HomeMy WebLinkAbout98.05-23-2018 Board Meeting Item 08 Attachment 5 - Marine Monitoring Annual Report.pdf O'
,1
�.
DISTRICT
Marine Monitoring
g
Annual Report
. U.. ". +6-2017 Orange County, California
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
LABORATORY, MONITORING, AND COMPLIANCE DIVISION
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018
714.962.2411
www.ocsewers.com
Sewing: Orange County Sanitation District
Anaheim 10844 Ellis Avenue,Fountain Valley,CA 92708
714.962.2411 • vAVKocsd.com
Brea
Buena Park
Cy"
March 1, 2018 -
Fountam Val-0
Fullerton Hope Smythe
Executive Officer
Garden Grove California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Region 8
Huntington Beach 3737 Main Street, Suite 500
Irvine Riverside, CA 92501-3348
La Habra SUBJECT: Board Order No. R8-2012-0035, NPDES No. CA0110604 2016-17
Marine Monitoring Annual Report
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Dear Ms. Smythe,
Newport Beach
Enclosed is the Orange County Sanitation District's 2016-17 Marine Monitoring
Orange Annual Report. This report focuses on the findings and conclusions for the
Placentia monitoring period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. The results of the monitoring
program document that the combined discharge of our secondary-treated
Santa Ana wastewater (effluent) and water reclamation flows (brine) into the coastal waters off
Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, California, continues to protect the
Seal Beach environment and human health.
Stanton The results of the 2016-17 monitoring effort showed minimal changes in the coastal
Tustin 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
Villa Park variability, and compliance with numeric receiving water criteria was achieved over
97% of the time. This demonstrated that the receiving water outside the ZID has
County of Orange not been degraded by the District's wastewater discharge. The low concentrations
Costa Mesa of fecal indicator bacteria in water contact zones, coupled with the low
Sanitary District concentrations of ammonium at depth, also suggest that the wastewater discharge
posed no human health risk and did not compromise recreational use.
Midway City
Sanitary District There were no impacts to the benthic animal communities within and adjacent to the
Irvine Ranch ZID. Infauna and fish communities in the monitoring area were healthy, with all sites
Water District classifying as reference condition based on several biological indices. In addition,
sediment contaminants remained at background levels and no measurable toxicity
Yorke Linda was observed in whole sediment toxicity tests. The low levels of contaminants in
Water District fish tissues and the low incidence of external abnormalities and diseases in fish
populations demonstrated that the ouffall was not an epicenter of disease.
Should you have questions regarding the information provided in this report, orwish
_ - to meet with the District's staff to discuss any aspect of our ocean monitoring
- - program, please feel free to contact me at(714) 593-7450 or atjcolston@ocsd.com.
Our Mission: To protect public health and the environment by
providing effective wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling.
AM,
r
9 2
E
THE NJP
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
jarmstrong@ocsd.com.
mes E. Colston
Director of Environmental Services
JA:ja:bg
NA880\Groups\0MP\CURlnlon`vNTnaal Reports\2016-17 Annual Repon\01-Cover and Front Maner\Cover Letters\Letter
to RWQCB 2018x=
Enclosure
c: Alexis Strauss, U.S. EPA, Region IX
Serving, Orange County Sanitation District
Anaheim 10844 Ellis Avenue,Fountain Valley,CA 92708
714.962.2411 • www.00sd.com
Brea
Buena Park
Cypress March 1, 2018
Fountain Valley
Fullerton
Certification Statement
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine The following certification satisfies Attachment E of the Orange County Sanitation
District's Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order No. R8-2012-0035, NPDES No.
to Habra CA0110604, for the submittal of the attached OCSD Annual Report 2018—Marine
La Palma Monitoring.
Los Alamitos
Newport Beach 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
Orange to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the
Placentia information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
Santa Ana 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
Seal Beach submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment
for known violations.
Stanton
Tustin
Villa Park
County of Orange
Costa Mesa
Sanitary District ames E. Colston Date
Director of Environmental Services
Midway City
Sanitary District
Irvine Ranch
Water District
Yorba Linda
Water District
�o
Our Mission: To protect public health and the environment by
providing effective wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling.
This page intentionally left blank.
CONTENTS
Contents i
List of tables v
List of Figures viii
Acknowledgments x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
WATER QUALITY ES-1
SEDIMENT QUALITY ES-1
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ES-1
Infaunal Invertebrate Communities ES-1
Demersal Fishes and Macroinvertebrates ES-2
Contaminants in Fish Tissue ES-2
Fish Health ES-2
CONCLUSION ES-2
CHAPTER 1 The Ocean Monitoring Program 1-1
INTRODUCTION 1-1
DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT'S OPERATIONS 1-1
REGULATORY SETTING FOR THE OCEAN MONITORING PROGRAM 1-4
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1-5
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) 2-2
Acidity (pH) 2-3
Nutrients (Ammonium) 2-3
Organics in the Water Column 2-4
Radioactivity 2-4
Overall Results 2-4
Contents
SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY 2.5
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 2.6
Infaunal Communities 2.6
Epibenthic Macroinvertebrate Communities 2.6
Fish Communities 2-10
FISH BIOACCUMULATION AND HEALTH 2-11
Demersal Fish Tissue Chemistry 2-11
Sport Fish Muscle Chemistry 2-12
Fish Health 2-16
Liver Histopathology 2-16
CONCLUSIONS 2-16
REFERENCES 2-23
CHAPTER 3 Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring 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'13 Regional Monitoring 3.3
Central Region Kelp Survey Consortium 3.4
Ocean Acidification Mooring 3.5
SPECIAL STUDIES 3.5
California Ocean Plan Compliance Determination Method Comparison 3.5
Fish Tracking Study 3.8
REFERENCES 3-10
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-6
Field Methods A-6
Laboratory Methods A-7
Data Analyses A-8
Contents
BENTHIC INFAUNA MONITORING A-S
Field Methods A-S
Laboratory Methods A-9
Data Analyses A-9
TRAWL COMMUNITIES MONITORING A-10
Field Methods A-10
Laboratory Methods A-11
Data Analyses A-11
FISH TISSUE CONTAMINANTS MONITORING A-12
Field Methods A-12
Laboratory Methods A-12
Data Analyses A-13
FISH HEALTH MONITORING A-13
Field Methods A-13
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
Introduction C-1
Analytical Method -Ammonium C-2
QA/QC -Ammonium C-2
Bacteria C-3
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY NARRATIVE C-5
Introduction C-5
Analytical Methods—PAHs, PCBs, and Organochlorine Pesticides C-5
Analytical Methods-Trace Metals C-10
Analytical Methods- Mercury C-10
Analytical Methods- Dissolved Sulfides C-10
Analytical Methods-Total Organic Carbon C-10
Analytical Methods- Grain Size C-10
Analytical Methods-Total Nitrogen C-10
Analytical Methods-Total Phosphorus C-11
FISH TISSUE CHEMISTRY NARRATIVE C-11
iii
Contents
Introduction C-11
Analytical Methods - Organochlorine Pesticides and PCB Congeners C-11
Analytical Methods— Lipid Content C-12
Analytical Methods - Mercury C-12
Analytical Methods -Arsenic and Selenium C-13
BENTHIC INFAUNA NARRATIVE C-13
Sorting and Taxonomy QA/QC C-13
OTTER TRAWL NARRATIVE C-14
REFERENCES C-16
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Listing of compliance criteria from NPDES ocean discharge permit(Order No.
R8-2012-0035,Permit#CA0110604)and compliance statusfor each criterion in
2016-17. N/A= Not Applicable. 2-2
Table 2-2 Summary of offshore water quality compliance testing results for dissolved
oxygen, pH, and transmissivily for 2016-17. 2-6
Table 2-3 Physical properties and organic contaminant concentrations of sediment
samples collected at each semi-annual and annual (`) station in Summer
2016 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) values and regional
measurements. ZID = Zone of Initial Dilution, NO = Not Detected, N/A= Not
Applicable. 2-8
Table 2-4 Metal concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected at each semi-
annual and annual (`) station in Summer 2016 compared to Effects Range-
Median (ERM) values and regional measurements. ZID = Zone of Initial
Dilution, NO = Not Detected, N/A= Not Applicable. 2-9
Table 2-5 Physical properties and organic contaminant concentrations of sediment
samplescollected ateachsemi-annual station in Winter2017comparedto Effects
Range-Median (ERM) values and regional measurements. ZID = Zone of
Initial Dilution, NO = Not Detected, NIA= Not Applicable. 2.11
Table 2-6 Metal concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected at each semi-
annual station in Winter 2017 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM)
values and regional measurements. ZID = Zone of Initial Dilution, NO = Not
Detected, N/A= Not Applicable. 2-12
Table 2-7 Whole-sediment Eohaustorius estuarius (amphipod) toxicity test results for
2016-17. The home sediment represents the control; N/A= Not Applicable. 2-12
Table 2-8 Community measure values for each semi-annual and annual (') station
sampled during the Summer 2016 infauna survey, including regional and
Districal historical values. ZID =Zone of Initial Dilution, N/A= Not Applicable,
NC = Not Calculated. 2-13
Table 2-9 Community measure values for each semi-annual station sampled during the
Winter 2017 infauna survey, including regional and Districal historical values.
ZID = Zone of Initial Dilution, NC = Not Calculated. 2-14
Table 2-10 Summary of epibenthic macroinvertebrate community measures for each
semi-annual and annual (') station sampled during the
Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys, including
regional and District historical values. MPA = Marine Protected
Area; NC = Not Calculated. 2-16
v
List of Tables
Table 2-11 Summaryofdemersalfishcommunitymeasuresforeachsemi-annualandannual
(*) station sampled during the Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys,
including regional and District historical values. MPA=Marine Protected Area;
NC = Not Calculated. 2-18
Table 2-12 Means and ranges of tissue contaminant concentrations in selected flatfishes
collected by trawling in July 2016 at Stations T1 (outfall)and T11 (non-outtall),
as well as District historical values. NO = Not Detected; NR = Not Reportable. 2-20
Table 2-13 Means and ranges of muscle tissue contaminant concentrations in selected
scorpaenid fishes collected by rig-fishing in September 2016 at Zones 1
(outfall) and 3 (non-outfall), as well as District historical data plus state and
federal tissue thresholds. NO = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable. 2-21
Table 3-1 Comparison of District and SCCWRP California Ocean Plan Compliance
Determinations for Oxygen, pH, and Transmissivity for Program Year
2016-2017. 3-7
Table 3-2 Number of fishes tagged at the outfall and reference area for the District's fish
tracking study. 3-9
Table A-1 Water quality sample collection and analysis methods by parameter during
2016-17. A-2
Table A-2 Sediment collection and analysis summary during 2016-17. * = Available
online at: www.epa.gov. A-6
Table A-3 Parameters measured in sediment samples during 2016-17. A-7
Table A-4 Benthic infauna taxonomic aliquot distribution for 2016-17. A-9
Table A-5 Fish tissue handling and analysis summary during 2016-17. " = Available
online at www.epa.gov; N/A= Not Applicable. A-12
Table A-6 Parameters measured in fish tissue samplesduring 2016-17.*=Analyzed only in
rig-fish specimens. A-13
Table B-1 Depth-averaged total coliform bacteria (MPN/100 mL) collected in offshore
waters and used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact
(REC-1) compliance criteria, July 2016 through June 2017. B-1
Table B-2 Depth-averaged fecal coliform bacteria (MPN/100 mL) collected in offshore
waters and used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact
(REC-1) compliance criteria, July 2016 through June 2017. B-2
Table B-3 Depth-averaged enterococci bacteria (MPN/100mL) collected in offshore
waters and used forcomparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact
(REC-1) compliance criteria and EPA Primary Recreation Criteria in Federal
Waters, July 2016 through June 2017. B-3
Table B-4 Summary of floatable material by station group observed during the 28-station
grid waterquality surveys,July 2016 through June 2017. Total number of station
visits = 336. B-4
vi
List of Tables
Table B-5 Summary of floatable material by station group observed during the REC-1
water quality surveys, July 2016 through June 2017. Total number of station
visits = 108. B-4
Table B-6 Summary of monthly Core COP water quality compliance parameters by
season and depth strata, July 2016 to June 2017. B-5
Table B-7 Species richness and abundance values of the major taxonomic groups
collected at each depth stratum and season during the 2016-17 infauna
survey. Values represent the mean and range (in parentheses). B-6
Table B-8 Abundance of epibenthic macroinvertebrates by species and station for the
Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys. B-7
Table B-9 Biomass (kg)of epibenthic macroinvertebrates by station and species for the
Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys. B-8
Table B-10 Abundance of demersal fishes by station and species for the Summer 2016
and Winter 2017 trawl surveys. B-9
Table B-11 Biomass (kg) of demersal fishes by station and species for the Summer 2016
and Winter 2017 trawl surveys. B-10
Table B-12 Summary statistics of legacy District Core nearshore stations for total
ooliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci bacteria (CFU/100 mL) by station
and season during 2016-17. B-11
Table B-13 Summary statistics of OCHCA nearshore stations for total coliforms, fecal
coliforms, and enterococci bacteria (CFU/100 mL) by station and season
during 2016-17. B-13
Table C-1 Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and Reporting Limits (RLs),
July 2016—June 2017. C-2
Table C-2 Water quality QA/QC summary, July 2016-June 2017. C-4
Table C-3 Acceptance criteria for standard reference materials for July 2016-June 2017.
* = Parameter with non-certified value(s). C-5
Table C-4 Sediment QA/QC summary, July 2016-June 2017. N/A= Not Applicable. C-7
Table C-5 Fish tissue QA/QC summary, July 2016-June 2017. C-12
Table C-6 Percent error rates calculated for July 2016 QA samples. C-14
Table C-7 Trawl track distance, vessel speed, bottom depth, and distance from nominal
station position for sampling conducted in Summer 2016 and Winter 2017.
Trawl QA variables that did not meet QA criteria are denoted by an asterisk(*). C-15
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Regional setting and sampling area for the District's Ocean Monitoring Program. 1-2
Figure 1-2 2016-17 monthly beach attendance and air temperature(A)and annual beach
attendance (B)for selected Orange County beaches. 1-3
Figure 1-3 The District's annual averagefinal effluent,recycle,andcombined(fiinal effluent
plus recycle) flows and annual population for Orange County, California,
1975-2017 (CDF 2017). 1-4
Figure 1-4 Newport Harbor annual rainfall, 1976-2017. Red line represents the historical
annual mean value from 1976-2017 (OCPW 2017). 1-7
Figure 1-5 Santa Ana River annual flow, 1976-2017. Red line represents the historical
annual mean value from 1976-2017 (USGS 2017). 1-7
Figure 2-1 Offshore water quality monitoring stations for 2016-17. 2-3
Figure 2-2 Benthic(sediment geochemistry and infauna) monitoring stations for 2016-17. 2-4
Figure 2-3 Trawl monitoring stations, as well as rig-fishing locations, for 2016-17. 2-5
Figure 2-4 Summary of mean percent compliance fordissolved oxygen(DO),pH,and light
transmissivity(%T)for all compliance stations compared to reference stations,
1985-2017. 2-7
Figure 2-5 Dendrogram (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS)
plot (bottom panel) of the infauna collected at within- and non-ZID stations
along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2016 (S) and Winter
2017(W)benthic surveys. Stations connected by red lines in the dendrogram
are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The 5 main
clusters formed at a 48.5%similarity on the dendrogram are superimposed on
the nMDS plot. 2-15
Figure 2-6 Dendrogram(top panel)and non-metric multidimensional scaling(nMDS)plot
(bottom panel) of the epibenthic macroinvertebrates collected at outfall and
non-outfall stations along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer
2016 (S) and Winter 2017 (W)trawl surveys. Stations connected by red lines
in the dendrogram are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF
test. The 2 main clusters formed at a 50% similarity on the dendrogram is
superimposed on the nMDS plot. 2-17
Figure 2-7 Dendrogram(top panel)and non-metric multidimensional scaling(nMDS)plot
(bottom panel)of the demersal fishes collected at outfall and non-outfall stations
along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2016 (S) and Winter
2017 (W) trawl surveys. Stations connected by red lines in the dendrogram
are not significantly differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The main
cluster formed at a 55% similarity on the dendrogram is superimposed on the
nMDS plot. 2-19
viii
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Offshore and nearshore (surfzone) water quality monitoring stations for
2016-17. 3-3
Figure 3-2 Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program monitoring stations
for 2016-17. 3-4
Figure 3-3 Acoustic receiver locations for the District's fish tracking study. 3-9
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 2016-17 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...............................................................................Senior Scientist
Dr. Danny Tang...............................................................................................Scientist
Michael Mengel......................................................Principal Environmental Specialist
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
SarahZito............................................................................................................Intern
Laboratory Team:
Miriam Angold, Jim Campbell, Dr. Sam Choi, Kim Christensen, Arturo Diaz, Joel Finch,
Elaine Galvez, Thang Mai, Joe Manzella, Ryan McMullin, Dawn Myers, Canh Nguyen,
Thomas Nguyen, Paulo Pavia, Vanh Phonsiri,Anthony Pimentel, Luis Ruiz, Dr.Yu-Li Tsai,
Michael Von Winkelmann, Norman Whiteman, and Brandon Yokoyama.
IT and LIMS Data Support:
Matthew Garchow.
Contributing Authors:
Kelvin Barwick, Dr. Sam Choi, Benjamin Ferraro, Robert Gamber, Thang Mai, Joe
Manzella, Michael Mengel, Dawn Myers, Hai Nguyen, Vanh 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 (District) conducts extensive water quality, sediment quality,
and fish and invertebrate community monitoring to evaluate potential environmental and public health
risks from its combined discharge of secondary-treated wastewater (effluent) and water reclamation
Flows (brine) into the coastal waters off Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, California. The
discharge is released 7 km offshore, in 60 m of water. The data collected are used to determine
compliance with receiving water conditions as specified in the District's National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit (R8-2012-0035, CA0110604),jointly issued in 2012 by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Region 8. This report focuses on monitoring results and conclusions from July 2016
through June 2017.
WATER QUALITY
The public health risks and measured environmental effects to the receiving water continue to
be small. Consistent with previous years, minor changes in measured water quality parameters
related to the discharge of 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 (<2 km) during some surveys. None of these changes were determined to be
environmentally significant; 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 when stratification was weakest. All
state and federal offshore bacterial standards were met during all surveys. In summary, the 2016-17
discharge of 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. Sediment parameter values were
comparable between within-ZID (zone of initial dilution) and non-ZID station groups and were below
levels of biological concern (ERM values) at all stations. Whole sediment toxicity tests showed
no measurable toxicity. These results, coupled with the presence of healthy 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 Invertebrate Communities
As with previous years, the abundance and number of species of infauna were markedly lower at
stations deeper than 120 m. Infaunal communities were similar at within-ZID and non-ZID stations
based on multivariate analyses. Furthermore, 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 Macroinvertebrates
Community measure values of the epibenthic macroinvertebrates (EMls) and 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 outfall area supports normal fish and EMI populations.
Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Concentrations of mercury and other chlorinated pesticides were similar in the muscle tissue of
Hornyhead Turbot and English Sole captured by otter trawl at ouffall and non-outfall stations. No
spatial comparison of liver chemistry data could be made for trawl-caught Hornyhead Turbot and
English Sole due to instrument failure during analysis of non-outfall samples. Concentrations of
mercury,arsenic,selenium, DDT, PCB,and other chlorinated pesticides in muscle tissue of rockfishes
caught by hook-and-line at outfall and non-outfall locations were below federal and state human
consumption guidelines. These results demonstrate that demersal fishes residing near the ouffall
are not more prone to bioaccumulation and also suggest there is little risk from consuming fish from
the monitored areas.
Fish Health
The color and odor of fishes appeared normal. The lack of tumors,fin erosion,and skin lesions showed
that fishes in the monitoring area were healthy. External parasites and other external abnormalities
occurred in less than 1% of the fishes collected, which is comparable to southern California Bight
background levels. These results are consistent with previous years and indicate that the outfall is
not an epicenter of disease.
CONCLUSION
In summary, California Ocean Plan criteria for water quality were met within the monitoring area.
State and federal bacterial standards were also met at offshore stations. Sediment quality was not
degraded by chemical contaminants or by physical changes from the discharge of effluent. This was
supported by (1) the absence of sediment toxicity in controlled laboratory tests, (2) the presence of
normal infaunal, fish, and EMI communities throughout the monitoring area, and (3)no exceedances
in federal and state fish consumption guidelines in rockfish tissue samples. Altogether, these results
indicate that the marine environment and human health were protected.
ES-2
CHAPTER 1
The Ocean Monitoring Program
INTRODUCTION
The Orange County Sanitation District (District)operates 2 wastewater treatment facilities located in
Fountain Valley(Plant 1)and Huntington Beach (Plant 2), California. The District discharges treated
wastewater to the Pacific Ocean through a 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(CWA),the California Ocean Plan (COP), 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, NPDES Permit
No. CA0110604)on June 15, 2012.
Southern California's Mediterranean climate and convenient beach access results in high,year-round
public use of beaches. For example, although the highest visitation occurs during the summer,
beach usage during the typically cooler and rainier months can exceed 2 million visitors per month
(Figure 1-2A; City of Huntington Beach 2017, City of Newport Beach 2017, CDPR 2017). 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). In 2012, Orange Couny's coastal economy accounted 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 2016-17, annual beach attendance for Boise Chica State Beach, Huntington Beach City Beach,
Huntington Beach State Beach, Newport Beach City Beach, and Crystal Cove State Beach was over
27 million (Figure 1-26; City of Huntington Beach 2017, City of Newport Beach 2017, CDPR 2017).
Monthly visitations ranged from 985,975 in December 2016 to 5,745,894 in July 2016 (Figure 1-2A)
with monthly visitation patterns above historical averages for most of the year.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT'S OPERATIONS
The District'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.
Together, the District'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 (effluent) is discharged
through a 120-in(305-cm)diameter ocean outfall,which extends 4.4 miles(7.1 km)from the Huntington
1-1
The Ocean Monitoring Program
District service Area
Poory s HUraingtnn d
.•ii+w�: � � srvw "�"� x�gon
n n
District
!"a".
District'a Ming Area -
auonP
ae-
A
NOUH
OLSD March2018 x. Mill
Figure 1-1 Regional setting and sampling area for the District's Ocean Monitoring Program.
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 treated effluent at an approximate depth of 197 ft(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 2017). 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.
There are currently 21 active diversions including stormwater pump stations, the Santa Ana River,
several creeks, and 3 flood control channels. The diversions are owned and operated by the City
of Huntington Beach (11), the Public Works Department of Orange County (3), the Irvine Ranch
Water District (3), the City of Newport Beach (3), and PH Finance, LLC (1). For 2016-17, the
diverted monthly average daily discharge flows ranged from 0.18-1.58 million gallons per day(MGD)
(0.7-6.Ox106 L/day)with an average daily discharge of 1.25 MGD (4.7x106 L/day).
The District has a long history of providing treated effluent to the Orange County Water District for
water reclamation starting with Water Factory 21 in the late 1970s. Since July of 1986, 3-10 MGD
(1.1-3.8x 107 Uday)of the final effluent has been provided to the Orange County Water District(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
1-2
The Ocean Monitoring Program
A) 6,000,000
Rwraps NmtM1lyAlrT Mp m
5,000,000 c15
m 4,000,000 '• •• E m
C
� • F — mva.wa, — reww
3,000,000
Q . ♦. � �lea��°g"�ode ; ; �.r° gs°'�" >r's ,e'♦
2,000,000
m
1,000,000 '•
0
s6 rO �O VIP
ryO r1O ytO y r1O r1O r(O ryo ryO ryO ryO r1O
C
Month
B) 30,000,000
25,000,000
d
m 20,000,000
a
c
15,000,000
Q
U
10,000,000
m
5,000,000
0
do ,yo ,yo ,yo 10 ,yo ,yo ,you qo ryo do ,yo qo 10 ,yo ,yo
Year (Jun-Jul)
■ Hur%ngton Beach Ciry Beach ■ Newport Beach City Beach ■ Bolsa Chita Stata Beach
■ Hurrongton Beach State Beach . Crystal Cove State Beach Long-tens Averzgelnange
(July 2001�une 2016)
Figure 1-2 2016-17 monthly beach attendance and air temperature (A) and annual beach
attendance (B)for selected Orange County beaches.
1-3
The Ocean Monitoring Program
manages. In 2007-08, the District began diverting additional flows to OCWD for the Groundwater
Replenishment System (GWRS) totaling 35 MGD (1.3x101 L/day). Over time, the average GAP
and GWRS diversions increased to 68 MGD (2.6x108 L/day) in 2008-09, 84 MGD (3.2x10e L/day) in
2013-14, and 120 MGD (4.6x101 L/day) in 2016-17 (Figure 1-3).
300.0 4.0
250.0 3.5 0
3.0 g
0 200.0
U 2.5 of
150.0 2.0 8
O 100.0 1.5
LL -
0
0.0 0.0
^��,(^9^��e�s90ry�9�^��^900�9�^99ry»s�^ a^�epry pryoorypry��'pry�epryo^�^ryo^ry ryo^a.ryo�^�
Year o
-41— Final Effluent Recycle —t Combined + Orange County Population
Figure 1-3 The District's annual average final effluent, recycle, and combined (final effluent
plus recycle) flows and annual population for Orange County, California, 1975-2017
(CDF 2017).
During 2016-17,the 2 wastewater treatment plants received and processed influent volumes averaging
188 MGD (7.1 x10e L/day). Treatment plant processes achieved a 98%reduction in suspended solids
concentration. After diversions to the GAP and GWRS and the return of OCWD's reject flows (e.g.,
brines), the District discharged an average of 101.1 MGD (3.7x108 L/day) of treated wastewater to
the ocean (Figure 1-3). Peak flow [134.9 MGD (5.1 x10e L/day)] occurred in February of 2017, which
was well below the historical peak flow of 550 MGD (2.1 x10e L/day)that occurred during an extreme
rainfall event in the winter of 1996. Seasonal and interannual differences in flow volumes are due
to the variability in the amount of local water conservation efforts, rainfall, infiltration of the treatment
system by runoff, and reclamation.
Prior to 1990, the annual wastewater discharge volumes gradually increased with population growth
within the District's service area (Figure 1-3; CDF 2017). However, wastewater flows decreased in
1991-92 due to drought conditions and water conservation measures. Since then combined effluent
and water reclamation flows have remained relatively stable despite continued population growth.
Since 2007, average discharge flows have declined dramatically due to the implementation of the
GWRS.
REGULATORY SETTING FOR THE OCEAN MONITORING PROGRAM
The District's 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 the District's Ocean Monitoring Program (OMP)
based on 3 inter-related components: Core monitoring, Strategic Process Studies (SPS), and
Regional monitoring. In addition, the District conducts special studies not required under the existing
NPDES permit. Information obtained from each of these program components is used to further the
1-4
The Ocean Monitoring Program
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 health, which include fish tissue contaminant
concentrations.
The District conducts SIPS to provide information about relevant coastal and ecotoxicological
processes that are not addressed by Core monitoring. These studies have included evaluating the
physical and chemical processes that affect the fate and transport of the discharged wastewater,
tracking wastewater particles, contributing to the development of ocean circulation models, and
studying the effects of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) on fish.
Since 1994, the District has participated in 5 regional monitoring studies of environmental conditions
within the Southern California Bight (SCB): 1994 Southern California Bight Pilot Project (SCBPP),
Bight'98, Bight'03, Bight'08, and Bight'13. The District has played an integral role in these regional
projects by carrying out program design, sampling, quality assurance, sample analysis, data
analysis, and report writing. 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, data, and
reports can be found at the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project's(SCCWRP)website
(http://sccwrp.org). In 1997, the District began participation in the Southern California Bight Regional
Water Quality Program (previously known as Central Bight Water Quality Program), a collaborative
regional water quality sampling effort along with the City of Oxnard, the City of Los Angeles, the
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles, and the City of San Diego.
