26—itasamnd but data pmceevod m 1 m Inmrveis "APHAfor "'P Rabid online aC Methods Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality An expanded grid of water quality stations was sampled quarterly as part of the Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality monitoring program. These 38 stations were sampled by OCSD in conjunction with the 28 Core water quality stations (Figure 3-1) and those of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Oxnard, and the City of San Diego. The total sampling area extends from the Ventura River in the north to the U.S./Mexico Border in the south, with a significant spatial gap between Crystal Cove State Beach and Mission Bay(Figure 3-3). Data were collected using CTDs within a fixed-grid pattern comprising 304 stations during a targeted period of 3-4 days. Parameters measured included pressure, water temperature, conductivity, DO, PH, chlorophyll-a, CDOM, and water clarity Profiling was conducted from the surface to 2 m from the bottom or to a maximum depth of 100 m. OCSD's sampling and analytical methods were the same as those presented in TableA-1. Nearshore Zone Regional nearshore (also referred to as "surfzone") FIB samples were collected 1-2 days per week at a total of 38 stations (Figure 3-1). When creek/storm drain stations flowed to the ocean, 3 bacteriological samples were collected at the source, 25 yards downcoast, and 25 yards upcoast. When flow was absent, a single sample was collected 25 yards downcoast. Samples were collected in ankle-deep water, with the mouth of the sterile bottle facing an incoming wave but away from both the sampler and ocean bottom. After the sample was taken, the bottle was tightly capped and promptly stored on ice in the dark. The occurrence and size of any grease particles at the high tide line were also recorded. Laboratory analysis of FIB samples began within 6 hours of collection. Laboratory Methods Laboratory analyses of NH3-N and bacteriology samples followed methods listed in Table A-1. Quality assurance/quality control procedures included analysis of laboratory blanks and duplicates. All data underwent at least 3 separate reviews prior to being included in thefnal database used for statistical analysis, comparison to standards, and data summaries. Data Analyses Raw CTD data were processed using both SEASOFT(2017b)and third party(IGODS 2012)software. The steps included retaining downcast data and removing potential outliers(i.e.,data that exceeded specific sensor response criteria limits). Flagged data were removed if they were considered to be due to instrument failures,electrical noise(e.g., large data spikes),or physical interruptions of sensors (e.g., by bubbles) rather than by actual oceanographic events. After outlier removal, averaged 1 m depth values were prepared from the downcast data; if there were any missing 1 m depth values,then the upcast data were used as a replacement. CTD and discrete data were then combined to create a single data file that contained all sampled stations for each survey day. Compliance Determinations COP compliance was assessed based on: (1) specific numeric criteria for DO, pH, and FIB (Rec-1 zone only); and (2) narrative (non-numeric) criteria for transmissivity, floating particulates, oil and grease, water discoloration, beach grease, and excess nutrients. Dissolved Oxygen pH and Transmissivity Station locations were defined as either Zone A (inshore) or Zone B (offshore) as shown in Figure A-1. Compliance evaluations for DO, pH, and transmissivity were based on statistical comparisons to the corresponding Zone A or Zone B reference station located upcurrent of the outfail (OCSD 1999). For each survey, the depth of the pycnocline layer, if present,was calculated for each A-3 Methods zo n Radame6 F mi Huntington aeacn Son, mwe i' 1re.mant -.N.pp& Pldnt2 Notl 40m .- zaoJe... ! BeacF zs¢ rf J se a 'x'CZe,4 1 ., z3aae �.J>a z Win w �+>,ot - gom .{ t8$ a p 0m _ - as -•,�ztet J � .� WMH Joom � JtoaF OC$D Merch 2019 Figure A-1 Offshore water quality monitoring stations and zones used for compliance determinations. station using density data. The pycnocline is defined as the depth layer where stability is greater than 0.05 kglm' (Officer 1976). Data for each station and numeric compliance parameter (transmisslvity, DO, and pH)were binned by water column stratum: above, within, or below the pycnocline. When a pycnocline was absent, data were binned into the top, middle, or bottom third of the water column for each station. Mean values for each parameter were calculated by stratum and station. The number of observations usually differed from station to station and survey to survey due to different water and pycnocline depths. The selection of appropriate reference stations (i.e., upcoast or downcoast) for each survey day were determined based on available current measurements and the presence or absence of typical plume "signals" (e.g., NH3-N, FIB, and CDOM). If the choice of a reference station was indeterminate, then the data were analyzed twice using both upcoast and downcoast reference stations. Once reference stations were determined,the data were analyzed using in-house MATt_AB (2007) routines to calculate Out-of-Range occurrences (OROS)for each sampling date and parameter. These OROS were based on comparing the mean data by stratum and station with the corresponding reference station data to determine whether the following criteria were exceeded: • Dissolved oxygen: cannot be depressed >10% below the mean; • pH: cannot exceed ±0.2 pH units of the mean; and • Natural light (defined as transmissivity): shall not be significantly reduced, where statistically different from the mean is defined as the lower 95% confidence limit. A-4 Methods In accordance with permit specifications,the outfall station(2205)was not included in the comparisons because it is within the zone of initial dilution (ZID). To determine whether an ORO was Out-of-Compliance (OOC), distributional maps were created that identified the reference stations for each sampling date and location of each ORO, including which stratum was out of range. Each ORO was then evaluated to determine if it represented a logical DOC event. These evaluations were based on: (A) evaluation of the wastewater plume location relative to depth using a combination of temperature, density, salinity, CDOM, and when available, FIB and NH3-N; (B) evaluation of features in the water column relative to naturally occurring events (Le., high chlorophyll-a due to phytoplankton); and (C) unique characteristics of some stations that may not be comparable with permit-specified reference stations (2104/2105 or 2404/2406) due to differences in waterdepth andforvariableoceanographicconditions. Forexample,some ZoneAstations (e.g.,2403)are located at shallower depths than reference Station 2104. Waves and currents can cause greater mixing and resuspension of bottom sediments at shallower stations under certain conditions (e.g., winter storm surges). This can result in naturally decreased water clarity(transmissivity)that is unrelated to the wastewater discharge. An ORO can be in-compliance if, for example, a downcurrent station is different from the reference, but no intermediate (e.g., nearfield) stations exhibited OROS. Once the total number of DOC events was summed by parameter, the percentage of OROS and OOCs were calculated according to the total number of observations. In a typical year, Zone A has a total of 468 possible comparisons if 13 stations (not including the reference station) and 3 strata over 12 survey dates per year are used. For Zone B, 432 comparisons are possible from 12 stations (not including the reference and outfall stations), 3 strata, and 12 sampling dates. The total combined number of ORO and DOC events was then determined by summing the Zone A and Zone B results. When all of the strata are not present (e.g., below thermocline at shallow stations) or additional surveys are conducted, the total number of comparisons in the analysis may be more or less than the target number of comparisons possible (900). Compliance was also calculated using a method developed by Southern California Coastal Water Research Project(SCCWRP)in conjunction with its member agencies and the State Water Resources Control Board. The methodology involves 4 steps: (A)identification of the stations affected by effluent wastewater using CDOM, (B)selection of reference sampling sites representing "natural'conditions, (C)a per meter comparison between water quality profiles in the reference and plume-affected zones, and (D) calculation of maximum delta and comparison to COP standards to determine OROsccway. Reference sites were selected from the areas around the outfalls, excluding the sites affected by the effluent. Reference density profiles are calculated and the profiles in the plume zone are compared to the reference profiles and a maximum difference value is used to establish the number of OROsccwev. Detailed methodology, as applied to dissolved oxygen, can be found in Nezlin at al. (2016). The 2 methods differ in their approach to establishing OROS and the SCCWRP methodology does not calculate OOCs, therefore the following steps were taken to make the output of both approaches more comparable. (1) The SCCWRP approach identifies a varying number of "plume impacted" and reference stations per survey while the OCSD method does not explicitly identify stations impacted by the plume and uses only 2 predetermined reference stations. For this analysis, only the number of reference stations can be directly compared. (2) SCCWRP methodology compares only those values located below the mixed layer while the OCSD method includes surface values. For this comparison, all OROocso found in the upper part of the water column (i.e., Strata 1)were not considered. A-5 Methods (3) Under the OCSD approach, a station may have multiple ORO and/or COG values on a given survey,while the SCCWRP approach identifies a single maximum difference value per station. Therefore, monthly station ORO,,,, were recalculated as presence/absence when multiple ORO.... occurred at a station. (4) Unlike the OCSD method, the SCCWRP method does not provide a path to evaluate whether an ORO did or did not constitute an OOC. For this comparison, it was assumed that an ORO s..w,,was equivalent to the OOCocso if it was located downcurrent from the outfall. (5) SCCWRP methodology does not exclude the outfall station (2205) which is located within the ZID. For this analysis, any OROsccwaa associated with Station 2205 was not included. (6) SCCWRP methodology currentlydoes not distinguish between positive and negative significant differences. For those instances when an ORO sccw,,was positive when the applicable COP criteria is relative to a negative impact, these OROs were not included. Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) FIB compliance used corresponding bacterial standards at each REC-1 station and for stations outside the 3-mile state limit. FIB counts at individual REC-1 stations were averaged per survey and compliance for each FIB was determined using the following COP criteria (SWRCB 2010): 30-day Geometric Mean • Total coliform density shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 mL. • Fecal coliform density shall not exceed 200 per 100 mL. • Enterococci density shall not exceed 35 per 100 mL. Single Sample Maximum • Total coliform density shall not exceed 10,000 per 100 mL. • Fecal coliform density shall not exceed 400 per 100 mL. • Enterococci density shall not exceed 104 per 100 mL. • Total coliform density shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 mL when the fecal coliform/total coliform ratio exceeds 0.1. Determinations of fecal coliform compliance were accomplished by multiplying E. coli data by 1.1 to obtain a calculated fecal coliform value. There are no compliance criteria for FIB at the nearshore stations. Nevertheless, FIB data were given to the Orange County Health Agency (which follows State Department of Health Service AB411 standards) for the Ocean Water Protection Program (http,,'ocbenchl nfo.comf) and are briefly discussed in Chapter 3. Nutrients and Aesthetics These compliance determinations were done based on presence/absence and level of potential effect at each station. Station groupings are shown in Table B-4 and are based on relative distance and direction from the outfall. Compliance for the floating particulates, oil and grease, and water discoloration were determined based on presence/absence at the ocean surface for each station. Compliance with the excess nutrient criterion was based on evaluation of NH3-N compared to COP objectives for chronic(4 mg/L)and acute(6 mg/L)toxicity to marine organisms. Compliance was also evaluated by looking at potential spatial relationships between NH3-N distribution and phytoplankton (using chlorophyll-a fluorescence). A-6 Methods SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY MONITORING Field Methods Sediment samples were collected for geochemistry analyses from 29 semi-annual stations in July 2017 (summer) and in January 2018 (winter), as well as from 39 annual stations in July 2017 (Figure 2-2). In addition, 2-3 L of sediment was collected from Stations 0, 1, 4, 72, 73, 76, 77, CON, and ZB in January 2018 for sediment toxicity testing. Each station was assigned to 1 of 6 station groups: (1)Middle Shelf Zone 1 (31-50 m);(2)Middle Shelf Zone 2,within-ZID(51-90 m); (3) Middle Shelf Zone 2, non-ZID (51-90 m); (4) Middle Shelf Zone 3 (91-120 m); (5) Outer Shelf (121-200 m);and(6)UpperSlope/Canyon(201-500 m). In Chapter2,the Middle ShelfZone 2,within-and non-ZID station groups are simply referred to as within-ZID and non-ZID stations, respectively. A single sample was collected at each station using a paired 0.1 m2 Van Veen grab sampler deployed from the M/V Nerissa. All sediment samples were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed for acceptability prior to processing. Samples were deemed acceptable if they had a minimum depth of 5 cm. However, if 3 consecutive sediment grabs each yielded a depth of <5 can at a station, then the depth threshold was lowered to 54 cm. The top 2 cm of the sample was transferred into containers using a stainless steel scoop (Table A-2). The sampler and scoop were rinsed thoroughly with filtered seawater prior to sample collection. All sediment samples were transported on wet ice to the laboratory. Sample storage and holding times followed specifications in OCSD's Laboratory, Monitoring, and Compliance Standard Operating Procedures (LMC SOP) (Table A-2; OCSD 2016). Table A-2 Sediment collection and analysis summary for 2017-18. Parameter container Preservation Holding Time Method Dissolved Sulfides HDPE container Freeze fimonths LMC SOP 4560-SG Rev.B GraInSlT, Reek no, 4'C fimonths Flame(1981) Mercury Amber glass Jar Freeze 6months LMC SOP 245.18 Rev Metals Amber daze, Freeze fimonths LMC SOP 200.86 SED Rev Sediment Toxicity HDPE container 40 2roonths LMC SOP 8810 Total Chloenated Pesticltles(FPesq Gla,,ar Freeze fimonths LMC SOP 8000-SPP Total DDT(£DDT) Glesajer Freeze fimonths LMC SOP 8000SPP Total Nor ..a(TN) Glassrar Freeze 6 monthe EPA 3512M and 353.2M' Total Organic Carbon(TOC) save ia, Freeze 6months ASTMD4126-05' Total Phesphams(TP) Glass jar Freeze 6months EPA 6010B- Total Polyohlorineted Biphenyle(£PCB) Gloa,0, Freeze 6neathe LMC SOP 9000SPP Total Polyeyde Arareee HydozvEbons(£PAH) Glnasjnr Freeze 6months LMC SOP 8000 PAH 'Avaaavreon6neat o.:w Laboratory Methods Sediment grain size, total organic carbon, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus samples were subsequently transferred to local and interstate laboratories for analysis (see Appendix C). Sample transfers were conducted and documented using required chain of custody protocols through the Laboratory Information Management Systems software. All other analyses were conducted by OCSD lab staff. Sediment chemistry and grain size samples were processed and analyzed using the methods listed in Table A-2. The measured sediment chemistry parameters are listed in Table A-3. Method blanks, analytical quality control samples(duplicates, matrix spikes,and blank spikes),and standard reference materials were prepared and analyzed with each sample batch. Total polychlorinated biphenyls (EPCB)and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(EPAH)were calculated by summing the measured value of each respective constituent listed in Table A-3. Total dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (EDDT) represents the summed values of 4,4'-DDMU and the 2,4- and 4,4'-isomers of DDD, DDE, and DDT, and total chlorinated pesticides (EPest) represents the summed values of 13 chlordane derivative compounds plus dieldrin. A-7 Methods Table A-3 Parameters measured in sediment samples for 2017-18, Morals Antimony Cadmium Lead Selenium Arsenic Chrumlum Mercury silver Badom Copper Nickel Zinc Bet Ilium Or,mm.hImm.Pesticides Chlordane De,,,Wus and Dfelddn Aldrin Eodo,uifan-alpha gamma-BHC H,xa,Inombenzene ry Chlordane Endosulfabeie Heptachlor Mimx trans-Chlordane Endosonar-sulfate Heptachlor epoNde cans-Nc,e&Ior Dieldrin Endrin DOTDed,cbves 2,4'-DOD 2,4'-ODE 24'-DDT 44'-DDMU 4,4 DOD 44'-ODE 44'-DDT POlychl minted Biphenyl iPCBi Oon9eners PCB 18 PCB 81 POD 126 Pro 170 BOB28 PCB87 PCs128 PCB177 PCB 37 PCB 99 PCB 13B PCB 180 PCB 44 PCB IDi PCB 149 PCB 183 PCB49 PCB105 PCB15, PCs 1B7 PCB 52 PCB 110 PCB 153/168 PCB 189 PCB 66 PCs 114 PCB 1% POD 194 POD 70 PCB 118 PCB 157 PCB 201 PCB 74 PCB 119 PCB 167 PCB 2% PCB77 PCB123 PCB169 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon(PAH)Compounds Apenaphthane Benzplg,h,llperylene Fluoranihene i-Methylnaphthalene AcenephthNene Benzo[k]nuoanthene Fluorene 2-MethylnapMba1ena A,rmapepe Biphenyl Indon.11,C3.dlpyrepe 2,6 Dimethylnapmhelene Benzfof ntmaceoe Chrysene Naphthalene 1.6.7-TrlmeOylnaphtl,pvne Benzo[a]pyrane Dibenz[a h]amhmcpne Perylane Cad Trim thyloaphtinurne Bepzotbltluorenihene DibenzotMophene PhenenPrcene 1-Methylphenanihrene arm. pyrone PVlene Other Parameters Dleaolv,d SWfida, Total Nhrog,n Total Organic Carbon Tptai Phosphor,, C."Size Sediment toxicity was conducted using the 10-day Eohaustorius estuaries amphipod survival test (EPA 1994). Amphipods were exposed to test and home(control)sediments, and the percent survival in each was determined. Data Analyses All analytes that were undetected (i.e., value below the method detection limit) are reported as not detected (ND). Further, an ND value was treated as zero for calculating a mean analyte concentration; however, if a station group contained all ND for a particular analyte, then the mean analyte concentration is reported as NO. Sediment contaminant concentrations were evaluated against sediment quality guidelines known as Effects Range-Median (ERM) (Long et al. 1998). The ERM guidelines were developed for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Status and Trends Program (NOAA 1993) as non-regulatory benchmarks to aid in the interpretation of sediment chemistry data and to complement toxicity, bioaccumulation, and benthic community assessments (Long and MacDonald 1998). The ERM is the 50th percentile sediment concentration above which a toxic effect frequently occurs (Long et al. 1995), and as such, an ERM exceedance is considered a significant potential for adverse biological effects. Bight'13 sediment geochemistry data (Dodder et al. 2016) were also used as benchmarks. Data analysis consisted of summary statistics and qualitative comparisons only. Toxicity threshold criteria applied in this report were consistent with those of the Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries — Part 1 Sediment Quality (Bay et al. 2009, SWRCB 2009), Stations with statistically different (p<0.05) survival rates when compared to the control, determined by a two-sample t-test, were categorized as nontoxic when survival was 90-100% of the control, lowly toxic when survival was 82-89% of the control, and moderately toxic when survival was A-8 Methods 59-81% of the control. Stations with no statistically different (p>0.05) survival rates when compared to the control were categorized as nontoxic when survival was 82-100%of the control and lowly toxic when survival was 59-81% of the control. Any station exhibiting survival less than 59% of the control was categorized as highly toxic. BENTHIC INFAUNA MONITORING Field Methods A paired, 0.1 m2 Van Veen grab sampler deployed from the MIV Nerissa was used to collect a sediment sample from 29 semi-annual stations in July 2017 (summer) and in January 2018 (winter), as well as from 39 annual stations in July 2017 (Figure 2-2). The purpose of the semi-annual surveys was to determine long-term trends and potential effects along the 60-m depth contour, while the annual survey was conducted primarily to assess the spatial extent of the influence of the effluent discharge. Each station was assigned to 1 of 6 depth categories as described above in the sediment geochemistry field methods section. All sediment samples were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed for acceptability prior to processing as described above in the sediment geochemistry field methods section. At each station, acceptable sediment in the sampler was emptied into a 63.5 cm x 45.7 cm x 20.3 cm (25 in x 18 in x 8 in) plastic tray and then decanted onto a sieving table whereupon a hose with a fan spray nozzle was used to gently wash the sediment with filtered seawater through a 40.6 cm x 40.6 cm It in x 16 in), 1.0 tom sieve. Organisms retained on the sieve were rinsed with 7% magnesium sulfate anesthetic into one or more 1 L plastic containers and then placed in a cooler containing ice packs. After approximately 30 minutes in the anesthetic, animals were fixed by adding full strength buffered formaldehyde to the container to achieve a 10%, by volume, solution. Samples were transported to OCSD's laboratory for further processing. Laboratory Methods After 3-10 days in formalin, samples were rinsed with tap water and then transferred to 70% ethanol for long-term preservation. Samples were sent to Marine Taxonomic Services, Inc. (San Marcos, CA) and Aquatic Bioassay and Consulting Laboratories, Inc. (Ventura, CA), where they were sorted to 5 major taxonomic groups (aliquots): Annelida (worms), Mollusca (snails, clams, etc.), Arthropods (shrimps, crabs, etc.), Echinodermata (sea stars, sea urchins, etc.), and miscellaneous phyla (Cnidaria, Nemertea, etc.). Removal of organisms was monitored to ensure that at least 95% of all organisms were successfully separated from the sediment matrix (see Appendix C). Upon completion of sample sorting, the major taxonomic groups were distributed for identification and enumeration(Table A-4). Taxonomic differences were resolved and the database Table A-4 Benthic infauna taxonomic aliquot distribution for 2017-18. Quarter Survey Taxonomic Aliquots contractor ocso (Non of samples) Annelltla 10 29 Annual A*torop°da 0 39 (39) Echirmormate 0 39 Wulusee 19 20 Summar2017 Miscellaoeow Phyla 0 39 Annelltla 9 20 Semi-annual Armropoda 0 29 (�) E.mandomma 29 0 Mollusca 15 14 Macellarri Phyla 0 29 Annelltla 29 0 Semi-annual Alhoppda 29 0 Winter 2018 (2B) EChinodermala 29 0 Mollusca 15 14 Miacellanemis Phyla 29 0 TmWia 213 272 A-9 Methods was edited accordingly (see Appendix C). Species names used in this report follow those given in Cadien and Lovell (2016). Data Analyses Infaunal community data were analyzed to determine if populations outside the ZID were affected by the outfall discharge. Six community measures were used to assess infaunal community health and function: (1) total number of species (richness), (2) total number of individuals (abundance), (3) Shannon-Wiener Diversity (H'), (4) Swartz's 75% Dominance Index (SDI), (5) Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI), and (6) Benthic Response Index (BRI). H' was calculated using loge(Zar 1999). SDI was calculated as the minimum number of species with combined abundance equal to 75°% of the individuals in the sample (Swartz 1978). SDI is inversely proportional to numerical dominance, thus a low index value indicates high dominance (i.e., a community dominated by a few species). The ITI was developed by Word (1973, 1990)to provide a measure of infaunal community "health" based on a species' mode of feeding (e.g., primarily suspension vs. deposit feeder). ITI values greater than 60 are considered indicative of a "normal" community, while 30-60 represent a "changed" community, and values less than 30 indicate a "degraded"community. The BRI measures the pollution tolerance of species on an abundance-weighted average basis (Smith at aI. 2001). This measure is scaled inversely to ITI with low values (<25) representing reference conditions and high values (>72) representing defaunation or the exclusion of most species. The intermediate value range of 25-34 indicates a marginal deviation from reference conditions, 35-44 indicates a loss of biodiversity, and 45-72 indicates a loss of community function. The ITI and BRI were not calculated for stations >200 m in depth following recommendations provided by Word (1978)and Ranasinghe at al. (2012), respectively. The BRI was used to determine compliance with NPDES permit conditions, as it is a commonly used Southern California benchmark for infaunal community structure and was developed with the input of regulators (Ranasinghe at al. 2007, 2012). OCSD's historical infauna data from the past 10 monitoring periods, as well as Bight'13 infauna data (Gillett at al. 2017), were also used as benchmarks. The presence or absence of certain indicator species (pollution sensitive and pollution tolerant) was also determined for each station. The presence of pollution sensitive species, i.e., Amphiodia urtica (brittlestar)and amphipod crustaceans in the genera Ampelisca and Rhepoxynius, typically indicates the existence of a healthy environment, while the occurrence of large numbers of pollution tolerant species, i.e., Capitella capitafa Cmplx (polychaete), may indicate stressed or organically enriched environments. Patterns of these species were used to assess the spatial and temporal influence of the wastewater discharge in the receiving environment. PRIMER v7 (2015) multivariate statistical software was also used to examine the spatial patterns of infaunal invertebrate communities at the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stations. The other stations were excluded from the analyses, as Clarke and Warwick (2014) advocated that clustering is less useful and may be misleading where there is a strong environmental forcing, such as depth. Analyses included (1) hierarchical clustering with group-average linking based on Bray-Curtis similarity indices and similarity profile (SIMPROF) permutation tests of the clusters and (2)ordination of the same data using non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) to confirm hierarchical clustering. Prior to the calculation of the Bray-Curtis indices, the data were fourth root transformed in order to down-weight the highly abundant species and to incorporate the less common species(Clarke and Warwick 2014). TRAWL COMMUNITIES MONITORING Field Methods Demersal fishes and epibenthic macroinvertebrates (EMIs) were collected by trawling in August 2017 (summer) and in January 2018 (winter). Sampling was conducted at 15 stations: Inner Shelf A-10 Methods (18 m) Station TO; Middle Shelf Zone 1 (36 m) Stations T2, T24, T6, and T18; Middle Shelf Zone 2 (60 m) Stations T23, T22, T1, T12, T17, and T11; and Outer Shelf (137 m) Stations T10, T25, T14, and T19 (Figure 2-3). Only Middle Shelf Zone 2 stations were sampled in both summer and winter; the remaining stations were sampled in summer only. Station TO was sampled to maintain the long-term abundance records of fishes and EMIs at this site, but data for this historical station are not discussed in this report. OCSD's trawl sampling protocols are based upon regionally developed sampling methods (Kelly at al. 2013). These methods require that a portion of the trawl track must pass within a 100 m radius of the nominal station position and be within 10% of the station's nominal depth. In addition, the speed of the trawl should range from 0.77 to 1.0 mis (1.5 to 2.0 kts). Since 1985, OCSD has trawled a set bottom distance of 450 m ±10%, which contrasts with the regional standard of using time on the bottom (8-15 min) rather than distance. A minimum of 1 trawl was conducted from the MN Nenssa at each station using a 7.6 m (25 IT) wide, Marinovich, semi-balloon otter trawl (2.54 cm mesh) with a 0.64 cm mesh cod-end liner, an 8.9 m chain-rigged foot rope, and 23 m long trawl bridles following regionally adopted methodology (Mearns and Allen 1978). The trawl wire scope varied from a ratio of approximately 5:1 at the shallowest station to approximately 3:1 at the deepest station. To minimize catch variability due to weather and current conditions, which may affect the bottom-time duration of the trawl, trawls generally were taken along a constant depth and usually in the same direction at each station. Station locations and trawling speeds and paths were determined using Global Positioning System navigation. Trawl depths were determined using a Sea-Bird Electronics SBE 39 pressure sensor attached to one of the trawl boards. Upon retrieval of the trawl net, the contents (fishes and EMIs)were emptied into a large flow-through water tank and then sorted by species into separate containers. Fish bioaccumulation specimens were counted, recorded, and removed for processing (see Fish Bioaccumulation Monitoring and Fish Health Monitoring sections below). The remaining fish specimens were processed as follows: (1) a minimum of 15 arbitrarily selected specimens of each species were weighed to the nearest gram and measured individually to