Other collaborative projects organized by SCCWRP include "Characteristics of Effluents from Large
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities" and "Comparison of Mass Emissions among Sources in
the Southern California Bight." Both of these projects involved analyses of historical data from large
publicly owned treatment works(POTWs), including the District. Finally,the District has been working
with the Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System (SCCOOS; http://www.sccoos.org)
to provide the public with historical and ongoing water quality data and have upgraded sensors on
SCCOOS's Newport Pier Automated Shore Station (http://www.sccoos.org/data/autoss/). The District
also partnered with SCCWRP, other local POTWs, and the OC Health Care Agency in conducting
studies not mandated by the NPDES permit. Recent examples include continuing research on source
tracking of bacterial contamination and evaluating rapid tests for fecal indicator bacteria.
The District's OMP has contributed substantially to the understanding of water quality and
environmental conditions along the beaches and in the area adjacent to the submarine outfall. This
monitoring program has generated a vast amount of data that provides a broad understanding of both
natural and anthropogenic processes that affect coastal oceanography and marine biology.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The District'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). The
shelf is composed primarily of soft sediments (sands with silts and clays)and inhabited by biological
communities typical of these environments. The seafloor increases in depth gradually from the
shoreline to a depth of approximately 262 ft (80 m), after which the depth increases rapidly as it
slopes down to the open basin. The outfall diffuser lies at about 60 m depth on the shelf between
1-5
The Ocean Monitoring Program
the Newport and San Gabriel submarine canyons, located southeast and northwest, respectively.
The area southeast of the shelf is characterized by a much narrower shelf and deeper water offshore
(Figure 1-1).
The 120-inch 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 the District's 78-inch outfall, approximately
1.1.106 ft' (102,193 m2) of seafloor was converted from a flat, sandy habitat into a raised,
hard-bottom substrate.
Conditions within the District's monitoring area are affected by large regional-scale current patterns
that influence the water characteristics and the direction of water flow along the Orange County
coastline. 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 overtime periods of days to weeks (SAIC 2011).
Other natural oceanographic processes, such as upwelling and eddies, also influence the
characteristics of receiving waters on the San Pedro Shelf. Tidal flows, currents, and internal waves
mix and transport the District'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.
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 (Brownlie and Taylor 1981, Warrick and Millikan 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, 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 et al. 2007), although recent studies indicate that the
spatial impact of these effects may be limited (Ahn at al. 2005, Reifel at 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. In 2016-17, total rainfall for
Newport Harbor was 15.8 inches (401 mm) (Orange County, CA Department of Public Works 2016),
well above the long-term historical mean of 10.9 inches (277 mm) (Figure 1-4). Annual Santa Ana
River flows were more than 1.5 times greater than the historical Santa Ana River(Figure 1-5), which
had significant negative impacts on local beach bacteria levels (Heal the Bay 2017).
Nearshore coastal waters of the SCB 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 SCB (Schafer and Gossett 1988, SCCWRP 1992, Schiff and Tiefenthaler
2001).
A goal of the District's OMP is to provide an understanding of the effects of its wastewater discharge
on beneficial uses of the ocean. However, distinguishing the effects of the District's discharge from
1-6
The Ocean Monitoring Program
30
25
20
U
C
15
10
5
0
b b A A
,A .A° � �A °b °A A�0 cj'. °A °b uj cj9 °� °A ° ° °9 �^ ,vA ^ ^
�° � a°,ti �°' r9b r�° � <fl� �fl° �`� <fl° 8° cD� cS� 8� c9°• S� °•,�' °^°` S`�
n
Year
Figure 1--4 Newport Harbor annual rainfall, 1976-2017. Red line represents the historical annual
mean value from 1976-2017 (OCPW 2017).
1,000,000
100,000
0
cv 10,000
s 1,000
100
LL
10
1
p" PA pb � 0 O" CP yb 4 9 N 0 ^b
e le 0 O ry d cs be " ¢ ` en gcs 4' ' ry ryes le le
$^, le ry°^cr
Figure 1-5 Santa Ana River annual flow, 1976-2017. Red line represents the historical annual
mean value from 1976-2017 (USGS 2017).
those of natural and other human influences is difficult, especially as the "signal" (impact) from the
outfall has been greatly reduced since the 1970s(Figure 1-3). The complexities of the environmental
setting and related difficulties in assigning a cause or source to a pollution event are the rationale for
the District's extensive monitoring program.
This report' presents OMP compliance determinations for data collected from July 2016 through
June 2017. Compliance determinations were made by comparing OMP findings to the criteria
specified in the District's NPDES permit. Any related special studies or regional monitoring efforts
are also documented.
' This and earlierannual reports are available digitally at the District's website:htlps'//www.ocsd.wm/about-us/trensparencyldocument-
oentrall-folder-385
1-7
The Ocean Monitoring Program
REFERENCES
Ahn, 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.
Brownie, 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). 2017. Demographic Reports. California County Population
Estimates and Components of Change by Year-July 1,2010-2016. Internet address:http://www.dof.
ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-2/index.html. (December 19, 2017).
CDPR (California State Department of Parks and Recreation) - Orange Coast District. 2017. State Beach
Attendance Statistics. Unpublished data.
City of Huntington Beach - Fire Department/Marine Safety Division. 2017. Huntington Beach Attendance
Statistics. Unpublished data.
City of Newport Beach-Fire Department/Marine Operations Division. 2017. Newport 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.
Heal the Bay. 2017. 2016-17 Annual Beach Report Card. Internet address:https://healthebay.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/07/BRC_2017_FINAL_LowRes_07.05.17.pdf. (December 19, 2017).
Hood, D. 1993. Ecosystem relationships. In: Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and
Interpretation (M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson - Eds.). University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA. p. 782-835.
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.
Lewis,R.D.and K.K. McKee. 1989. A Guide to theArtificial 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: https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoasttpdf/california-ocean-economy.pdf. (November 30,
2016).
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.
OCSD. 2004. Annual Report,July 2002-June 2003. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA.
OCSD. 2011. Annual Report, July 2009-June 2010. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA.
OCSD. 2017. 2016-17 Annual Report. Resource Protection Division, Pretreatment Program. October 30,
2017. Fountain Valley, CA.
OCPW (Orange County Department of Public Works). 2017. Historic Rainfall Data. Station 88 - Newport
Beach Harbor Master. Internet address: http://ocwatersheds.com/rainrecords/rainfalldata/historic_
data/rainfall_data. (December 19, 2017).
1-8
The Ocean Monitoring Program
Reifel, 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.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 2001. Strategic Processes Study#1: Plume Tracking—
Ocean Currents. Final Report Prepared forthe 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.
SAIC. 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. Anthropogenic 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.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2017. Santa Ana River: USGS, 5th Street Station, Santa Ana.
Internet address: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=11078000. (November 16, 2016).
Warrick, J.A. and J.D. Millikan. 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. Nezlin, 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.
Internet address:http://w .whoi.edu/mpcweb/research/NOPP/California/20region/20progress/20
report%20JanO3.pdf. (November 30, 2016).
1-9
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 2
Compliance Determinations
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides compliance results for the 2016-17 monitoring year for the Orange County
Sanitation District's (District) Ocean Monitoring Program (OMP). The program includes sample
collection, analysis, and data interpretation to evaluate potential impacts of 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 surfzone water quality to annual
assessments of fish health and tissue analyses.
WATER QUALITY
Offshore bacteria
The majority(83-93%; n=700)of fecal indicator bacteria(FIB)counts collected atthe 8 RECA stations
were below the method detection limit (MDL) of 10 MPN/100 mL leading to most depth-averaged
values being below detection (Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3). The highest density observed for any single
sample at a single depth for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci was 2143, 603, and
109 MPN/100 mL, respectively. Compliance for all 3 FIB were 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 oils and grease or floating particles of sewage origin at any offshore or
nearshore station in 2016-17 (Tables B-4 and B-5).Therefore, compliance was achieved.
2-1
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-1 Listing of compliance criteria from NPDES ocean discharge permit (Order No.
R8-2012-0035, Permit # CA0110604) and compliance status for each criterion in
2016-17. N/A= Not Applicable.
Criteria Criteria all
Becteriel Characteristics
V.Ato.For the Ocean Plan Water-Contact Standards,total coliform density shall not exceed a 3 Jay Geometric Mean of 1,000 per
10
O mL nor a single sample maximum of 10,000 par 100 mL.The total millions density shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 mL yes
when the single sample maximum fecal coliformtlotal cordorm ratio exceeds 0.1.
VA 1.a.For the Ocean Plan Water-Contact Standards,fecal mltlarm density shall not exceed a 30-day Geometric Mean of 200 par yes
100 mL nor a single sample maximum of 400 per 100 OhL.
V.A.1.a.For the Ocean Plan Water-Contact Standards,Entemcocous density shall not exceed is 3UEay Geometnc Mean of 35 Par yes
100 mL nor a single sample maximum of 104 per 100 mL.
V.A.1.b.For the USEPA Primary Recreation Criteria in Federal Waters,Entarommus density shall not exceed a 30 day Geometric
Mean(per 1DO MIT)of 35 nor a single sample maximum(per 1 W of of 104 for designated bathing beach.156 for moderate yes
use,276 far light use,and 501 for'mfrepuent use.
VA1.c.For the Ocean Plan Shellfish Harvesting Standards,the median total coliform deneityahall not exceed 70 per 10O ni and net NIA
more Nan 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 230 per 100 L.
Physteal Cherectenstics
VA2 e.Floating particulates and grease and cil shall not be visible. yes
VA2 b.The discharge of waste shall not cause aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the ocean surface. yea
V.A.2b.Natural light shall not be somebody dy reduced at any point outside the Initial dilution zone as a result of Me discharge d waste. yes
V.A2.d.The rate of dep nedion of inert solids and the characteristics of inert solids in ocean sediments shall not be changed such that
benMic communities are degraded. yes
Chemical Cbamcfedsfioa
V.A3.a.The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not d any time De depressed more than 10 Percent from that which occure nawrally,
as the result of the discharge of oxygen demanding waste materials. yes
V A.3 b.The pH shall not be changed at any time mare Man 0.2 units from that which occurs naturally yea
V A.3.c.The dissolved sulfide concentration of waters In and near sediments shall not be significantly increased above that present yes
under natural conditions.
VA.ad.The concentounn of substance,set earn In Chapter ll,Table Bof Me Oman Plan,in marine sediments shall not be Increased yaw
to levels which would degrade indigenous biota.
V.A3 e.The concentration of organic materiale in marine sediments shall not be increased to levels which would degrade marine life. yes
VA3.f. Nutrient materials shall not cause objectionable aquatic growths or degrade Indigenous blots, yes
VA3.g.The concentrations of substances,set forth in Chapter II,Table B of the Ocean Plan,shall not be exceeded in the area within Vey
Me waste field where initial dilution Is completed.
Biological Choordenati05
VA.4.a.Marine ccmmunities,including vertebrate Invertebrate,and plant specie,shall not the degraded yes
V.A4.b.The natural rests,odor,and odor of fish,shellfish,or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not be altered yes
VA4.c.The concentration of organic materials in fish,shellfish,or other marine resources used far human consumption shall not
bioaccumulate W levels that are harmful to human health. yes
V.A.S. Discharge of radioactive waste shall nd degrade marine life. yew
Ocean Discoloration and Transparency
The water clarity standards were met, on average, 100% and 95.6% of the time for Zone A and B
station groups, respectively(Table 2-2). Overall compliance was met 97.7% of the time for all stations
combined. Compliance was slightly lower than the previous year's value of 99.9% but was well within
the annual ranges since 1985 (Figure 24). All transmissivity 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 wastewater discharge relative to ocean discoloration at any offshore station.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
In 2016-17, compliance was met, on average, 99.0% and 95.5%of the time for Zone A and B station
groups, respectively (Table 2-2). Overall compliance was met 97.2% of the time for all stations
combined. This represents a decrease in compliance of 1.7% from the 2015-16 monitoring year
2-2
Compliance Determinations
,am
20m
""A
�7Rttiamatoh
Rent
Huntinptan
BeecM1
30nn _
\'I^, OTrealmeM
HBmch
00m � BeacM1
,
2<WD
xOH�
Eft ao=Q x,m.
80m
1Dft
xiw
vw�
zWnn 21..
Pw�
3o nn w�
N-
a rOC D March 20%
Figure 2-1 Offshore water quality monitoring stations for 2016-17.
(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 wastewater discharge.
Acidity(pH)
Compliance was met on average 99.6% and 97.4% of the time for Zone A and B station groups,
respectively (Table 2-2). Overall compliance was met 98.5% of the time for all stations combined,
which was a 2.2% decrease from the previous year's value, but within the ranges since 1985
(Figure 2-4). There were no environmentally significant effects to pH from the wastewater discharge
as the measured values (Table B-6) were within the range to which marine organisms are naturally
exposed.
Nutrients (Ammonium)
During 2016-17,90%of the samples(n=1654)were below the Reporting Limit(0.02 mg/L). Detectable
ammonium concentrations, including estimated values, ranged from 0.016 to 0.257mg/L, with over
96% of the detected values found below 10 m (Table B-6). Plume-related changes in ammonium
were not considered environmentally significant as maximum values were over 15 times less than the
chronic (4 mg/L) and more than 20 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
>
71
• • of • •zaa •]s •a
m ]> M a] ]a n • OTnaM•M PIaM2
61 •"B3
FEB—u1
]B'Wtltll -
1A'ONfi
Wm • F3
aaam jn • n • � •
�a B1• as
WOm • • �5 1B 1] 21 � �5
.1J
• • ;9
40
NONTH
5 3 a xm • Samlannual Slellona(29)
OOSD M—F-18 • Annual Slelioria l39)
a
Figure 2-2 Benthic (sediment geochemistry and infauna) monitoring stations for 2016-17.
Organics in the Water Column
Only 8 constituents from Table B of the COP have effluent limitations established in the District's
NPDES permit. During the period from July 2016 through June 2017, none of these constituents
exceeded the effluent limitations established in the permit.
Radioactivity
Pursuant to the District's NPDES Permit, the District measures the influent and the effluent for
radioactivity but not the receiving waters. The results of the influent and the effluent analyses during
2016-17 indicated that both state and federal standards were consistently met, and are published in
the District's Discharge Monitoring Reports. As fish and invertebrate communities are diverse and
healthy, compliance is considered to be met.
Overall Results
Overall, results from the District's 2016-17 water quality monitoring program detected minor changes
in measured water quality parameters related to the discharge of wastewater to the coastal ocean.
This is consistent with previously reported results (e.g., OCSD 2016). 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 nearliield stations, typically <2 km away
from the outfall, similar to what has been seen in the past. None of these changes were determined
2-4
Compliance Determinations
Osia,:
ELLY
Y
nerne Eon„ 17
'z°
u ♦a.
j �.,n
Zone 3 EuaEen
omm (Reference)
Zone 1
(Ouffall)
• Semiannual SD11n1 11)
A • Annual Statlons(8)
NOM L___J Ri fi N Zores
e-s Ina
ocso warm zme oc ou P.,
Figure 2-3 Trawl monitoring stations, as well as rig-fishing locations, for 2016-17.
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 et al. 2005, Hsieh et 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
when stratification was weakest. In summary, OMP staff concluded that the discharge, in 2016-17,
did not greatly affect the receiving water environment, and that beneficial uses were protected and
maintained.
SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY
Consistent with previous years (OCSD 2014, 2016, 2017), mean concentrations of organic
contaminants and metals in 2016-17 tended to increase with increasing depth, with the highest in
depositional areas (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). The mean concentrations of most sediment geochemistry
parameters at the within-ZID stratum were comparable with those of the non-ZID stratum and
the Bight'13 regional study (Tables 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6). The elevated mean EPAH value of
208.7 pg/kg for the within-ZID station group in Winter 2017 was skewed by the 751.3 pg/kg value at
Station 0. This is not cause for concern as the LPAH concentration at Station 0 was below levels of
biological concern (Effects Range-Median (ERM)values) (Long et al. 1995) and was within historical
ranges(OCSD 2013,2014,2015,2016). These results,coupled with the absence of sediment toxicity
2-5
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-2 Summary of offshore water quality compliance testing results for dissolved oxygen,
pH, and transmissivity for 2016-17.
Number& Numberad Percent Number smears
Parameter Observations Current Direction Out-of-Range Out-ofRange Out-oR Oubo1-
occurrences Occumancec Compliance Compliance
Zone Stations(Inshore Staf Group)
Predominant Diredicn 17 3.8 3 D]
Dlseolved Oxygen 453 Opposite Direction 38 7.9 6 1.3
Mean 26.5 5.9 4.5 1.0
Predominant Direction (i4 14.1 2 D.4
pH 463 Opposite Direction 55 12.1 2 'A
Mean 59.5 13.1 2 0A
Predominant Direction 217 47.9 0 0.0
%Trensmi mly 453 Opposite Direction 160 35.3 0 0.0
Mean 188.5 41.6 0 0.0
Zane B Stations(Oft..Stathen Group)
Predominant Direction 68 14.5 27 5.8
Dissolved Oxygen 468 Opposite Direction 31 66 15 3.2
Mean 49.5 10.6 21 4.5
Predominant Direction 24 5.1 12 2.6
pH 468 Opposite Direction 24 5.1 12 2.6
Mean 24 5.1 12 2.6
Predominant Direction 126 26.9 21 4.5
%Trensmissiviy 468 Opposite Direction 138 29.5 20 4.3
Mean 132 28.2 20.5 4A
Zone A and Z.8 Stations Combined
Predominant Direction 85 9.2 30 3.3
Dissolved Oxygen 921 Opposite Diredlon 67 7.3 21 2.3
Mean 76 8.3 26.5 2.8
Predominant Direction 88 9.6 14 1.5
pH 921 Opposite Direction 79 8.6 14 1,5
Mean 0.5 9.1 14 1.5
Predominant Direction 343 37.2 21 2.3
%TmnsmieaMy 921 Opposite Direction 2% 32.4 20 2.2
Mean 320.5 34.8 20.5 2.3
Pm ominant DlreGlm p valU lndkele meseuing shows 2ID<Y1004(Zme AI m2lOW406( ne BI as the Reranne stations. C lteDimMdnwluesmpmseMmwXauYng
IM1e=Nte relererge shoore When a pFWminaMounenl Masson(Lased on ammonlUm,badeds.CDOM.Winds,and eunenl mMerdeb)was not eNdent.Owed Wmpllanne
detemustan used the mean dPredomlnanl and Opposite Dlrecllma.
in amphipod survival tests (Table 2-7)and the presence of healthy fish and invertebrate communities
both near and away from the outfall (see below), suggest good sediment quality in the monitoring
area. Therefore, we conclude that compliance was met.
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Infaunal Communities
Atotal of 621 invertebrate taxa comprising 27,858 individuals were collected in the 2016-17 monitoring
year. As with previous years(OCSD 2013, 2014), 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
the Annelids (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 District historical ranges in both surveys(Tables 2-8 and 2-9).
The infaunal community at all 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 all within-ZID stations was similar
to that of 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 that the
biota was not degraded by the outfall discharge, and as such, compliance was met.
Epibenthic Macroinvertebrate Communities
Atotal of44 epibenthic macroinvertebrate(EMI)species,comprising 7,181 individuals and a total weight
of 38.8 kg,were collected from 20 trawls conducted in the 2016-17 monitoring period (Tables B-8 and
2-6
Compliance Determinations
m9
95
90
E
Bs I I
O 80
c 61lllll111111111111111111111iiI
109
95
90
E
2 85
a
i ao
100
95
W 90
85
80 d o n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nI n n n n n n n n n n
� III IIIIIIII IIIIIIII II IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII � � � 11111111111111111111
y,0b P,0�145 09 PPPp'9 P�"ry9�9' PVIIIP'�1,' Po'�u(pO�]Pp^O ry0 ,y$Ypbp ,$ y1�o'B.�p P""S111 s11 1 ?�y^
90 90 9�90 3' �P°'9°'9°'�58i'9°'9°'�4'T 'lPP'LPP M1�^l'4' T 'L' '4�`C �'lP 'LP M1P 'LP '4P�M1P M1P
Year
Figure 2-4 Summary of mean percent compliance for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and light
transmissivity (%T) for all compliance stations compared to reference stations,
1985-2017.
2-7
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-3 Physical properties and organic contaminant concentrations of sediment samples
collected at each semi-annual and annual (') station in Summer 2016 compared to
Effects Range-Median(ERM)values and regional measurements. ZID=Zone of Initial
Dilution, ND = Not Detected, N/A= Not Applicable.
Blntlon Depth(m) Medlan Fines TOC Sulfides TotalP Tonal EPAH EDDT West EPCB
Phi Ix) (%) (mglkg) (mgglg) (mgfkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mg/kg) (mgglg)
Middle Shelf Zone 1(31-50 meters)
7 41 3.83 36.3 0.41 3.26 1100 640 46A 3.W ND 0.17
8" 44 3.82 34.0 0.42 3.13 1001 5W 34.6 2.71 ND 0.43
21' 44 3Sa 33.2 0.38 1.19 1000 470 37.5 2." ND 0.33
22" 45 3.91 43.A 0.41 3.94 920 240 66.5 3.50 ND om
30" 46 3.54 25.2 0.37 1.36 930 4W 33A 2.02 ND ND
36' 45 3.W 41.5 0.39 1.72 880 420 56.6 IN ND 0.65
55' 40 2.83 43 0.19 ND 600 iW 9.8 ND ND ND
59' 40 3.39 18.8 0.27 1.23 950 280 19A NO ND ND
Mean 3.62 29.6 0.36 2.33 922 M4 38.0 2.12 0 0.28
Middle Shelf Zone 2,Within-ZID(51-90 mien)
0 W 3.32 99 046 2.10 1300 SW 1036 ND ND 8.25
4 56 3.37 12.1 0.36 344 810 3W 54.3 ND ND 0.59
76 53 3.44 19.5 033 405 690 5W 23A ND ND 1.09
ZB % 3.45 16.7 0.40 13.30 1000 540 38.5 2.17 ND DN
Wen 3.40 %5 0.39 5.72 950 02 55.0 0.54 0 2.72
Middle SheHZo 2.Non-ZID(51-W mefend
1 W 3.W 23.3 0.37 1.49 970 410 258A 1.78 ND 13.61
3 60 3.53 18.6 0.38 2.63 970 370 43.T ND ND 1.12
5 59 3.74 30.3 0.38 1.70 1000 410 77.1 ND ND 1.47
9 59 3.37 17.3 DU 2.96 040 3W 23.5 ND ND 0.15
10' 62 IN 38.3 0.38 NO 950 370 37.3 2.53 NO 0.46
12 58 3.36 15.7 0.34 4.72 860 3W 39.0 ND ND 0.15
13' W 3.73 31.9 0.41 NO 950 4W 24.8 3.15 ND 0.37
37' W 2.82 15.A 0.35 7.78 590 3W 27.7 ND ND ND
68 52 3.72 29.2 0.35 2.W 1000 440 45A ND ND 0.40
69 52 3.64 25.3 0.39 3.30 1000 5W 46.T 1.% ND 0.65
70 52 3.61 25.0 0.44 2.27 740 420 50.1 ND ND 1.05
71 52 3.41 15.9 0.35 4.68 950 370 63.0 NO ND 1.19
72 55 362 24A 0.39 2,59 1000 440 61.3 ND ND 1.24
73 55 3.48 17.6 0.49 6.13 1100 5W 116.5 ND ND 4.61
74 57 3.41 15.3 0.36 4.16 1000 440 53A ND ND 0.67
75 60 3.40 14.9 0.32 5.67 960 3W 65.2 ND ND 0.63
TT fie 3.32 14.2 0.33 6.51 840 390 15.9 ND ND 0.18
78 63 3.41 16.3 DU 4.35 1000 3W 29.9 ND NO 0.58
79 65 3.54 17.0 0.36 6.57 1100 370 1T.5 2.41 ND 1.03
80 65 3.W 25.6 0.38 7.26 1200 5W 67.5 1.80 ND 0.41
81 65 3.48 18.9 0.36 7.16 870 3W 34] In) ND 0.35
82 65 3.47 19.9 0.34 10.80 850 3W 29A 1.76 ND 0.17
04 54 3.42 15.2 0.37 6.15 870 370 39A 1.91 ND 3.10
85 51 3.41 13.8 0.42 9.13 1100 4W 72.8 2.65 ND 10.22
86 57 3.41 10.9 0.41 5.56 1100 440 34.1 2.2T ND 10.30
87 60 3.44 18.9 0.48 9.52 1000 370 20A ND ND 1.26
C W 3.43 21.3 0.38 2.78 1000 513() 213 IIA6 ND ND
C2' 56 5.37 84.4 1.31 29.10 1000 820 233.1 6.85 ND 6.77
CON 59 3.57 23.3 0.40 4.21 1000 4W 33.7 367 ND 0.33
Risen 3.% 22.7 0.41 6.90 962 429 68.1 1.80 0 2.16
Middle Shetl Zone 3(91-120 meters)
17' 91 IN 22.1 0.39 7.32 840 470 33] 2.43 ND 0.15
18" 91 3.65 23.2 0.34 4.21 790 330 104.2 2.20 ND 0.15
20' 100 3.97 48.1 0.47 1.88 910 470 61.1 3.95 ND 2.62
23" 100 3.37 18.5 0.37 6.29 800 400 45.8 2.46 ND ND
29' 100 4.24 61.6 0.53 3.92 910 540 68.2 4.05 ND 2.44
33' 100 3.40 26.2 0.47 11.30 910 440 44.2 2.49 ND ND
38" 100 399 492 0.56 A43 920 4W 67.4 2." ND 0.34
56' 100 3.76 33.5 0.47 2.61 950 420 15.3 2.76 ND 0.36
60" 100 4.15 56A Dw 327 930 570 68A 3.20 ND 242
83" 100 3.90 43.0 D" 5.17 810 420 34.3 ND ND 0.57
Meen 3.W 38.2 0.47 5.34 877 454 54.2 2.65 0 0.9
DNe.Shen(121-2W meters)
1 200 4.62 78.A 0.94 3.72 920 9W 104.2 9.114 ND 3.18
25' 200 4.W 82.0 1.23 7.55 Boo 1100 122.1 9.05 ND 4.73
27' 200 4.29 61.7 0.69 4.45 880 610 92A 5.W ND 1.14
39' 200 3.61 30.A 0.53 3.36 790 5W 28.0 IN ND ND
57' 200 5.52 89.1 2.02 35.20 800 15W 79.0 7.69 ND 6.73
61, 200 4.76 79.9 1.34 18.20 920 1100 124.9 1.94 ND 0.28
63' 200 4.58 76.5 1.11 5.32 970 940 85.0 3.57 ND 1.74
65' 200 4.61 68.8 0.97 8.59 1000 810 60.0 7.72 ND 0.56
C4" 187 481 7)4 1.01 2510 930 1100 3049 2.85 ND 1.11
Mean 4.61 71.6 1.14 12.45 890 967 111.1 5.58 0 2.16
Table 2-3 continues.
2-8
Compliance Determinations
Table 2.3 continued.
Sudden Depth Ire) Near Fines TOC Sulfides Tonal P Total N IBM EDDT rPest 2PCB
P8 1%1 (%) Imglagl (mNkg) Img9cgl ga l mail Im9ra91 Imglkel
Upper W.,re/Cil(201-500 meaem)
1 303 4.78 AA 131 8.06 780 1100 46.0 4A5 ND 1.19
41' 303 4.72 72.4 137 12.20 870 1200 64.2 2A0 3.10 ND
1 303 5.11 83.2 1.75 7.21 790 1400 44.0 2.72 ND ND
1 241 S.M 90.4 2.15 24.50 850 1700 1M.5 6.03 ND 6.27
1 300 5.91 92.8 265 16.70 760 2000 96.1 3433 ND 5.25
1 300 5.92 91.5 2,40 27.80 AM 2000 87.7 Visa ND 5.72
300 5.40 83.1 135 9.M 930 1200 61.2 231 ND 0.14
05- 296 5.01 62.2 1.55 21.30 700 1100 138.1 3.78 ND 0.55
Mean 6.31 81.6 1.81 15.91 834 1402 02.7 11A0 0.39 2.39
Sediment quality guidelines
ERM N/A NIA WA N/A NIA N/A 44,792.0 46,10 N/A 180.00
Regional summer values(area ureighted mean)
Bight 13 Middle Shelf N/A 48.0 0.70 NIA WA N/A 55.0 18.00 NIA 2.70
Bight 13 Outer Sher N/A 49.0 0.93 NIA WA N/A 92.0 79.00 NIA 4.50
Blght'13 Upper Slope N/A 75.0 190 NIA WA N/A 160.0 490.00 NIA 15.00
Table 2-4 Metal concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected at each semi-annual and
annual (e) station in Summer 2016 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM) values
and regional measurements. ZID = Zone of Initial Dilution, ND = Not Detected, N/A=
Not Applicable.
Station Dlepth Sb Ae Be Be CE Cr Cu Pb Ng NI Be Ag Zn
Middle SheXZ.1(31-50 meters)
T 41 0'1 3,39 429 0,25 023 20.80 10,10 6.54 0.02 10.2 0.28 0,14 40.2
8' 44 0.1 3.12 51.6 0.25 0.26 21.50 9.86 6.41 0.02 10.3 ass 0.13 39.3
21' 44 ND 2.88 40.0 0.21 0.17 18.90 8.52 6.53 0.02 8.6 0.38 0.10 34.1
22' 45 0.1 3.68 48.8 0.31 0.26 21.80 10.40 6.69 0.01 11.1 0.37 0.12 44.1
1 46 0.1 3.25 36.1 0.22 0.18 18.20 7.34 5.35 0.01 8.2 0.22 0.09 32.3
1 45 0.1 3.42 50.2 0.25 0.24 19.00 8.65 6.37 0.02 10.0 0.31 0.07 38.4
1 40 0.1 1.67 25.2 0.15 0.09 12.80 3.88 3.47 0.04 5.8 IDA 0.03 21.9
1 40 0.1 2.96 35.9 0.21 0.14 16.70 5.85 4.75 0.01 7.5 0.31 0.06 27.9
Mean 0.1 3.05 41.3 0.23 0.20 18.71 8.08 5.76 0.02 9.0 0.30 0.09 34.85
Middle Shoff Zone 2, within-ZID(51-90 meters)
0 56 ND 3.48 117.0 0.45 060 36.30 22.90 9.79 0.03 19.9 ND 0.31 65.6
4 56 ND 2.61 40.1 0.31 025 21.70 9.49 5.34 0.02 10.2 ND 0.15 41.6
76 58 ND 2.10 36.6 0.29 0.19 18.70 9.27 4.32 0.02 9.4 ND 0A1 41.7
ZB 56 ND 2.59 39.6 0.27 0.35 19.70 10.60 4.51 0.02 10.4 ND 0.14 41.6
Mean 0.0 2.70 58.3 0.33 0.35 24.10 13.06 5.99 0.02 12.5 0.00 0.18 47.6
Middle Shell Zone Z Non-ZID(51-90 meters)
1 56 ND 2.78 43.7 0.27 0.30 22.20 12.00 5.93 0.02 10.4 ND 0.20 43.1
3 60 ND 1.84 40.3 0.27 0.23 19.90 11.30 4.79 0.03 9.4 ND 0.16 41.9
5 59 ND 241 485 0,27 (p25 2 sl) 11,00 5.54 0.02 11s ND 0.17 429
9 59 ND 2.13 37.6 0.28 0.21 20.20 8.70 4.80 0.01 9.5 ND 0.12 36.1
10' 62 0A 2,96 438 0,28 026 21,60 1110 5.86 0.02 101 0.25 0.16 434
12 58 ND 2.09 36.0 0.27 0.22 18.90 8.09 4.96 0.01 9.4 ND 0.11 36.6
13' 59 ND 3.05 MA 0.26 0.22 23.30 950 6.35 0.02 10.1 0.34 0.12 40.4
31' 56 ND 2.64 33.1 0.24 0.24 17.00 663 5.14 0.01 8.3 0.27 0.06 35.8
fib 52 ND 2.96 42.4 0.27 0.24 20.80 10.50 5.80 0.02 10.2 ND 0.14 40.7
69 52 ND 2.89 42.2 0.25 0.25 2040 1030 5.66 0.02 10.1 ND 0.15 40.5
10 52 ND 3.19 45.3 0.26 0.28 22.00 10.90 6.02 0.01 10.9 ND 0.16 42.2
11 52 ND 2.61 38.0 0.25 0.31 19.60 8.97 4.86 0.03 9.8 ND 0.12 39.1
12 55 ND 2.87 41.5 0.26 0.28 21.60 11.20 5.42 0.03 10.2 ND 0.17 40.3
13 55 ND 2.42 36.5 0.27 0.48 21.10 12.60 5.70 0.02 9.7 ND 0.24 43.2
14 57 ND 2.87 41.6 0.28 0.31 21.20 955 5.02 0.02 9.8 ND 0.12 41.8
75 60 ND 2.70 41.3 0.27 0.29 19.70 894 4J7 0.02 10.0 ND 0.10 40.5
11 60 ND 2.21 34.1 0.26 0.22 20.10 8.43 4.86 0.01 9.7 ND 0.10 37.2
18 63 ND 2.04 31.1 0,30 021 20,60 981 4.46 0.01 99 ND 0.11 40.5
79 65 0.1 2.09 44.2 0.33 0.23 21.50 10.90 5.17 0.02 11s ND 0.14 45.8
80 65 ND 2.23 43.5 0.34 0.21 M.10 11.00 4.87 0.01 10.8 ND 0.11 43.5
81 65 ND 1.56 40.4 0.29 0.22 20.30 9.58 4.72 0.01 10.5 ND 0.12 39.5
82 65 0.2 1.65 41.6 0.30 0.22 21.50 9.47 5.00 0.01 11.1 ND 0.11 41.7
84 M ND 2.79 36.6 0.26 0.37 20.60 10.50 5.03 0.02 9.2 ND 0.15 40.6
85 57 ND 1.86 35.5 0.26 0.39 21.00 11.90 5.05 0.02 8.9 ND 0.21 41.2
86 51 ND 2.48 36.5 0.27 0.37 21.50 11.90 5.45 0.03 9.5 ND 0.29 42.2
87 60 ND 2.15 38.0 0.32 0.22 19.40 9.40 4.46 0.01 9.4 ND 0.12 39.9
C 56 ND 2.68 41.1 0.24 0.21 20.20 8.00 5.64 0.01 9.1 ND 0.10 36.4
C2' 56 0.2 5.06 117.0 0.47 0.41 32.00 21.10 13.2 0.03 19.8 0.52 0.12 85.0
CON 59 ND 2.58 56.2 0.26 0.22 22.10 10.00 5.60 001 10.9 ND 0.1) 41.3
Mean 02 2.64 43.3 028 0.27 21.16 10.45 5.52 0.02 10.3 0.34 0.14 42.2
Table 2-4 continues.
2-9
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-4 continued.
Stollen Depth Be As Be Be CE Cr Cu Ph Its el Be Ag Zn
Middle Shelf Zone 3(91-120 meters)
17" 91 ND 2.28 38.6 026 0.19 18.00 8.53 5.51 0.01 9.9 0.33 0,08 39.9
18' 91 ND 2.75 40.0 029 0.19 21.40 9.11 SAS 0.01 10.9 DM 0,09 43.2
20- 100 0.1 2.93 52.4 030 0.25 23.30 12.40 6.34 0.01 12.0 0.31 0.15 46.5
23" 100 ND 2.70 36.2 0.28 0.20 18.20 8.16 4.83 0.01 10.0 DM 0.06 37.3
29' 100 0.1 2.92 66.7 0.32 0.34 26.80 14.00 209 0.02 12.9 0.37 0,20 50.3
33" 100 ND 290 42.5 0.24 0.28 18.70 8.25 5A2 0.01 10.4 0.38 0,07 41.0
38" 100 ND 3.02 57.4 0.27 0.35 20.30 9.91 6.51 0.01 11.3 0.56 0,08 42.4
56 100 0.1 2.89 57.3 0.31 0.24 22.00 10.70 5.61 0.01 11.7 0.31 0.12 44.7
60" 100 0.1 2.91 65.3 0.30 0.33 27.10 13.70 7.31 0.03 13.1 0.42 0,18 48.7
83' 100 ND 3.01 47.0 0.31 0.21 21.90 10.00 5.60 0.01 11.6 0.28 0,10 46.0
Mean 0.1 2.83 50.3 0.29 0.26 21.77 10A6 5.94 0.01 11A DU 0.11 44.0
Outer Shelf(121-200 meters)
1 200 0.1 3.00 04.2 0.39 0.47 30.30 17.00 7.72 0.02 16.4 0.49 0.18 58.0
25' 200 ND 3.48 33.1 0.24 0.49 21.40 14.20 7.73 0.06 8.7 0.43 0.17 43.3
27" 200 ND 2.70 68.8 0.31 0.38 24.50 13.00 7.10 0.02 13.8 0.57 0,12 48.6
39- 200 0.1 3.01 48.6 0.34 0.30 25.00 10.80 5.W 0.01 13.5 0.32 0,08 47.7
57- 200 0.2 5.10 150.0 0.52 0.77 53.10 36.00 15.5 0.05 23.8 0.96 0.62 84.7
61" 200 0.2 3.0 118.0 0.45 0.65 38.20 25.80 10.4 0.04 19.9 0.60 0.41 70.4
63' 200 02 324 155.0 041 048 3470 19,50 9.16 0.02 17.1 0.59 0,24 600
65" 200 0.1 4.10 78.8 0.37 0.57 29.80 16.30 830 0A2 16.3 0.57 0,17 58.6
GI' 187 0.2 6.79 114.0 0.52 0.52 37.10 23.70 12.90 0.03 22.3 0.69 0,16 88.2
Mean 0.2 3.89 94.5 0.39 0.51 32.68 19.59 9A6 0.03 16.9 0.58 0.24 62.2
Upper Sbpe/Canyon(Xl1 meters)
40" 303 0.2 3.77 92.9 0.47 0.53 36.00 20.70 8.39 0.02 20.0 0.69 0.18 66.0
41' 303 ND 3.53 89.6 0.37 0.,f4 33.10 18.70 875 0.01 18.0 0.95 0,15 60.6
42" 303 0.2 4.12 115.0 O.46 0.55 41.80 24.50 10.90 0.0E 21.3 0.95 0,23 70.4
1. 241 0.3 6.51 202.0 0.62 1.18 60.10 51.90 18.90 0.06 28.1 0.67 1.06 97.4
58' 300 0.1 4.45 163.0 0.51 0.64 46.40 30.00 25.80 0.03 24.2 ND 0.40 76.7
62" 300 ND 5.90 165.0 0.53 0.95 54.90 38.60 17.60 0.04 25.3 1.55 0,56 85.5
64' 300 0.2 5.10 119.0 0.58 0.52 38.80 25.30 10A0 0.02 22.2 0.84 0,23 68.6
C5" 296 0.2 4.48 90.3 O44 063 3390 21,80 12.60 0.0E 19.8 0.70 0,21 67.1
Mean 0.2 4.73 1".6 0.50 0.68 43.12 29.04 16.18 0.03 220 0.91 0.38 74.0
Sediment qualify guitlelinea
ERM WA 70.00 NIA NIA 9.60 370.00 270.00 218.00 0.70 51.6 NIA 3.70 410.0
Regronal summer values M.neighted mean)
Bight 13 Middle Shelf 0.9 2.70 130.0 021 0.68 30.00 7.90 7.00 0.05 15A 0.10 0,29 48.0
BIghfl30uler Shelf 1.1 5.30 INN 0.36 0.82 37.00 11.00 10.00 0.07 18.0 0.21 0.39 67.0
BigM1f13 Upper Slope 1.4 5.40 160.0 0.27 1.50 57.00 21.00 12.00 0.08 30.0 0.89 0.24 88.0
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=4,198; 59% of total)
and biomass(16.4 kg;42%of total), respectively. Among the strata sampled in summer,the average
abundance of EMIs was highest at Middle Shelf Zone 1 due to large catches (>1,600) of O. luetkenii
at Stations T6 and T24(Tables 2-10 and B-8). By contrast,the average biomass of EMIs was highest
at the Outer Shelf due to large catches of S. fragilis at Stations T10 and T25, as well as Sicyonia
ingentis(shrimp) at Station T19(Tables 2-10, B-8, and B-9). Within the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum,
the average abundance and biomass values were higher at non-outfall than outfall stations in both
summer and winter because of the greater numbers of O. luetkenii, Sicyonia penicillata(shrimp), and
Hamatoscalpellum californicum (barnacle) at Station T11. Despite these disparities, the overall EMI
community composition at the outfall stations were similar to those at other non-outfall stations in both
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 District 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 43 fish taxa, comprising 5,844 individuals and a total weight of 176.4 kg,were collected from
the monitoring area during the 2016-17 trawling effort (Tables B-10 and B-11). The mean species
richness, abundance, biomass, Shannon-Wiener Diversity (K), and Swartz's 75% Dominance
2-10
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-5 Physical properties and organic contaminant concentrations of sediment samples
collected at each semi-annual station in Winter 2017 compared to Effects
Range-Median (ERM) values and regional measurements. ZID = Zone of Initial
Dilution, ND = Not Detected, N/A= Not Applicable.
Station Depth Median Flnec TOC 8ul0tiea TotalP Total WAN £DDT £Peat £PCB
1m1 Phi Ix/ M (m91x9) (mg/k9l Imslkel (mglkg) (mglk9) (mplkg) (mg&g)
MWtlle SheRZone 2,Mhan-ZID(51-90 meters)
0 W 3.36 12.1 0.43 2.31 1300 510 751.3 ND NO 7.76
4 56 3.39 15.1 0.W 3.15 870 3W 23.9 ND ND 0.19
76 58 3.43 16.9 0.34 3.73 900 360 24.3 ND ND 1.85
2 % 3.41 15.7 0.33 5.91 820 340 35.3 ND ND 0.62
Mean 3,40 15.0 0.36 3.78 972 398 208.7 0.00 0 2.6
MWtlle Shel/Z.Z Pbn-ZID(51-W melons)
1 58 3.60 23.5 0.34 1.85 961 420 38.4 2.04 NO 4.45
3 60 3.53 17.7 0.W 1.58 950 420 33.1 1.89 NO 3.68
5 59 3.73 28.5 0.33 3.02 1000 3W 39.3 ND ND W.99
9 59 3.37
16.1 0.33 2.20 760 3W 23.8 ND ND ND
12 W 3.32 17.2 0.32 2.61 760 3W 22.2 ND ND NO
68 52 3.71 29.4 0.37 1.16 1000 4 38.9 2.19 NO 1.95
fig 52 3.fi1 25.8 0.60 2.6] 790 390W 36.9 ND ND 1.13
70 52 3.62 26.3 0.38 5.30 830 3W W.0 1.89 ND 0.60
71 52 3.44 16.8 0.32 3.38 870 3W 19.9 4.11 NO 0.17
72 55 3.60 21.2 0.32 3.53 1100 4W 81.2 1.86 ND 7.83
73 55 3.39 13.1 0,42 7,80 1000 3% 42.2 2.37 ND 1126
74 57 3.43 16.9 0.36 3.81 780 340 45.6 ND ND 0.20
75 W 3.40 14.6 0.33 2.68 1000 3W 36.6 ND ND 0.21
77 W 3.40 15.9 0.31 4.08 890 3W 25.0 ND NO 1.37
78 63 3.42 16.0 0.31 3.70 930 370 23.0 ND NO 0.73
79 65 3.55 15.6 0.35 4.36 810 3W 210.8 ND ND 0.42
80 65 3.68 29.3 0.32 3.41 860 270 32.6 ND ND 0.37
81 65 3.49 18.5 0.31 3.41 880 440 27.8 ND ND 10.04
82 65 3.41 15.6 0.33 3.53 840 410 27.6 ND ND ND
84 54 3.43 16.0 0.38 9.44 No 4W 88.1 2.11 ND 7.00
85 57 3.42 13.6 0.35 7.03 No 3W NA ND ND 9.W
86 57 3.47 17.0 0.41 8.32 900 610 61.4 1.78 1.60 5.77
87 W 3.45 17.3 0.31 3.60 840 3W 35.3 ND ND 2.41
C W 3.42 20.0 0.29 3.97 920 4W 51.8 ND ND ND
CON 59 3.54 22.4 0.36 6.51 900 2W 43.6 2.32 ND ND
Mean 3.50 19.4 0.34 4.15 898 391 48.8 0.90 0.06 5.04
Sediment quality guidelines
ERM N/A WA NIA N/A NIA N/A 447920 46.10 NIA 1W.00
Regronal summer values(area ne,htad mean)
BigW13 Middle Shelf NIA 48.0 0.70 NIA N/A WA 55.0 18.00 WA 2.70
Index (SDI) values of demersal fishes were comparable between outfall and non-outfall stations in
both surveys, with values falling within regional and/or District 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
(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.
FISH BIOACCUMULATION AND HEALTH
Demersal Fish Tissue Chemistry
Muscle tissue contaminant concentrations in Homyhead Turbot and English Sole were generally
similar between outfall and non-outfall stations (Table 2-12). No spatial comparison of liver chemistry
data could be made for this survey due to instrument failure during non-outfall sample analysis (see
Appendix C). All mean contaminant concentration values for muscle and liver tissue were within
historical ranges within the monitoring area (Table 2-12).
2-11
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-6 Metal concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected at each semi-annual
station in Winter 2017 compared to Effects Range-Median (ERM)values and regional
measurements. ZID=Zone of Initial Dilution, ND=Not Detected, NIA= Not Applicable.
Station D(amib Six As ea Be C0 Cr Cu PO H9 NI Se A9 Zn
Middle Shel]Zone 2,Within-ZID(51-90 m ntem)
0 5fi ND 2.78 26.7 0.24 0.32 1fi.40 11.20 4.80 0.08 7.4 0.29 0.17 35.3
4 56 ND 2.90 WS 0.29 0.20 19.40 7.74 4.77 0.01 8.8 0.38 0.09 38.5
76 58 ND 2.78 33.7 0.32 0.24 2030. 8.99 4.74 0.37 9.2 0.41 0.11 42.3
ZS 56 ND 3.28D 37.1 0.32 0.SO 19.80 9.00 4.73 0,02 9.4 0.43 0.12 43.8
Mean 0.0 2.92 33.4 0.29 0.26 18.98 9.23 4.76 0.12 3.7 0.38 0.12 39.98
Middle Shelf Zone 2,NomZID(51-90 mesem)
1 56 ND 2.48 36.5 0.29 0.26 21.80 10.70 5.64 0.03 9.2 0.40 0.22 CIA
3 80 ND 2.11 US 0.30 0.41 19.00 9.23 4.58 0.02 8.2 0.35 0.15 38.8
5 39 ND 2.96 41.8 am 0.23 22.00 9.70 S.61 0,02 9.9 0.45 0.16 42.4
9 59 ND 2.87 SOB 0.30 0.19 19.10 7.42 4.59 0,01 8.4 0.37 0.09 37.0
12 58 ND 2.88 30.3 0.27 0.14 17.30 6.84 4.34 0.01 8.0 0.36 0.08 34.2
68 52 ND 3.70 38.8 0.26 0.26 20.W 9.50 5.39 0.01 9.4 0.43 0.13 42.2
69 52 ND 3.25 42.2 0.30 0.23 20.50 9.20 5.45 0,02 9.5 0.38 0.13 41.4
70 52 ND 3.43 "A 0.31 0.25 21.90 9.74 5.67 0.02 10A 0.46 0.13 43.3
71 52 ND 2.35 32.7 0.28 0.30 19.60 8.34 4.86 0.02 8.7 0.38 0.12 60.4
72 55 ND 2.93 36.8 0.26 0.23 20.20 9.40 5.09 0.02 8.8 0.41 0.15 39.4
73 55 ND 3.10 37.3 0.29 0.49 24.60 15.50 6A2 0,03 9.1 0.43 0.21 15.7
74 57 ND 2.50 33.0 0.2] 0.27 18.SO 7.73 4.50 0,43 8.3 0.38 0.11 39.5
75 60 ND 1.87 34.5 0.28 029 16 SO 7B 4.01 0.02 6.2 0.37 0'10 38.B
]] 60 ND 3.02 29.7 0.31 0.17 20.20 7.70 4.63 0.01 8.8 0.36 0.09 38.6
]8 83 ND 2.22 W3 0.29 0.17 18.10 7.38 4.20 0.02 8.0 0.34 0.10 WA
]9 fi5 ND 2.68 36.1 0.31 0.18 20.30 9.25 4.78 0,01 9.3 0.41 0.12 41.7
00 65 ND 2.91 37.4 0.26 0.1] 19.30 7.14 5.44 0.01 ].9 0.45 0.0934.9
Bf 65 ND 1.90 34.8 0.32 0.17 18.60 7.51 4.35 0.01 85 0.37 0.10 37.3
B2 65 ND 1.95 W.1 0.29 0.14 17.W 6.69 3.76 0.01 7.8 0.36 0.07 35.0
84 54 ND 3.45 37.0 0.29 0.41 22.50 18.40 6.13 0,02 9.5 D.44 0.51 45.9
65 57 0.1 2.53 36.4 1.31 1.37 21.30 10.70 5.11 0,01 8.8 0.42 0.20 42.6
06 57 ND 2.42 W.2 0.25 0.38 20.20 11.00 5.56 0.06 8.5 0.41 0.21 41.2
87 60 ND 2.33 30.9 0.31 0.16 18.10 7.59 4.39 0.01 8.1 0.36 0.11 37.9
C 56 ND 2.86 34.8 0.26 0.17 19.30 7.03 5.SO 0,01 8.0 0.37 0.11 34.2
CON 59 ND 2.83 49.7 0.29 0.17 20.20 8.18 5A2 0,01 9.6 0.41 0.D9 40.1
M<an 0.1 2.70 35.9 0.29 0.25 19.95 9.18 5.02 0.03 3.7 0.39 0.14 39.63
Sediment queldy guidelines
ERM N/A 70.00 NIA NIA 9.60 370.00 270.00 218.00 0.70 51.6 N/A 3.70 410.0
Regional summer values(area weighted mean)
Big ht'13 Middle Shelf 0A 270 130.0 021 088 3000 790 700 0.05 15.0 0,10 029 48n
Table 2-7 Whole-sediment Eohaustorius estuarius (amphipod) toxicity test results for 2016-17.
The home sediment represents the control; N/A= Not Applicable.
Station %survival %of Noma pwatua Aseeeem.nl
home 100 N/A NIA N/A
0 100 100 0.91 Nontoxic
1 99 99 0.75 Nontoxic
4 100 100 0.91 Nontoxic
72 1W 100 0.91 Nontoxic
73 99 99 0.75 Nontoxic
76 97 97 0.52 Nontoxic
77 98 98 0.52 Nontoxic
CON 100 100 0.91 Nontoxic
ZB 98 98 0,52 Nontoxic
ZB Dup 100 100 0.91 Nontoxic
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.
2-12
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-8 Community measure values for each semi-annual and annual (*) station sampled
during the Summer 2016 infauna survey, including regional and Districal historical
values. ZID = Zone of Initial Dilution, N/A= Not Applicable, NC = Not Calculated.
Tcdai Total
stxson Depth 1.) No.0Aland.... IT 8D1 In BRI
Species
Middle Shelf Zone 1(31-50m)
7 41 79 339 3.56 23 93 12
8' 44 90 416 3.60 24 89 1]
21• 40 115 609 3.91 33 89 13
22' 45 66 243 3.27 18 98 14
30' 4fi 102 399 4.04 3fi 88 10
36' 45 82 294 3.85 26 95 15
55' 40 87 in 357 23 94 16
1 40 91 306 3.78 30 91 12
Mean 87 350 3.70 27 92 14
Middle Shelf Zone 2.WMMn-ZID(51-90 m)
0 56 87 355 3.70 N 83 17
4 56 103 518 3.68 22 70 15
76 58 94 353 3.82 32 88 14
ZB 56 78 263 3.70 26 91 13
Mean 91 372 3.73 26 85 15
Middle ShelfZwe 2.Non-ZID(51-90 mf
1 56 96 397 3.66 27 78 14
3 60 89 370 3.fi4 25 83 15
5 59 83 297 3.75 27 88 14
9 59 92 379 3.60 23 84 10
10' 62 81 257 3.82 32 94 11
12 58 70 305 3A8 21 90 10
13' 59 62 182 3.78 27 91 11
1 56 62 193 3.66 24 89 14
fib 52 98 516 3.67 27 86 15
69 52 99 479 3.92 28 89 11
70 52 84 353 3.68 29 83 12
71 52 05 297 3.68 27 81 12
72 55 93 3% 3,84 30 80 11
73 55 103 704 3.]1 23 80 19
74 57 99 367 3.97 33 8fi 12
75 60 58 233 3.29 15 80 15
Tl fi0 00 281 3.46 20 84 13
78 63 90 384 3.5] 24 71 16
79 65 74 337 3.30 21 79 13
8o 65 93 418 3.48 21 83 12
81 44 85 90 ] 3.58 22 83 13
82 fi5 81 319 335] 23 70 13
84 54 103 459 3.91 31 84 15
85 5➢ 102 432 3.80 28 82 18
66 57 94 429 3.71 26 84 15
87 80 ]0 303 3.63 25 86 16
C 58 89 288 3.90 31 93 14
C2• 56 45 189 on 13 86 36
CON 59 64 in 3.67 26 89 11
Mean 84 351 3.64 26 G 14
Middle Shelf Zone 3(91-120 m)
1]' 91 76 217 3.67 25 90 15
18' 91 51 179 1.41 18 88 9
1 100 ]] 285 3.73 27 90 13
23' 100 58 218 3.31 17 72 14
1 100 54 266 3.32 17 90 17
33' 100 69 209 3.81 28 78 19
1 100 52 249 3 39 17 83 23
1 100 64 235 3.66 23 90 12
1 100 45 198 3,36 17 87 17
83' 100 59 240 3.51 20 94 14
Mean 61 06 3.52 21 86 15
Cuter Shelf(121-200m)
24' 200 30 69 2.99 14 69 26
1 200 35 59 3.36 21 62 29
1 200 24 58 2.83 12 72 27
1 200 39 129 2.86 11 50 25
1 200 26 46 3.04 16 43 30
61' 200 27 52 3.01 16 63 23
63' 200 30 60 3.16 17 70 23
65' 200 23 38 2.86 14 67 27
C4` 187 19 57 233 9 72 37
Mean 28 64 2.24 14 63 27
Table 2-8 continues.
2-13
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-8 continued.
Tobl o
Mallon Depth had) Total
) No.of gbua N' SDI RI BRI
Spa ies
Upper Slcpe7CWnyon(201-500m)
40' W3 21 47 2.69 10 WA NIA
41' W3 23 50 2.96 12 WA NIA
42' 303 25 50 2.96 13 WA NIA
44' 241 15 23 2.61 10 WA NIA
58' 300 20 27 2.92 14 WA NIA
62' 300 19 30 2.77 12 WA NIA
64' 300 23 43 2,81 13 WA NIA
CS' 296 13 33 2.29 6 WA NIA
Mean 20 38 2.75 11 NIA Wq
Regional summer values(mean mange)]
Bighf13 Middle Shelf 90(45-171) 491(142-2718) 3.60(2.104.10) NO NO 18 r750)
Bighfl 3 Outer Shelf 66(24-129) 289(51-1492) 3.40(2.3 .10) NO NO 18(8-28)
Bight'13 Upper Slope 30(6-107) 96(12470) 2.70(0.60l 90) NC WA NIA
Dialect hisfan'eal summer values(2006-2016 Fiscal Years)(mwn(range)]
Mitltlle Shelf Zone 1 109(7-157) 427(12-820) 3A8(1.59 .46) 35(4-51) 84(67-98) 16(&23)
Middle Shelf Zane 2,Within-ZID 88(33-138) S08(212-1491) 3.36(0.364) 22(1-35) %(1-83) 29(1352)
Middle Shelf Zane 2,Nw-ZID 96(29-142) 417(90-785) 3.73(2.29 .43) 28(5-52) 76(1-96) 19(1057)
Middle Shelf Zone 3 97(66-146) 474)1 W-807) 3.77(3. & .23) 27(1 6-13) 82(65-93) 18(10-Z6)
Outer Shelf 46(23-80) 137(4D367) 3.29(250-3.95) 19(8-32) 71(42-100) 24(14-39)
Upper SloWCanWn 27(1349) fit(22-165) 2.89(2.315.34) 13(7-19) WA NIA
Table 2-9 Community measure values for each semi-annual station sampled during the Winter
2017 infauna survey, including regional and Districal historical values. ZID = Zone of
Initial Dilution, NC = Not Calculated.