the nearest millimeter (standard length for most species; total length for a few species); and (2) if a haul sample contained substantially more than 15 individuals of a species, then the excess specimens were enumerated in 1 cm size classes and a bulk weight was recorded. All fish specimens were examined for abnormalities such as external tumors, lesions, parasites, and skeletal deformities. EMIs were sorted to species, counted, and batch weighed. For each invertebrate species with large abundances (n>100), 100 individuals were counted and batch weighed; the remaining individuals were batch weighed and enumerated later by back calculating using the weight of the first 100 individuals. EMI specimens that could not be identified in the field were preserved in 10% buffered formalin for subsequent laboratory analysis. Laboratory Methods After 3-10 days in formalin, the EMI specimens retained for further taxonomic scrutiny were rinsed with tap water and then transferred to 70% ethanol for long-term preservation. These EMIs were identified using relevant taxonomic keys and, in some cases, were compared to voucher specimens housed in OCSD's Taxonomy Lab. Species and common names used in this report follow those given in Page at al. (2013) and Cadien and Lovell (2016). Data Analyses Total number of species, total abundance, biomass, H', and SDI were calculated for both fishes and EMIs at each station. Fish biointegrity in OCSD's monitoring area was assessed using the Fish Response Index (FRI). The FRI is a multivariate weighted-average index produced from an ordination analysis of calibrated species abundance data (Allen et al. 2001, 2006). FRI scores less than 45 are classified as reference (normal) and those greater than 45 are non-reference A-11 Methods (abnormal or disturbed). OCSD's historical trawl EMI and fish data from the past 10 monitoring periods, as well as Bight'13 trawl data (Walther et al. 2017), were also used as benchmarks. PRIMER v.7 (2015) multivariate statistical software was used to examine the spatial patterns of the fish and EMI assemblages at the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stations. The other stations were excluded from the analyses, as Clarke and Warwick (2014) advised that clustering is less useful and may be misleading where there is a strong environmental forcing, such as depth. Analyses included (1) hierarchical clustering with group-average linking based on Bray-Curtis similarity indices and SIMPROF permutation tests of the clusters and (2) ordination of the same data using nMDS to confirm hierarchical clustering. Prior to the calculation of the Bray-Curtis indices, the data were fourth root transformed in order to down-weight the highly abundant species and incorporate the importance of the less common species (Clarke and Warwick 2014). Middle Shelf Zone 2 stations were grouped into the following categories to assess spatial, outfall-related patterns: "outfall" (Stations T22 and T1) and "non-outfall" (Stations T23, T1 2, T17, and T11). FISH BIOACCUMULATION MONITORING Two demersal fish species, English Sole (Parophrys vetulus) and Hornyhead Turbot (Pleuronichthys verticalis), were targeted for analysis of muscle and liver tissue chemistry. Muscle tissue was analyzed because contaminants may bioaccumulate in this tissue and can be transferred to higher trophic levels. Liver tissue was analyzed because it typically has higher lipid content than muscle tissue and thus bioaccumulates relatively higher concentrations of lipid-soluble contaminants that have been linked to pathological conditions as well as immunological or reproductive impairment (Arkoosh et al. 1998). Demersal fishes in the families Scorpaenidae (e.g., California Scorpionfish and Vermilion Rockfish) and Serranidae (e.g., Kelp Bass and Sand Bass) were targeted, as they are frequently caught and consumed by recreational anglers. As such, contaminants in the muscle tissue of these fishes were analyzed to gauge human health risk. Field Methods The sampling objective for bioaccumulation analysis was to collect 10 individuals each of English Sole and Hornyhead Turbot at outfall (T1) and non-outfall (T11) stations during the 2017-18 monitoring period. Five hauls were conducted at each station in August 2017, while 2 and 3 hauls were conducted at Stations Tl and T11, respectively, in January 2018. Ten individuals in total of scorpaenid and serranid fishes were targeted at the outfall (Zone 1) and non-outfall (Zone 3) areas using hook-and-line fishing gear("rig-fishing") in September 2017 (Figure 2-3). Each fish collected for bioaccumulation analysis was weighed to the nearest gram and its standard length measured to the nearest millimeter; placed in pre-labelled, plastic, re-sealable bags; and stored on wet ice in an insulated cooler. Bioaccumulation samples were subsequently transported under chain of custody protocols to OCSD's laboratory. Sample storage and holding times for bioaccumulation analyses followed specifications in OCSD's LMC SOP (Table A-5; OCSD 2016), Table A-5 Fish tissue handling and analysis summary for 2017-18. Parameter Container Preservation Heidi,Time Method A,sonlc and Selenium Ziplockbag Freeze 6monthp LMC SOP 200.8E SED Re, F O,ganocblonne Peetbeea Zplopkbag Freeze 6montbs NS&T(NOAA 1993),EPA 8270' DDTa Zplpckbe, F,oaze 6maMhs NS&T(NOAA 1993),EPA 8270' Up& Z,lock bag Freeze N/A EPA 9D71' Memury Zplookbag Freeze 6monthe LMC SOP 2451B Re, G Pol,hlonnetea 6lphenyls Zploakbe, Freeze 6montha NS&T(NOAA 1993),EPA 8270' 'A beonlnaat _. .„ r.WA=Not Appllceble. A-12 Methods Laboratory Methods Individual fish were dissected in the laboratory under clean conditions. Muscle and liver tissues were analyzed for various parameters listed in Table A-6 using methods shown in Table A-5. Method blanks, analytical quality control samples (duplicates, matrix spikes, and blank spikes), and standard reference materials were prepared and analyzed with each sample batch. All reported concentrations are on a wet weight basis. FDDT andEPCB were calculated as described in the sediment geochemistry section. Total chlordane (FChlordane) represents the sum of 7 derivative compounds (cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and oxychlordane). Organic contaminant data were not lipid normalized. Table A-6 Parameters measured in fish tissue samples for 2017-18. Metals Nsanic' all seal m' O,anoabll Pini ideea Chlordane Derivatives and DIeIMo asLhlordane Dieltlrin as-Nonadtlor ten,Ghlerdene Heplechlor traru-Non..N., Oeyohladane Hl,DaD1or,dde DDT Derivatives 2,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 24'-DDT 4,4'-DOD 64'-DOE 4,4'-DDT 44-DDMU PD'Dnorleat id Bopheoyl(PCB)ca"on, PCs is PCB 101 PCB 156 PC828 PCB 105 PCs 157 PCB 37 PCB 110 PCs 167 PC844 PCB 114 PCs 169 PC849 PCB 118 PCB 170 PCB 52 PCB 119 PCB 177 PCB 66 PCB 123 PCs 180 PCs 70 PCB 126 PCB 183 PCs 74 PCB 128 PCB 187 PCs 77 PCs 138 PCs 189 PCs 81 PCB 149 PCB 194 PCB 87 PCB 151 PCB 201 PCB BB PCs 153/168 PCs 206 Other Parameter uvma anegaed only m rig nshyin— Data Analyses All analytes that were undetected (i.e., value below the method detection limit) are reported as ND. Further,an NO value was treated as zero for calculating a mean analyte concentration; however, if fish tissue samples had all NO for a particular analyte, then the mean analyte concentration is reported as NO. Data analysis consisted of summary statistics (i.e., means and ranges) and qualitative comparisons only. The U.S.Food and Drug Administration action levels and the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment advisory tissue levels for FDDT, FPCB, methylmercury, dieldrin and FChlordane were used to assess human health risk in rig-caught fish (Klasing and Brodberg 2008, FDA 2011). Analysis of bioaccumulation data consisted of summary statistics and qualitative comparisons only. A-13 Methods FISH HEALTH MONITORING Assessment of the overall health of fish populations is also required by the NPDES permit. This entails documenting physical symptoms of disease in fish samples collected during each monitoring period, as well as conducting liver histopathology analysis once every 5 years (starting from June 15, 2012, the issue date of the current NPDES permit). Field Methods All trawl fish samples collected during the 2017-18 monitoring period were visually inspected for lesions, tumors, large, non-mobile external parasites, and other signs (e.g., skeletal deformities) of disease. Any atypical odor and coloration of fish samples were also noted. No fish samples were collected for liver histopathology analysis, as this analysis was conducted during the 2015-16 monitoring period (OCSD 2017). Data Analyses Analysis of fish disease data consisted of qualitative comparisons only. A-14 Methods REFERENCES Allen, L.G., D.J. Pondella 11,and M.H. Horn, Eds. 2006. The Ecology of Marine Fishes: California and Adjacent Waters. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 660 p. Allen, M.J., R.W. Smith, and V. Raco-Rands. 2001. Development of Biointegrity Indices for Marine Demersal Fish and Megabenthic Invertebrate Assemblages of Southern California. Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA. APHA (American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation). 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd edition. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. Arkoosh,M.R.,E.Casillas,P.A.Huffman,E.R.Clemons,J.Evered,J.E.Stein,and U.Varanasi. 1998. Increased susceptibility of juvenile Chinook salmon from a contaminated estuary to Vibrio anguillarum. Trans. Am. Fish. Sac. 127:360-374, Bay, S.M., D.J. Greenstein, J.A. Ranasinghe, D.W. Diehl, and A.E. Fetscher. 2009. Sediment Quality Assessment Draft Technical Support Manual. Technical Report Number 582. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. Cadien, D.B. and L.L. Lovell, Eds. 2016.A Taxonomic Listing of Benthic Macro- and Megainvertebrates from Infaunal and Epifaunal Monitoring and Research Programs in the Southern California Bight. Edition 11. The Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists, Los Angeles, CA. 173 p. Clarke K.R.and R.M.Warwick. 2014. Change in Marine Communities:An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation: 3-edition. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, United Kingdom. 262 p. Dodder, N., K. Schiff, A. Latker, and C.L. Tang. 2016. Southern California Bight 2013 Regional Monitoring Program. IV. Sediment Chemistry. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. EPA(Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA 600/R-941025. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2011. Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance: Fourth edition. Department of Health and Human Services, Silver Spring, MD. 468 p. Gillett, D.J., L.L. Lovell, and K.C. Schiff. 2017. Southern California Bight 2013 Regional Monitoring Program: Volume VI. Benthic Infauna. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. Hardy, J. 1993. Phytoplankton. In: Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation (M.D. Dailey, D.J. Rear, and J.W.Anderson— Eds.). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. p. 233-265. GGODS. 2012. (GODS(Interactive Graphical Ocean Database System)Version 3 Beta 4.41 [software]. Ocean Software and Environmental Consulting, Los Angeles, CA. Kelly, M., D. Diehl, B. Power, F. Stern, S. Walther, T. Petry, M. Mengel, K. Sakamoto, L. Teringuez, C. Cash, K. Patrick, E. Miller, B. Isham, B.Owens, M. Lyons, K. Schiff,S. Bay L.Cooper, N. Dodder, D.Greenstein, S. Moore, and R. Wetzer. 2013. Southern California Bight 2013 Regional Monitoring Survey (Bight'13). Contaminant Impact Assessment Field Operations Manual. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. Kissing, S. and R. Brodberg. 2008. Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Disarm, Methylmemury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene. California Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, CA. 115 P. Long, E.R.and D.D. MacDonald. 1998. Recommended uses of empirically derived,sediment quality guidelines for marine and estuarine ecosystems. Human and Fool. Risk Assess. 4A 019-1039. Long, E.R., D.D. McDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.C. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ. Manage. 19:81-97. A-15 Methods Long, E.R., L.J. Field, and D.D. MacDonald. 1998, Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:714-727. MATLAB. 2007, MATLAB Version 7.4 [software]. The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA. Mearns,A.J. and M.J.Allen. 1978. Use of small otter trawls in coastal biological surveys. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agcy., Environ. Res. Lab. Corvallis, OR. EPA-600/3-78-083. Nezlin, N.P, J.A.T. Booth, C. Beegan, C.L. Cash, J.R. Gully,A. Latker, M.J. Mengel, G.L. Robertson,A. Steele, and S.B. Weisberg. 2016. Assessment of wastewater impact on dissolved oxygen around southern California's submerged ocean entails. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 7:177-184. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1993. Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984- 1992: Overview and Summary of Methods, Volume 1. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71. Silver Spring, MD. OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District). 1999. Annual Report, July 1997-June 1998. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD, 2016. Laboratory, Monitoring, and Compliance Standard Operating Procedures. Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 201T Annual Report, July 2015-June 2016. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA. Officer, C.B. 1976. Physical Oceanography of Estuaries and Associated Coastal Waters. John Wiley, New York. 465 p. Page, L.M., H. Espinosa-Perez, L.T Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, N.E. Mandrak, R.L. Mayden, and J.S. Nelson. 2013. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada,and Mexico, 711 Edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, MD. 243 p. Plumb, R.H. 1981. Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples. Tech. Rep. EPA/CE-81-1. Prepared by U.S. army Corps of Engineers,Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS. 478 p. PRIMER. 2015. PRIMER Statistical Software Package Version 7 [software]. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UK. Ranasinghe, J.A., A.M. Barnett, K. Schiff, D.E. Montague, C.A. Brantley, C. Beegan, D.B. Cadien, C. Cash, G.B. Deets, D.R. Diener, T.K. Mikel, R.W. Smith, R.G. Valance, S.D. Watts, and S.B. Weisberg. 2007. Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program: III. Benthic Macrofauna. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. Ranasinghe, J.A., K.C.Schiff, C.A. Brantley, L.L. Lovell, D.B.Cadien,T.K. Mikel,R.G.Velarde, S. Holt,and S.C. Johnson. 2012. Southern California Bight 2008 Regional Monitoring Program:VI.Benthic Macrofauna. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. SEASOFT. 2017a. Seasoft CTD Data Acquisition Software,Version 7.26.6.26[software]. Seabird Electronics, Inc., Bellevue, WA. SEASOFT. 2017b. Seasoft CTD Data Processing Software, Version 7.26.7.1 [software]. Seabird Electronics, Inc., Bellevue, WA. Smith, R.W., M. Bergen, S.B.Weisberg, D. Cabled,A. Dalkey, D. Montague,J.K. Stull,and R.G.Velarde. 2001. Somme response index for assessing infaunal communities on the southern California mainland shelf. Ecol.Appl. 11:1073-1087. Swartz, R.C. 1978. Techniques for sampling and analyzing the marine macrobenthos. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Doc. EPA-600/3-78-030,, EPA, Corvallis, OR. SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries—Part 1 Sediment Quality. Sacramento, CA. SWRCB. 2010, California Ocean Plan. Sacramento, CA. A-16 Methods Walther, S.M., J.P. Williams, A.K. Latker, D.B. Cadien, D.W. Diehl, K. Wisenbaker, E. Miller, R. Gartman, C. Stransky,and K.C. Schiff. 2017. Southern California Bight 2013 Regional Monitoring Program:Volume VII. Demersal Fishes and Megabenthic Invertebrates. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. Word, J. 1978. The infaunal trophic index. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report, 1979. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA. Word,J.Q. 1990. The Infaunal Troche Index.Afunctional approach to benthic community analyses[dissertation]. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 297 p. Zar,J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall Publishers, Upper Saddle River,NJ. 663 p. +Appendices. A-17 This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX B Supporting Data Table B-1 Depth-averaged total coliform bacteria (MPN1100 mL)collected in offshore waters and used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance criteria for 2017-18. Meets 30-day Meets Single Meets Single Station Data Geometric Mean Sample Sample of510001190mL Standard of Standard of 510,0001100mL 5100011(s0ml. 7/2512017 711612017 712712017 8/212017 81312017 2103 <10 <10 <10 <16 25 YES YES YES 2104 <10 15 18 <19 15 YES YES YES 2183 <10 <10 <10 17 33 YES YES YES 2203 <10 <10 CO 12 16 YES YES YES 2223 <10 <10 q6 16 15 YES YES YES 2303 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES 2351 <10 <10 <10 <10 15 YES YES YES 2403 q0 <10 q0 13 29 YES YES YES 1012412017 1012512017 1012612017 111612017 11/712017 2103 14 16 12 15 13 YES YES YES 2104 11 20 is— 22 13 YES YES YES-- 2183 27 68 29 29 71 YES YES YES 2203 12 32 <10 87 62 YES YES YES 2223 <10 25 <10 112 13 YES YES YES 2303 14 14 <10 132 71 YES YES YES 2351 <10 10 Q0 88 65 YES YES YES 2403 <10 <10 <10 159 129 YES YES YES 111612018 1/17/2018 1118/2018 21=018 V612018 2103 35 33 36 <10 In YES YES YES 2104 26 1131- 70" <10 <10 YES YES YES" 2183 19 18 29 <10 <10 YES YES YES 2203 16 13 24 G6 <10 YES YES YES 2223 11 12 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES 2303 25 <10 q0 <10 q0 YES YES YES 2351 <10 <10 QO <10 <10 YES YES YES 2403 12 <10 <10 '10 '10 YES YES YES 411712018 4/1812018 4126/2018 51712018 518,2018 2103 13 12 19 12 10 YES YES YES 2104 10 '10 14 15 13 YES YES YES 2183 21 17 11 14 <10 YES YES YES 2203 33 16 13 <10 13 YES YES YES 2223 16 10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES 2303 <10 <10 <10 <16 <10 YES YES YES 2351 <1. <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES 2403 =m <m <16 <m <10 YES YES YES saodam i<i,d oawaaa"a sVa0ie marimem I.,ao,,o ,.ai .l.-rauo>o,1. ••oapmx mmbad.meat ainyla samvla xlmd,N tID2e117,t/llVla 111&18). B-1 Supporting Data Table B-2 Depth-averaged fecal coliform bacteria (MPNI100 mL)collected in offshore waters and used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance criteria for 2017-18. Meets 30-Jay Meets single sample Station Date GeometHE Mean standard of 52001100.L V001100 l_ 7/2512017 7126=17 712712017 81212017 81312017 2103 '10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2104 <10 12 n <m <10 YES YES 2163 <10 <1D <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2203 <10 <10 <10 10 <tD YES YES 2223 110 <10 q0 110 a0 YES YES 2303 <10 QD <10 <10 Qp YES YES 2351 <10 <10 <10 <10 '10 YES YES 2403 110 110 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 10alW2017 10/2512017 1012612017 1116c017 1117/2017 2103 12 11 10 <10 <10 YES YES 2104 <10 11 13 <10 <10 YES YES 2163 10 18 16 <10 <10 YES YES 2203 <10 11 n0 <m <iD YES YES 2223 QO <1D <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2303 <10 <10 <10 10 <10 YES YES 2351 110 <10 <10 110 q0 YES YES 2403 <10 QD <10 <10 Qp YES YES 111612018 111MOIS 1118/2018 21512018 21612018 2103 13 13 17 <10 110 YES YES 2104 17 36 29 <10 <10 YES YES' 2183 <10 11 12 <10 <10 YES YES 2203 10 110 15 <10 <10 YES YES 2223 Q0 <10 QO <10 <10 YES YES 2303 <tD <m n0 <10 <10 YES YES 2351 <10 lD <10 <10 <ID YES YES 2403 <10 <10 <10 10 <10 YES YES 4M71208 4/1812018 W2612018 5M2D18 51812018 2103 110 <10 15 <10 <10 YES YES 2104 <10 <10 11 11 11 YES YES 2163 10 11 <10 10 <10 YES YES 2203 13 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2223 <10 <ID <W <10 <10 YES YES 2303 q0 110 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2351 Q0 <10 QO <10 <10 YES YES 2403 <10 <10 <10 10 <tD YES YES 'DepiM1s wmbinetl,meei single sample abnEeN IL VIi 81 B-2 Supporting Data Table B-3 Depth-averaged enterococci bacteria (MPN7100mL) collected in offshore waters and used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance criteria and EPA Primary Recreation Criteria in Federal Waters for 2017-18. Meets COP Meete COP 30-day single sample Station Date Geometric slantlard o1 Mean or <1041mo mi s6slloo m� 7/2512017 7126I2017 712712017 80207 01312017 2103 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2104 <10 90 <10 <tD <10 YES YES 2183 <1D <10 110 <10 <10 YES YES 2203 <40 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2223 <10 <10 <10 Ila <10 YES YES 2303 <1D 110 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2351 <10 <10 <ID 11 90 YES YES 2403 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 1012412017 1012512017 1012612017 111612017 11912D17 2103 GO c10 <10 Q0 <10 YES YES 2104 10 <10 10 <10 <10 YES YES 2183 <1D <10 10 110 <10 YES YES 2203 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2223 ap <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2303 10 <10 <W <10 <10 YES YES 2351 '10 q0 <ID <10 12 YES YES 2403 <10 <10 <10 q0 <10 YES YES 1/1612018 111712018 111812018 21512D18 W612018 2103 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2104 <10 15 12 110 <10 YES YES 2183 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2203 <10 <10 <ID <10 90 YES YES 2223 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2303 <10 -10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2351 qp <10 <10 qp <10 YES YES 2403 <10 <10 <10 Q0 <10 YES YES 4117/2018 411812018 412612018 51712018 51812010 2103 '10 '10 <ID '10 90 YES YES 2104 <10 <m aD <10 <10 YES YES 2183 11 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2203 110 <10 10 q0 <10 YES YES 2223 <10 <10 <10 Q0 <10 YES YES 2303 a0 <10 <10 <ID <10 YES YES 2351 <iD 110 <10 <10 <10 YES YES 2403 <1D <10 <10 <10 10 YES YES B-3 Supporting Data Table B-4 Summary of floatable material by station group observed during the 28-station grid water quality surveys for 2017-13. Total number of station visits = 336. Station Group Upcoast Upcoast Infield Infield Downcoast Downcoast Offshore Inshore Offshore Inshore Inshore Offshore Inshore Surface Observation Totals 2225,2226 2223.2224 2305,2306 2303,2304 2206 2205 2203,2204 2t05,2106 2103,2104 2353,2354 2351,2352 2t85,286 2183,2t84 2405,2406 2403.2464 Oil and Grease 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TrashlDebrle 0 2 1 a 1 1 0 5 Biological Material(kelp) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Malarial of Sewage Origin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tpl is 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 6 Table B-5 Summary of floatable material by station group observed during the REC-1 water quality surveys for 2017-18. Total number of station visits = 105. Station Groups Surface Observation Upcoast witbinZlD Infield Downcoast Totals Inshre o Inshore Inshore 2223.2303 2205 2203 2103,2104, 2351.2403 2183 Oil and Grosse 0 0 0 0 0 T25NDebrls 2 1 D 2 5 Biological Material(kelp) 0 0 0 0 0 Material of$ewage Origin 0 0 0 0 0 Totels 2 1 6 2 s B-4 Table B-6 Summary of monthly Core COP water quality compliance parameters by season and depth strata for 2017-18. Depth Summer Fail Winter Spring Annual SVate Sid Std SM Sal SW (m) Min Mean Max peV Mar Mean Max Dev Min Mean Max Dee Min Mean Max peV Min Mean Max Uev ----. ----. ----. ----. -.DlssoNed 0,,au(mgA) _---. ----. ----. ----. ----- 1-15 717 785 8.52 022 084 7,55 800 0,18 628 7,83 876 036 5.02 797 9.66 075 5.02 7.80 9.66 047 16-30 600 769 869 056 580 728 803 a36 461 689 SAG 0.81 3,66 6.61 9.85 145 3.66 711 9S5 099 31.45 4.19 6.10 7.99 074 492 634 777 0AS 4.10 5.92 7,34 0,88 3,30 4.87 8.05 0.80 3.30 581 805 094 4560 3.89 5.15 8.64 062 4,74 5,59 7-00 0-43 390 522 645 0.71 3.09 4.00 507 039 309 499 700 0.81 6175 374 459 583 046 439 5.12 669 041 3.60 475 6.00 0,50 2,96 353 444 035 2.96 4.50 6.69 036 All 374 673 8.69 1.35 4.39 6.69 8.03 0.97 3.50 6.50 B.76 129 2,96 5.96 9.85 190 2.96 047 085 145 pH 115 796 808 8.17 004 784 797 806 0.04 775 7.96 &11 0,06 7,52 7.86 797 0.09 7.52 797 8A7 0]0 1630 7.85 8.01 8.14 0.06 7.79 791 804 0.05 7.59 7.98 804 0,12 7,43 773 7.98 0.17 743 7,88 814 015 31-05 7.67 7.87 8.04 008 7A4 780 791 005 7.53 776 801 0.14 738 756 790 0.12 738 775 804 0.15 45-60 7.64 7,76 7.93 006 7,63 7,72 783 0.04 7.50 768 7.88 0.11 736 746 7.62 0.06 7.36 7.66 7.93 0.14 6175 759 769 784 005 758 766 779 004 746 7.53 777 0.10 7.33 741 7.53 0.05 733 760 784 013 All 759 7.93 8.17 0.15 7A8 7A5 8.06 012 7.46 783 8.YI Die 733 766 798 020 7.33 782 8.17 0.19 Light Tien5mia5ivity(%) 1-15 7775 8403 8832 178 7190 85.56 8812 192 7366 83,97 86,39 3,55 67.36 at 66 88.25 5.48 67.36 83.80 Bri 3.80 1630 73.93 84.65 8834 2A9 6526 8589 8840 227 55.97 85,55 8B.51 2,96 5476 82.98 88.54 4.53 5597 84,77 88,54 3,33 3145 7430 8576 88,74 168 8106 87-31 89-08 1-05 7512 8729 8892 126 66.53 8572 88.93 3.01 66.53 86.53 89.08 206 4560 76.15 8664 8921 170 8464 8762 89,15 0,92 82,02 87,74 89,33 099 79.69 95.93 89.29 2.28 76AS 8724 89.33 1.64 6175 77.68 87.15 89.39 1.81 8448 87.86 8932 0.9D 83.90 87,80 8940 1,26 78.88 8670 89.32 2.92 77,68 87,38 8940 194 All 73.93 8523 89-39 218 6526 8653 8932 193 5597 8599 8940 3 00 64 76 U 09 8932 4 70 5597 8546 8940 328 Ammonium(mg/L) 1-15 0011 0.014 0.015 0.002 0,011 0.012 0.031 0003 0.015 0.015 0.077 0,005 0,015 0,015 0.020 0.000 0.011 0.014 0077 0003 W 1630 0011 0.014 0.052 0.004 0011 0 014 0 086 0008 0014 0 017 0 061 0007 0014 0 017 0 040 0 005 0011 0 015 0 086 0 007 (1r 3145 0.011 0.038 0.194 0.046 0Oil 0033 0,198 0.045 0015 0.026 0.113 0.022 0.015 0.020 0.053 0.009 0.011 0.029 0.198 0.035 4560 0011 0022 0.129 0023 0-011 0021 0.105 0021 0-015 0-021 0114 0-019 0-015 0-018 0.121 0.015 0-011 0.021 0129 0-019 61-75 re1. . . . ns .0s ns ns ns . . . . ns s All 0011 0018 0.194 0021 0.011 OOV 0.198 0.020 0.014 0.U18 0.114 0.013 0.014 0.017 0121 0008 0 01 0018 0.198 0018 'Ammanlumrelue5 helow MDL t0.02 mgll.)ware a4Nstap to 75Y of MDI10015 m,IL) na=Not 6omplM N G 0 O O m d Table B-7 Species richness and abundance values of the major taxonomic groups collected at each depth stratum and season for the c 2017-18 infauna surveys. Values represent the mean and range (in parentheses). 0 Season Parameter shoe m Adi iida AM1hri Molluscs ECMnodermata Mfi Phyla Z Mltltlle Shelf Zone 1(31-50 m) 56(50-62) 20(14-23) 13(ia-16) 5(0-7) 9(5-12) 3 Middle Shelf Zone 2,W 1plin-ZID(51-90 m) 59(49-67) 20(16-29) 12(8-16) 6(5-8) 8(7-10) Number of Speies Middle Shelf Zane 2,Non SO(5190 on of(1559) 15(1-28) 14(2-21) 5(39) 7(2-12) Mltltlle Shelf Zone 3(91-120 m) 46(3659) J(2-12) 13(10-19) 4(2-6) 5(2-10) onter Shelf(121-Zoom) 2o(9a1) 4(1-8) 19(6-14) 2(ae) 2(1-2) y Sommer U erslo elfZo n zm soom 1a 9 -4 4 ofi 166 214 0 02 Mltltlle Shelf Zone 1n ZID(mj 334(260459) 61((3782) 29(18-66) 18(0-30) 15(&23) Middle ShelfShelf Zone2one 2, h.-ZI (51-90off 327(109-515) 3 (3IA2) 3 ((257)23 t8(1324J t8(10.2) Abuotlance Middle Shell Zoneo Non91-120 m) m) 327(109515) 13(220) 1 (2-5]) t8(8 96 13(3-22) Mltltlle Shelflf(121 00m) m) t6597(103-281) t3113)) 35(26-99) 55p11) 2(12)) oSlopeiuter driven-zoom) 6s(1F16)) hW151 35(1 21) s(w1) 0f0i UpperShlfZ ..anwn .ZID(5m) 5028(18-04) 6(1021 128211 3(14 0(0-21 Number orSpedes Middle Shell Zone 2.WifMo-Z10(SY96 m) 60(34L]) 13(10-2t) 6(3-8) 3(33) 5(47) Winter Middle Sbelrone 2, Non210 51 -9m 54 24-3 16 1126 11 4-1 9 16 6 39 Abundenee Middle Shelf Zone Zone 2,Norm-ZID(51-90 m) 233(102J83) 39(2D-09) N(419) 6(13 11(4 2) Middle Shelf Zone 2.Non-ZIO(51-90 m) 301(86535) 39(24-62) 12(319J 5(1-13) 1t(4-28) ED m mmer 2017 and tNlnter 20 1g ira�l surveYs ecles for the Su o„mTghal, sta5on and 9p Tta T25 Tao T la rtebrates by 7ona2 T5, 53T t3 thiiC maCTOInVe 5pidflle SnA, T5'/ 51) +Tt Iben T5z ¢o s s s YGtal of ep T, fia s 4°3L 62 Abundancew � 12gne5 i22 57 5 5g1 W 5 8 Table 8 123 ss 3 1as aae ee4 Tt8 w 20 4 50 6 'L3 1 Al 6seNm M.4 t8 59 W 1 4 5 20 Y4 SL8 82 12 58 S 18 3 t5 4 ti 25Y 31 Sta9on 36 16 s W 6 t3 21 6l 5 5 44 2A4 PA h 35 36 6 6 w S5 25 36 31 3� 14 2g 32 42 y0 5}?, 96 190 23 (, o-.10epl 8 8 M 9 5 ] Al 95 10 37 1 583 _5 6eason s 450 0 '3 594 3T 1 5 2 427 6B3 3 157 26 0 23 4 4 52 168 40 A0 M1t 21 52 5. 07 2 6 32 23 U9 OphWrP lua!mnGi 1 3 6 0 x 5 g 35 1A i6 5 23 03 SicYoda in6b^ $5 1 1 20 5 ffi q 51 y28GhtMsIPiGIV- 1G 2 6S B 10. 5 24 6 29 18 5 55 02 ?hoeao P 514 9 6 g 1 5 6 3 1 52 p A Svon4NownanP"O.0 n 54 1 18 6 1 1 M15 e pPhialhrtx bP'u'.�rnicam s 7 b fl 28 3 3 t 3 1 s 2 a 5 O.q 5 r7 6_ 4 2 1 5 1 P. Halm+t°scalP�bcaliYomr<us 5 d t 2 2 1 5 pt AstmP�'p° a 2 5 Z 1 6 0.5 PkJfnnia Paninfl><s b g 1 6 8 °p,1 A] tyid,a rolidale PI2Wob,8Palia89%AlRbfntCS 4u<da aslhennboma tWNoS 1 1 2 �p 1 rystero9G�1e a 5 z 2n9on xacea 1 1 4 1 2 vrex s a 1 OdoPus NbC sF 1 5 � COA AcanlOep l� Ib1 1 3 5 5 - 2 01 Enceroaes namnPPalua 1 1 1 5 2 1 `Di1 �ocnM^F` mlMmus 1 2 01 uru hrun°b 1 5 2 p`taePns a a3 nstroPatan Ali lea GG 1to Rabe Simnie>Q�nl,�� 5 01 AmPhlOb�dfius P y p5 ppRmdts�apltlr Ydii '2 2 5 5 qi Cellnaftln 5 5 �p1 zs Dlolduta�'Ore� 5 5 �,1 guidm am,ata 1 smn <6,1 (O Neooran9 n�rlaodi 1 5 5 cp1 G Pled au aelongal9 1 1 zp,M1 � data t 5 <rp AmPhiucs slsYif 1 1 1 N 1 O APCstl''OCRYSsrallfpy91G�5 5 1151MPb 5©R'sP 7 C9nGbUerlb CfaMdJr]finb 5 IOGifions M131 166 3W 45 fMYl' p0us u IGta 1 i 1p t1 lR IboP nc 28 510 7 40 _... - _• -- ponWelllaa I 8 PegnnstCS Wr4�Gbs 86 52 9 udclwuM 5 250 5251 25A 12 aaco sia 5 152 5t _—.....—' Plefy'nbr� a m 15 RPune a 121 � 13 _..._= .n da*9uus 60 55 _.....— StY ar u 14 _ 50 -- Tonhulne g!4anta+ 56 8 Tway ppuntlance 458 816 Ttlae�ns.alPla 59 v-...._�—_..,....— To1al No,of SGecies .A5--___.....— Table B-9 Total biomass (kg) of epibenthic macroinvertebrates by station and species for the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl c surveys. 