Total Total
Mason Depth(m) No.0 Abundance H' SDI in BM
Sped"
Middle Sl lZonW 2,WOhia-ZID(51-90 m)
0 56 90 317 3,98 35 70 19
4 % 81 267 3 97 35 76 14
76 SB 82 261 3.89 30 74 16
ZB % 97 3% 398 32 77 16
Mean 97 30 3.98 32 77 18
Middle ShWVZone 2,Non-ZID(5150 m)
1 56 78 285 3,77 26 81 10
3 60 82 224 3.99 33 77 16
5 59 75 2" 3.66 28 75 13
9 59 95 428 3,69 27 82 15
12 % 98 299 420 44 79 12
68 52 99 488 376 23 70 14
69 52 104 3w 3.99 34 74 13
70 52 101 387 387 34 74 16
71 52 87 3% 3,62 27 73 18
72 55 83 268 3 80 30 82 14
73 55 109 426 4.09 33 65 21
74 57 83 259 3.94 31 85 15
75 60 75 2% 376 27 78 16
77 60 82 212 4,06 35 72 15
78 63 84 313 3.78 31 76 16
79 fi5 95 359 3.98 31 78 15
80 65 90 338 3,93 30 87 9
81 65 87 359 318 29 79 12
02 65 95 376 3.79 30 78 13
84 54 99 426 3.97 31 76 15
85 57 83 380 382 28 73 19
86 57 104 427 4,04 35 80 19
87 60 98 %9 3 97 32 77 12
C % 90 252 4.07 39 78 20
CON 59 68 215 380 27 83 13
Mean 90 us 3.88 31 77 15
Regonal summer vakms[.afm(mn,)]
Bight'l 3 Mitltlle Shelf 90(4&171) 491(142-2718) 3.60(2.104.10) NC NO 1817-30)
Diamat hlstodaal summer values(20062016 Flsaal Years)(mean(range))
Middle Shelf Zone 2,Within-ZID 88(33-138) 506(212-1491) 3.36(0.364) 22(1-35) 50(1-93) 29(1352)
Middle Shelf Zone 2,Non-ZID 96(29-142) 417(90-785) 3.73(2.294.43) 28(552) 76(1-96) 19(1057)
2-14
Compliance Determinations
40
.NonID A
.Non- D
Iljill ! .i; til, j ` Iiiiili
ii � j1 ; � 111 : lIIIIIIIjjl . , . l : llll II ! Ili ! '• '• ill ! r'• I ! I j
N jj Illlllllllllli ; ilii ' I ! III ! III II ! II ! Ijj ! Ijlllll � llll
.........................................................
station o
2D Stress:0.25 similarity
2GS\ ---- 48.5
Zones
—_� — ♦WNin-ZID
82b, ■Non-BD
/ CON-W 80-W 1N ■ �\
■ ]]-W �]9-w k 12-S \�\
] ■ 82MV / \ ■ \\
I 3
]2-W ■ 12-W `80-S 79-S 1■ \\\
■ W 5Xs
■ 1 W �6 ■ 87-s It
Y 78-S■
ZB-W �0 W 68 5 ]9" ZB-S 1
♦ 69-W85-W ■ '1II�' ■ pp0p 85- I
1 0-W ■ ■ 4-ry 69�y ]4-s
♦ ]3-Vt\\ 70-S Irr -- ■ ]1S ]5-5
84 1/
W ■ ■ t ■ ■!
75 W
Figure 2-5 Dendrogram (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) plot(bottom
panel) of the infauna collected at within- and non-ZID stations along the Middle Shelf
Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2016 (S) and Winter 2017 (W) benthic surveys.
Stations connected by red lines in the dendrogram are not significantly differentiated
based on the SIMPROF test. The 5 main clusters formed at a 48.5% similarity on the
dendrogram are superimposed on the nMDS plot.
2-15
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-10 Summary of epibenthic macroinvertebrate community measures for each
semi-annual and annual (*) station sampled during the Summer 2016 and Winter 2017
trawl surveys, including regional and District historical values. MPA=Marine Protected
Area; NC = Not Calculated.
Nominal No al .of masa
Season Station Depot TotSal Nlea Total Atmndance 6la(k9) H' Sol
m)
Middle ShetlZone f(315 m)
T2• 35 10 55 0.02 1.76 4
T24 36 11 1748 1.22 0.35 1
T6• 36 9 1886 1.70 0.21 1
T18• 36 2 2 0.03 0.69 2
Mean 8 923 0.74 0.75 2
Middle Sh dfzene Z Ohl(51-0 m)
T22 60 9 114 0.36 1.80 4
T1 55 11 138 0.82 1.80 4
Mean 10 126 0.0 1.80 4
Summer Middle SheVZmre Z Non-ougall(51-90 m)
T23 58 8 118 0.94 1.52 3
T12 57 10 51 004 187 4
T17 fi0 8 46 0.14 1.64 4
T11 60 11 601 340 1.31 3
Mean 9 204 1.13 1.0 4
Outer SheM(121-200 m)
T10• 137 4 385 7.36 0.70 2
T25' 137 7 307 11.62 0.74 1
T14: 137 3 146 1.36 0.17 1
T19 137 9 526 5.57 0.22 1
Mean 8 Sal 646 0.46 1
Middle Shel(Zone Z Outlell(51-90 m)
T22 60 10 64 0.14 1.95 5
T1 55 12 90 0.08 1.94 4
Mean 11 77 0.11 1.95 5
Winter Middle SheHZorle Z Ptdd om0all(51-90 m)
T23 58 8 91 0.09 1.45 3
T12 57 10 116 1.12 1.81 4
T17 60 9 65 0.88 1.64 3
T11 fi0 19 632 2.17 1.30 3
Mean 12 226 1.01 1.57 3
Regional(non-MPA)summer values[area weighted mean(rangeff
Bighf13 Middle Shelf 12(3-23) 1093(19 17973) 5(0.31-36) 1.11(0.09-2.49) NC
Bight'13 Outer Shelf 15(3-29) 728(4-5160) 27(0,39-83) 1.26(0.10-2.39) NC
Might historical values(200F2016 Fiscal Yearsf(mean(range)]
Middle Shelf Zone 1 12(3-18) 350(33-2592) 0.74(0.00-3.44) 1.40(0.01-2.22) 3(1-5)
Middle Shelf Zone 2,Outhall 12(7-18) 320(49-1436) 1.64(0.08-5.67) 1.31(0.22-2.15) 2(1-5)
Middle Shelf Zone 2,Noo-ougall 11(5-18) 339(12-2498) 1 85(0.02-11.16) 1.32(0.08-2.43) 3(1-9)
Outer Shelf 10(3-15) 147(19548) 3.50(0.03-19.31) 1.08(0.152.12) 2(1-9)
Fish Health
Fishes appeared normal in both color and odor in 2016-17, thus compliance was met. Furthermore,
less than 1% of all fishes collected showed evidence of irregularities. The most common irregularity
was the presence of the eye parasite Phrixocephalus cincinnatus on the Pacific Sanddab(Citharichthys
sordidus),which occurred in -1% of the examined fish. These results are comparable to background
levels found within the Southern California Bight (Perkins and Gartman 1997) and do not indicate a
degraded biota.
Liver Histopathology
No histopathology analysis was conducted for the 2016-17 monitoring period (see Appendix A).
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, COP criteria for water quality were met and state and federal bacterial standards were
also met at offshore stations. Sediment quality was not degraded by loading of measured chemical
contaminants or by physical changes from the discharge of treated wastewater. This was supported
by the absence of sediment toxicity in controlled laboratory tests and the presence of normal infaunal
2-16
Compliance Determinations
40
•Wtlell
■Noneutlell
r
60 i l l l j j
1NN I
SbGons
2D Stress:0.14 Simildnty
50
� T23-W ♦Outlall
i ■ \ ■NonouCall
1 T1 W
T1-S
T23S ♦ \
T12-S
T22S 1�) I/ ■ �)
■ ) 11 T11-W j
1 ■
T1]-S /
T22-W ■ T1a
i
Figure 2-6 Dendrogram (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) plot(bottom
panel)of the epibenthic macroinvertebrates collected at outfall and non-outfall stations
along the Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2016 (S) and Winter 2017 (W)
trawl surveys. Stations connected by red lines in the dendrogram are not significantly
differentiated based on the SIMPROF test. The 2 main clusters formed at a 50%
similarity on the dendrogram is superimposed on the nMDS plot.
2-17
Compliance Determinations
Table 2-11 Summary of demersal fish community measures for each semi-annual and annual
(*) station sampled during the Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys,
including regional and District historical values. MPA = Marine Protected Area;
NC = Not Calculated.
Nominal TotalNo.of BiomeBlame"Season Station Depth O Total Abundance a H' SDI FRI
(m) BaG1p$
Middle Shedi 1(31.50 m)
T2 35 9 219 7.95 0.96 2 22
T24" 36 11 128 346 1.39 2 22
T6' 36 9 153 2.44 1,55 3 17
T18" 36 9 331 4.05 1,66 4 19
Mean 10 208 4.47 1.39 3 20
Muddle Sholi 2,Oul(all(51-90 m)
T22 60 16 214 9]1 1.89 4 22
T1 55 it 246 11.01 1.75 3 28
Mean 14 230 10.36 1.82 4 25
Summer Middle ShelRone 2,Nonoudall(51-90 m)
T23 58 15 290 16.97 1.84 4 28
T12 57 14 .8 1277 2,04 5 34
T17 60 16 177 6.87 2.11 5 31
T11 60 17 448 15,39 1,80 3 27
Mean 16 "1 13.00 1.95 4 30
Outer SheM(121-200m)
T10• 137 20 594 16.88 1,73 3 26
T25" 137 14 396 7.21 1.63 3 26
T14' 137 18 345 7.80 1.60 3 21
T19" 137 19 751 1134 146 3 41
Mean 18 522 10.82 1.01 3 29
Middle Shel(Zone 2,Oullall(51-90 m)
T22 60 10 147 5.50 1,71 3 27
T1 55 15 255 6.93 1.98 5 25
Mean 13 201 6.21 1.85 4 26
Winter Middle Shel7Zorre 2,Nanoullall(51-90 m)
T23 58 13 143 6.57 I'm 4 25
T12 57 11 204 8.62 1,75 3 18
T17 60 10 92 3.91 1,85 4 23
Ttt 60 15 463 10.99 1.93 4 22
Mean 12 =6 7.53 1.87 4 22
Regronal(non-MR1)summer values(area-earghfad mean(mn9e))
Blghr13 Middle Shoff 15(5-24) 506(12-2446) 12(0]0-64.20) 1.65(0.67-2.35) NO 28(1761)
Bight'l 3 Outer Shelf 14(2-21) 790(2J088) 16(0.20-54.50) 1.35(0.59-2.01) NO 20(-1-51)
DishlN hisbncal values(ell bawl surveys man 2000-2016 Fiscal Y i[mean(range))
Middle Shelf Zone 1 11(2-16) 246(83470) 5.27(1.16-11.86) 1.65(0.(H-2.22) 3(26) 22(1&26)
Middle Shelf Zone 2,Outfall 13(2-18) 500(1496227) 21.34(4.34-78.72) 1.62(0.39-2.14) 3(16) 23(1863)
Middle Shelf Zone 2,NonouBall 15(3-25) 637(41-12274) 14.25(1 01-135.(54) 1.70(0.14-2.22) 3(16) 23(13-32)
Outer Shelf 15(2.23) 678(21 14) 18.22(2.6066.41) 1.35(0.651.91) 3(16) 13(2 3)
2-18
Compliance Determinations
w Ire,
•NmuuC
TN j j
i i j I rL� I
. . . . . . . . . . . .
r
r r r
SMtbna
' T23 2D S"., :0.09 —Similenty
55
■ Sdes
/ T17-W T23 W ♦OUCaII
■ ■ ■ Non-ouUall
I
/
If T17S T12-S
■ ■ ,
'T12 W
1
f TT2-W I
I ♦ I
T1S
♦ i
T1-W U2S )
i ♦ 1
l
T11S
■
T11-W
Figure 2-7 Dendrogram (top panel) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) plot(bottom
panel) of the demersal fishes collected at outfall and non-outfall stations along the
Middle Shelf Zone 2 stratum for the Summer 2016 (S) and Winter 2017 (W) trawl
surveys. Stations connected by red lines in the dendrogram are not significantly
differentiated based on the SIMPROF test.The main cluster formed at a 55% similarity
on the dendrogram is superimposed on the nMDS plot.
2-19
Table 2-12 Means and ranges of tissue contaminant concentrations in selected flatfishes collected by trawling in July 2016 at Stations 0
T1 (outfall) and T11 (non-outfall), as well as District historical values. ND = Not Detected; NR= Not Reportable. 3
9
Tl $tanglih Mercury LODT LPCB LChlortlane Dielarin
(mm) 3
Species ssue Station n LengM Percent LIPIE (mg/kg) (P ft (Pglk9) (pWkg) (Pgfkg)
Cl
N
Nonoulfall 8 110 ND 0.02 7.16 ND ND NO
Muscle (AIIND) (0.0.05 (1.E8-2].19) (All ND) (All ND) (All ND) m
Plauan,c ahya Oulfall 10 142 ND 0.05 2.13 ND ND ND
veakalis (AII ND) IO 02-0.13) (1.19J.32) (All ND) (All ND) IAII ND)
(Homyheatl Tuiluk) Nonougell 8 110 4.14 0.20 NR NR NR NR
Liver (Z01-12J0) (0.13-0.34)
Oulfall 10 142 Z)3 OAS 99.81 4.27 ND ND y
10-5.]41 (0.05-0.26) (0 iw) (0-2140) (All ND) (All ND)
Nonougall 10 1]] 0.71 0.06 32.24 3.03 ND ND 3
Muscle (0-1.88) (0.02-0.10) (].85-9].34) (0-7.03) (All ND) (All No) N
0.]0 0.06 3943 5.29 ND ND
Parophga valulus Ougall 10 196 (0-1 J6) (0.0 .08) (3.97-160.60) (0-13.51) (AII ND) (AIIND)
(Engl'Ish Sole) Nonoulfall 10 to 12.19 0.08 NR NR NR NR
liver (1.93-26.m) (0A24.19)
Ou6a11 10 198 10.04 0.09 747.92 134.92 ND ND
(4.58-16) (O. 4 .14) (102-2471.40) (0-545) (All ND) (All No)
Dis(nct histancel values fM1om 2006-2016 FY)
Nonougall 64 IN 0.18 0.06 12.61 3.35 0.09 ND
Muscle (115217) (0-0.68) (0.01-0.W) (0-38.75) (0-18.36) (0-1.45) (All No)
nkMhys Outlall g1 162 0.16 0.07 8.85 2A4 0.01 0.20
Plemo
ve achs (120-204) (0-O.n) (0.01-0.42) (O .50) (0-12.5)1 (0-0.71) (0-12.70)
N IN 6.]9 US 608.42 51.14 ND ND
N fi
(Homyneatl Talbot) Nonou6all 84 (115217) (042410.40) (O. 4 .]9) (0-2100) (0432.59) (All ND) (All ND)
O liver 160 9.01 OA6 653.61 146.09 5.15 NO
Oulfall 91 (120-204) (1.34-24.60) (0.024.59) (103-182210) (10.4245780) (0-81.70) (All No)
Noaoulfall 83 im 0.81 0.05 04.63 9.26 ND 0.05
Muscle (124-247) (0-6.22) (0.01-0.12) (0324.30) ("1.20) (All ND) (0-0.451
Oulfall 87 1" 1.16 0.05 122.42 16.50 ND ND
Parophrys veNlua (136-3061 (0-8.23) f0.01-0.111 (4.7 333.46) (0-130.90) (All ND) (All No)
(English Sole) Nolroulfell 83 182 9.87 0.06 1384.92 171.00 0.09 ND
Liver (124-247) (1.93-26.50) (0.02-0.19) (71.10.14300) (0.1694.]0) (0-5.27) (All ND)
Outlall 87 1" 11.54 0.06 1667.16 216.80 1." ND
(136-306) (0-27.10) (0.024.16) (95.]0-2096]) (0-1627.29) (0-30.80) (AIIND)
Table 2-13 Means and ranges of muscle tissue contaminant concentrations in selected scorpaenid fishes collected by rig-fishing in
September 2016 at Zones 1 (ouffall) and 3 (non-ouffall), as well as District historical data plus state and federal tissue
thresholds. ND = Not Detected; N/A= Not Applicable.
Zone Species n Surdertl Percent Mercury Arsenic Seonluns £DDT £PCB £CNlondane DleHdn
LengiN(mm) Lipid (m9Ik9) (mglkg) (mglk9) (Pglkg) (pglkg) (Milig) (pglkg)
Sebastes caurinus 0.]1 0.11 1.85 1.03 23.05 NO NO NO
(COpner Roc--b) 2 228 (0.59-0.83) 10.100.131 (1A9-2.211 (0.42-1.0a1 119.]0.28.40) (All NOI (All ND) (Al ND)
Sebastes flavidus 1 278 0." 0.09 1.27 0.97 ].5] NO NO NO
Non iffall IVellcw it Rockfish)
Se6esfes minietu08
s
Nermillon RockASN 6 235 (0.305502. 61 4.14 33.90 NO NO
IND
8 (0.0".20) .1 (13.60.99 II N II N ND)
Sebastes rosenbladi(G 1 188 0.On0A 2.87 0.57 189 NO NO NO
reenDbtched Rockfish
Sebastes caunnus 1 272 NO 0.07 3.13 0.51 6A NO NO NO
(Capper Rockfish)
Sebasles miniatus f.td 0.05 6.42 0.61 1].05 ND NO NO
Outfall Nermillon Rackfisb) 8 259 (0.58-2.26) (0.0 .06) (1.B5d.89) (0.54-01JOI (9.2➢34.80) (AII ND) (AII NO) (AII NO)
Sebastes rosenWald 1 238 NO 0s3 7.83 0.67 12A NO NO NO
(Greenblolched Rockfish)
Ofdi thidtoflcal values(from 2006-2016 FY)
Sebastes saunnus 0.51 0.12 1.86 0.78 2064 3.20 NO NO
Nonoulfell (Copper Rockfish 5 369 (M.97) (0.0M.19) (1.62-2.06) (0.66-0so) (6.0543) (0.26-7.60) (All ND) (AII NO)
Sebasles W.W.m 0.73 )08 2.53 0.69 15A3 1.40 NO NO
(Vermilion Rpdfish 5 Ni0 (0.34-1.96) (0.05-0.12) (L843.29) (0.68-0.71) (6.91-22.47) (0-2.46) (All ND) (AII NO)
Sebastes saunnus 14 4]] 0.55 0.11 1.54 0.86 10.20 380 NO NO
N Ouffall (Copper RpUsh (0-2) (0.05-0.16) (0.93-2A0) (0.71-1.01) (5.21-20.]]) (1.N-6.14) (AII ND) (AII NO)
j Sebastes minlatua 27 282 1.18 0.05 2.06 0.58 12A9 3.01 0.38 NO
(Vermilion Rackbah (0.3.67) (OOM.09) (0.683.6B) (0.23-0.88) (O .30) (0-17.24) (".80) (AII NO)
Tiasue threshdds
CAAdvisory Tiswe Level NIA NIA 0.44 NIA 15 2100 im 560 46
Fedeml Acton Level for Edible Tissue NIA NIA 1 NIA NIA 5000 "0 300 300
n
0
3
D_
d
a
m
v
m
3
m
0
w
Compliance Determinations
communities throughout the monitoring area. Fish and trawl invertebrate communities in the
monitoring area were also healthy and diverse, and federal and state fish consumption guidelines
were met. These results indicate that the receiving environment was not degraded by the discharge
of treated wastewater, all permit compliance criteria were met, and environmental and human health
were protected.
2-22
Compliance Determinations
REFERENCES
Allen, M.J., R.W. Smith, E.T. Jarvis, V. Raco-Rands, B.B. Bernstein, and K.T. Herbinson. 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, P.E. Smith, and G.
Sigiham. 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.
67:160-185.
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 Year Synthesis,
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. 2013.Annual Report, July 2011June 2012. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA.
OCSD. 2014.Annual Report, July 2012-June 2013. Marine Monitoring. Fountain Valley, CA.
OCSD. 2015.Annual Report, July 2013-June 2014. 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.
Perkins, P.S. and R. Gartman. 1997. Host-parasite relationship of the copepod eye parasite (Phrixocephalus
cincinnatus) and Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus) collected from wastewater outlet areas.
Bull. Southern California Aced. Sci. 96:87-104.
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.
2-23
This page intentionally left blank.
_ F CHAPTER 3
Strategic Process Studies and
Regional Monitoring
1
INTRODUCTION
The Orange County Sanitation District (District) operates under the auspices of a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued jointly by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA)and the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
(Order No. R8-2012-0035, NPDES Permit No. CA0110604) in June 2012. The permit requires the
District to conduct an ocean monitoring program (OMP) that documents the effectiveness of the
District's source control and wastewater treatment operations in protecting coastal ocean resources
and beneficial uses. A requirement of the OMP is to conduct Strategic Process Studies (SPS) and to
participate in regional monitoring programs. In addition, the District 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
or they may focus on issues of interest to the District and/or its regulators, such as the effect of
contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) on local fish populations. SPS are proposed and must
be approved by state and/or federal regulators to ensure proper focus and level of effort. For the
2016-17 program year, no SPS were conducted.
Regional monitoring studies do not focus on the District's monitoring area, but instead sample larger
areas of the Southern California Bight. 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., 2016-17) 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
The District partners with the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), the South Orange
County Wastewater Authority(SOCWA), and the Orange County Public Works (OCPW) in the Ocean
Water Protection Program, a regional bacterial sampling program that samples 126 stations along
42 miles (67.5 km) of coastline (from Seal Beach to San Clemente State Beach) and 70 miles
(112.6 km) of harbor and bay frontage. In 2016, over 8,100 samples were collected and
3-1
Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring
24,586 analyses were performed for 3 fecal indicator bacteria (FIB; total coliform, fecal coliform, and
enterococci).
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
advisories, postings, or beach closures. The 2016 Annual Ocean, Harbor, and Bay Water Quality
Report (OCHCA 2017) provides a countywide summary of beach bacteriological water quality.
Included in the report are year-to-year variability and trends since 1987.
A few of the county-wide report findings for 2016 include:
• The number of reported sewage spills (129)for 2016 represented a continued annual decline
since 2002.
• The number of beach closures due to sewage spills (9) was 53% below the 30-year average
(19).
• The total number of Beach Mile Days closures(14.0)due to sewage spills was 33% below the
18-year average from 1999-2016.
• Total Beach Mile Days posted due to bacteriological standards violations during the
AB411 period (April 1 to October 31) were 29.1, which was 92% less than the record high of
366 in 2002.
• Thirteen rain advisories were posted for a total of 51 days, a 25% increase over the previous
3-year's drought-impacted average of 38 days.
The District samples 38 of the 126 regional surfzone stations, of which 18 are legacy stations
sampled since the 1970s (Figure 3-1). These legacy stations were analyzed separately for
2016-17 for comparison with the District's historical surfzone results(Table B-12). Table B-13 presents
summary statistics for the remaining stations. Results for the 18 District stations were similar to those
of previous years (OCSD 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). FIB counts at these stations varied by season,
location, and bacteria type. A general spatial pattern was associated with the mouth of the Santa
Ana River. Seasonal geomeans and the percent of samples exceeding geomean and single sample
standards all peaked near the river mouth and tapered off upcoast and downcoast. Collectively,
exceedance of the state single sample standard (AB411) was low, with <1% for total coliforms,
<2% for fecal coliforms, and <5% for enterococci.
Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program
The District 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 covers the coastal waters from Ventura County to Crystal Cove State Beach and
from Point Loma to the United States—Mexico Border(Figure 3-2). The participants use comparable
conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) profiling systems and field sampling methods. The District
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 stonnwater flows) and provides a regional context for comparisons with the District's monitoring
results. The SCBRWQP data also provides a way to link to other larger-scale regional programs,
such as the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CaICOFI) and 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 Central Bight data to the Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System in order to
comply with national Integrated Ocean Observing System guidelines.
3-2
Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring
e�
�Retlent1
PIan11
Huntington
19eacM1
24
XB
_ �
p aM� m �� TrBani
Plant
2 • 9c
BOn _
Hl
ID6�
m ]J55 i 3321 r•o C"T ��5 B•B CM1
p•� f
ID �
]J56� 7
•
2g \
3106 23a5 �• t5J3183 z • m^•SOm �5C - 2 .1 p210
Sam zr35 2149 2039 Nm
2W1 9�
seem Darn 21W
21.
9pm ]¢CB ".a 19Y1
.21 ID 6
1a�
NORTH
e 6
OOSD Mamh 2018 1ttc
Figure 3-1 Offshore and nearshore (surfzone)water quality monitoring stations for 2016-17.
Bight'13 Regional Monitoring
Since 1994, the District has participated in 5 regional monitoring studies of environmental conditions
within the Southern California Bight (SCB): 1994 Southern California Bight Pilot Project (SCBPP),
Bight'98, Bight'03, Bight'08, and Bight'13. The District has played a considerable role in all aspects
of these regional projects, including program design, sampling, quality assurance, data analysis, and
report writing. 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, District 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. District staff is currently involved in final
report production for the Bight'13 project,while working on preparations for the sixth regional program
— Bight'18. Information for the Bight programs, along with planning documents, data, and reports
on the previous studies are available on SCCWRP's website(http:/Iw .sccwrp.org/ResearchAreas/
Regional Mon itori ng.aspx).
3-3
Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring
Ventura Los Angeles San Bernardino
county County County
Riverside
Orange County
County
ZL
San Diego
County
rvoa m y q
�ocso March wmm
Figure 3-2 Southern California Bight Regional Water Quality Program monitoring stations for
2016-17.
Central Region Kelp Survey Consortium
The District 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 to both consortium groups, regulators, and the
public. Reports are available on SCCWRP's website (http://kelp.sccwrp.org/reports.html).
2016 Central Region Kelp Bed Results
The number of kelp beds displaying canopy (14 of 26) decreased in the Central Region and the
overall canopy cover decreased by 9.5% from 2.03 mi' (5.26 km') in 2015 to 1.84 mia (4.76 km2) in
2016. Six beds had increased surface coverage (1-434%) and 2 beds had no change. While less
than 2015, the total coverage in 2016 was still above the long-term (1965-2016) regional average of
3-4
Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring
1.68 mi' (4.34 km') (MBC 2016). Consistent with previous results, most of the Central Region kelp
beds reached their maximum extent in early summer.
The 4 beds off Orange County showed either no change (3 beds) or decreased canopy (1 bed)
compared to 2015. The 3 beds that did not change, Horseshoe Kelp, Huntington Flats and
Huntington Flats to Newport Harbor,have had no observable kelp since the monitoring began in 2003.
Newporftlwine Coast beds showed a decrease of 20% from 2015 (0.02 mi' [0.045 km'] to 0.01 mi'
[0.036 kmj), the lowest total coverage since 2007.
There was no evidence of any adverse effects on Giant Kelp resources from any of the region's
dischargers. Rather, the Giant Kelp surveys of 2016 continued 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
The District's Ocean Acidification (OA) Mooring was deployed for a 3-month period (October 2016 to
January 2017)during the program year. Technical issues with the pH sensors and telemetry modem
prevented deployments prior to October or subsequent to January until the mooring was redeployed
in June 2017.