0 Stratum Middle Shelf Zone 1 wool.Shelf Zone 2 Outer Shelf Z Station T2 T24 T6 T18 T23 T22 T1 T12 T17 Tit T10 T25 T14 T19 6 Nominal Depth 35 36 36 36 58 60 55 57 60 60 137 137 137 137 O O Season 8 8 S S S W S W S W S W S W S W S S S S Total % y Strov9NocenWlns lraglGe 5.510 4810 0300 1748 12368 407 OPh.luefkenll 0470 0.700 0030 0013 0004 0.019 0.016 1900 0.001 0.003 0.011 0001 0.001 2.800 0007 Owl 6.577 21.7 Sicyonia iogentls 0010 0040 0W1 0.040 0.014 0110 0.031 0160 0-025 0510 0.003 0031 0028 0047 0,230 1,948 8.349 6.576 217 SiOyoniapeNetllala 0.33D 0.210 0049 0.154 0.063 OAw 0932 3.1 Lyteshlnuspi,W 0001 O,M2 0021 M40 0035 0220 0.007 0.070 0.010 0.095 0.010 0.015 0035 0130 0.003 0001 OM3 0.059 0.032 0.007 0.836 2.8 Apoelichopos ra(ilomlcu5 0475 0475 16 AINmpeaten oa0(ornlnos 0018 Own O.Oil OnlO OD30 0.039 0008 0020 0072 0020 0050 0.006 0.067 0.022 OD54 0.010 0025 0.002 0473 16 Gellnetidna oldmydil 0448 0448 1.5 Opblothdxsplculata 0.001 0298 0020 0001 0001 0001 0604 0A01 0.009 0.007 0001 0001 0345 1A Onde rollolats 0.001 0.001 0.WI D.008 0.001 0001 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.011 0.120 0085 0045 0.280 09 Plafymere 9duo,h-dfo 0250 0250 08 TheseaspB 0.010 0.026 0.015 0002 0002 0.002 0.001 0.019 0.017 OD04 0.025 0004 0002 0023 0012 0.164 0.5 Octopus caOomicus 0.143 0.143 0.6 Pfeumbrahhaea cWfsom,, 0.005 0.007 Mot 0004 0001 003E 0.060 0.Ow 0]21 04 Phd,l eaudfofmis 0.034 0,044 0.005 0001 0.001 0.020 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.108 OA OOIO,as mbescena 0004 0.005 0-010 0.010 0.010 0008 0021 0.068 02 Loki,,astherzosoma OTT 0023 0009 0001 0.015 0,001 O.00i 000i 0.001 0058 0.2 Loxorhynohus cnsmnt , 0.010 0015 0.007 0.032 0.1 W Hemetoscelpellum calllornicum Owl Owa 0.001 00hi 0003 0001 0001 0OW 0001 0001 0003 0001 0001 0001 0025 01 Naowaneon zacas 0001 0011 0012 <0.1 Hetem,"'e beta... 0.001 0.001 0001 0.001 0-001 0001 0.001 0001 0.008 <01 SlNnfula elongate 0.004 o001 o.ow 10.1 Aphmdma poolca 0.004 0.004 <0.1 Edcarodes homphdlii 0.002 Uri 0-001 0004 <01 Orthopagurus minlmus Owl 0001 0001 0.001 0.004 10.1 Acanthodods mmnnee owl 0.001 0.001 0.003 w I Acenfhood.0 so OWi 0.001 Mal 0003 <01 CanceAede aawlprtllaw 0.003 0.003 <O I Flabe0loa iodinea owl 0002 0.003 w I Plafydorie maofarlandl 0.002 0001 0003 wA Simnfe, 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 <0.1 Ampmsbndrlus ,anWst, 0 001 00m 0.002 <0.1 Dlaulula eantllegensls 0.002 0002 <0.1 Luidls armata 0.002 0.002 <0.1 Neocrangon no"ma 0.001 0001 0.w2 <a AmpMma er,,mt, 0.001 0.001 10.1 Asf,,eOen omaaashnua 0.001 0001 <0i Asbopactan so 0001 O.00i 10.1 Coryibynahus fobibons 0.001 0.001 <0.1 Doriopollla aJbop-,W, 0.001 0001 <01 P,,stosN des 0.Out 0.001 <01 Rocinela m'.ststs Mal 0.001 N.1 stNoohus exiguus 0.001 0001 <0.1 Tochuino gl,entea O,wl 0.001 <0.1 TM's inscNp(a 0001 0.001 <0.1 Total Biomass 0.518 1.100 0.776 0.051 0.362 0.599 0.126 0.358 2.096 0.289 0.241 0.299 0.624 0.272 2.899 0.387 6.941 5.660 2.364 $.589 30.352 100 Table B-10 Abundance of demersal fishes by station and species for the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys. stratum Middle She"zone t Middle Shelf zone 2 outer Shop Station T2 T24 T6 T18 T23 T22 T1 T12 T17 T11 T10 T25 T14 T19 Nominal Depth 35 36 36 36 58 60 55 57 60 60 137 137 137 137 Season S S S S S W S W S W S W S W S W S s S S Total o Cphehchrh,sordidus 39 47 46 2 40 8 35 41 69 3 23 9 21 15 105 348 245 229 229 1554 30 6 Suhas(es saxbole 187 132 120 193 632 12.4 (celtrn.paadnaedatae 13 40 41 24 5 18 33 23 32 2 2b 21 2 55 81 415 82 Clthanch(hys xanfhosvgma 27 28 26 1 6 3fi 14 51 26 78 43 16 6 6 364 72 S".dus Ncioceps 27 4 2 2 23 4 33 45 22 7 45 27 30 20 4 5 11 2 322 6.3 Mloroeromut pacrllcus 1 t 47 77 39 103 268 53 Symphome aW,a dvs ] 2 4 2 10 19 10 28 17 30 10 19 14 11 5 67 2 3 1 4 265 52 Sehas(es s,"u,us 221 18 239 47 Zanlolepis latipinnia 1 4 30 28 1 5 42 5 14 6 61 2 199 3.9 Lyopsetta o0i 28 52 23 60 163 32 LycoHeS pec,Pcus 28 13 7 72 120 24 Hrypogloselna stomata 8 8 4 3 26 1 8 3 4 8 4 1 1 79 1.6 Sabaste5 sp 15 49 64 13 Zelembas voeaceus 2 1 2 4 1 53 63 12 Pleuroolob(hya reR/calls 1 2 1 1 1 7 2 10 1 4 5 2 9 15 1 62 12 Cdhanchihys stlgmaeua 9 13 37 59 12 Zanblopia hane(a 22 12 11 1 46 09 Parophrys mfi fl s 1 1 1 1 4 15 3 2 28 0.6 Xy,mmya 1101epis 2 1 t 14 2 1 4 25 05 chtt000(ne pugelensle 2 2 1 3 9 2 3 2 24 05 W Podchthys noletus 2 8 2 5 1 3 3 24 05 Sebaeter efongefus 5 3 it 1 20 0.4 G(ypl0cpphah,zachhos 1 2 1 12 16 0.3 Otlontopyxis nispinosa 2 t 5 1 9 02 Seo,wna guitato 1 3 4 0.1 Chttara(aylmi 2 1 3 0.1 Pleuronith(hya tlewnene 1 1 2 �0.1 Ra/a lnoroata 1 1 2 �0] Sebastes chlomstiUus 2 2 W.1 Sebaelee h,kn.W 1 1 2 A.1 AgOnopsis stedelus 1 1 N.1 Ar9entlna 'oh 1 1 01 Hlrtlrolagus ootNol 1 1 <0 1 Ke(he(ostome a✓enuncus 1 1 N.1 ebav,, prodocfus 1 1 S w.t ebas(es Total Ab us 1 1 100 Total ofSp Species 87 10 138 114 45 0 110 216 129 20 131 192 152 91 W1 647 717 548 481 732 5091 109 Total No.of Species 8 t0 8 6 e 10 9 10 12 TO a 12 9 9 it 15 19 14 12 16 38 N G 0 O O m d Table B-11 Total biomass (kg) of demersal fishes by station and species for the Summer 2017 and Winter 2018 trawl surveys. c a Stratum Middle Shoff Zone 1 Middle Shelf Zone 2 Outer Shelf 'O O Station T2 T24 T6 T18 T23 T22 Tt T12 T17 T11 T10 T25 T14 T19 Z Nominal Depth 35 36 36 36 58 60 55 57 60 60 137 137 137 137 6 sesame S S S S s w s w s w S IN S at s to S S S S Total % O Cdhadchthys"ad'sh" 0.189 OA89 0.214 0.004 1396 0033 1045 0.088 0.560 0.027 0.297 0.022 1230 0200 3669 6.078 3753 2.726 1,395 2271 220.6 U CithericMhys xnnNosagme 1.191 0-627 0.338 0.039 0451 1856 0693 2465 1461 1799 2108 1263 0217 0615 15.123 139 Sebaates sax/cala 1919 2,787 2.755 3.173 12.634 11k 3ynodus hluaceps 1,201 P026 0.010 0.015 0959 0180 1281 1.652 0.802 0513 2-022 0.693 1329 0.653 0-058 0.148 OST6 0.346 12.564 11.5 MlomOomuapncllcus 0024 0005 1863 2693 2283 1.588 8456 TS Hlppoglasalpa stomata 0.933 0350 0072 0225 1.690 0.012 0689 0247 0.152 0.561 0412 0.085 0.300 5738 5.3 Syrnphums anlcaudoa 0098 0-060 0.041 0.038 0.137 0286 0141 0409 0218 0555 0132 0269 0.189 0.183 0063 1181 0.036 0051 0-022 0-has 4.174 3.8 tyopsella moka 1 006 1 445 0.541 1.134 4.125 33 Pleumnichthys vemools 0.125 0088 0080 0.170 0.068 0508 0.093 0.517 0.032 0348 0424 0.046 0.428 0.911 0.100 3.938 3.6 Zeniol0pis lalipmnl5 0.622 0093 0755 0557 0.024 9.169 0762 GA12 0065 0.159 1969 0.037 3.824 35 Parophrys vetulus 0290 0.130 0.086 0.110 0.460 1.506 0270 0.401 3.253 3 L,rd,t pedlicus 0743 0284 0.10 1617 2.813 2.6 Xysbeutys llolepla 0.927 0.052 0475 0.621 0.103 0.066 0.129 2373 22 Irsimus gmmnas,ata, 0,D34 0.075 OD77 0.073 0.019 0073 0.060 0.091 0119 0.OD9 0.079 0.087 0.005 0221 0.195 1216 1.1 Po..inn, otams 0056 0.203 0056 0.182 0.052 0.350 0275 1.174 1.1 Zalemblus msaosus Doss 0.002 0L65 0.158 0.028 0.535 0.846 08 Rea,".mate 0700 0.021 0721 07 Zanioleplsfrenafa 0370 0.195 0106 0.007 0678 0.5 Sco'eana gottata 0.175 0.260 0.435 0.4 Sebasles semiunc(os 0-088 0294 0382 04 W Olyptooephalua Zaohlms 0004 0030 0.015 0246 0295 03 c4hanohlhys stigmasus 0028 0046 0.193 0.267 0.2 O Sebasles elongalus OA05 0.004 0-025 0230 0265 02 CbBonmhrs pu9atensls 0030 0012 0.008 Onl4 0115 0.015 0.025 0008 0227 02 Metlucc",pmdpctm, 0.152 0.152 0.1 Sebasles ohbrooi mr 0445 0.145 0.1 Seuratessp 0025 am 0115 0.1 Hydrolegus cdli, 01W 0.10u 01 Ple,.,ohthys do"mens 0.019 0057 0.076 0.1 Kathelostoma rvenuncus 0055 0.055 0.1 Sebasles bopk/nsl 0.015 0.018 0033 01 Chtlara(eNml 0.018 0.012 0.030 <09 Sebasles rubrivinclus 0030 0.030 <0.1 OdOotapytis lhspulosa 0006 0.002 0.011 0002 0021 on Agonopsia Veneto, 0010 0.010 x0.1 Argentina eiells 0A01 0001 N.1 Total Stomata 4.821 2.162 0.853 0163 1.432 3.952 2.470 7.391 2.610 6.061 4.558 4.082 3.963 4.396 1.254 10.877 15.7511 12205 0.103 10.303 109.004 too Table B-12 Summary statistics of legacy OCSD Core nearshore stations for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci bacteria (CFU/100l by station and season for 2017-18. Summer Fall Winter Saline Annual Station Min. Mean Max. Sid MN. Mean Max. Sid Min. Mean Max. San Min. Mean Max. Std Min. Mean Max. Sid Dev Dev Dev Del Dev r01a1 cmuom,x 39N <17 16 83 1.67 <17 16 59 154 <17 26 1100 376 a17 16 50 i 66 17 18 1100 2.18 33N 17 24 1200 386 <17 17 So 1,53 c17 21 100 2.07 <17 15 33 1.31 117 19 1200 224 27N <17 13 17 111 <17 14 33 1,31 <17 37 300 3.39 <17 15 33 1,31 <17 18 300 2,12 21N < 7 15 50 146 17 15 67 158 <17 31 >2400 436 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 18 >24m0 232 15N <17 16 67 1,65 <17 31 1a0 2.54 <17 34 >2400 4.76 <17 15 33 1.34 <17 22 >2400 2.71 12N <17 17 50 151 <17 21 180 224 17 35 >20000 8.12 <17 16 33 1 44 c17 21 >20.00 32 9N c17 19 200 2.05 117 17 67 152 <17 28 >20000 579 <17 17 >67 1.69 c17 20 120000 276 RN <17 44 1000 3,93 <17 27 130 2.16 <17 38 >20000 6.06 <17 16 10D 1.71 <17 29 >20000 3 56 3N <17 31 Soo 392 <17 11 560 31 <17 45 >2nW 671 <17 18 67 157 <17 34 >20WO 391 0 <17 19 >280 225 <17 26 1500 356 <17 53 >20000 8,11 N 33 4200 4.81 <17 31 >20000 465 3S <17 14 17 1,15 <17 14 33 131 <17 39 >20000 1044 <17 14 33 133 <17 18 >20000 346 6S <17 13 <17 1 <17 16 67 1,56 117 25 >54nD 5.64 117 14 >17 1A7 <17 16 >5400 25 9S <17 13 <17 1 -17 19 220 2,27 <17 21 1100 3 4 <17 14 >17 1 17 <17 16 11)a 211 15S 17 13 17 1.08 17 19 170 22 <17 14 33 131 <17 15 50 148 d7 15 170 16 215 <17 15 33 142 17 15 33 131 c17 18 130 1.93 <17 15 33 1.34 117 16 130 152 273 <17 23 220 2.59 <17 14 33 1,3 <17 15 83 168 <17 14 >17 1,19 <17 16 220 1,79 293 c4 26 120 224 17 16 33 151 c17 19 130 225 c17 26 280 277 c17 21 280 222 39S <17 14 33 1,31 <17 13 17 1]1 <17 16 33 1.42 <17 16 33 1.42 <17 15 33 134 All <17 19 12W 101 <17 20 1500 0,68 <17 29 >20000 2.66 <17 17 4200 0-87 <17 20 >200W 0-89 W 1-1 caulmms 39N <17 16 50 1.55 <17 17 100 1 91 117 15 67 158 N 13 17 108 c17 15 100 158 33N <17 21 1000 3,39 <17 17 50 173 <17 16 67 1.65 <17 14 17 1 15 <17 17 1000 207 27N <17 15 130 19 <17 15 33 131 <17 22 120 2.14 117 14 17 1 13 <17 16 130 171 21N <17 13 <17 1 <17 15 50 1,46 <17 20 560 2 9 <17 ifi 17 1 16 <17 15 560 179 16N <17 15 33 1.31 <17 16 100 175 <17 28 270 273 <17 14 17 113 <17 17 270 19 12N <17 15 33 131 17 21 83 194 c17 22 2200 4.15 <17 14 33 1 31 <17 18 2200 224 9N <17 19 150 2.02 <17 15 5D 1,32 <17 21 5600 374 <17 16 170 179 <17 18 5600 2,27 fiN <4 33 880 3S5 <17 20 67 175 <17 21 7800 382 <17 15 IDC 159 <17 22 7800 283 3N <17 30 520 3,77 <17 36 440 2,92 <17 25 12000 4.59 <17 16 50 1.53 <17 26 12000 327 0 <17 16 67 1.63 <17 26 900 3.18 <17 23 15000 4.16 <17 27 3100 4-66 <17 23 15000 34 35 <17 13 17 1na 137 16 67 1 65 <17 25 3700 499 <17 14 17 1,15 17 16 3700 236 65 <17 13 <17 1 <17 14 17 1.13 <17 18 640 2.93 <17 14 33 1 a <17 14 640 175 93 <17 13 <17 1 17 17 50 161 17 17 200 213 -17 14 17 1 15 c17 15 200 158 15S <17 13 17 1.08 <17 15 67 1 58 117 15 50 1 46 <17 13 17 108 c17 14 67 1 36 21S <17 13 17 1,08 <17 14 17 1.13 <17 18 150 2.01 <17 14 17 113 <17 14 150 145 27S 17 20 180 231 c17 13 c17 1 <17 16 120 185 117 13 17 1 08 c17 15 180 171 29S <17 15 33 1.31 <17 15 33 1,42 <17 17 50 162 117 19 230 2.37 <17 17 230 1 71 39S <17 13 <17 1 <17 13 17 1.08 <17 13 <17 1 <17 13 17 1.08 <17 13 17 1.06 NI <17 17 1000 095 <17 1s ....Soo 0,58 _ c17 20 15000 1 22 _ <17 15 _ 3100 0 86 <17 17 15000 063 Table B-12Continues. y c v v 0 0 ,v d Table B-12 continued. c a Summer Fall Winter Spring Annual 'O Station Min. all Max. Std Min. Mean Max. Std Min. Mean Max. Std Min. Mean Max. Std Min. Mean Max. Std Dev Dev Dev Dev Dev 3 39N 2 2 10 176 2 8 168 344 2 5 250 451 2 3 16 239 2 4 250 323 33N 2 4 46 343 12 8 106 433 2 5 44 344 2 4 26 2,49 2 5 106 344 w 27N 2 2 12 1,77 12 8 320 6.88 2 15 228 6.43 <2 3 70 3.01 <2 5 320 539 N 21N 2 3 12 1 88 2 3 104 3A 2 10 >400 7.06 12 4 32 289 2 5 >400 397 15N 2 3 24 2.3 2 7 106 4.06 <2 10 254 5.18 12 3 12 2.09 2 5 254 3.73 12N 12 3 32 245 2 4 24 271 2 7 >4N 6.82 2 2 14 199 12 4 >400 3.61 9N 2 4 202 354 2 4 60 2.68 2 4 1400 5A <2 3 134 284 2 4 >400 3,48 6N 2 8 222 461 <2 6 44 2.94 <2 6 >400 476 12 3 26 2.35 2 6 >400 378 3N 2 7 >400 53 2 16 >400 4.14 2 7 >4W 49 2 3 14 212 12 7 >4nO 445 0 2 2 32 221 2 5 50 2.81 2 9 >400 3.95 2 6 >400 4.92 <2 5 >400 372 35 2 2 6 1.68 2 2 24 2.31 <2 5 >400 5.66 2 4 90 3-62 2 3 >400 341 65 2 2 4 1 A3 2 3 60 273 2 5 336 446 2 3 26 2.59 2 3 336 29 95 <2 2 4 1.32 <2 5 >400 574 2 5 174 3.57 <2 2 18 2.08 <2 3 >400 34 15S 2 2 4 139 2 3 64 29 2 2 18 21 2 3 10 1.86 2 3 64 21 21S 2 2 8 1.6 2 2 6 17 2 3 62 29 2 3 12 197 2 2 62 205 275 2 4 56 3,6 12 2 10 1.68 2 3 70 3.22 <2 4 1 B 2.55 <2 3 70 2.81 29S 2 9 38 288 12 3 20 2.48 12 4 42 3.47 12 6 24 279 2 5 42 301 39S 2 2 14 224 2 2 10 1,B7 <2 2 10 2 12 2 8 191 2 2 14 197 All 2 4 >400 1.15 2 5 >400 1,36 <2 6 >400 149 12 3 >400 0,75 2 4 >400 0.84 W N Table B-13 Summary statistics of Orange County Health Care Agency nearshore stations for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci bacteria (CFU/100 mL) by station and season for 2017-18. Summer Fall Winter Spring Annual station Min. Mean Max. Sid Min. Mean Max. Sad Min. Mean Max. Sad Min. Mean Max. Sad Min. Mean Max. and Ni, .Dev Dev Dev Dev Total Cdifimrs 0SB02 17 ill >20000 673 <17 57 460 234 17 332 >29000 703 <17 105 >1300 433 <17 122 >20000 5-51 OSB03 17 180 >20000 5.67 <17 107 400 324 17 179 >20000 607 <17 93 22W 5.17 c17 133 >20000 49 OSB05 <17 146 >20000 7.07 17 122 >1100 328 17 152 >20000 643 <17 60 600 3.3 <17 113 >20000 49 OSB04 117 50 >20000 707 117 35 420 272 <17 137 >2000D 6 64 <17 19 83 1.85 <17 46 >20000 5,01 06B01 <17 14 >17 1.17 <17 13 17 108 07 27 520 34 <17 16 67 1.65 <17 17 520 2,04 05UB1 <17 14 33 1.31 <17 15 67 1.58 <17 33 500 3.55 <17 13 17 1 08 <17 18 500 296 BCO-1 <17 15 33 1 42 <17 14 17 1.16 c17 24 270 25 <17 17 67 1.62 <17 17 270 1,77 HB1U 0 0 >1100 >1100 0 >1100 >1100 HB1 0 D >40000 >40000 0 >4n000 Moono Hull) <17 14 33 131 <17 16 130 1.89 17 25 >1200 372 q7 14 17 1.16 <17 17 >1200 2,14 H62U 0 0 17 284 >3900 53-67 0 17 284 >3800 53,67 H82 0 D 140000 50000 >40000 1 0 >40000 50000 >40000 1 HUD <17 14 17 1.13 <17 18 83 1.78 <17 51 >20000 10.15 <17 15 33 1.42 <17 21 >20000 362 HB3U 0 0 >7400 >7400 0 >7400 >7400 HB3 0 0 >40000 >40000 0 >40000 >40000 Hol) <17 95 33 1.31 <17 17 150 1,96 <17 47 5400 8.12 <17 15 33 1.34 <17 20 5400 328 HB4U 0 0 33 908 >2000D 108 66 0 33 908 >20000 108.66 HB4 0 0 >40000 60000 >40000 1 0 >40000 50000 >40000 1 HB4D <17 14 33 1.31 <17 17 300 238 <17 26 >36UU 501 <17 15 33 131 <17 17 >3600 2.55 W HBSU 0 0 17 184 2000 29A2 0 17 184 2000 29,12 H85 0 0 >40000 50000 >40000 1 0 >40000 50000 >40000 1 W HB5D <17 14 33 1.3 <17 32 230 3 04 c17 24 100 22 c17 14 >17 119 17 20 230 2.15 SAR-N <17 16 33 142 <17 24 350 2.73 17 127 >20000 92 q7 24 270 2.69 <17 33 >20000 4,57 TM <17 26 100 212 <17 41 320 293 <17 45 1200 4,53 <17 28 15U 2.68 c17 34 1200 3,03 BGCU <17 25 >150 241 <17 42 660 355 <17 26 220 292 117 74 520 329 14 38 560 321 BOO >67 1938 >21000 1.09 >800 3310 >20000 2.71 400 2775 >40000 3.64 >2300 5586 >12000 172 >67 3158 >40000 3.15 BGCD <17 51 >1000 44 <17 62 1000 4 24 <17 31 96C 4.09 <17 99 1600 755 <17 56 1600 5-03 PPCU <17 25 >130 256 <17 29 800 5.14 117 33 83 376 <17 15 >17 123 <17 23 800 279 PPG >2200 31687 >40000 273 >1800 17437 >40000 3,58 1100 3595 >9400 5.34 >1500 7434 >40000 3.88 110D 15371 >40000 3.89 PPCD <17 23 >100 249 <17 22 >100 213 <17 16 o 155 <17 20 330 2.45 <17 20 330 2,15 WFCU <17 17 50 159 <17 15 >50 158 <17 20 180 2,41 <17 20 50 1.52 <17 13 180 1,76 WFC >200 1022 >21W 2.52 >67 526 1400 2 19 130 1003 >40000 592 >180 1533 12000 297 >67 963 >40000 335 WFCD <15 16 83 169 <17 15 >17 IA9 17 16 33 1.51 <17 20 100 2.12 <15 17 100 1,66 ONB39 <17 13 17 1.08 <17 15 50 146 Q7 30 220 2,73 <17 15 67 16 <17 17 220 1,93 MOOU <17 <17 0 c17 19 67 191 <17 13 -17 1 c17 16 67 17 MDC >40000 >40000 0 400 3778 >40000 559 >870 3557 >40000 4.85 400 4399 >40000 5,42 MDCD <17 14 >17 1.17 <17 16 67 1,66 <17 37 >70000 W 8 <17 14 >17 1.18 <17 18 70000 3,52 ELMOROU 0 0 <17 15 17 123 117 117 14 14 17 1.18 ELMORO 0 0 WO 151D 3800 3.69 >40li00 >40000 600 4849 >40000 922 ELMOROD <17 13 <17 1 <17 14 33 131 <17 16 100 1.83 <17 15 33 131 <17 14 100 143 All <15 3053 >40000 194 <17 847 >40000 101 117 6904 >70000 1864 <17 2296 140000 1 55 <15 7290 170000 1877 Table 13-13 continues. .a 0 0 0 ,v d Table B-13 continued. Cl) a Summe Fall WinMr Spring Annual 'O O Station Min. Mean Max. Stal Min. Mean Max. Std Min. Mean Max. Sid Min. Mean Max. Sid Min. Mean Max. SM Dev Dev Dev Dev Dev 3 _.. Fecal CdJt rms. 08B02 17 49 >20000 625 c17 43 250 243 <17 77 >20000 79 <17 55 920 3-36 <17 55 >20000 4_78 O 05803 117 163 >20000 57 17 102 RD 257 17 83 4800 402 <17 72 920 352 c17 100 >20000 3.89 w 03805 <17 116 8600 6, 4 17 10B 1100 3.54 17 93 8900 5.14 <17 78 680 3.19 <17 98 8900 4.33 N 05804 <17 42 >20000 742 <17 29 520 29 <17 46 6000 5.28 <17 17 67 1,74 <17 31 >20000 4 24 05801 <17 14 17 113 <17 13 17 198 <17 19 200 2.22 <17 14 33 1.3 c17 15 200 1.55 QSUB1 <17 13 <17 1 17 14 17 113 <17 16 170 204 <17 13 <17 1 <17 14 170 144 6CO4 <17 14 33 131 <17 16 83 1>6 17 17 150 1.96 <17 20 83 1.89 <17 15 150 174 HB1U 0 0 280 280 0 280 280 H131 0 0 19000 19000 0 190OD 1900O HB1D <17 13 c17 1 <17 16 100 1.76 17 20 420 2.66 17 13 17 1A1 <17 15 420 179 HB2U 0 0 17 137 1100 1908. 