SPECIAL STUDIES
California Ocean Plan Compliance Determination Method Comparison
Background
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, at the behest of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), SCCWRP, in collaboration with dischargers, began developing a new method to
establish an Out-of-Range occurrence (OROsccw ,) for dissolved oxygen (DO) and then for pH and
light transmissivity. Presented below is a comparison, for the 2016-17 program year, between the
District's standard approach used over the past 30-plus years and the newly developed SCCWRP
method for DO, pH, and light transmissivity.
Compliance Determinations
District Approach
Compliance evaluations are based on statistical comparisons between 2 (inner and outer) reference
stations located upcurrent of the outfall. For each survey, the presence and depth range of the
pycnocline is calculated for each station with data binned into above, within, or below the pycnocline
strata; when a pycnocline is absent, data are binned into the top, middle, or bottom third of the
water column. Mean values for each parameter are calculated by stratum and station. Out-of-range
occurrences (OROM..) are calculated by station for each depth strata and sampling date. District
OROs are based on comparing each station and depth strata with the corresponding reference station
data to determine whether COP compliance criteria (e.g., a 10% decrease in oxygen concentration
values)were exceeded.
To determine whetheran OROMsp was Out-of-Compliance(OOC MID),distributional maps are created
that identify the reference stations for each monthly survey and location of each OROM... These
maps are evaluated to determine if a logical OOCMsp event is represented based on: (A) presence
of the plume using a combination of temperature, density, salinity, Colored Dissolved Organic Matter
(CDOM), ammonium (NH.+), FIB, and current direction; (B)water column features relative to naturally
3-5
Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring
occurring events(e.g., high chlorophyll-a due to phytoplankton);and (C)unique station characteristics
that may make them inappropriate for comparison with reference stations (e.g., excessive differences
in depth strata).
A detailed summary of the District's water quality compliance methodology is presented in Appendix
A.
SCCWRPApproach
The methodology involves 3 steps:(A)identification of the stations affected by effluent wastewater,(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 ORO SCCWRP' Plume-affected areas
are identified using CDOM as a wastewater indicator. 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 OROSccwRr Detailed methodology, as applied to
DO, can be found in Nezlin at al. (2016).
Comparison Method
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.
• The SCCWRP approach identifies 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.
• SCCWRP methodology compares only those values located below the mixed layer while the
OCSD method includes surface values. For this comparison, all ORO,=found in the upper
part of the water column (i.e., Strata 1)were not considered.
• Under the District approach, a station may have multiple ORO and/or DOC values on a given
survey,while the SCCWRP approach identifies a single maximum difference value per station.
Therefore, monthly station ORO�SD were recalculated as presence/absence when multiple
OROocso occurred at a station.
• Unlike the District method, the SCCWRP method does not provide a path to evaluate whether
an ORO did or did not constitute an DOC. For this comparison, it was assumed that an
OROSccwRP was equivalent to the DOC�SD if it was located downcurrent from the outfall.
• SCCWRP methodology does not exclude the outfall station (2205)which is located within the
ZID. For this analysis, any OROSccwaP associated with Station 2205 was not included.
• SCCWRP methodology currentlydoes notdistinguish between positive and negative significant
differences. For those instances when an ORO SCCWRPwas positive when the applicable COP
criteria is relative to a negative impact, these OROs were not included.
Results and Discussion
In general, the SCCWRP approach identified greater numbers of reference stations per survey and
fewer OROs and OOCs(Table 3-1). Apossible source of these differences is the different approaches
used in identifying OROs, determining statistical significance, and subsequently OOCs. The District
uses multiple parameters and contextual information (e.g., Is the station upcurrent of the outfall?Was
there a large phytoplankton bloom?) while OROSccw, events are established using stations where
CDOM values that exceed the ±95th percentile of all CDOM samples per survey. The SCCWRP
approach also does not take into account values that are due to natural variability and sources of
3-6
Table 3-1 Comparison of District and SCCWRP California Ocean Plan Compliance Determinations for Oxygen, pH, and Transmissivity
for Program Year 2016-2017.
DumM R Plume lmpade6 Stations R Reference Stations Il Out -ftn3e Stations 3OM-of4.rnpliance Stations
MOMN Year Flow
OCSD SCCWRP OCSD SCCWRP OC30 SCCWRP OCSD SCCWRP
0 ran
Jul 2016 Upwad NIA 3 2 17 0 0 0 0
Aug 2016 Upcosat NIA 6 2 14 1 0 1 0
Sep 2016 Downcoast NIA 4 2 9 1 0 0 0
Od 2016 Upwast NIA 4 2 12 2 0 0 0
Nov 2016 Downcoast NIA 5 2 10 3 0 2 0
Oec 2016 Downcoast NIA 2 2 17 7 0 2 0
Oec 2016 Upwasl NIA 2 2 17 6 0 6 0
Jan 2017 Downcoast NIA 3 2 16 5 0 1 0
Jan 2017 Up.al, NIA 3 2 16 0 0 0 0
Feb 2017 Downcoast NIA 4 2 16 8 0 5 0
Mar 2017 Downcoast NIA 3 2 12 3 0 3 0
Mar 2017 Upcoaal NIA 3 2 12 9 0 4 0
Apr 2017 Downcoast NIA 7 2 9 4 2 1 0
May 2017 Up.al, NIA 6 2 8 1 0 0 0
Jun 2017 Downcoast NIA 2 2 8 0 0 0 0
PN
Jul 2016 Upooasl NIA 3 2 17 0 0 0 0
Aug 2016 Upcoast NIA 6 2 14 5 0 5 0
Sep 2016 Downcoast NIA 4 2 9 13 0 0 0
Od 2016 Upwasl NIA 4 2 12 0 0 0 0 0
Nov 2016 Downcoast NIA 5 2 10 0 0 0 0
W Dec 2016 Downcoast NIA 2 2 17 0 0 0 0 w
J Oec 2016 Upcoast NIA 2 2 17 0 0 0 0 m
Jan 2017 Downcoast NIA 3 2 16 1 0 0 0 Q
Jan 2017 Upooad NIA 3 2 16 10 0 0 0 O
Feb 2017 Downcoast NIA 4 2 16 7 0 6 0
Mar 2017 Downcoast NIA 3 2 12 0 0 0 0 'O
Mar 2017 Upwasl NIA 3 2 12 0 0 0 0 O
Apr 2017 Downcoast NIA 7 2 9 0 0 0 0 m
May 2017 Upcoasl NIA 6 2 8 16 0 5 0 N
Jun 2017 Downcoast NIA 2 2 8 11 0 1 0 N
Tmnarnka b, N
Jul 2010 Upcoasl NIA 3 2 17 12 0 0 1
Aug 2016 Upcoast NIA 6 2 14 13 5 1 4 O,
Sep 2016 Downcoast NIA 4 2 9 2 1 0 0
Od 2016 Up.aat NIA 4 2 12 7 2 3 2 0
Nov 2016 Downcoast NIA 5 2 10 10 0 2 0 N
Oec 2016 Downcoast NIA 2 2 17 2 0 2 0 6
Oec 2016 Upcoast NIA 2 2 17 10 0 0 0 6
Jan 2017 Downcoast NIA 3 2 16 2 0 0 0
Jan 2017 Upcoasl NIA 3 2 16 18 0 3 0 M
Feb 2017 Downcoast NIA 4 2 16 6 0 5 0 tQ
Mar 2017 Downcoast NIA 3 2 12 2 0 1 0 p
Mar 2017 Upcoast NIA 3 2 12 17 0 0 0 3
Apr 2017 Downcoast NIA 7 2 9 0 3 0 3 N
May 2017 Up.et NIA 6 2 8 18 5 5 5 3
Jun 2017 Downcoast NIA 2 2 8 0 0 0 0 O
WA=Nd Appm4e. 3
O
Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring
CDOM not originating from the effluent. For example, the 2 oxygen OROSCCWRP values identified
in April 2017 were upcurrent and inshore of the outfall.
The benefit of using the SCCWRP approach is its ability to be standardized so that all agencies
are using the same methodology. A disadvantage is disregarding plume transport by currents
and changes due to natural variability. The District's approach identified a greater number of
OROs/OOCs but it involved significant staff effort to interpret OROS,which would be harder to replicate
across agencies.
Fish Tracking Study
Background
The District's OMP assesses discharge effects on marine communities, including bioaccumulation
analyses of contamination levels in tissue samples of Flatfishes(predominantly Hornyhead Turbot and
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 the District's monitoring area. As such, the District 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 50-75 m in January 2017 at
the outfall and an upcoast reference area (Figure 3-3). 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.
Fish collection and tagging
A total of 149 fishes were internally (i.e., California Scorpionfsh 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 the District's MN Nerissa
at the ouffall and reference area between February to June 2017. 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.
Data collection and analyses
Acoustic receivers were recovered in May and October 2017 at the outfall and in April and October
2017 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 (GIS)for movement analysis. Preliminary calculations of the first data download
included Euclidean distance measurements and a selectivity index to examine site selectivity of
tagged fish.
Preliminary Results
Preliminary results indicate that Hornyhead Turbot and English Sole have little to no association with
the ouffall pipe, whereas Pacific Sanddab, California Scorpionfish, and Vermilion Rockfish exhibit
3-8
Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring
..
oo. ,
300.o x- m..R
ocso Namn gore .e
Figure 3-3 Acoustic receiver locations for the District's fish tracking study.
Table 3-2 Number of fishes tagged at the outfall and reference area for the District's fish
tracking study.
Study area Fish Family Fish Species Common Name Number Tagged
Paralichthyidae ClMadchhh,soMidus Pacifc Senddab 1.
Pleumnectidae Pamphi a ,andoa English Sole S
Oudall F%,o.khi verticalls HomOmmd Total 15
Scorpaenidae Scwpaene guxata CelRomia Swryicifiah 2
Sebastes ourrimus Vermilion Rockfish 55
Total 132
Paralichthyidae ClMedchMvs soMidus Pacific Sanddab 5
Pleumnectidae Pamphrys vetulus English Sole T
Reference PkuronicMOvs verounor Hom0ead Tumor 2
Soorpaenidae Srorpaena 9uxata California Svomronfish 0
SaW.Aaa minlatus Vermilion Rockfish 3
Total 17
Tray of IM 51 once.Sardonic easier e1 Me wtlall xere ni,e¢,d eIIM Msno—area.
high site fidelity at the outfall. Final results will be available after March 2018 when the last data
download is scheduled to occur.
3-9
Strategic Process Studies and Regional Monitoring
REFERENCES
MBC (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences). 2016. Status of the Kelp Beds 2016: Ventura, Los Angeles,
Orange, and San Diego Counties. Prepared for the Central Region Kelp Survey Consortium and
Region Nine Kelp Survey Consortium.
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 outfalls. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 7:177-184.
OCHCA(Orange County Health Care Agency). 2017. 2016 Annual Ocean,Harbor&Bay Water Quality Report.
June 2017. Internet address: https://cros.ocgov.wm/civicax/filebank/blobdioad.aspx?BloblD=65588.
(February 7, 2018).
OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District). 2014. Annual Report, July 2012-June 2013. Marine Monitoring.
Fountain Valley, CA.
OCSD. 2015. Annual Report,July 2013-June 2014. 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.
3-10
APPENDIX A
Methods
T
INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains a summary of the field sampling, laboratory testing,and data analysis methods
used in the District's Ocean Monitoring Program (OMP). 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 (RWQCB) (i.e., waters designated as
REC-1), and were sampled an additional 3 days per quarter for fecal indicator bacteria (FIB). 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(fromwhichsalinityiscalculated),dissolved oxygen(DO),acidity/alkalinity(pH),waterclarity
(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 MN Nerlssa. 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) and FIB at specified
stations and depths. All discrete samples were kept on wet ice in coolers and transported to the
District's laboratory within 6 hours. Asummary of the sampling and analysis methods is presented
in Table A-1.
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 the District in
conjunction with the 28 Core water quality stations(see 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.
A-1
Table A-1 Water quality sample collection and analysis methods by parameter during 2016-17. 3
m
Parameter Sampling Method Method Reformers Preservation COMairter Holding Time Sampling Depth Field Replicates
O
C
Nearsllom(8urhorm) M
Total Colborne Standard Methods 9222 B••
Fecal Coliforms grab Standard Marianas 9222 D- 1.(<6•C) 125m1-HOPE 8hr..(6eld+lab) Ankledeep water Mleast 10%of samples
(Sterile container)
Enhmcocci EPA Method 1600•^
Orion.
Temperature m-sifu probe LMC SOP 1500A-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable every 1 an• at least 10%of stations
Salinity(cotMuctivity)a m-aiN probe FMC SOP 1500.1-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable every 1 an` M least 10%of stations
pH' m-sifu probe LMC SOP 1500A-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable every 1 an• at least 10%of stations
Manhattan!Oxygen° hil probe FMC SOP 1500.1-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable every 1 an M least 10%of stations
Trensmissivlty' m-sifu probe LMC SOP 1500A-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable every 1 an• at least 10%of stations
PhoRadiation(PAR)
- it probe LMC SOP 1500.1-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable every 1 m• M least 10%of stations
RadiMhncally 1
D Chlorophyll-a fluorescence° m-sifu probe LMC SOP 1500A-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable every 1 an• at least 10%of stations
N
Color Dissolves Organic Mailer(CDOM)° cal probe LMC SOP 1500.1-CTD Operations not applicable not applicable not applicable every 1 an M least 10%of stations
Ammonium(NH3-N) Makin LMC SOP 4500411.1 ,Rev.J^ little(d6"C) 125.LHDPE 28 do, Somali 10m,20m,30m1 at least 10%of semples
40m.Sidon,60m.Bottom
Total Common and Niskin Standard Methods 9223 C'• 1.(ofil 125mLHOPE 8hrs.(fiMd+lab) Sutane.10m.20m.30m. Mleast 10%of samples
Eschenchia mli' (Sterile container) 40m,War,60m,Bottom
Enhmcocci Niskin Standard Methods 92M D little(<6'C) 125mLHDPE ghm (fie10*lab) Surface,10m,20m,30m, at least lid%blsamples
(Sterile container) 40m.Sidon,60m,Bottom
Surface Observations visual obaervarione Permit specs not applicable not applicable not applicable surtace not applicable
'Colombo!b rehrence cells(ounal acmrnal annually
'Color 10 NP50 SaNeN end Salinas.School Am.annualy
'Referenced and cnlibrele!to NIST boilers of pX 7,e,and 9 prior to every aurally
Referenced and calibated each survey by compansw with the lab 00 probe.which is cal posted dairy.
'Friplu nmd and calibrated as known Ina—.-in air.
'red reLbrmad annually
'Fecal eeldrom count calculation:(EseMN[Ma deal MPN1100mLx 1A)
•Sampled condn000aN at 24 swmleemnd but ata processed to 1 in Intervals
^APM(2012),
—awili ce.Online to www epn 9ov.
Methods
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 3-2). Data were collected using CTDs within a fixed-grid pattern comprising 304 stations
during a targeted 3-4 day period. 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. The District's sampling and
analytical methods were the same as those presented in Table A-1.
Nearshore Zone
Regional nearshore(surfzone)FIB samples were collected 1-2 days perweek at a total of 38 stations
(Figure 3-1). When water at creek/storm drain stations flowed to the ocean, a sample was collected
at the source, 25 yards downcoast, and 25 yards upcoast. When flow was absent, a 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 (QA/QC) procedures included analysis of laboratory blanks and
duplicates. All data underwent at least 3 separate reviews prior to being included in the final
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 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 3 FIB
(total and fecal coliform and enterococci); 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 or Zone B 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 outfall (OCSD 1999). For each survey,
the depth of the pycnocline layer, if present, was calculated for each station using temperature and
salinity data. The pycnocline is defined as the depth layer where stability is greater than 0.05 kg/m3
(Officer 1976). Data for each station and numeric compliance parameter(transmissivity, 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
A-3
Methods
,om
r
0m
�Peaama��
Beach Na p
eea•h
30m
ax•
Trealmenl
1404. PIam2 Newport
0m Beach
o
�9 •� \�
24060
zxos•
oom
n
_--
Z —__zzzs• w•
60m no ps• ne IN - 2iw•`.
BOm Q21
loom 2111. z�° _
nos•
zoom lac �O z •
oom _ • .
A
ocsD March zole wemwa
Figure A-1 Offshore water quality monitoring stations and zones used for compliance
determinations.
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., upooast or downcoast) for
each survey day was determined based on available current measurements and the presence or
absence of typical plume "signals" (e.g., ammonium, 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
MATLAB (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 be greater than t0.2 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.
In accordance with permit specifications,the ouffall 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
A-4
Methods
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(i.e., 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 water depth and/or variable oceanographic conditions. For example, some Zone A stations (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., nearfeld) 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 atypical 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).
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.
Additionally, the District's permit includes the following USEPA Primary Recreation Criteria for
Enterococcus(EPA 1994a).
• 30-day geometric mean: Density less than 35 per 100 mL.
• Single sample: Density less than 104 per 100 mL for designated bathing beaches.
• Single sample: Density less than 158 per 100 mL for moderate use.
• Single sample: Density less than 276 per 100 mL for light use.
• Single sample: Density less than 501 per 100 mL for infrequent use.
For purposes of this report, compliance with the EPA criteria was based on infrequent use.
Determinations of fecal coliform compliance were accomplished by multiplying E. coli data by 1.1 to
obtain a calculated fecal coliform value.
A-5
Methods
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://ocbeachinfo.com/); and are briefly
discussed in Chapter 2.
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).
SEDIMENT GEOCHEMISTRY MONITORING
Field Methods
Sediment samples were collected for geochemistry analyses from 29 semi-annual stations in July
2016 (summer) and in January 2017 (winter), as well as from 39 annual stations in July 2016
(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 2017 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) Upper Slope/Canyon (201-500 m). In Chapter 2, the Middle Shelf Zone 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 MN 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 cm 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 the District's Laboratory,
Monitoring, and Compliance Standard Operating Procedures (LMC SOP) (OCSD 2016; Table A-2).
Table A-2 Sediment collection and analysis summary during 2016-17. ' = Available online at:
www.epa.gov.
Parameter Container Pmematlon HOIdlnBTlme blethad
Dissolved Sulfides HDPE cortemar Freeze 6 monMs LMC SOP 45005 G Rev.B
Grain Size Plastic bag 4.0 6months Plumb(1951)
Mercury Amberglassjar Freaze 6monMs LMC SOP 245.1 B Rev.G
Metals Amberglessjer Freeze 6monda LMC SOP 2008E SED Rev.F
Sediment Toxicity HDPE cortamer 4^C 2moams LMOSOPM10
Total Chlodnaled Pe80cIEes(£Pest) Glassjar Freeze 6months LMC SOP 8000-SPP
TataI DDT(£DDT) Glassjar Freaze 6months LMC SOP 8(00-SPP
Total Nitrogen(TN) Glassjar Freeze 6monda EPA 351.21A ant 353.2M'
Total Organic carbon(TOO) Glassjar Freeze 6moams ASTM D4129-W
Total Phospharus(TP) Glassjar Freeze 6months EPA6010B•
Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls(£PCB) Glassjar Freaze 6months LMC SOP 8Xx--SPP
Total Polycyclic Ammatic Hydmcarbons(£PAH) Glassjar Freaze 6monde LMC SOP 8000-PAH
A-6
Methods
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 (LIMS) software. All other analyses were conducted
by District 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
(LPCB)and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(EPAH)were calculated by summing the measured
value of each respective constituent listed in Table A-3. Total dichlorodipheynitrichloroethane (FDDT)
represents the summed values of 4,4'-DDMU and the 2,4-and 4,4'-isomers of DDD, DDE, and DDT,
Table A-3 Parameters measured in sediment samples during 2016-17.
Marts.
Antimony Cadmium Lead Selenium
A.m. Chromium Memory Silver
Barium Copper Nickel Zinc
Be~
OnManachladns Pesticides
ChlmCans Derivatives and Dietdrin
Aldrin Endosulfan-alpha gamma-BHC He.achlorobemene
us-Chlordane Endosuffan-beta Heptachlor Mire.
trans-Chlordane Endosulfan-sulfate Heptachlor epoxide trans-Nonschlor
Dieldrin Endnn
DDT D.6y.h.s
2.4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT 4.4'-DDMU
4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT
Polychlorinated Biphenyl(PCB)Congruous
PCB 18 PCB 81 PCB 126 PCB 170
PCB 28 PCB 87 PCB 128 PCB 177
PCB 37 PCB 99 PCB 138 PCB 180
PCB44 PCB 101 PCB 149 PCB 183
PCB49 PCB 105 PCB 151 PCB 187
PCB 52 PCB 110 PCB 153I168 PCB 189
PCB 66 PCB 114 PCB 1% PCB 194
PCB 70 PC6118 PCB 157 PCB 201
PCB 74 PCB 119 PCB 167 PCB 206
PCB 77 PCs 123 PCB 169
PotyryclicAmmegc Hydracahon(PAX)Compounds
Acenaphtbene Benao[g,h,l]pmy1.ne FluomMhene 1-Methylnaphthelens
Aomaphthylene Benzo[kno.renthene Fluorone 2-Methylnaphthalene
Anthmcene Biphenyl Indeno[1,2,3 ,dfpyrsne 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalens
Benz[a]antbracene Chrysene Naphthalene 1,6,7-Trim nthylnaphthalene
Benzo[a]p rune Dlbenz[a.h]aMhi Perylene 2,3,6-Trimethylnaphthalene
Bemo[b fluomnthene Dibenzothiophene Phenanthrene 1-Methylphenandmane
Benm[e]pyrane Pyrene
Beer Parameters
Dissolved Sulfides TMal Nitrogen Total Organic Cation TMal Phosphome
Grain Size
A-7
Methods
and total chlorinated pesticides (EPest) represents the summed values of 13 chlordane derivative
compounds plus dieldrin.
Sediment toxicity was conducted using the 10-day Eohaustorius estuarius amphipod survival test
(EPA 1994b). 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 ND
(not detected). Further,an ND value was treated as zero for calculating a mean analyte concentration;
however,if a station group contained all ND fora particularanalyte,then the mean analyte concentration
is reported as ND. Sediment contaminant concentrations were evaluated against sediment quality
guidelines known as Effects Range-Median (ERM) (Long at al. 1998). The ERM guidelines were
developed for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 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 at al. 1995), and as such, an ERM exceedance is considered
a significant potential for adverse biological effects. Bight'13 sediment geochemistry data (Dodder
at 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 at 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 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 MN Nerissa was used to collects sediment
sample from 29 semi-annual stations in July 2016 (summer) and in January 2017 (winter), as well
as from 39 annual stations in July 2017 (Figure 2-2). As the January 2017 sample from within-ZID
Station 0 yielded only 9 individuals and no polychaete taxa (historically, >300 individuals, mostly
comprised of polychaetes, are collected at this station), 2 additional infauna samples were collected
in March 2017 from Station 0. 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 Feld methods
section.
All sediment samples were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed for acceptability prior to
processing as described above in the sediment geochemistry Feld 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 (16 in
x 16 in), 1.0 mm sieve. Organisms retained on the sieve were rinsed with 7% magnesium sulfate
A-8
Methods
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
the District'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) to be sorted to 5 major taxonomic groups (aliquots), Annelids, (worms), Molluscs (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
was edited accordingly (see Appendix C). Species names used in this report follow those given in
Cadien and Lovell (2016).
Table A-4 Benthic infauna taxonomic aliquot distribution for 2016-17.
Quarter Sumy(No.ofumplae) Taxonomic Allquots Contractor OCSO
Annelida 0 39
Annual Admopoda 0 39
(39) Echin.dermata 0 39
Mollusc. 20 19
Summer 2016 Mlscellaneous PhMa 0 39
Annelida 0 29
Semi-annual Arthropoda 29 0
(29) Eolumdermate 29 0
Molluxa 29 0
Miscellaneous Phyla 29 0
Annelid. 1 1
March Arthropoda 0 2
(2) Echlnodem ue 0 2
Mollusc. 0 2
winter 2017 Miscellaneous Phyla 0 2
Annelid. 5 24
Sembannual Arthmpoda 29 0
(29) Eclenodeim.te 29 0
Mollusc. 0 29
Miscellaneous Phyla 0 29
Totals 200 295
Data Analyses
Since the January 2017 sample from Station 0 was determined to be an anomaly based on the low
infauna abundance (n=9) as well as the absence of polychaete taxa, sediment toxicity (see Chapter
2), and threshold exceedances in sediment chemistry parameters (see Chapter 2), the first sample
(of two)taken from Station 0 in March 2017 was analyzed along with that from the other stations as
described below.
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 log, (Zar 1999). SDI
was calculated as the minimum number of species with combined abundance equal to 75% of the
A-9
Methods
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 (1978, 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 al. 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). The District'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., Capitelle capitata 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 July and
August, 2016 (summer)and in February 2017(winter). Sampling was conducted at 15 stations: Inner
Shelf (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. Data for this historical station are not
discussed in this report, however.
A minimum of 1 trawl was conducted from the MN Nerissa at each station using a 7.6 m (25 ft)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
A-10
Methods
stations 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 at each station, and usually in the same direction.
Established trawl QA/QC methods for southern California were used (see Appendix C). Station
locations and trawling speeds and paths were determined using Global Positioning System (GPS)
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 Tissue Contaminants 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); 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 the District'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 the District'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 at al. 2001, 2006). FRI scores less
than 45 are classified as reference (normal)and those greater than 45 are non-reference (abnormal
or disturbed). The District's historical trawl EMI and fish data from the past 10 monitoring periods, as
well as Bight'13 trawl data (Walther at 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
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 square root transformed in order to down-weight
the highly abundant species and incorporate the importance of the less common species(Clarke and
Warwick 2014).
A-11
Methods
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, T12, T17, and
T11).
FISH TISSUE CONTAMINANTS MONITORING
Two demersal fish species, English Sole (Parophrys vetu/us) 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 at al. 1995).
Demersal fishes in the Scorpaenidae (e.g., California Scorpionfsh 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 July 2016 trawl
survey. Likewise, 10 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
2016 (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 the District's laboratory. Sample storage and holding times for
bioaccumulation analyses followed specifications in the District's LMC SOP (OCSD 2016;Table A-5).
Table A-5 Fish tissue handling and analysis summary during 2016-17. ' = Available online at
www.epa.gov; N/A= Not Applicable.
Parameter container Pmeeendlon H.Iding Time M.Moe
Amenic and Selenium Ziplock bag Freeze 6 months LMC SOP 200 86 SED Rev.F
Oganochiorine PesOcides Lplock bag Freeze 6montt,s NS&T(NOA41993);EPA 827V
DOTe Ziplock bag Freese 6monMe NS&T(NOAA1993);EPA 8270-
Lipids Ziplock bag Freeze NIA EPA9071-
Mercury Ziplock bag Freeze 6montt,s LMC SOP 245,1 B Rev.G
Polyhlonm.t.d BipbenAs Ziplock bag Freese 6mcmft NS&T(NOAA1993(I EPA827V
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.
Total dichlorodipheynitrichloroethane (LDDT)represents the summed values of 2,4-and 4,4'-isomers
of DDD, DDE, and DDT and 4,4'-DDMU, total polychlorinated biphenyls (EPCB) represents the
summed values of 44 congeners, and total chlordane(FChlordane)represents the sum of 7 derivative
A-12
Methods
Table A-6 Parameters measured in fish tissue samples during 2016-17. ' = Analyzed only in
rig-fish specimens.
Metals
Arsenio Mercury Selenium'
Organochlorine Pesticides
Chlordane De,.Ug es and Dieldnn
cis-Chlordene Dieldrin cisNonachlcr
tmns-ChloMane Heptachlor "ns-NOoachtar
Oxychlordane Heptachlor epoxide
DDT Dedvadves
2,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT
4,4 DDMU
PelychlerinMed Blphenyl(PCB)Congeners
PCB 18 PCB 101 PCs 156
PCB 28 PCB 105 PCB 157
PCB 37 PCB 110 PCB 167
PCB 44 PCB 114 PCB 169
PCB 49 PCB 118 PCB 170
PCB 52 PCB 119 PCB 177
PCB 66 PCs 123 PCB 180
PCB 70 PCB 126 PCB 183
PCs 74 PCs 128 PCB 187
PCs 77 PCB 138 PCB 189
PCB 81 PCB 149 PCB 194
PCs 87 PCB 151 PCB 201
PCB 99 PCB 15NI68 PCB 206
Other Param r
Lipids
compounds (cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and
oxychlordane). Organic contaminant data were not lipid normalized.