0 17 137 1100 19-09 HB2 0 0 4000 5329 7100 1 5 0 40P0 5329 710O L5 HB2D <17 13 17 1.Da <17 16 100 176 <1 34 9400 979 <17 13 17 1.08 07 17 94DO 3.35 HB3U 0 0 2000 2000 0 2000 2000 H63 0 O 14000 14000 0 14000 14000 HB3D <17 13 17 1.11 <17 15 33 1.31 <17 30 820 379 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 17 82D 2.11 H84U 0 0 50 552 6100 29.87 0 50 552 6100 29 37 H64 0 0 11000 12410 14000 119 0 11000 12410 14000 1.19 HB4D <17 13 17 1-08 <17 15 120 1.86 <17 19 980 331 <17 14 17 113 <17 15 980 196 HBSU 0 0 17 74 320 7.97 0 17 74 320 7,97 HB5 0 0 8000 20000 >40000 3.65 0 8000 20D00 >40000 3.65 Ep HOW c17 14 33 131 17 24 180 276 <17 15 33 131 <17 15 50 146 c17 17 1B0 181 SAR,N c17 14 33 1.31 <17 20 180 2D7 N 44 >20000 7.73 <17 18 200 2.12 117 22 >20000 34 p TM <17 27 63 2.11 <17 34 170 2,95 <17 22 18O 2.31 <17 29 270 297 <17 28 270 2-55 BGCU c17 19 230 241 17 26 420 287 117 13 17 1 11 14 39 420 364 c17 23 420 273 BOC 15 111 2100 3.1 46 189 2000 3.55 31 263 4500 477 77 378 11000 436 15 213 11000 4.07 BGCD 17 25 1000 4.03 <17 39 DUO 336 <17 26 700 3.53 <17 32 270 318 <17 30 1000 344 PPCU <17 13 17 11 117 35 5800 12.16 17 34 67 264 c17 13 <17 1 <17 18 5800 3.5 PPC 1100 4387 >40000 3.64 480 1877 >40000 5.61 320 820 2100 378 120 684 2800 3.01 120 1860 >40000 4.52 PPCD 17 13 <17 1 <17 25 2800 4A4 <17 13 17 1 11 <17 17 330 245 <17 18 2800 243 WFCU <17 14 50 146 <17 14 33 1.33 <17 16 33 146 <17 15 67 1,58 <17 15 67 1.45 WFC 15 164 1300 345 <15 65 200 277 15 79 5800 5.15 31 320 9600 492 U5 133 9600 4.44 WFCD <15 13 17 1.12 17 14 33 1.31 <17 16 33 1.41 <17 16 50 1.56 <15 15 50 1.41 ONB39 <17 14 33 1.31 <17 13 17 103 <17 15 33 142 <17 16 67 166 <17 15 67 14 MDCU c17 c17 0 <17 13 <17 1 17 13 c17 1 c17 13 c17 1 M0O 200 200 0 62 428 7200 456 150 453 1400 222 52 414 7200 3,46 MDCD <17 13 <17 1 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 17 280 2.35 <17 14 33 1,3 <17 14 280 1.57 ELMOROU 0 0 117 13 117 1 <17 19 <17 13 <17 1 ELMORO 0 0 15 117 920 18.37 31 31 15 75 92D 9 ELMOROD <17 13 17 111 <17 13 17 1.08 <17 16 130 1.9 <17 13 17 108 <17 14 130 139 All <15 197 >40000 194 is 107 140000 2 24 <15 1905 140000 580 c17 82 11000 1.12 c15 1928 >40000 527 Table B-13 continues. Table B-13 continued. Summer Pail Winter Spring Annual Station Min. Mean Max. Sid Min. Mean Max. SW Min. Mean Max. Su Min. Mean Max. SW Mm. Mean Max. SW Dev Dee Dee Dee Dee OSB02 2 31 >400 39 2 16 202 3.43 20 72 >400 2.53 6 39 >400 3.1 12 34 >400 3.6 OSE03 4 32 >400 4.18 4 15 70 229 4 22 >400 3-47 4 20 90 2.57 4 21 >400 311 OSBOS 2 16 324 4.21 2 15 >400 3.84 4 35 >400 3.95 2 17 140 268 <2 19 1400 372 OSB04 2 6 >400 4,42 2 6 180 3.8 2 20 >400 5.27 2 7 38 2.84 <2 8 >400 428 OSBai 12 2 W 185 c2 3 28 272 12 6 218 637 2 2 24 22 <2 3 218 334 OSUBi 2 2 10 1.87 2 3 14 191 2 6 278 4.66 <2 2 20 2.17 2 3 278 276 BCO1 <2 3 16 2.21 2 2 10 2 2 5 174 4.66 2 8 118 5 2 4 174 3.66 He1U 0 0 >400 >466 a >400 >400 HB1 0 0 >400 >400 0 >400 >400 HB1D 2 2 6 154 <2 5 90 448 2 11 >400 57 2 4 22 283 2 5 >400 399 H82U 0 0 192 310 400 1.97 0 192 310 >400 1.97 HB2 0 0 >400 500 >400 1 a >400 500 >400 1 HB2D 2 3 10 1.99 <2 4 188 3.97 2 17 >400 768 2 4 26 233 2 6 >400 434 H83U 0 0 >400 >400 0 >400 >400 HB3 0 0 >400 >400 a >400 >400 H83D 2 3 20 2.24 2 6 80 3.81 2 14 >400 6,64 2 4 40 321 42 6 1400 426 H84U 0 0 78 197 >400 372 0 78 197 >400 372 HB4 0 0 M00 500 >400 1 0 >400 500 >400 1 H84D 2 2 6 1.53 2 5 138 396 2 8 >400 4.92 <2 3 30 248 2 4 >400 349 H85U 0 0 94 162 278 2.15 0 94 162 278 2.15 HBS 0 0 M00 500 M00 1 0 >400 5aa >400 1 W H85D <2 2 10 1.69 12 5 122 4 12 7 80 4.37 <2 2 12 183 <2 4 122 3.25 8AR-N 2 2 6 1.62 <2 4 42 346 2 16 >400 4.01 2 6 80 3.68 2 5 >400 392 TM 2 7 38 3.19 12 11 58 354 2 5 118 3.42 2 11 330 5.1 2 8 330 3.82 BGCU 12 4 32 3.11 12 7 86 3.68 < 4 56 348 2 11 284 62 < 6 284 4.16 BGC 116 238 >400 141 50 162 >400 1us 64 191 >400 2a5 134 237 >400 1b4 50 204 >400 175 BGCD 2 5 134 5.29 2 10 120 3.91 2 5 106 4.45 2 11 218 4SS 2 7 218 4.64 PPOU 2 6 32 3.01 2 3 8 2.07 4 5 6 133 <2 3 8 198 <2 4 32 2,46 PPC >400 5011 >400 1 >400 500 >400 1 >400 500 >400 1 >200 409 1400 1 42 >200 472 14aa 122 PPOD <2 4 38 274 2 3 248 4.07 2 2 8 1.88 2 4 46 372 12 3 248 3.04 WPCU 2 4 18 226 2 2 18 2.12 2 4 84 3-89 12 3 8 191 2 3 84 247 WFC 116 277 >400 1.6 60 115 294 154 98 259 >400 196 88 413 >400 162 60 244 >400 199 WFCD <2 4 14 21 <2 3 32 265 2 3 20 2.56 < 4 80 3.56 12 3 80 2.67 ON839 2 2 1a 185 12 2 16 207 2 5 70 364 2 2 4 1.32 2 3 70 2.48 MDCU 10 10 0 12 3 14 226 <2 3 30 384 2 3 30 27 MDC >400 >400 0 40 219 >400 2-97 90 217 >40U 2 02 40 230 >400 248 MDCD 2 2 6 146 12 3 20 271 2 3 >400 SAB 2 2 14 IN 2 3 >400 2.81 ELMOROU 0 0 2 3 4 163 <2 2 <2 2 4 166 ELMORO 0 0 112 237 >400 288 >400 >400 112 304 >400 237 ELMOROD 2 2 4 132 2 2 8 167 2 3 80 3.32 2 2 18 2.1 2 2 80 2.14 All <2 60 >400 116 2 35 >400 0.99 2 147 >400 1.77 2 65 >400 1.28 <2 145 >400 1.13 N TII 0 O O m d This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX C Quality Assurance/Quality Control INTRODUCTION The Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD)Core Ocean Monitoring Program (OMP)is designed to measure compliance with permit conditions and for temporal and spatial trend analysis. The program includes measurements of: • Water quality; • Sediment quality; • Benthic infaunal community health; • Fish and epibenthic macroinvertebrate community health; • Fish bioaccumulation (chemical body burden); and • Fish health (including external parasites and diseases). The Core OMP complies with OCSD's Quality Assurance Project Plan (CAPP) (OCSD 2016a) requirements and applicable federal, state, local, and contract requirements. The objectives of the quality assurance program are as follows: • Scientific data generated will be of sufficient quality to stand up to scientific and legal scrutiny. • Data will be gathered or developed in accordance with procedures appropriate for the intended use of the data. • Data will be of known and acceptable precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability as required by the program. The various aspects of the program are conducted on a schedule that varies weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, and annually. Sampling and data analyses are designated by quarters 1 through 4, which are representative of the summer (July-September), fall (October-December), winter(January-March), and spring (April-June) seasons, respectively. This appendix details quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) information for the collection and analysis of water quality, sediment geochemistry, fish tissue chemistry, and benthic infauna for OCSD's 2017-18 Core OMP. WATER QUALITY NARRATIVE OCSD's Laboratory, Monitoring, and Compliance (LMC) staff collected 633, 654, 654, and 631 discrete ammonium samples during the quarterly collections between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. All samples were iced upon collection, preserved with 1:1 sulfuric acid upon receipt by the LMC laboratory staff, and stored at <6.0 °C until analysis according to the LMC's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (OCSD 2016b). C-1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control LMC staff also collected 175 bacteria samples in each quarter during the 2017-18 monitoring period. All samples were iced upon collection and stored at<10 °C until analysis in accordance with LMC SOPS. Ammonium The samples were analyzed for ammonium on a segmented flow analyzer using Standard Methods 4500-NH, G-Ocean Water. Sodium phenolate, sodium salicylate and sodium hypochlorite, or dichloroiscyanuric acid were added to the samples to react with ammonium to form indophenol blue in a concentration proportional to the ammonium concentration in the sample. The blue color was intensified with sodium nitroprusside and was measured at 660 nm. A typical sample batch included a blank and a spike in seawater collected from a control site at a maximum of every 20 samples; an external reference sample was also run once each month. One spike and spike replicate were added to the batch every 10 samples. The method detection limit (MDL)for low-level ammonium samples using the segmented flow instrument is shown in Table C-1. All samples were analyzed within the required holding time. All analyses conducted met the QA/QC criteria for accuracy and precision, with one noted exception in the Summer quarter(Table C-2). This exception was found to be caused by analyst error; a repeat analysis met the QA/QC criteria. Table C-1 Method Detection Limits (MDLs)and Reporting Limits (RLs) for 2017-18. Receiving waters ---- Parameter (MPN1100al (MPNI100m1.) Parameter (m91U pri --- Tolelcill ---- 10 ---10 Ammon (effective through 9/18/2017) ---- 0013, ---- 0020 ---- E tali 10 10 Ammonium(effective 911912017) 0.014 0040 Enters ooci 10 10 Sediments ---- Parameter (nglgdry) m919dry) ----. Parameter-- ----m9gall ----m gdri ----. ---. ----. ----. ---- Orgaoachlonoe PeeltNdo, ----. ----. ----. ----. 2.4'-ODD 2.13 2.2 Endosull alpha 1,54 2.0 2.4'-DDE 1,51 20 End osullan here 103 2.D 2,4'-DDT 156 2.0 Endosuffen-sugate 094 2.0 44'-ODD 147 2.0 Endrin 3.52 50 4.4-DDE 1,75 20 gamma-BHC 264 23 4,4'-DDT D.56 0.6 Hoplachlor 2.01 2.1 44'-DDMU 2.16 22 Heptachlor epoxide 102 1.1 Aram 042 0.5 Hexachlorobenzene 0,98 1.0 ,i,Chitral 1,29 2.0 Mlles 070 07 bansChloNene 158 2.0 h.A-Nomme, 1,48 20 Dieltltln I tP 2.0 PCB Congeners FOB is 020 0.2 PCB126 0,21 02 PCs 28 0.14 02 PCB 128 0,31 04 PCB37 540 04 PCB138 0.19 02 PCs44 0.17 0.2 PCs149 0,17 02 PCB49 039 04 PCB151 016 0.2 PCs52 020 02 PCs1531168 079 D.a PCB 66 D.31 04 PCB 156 0.20 02 PCB70 030 03 PCB157 015 0.2 PCs74 024 0.3 PCs167 0,19 D2 PCB77 D.15 02 PCB169 0.11 02 ti 81 017 0,2 Pi 170 D.11 0.2 PCB 87 026 0.3 PCB 177 0,15 02 PCB99 018 02 PCB180 0.17 02 PCB101 0.19 0.2 FDA 183 0,18 02 PCs105 0.17 02 POD187 0,14 0.2 PCB110 019 02 PCB189 0.13 02 PCs 114 0.17 0.2 PCB 194 0,13 02 PC8118 0.16 02 PCB201 019 0.2 PC8119 020 02 PCB26 0.17 D2 _-. PCB 123 ----. D14 ---02 ----. ----. --- ----. Table C-1 continues. C-2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Table C-1 continued. sedimante Parameter hi dry) prig',dry) Parameter (ni dry) inglg dry) _... FAH C0mP0unds 1.63 TrimelhylnepMhal6n6 0-6 1 Becracs In ]ierylam, 0.6 1 1-Memyloaphthalene 06 1 Bermlklflarrantham, 0.3 1 1-Methyiphenanthrene 0.6 1 spheral 0.5 1 23B Tdmethylnepishalme 05 1 Chryscne 0.5 1 2,6-Dlmeth,caphihalene 0.4 1 Dibenz[e,hlanthracene O.6 1 2 Methyloaphmaleoe OZ 1 DibenzolMopherie 05 1 Aaenephtheoe OA 1 Fluoraathene 04 1 Acenaphmylene 0.5 1 Flaurene 0.9 1 Ashum.n6 16 1 lummall?,3-c,d)pyame 05 1 BenDajanmrzcene 0.9 1 Naphthalene 13 2 Banzo[e]pyrene 04 1 Parylene 1.2 2 Benm[b]Ouoranthene 05 1 Phenanmrene 0] 1 BenzOlelpyrene 1.0 1 P"ene 0.5 1 MDL BID MDL Parameter (PWk,dry) (pi dry) Parameter L (pi all (Pgl9 dry) Metals Antimony 0.116 020 mad 0040 0,10 Arsenic 0.054 0.10 Mercury 0.03E 0.040 Barium 01 cl 020 Nickel 0.114 0,20 Beryllium 0.030 0.in Selenium 0461 0,50 Cadmium 0.089 010 Silver 0.139 020 Chromium 0058 nAO Zinc OB62 1,50 Copper 0.138 020 Parameter hari dry) hri dry) Parameter MD' (w ---- ---- -_-- Wake .....Pcremefars --- ---- ---- ------- DIssONed Sumdes 1.03 103 Grain Size 001 0,01 Total N.trogeo 049 60 Total Orgeni<Carke, 002 0.1 Traci Phosphorus 0.17 38 Fish Tissue MDL RL Parameter (ngl9wat) (ngl,wet) Parameter (ngigwet) tests wet) Organ001J0rtne Pest..des 24'-DOD 142 2us cie-Chlordane 099 100 24'-DDE 105 2.00 (reps-Chlordane 1shr 2,00 2,4'-DDT 0.91 100 0,,,hl0rdane 186 2,00 44'-DOD 089 100 Heptachlor 096 100 4,4'-DDE 0.81 1.00 Heptaahlor epoxide 0.94 1,00 4,4'-DDT 104 200 cis-Nonachlor 102 2,00 4.4-DDMU 099 100 hensNOneehloe 141 200 Dieidon 0.97 5.00 PCB Congeeie, PCs is 1.12 200 PCs126 1.is 200 PCs28 094 1.00 PCs128 1.63 2.00 PCB 37 1 31 200 PCs 138 0 71 1 00 BCD44 1.43 200 PCB149 065 1,00 PC849 157 200 PCs 151 0.87 100 PCs 52 1 42 200 PCB 1531168 1A3 2,00 BCD66 1.12 200 PUB156 145 2,00 PCB 70 0 76 100 PCB 157 1 66 200 PCB 74 0.98 1.00 PCB 167 102 2,00 PCB 17 078 100 PCs 169 169 2,00 PCs 81 081 100 PCB 170 094 100 PCB 81 0.98 1.00 PCB 171 1.36 2,00 PC899 112 200 PCB 180 071 1 00 PCs101 071 100 PCs183 131 200 PCs 105 074 1.00 PCs 187 071 1.Do PCB 110 .96 1 00 PCB 199 1 00 1 00 PCB 114 0.82 1 on PCB 194 124 2,00 PCB 118 076 100 PCB 201 1 41 2.00 Pica 1is 092 1.00 PCB26 Or% 2,00 PCB 123 0.69 1,00 MDL FAIL Parameter (m9M9 tlry) spidry) Parameter spidry) presk,wet) Metals Arsenic 0.054 0,100 Meam, 0036 0,040 Selenium 0.481 0,500 Val ue.reporiee U,r-n the 6fBl rd It at-1 esliicrkl C-3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Table C-2 Water quality QA/QC summary for 2017-18. Number Number of Number of % Total samples of lVdi coal Parameter (Total batches) QNQC Sample Type Samples Compounds Compountls Compounds Tested Tested Passed Passed' Blank 37 1 37 100 Blank Spike 37 1 37 100 Suren, Ammonium 633(9) Matrix Spike 