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 fish tissue samples had all NO for a particular analyte,then the mean analyte concentration
is reported as ND. Data analysis consisted of summary statistics (i.e., means and ranges) and
qualitative comparisons only.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels and the State of California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) advisory tissue levels (ATLs) for FDDT, FPCB,
methylmercury, dieldrin and LChlordane 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.
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 2016-17 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
A-13
Methods
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. Hom, 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 Vihrio anguillarum. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 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). 1994a. Water Quality Standards Handbook. EPA-823-B-94-005a.
EPA. 1994b. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants
with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA 600/R-94/025.
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:ASynthesis and Interpretation(M.D.
Dailey, D.J. Reish,and J.W.Anderson—Eds.). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. p. 233-265.
IGODS. 2012. IGODS(Interactive Graphical Ocean Database System)Version 3 Beta 4.41 [software]. Ocean
Software and Environmental Consulting, Los Angeles, 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, Dieldrin, Methylmeroury, 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 Ecol. Risk Assess. 4:1019-1039.
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.
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.
A-15
Methods
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-60013-78-083.
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 I. 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. 2017. Annual Report,July 2015June 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,
Th 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.
EPAfCE-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. Montagne, C.A. Brantley, C. Beegan, D.B. Cadien, C. Cash,
G.B. Deets, D.R. Diener, T.K. Mikel, R.W. Smith, R.G. Velarde, 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. Seasott CTD Data Processing Software, Version 7.26.7.1 [software]. Seabird Electronics,
Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Smith,R.W., M. Bergen,S.B.Weisberg,D.Cadien,A. Dalkey, D.Montagne,J.K.Stull,and R.G.Velarde. 2001.
Benthic 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-60013-78-030, 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.
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.
A-16
Methods
Word,J.Q. 1990. The I nfaunalTrophic 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 (MPN/100 mL)collected in offshore waters and
used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance
criteria, July 2016 through June 2017.
Meets 301 Meats Single Means Single
Statlon Gate Geometric Mean of Sample Standanl Sample Standard
510001100mL &510,00011001 8151000/100m1_'
7/19/2016 7MOM016 712112016 802016 613/2016
2103 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2104 QO 1
0 Qp <10 <10 YES YES YES
2183 <10 <10 <10 <10 00 YES YES YES
2203 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2223 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2303 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2351 <10 < 0 <10 Qp <10 YES YES YES
.03 <10 <11 <10 <f0 <10 YES YES YES
1011=016 101IW2016 10R012016 111112016 1112/2016
2103 21 16 11 <10 15 YES YES YES
2104 26 10 11 <10 44 YES YES YES
2183 16 14 16 <10 <10 YES YES YES
M03 26 11 <10 Qp <10 YES YES YES
2223 <10 <10 <10 <f0 <10 YES YES YES
2303 <i0 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2351 c10 q0 < <10 <10 YES YES YES
2403 <10 <10 60 <10 <10 YES YES YES
21812017 &1412017 212M2017 311Y2017 3fL2017
2103 17 13 25 13 32 YES YES YES
211 11 13 13 24 76 YES YES YES
2183 11 21 32 <10 19 YES YES YES
M03 10 6 28 <10 15 YES YES YES
2223 <10 i0 21 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2303 <10 11 14 <10 10 YES YES YES
2351 <10 18 f0 <10 <10 YES YES YES
UO3 00 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
u11112017 441913017 4@012017 Spit 5N0/2017
2103 <10 12 10 Q0 <10 YES YES YES
2104 19 43" 16 <10 00 YES YES YES"
2183 12 11 11 <10 <10 YES YES YES
M03 <10 <10 410 <10 410 YES YES YES
2223 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2303 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2351 <10 <10 <10 <f0 <10 YES YES YES
2403 <10 <10 <10 <10 12 YES YES YES
Sbndi is based an amen the single¢ample naximum kal coiik,mnong witlwm nlo>0.1.
••Dept.mmbined,me.sh ie aampie alenei(411.17).
B-1
Supporting Data
Table B-2 Depth-averaged fecal coliform bacteria(MPN/100 mL)collected in offshore waters and
used for comparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance
criteria, July 2016 through June 2017.
Meets 30.0ay Mean single
SYatlon Gate Geomorlc Mean a ample stanEand
Sa00110UmL of"00/100mL
711=016 7a=016 7121n016 8nn016 01312016
2103 <10 Qp <10 <10 c10 YES YES
21 Da <10 <10 < 0 <10 <10 YES YES
2183 <10 <10 <10 <10 Q0 YES YES
2203 <10 q0 c10 <10 <10 YES YES
2223 <f0 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
2303 <1p <10 c10 <10 c10 YES YES
2351 <f0 <10 <f0 <10 <f0 YES YES
NO3 <10 <10 Q0 <10 Q0 YES YES
10118n016 10IIW2016 10120n016 1111n016 11=016
2103 12 11 Q0 <10 <10 YES YES
2104 14 <10 <10 <10 N YES YES
2183 <10 10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
2203 17 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
M23 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
2303 q0 Qp c10 <10 c10 YES YES
2351 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
2A03 <10 <10 14 <10 Q0 YES YES
VW2017 211412017 2128/2017 311n017 312/2017
2103 <10 <10 10 10 20 YES YES
2104 <10 10 <10 13 27 YES YES
2183 q0 13 16 <10 10 YES YES
2203 NO <10 10 <10 12 YES YES
2223 <10 <10 11 <10 Q0 YES YES
2303 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
2351 <10 11 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
2403 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
WIW2017 0IM017 412=017 Mn017 L1on017
2103 <10 10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
21N 11 21' 10 <10 Q0 YES YES'
2183 QO QO Q0 <10 Q0 YES YES
.03 <f0 <10 <f0 <10 <f0 YES YES
2223 <10 c10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
2303 <f0 110 < 0 <10 < 0 YES YES
2351 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
2A03 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES
•CegM1e combinod.meal Wools meem stmeaM(VIM 7).
B-2
Supporting Data
Table B-3 Depth-averaged enterococci bacteria (MPN/100ml-) collected in offshore waters and
used forcomparison with California Ocean Plan Water-Contact (REC-1) compliance
criteria and EPA Primary Recreation Criteria in Federal Waters, July 2016 through
June 2017.
Meets COP Meets COP Meets EPA
30Aaymnstr single sample single sample
Station Data Geometric standard of standard of
Mean Of g041100 mL 55011100 mV
635110o mL
711912016 7/2012016 712112016 81212016 81312016
2103 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2106 <f0 <10 <10 <f0 <f0 YES YES YES
2183 <10 <10 10 QO10 12 YES YES YES
.3 <f0 Q0 <10 c <10 YES YES YES
2223 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2303 <10 <10 e10 c10 <10 YES YES YES
2351 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
213 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
1011&2016 10119Y1016 10120n016 111112016 lla=16
2103 QO QO <10 QO 110 YES YES YES
2106 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 YES YES YES
2183 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2203 <f0 q0 <10 <f0 <f0 YES YES YES
2223 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2303 QO QO <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2351 '10 <10 <10 tl0 NO YES YES YES
2603 <10 <10 <10 Q0 <10 YES YES YES
21W2017 211M2017 =W017 3NP2017 WZ2017
2103 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 YES YES YES
2106 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2183 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
.'3 10 <11 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2223 <10 <10 <10 Q0 <10 YES YES YES
2303 <10 QO <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2351 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
24 3 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
M1812017 4119YL017 CZ012017 WM017 WIW2017
2103 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2106 <10 14" <10 <10 <10 YES YES- YES
2183 Qf0 O QO10 <1<10 <10 GOf0 YES YES YES
.3 < < 0 <f0 < YES YES YES
2223 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2303 <10 <10 <10 15 <10 YES YES YES
.1 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 YES YES YES
2603 <10 <10 <10 00 <10 YES YES YES
•Snndard sbasedon an,aofi6 uedtase.
••oapins oornbmed,meet alyla—0a 5landa.(stem).
B-3
Supporting Data
Table B--4 Summary of floatable material by station group observed during the 28-station
grid water quality surveys, July 2016 through June 2017. Total number of station
visits = 336.
Station croup
Upcoast Upccut Nearfeltl Nenteld Downcoasl Downcoast
Offshore Neamhore Ofshore w^M1in Z10 Nearahore Offshore Neanhore
Sorlace Observatlon 2225,2226 2223,2224 Totals
2305,2306 2303,2304 2206 2205 2203,2204 2105,21% 2103,2104
2353,2354 2351,2352 2185,2188 2183,2184
2405 2406 2403 2404
Oil and Greau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tr..N bds 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 5
Blologicel Matedal(kelp) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Mate^al of Sewage O^gin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 6
Table B-5 Summary of floatable material by station group observed during the REC-1 water
quality surveys, July 2016 through June 2017. Total number of station visits = 108.
Station Groups
Surface Observadon Upcoast Neenhare whin ZID NearSeld Neanhore Downcoast Nearehore Totals
2223,2303 2205 2203 2103,2104,
2351.2403 2183
Oil end Grease 0 0 0 0 0
TraWDebrie 0 0 0 1 1
Biological Mate^al(kelp) 0 0 0 0 0
Maledal of Sewage Odgin 0 0 0 0 0
ToUls 0 0 0 1 1
B-4
Table B-6 Summary of monthly Core COP water quality compliance parameters by season and depth strata, July 2016 to June 2017.
IMpth Summer Fall Wimer Spring Annual
Strata Sal Sid Sul SW SW
(m) Min Mean Max D. Min Mean Max Dee Min Mean Max Dev Min Mean Max 0. Min Mean Max lieu
Da..WC Oxygen(mg4)
1-15 7.02 7.88 8.78 0.24 6.23 7.63 8.36 0.99 6.39 T77 8.32 0.23 4A8 834 10.53 1.05 4.16 7.91 10.53 0.0
16-30 5.63 7.68 8.95 0.63 5.63 6.75 7.94 0.56 4.52 7A3 8.07 0.61 3.57 532 9A1 IA7 3.57 6.92 9.41 1.15
3145 4.81 6.21 8.40 0.65 4.97 5.98 7.31 0." 4.28 6.50 7.83 0.90 3.39 4.25 6.27 0.41 3.39 5.73 BAO 1.08
45-60 4.W 5.33 6.55 0.39 4.85 5.54 645 0.32 4A8 5.31 ].18 0.68 US 378 4.46 0.30 3.16 4.99 7.18 0.84
61-75 4.19 4.85 5.72 0.28 4.66 5.20 5.83 0.25 3A7 433 5.60 OA2 2A7 3S7 4.09 0.28 2.97 4.59 5.83 0.69
MI 4.19 6.83 8.95 1.26 4.66 6.53 8.36 O.S7 3.S7 &77 8.32 1.24 2.97 5.76 10.53 2.11 2.97 6.47 10.53 1.52
PH
1-15 7.92 8.03 8.13 0.05 7.81 7.99 8.09 0.05 7.93 8.09 8.22 0.08 7.99 8.21 8.30 0.06 7.81 8.08 8.30 0.10
16-30 7.74 7.95 8.11 0.05 7.68 7.88 8.05 0.09 L81 B.g7 820 US 7.69 802 8.26 0.11 7.68 7.98 8.26 0.12
3145 7.65 7.81 8.00 0.07 7.62 7.79 8.00 0A0 776 8.0E 8.20 0.10 7.85 7A3 8.04 0.08 7.62 7.86 8.20 0.13
45-60 7.62 7.72 TM 0.05 7.60 7.73 7.90 0.09 7.74 7.92 8.11 0.10 7.60 7.75 7.88 0.09 7.60 7.78 8.11 0.12
61-75 7.57 7.66 7.75 0.04 7.57 7.69 7.85 0.09 7.73 7.84 8.01 0.09 7.68 7.72 7.84 0.09 7.57 7.73 8.01 0.11
Al 7.57 7.88 8.13 0.15 7.57 7.85 B.09 0.14 7.73 8.02 8.22 0.13 7.58 7.97 8.30 0.21 7.57 7.93 8.30 0.17
light Transmisandy(%)
1-15 70.81 82.80 87.31 2.26 71.04 83.03 87.55 2A8 69.66 B3.14 8735 2.99 4599 81.12 86.25 3.39 45.99 82.52 87.75 3.02
16-30 71.09 82.81 87.36 2.75 77.89 84.85 88.58 2.19 71.51 MA3 87.74 2.24 35.68 80.22 88.58 6.18 35.68 83.08 88.58 4.15
3146 73.65 85.32 87.70 1.69 82.28 87.09 88.83 US 78.68 8627 WAS 1.63 7349 86.64 89.08 1.97 73.49 86.33 89.08 1.75
45-60 82.07 06.95 88.70 1.21 85.03 87,58 HAS 0.79 7A01 86A3 89.24 2A0 MA3 87.43 89.38 1.08 79.01 87.20 89.38 1.38
61-75 81.22 87.49 88.86 1.33 84.60 87,68 88.94 0.83 81.95 87.09 MM L58 81.54 87.62 89.50 1.42 81.22 87.47 99.50 1.34
Al 7081 84.37 68.66 2.83 71,04 8541 86.94 2.77 69.66 85AI 69.34 238 3508 8350 8950 500 3508 84.57 8950 356
ammonium(mg2)-
1-15 0.015 0.015 0.026 0.001 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.015 0.015 0.g77 0.005 0.015 0.015 0.033 0002 0.015 0.015 0.077 0.003
W 16-30 0.015 0.016 0.035 0.003 0.015 0.016 0.062 0.006 0.015 0.015 0.030 0.00E 0.015 0.019 OuN 0009 0.015 0.016 0.0% 0.006
(T 3145 0.015 0.017 0.083 0.012 0.015 0.022 0.119 0.022 0.015 0.033 0.257 0.041 0.015 0.024 0.135 0.023 0.015 0.024 0.257 0.027
45-60 0.015 0018 0065 0009 0015 0.024 0.123 0.022 0.015 0.030 0.136 0.027 0.015 0.026 0.234 0035 0.015 0024 0234 0025
61-75 na na na na na na na na na na na na ns ns na m ne ne ne
Al 0.015 0.016 0.003 0.006 0.015 0.018 0.123 0.013 0.015 0.020 0.257 0.020 0.015 0.01019 0.234 0.018 0.015 0.018 0.257 0.016
Amnwnium valuas uaa MDL(002"1)wme atljualeE b M M MDL(0.015nryl).
ns=Nat S.ra,..
M
C
9
O
O
r7
10
O
m
m
Supporting Data
Table B-7 Species richness and abundance values of the major taxonomic groups collected at
each depth stratum and season during the 2016-17 infauna survey. Values represent
the mean and range (in parentheses).
Season Parameter Stratum Annelids Arthropods Ecbinodarmata Misc.Phyla Molluscs
Middle Shelf Zone 1 49(36-70) 15(8-24) 4(2-7) 7(1-10) 12(6-14)
(31-50)
Middle Shelf Zone 2, 56(4754) 15(8-22) 4(2S) 5(35) 11(8-13)
Within-ZID(51-90)
Middle Shelf Zone 2, 51(2M9) 13(422) 3(1-S) 5(1-9) 11(1-17)
Number of Nei(51-90)
Species Middle Shelf Zone 3 39(32-07) 8(3-15) 2(1d) 3(OB) 9(5-15)
(91-120)
Outer Shelf 16(12-20) 2(0.8) 2(1J) 1(0.2) 8(6-12)
(121-200)
Upper SlapelCenyon 10(6-13) 2(OS) 1(0.2) 0(0.1) 6(3-9)
Summer (201-600)
Middle Shelf Zmw 1 240(I36-030) 38(1853) 13(2-30) 26 f-SS) 32(7-53)
nl1 h
Middle Shelf Zone 2, 307(205450) 29(14 37) 8(5-11) 9(4-15) 20(9-38)
Within-ZID(51-90)
Middle Shelf Zone 2, 281(117515) 25(10 ) 14(236) 8(1-15) 241
her-ZID(51-90)
Abundance Middle Shelf Zone
(91-120) 136(93-172) 16(8a0) 48(6-90) 4(0.10) 33(22-51)
Outer Shelf 36(20Z9) 2(M) 4(1-7) 1(0.2) 21(15-54)
(121-200)
Upper SlapelCenyon 21(1050) 3(Od) 2(03) 0(0.1) 12(]-17)
(201-600)
Middle Shelf Zmn 2. 59(11 16(12-18) 5(45) 5(3-7) 11(11-12)
Number of Within-ZID(51-90)
Species Middle Shelf Zone 2, 55(4456) 13(7-20) 4(2-10) 6(1-12) 11(5-17)
Winter Non-ZID(61-90)
Middle Shelf Zone 2, 221(197-267) 30(21-34) 10(8-11) 7(5-10) 32(23-08)
Within-ZID(51-90)
Naendance Middle Shelf Zone 2,
Ni(51-90) 255(155387) 29(9-10]) 12(2-52) 8(2-18) 311
B-6
Table B-8 Abundance of epibenthic macroinvertebrates by species and station for the Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys.
Stratum Middle Shah Zone 1 Middle Shelf Zone 2 Outar Shelf
Station T2 T24 TB T18 T23 T22 T1 T12 T17 T11 T10 nit T14 T19
Nominal Depth 35 36 36 36 50 SO 55 ST SO 60 137 137 137 137
Season $ S S S S IN 8 w S IN S IN S w S w S S S S Total %
Ophium luelkena 2 16X 1812 13 14 30 1 42 1 4 14 5 1 256 373 41M 58.5
Sicyanie ingentis 5 13 12 8 1 4 8 45 141 SW 7" 10.4
StronwAxontrotus fmgllis 234 239 473 66
Slcyonle penlcillat. 1 1 20 16 3 6 12 47 5 27 181 67 386 5.4
Hametoacalpellum isiiforri. 22 12 11 4 34 19 30 6 16 1 20 8 122 51 3% 5.0
Lymohmus pdus 1 1 59 50 9 5 18 22 4 7 1 1 1 149 17 4 349 4.9
Theses sitB 12 52 4B 6 10 13 7 26 16 8 14 5 8 28 93 346 4.0
AatmpacMn caliromicus 1 6 5 6 6 10 23 3 9 8 14 8 21 120 1.7
Ophiothnx spiculam 1 37 7 2 1 1 1 14 2 68 0.9
Astmpaden sp 6 3 10 19 0.3
H.m.9.%ia tonuose 2 3 8 1 1 1 2 18 0.3
Orthopegums minimus 6 2 1 2 2 1 14 0.2
Octopus mbesrena 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 10 0.1
Flabellina iodine. 3 4 1 8 0.1
Neocran,vi zeta. 1 4 7 0.1
CFgihynchus wriona 2 1 1 2 6 0.1
Flabellinapdsel 6 6 0.1
Aposikhopua calilomicus 1 1 1 2 5 0.1
Encemdes hemphllld 2 2 1 5 04
Luidis Indolam 1 4 5 0.1
a) Solemxam mutuor 5 5 0.1
V Ac.nlhodods bmnnea 1 2 1 4 0.1
Acanthop0lumsp 2 1 1 LM 4 0.1
Doriopsilla soopur,date 2 2 <Dl
Loxorhynchus cnspelus 2 2 <0.1
Naocmngon resima 1 2 <D1
Platymem gaudichaudd 1 1 2 'DI
Pleumbmnchaee wllfomka 1 1 2 <0.1
Rosim pad0oa 2 <0.1
Armin.calilomka 1 1 <0.1
Astmpaden armatus 1 1 <Dl
Do"Whls opalescens 1 <0.1
Lamenan.dlegoeneis 1 1 <0.1
Lucia aathenoaoma 1 1 <0.1
Moretradmmi.sanabumi 1 1 <Dl
Muncidee 1 1 <Dl
Octopus aaldomkus 1 <0.1
Pagudsfes baken 1 1 <0.1
Pagunaka turgidus 1 1 <Dl
Phimochirus oalgomiensis 1 1 'DI
Pleumnwdespfanipes 1 1 <0.1
Pleropuri um fesh'va 1 1 <0.1 rA
Pymm.ia lubemufats 1 1 <0.1 S
Thom.Festiva 1 1 <Dl .�
Total Abundance 55 170 1886 2 118 91 114 64 138 90 51 116 48 65 601 632 US 307 1" 520 7181 100 G
Total No.ofspades 10 11 9 2 6 6 9 10 11 12 10 10 6 9 11 19 4 7 3 9 44
b
0
t9
d
Table B-9 Biomass (kg)of epibenthic macroinvertebrates by station and species for the Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys.
v
Stratum Middle Shelf Zonal Middle Shelf Zone 2 Ouler Shelf 'O
O
Station T2 T24 T6 T18 T23 T22 T1 T12 T9 T11 T10 T25 T10 T19
Nominal Depth 35 36 36 36 58 60 55 57 60 60 137 137 137 137 3
Season 3 S 3 3 S W 3 W S W 3 W S W 3 W 3 3 3 3 Total h O
Sbangykcedbutus Iragllis 6.810 9.620 16.430 42.3 w
Slcyonla 109ead. 0.006 0.024 0.015 0.008 0.001 0.009 0.007 0.698 1.348 4.810 5.926 17.8 m
Sicywie penioffe. 0.013 0.019 0.400 0.280 0.093 0.103 0.013 1.060 0.110 0.618 2.948 0.840 6.513 16.8
Ophium luelkeno 0.001 1.158 L648 OMB 0.007 0.011 0.001 0.039 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.290 0.366 3.539 9.1
Aposbihobus cWffi micus 0.440 0.393 0.478 1.148 2.459 63
Lytechinus pious 0.001 0.002 0.050 0.0% MIS 0.008 0.019 0.026 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.500 0.075 0.014 1 0.781 2.0
Habana.gautlichaWd 0.220 0.238 0458 12
Octopus cali7aaa,ue 0.445 0.445 IA
Ockpus mbesrens 0.030 0.030 0.018 0.008 0.106 0.050 0.035 0.277 07
Astrope0en WAadjcus 0.004 0.010 0.008 0.011 0.005 0.018 0.021 0.003 0.023 0.014 0.021 0.014 OA61 0.213 OS
Wide lolkdata 0.007 0.200 0.207 0.5
Theses spa 0.006 0.035 0.022 0.M1 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.020 0.008 0.004 0.006 0.005 0005 0.014 0.043 0.187 0.5
Hamatosc.lpsdlte calikmkum 0.003 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.003 a." 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 OA01 0.110 0.000 0.148 OA
Pleumb anchaea calilomica 0.001 0.055 0.056 0.1
i)b" thls opalescens 0.065 0.066 0.1
Oplakahak specula(. 0.001 0.009 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.023 0.1
Pleumncotlesphmgb s 0.018 0.018 <0.1
Sohmm, remmalor 0.013 0.013 <0.1
Hetemgorgia(aNasa 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.011 <0.1
Onhopagums mimeos OW 0.001 0001 0.001 0006 0.001 0011 <0.1
CD Rossi.peoft. 0.011 0.011 <0.1
Askopeclen armatus 0.010 0.010 <0.1
Weropumom resb. 0.010 0.010 <0.1
Ashopecten sp 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005 <0.1
Acan(hoaan.bmnnea 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.004 <0.1
Cayrh,M.lodhons 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 <0.1
Acanlhapglumsp 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 <0.1
Encemdes heakatafll 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 <0.1
Flabellin.iodides 0001 0.001 0.001 0.003 <0.1
Neocmngon zacae 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 <0.1
Neocrengm resima 0.001 0.001 0.002 <0.1
P.gudstes baked 0.002 60.002 <0.1
TdOrk.festive 0.002 0.002 <0.1
Armin.calVd ka 0.001 0.001 <0.1
Oarbpsilla elbopunctata 0.001 0.001 <0.1
Flabellinapncel 0.001 0.001 <0.1
Lamellada diegoembs 0.001 0.001 <0.1
Lovorhynchua cnspatus 0.001 0.001 <0.1
Lukas aalhenosoma 0.001 0.001 <0.1
MaeireCremi.sanaburei o.e61 0.001 <6.1
MudcMae 0.001 0.001 <0.1
P.gudstea turgMus 0.001 0.001 <0.1
Phimochims calilwniensis 0.001 0.001 <0.1
Pyromaia Mbemake, 6001 0.001 <04
Total Biomass 0.022 1.216 1.695 0.029 0.943 0.023 0.359 0.141 0.821 0.084 0.044 1.122 0.135 0.664 3.398 2.167 7.361 11.615 1.363 5.571 38.843 100
Table 13-70 Abundance of demersal fishes by station and species for the Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys.
Stratum Middle Shelf Zone 1 Middle Shelf Zone 2 Outer aheN
Station TI T24 T6 T18 T23 T22 Ti T12 T17 T11 T10 T25 T14 T19
Nominal Depth(m) 35 36 36 36 58 60 55 57 60 0 137 137 137 137
Season S S 8 8 S W 8 W S W S W 8 W S W 8 S 8 8 Total
CithanchMys sordidue 2 34 119 36 SO 53 81 30 93 25 47 13 153 83 182 152 158 15 1366 234
Sebasfes saxirola 1 218 125 91 405 840 14.4
Synodus luclocepa led 75 71 147 12 10 19 37 25 42 25 59 27 32 9 46 4 1 799 13.7
ZanWepis latipinnis 56 33 11 2 79 4 27 10 39 13 127 22 2 1 426 7.3
Symphums atacaudus 8 9 9 11 21 31 19 23 18 22 21 46 18 15 8 127 1 2 1 410 7.0
loellnpa 0uatldaenaNs 5 28 39 6 3 39 14 14 10 2 62 112 1 335 5.7
Microstomus paoifious 40 3 11 4 6 20 6 1 2 67 32 12 95 2% 5.1
Lyopsetm exiles 35 39 31 135 240 4.1
Cithanchhhys xanth efi,ma 38 25 23 13 1 21 50 6 1 1 1 180 3.1
Zelembius msamus 13 8 7 96 18 2 11 14 3 1 173 3.0
Lycodeapacirmus 7 16 1 37 13 24 55 153 2.6
Plemanichthys ved is 1 3 1 2 6 13 6 5 11 5 6 4 1 7 1 23 2 97 1 7
Pamphrys vetulus 1 1 2 1 2 1 7 1 7 2 9 3 38 13 3 3 1 1 S6 1.6
Chitonotus pu,tanos 1 5 48 2 2 1 22 81 1.4
Clthenchthyss59maeus 5 14 36 55 0.9
Zaniolepla henata 1 23 18 4 8 54 0.9
hhppo9basina stomata 3 3 1 1 8 1 10 3 2 1 6 3 1 43 0.7
PoachMys nomfus 3 2 11 1 5 1 2 2 4 7 38 0.7
Xya(mury 1wepis 3 1 1 5 1 1 25 37 06
Meducuus producfus 1 1 13 20 35 0.6
a) Sebasfes miniatus 1 6 1 6 1 15 0.3
Sebasfes ssmiumtus 1 1 5 1 1 9 0.2
Cdonfopyxis tnapinom 1 2 2 1 2 8 0.1
Scmpaena 9uttata 2 1 2 2 7 0.1
Plemankhthys deounens 2 1 1 1 1 6 0.1
Poacm,mydastcv 1 2 2 5 0.1
Sebaales ap 1 3 1 5 0.1
Chilam mylon 1 1 1 4 0.1
Genyonemus linsafus 2 4 0.1
Raja!.at. 1 1 1 4 0.1
Ceulolafilus pnnmps 2 1 3 0.1
Pamllchfhya oall7omicua 3 3 0.1
Glyptocephelus aaohims 1 2 <0.1
SebasfesjoNani 1 2 < A
Sebasfes laves 2 2 <OA
EopseXajom'ani 1 1 <0.1
Lyconema barbafum 1 1 <0.1
Plecfobrenobus evides 1 1 <0.1
Sebasfes aunculatus 1 1 <0.1
Sebaales daPi 1 1 <0.1
Sebasfes elon9efus 1 1 <0.1
Sebasfes msenblattl 1 1 <0.1 rn
Sebasfes mfus 1 1 <0.1 S
Total Abundance 219 128 153 331 290 143 214 147 246 20 248 204 177 92 448 463 594 3% 345 751 5844 100 .�
Total No.of Species 9 11 9 9 15 13 16 10 11 15 14 11 16 10 17 15 20 14 18 19 43 0
A.
0
d
d
Table B-11 Biomass (kg) of demersal fishes by station and species for the Summer 2016 and Winter 2017 trawl surveys.
v
Stratum Middle Shelf Zom1 Middle Shied Zone 2 Outer Shelf 4
O
Station T2 T2d T6 T18 T23 T22 Tt T12 T17 T11 T10 T25 Ttd T19
Nominal Depth(m) 35 36 36 36 58 60 55 57 60 60 137 137 137 137 O
Season 9 9 S S S W S W S W S W S W 9 W S S S 9 Total % O
Cltharchlhys aoNdus O.IDS 0.103 10.463 3.111 6.143 3.699 5.553 1.028 7.240 2.02 2.944 1.188 8603 2.847 5.255 1.331 1.661 0.542 64.224 36.4 w
Synodua ludowa 2.027 1.010 1.124 1.735 0.384 0.229 O.T71 0.810 1.095 0.809 0.750 1.401 0.769 0.703 0.215 1416 0.144 0.022 15.414 8.7 m
Sebasles aaxic a 0.007 4.359 2.237 1.413 4.650 12.466 7.1
PamphgS vetulus 0.210 0.310 0.408 0.050 0.246 0.078 1.022 0.175 1.005 0.131 0.742 0.250 2890 1.110 0.615 0.780 0.096 0.420 10.538 6.0
Mi tamus pacifiwa 2.328 0.157 0.521 0.141 0409 1.122 0.419 0.042 0090 2.041 0.660 0.511 0.878 10.127 5.7
Clthadchlhys xanthoaligma 1.358 1.013 0.792 0.355 0.067 1.441 3.352 0.749 0.052 0.082 0.040 9.301 5.3
Zanblepia latipmn '. 0967 0.552 0220 0037 1.416 0.073 0428 0.173 0.565 0203 2.126 0404 0.033 0.025 7.222 4.1
Ra.a hthys venicalis 0.139 0.102 0.162 0.250 0.316 0.900 0.347 0.264 0.092 0.388 0.262 0.277 0.041 0.466 OOSd 1456 0.152 6.546 3.7
Symphurus atacaudus 0.076 0.142 0.117 0.166 0.236 0.224 0.264 0.285 0.284 0.296 0.234 0.463 0.171 0.172 0.101 1.461 0.032 0.040 0.020 4.784 2.7
Lyppae0s emus 1.204 0.861 1.011 1.691 6767 2.7
Paralichthys calilorm a 3.800 3.800 2.2
Lycodes padrwus 0.221 0.674 0.045 0.816 0.251 0.392 1.244 3643 2.1
Xyshaury 1wepis 0.548 0.023 0.750 0.270 0.570 0.053 1.310 3.524 2.0
Hippogeossina stomata 0.169 0.168 0.063 0.059 0.459 0.055 0.891 0.107 0.119 0.070 0.523 0.280 0.220 3.183 1.8
RO.I.ala 0.750 1.000 0.700 0.520 2.970 1.7
Meducdus produclus 0.112 0.108 1.471 1.105 2.796 1.6
Zalemb'us rosareus 0.369 0.192 0.090 1.126 0.529 0.029 0.213 0.125 0.030 0.021 2.724 1.5
Ponchthys ndalus 0.115 0.051 0.420 0.086 0.241 0.090 0.074 DIMS 0.148 0.311 1.585 0.9
I.M.q.dnsen.W 0.017 0.070 0.127 0.021 0.014 0.133 0.051 0.049 0.027 0.007 0.237 0423 0.002 1.178 0.7
W Scmpaena gudata 0218 0.070 0.474 0215 0977 0.6
Zaniolepia fianate 0.040 0.333 0.314 0.023 0.152 0.862 0.5
Chgonotus pugamnsis 0.004 0.022 0.336 0.026 0.020 0.008 0.200 0.616 0.3
O EopsettajoMani 0.490 0490 0.3
Ponchlhys mynaster 0.090 0.200 0.151 0."1 0.2
Sebasles minlalus 0.015 0.233 0.022 0.111 0024 0.405 0.2
Cilhaommys sugmasus 0.065 0.069 0.227 0." 0.361 0.2
Genyonemus hneahrs 0.158 0.185 0.343 0.2
Glyptwolu, cunensEac 0.1]0 0.180 0.330 0.2
Reumnich khm tles 0.000 0.037 0.058 0.042 0.055 0.272 0.2
Subusles semicinclus 0.017 0.014 0.188 0.020 0.019 0.258 0.1
Sebaslasjardani 0.032 0.052 0064 <0.1
Caulclahlus pnnreps 0.047 0.021 DIGS <0.1
Sebades dallll 0.029 0029 <0.1
Chilam tal4on 0.004 .008 0.003 0." 0.023 <0.1
Sebades laws .019 0.019 <0.1
Sebamas audwlatus 0018 0018 WA
0donlop,oa blspinose 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.015 <0.1
Sebastes mlus 0.012 0012 <0.1
Sebasles elongatus 0.010 0.010 '0.1
Lywnama barbalum 0.010 0.010 <0.1
Sebades sp 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.005 W.1
Pledobranchua evides 0.005 0.005 <0.1
Subusles maenbh to 0.001 0.001 <0.1
Total Biomass 7.952 3456 24d2 4.040 16.970 6.W4 9.713 5.07 11.013 6.925 12.771 8.601 6.870 3.914 15.389 10.991 18.876 7206 7.879 11.338 176.446 10
Table B-12 Summary statistics of legacy District Core nearshore stations for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci bacteria
(CFU/100 mL) by station and season during 2016-17.
Summer Fall Winter Spring Mnuel
SlatbnSol Min. Mean Mew MinDee . Mean Max. Min. Mean Max. Uav Min. Mxn Mx. peV Min. Mean Mu. Sol
Total cuss,rms
39N <17 15 67 1.58 <17 28 >11000 7.3 <T7 29 1000 4.04 <17 20 700 3.22 <17 23 >11000 3.87
33N <17 24 100 2.22 <17 36 300 5.59 <17 39 WO3.95 <17 17
100 2.06 <17 27 3100 344
27N <17 14 17 1A6 <17 27 900 3.0 Q7 36 600 4.16 <17 13 <20 L09 07 21 900 2.78
21N <17 14 33 1.31 <17 22 1000 3.33 <17 48 1300 4.6 <17 14 <20 IA4 "7 21 1300 294
i5N <17 18 67 1.67 <17 27 230 2.67 <17 61 >2200 4.66 <17 14 33 1.31 <17 26 >2200 2.0
12N q7 22 120 2.14 <17 28 130 243 < 7 55 >1700 663 <17 16 >100 1.88 <17 27 >17c0 34
9N <17 38 -200M 5.81 <17 21 1700 3.49 <17 34 >1000 3.87 <17 15 <100 1.44 <t7 25 >20000 3.76
6N <17 33 1500 3.45 <17 30 26W 3.87 <17 54 5700 5.14 <17 16 67 i.6fi <17 30 5700 3.7
3N <17 30 660 2.83 <17 67 14W 5,t8 <17 70 1800 648 <17 23 460 257 <17 42 1800 407
0 <17 25 300 2.65 <1] 37 >20000 5.7 <17 93 >8000 5.58 <17 22 250 1.97 e1] 37 >20000 4.29
3S <17 16 200 2.14 <17 63 >20000 7.97 <17 72 >6000 6.74 <17 14 >17 1.19 <17 32 >20000 5
BS <17 13 17 1.08 <17 29 13W 3.54 -17 60 >2100 6.3 <17 13 >17 1.15 <17 23 >2100 3.53
9S <17 13 <17 1 <17 27 NO 4.64 <17 169 >20000 8.45 <17 16 >33 1.41 07 32 >20000 5.34
15S <17 19 100 1.92 <17 27 17W 3.92 <17 33 460 3.66 <17 15 33 IA3 07 22 1700 2.8
21S <17 18 130 2.03 -17 17 420 2.62 <17 31 fi00 3.33 <17 19 130 2.17 <17 21 600 2.55
27S <17 15 50 1.46 117 18 480 2.7 <17 29 1200 3.89 <17 15 >33 1.39 07 18 1200 2.44
298 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 W 380 3.26 <17 48 1200 4.48 <17 14 17 1.16 "7 23 1200 295
39S <17 13 17 1.11 <1] 13 17 1.08 <17 15 33 1.42 <17 14 33 1.31 <17 14 33 1.26
All <17 20 >20000 1.16 <i7 30 >20000 1.76 <i] 54 >20000 1.57 Q] 16 700 0.58 <17 28 >20000 0.96
Fecal Cal6ormc
39N <17 16 67 1.66 <17 17 480 2.73 <17 17 50 1.73 <17 13 <17 1 <17 1fi 480 1.86
33N <17 18 100 2 <17 28 660 3 82 <17 19 100 2 N7 14 33 1.31 <17 19 660 2 35
' 27N <17 13 17 1.08 <17 1] 67 t.fi3 <1] 21 6] 1.84 <1] 13 <17 1 <17 1fi 67 1.55
21N <17 13 17 1.11 <17 15 33 1.43 <17 22 220 2.71 q] 14 17 1A3 <17 18 220 1.75
15N <17 14 33 1.31 07 19 150 2.1 -17 24 170 2.417 <17 13 17 1.08 "7 17 170 1.88
12N <17 21 100 2 <17 15 33 1.31 <17 28 270 2.95 <17 14 17 1.13 <17 19 270 2.01
9N <17 33 >20000 5.58 <17 15 250 1.79 Q] 20 400 2.44 <17 13 17 1.11 07 19 >20000 2.88
6N <17 28 300 2.59 -17 19 300 2.15 <17 24 700 2.7 -17 14 33 1.22 <17 21 700 2.29
3N 117 28 660 2.85 <17 42 1100 4.55 <17 31 320 2.98 <17 19 350 2.49 07 29 1100 3.28
0 <17 19 200 2.28 <17 21 6100 3.42 117 27 1200 3.02 17 17 200 IV <17 21 6100 2.66
3S <17 17 150 2.03 ei] 28 low4.18 <17 26 1500 3.91 <17 14 33 1.31 07 20 1900 2.91
6S <17 13 <17 1 <17 14 33 1.31 <17 18 100 1.9 <17 13 <17 1 <17 14 100 1.44
9S <17 13 17 1.11 07 17 100 1.82 -17 22 100 2.16 <17 13 17 1.08 <17 16 100 1.69
155 <17 15 67 1.58 <17 16 33 1.42 <17 20 170 2.59 <17 15 67 1.58 <17 1fi 170 1.82
21S <17 13 17 1.11 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 15 50 1.46 <17 18 130 1.99 <17 15 130 L51
27S <17 13 17 1.11 -17 15 33 1.31 -17 18 6W 2.98 -17 13 <17 1 07 14 660 1.75
29S <17 14 33 1.31 <i] 18 130 1.93 < 7 28 1100 3.88 <17 16 <100 1.]1 <17 18 11. 2.29
39S <17 13 17 1.08 <1] 13 17 1.p8 <1] 13 <1] 1 <1) 14 1] 1As <17 13 17 1.09
All <17 18 >20000 1.10 <17 19 61W 1.10 <17 22 1500 0.77 <17 14 350 0.43 <17 18 >20000 0.58
Table B-12 continues.
N
C
9
O
O
10
O
m
m
Table B-12 continued. c
v
Summer Fall Winter Spring Annual 'n
Station
Min. Mean Me. SW Min. Mean Mu. SN Min. Mean Max. Sul Min. Mean Max. B1E Min. Mean Max. 3t8
D. Dee D. Dee Dee 3
Ememcvn
39N <2 5 20 2.64 <2 3 90 3.27 < 6 1" 5.48 12 2 4 1.32 <2 3 198 3.38 O
33N < 5 68 3.89 <2 Y 190 5.25 <2 10 220 6.19 <2 2 12 1.98 <2 5 224 4.58 w
27N < 3 18 2.32 <2 6 242 4.48 < 12 200 5.82 <2 3 8 2.02 <2 5 242 3.89 N
21N <2 4 22 2.39 <2 4 14 2.38 < 18 >400 5.09 <2 3 88 3.04 <2 6 >400 3.84
15N <2 6 32 3.22 <2 5 30 2.93 <2 13 260 6.55 <2 2 2 1.16 <2 5 240 4.N
12N < 4 36 3A3 <2 4 N 339 < 12 306 692 12 2 2 1.13 <2 4 306 421
9N <2 8 236 4A6 <2 3 42 2.89 < 9 254 5.26 <2 2 8 1.65 <2 5 254 4.06
6N < 7 150 3.57 <2 5 60 3.27 <2 10 172 4.4 <2 3 12 2.11 <2 6 172 3.59
3N <2 10 >400 5.04 <2 12 >400 a76 < 15 216 646 <2 3 26 2A8 <2 9 >400 459
0 <2 4 108 3.8 <2 6 >400 4.6 <2 18 >400 4.66 <2 4 62 2.38 <2 6 >400 4.31
3S <2 2 8 1]1 <2 10 >40D 5.78 2 12 >400 4.9 < 3 14 2.24 <2 5 >400 4.28
6S <2 2 2 1AS <2 4 66 3.18 < 11 >400 5.69 <2 2 12 2A <2 3 >400 3.0
9S <2 2 4 1.32 <2 3 18 2.36 <2 41 ON 5.95 <2 3 220 4.11 <2 6 600 6.31
15S <2 2 4 1.32 <2 2 10 1.89 < 6 68 4.94 12 2 6 1.68 <2 3 68 2.68
21S <2 2 12 1.93 <2 2 14 2.31 <2 5 44 3.41 <2 4 38 2.94 <2 3 44 2.F
27S < 2 6 L56 <2 2 4 1.44 < 3 56 3.59 <9 2 10 1.92 <2 2 56 2.2
298 <2 2 10 2.05 <2 3 18 2.37 2 8 258 5.08 12 4 18 2A5 <2 4 258 3.18
39S <2 2 4 1A4 <2 2 6 1.% <2 3 58 3.07 <2 2 4 1.32 <2 2 58 1.91
All < 4 >400 1A8 <2 5 >400 1.27 < 12 fi00 1.05 <2 3 220 0.75 < 5 600 1.01
D7
N
Table B-13 Summary statistics of OCHCA nearshore stations for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci bacteria (CFU/100 ml-)
by station and season during 2016-17.
Summer Fall Winter Spring Annual
StMlonSul Min. Mean Mx. Uev Min. Mean Max. a Max. eanMln. Mxn Min. Mn Mx. Min. Mean max. DD,n
]wal Cwiro.ma
OSBO2 <17 47 200 2.19 <17 182 12MOO 14.92 17 482 >20000 10.03 <17 113 >20000 8.94 <17 147 >20000 9.54
OSBO3 17 110 560 2.6 -17 159 >20000 11 17 229 >5300 5.03 <17 66 -20000 7.22 <17 128 >20000 6.18
OSBO5 <17 65 520 3A 17 ISO >20DOO 9.61 50 228 2300 4.24 17 68 480 2.63 <17 116 >20000 5
OSB04 <1] 3a 160 1.91 <17 89 >12000 10.02 <17 3100 9.03 <17 24 >20000 8.1 <1] 51 >20000 7.16
0SBO1 <17 15 33 1.31 <17 32 >20000 8.43 <17 92 1000 0.01 <17 10 1000 3.35 e17 22 >20000 4.08
0SUB1 Q7 19 170 2.28 <17 33 >20000 8.39 <17 29 300 3.13 <17 17 500 2.76 <17 24 >20000 3.89
BCO-1 -17 15 33 1.31 <17 16 100 1.76 <17 37 800 4.04 <17 21 120 2.11 <17 21 800 2.47
HeU 0 O 320 439 >660 1.73 0 320 439 >660 1.73
HSI 0 0 >4800 17380 >40000 249 0 >4800 17M 160000 2.89
HB1D <17 14 33 1.31 07 22 720 3.18 <17 54 1300 5.75 <17 15 33 1.31 -17 22 1" 3.22
H82U 0 <17 <17 300 756 1200 2.23 0 <17 272 1200 8.53
H82 0 >40000 M 000 -3600 12882 >40000 3.43 0 4600 18081 >40000 3.37
HB2D <17 15 33 1.31 <17 28 1900 4.11 <17 46 800 4.22 <17 15 50 1.46 <17 23 1900 3.04
HB3U 0 0 400 400 0 400 400
H03 0 0 >40000 >40000 0 >40000 M0000
H83D <17 15 33 1.31 <17 31 940 3.23 <17 53 2500 5.98 <17 15 33 131 <17 24 2500 3.27
H64U 0 0 1000 1183 1400 1.27 0 1000 1183 1400 1.27
HIM 0 0 >6800 14577 >20000 2.14 0 >6800 145]] >20000 2.14
H84D <17 15 33 1.42 <17 23 660 3.17 <17 46 1300 5.25 117 17 67 L64 <17 23 1" 3.04
HB5U 0 0 17 186 2300 8.13 <17 <17 07 109 2300 8.8
H05 0 0 >600 12950 >40000 7.26 >14000 >14000 >fi00 13754 X0000 5.6
W HH5D <17 14 17 IA6 07 20 WO 1M 117 75 >2000 589 117 21 3600 4.69 07 26 3600 3.84
SAR-N -17 18 67 1.82 -17 114 >20000 10.34 17 221 >20000 14.64 <17 22 520 2.96 <17 56 >20000 8.34
w <17 17 67 1.62 <17 75 250D 4.93 <17 101 500 2.87 <17 30 270 2.66 <17 44 2500 3.61
BGCU <17 37 180 3.01 07 60 560 3.36 <17 49 2200 4.42 <17 42 500 3.63 07 46 2200 3.51
BGC >1700 W55 >14000 1.86 600 3210 >8600 2.52 >940 2225 >38W 1.6 >1100 W15 >40000 2.92 600 4246 X 000 2.53
BGCD <17 40 580 3.14 <17 61 000 4.02 117 27 83 1.97 <17 24 100 2.14 <17 35 800 2.92
PPCU 0 -17 13 -17 1 <17 52 150 2.72 <17 15 17 1.23 -17 29 150 2.72
PPC 0 >3000 13693 M 000 6.24 >4300 16478 >40000 2.26 >870 U14 >20000 9A8 >870 13051 >40000 3.62
PPCD <17 15 100 1.77 07 16 50 1.55 <17 20 100 2.07 <17 15 33 1.31 07 16 100 1.7
WFCU <17 16 33 1,12 <17 16 67 1.58 <17 21 170 2.1 <17 14 -17 1.19 -17 17 170 1.62
WFC >270 1414 >4700 2.1 <15 MID 2900 4.33 >200 1267 >40000 3.96 >530 4998 >16000 2.32 <15 1483 >40000 3.95
WFCD -17 15 33 1.31 07 14 33 1.31 <17 20 100 2.16 <17 18 320 2A6 07 17 320 1.86
01,11339 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 21 300 2.69 <17 21 200 2.36 <17 20 100 2.02 <17 19 300 2.12
MDCU <17 <17 <17 31 46O 4.18 <17 20 150 2.42 <17 14 >17 1.2 <17 19 460 2.44
MDC >330 >330 930 5314 >30000 5.9 200 1469 >40000 4.44 >1400 14025 >40000 4.7 200 3695 >40000 6.26
MDCD <17 17 420 2.63 <17 29 2900 4.43 <17 27 MO 3.72 <17 10 50 L56 <17 22 2900 3.05
ELMOROU 0 0 17 17 17 1 <17 13 <17 1 07 14 17 1.17
ELMORO 0 0 >1400 MOO >32000 5.69 200 4122 >40000 10.38 200 4628 X 000 6.96
ELMOROD q] 13 17 1.08 <17 20 120 2.15 <17 17 130 1.95 <17 13 <17 1 <17 16 130 1.7
All <17 307 -14000 0.70 <15 2469 >40000 3.59 <17 3540 >40000 2.79 <17 1705 >40000 2.67 -15 3607 >40000 2.30 N
Table B-13 continues. c
9
O
;
3,
10
O
m
m
Table B-13 continued. c
v
Summer Fall Winter Spring Annual 'n
D
StationSan!Min. Mean Mu. Dee Min. Man Max. SN Min. Mean Max. me Min. Mean Max. StE Min. Mean Mx. and
Dev Da', me Dev Day j
Fecal ColWbnna
OSB02 <12 27 150 2.09 <17 52 >20000 8.2 <17 66 >4000 5.94 <17 32 1200 3.39 <17 41 >20000 4.82 O
OSB03 17 75 320 2.42 -17 56 >20000 9.02 17 54 420 3.04 <17 20 420 2.58 -17 SO >20000 4.05 w
OSB05 Q7 S6 440 3.24 <17 TO 1100 4.43 <17 69 620 3.85 <17 32 180 2.64 <17 54 1100 3.54 N
OSB04 <17 26 120 2.04 <17 30 17M 4.37 <17 26 300 2.81 <17 19 "0 2.59 <17 25 1700 2.88
OSB01 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 18 440 2.69 <17 17 fit 1.72 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 15 440 1.77
0SU61 Q7 15 33 1.43 <17 iT 840 282 <17 18 100 196 117 13 <11 1 <17 16 840 is
BCO-1 -17 13 <D 1 <17 15 100 1.77 <19 19 220 2.27 <17 13 17 1.11 -17 15 220 1.67
HB1U 0 0 83 149 400 2.36 0 83 149 400 2.36
Het 0 0 1500 2779 5300 188 0 1500 2n9 5300 1.88
HB1D <17 13 17 1.11 07 13 17 1.00 <17 21 620 3.19 <17 14 33 1.31 -17 16 620 1.92
HB2U 0 <17 <17 W 172 420 2.51 0 <17 90 420 4.49
H82 0 14000 14" 540 2196 7000 3.66 0 540 3489 14000 4.09
HB2D <17 15 33 1.31 <17 16 100 1.83 <17 20 220 2.32 <17 13 <11 1 <17 16 220 1.73
HB3U 0 0 50 50 0 50 50
H03 0 0 9200 9200 0 9200 9"
H83D <17 13 17 1.11 <17 15 w 1.31 <11 27 800 3.68 <17 13 17 1.08 <17 16 S00 2.05
HB4U 0 0 100 179 320 2.28 0 100 179 320 2.28
HB4 0 0 620 2227 8000 6.1 0 620 2227 8000 6.1
H84D <17 15 33 1.31 <17 iT 50 1.53 <17 19 170 2.16 117 13 <11 1 <17 16 170 1.61
HBSU 0 0 <17 27 150 3.14 <17 <17 09 23 150 2.85
HB5 0 0 220 974 4300 4.88 400 400 220 815 4300 4.17
W HB5D <17 13 17 1.11 Nl 14 17 1.16 117 24 150 268 117 13 117 1 <17 15 150 1.7
SAR-N -17 18 83 1.88 -17 45 16000 6.69 <17 51 >200W 11.38 <17 10 400 2.57 <17 30 >20000 5.38
? TM <17 18 50 1.58 <17 33 230 2.79 <11 29 280 2.42 <17 15 33 1.31 <17 22 280 2.18
BGCU <17 19 83 1A5 09 32 400 3.63 <17 14 17 1.13 <17 17 230 121 <17 19 400 2.35
BGC <15 176 2200 5.34 15 235 3" 5.5 46 203 1000 2.67 31 123 2400 3.91 <15 178 3300 4.19
BGCD Q] 16 83 1.75 <iT 28 440 2.92 117 14 33 1.31 <iT 13 17 1.08 cD iT 440 1.96
PPCU 0 -17 13 -17 1 <17 17 50 1." <17 13 <19 1 -17 15 50 1.58
PPC 0 500 548 600 1.14 200 1278 8800 5.27 <15 318 9000 112.93 <15 m 9000 8.46
PPCD <17 15 80 1.66 Hl 13 17 1.08 <17 14 33 1.3 <9 13 17 1.08 Hl 14 80 1.34
WFCU <17 20 83 1.98 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 15 100 1.77 <17 13 <11 1 -17 15 100 1.6
WFC <15 86 1100 3A6 <15 29 IS0 2.85 <15 40 600 3.35 115 78 440 3.73 <15 w 1100 3.63
WFCD -12 14 33 1.31 09 13 -17 1 <17 15 120 1.85 <17 16 330 2A7 09 15 330 1.74
01,1839 <17 13 17 1.11 <17 14 So 1.46 <17 15 fit 1.88 <17 13 <17 1 <17 14 67 1.35
MDCU <17 <17 <17 14 17 1.16 <17 14 50 1.46 <17 13 17 1.1 <17 14 50 1.3
MDC 280 280 15 164 1900 6.9 <15 93 Sao 4.34 110 763 4100 3.75 -15 208 4100 5.57
MDCD <17 13 <17 1 <17 18 120 1.98 <17 18 150 2.19 <17 13 17 1.08 <17 15 150 1.71
ELMOROU 0 0 <17 20 50 2.2 <17 14 17 1.15 <17 16 50 1.66
ELMORO 0 0 62 376 7800 14.03 <15 99 960 10.58 <15 176 7800 10.69
ELMOROD q] 13 <17 1 07 13 iT 1.11 <17 14 17 1.13 <17 13 17 1.08 07 13 iT 1.1
All <15 39 2200 1.02 05 519 >20000 2.30 <15 515 >20000 2.58 <15 69 9000 19.70 -15 523 >20000 2.07
Table B-13 continues.
Table B-13 continued.