68 1 68 100 Matrix Spike Dup 68 1 67 99 Matrix Spike Pre, 68 1 67 99 Blank 36 1 36 100 Blank Spike 36 1 36 100 of Ammonium 654pp Mail.Spite 69 1 69 100 Matrix Spike Dup 69 1 69 100 Matrix Spike Prearearl 69 1 69 100 Blank 39 1 39 100 Blank Spike 39 1 39 100 Winter Ammonium 654(9) Maka Spike 69 1 69 100 Matrix Spike Dup 69 1 69 100 Matrix Spike Pre, 69 1 69 100 Blank 37 1 37 100 Blank Spike 37 1 37 100 Spdng Ammonium 631(9) Matrix Spike 68 1 68 100 Matrix Spike Dup 68 1 68 100 Make,Spike Precision 68 1 68 100 -M emlysis pvssetl,llhe bllowNp area were ne, Fmblank-Irgeiom ,%re—,<pxMDL For 6lanks,se-In,accwacy N-o-y ri10. Fri mavixspike ane m tox spike drkxiate-Targai-ay%reowery 8en20. For a M1 a-Ta a o % El I% a Total Coris 35(5) Duplicate 32 1 29 91 Summer Fecal C.Ifunni, 35(5) Duplicate 32 1 29 91 Eaterocood 35 5 Du Ilcate 32 1 29 91 Trial CoOuorma 35(5) Duplicate 32 1 32 100 Fell Fecal Caldanks 35(5) Duplicate 32 1 30 94 Eccorkoxi 35ep Duplicate 32 1 30 94 Total Callum, 35(5) Duplicate 32 1 29 91 Winter Fecal Coiitorms 35(5) Duplicate 32 1 25 81 Entemoowi 35(51 Duplicate 32 1 2B 88 Toul California 35(6) Duplicate 32 1 29 91 Spdng Fecal Coiitorms 35(5) Duplicate 32 1 29 91 Enierecord 35(5) Duplicate 32 1 29 91 Total Calories 700Bill Duplicate 134 1 125 93 Hnoual Fecal Coiitorms 700(20) Duplicate 134 1 120 90 Enterococc, 700 Bill Duplicate 134 1 121 90 Ark,pessM 6 Me ewmgorango of logenlhms Is Ions Man Itre pmaision cnlmlon. Bacteria Samples collected offshore (i.e., Recreational (aka REC-1)) were analyzed for bacteria using EnterolertTM for enterococci and Colilert-18TO for total coliforms and Escherichia coli. Fecal coliforms were estimated by multiplying the E. cofi result by a factor of 1.1. These methods utilize enzyme substrates that produce,upon hydrolyzation,a fluorescent signal when viewed under long-wavelength (365 ri ultraviolet light. For samples collected along the surfzone, samples were analyzed by culture-based methods for direct count of bacteria. EPA Method 1600 was applied to enumerate enterococci bacteria. For enumeration of total and fecal coliforms, respectively, Standard Methods 9222B and 9222D were used. MDLs for bacteria are presented in Table C-1. All samples were analyzed within the required holding time. REC-1 samples were processed and incubated within 8 hours of sample collection. Duplicate analyses were performed on a minimum of 10%of samples with at least 1 sample per sample batch. All equipment, reagents, and dilution waters used for sample analyses were sterilized before use. Sterility of sample bottles was tested for each new lot/batch before use. Each lot of medium,whether prepared or purchased,was tested for sterility and performance with known positive and negative controls prior to use. For surfzone samples, a positive and a negative control were run simultaneously with each batch of sample for each type of media used to ensure performance. New lots of Quanti-Tray and petri dish were checked for sterility before use. Each Quanti-Tray sealer was checked monthly by addition of Gram stain dye to 100 mL of water, and the tray was sealed and subsequently checked for leakage. Each lot of dilution C-4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control blanks commercially purchased was checked for appropriate volume and sterility. New lots of sl0 mL volume pipettes were checked for accuracy by weighing volume delivery on a calibrated top loading scale. Duplicate analyses were performed on a minimum of 10% of routine samples. Although the precision criterion is used to measure the precision of duplicate analyses for plate-based methods (APHA 2017), this criterion was used for most probable number methods due to a lack of criterion. Over 90% of duplicate analyses passed in 3 of the 4 quarters for all 3 fecal indicator bacteria (Table C-2). The analytical pass rate for fecal coliforms and enterococci was 81% and 88%, respectively, in the Winter quarter. SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY NARRATIVE OCSD's LMC laboratory received 68 sediment samples from LMC's OMP staff during July 2017, and 29 samples during January 2018. All samples were stored according to LMC SOPS. All samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyl congeners (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), trace metals, mercury, dissolved sulfides (DS), total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and grain size. All samples were analyzed within the required holding times. PAHs, PCBs, and Organochlorine Pesticides The analytical methods used to detect PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs in the samples are described in the LMC SOPS. All sediment samples were extracted using an accelerated solvent extractor(ASE). Approximately 10 g (dry weight)of sample was used for each analysis. A reparatory funnel extraction was performed using 100 mL of sample when field and rinse blanks were included in the batch. All sediment extracts were analyzed by GC/MS. A typical sample batch included 20 field samples with required QC samples. Sample batches that were analyzed for PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs included the following QC samples: 1 sand blank, 1 blank spike, 1 standard reference material (SRM), 1 matrix spike set, and 1 sample duplicate. MDLs and SRM acceptance criteria for each PAH, PCB, and pesticide constituent are presented in Tables C-1 and C-3, respectively. All analyses were performed with appropriate QC measures, as stated in OCSD's QAPP,with most of the compounds tested during the 2 quarters meeting QA/QC criteria (Table C-4). When constituent concentrations exceeded the calibration range of the instrument, dilutions were performed and the samples reanalyzed. Any deviations from standard protocol that occurred during sample preparation or analysis are noted in the raw data packages. Trace Metals Dried sediment samples were analyzed for trace metals in accordance with methods in the LMC SOPS. A typical sample batch for antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, silver, selenium, and zinc analyses included 3 blanks, a blank spike, and 1 SRM. Additionally, sample duplicates, sample spikes, and sample spike duplicates were analyzed at least once for every 10 sediment samples. The analysis of the blank spike and SRM provided a measure of the accuracy of the analysis. The analysis of the sample, its duplicate, and the 2 sample spikes were evaluated for precision. All samples were analyzed using inductively coupled mass spectroscopy. If any analyte exceeded both the appropriate calibration curve and linear dynamic range, the sample was diluted and reanalyzed. MDLs for metals are presented in Table C-1. Acceptance criteria for trace metal SRMs are presented in Table C-3. Most of the compounds tested for sediment trace metals during the 2 quarters met QA/QC criteria (Table C-4). C-5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Table C-3 Acceptance criteria for standard reference materials for 2017-18. Parameter True Value Acceptance Range(nglg) Inglg) Minimum Maximum Sediments OWanochOdne PesOoides.PCB Congeners,and Percent Dry Weight (SRM 1944,Dr.Yli$Nnw Jersey We(erwey Sediment.Nallonal lnsfdute o(SbndeNs end Technology) PCB 22.3 13.38 3122 PCB18 51.0 306 714 POD28 808 48A8 113.12 PCB 44 60.2 36,12 84,28 PCB49 530 31.6 742 PCB52 794 47.64 111d6 PCB66 719 4314 100-66 PCB8? 299 1794 4186 PCB 99 37,5 22.5 52.5 PCB101 734 44.04 10276 PCB 105 245 147 34,3 PCB 110 63,5 36.1 889 PCB 118 580 348 31,2 PCB 128 847 5982 11.858 PCB138 621 37.26 8694 PCB 149 497 2982 69,59 PCB 151 16.93 10,158 23,702 PCB1531168 746 444 1036 PCB156 652 1912 9128 PCB 170 22.6 13,56 31,6 PCB 180 443 26 59 6262 PCB183 12,19 7.314 17.066 PCB 187 25.1 15-06 35 14 PCB 194 11,2 672 15.68 PCB 195 3,75 2.25 5,25 PCB206 921 5b26 12894 PCB 209 681 4,086 9.534 24DDD' 38-0 226 532 2.4-DDE 190 11A 26,6 dd'-DDD' 108.0 946 151,2 44'-ODE' 869 516 1204 4ADDT' 170.0 102 238 "Chl"d—a 16.51 9906 23.114 bensCblordene' 19D 114 266 ,e .,BHC` 2A 12 2.8 HexachI mbenzane 603 3-618 8 442 o/sNonachlor' 31 222 S18 tmnsApnachlor 82 4.92 11,48 Percent Dry Weight 13 — PAH Compound,end Percent D,Welghl (SRM 1944,New Yi,,Mew J.,W terv+ey Setlimenf.Neni W In NO.of Slende dtl and Technology) 1-Methyliephtheiene' 470 282 658 1-Methyiphenenthrene` 1700 102D 2380 2-Methylnaphn lene' 740 444 1036 A,err,hthene' 390 234 545 Ahtbmcene' 1130 67B 1582 Benz(e)enthracene 4720 2832 6609 eerap[alPYrene 4300 2580 6020 Banzn[b]flunranihene 3870 2322 5418 Benzp[e]pyrene 3280 196E 4592 Benzp)g.hi�perylene 2840 1704 3976 Be,.[k nuorenihene 2300 1360 3220 Biphenyl' 250 150 350 Chrysene 4860 2916 68N cbenzla h]3nthreeene 424 2544 5936 Dib,,rehiophene' 500 300 700 Fluorenthene 8920 5352 12488 Fluorene' 480 268 672 Inde,D 2,3a tl)pyrene 2780 1669 3892 Naphthalene` 1280 768 1792 Pe,,,re 1170 702 1638 Phenanthreoe 5270 3162 7378 Pyrene 9700 5820 13580 Percent Dry Weight 1.3 Table C-3 continues. C-6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Table C-3 continued. Parameter Time Value Acceptance Range(ngig) (a9191 minimum Maximum Sedimenla Bridle (CRM-540 ERA Wm a In Sed,TO No,D099-540) Antimony 75.5 2.85 148 Arsenio 161 134 188 Banum 260 215 305 B,d1mm 102 814 114 Cadmium 211 176 246 Chromium 136 112 160 Capper 166 139 192 Lead 111 92.1 130 Mercury 11.5 823 147 Nickel 919 76.2 108 Selenium 191 152 231 Bllver 433 alb 519 Zinc 199 162 237 Fish Tissue Oya000h(onne Pesbcidea.POB Congeners,and Lurid (SRM1946.Lake Sm,ndrFin Tissue;National lncutnt,m'Standaed9 addTeMnmdi PC618 084 0,504 1176 PCB28' 2 1,2 2.8 PCB 44 466 2796 6524 PC849 38 2.28 5.32 PCB52 8.1 4.86 11.34 PCB fib Vice 648 15.12 PCB 70 14.9 a94 2086. PCB 74 483 2898 6 762 PC877 0327 0.196 0458 PCB 87 CIA 5.64 13.16 PCB99 256 1536 3584 PCB 101 34.6 2076. 48.44 PCB 105 19-9 1194 27.86 PCB 110 228 13,68 3192 PCB 118 52.1 3t26 72.94 PCB 126 638 022E 0532 PCB 128 22.8 13.68 31.92 PCB 138 115 69 161 PC8149 263 1578 36.82 PCs153/168 170 102 238 PCB156 952 5712 13328 PCB 170 25.2 15.12 35.28 PCB 190 74A 44.64 104.16 PCs183 219 1314 3066 PCB 187 55.2 33.12 77.28 PCB 194 13 7.8 182 PC6201' 283 1,698 3962 PCB 206 54 3,24 7.56 24 DDD 22 132 358 2,4'-DDE' 1,04 0,624 1456 2,4'-DDT` 223 13,38 31.22 44'-ODD 1.7 1062 2478 4.4'-DDE 373 223.8 522.2 4,4 DDT 372 2232 5208 hP-Chldrdsm 325 195 45.5 ti Chimdane 9,36 5.016 11904 0,mudane 189 1134 2646 Dineen 325 19.5 45.5 Hepmchlora,a.Ne 6-6 33 77 cs-NOneahlm 59.1 35,46 8274 traps Nonachlor 99.6 59,76 139.44 Lipid' 10.17 - - Metalc (SRM DORM:National Research Council 4,81Canada) eleenla 345 2,42 892 449 Selenium 41 242 453 Mercury 9Al2 0288 0.536 Paremalet ell 1-a-Illee vedr(s). C-/ Quality Assurance/Quality Control Table C-4 Sediment QA/QC summary for 2017-18. N/A= Not Applicable. Number Number of Number of % Total samples of pAJQC Quarter Parameter Total Sample Type Compounds Compounds Compounds (Total betcbes) Samples Tested Passed Paasetl' Tested Blank 5 26 130 100 Blank Spike 5 26 112 86 Matrix Spike 5 26 123 95 Summer PAD, 68(5j Matrix Spike Duplicate 5 28 128 98 Matrix Spike Precision 5 26 130 100 Duplicate 4 26 96 92 CBS Analysis 5 21 86 82 Blank 2 26 50 96 Blank Spike 2 26 48 92 Matrix Spike 2 26 52 too wit if 29(2) Matrix Spike Duplicate 2 26 47 90 Matrix Spike Preaaion 2 26 51 98 Duplicate 2 26 40 77 CRMAnal sis 2 21 35 83 'AnandNat pneSealt the tollmving cntebe were mef. Foe blank-Target axureey%reeevwy<ay 61DL. ar blank cpeve-TergN mmx mcy%recore y e 11 . Fqr matrix ap0�e aria maltk sple anpnota-Tm9eta¢ura ....en no 12o. matrixFor face preolvoin xmelpren,xor l RPP 1211 Flidupllcete-TargetpreLLbon%RFD 125%at3%MDLolsample mean. orSRM-AllIme Tercetawuraoy%recovery 66190ormntlletl value whigheverlapeea Blank 5 80 300 100 Blank Spike 5 60 261 87 Matrix Spike 5 60 252 84 Summer PCBsantl Pestlfidea 68'5) Matrix Spike Duplicate 5 60 242 81 Matrix Spike Precision 5 60 288 96 Duplicate 3 60 297 99 CRMAnalysis 5 33 139 84 Blank 2 60 120 100 Blank Spike 2 60 114 95 Matrix Spike 2 60 100 83 Winter PCBsantl Pestddas 29(2) Matrix Spike Duplicate 2 60 so 57 Matrix Spike Preaaion 2 60 115 96 Duplicate 2 60 120 100 CRMAnalsis 2 33 60 91 An And,pri It the tdlowing voters were mef. Foe blank-heart.......cy A—vol 13X k1DL. arbienkepBe-Tergalewumcy%mcovelye lZO. Fgrmatnxap,�andmai xk pxeanpccaD Drieta¢uraoy"bremven4012o. matrixFor take preccon-Txnel precialon I RID 1251 Fgedupllc frargetpred6gn%RFD 125%at3%MDLOIsample mean. orSRM analyaAa rgetawurac/%mwvery 66190orcerNled value whicheverlaprea Blank 8 12 96 100 Around,Amend Blank Spike 4 12 48 100 Barium,Beryllium, Matrix Spike 8 12 85 89 Summer Cadmium,Chromium, 68(2) Matrix Spike Dun 8 12 86 90 Copper,Lead,Nickel, Matrix Spike Precision 8 12 96 100 Selenium,Silver,Zinc Duplicate 8 12 89 93 CRMAnalysis 2 12 24 100 Blank 4 1 8 100 Blank Spike 4 t 8 100 Matrix Splka 8 1 7 88 Summer Mercury 68(2) Manl%Spike Dop 8 1 7 88 Matrix Spike Preaaion 8 t 8 in. Duplicate 8 1 8 100 CRMAnaNsis 2 1 2 100 Blank 4 12 48 100 Anturri Arsenic, Blank Spike 2 12 24 100 Barium,Beryllium, Motor,Spike 4 12 43 90 Winter cadmiam.Chimmlum, 29(i) Matrix Spike Dap 4 12 43 90 Copper,Lead Nickel, Matrix Spike Precision 4 12 48 100 selenium.Silva,,zmc Duplicate 4 12 44 92 Cruel Analysis 1 12 12 100 Blank 2 t 2 100 Blank Spike 2 1 2 too Matrix Spike 3 1 3 100 Winter Mercury 29(1) Matrix Spike Dap 3 t 3 1.0 Matrix Spike Predsind 3 1 3 100 Duplicate 3 1 3 100 CRM Anal ais i 1 1 100 An Force,pawed it thNallgrving Forms were men For blenb Tayat a..meacy fi che... c9X MDLSemple maulLvfo,a,lM >1pn biankmeult For blank spike ri charm accuracy°°/omm -LFm10- Formeinxspmr ro-ahix aPike da,-,,,b- BID aceumq Nomwoary70n30. Formere.pike pm ,Tergoi Pmcs n%RPO 120. For pllcyetpmcu m%RPD30 le . For 9RMe mr.,,Taryg m ta y iV 804In,ormtllfrob clhFwblMov gmabr. Table C-4 continues. C-8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Table C-4 continued. Number Number of Number of % Quarter Parameter Total samples O Sampler of QAIQC (Total boteh NQC es) Type Samples Qpmpountla Compounds Compound Tested Tested passed Passed Blank T 1 ] 100 Blank Spike Y 1 ] 10D Summer Dles.lend Sundae 68(7) MehixSpike T 1 Z 100 Matrix Spike Cup T 1 > 100 Matrix Spike Precleipn ] 1 ] 10D Broader, T 1 v 100 Bonk 3 1 3 100 Blank Spike 3 1 3 100 Winter Dlsspled Sulfides 29(3) MatrlxSpike 3 1 3 100 Matrix Spike Cup 3 1 3 100 Matrix Spike Preeiaion 3 1 3 IDO _.. Spoken, 3 1 3 100 Pn analysis lot ank mo nPe(%nergera d were meL For blank-Targe Tender maremay% ry 2%MOl Famadm Ford spike-ind matrccuragp appon outerm 81 For mank spike and akin x scae suptwle-Target acnu2ey No recooery 70-130. For matrLe spMe pore slon-Target predsWn?6 RPO 60°H- F rtl 1 Tar 1 n Y.RPD 90%a13X OL !sa in Blank 4 1 4 100 Blank Spike WA N/A NIA N!A Summer TOC 88(2) Matrix Spike 4 1 4 100 Matrix Spike Cup 4 1 4 100 Matrix Spike Precision 4 1 4 100 Duplicate 8 1 Y 88 Blank 2 1 2 100 Blank Spike WA NIA NIA N/A Winter TOC 29T) Matrix Spike 2 1 2 100 Matrix Spike Cup 2 1 2 100 Matrix Spike Precdsion 2 1 2 100 Confident, 4 1 4 10D Pn analysis passetl If tire Rudeng onletlawere me, For blank-Te,m xd uraoy%reoorery I10x MOL Far ma ak spike and rt2ad spike supliale-Target aauracy%remveryM 120 FOrmelnz spike preolcon-Ta rgaL preo-slOn%RPD CIO%. For tlup6a(e-Ta spar Weolcon°b RPO qD%o a1 J%MOx of aam0le mean. Blank WA WA NIA N/A Blank NIA WA N/A NIA Summer Grain Sire Split Ma Spike WA NIA N/A N/A Male:S nx Spike Cup WA NIA NIA N/A Matrix Spike Predsion NIA WA NIA NIA Duplicate T 1 ] 100 Blank W CIA NIA NIA N/A Blank Spike N/A WA NIA N/A Winter Grain Said 2B(1) Matrix Spike NIA NIA N/A N/A Melo,SikeCup WA NIA NIA N/A Mat Spike Prepped 3 N/A NIA N/A Duplice 3 la 1 $ 100 neles,ords paecetl 6 me adorm omm proud, met For d�pnaeN-Tamar preason mean%RPD ag Blank 8 1 5 83 Blank Spike 12 1 12 100 Summer Teal 68(2) Matrix Spike T 1 3 43 MCVa Spike Cup T 1 3 43 Matrix Spike Precision T 1 T 100 Duplicele T 1 6 71 Blank 3 1 3 100 Blank Spike e 1 6 10D Writer TptalN 29 T) MarbSpike 5 1 3 60 Matrix Spike Cup 5 1 3 60 Matrix Spike Precleipn 5 1 5 100 Du titers 5 1 5 100 nnolysis tak rcthe roiiowing pone were mac ter Been-Tereet accost,.atue—en,6xal For deem eplke matrix tons,and matrix tand outdoor,-Tager aavm y%rewvery a0-12o. Ter marnx eprke prenaon-Torgel pmodken°h RPO do, For dop tale Target pundsom%RPO let a13k MOx of Semple mean Table C-4 continues. C-9 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Table C-4 continued. Number Number of Number of Total samples of QAIQC Quarter Parameter QAIQC Sample Type Compounds Compounds Compounds (Total batches) Sam Tested Passed Passed' Tested Blank 4 1 3 75 Blank Slake 4 1 4 100 Summer Told P 68(1) Maine Spike ] 1 9 86 Mahix Spike Cup > i 5 71 Mahix Spike Precision ] 1 ] 100 Duplicate 5 1 T 108 Blank 2 1 2 100 Blank Spike 2 1 2 100 Woman TaalP 29(1) Matrix Spike Cup 3 1 3 100 Maine Spike Precision 3 1 3 100 call 3 1 3 100 '4 N aFaavee ll Pe re amp, lane were mel Foe blank-Target.nasty%am..,<3y mrm o,raliicplke meWspike.anneraii apik.rin te-1,ml.,mor,"bremvery80.120. Fm malnxa,pe pac—na,-111.1 m-kion%RPp QO%. Far euripap,-Ta ai ce-nin%RPD 120%at 3X arm m sample mean. Mercury Dried sediment samples were analyzed for mercury in accordance with methods described in the LMC SOPS. QC for a typical batch included a blank, blank spike, and SRM. A set of sediment sample duplicates, sample spike, and spike duplicates were run once for every 10 sediment samples. When sample mercury concentration exceeded the appropriate calibration curve, the sample was diluted with the reagent blank and reanalyzed. The samples were analyzed for mercury on a Perkin Elmer FIMS 400 system. The MDL for sediment mercury is presented in Table C-1. Acceptance criteria for mercury SRM is presented in Table C-3. All samples, with some noted exceptions, met the CA/QC criteria guidelines for accuracy and precision (Table C-4). Dissolved Sulfides DS samples were analyzed in accordance with methods described in the LMC SOPS. The MDL for IDS is presented in Table C-1. All analyses in both quarters met the QA/QC criteria (Table C-4). Total Organic Carbon TOG samples were analyzed by AILS Environmental Services, Kelso, WA. The MDL for TOG is presented in Table C-1. The majority of analyzed TOG samples passed the CA/QC criteria (Table C-4). Grain Size Grain size samples were analyzed by Integral Consulting Inc., Santa Cruz, CA. The MDL for sediment grain size is presented in Table C-1. All analyzed grain size samples passed the CA/CC criteria of RPD 510% (Table C-4). Total Nitrogen TN samples were analyzed by Weck Laboratories, Inc., City of Industry, CA. The MDL for TN is presented in Table C-1. Most of the matrix spike precisions and their duplicate analyses had an RPD of less than 20% (Table C-4). Many of the laboratory control samples (LCS) met the acceptance criteria; only 50% of matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates met the recovery criteria of 80-120% for the year due to matrix interferences in the analysis (Table C-4). C-10 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Total Phosphorus TP samples were analyzed by Weck Laboratories. The MDL for TP is presented in Table C-1. The matrix spike precisions and their duplicate analyses had an RPD of less than 20% (Table 0-4). Nearly all the associated LCS met the acceptance criteria; only 90% and 80% of matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, respectively, met the recovery criteria of 80-120% for the year due to matrix interferences in the analysis (Table C-4). FISH TISSUE CHEMISTRY NARRATIVE For the 2017-2018 program year, the LMC laboratory received 11 trawl fish samples and 20 rig fish samples in July 2017, and 16 trawl fish samples in January 2018, The individual samples were stored,dissected, and homogenized according to methods described in the LMC SOPS. A 1*1 muscle to water ratio was used for muscle samples. No water was used for liver samples. After the individual samples were homogenized, equal aliquots of muscle from each rig fish sample, and equal aliquots of muscle and liver from each trawl fish sample were frozen and distributed to the metals and organic chemistry sections of the analytical chemistry laboratory for analyses. Organochlorine Pesticides and PCB Congeners The analytical methods used for organochlorine pesticides and PCB congeners were according to methods described in the LMC SOPs. All fish tissue was extracted using an ASE 350 and analyzed by GC/MS. All analyses were performed within the required holding time and with appropriate QC measures. A typical organic tissue or liver sample batch included up to 20 field samples with required QC samples. The QC samples included a laboratory blank, sample duplicates, matrix spike, matrix spike duplicate, SRM, and reporting level spike (matrix of choice was tilapia). The MDLs for pesticides and PCBs in fish tissue are presented in Table C-1. Acceptance criteria for PCB and pesticides SRM in fish tissue are presented in Table C-3. Most compounds tested in each parameter group met the QA/QC criteria(Table C-5). In cases where constituent concentrations exceeded the calibration range of the instrument,the samples were diluted and reanalyzed. Any variances that occurred during sample preparation or analyses are noted in the Comments/Notes section of each batch summary. Lipid Content Percent lipid content was determined for each sample of fish using methods described in the LMC SOPS. Lipids were extracted by dichloromethane from approximately 1 to 2 g of sample and concentrated to 2 mL. A 100 pL aliquot of the extract was placed in a tared aluminum weighing boat and allowed to evaporate to dryness. The remaining residue was weighed, and the percent lipid content calculated. All analyses were performed within the required holding time and with appropriate QC measures. All analyzed samples passed except for 1 muscle tissue sample during the Winter quarter (Table C-5). Mercury Fish tissue samples were analyzed for mercury in accordance with LMC SOPS. Typical QC analyses for a tissue sample batch included a blank, a blank spike, and SRMs (liver and muscle). In the same batch, additional QC samples included duplicate analyses of the sample, spiked samples, and duplicate spiked samples, which were run approximately once every 10 samples. The MDL for fish mercury is presented in Table C-1. Acceptance criteria for the mercury SRMs are presented in Table C-3. All samples were analyzed within their 6-month holding time and met the CA criteria guidelines (Table C-5). C-11 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Table C-5 Fish tissue QAIQC summary for 2017-18. Number Number of Number of Total samples of QAIQC Chains, Parameter QAIQC Sample Type Compounds Compounds Compounds (Total batches) Sam Tested Passed Passed' Tested Blank 8 54 432 100 Blank Stripe 4 54 2" 94 blank Spike 4 54 212 99 Berkman PCBsand Pestbides 41 (4) Matrix Spike Dun 4 54 213 99 Matrix Spike Precision 4 54 214 99 Dupesses 7 54 376 99 Sold Aoalvkas 4 41 132 80 Blank 4 54 216 100 Blank Spike 2 54 103 95 Matrix Spike 2 Be 107 99 Winter PCBs and Pealipdee 32(2) Matrix Spike Dup 2 54 106 98 Metri,Spike Precis'. 2 54 101 94 Duplicate 3 54 160 99 SRMAnaI sls 2 41 68 83 An analya2 peaeeb tl Its steasa critene were met Fornlet,-Target rosiony sroxcryIIX MDL For blank sinks-Target ewvreq%ris,60.120 For matrix asks-Tager eavreq°h rerovery40-120. For matrix spike onistrte-Tart aavmq%ar,40-120. For maGx apike preculon-TanketpmGsion%Ron 1201 Its arbicete-Tager precubn%RPD 120tt.3X MDL of aampie mean. F.,SRM analvais-Temal acouraw%reoove,an Ina or cenl0ed value whlchsverla arabor. Summer Percent Lipid-Liver 1 D'okcate Samples 1 1 t 100 Percent Life-Muscly 3 Duplicate Samples 6 1 6 100 Winter Percent Lipid-Liver 1 Duplicate Samples 1 1 1 100 Percent Li in-Muscle 1 Ou Blare Seat 2 1 t 50 An analy-pesaeb it ihe(di—,vaned,were ni&. Ferdwnro,.Taboopmarebrannelart, Blank 3 1 3 too Blank Sisk, 3 1 3 100 Matrix Spike 5 1 5 100 Summer Mercury 42(2) Matrix Spike Cup 5 1 5 100 Matrix Spike Precision 5 1 5 100 Duplicse 5 1 5 100 Sold Analysis 2 1 2 100 Blank 3 2 6 IDO Blank Spike 1 2 2 100 Main,Spike 2 2 4 100 Summer Anemic&Selonium 20(1) Matrix Spike Cup 2 2 4 100 Matrix Spike Precision 2 2 4 100 Duplicate 2 2 2 50 SRMArml,Ac 1 2 2 100 Blank 2 1 2 100 Blank Strike 2 1 2 100 Maine Spike 4 1 4 100 Winter Mamury 32(2) Matrix Spike Dart, 4 1 4 100 Mal}Spike Precision 4 1 4 100 Duplicate 4 1 4 100 SRM Analysis 4 1 4 100 'An,onlysis pa,,ba nine bill abarla were met' Its blank.IDyel salutary Iri 12.MDL Fat fear iner-Iry&acrwary%remvery g0.110. For matrix spill,and Li spike tankore-Targat amu2s,%re,wery 70.130. Far malnx spke precision-Tager preatslbn%one25% Forams ie-Asks precision S RPD 4p$at mX MDLof sample mesn. Fat B.analye--Target amre,a rewvery Sol 20 of carrier slue abran—Is greater. Arsenic and Selenium Rig fish tissue samples were analyzed for arsenic and selenium in accordance with LMC SOPS. Typical QC analyses for a tissue sample batch included 3 blanks, a blank spike,and an SRM (muscle). Additional QC samples included duplicate analyses of a sample, and a pair of spiked and duplicate spiked samples, which were run at least once every 10 samples. The MDLs for fish arsenic and selenium are presented in Table C-1. Acceptance criteria for the arsenic and selenium SRMs are presented in Table C-3. All samples were analyzed within a 6-month holding time and nearly all analyzed samples met the QA criteria guidelines (Table C-5). C-12 Quality Assurance/Quality Control BENTHIC INFAUNA NARRATIVE The sorting and taxonomy QA(QC follow OCSD's QAPP. These QA/QC procedures were conducted on sediment samples collected for infaunal community analysis in July 2017 (summer) from 29 semi-annual stations 152-65 m)and 39 annual stations (40-300 m), and in January 2018 (winter) from the same 29 semi-annual stations (Table A-4). Sorting The sorting procedure involved removal, by Marine Taxonomic Services, Inc. (MTS) and Aquatic Bioassay and Consulting Laboratories, Inc. (ABC), of all organisms including theirfragments from sediment samples into separate vials by major taxa (aliquots). The abundance of countable organisms (heads only) per station was recorded. After MTS' and ABC's in-house sorting efficiency criteria were met, the organisms and remaining particulates (grunge) were returned to OCSD. Ten percent of these samples (10 of 97)were randomly selected for re-sorting by OCSD staff. A tally was made of any countable organisms missed by MTS and ABC. A sample passed QC if the total number of countable animals found in the re-sort was<-5% of the total number of individuals originally reported. Sorting results for all CIA samples were well below the 5% QC limit. Taxonomy Selected benthic infauna samples underwent comparative taxonomic analysis by 2 independent taxonomists. Samples were randomly chosen for re-identification from each taxonomist's allotment of assigned samples. These were swapped between taxonomists with the same expertise in the major taxa. The resulting datasets were compared and a discrepancy report generated. The participating taxonomists reconciled the discrepancies. Necessary corrections to taxon names or abundances were made to the database. The results were scored and errors tallied by station. Percent errors were calculated using the equations below: Equation 1. %Error#lo,,,pals=Q# Individuals a¢sON¢o-# Individuals � +# Individuals R¢smvea)x 100 Equation 2. %Error n IOTaa = (#Taxa ms�aennncanon -#Taxa )x 100 Equation 3. %Error nio mawapais = (# Individuals nn�emenlmcecp�' # Individuals reesa�ea)x 100 Please refer to OCSD's QAPP for detailed explanation of the variables. The first 2 equations are considered gauges of errors in accounting (e.g., recording on wrong line, miscounting, etc.), which, by their random nature, are difficult to predict. Equation 3 is the preferred measure of identification accuracy. It is weighted by abundance and has a more rigorous set of corrective actions (e.g., additional taxonomic training) when errors exceed 10%. In addition to the re-identifications, a Synoptic Data Review(SDR)was conducted upon completion of all data entry and QA. This consisted of a review of the infauna data for the survey year, aggregated by taxonomist (including both in-house and contractor). From this, any possible anomalous species reports, such as species reported outside its known depth range and possible data entry errors, were flagged for further investigation. QC objectives for identification accuracy (Equation 3) were met in 2017-18 (Table C-6). The SDR revealed some anomalous taxa reported by one of the contracting taxonomists in the winter dataset. Table C-6 Percent error rates calculated for the July 2017 infauna CA samples. swoop Ev rTyp¢ M¢an 0 1 21 64 #IntlMtivels 6.6 3.0 36 00 31 #IDTaxa 5.6 3.5 3.a 8.0 52 #ID IntliNdpaI, 32 1.9 24 7.3 37 C-13 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Further investigation by said taxonomist and OCSD staff revealed that data entry errors had occurred, which were corrected. No other significant changes to the 2017-18 infauna dataset were made following the SDR. C-14 Quality Assurance/Quality Control REFERENCES OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District). 2016a. Orange County Sanitation District — Ocean Monitoring Program. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), (2016-17). Fountain Valley, CA. OCSD. 2016b. Laboratory, Monitoring, and Compliance Standard Operating Procedures. Fountain Valley, CA. APHA (American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation). 2017. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 231' edition. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. C-15 This page intentionally left blank. P Y SANIIq q � N 'N •9 L d �`et o N THE EM ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Laboratory, Monitoring, and Compliance Division 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 714,9622411 www,aesewers.com 3116