Summer Fall Winter Spring Annual
Station Slid Min. s[tl Sot Sta
Min. Mean Max. No Mln. Mean Max. D. Mln. Mean Max. Dav Min. Mean Max. Dav Min. Mean Max. Dev
Fnivra pi
OSB02 <2 8 52 2.89 <2 19 >400 6.53 4 55 >400 4.83 <2 22 >400 6.26 < 21 .00 5.68
OSB03 4 11 46 2.21 <2 13 >400 6.92 4 34 >400 4.49 < 11 168 4.03 < 15 >400 4.48
OSBOS 2 8 42 212 <2 19 3" 4.25 6 35 >400 4.07 < 8 120 4 < 14 >400 4.2
OSBO4 <2 5 16 2.08 < 10 342 4.66 <2 16 398 7.01 <2 5 240 4.08 < 8 3% 4.58
OSBOt <2 2 6 1.56 <2 4 116 4.66 12 5 158 5.4 < 2 4 1.32 <2 3 158 3.43
0SUB1 <2 4 14 2.1 <2 2 to 3.35 <2 5 96 4.09 <2 2 4 1.32 < 3 108 2.07
BCO-1 < 3 10 1.94 <2 3 24 2.27 <g 14 120 4.83 < 3 6 2.09 < 4 120 3.34
H81U 0 0 1" 282 >400 1.87 0 144 282 >400 1.87
HB1 0 0 >400 500 >400 1 0 >400 500 >400 1
HBiD < 3 14 2.29 < 5 34 305 2 23 354 596 < 4 96 34 <2 6 354 4.39
HB2U 0 4 4 222 328 >400 1.5 0 4 109 >400 9.28
HB2 0 >400 >400 >400 500 >400 1 0 >400 500 >400 1
H620 <2 4 24 2.5 <2 6 92 4.24 2 21 >400 6.01 < 3 60 32 <2 6 >400 4.63
HB3U 0 0 164 164 0 164 164
HB3 0 0 >400 >400 0 >400 >400
HIM 12 3 26 2.25 <2 6 54 3.31 2 22 368 5 <2 4 86 3.53 12 6 368 4.18
HM 0 0 244 349 >400 1.fi6 0 244 349 >400 1.66
HB4 0 0 >400 500 >400 1 0 >400 500 >400 1
HB41) 12 4 20 2.5 <2 5 40 3.3 <2 15 302 5.81 <2 4 12 2.19 < 6 302 3.77
HBSU 0 0 2 30 190 9.32 <2 < < iT 190 10.54
H65 0 0 70 306 >400 2.67 >400 >400 70 337 >400 2.41
103 HBSD <2 4 12 2.29 <2 4 26 3.15 <2 15 304 6.19 <2 2 60 2.78 < 5 ?04 4.04
SAR-N < 4 36 2.99 <2 17 >400 582 2 30 >400 6.7 < 3 6 lAl < 9 >400 5.55
TM <2 6 58 3b <2 6 54 3.68 <2 14 92 4A4 <2 5 86 35 < ] 92 3.8
BGCU <2 3 22 212 < 11 102 3.75 <2 4 98 3.32 < 3 36 2.43 < 4 102 3.31
BGC 156 217 318 1.27 120 293 >400 Vi 98 172 >400 188 w 216 0400 1.45 98 219 >400 1.58
BGCD <2 3 16 2.27 <2 14 224 4.53 <2 6 50 3.37 <2 4 62 3.72 < 6 220 3.85
PPCU 0 <2 2 2 1.23 < 4 14 2.75 2 2 2 1 < 3 14 2.33
PPC 0 >400 IM -400 1 368 470 >400 1.15 172 293 >400 2.13 In 429 >400 1.43
PPCD <2 2 2 1.13 e2 2 8 1.66 <2 2 38 2.45 <2 2 6 1.67 < 2 38 1.77
WFCU <2 3 20 2.18 <2 2 6 1.54 <2 3 70 3.35 < 2 12 121 < 2 70 2.22
WFC 110 270 >400 1] <2 96 >400 4.08 30 86 292 1.96 36 167 398 2.06 < 139 >400 2.69
WFCD < 2 22 2.17 <2 2 20 2.29 <g 3 156 3.66 < 3 80 3.14 < 3 156 2.75
ON839 <2 2 2 1.13 <2 5 200 4.32 <2 3 62 3.65 < 3 38 3.08 <2 3 200 3.19
MDCU <2 <2 <2 3 66 4.44 <2 3 112 3.56 <2 2 2 1.14 < 2 112 2.97
MDC 112 112 42 135 >400 3.03 30 118 >400 2.45 106 355 >400 17 30 171 >400 2.58
MDCD <2 2 2 1A6 <2 6 302 4.52 <2 4 112 4.99 < 2 8 1.B7 <2 3 302 3.44
ELMOROU 0 0 <2 5 44 7.03 < 2 4 1A3 < 3 44 3.56
ELMORO 0 0 310 426 >400 132 76 188 >400 2A8 76 267 >400 205
ELMOROD <2 2 6 1.&1 <2 3 22 2] <2 3 54 2.81 <2 2 12 137 < 2 54 2.25
All <2 26 >400 0.66 <2 57 >400 1.58 <2 127 >400 2.O7 <2 57 >400 1.19 < 116 >400 1.99
N
C
a
a
O
O
w
w
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX C
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
This appendix details quality assurance/quality control information for the collection and analyses
of water quality, sediment geochemistry, fish tissue chemistry, benthic infauna, and trawl fish
and invertebrate samples for the Orange County Sanitation District's (District) 2016-17 Core ocean
monitoring program.
INTRODUCTION
The Core ocean monitoring program 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 macroinvertebrate community health;
• Fish tissue contaminant concentrations (chemical body burden); and
• Fish health (including external parasites and diseases).
The Core ocean monitoring program complies with the District'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.
WATER QUALITY NARRATIVE
Introduction
The District's Laboratory, Monitoring, and Compliance (LMC) staff collected 654, 654, 653, and
653 discrete ammonium samples during the quarterly collections beginning July 1, 2016 and ending
June 30, 2017. 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
Analytical Method -Ammonium
The samples were analyzed for ammonium on a segmented flow analyzer using Standard Methods
4500-NH,Rev G. Sodium phenolate and sodium hypochlorite 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.
QAIQC -Ammonium
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.
QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-2. All samples were analyzed within the required
holding time. All analyses conducted in each quarter met the QA/QC criteria.
Table C-7 Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and Reporting Limits (RLs), July 2016-June 2017.
Receiving Waters
RL
Penmatar (MPRI100mL) (61PW100mL) Parameter (mom) (mglL)
Total Whom
10 10 Ammonium 0.0162 0.020
E coal 10 10 Ammonium(OBIW017 only) 00130 0,020
Entemcocci 10 10
Beollmenfa
PanmHer (nglg my) (ngfg my) Parameter (.gig dry) (nglg dry)
owainachlonrre Pesticides
2,4'-DDD 2.18 2.2 Endosulfan-alpha 1.54 2.0
2,4'-DDE 1.51 2.0 Endosulfan-beta 1.03 2.0
2,4'-DDT 1.56 2.0 Endosulfan-sulfate 0.% 2.0
4,4'-DDD 1A7 2.0 Endrin 3.52 5.0
4,4'-DDE 1.75 2.0 gamma-BHC 2.64 2.7
4,4'-DDT 0.56 0.6 Heprachlor 2.01 2.1
4,4'-DDMU 2.16 22 Heptachlorepoxide 1.02 1.1
Aldriu 0.42 0.5 Hexachlooadmzane 0.98 1.0
cas-Chlordane 1.29 2.0 1 1.]0 0.]
tra e-CMONene 1.58 2.0 trensNonachlor 1.48 2.0
Dieldhn 1 m 2.0
PCB Congeners
PCB 18 0.20 0.2 PCB 126 0.21 0.2
PCB 28 1.14 0.2 PCB 128 0.31 0.4
PCB 37 0.40 0.4 PCB 138 0.19 0.2
PCs 0.1] 0.2 PCB 149 0.17 0.2
PCB 49 1.39 0.4 PCB 151 0.16 0.2
PCB 52 0.20 0.2 PCB 153a168 0.]9 0.8
PCB 66 0.31 0.4 PCB im 0.20 0.2
PCB 70 0.30 0.3 PCB 157 0.15 0.2
PCB 74 0.24 0.3 PCB 167 0.19 0.2
PCB]] 1.15 1.2 PCB 169 0.11 1.2
PCs 81 0.17 0.2 PCB 170 0.11 0.2
PCB 0] 0.26 0.3 PCB 1]] 0.15 0.2
PCB 99 0.18 0.2 PCB 180 0.1] 0.2
PCB 101 0.19 0.2 PCB 183 0.18 0.2
PCB 105 0.17 0.2 PCB 187 0.14 0.2
PCB 110 0.18 0.2 PCB 189 0.13 0.2
PCB 114 0.1] 0.2 PCB 194 0.13 0.2
PCB 118 0.16 0.2 PCB 201 0.19 0.2
PCB 119 0.20 0.2 PCB 206 0.17 0.2
PCB 123 0.14 0.2
Table C-7 continues.
C-2
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Table C-1 continued.
PAH Compounds
1,6,7-Trimithylrul,le alene 0.4 1 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.4 1
1-Metbylnaphtbalene 0.5 1 Benzo[k]Muori-then. 0.5 1
1-Methylphenanthane 0.5 1 Biphenyl 0.8 1
2,3,6-TrurelhylnapbNalene 0.5 1 Chrysene 0.3 1
2.6.Dlmethenaphthalene 0.4 1 DIberehi,hunthracene 0.2 1
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.9 1 Dibenzothiophens 0.3 1
Acenepttlhene 0.4 1 Fluoranthene 0.4 1
AhenaphONene 04 1 Fluoune 04 1
Andmi 0.3 1 Indeno[1,2,3-od]pyrane 0.3 1
Benz[a]antbacene 0.2 1 Naphthalene 1.1 1
Benzo[alpymne 0.2 1 Pedrear, 0.6 1
Benzo[b]Ouoranthene 0.4 1 Phananthrene 0.8 1
Benzolelovrene 0.4 1 Pvane 0.2 1
Parameter finni dry) (m91k9 dry) Persuader finni tldi (ni dry)
Metals
Amimony 0.008 0.10 Lead 0.008 0.10
Arsenic 0.003 0.02 Manhunt 0.001 0.002
Binum 0.021 0.10 Nickel 0.019 0.10
Beryllium 0.010 0.01 Selenium 0.024 0.15
Cadmium 0.101 0.15 Silver 0.029 0.02
Chromium 0.101 0.15 Mn. 0.063 0.15
Capper 0.011 0.10
Parameter (mi dry) (m91k9 dry) Parameter N (%)
Miscellaneous Parameters
Dlsenived Sulfides 1,03 103 Gain Size 0.001 0.001
Total Nitrogen 0.49 1.5 Total Organic Carbon 0.10 0.1
Total Phosphorus 0,16 3.5
Fish Tissue
Paramabr Insist wet) b919 wet) Parameter (nyl9 wet) (n919 wad)
0,o.,,6lprbte Pesticldes
2,4'-DDD 1.42 2.00 de-Chlordane 0.989 1.IM
2,4'-DDE 1.05 2.00 Irons-ChloMane 1.87 2.00
2,4'-DDT 0.909 1.00 0,hulordans 1.86 2.00
4,4'-DDD 0.893 2.W Heptachlor 0.962 IM
4.4'-DDE 0.813 IM Heptachlor epoxide 0.945 1.00
4,4'-DDT 1.04 2.00 callonaMlor 1.02 2.00
4,4'-DDMU 0.99 IM hansNonachlor 1.41 2.W
Dleldrin 0,967 500
PCs Corromeas
PCB 18 1,12 200 PCs 126 1,18 200
PCB 28 0.938 1.00 PCB 128 1.63 2.00
PCB 37 1.31 2.00 PCB 138 0.71 IM
PCB 44 1.43 2.00 PCs 149 0.651 1.00
PCB 49 1.57 2.00 PCs 151 0.869 1.00
PCB 52 1.42 2.W PCB 1531168 1.43 2.W
PCB 66 1.12 3.00 PCs 156 1.45 3.00
PCB 70 0.762 IM PCB 157 1.66 2.W
PCB 74 0.779 1.00 PCB 167 1.02 2.00
PCB TI 0.778 1.00 PCs 169 1.69 2.00
PCB 81 0.813 IM PCB 170 0.935 IM
PCB 87 0.976 1.00 PCB 177 1.36 2.00
PCB 99 1.12 2A0 PCs 180 0.712 1A0
PCB 101 0.711 l.W PCB 183 1.31 2.W
PCB 105 0]44 1.00 PCB 187 0.708 1.00
PCB 110 0.956 IM PCB 189 1.00 IM
PCB 114 0.824 1.00 PCB 194 1.24 2.00
PCB 118 0]65 1.00 PCB 201 1.41 2.00
PCB 119 0.925 IM PCB 206 0.961 2.W
PC13123 0.686 1.00
Metals
Arsenic 0.100 0.150 Mercury 0.000 Odw
Selenium 0,069 ( 100
=VMues reported tetareen the MUL and Me RL ware eurnaled.
Bacteria
Introduction
All bacteria samples were iced upon collection and stored at <10 eC until analysis following
LMC SOPS.
C-3
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Table C-2 Water quality QA/QC summary, July 2016-June 2017.
Number Number of Number of T.
Quarter Parameter Total samples QAIQC Sample Type of QAIQC Compounds Compounds Compounds
(Total brushes) Samples Tested Passed Passed'
Tested
Blank 38 1 38 100.0
Blank Spike 38 1 38 100.0
Summer Ammonium 65 (8) Matrix Spike 69 1 69 100.0
Matrix Spike Dup fig 1 69 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 69 1 69 100.0
Blank 38 1 38 100.0
Blank Spike 38 1 38 100.0
Fall Ammonium 65 (8) Matrix Spike 69 1 69 1000
Matrix Spike Cup 69 1 69 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 69 1 69 100.0
Blank 39 1 39 100.0
Blank Spike 39 1 39 100.0
Winter Ammonium 653(9) Matrix Spike 70 1 70 100.0
Matrix Spike Cup 70 1 70 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 70 1 70 100.0
Blank 39 1 39 100.0
Blank Spike 39 1 39 100.0
Spring Ammonium 653(9) Matrix Spike 69 1 69 100.0
Matrix Spike Cup 69 1 69 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 69 1 69 100.0
•An analysis passed INe forest,nrilaria ware mac
For klank-Target axuracy%eamrery Qg MDL
For Olank spike-TaryN acara,%rewvary 90-110.
For maGx spike and matrix speak duplicate-Taryel asiddi%remvery&F120.
Formado spike predsim-Target pecison%RPD<11%.
Ferdupleate-Target prmisim%RPD 110%at U KIDLotsample mean.
Analytical Method
Samples collected offshore were analyzed for bacteria using Enterolert1A1 for enterococci and
Colilert-18T"I for total coliforms and Escherichia colt. Fecal coliforms were estimated by multiplying
the E. coli 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 nm) 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.
QA/QC
All samples were analyzed within the required holding time. Recreational (REC-1) samples were
processed and incubated within 8 hours of sample collection. Duplicate analyses were performed
on a minimum of 10%p 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 blanks commercially purchased was checked for appropriate volume and sterility.
New lots of 510 mL volume pipettes were checked for accuracy by weighing volume delivery on a
calibrated top loading scale.
C-4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY NARRATIVE
Introduction
The District's LMC laboratory received 68 sediment samples from LMC's ocean monitoring staff
during July 2016, and 29 samples during January 2017. 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.
Analytical Methods -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 were used for each analysis. Aseparatory
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.
Atypical sample batch included 20 field samples with required quality control(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 extraction duplicate.
MDLs and SRM acceptance criteria for each PAH, PCB, and pesticide constituent are presented in
Tables C-1 and C-3, respectively. Sediment PAH, PCB, and pesticide QA/QC summary data are
presented in Table C-4.
Table C-3 Acceptance criteria for standard reference materials for July 2016-June 2017.
* = Parameter with non-certified value(s).
Parameter hue Value A ccegbnce Range(n9l9)
(ndg) Minimum Maximum
Se ilments
Organochlmine Pesgcld x,,PCB Congeners,and Percent Dry Weight
(SRM 1944;New YO aw Jersey Waterway Sediment,NaSonal lnstdu or Standards amf Technology)
PCB 8 22.3 20 24.6
PCB 10 51 48.4 53.6
PCB 28 80.8 78.1 83.5
PCB 44 60.2 58.2 62.2
PCB 49 53 51.3 54.7
PCB 52 79.4 77.4 81.4
PCB 66 71.9 67.6 762
PCB 87 29.9 25.6 34.2
PCs 3]5 35,, 399
PCB 101 73.4 70.9 75.9
PCB 105 24.5 23.4 25.6
PCB 110 63.5 50.8 8.2
PCB 118 58 53.7 :2.3
PCB 128 8.47 8.19 8.75
PCB 138 62.1 59.1 65.1
PCB 149 49.7 48.5 50.9
PCB 151 16.93 16.57 17.29
PCB 153/168 74 71.1 76.9
PCB 156 6.52 5.86 7.18
PCB 170 22.6 21.2 24
PCB 180 44.3 43.1 45.5
PCB 10183 12A9 11 62 1276
PCB 7 25.1 24.1 26.1
PCB 194 11.2 9.8 126
PCB 195 3.75 3.36 4.14
PCB 206 9.21 8.7 9.72
Table C-3 continues.
C-5
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Table C-3 continued.
Feminine, True Value Acceptance Ran9e(n919)
(n919) Minimum Maximum
PCB 209 6.81 6.48 7.14
2,4'-DDD' 38 30 46
2,4'-0DE' 19 16 22
4,4'-DDD' 108 92 124
44'-DDE' 86 74 98
4,4'-DDT' 170 138 202
cia-Chlordane 16.51 15.68 17.34
Vans-Chlcrdane 19 17.3 2D.7
gamma-BHC' 2 17 2.3
Hemchlombenzene 6.03 5.68 6.38
cic-Nouacblm' 3.7 3 44
trans-Nonachlor 8.2 T69 8.71
Foment Dry Weight 1.3 - -
NH Compounds and Percent Dry weight
(SRM 1944;New Yoddhfew Jersey Waterway Sediment,National hmfiNts of St mm ds and Techmad,)
1-Methylnaphthalene 470 450 490
1-Methylphananlhmne' 1700 1600 1000
2-Methylnaphthalene 740 680 800
Anonapnthene' 390 360 420
Anthmoane' 1130 1060 1200
Bentalanthmcene 4720 4610 tight3
Senzo[a]pymne 4300 4170 4430
Benec@l9upmwbene 3870 34W 4290
Benio[e]pymne 3280 3170 3390
Benzo[g,h,9paMene 2840 2940 2940
Benzo[k]flo.nmthene 2300 2100 2500
Biphenyl' 250 230 270
Chrysene 4860 47W 4960
Dlbem,la.h]aMhmcene 424 30 493
Dibenzomiophens' S00 470 530
Fluoranthene 8920 8600 9240
Romans' 480 440 520
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pymne 2700 2680 2880
Naphthalene' 1280 1240 1320
Perylene 1170 930 1410
Phenanthrene 5270 50W 5490
Pyrene 9700 92W 10120
Pement Dry Weight 1.3 - -
Mdhdu
(CRM-540 ERA Masla in Soil;Lot No.DO74 )
Antimony 72.9 18.7 206
Arsenic 161 114 209
Barium 385 286 484
BeMlium 146 110 182
Cadmium 149 110 191
Chmmium 100 127 233
Capper 162 122 207
Lead 103 73 132
Mercury 3.73 1.9 5.55
Nickel 133 97.4 172
Selenium 153 103 202
SINer 71.1 47.8 94.5
Zinc 352 254 450
Fish Tissue
Organoc0lorine Pesticides,PCB Congamea,and Load
(SRM1946,lake Supenor Rah Tissue;Nafionel lnsfnufe of Standards and Techmokyy)
PCB 18' 0.04 on 0.95
PCB 2W 2 1.76 2.24
PCB 44 4.66 3.8 5.52
PCB 49 3.8 3.41 4.19
PCB 52 8.1 7.1 9.1
PCB 66 10.8 8.9 12.7
PCB 70 14.9 14.3 15.5
PCB 74 4.83 4.32 5.34
PCB 17 0.327 0.3 0.35
PCB B] 9.4 8 10.8
PCB 99 25.6 23.3 27.9
PCB 101 34.6 32 37.2
PCB 105 19.9 19 20A
PCB 110 22.8 20.8 24.8
PCB 118 52A 51.1 53A
PCB 126 0.38 0.36 0.4
PCB 128 22.8 20.9 24.7
PCB 138 115 102 128
PCB 149 26.3 25 27.6
Table C-3 continues.
C-6
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Table C-3 continued.
Parameter True Value Acceptance Range(ngfg)
(nbfg) Minimum Maximum
PCB 153I168 170 161 179
PCB 156 9.52 9.01 10
PCB 170 25.2 23 27.4
PCB 180 74.4 70.4 78.4
PCB 183 21.9 19.4 24.4
PCB 187 55.2 53.1 57.3
PCB 194 13 11.7 14.3
PCB 201' 2.83 2.7 2.96
PCB 206 5A 4,97 583
2,4'-DDD 2.2 1.95 2.45
2,4'-DDE' 104 0,75 133
2,4'-DDT' 22.3 19.1 25.5
4,4'-DDD 17.7 14.9 20.5
4,4'-DDE 373 325 421
4,4'-DDT 37.2 33.7 40.7
rhLhloMane 32.5 30.7 34.3
bans-Chlordane 8.36 7.45 9.27
Oxychlonlane 18.9 17.4 20.4
DI¢Mno 32.5 29 36
Heptachlor epoxide 5.5 5.27 5.73
cis-WoMlof 59.1 55.5 62.7
Prefix-Nonacbior 99.6 92 107
Lipid• 10.17 - -
Mctals
(SRM DORM-3,National Reseamb Council Cantle)
Arsenic 6.88 6.58 7.18
Selenlum' 33 - -
Mercury 0.382 0.322 0.442
Table C-4 Sediment QA/QC summary, July 2016-June 2017. N/A= Not Applicable.
Number Number of Number of %
Total eamplea of 19AIOC
Quarter Panamanian Total Sample Type Compounds Compounds Compounds
(Total Intense) Sam TBSIetl PdSSetl PBSxetl'
Tested
Blank 4 26 103 99.0
Blank Spike 4 26 93 89.A
MattlX Spike 4 26 11)4 100.0
Summer PAHs 68(4) Marx Spike Duplicate 4 26 104 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 4 26 104 100.0
Duplicate 4 26 97 93.3
CRM Analysis 4 22 73 83.0
Blank 2 26 51 98.1
Blank Spike 2 26 47 90.4
Matrix Spike 2 26 49 94.2
RBMer PAHs 29(2) Maps Spike Duplcate 2 26 51 98.1
Matrix Spike Precision 2 26 51 98.1
Duplicate 2 26 37 712
CRM Analyais 2 22 38 86.4
An analysis paxned if'.Anknorg allOra ware m ':
For be,k-Taget-1,%rewvary 13X MDL.
For blan k splxe-Ta mat eauncy%recovery So.120
For mat,I apike and mein,spike du ph-or-Tamet acwreq%re-,40-120,
For mat-apike preasion-Terat preciaian%RID r25%.
For dupliaaie-Tanya preosion%RID Q5%et 3X MDL N sample mean.
For SRM analyses-Tenet aaurecy%nto very W40 or canned value waicbaver Is 9reasm
Table C-4 continues.
C-7
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Table C-4 continued.
Number Number of Number of %
Quarter Parameter Total samples "QC Sample Ti of"OC Compounds Compounds Compounds
(Total batches) Samples Testes hated Passed Passed'
Blank 4 SO 240 10D.0
Blank Spike 4 60 229 MA
Matrix Spike 4 60 230 95.8
Summer PCBs and Pesticides 68(4) M.M.Spike Duplicate 4 60 235 97.9
Matrix Spike Precision 4 SO 227 94.6
Duplicate 4 6D 240 100.0
CRMAnalvsis 4 33 116 87.9
Blank 2 0 120 100.0
Blank Spike 2 SO 117 97.5
Matrix Spike 2 SO 119 99.2
Winter PCBs and Pesticides 29(2) MatriX Spike Duplicate 2 6D 117 97.5
Matrix Spike Precision 2 60 60 50.0
Duplicate 2 SO 120 100.0
CRMAnalvsis 2 33 62 93.9
An analysis paemtl if Me farmers cmeria were not
Former-Target axuxcy%recovery'sX MDL.
Far dank spike-Tarpal acvurary%remvery EO-120.
Formal ix spike and matim spike duplicate-TaMel a¢umcy%remvery M12A
Formatrk spike me esom-Target precision%RPD c25%.
For duplicate Targetpmison%RPD 125%at 3X MOL of sample mean.
Far SRManabsis-T MOacmma %rewven'60-140orcertifiedvalue,v.6i& isseater.
Blank 8 12 92 95.8
Amount,,Arsenic, Blank Spike 8 12 96 100.0
Barium,Beryllium, Matrix Spike 8 12 75 78.1
Summer Cadmium,Chromium, 68(2) Malnx Spike Dun 8 12 75 78.1
Copper,Lead Nickel, Matrix Spike Precision 8 12 96 100.0
Selenium,Silver,Zinc Duplicate 8 12 83 86.5
CRMAnalvsis 2 12 24 100.0
Blank 8 1 8 100.0
Blank Spike 8 1 8 100.0
Matrix Spike 8 1 8 100.0
Summer Mercury 68(2) Matrix Spike Cup 8 1 8 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 8 1 8 100.0
Duplicate 8 1 8 100.0
CRMAnalvsis 2 1 2 100.0
Blank 4 12 48 100.0
An inni Arsenic, Blank Spike 2 12 24 100.0
Barium,Beryllium, Matrix Spike 3 12 33 91.7
Winter Cadmium,Chromium, 29(1) Matrix Spike Cup 3 12 33 91.7
Copper,Lead,Meld, Matrix Spike Precision 3 12 35 97.2
Selenium,Silver,Zinc Duplicate 3 12 34 94.4
CRMAnalvsis 1 12 12 100.0
Blank 2 1 2 100.0
Blank Spike 2 1 2 100.0
Matrix Spike 3 1 3 100.0
Winter Memory 29(1) Matrix Spike Cup 3 1 3 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 3 1 3 100.0
Duplicate 3 1 3 10D.0
CRMAnalvsis 1 1 1 100.0
`em analysis pass a MMe bllamen aXeria were ma[
Fmblank-Target awwacy%remvery cU hul Sample reruHf feraaMe NO x dank suit
Forblank spike-Tagel ixemo ey%ecvery 90-110
For maser spike and metrespike duplicate-Targalimeracy%reNvery 70-130
For motrh spike precision-TaMe1 prtclslan%RPD QO
For duplicate-Target precision%RPD 30
For SRM analysis-Tame1 accurecy%r r-my 60120%ar anlaed value whichever is Orester.
Blank T 1 T 100.0
Blank Spike T 1 T 100.0
Summer Dissolved Sulfides 68(7) Matrix Spike ] 1 ] 100.0
Matrix Spike Dup T 1 T 100.0
Matrix Spike Predsion T 1 T 10D.0
Duplicate ) 1 T 100.0
Blank 3 1 3 100.0
Blank Spike 3 1 3 tOD.O
Winter Dissolved Sulfides 31(3) Matrix Spike 3 1 3 100.0
Matrix Spike Dup 3 1 3 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 3 1 3 100.0
Duplicate 3 1 3 100.0
An anelpls peasso it Me ardsong a..were reel
For blank-Teryet room,%recoery c2X sil
For blank spike-Tamer aceuraay%reMvery iii M0
For matrix spike end matrix spike suppose-Ternet assumcy%rttwery 70.130,
For matrix spike scabbn-hai preebbn%RPD c11%.
For realistic-Ternat Mermen%RPD c10%at Xx MDL of some mean.
Table C-4 continues.
C-8
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Table C-4 continued.
Number Number Number of %
Tool samples of QpWQC
Quarter Parameter QA/QC Sample Type Compounds Compounds Compounds
(Tool batches) Samples Tested passed Passed•
Tested
Blank 4 1 4 100.0
Blank Spike N/A NIA N/A NIA
Summer TOC 88(1) Matrix Spike 4 1 4 1W.0
Marx Spike Dup 4 1 4 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 4 1 4 100.0
Duplicate 8 1 8 100.0
Blank 2 1 2 100.0
Blank Spike N/A NIA N/A NIA
Winter TOC 29(1) Malls Spike 2 1 2 100.0
Mon.Spike Dup 2 1 2 1W.0
Matrix Spike Predsion 2 1 2 100.0
Duplicate 3 1 3 100.0
An malyss Pa.it Me firma a crund.were cool:
For dank-Ford.aauracy%recovery 0OX MDL.
For manx spike and matrix old,auplkale-Tons axuracy%recovery 80-120.
For ma nx spike p o sion-Tamel pxision%RPD e10%.
Forduplkale-TarWtp isim%RPDe10%a13XMDLdumplemean.
Blank N/A NIA N/A NIA
Blank Spike N/A NIA N/A NIA
Summer Grain Size 88(1) Matrix Spike N/A NIA N/A NIA
Means Spike Dup N/A NIA N/A NIA
Matrix Spike omission N/A NIA N/A NIA
Duplicate ] 1 ] 100.0
Blank N/A NIA N/A NIA
Blank Spike N/A NIA NIA NIA
Winter Graln Sl2e 29(1) Matrix Spike N/A NIA N/A NIA
Matrix Spike Dup N/A NIA N/A NIA
Makx Spike Predsion N/A NIA N/A NIA
Duplicate 3 1 3 1W.0
An-1,pseun II Ibe F bring cram,were met
For roplicere-Yemen on%RPD 110%-
Blank 6 1 6 100.0
Blank Spike 5 1 5 100.0
Summer Tuned IS 88(1) Matrix Spike 7 1 3 42.9
Mebix Spike Dup T 1 4 57.1
Matrix Spike Precision T 1 T 100.0
Duplicate ) 1 ] 100.0
Blank 4 1 3 75.0
Blank Spike 3 1 3 100.0
Winner Irrupt 29(l) Matrix Spike 4 1 2 50.0
Molls Spike Dup 4 1 2 50.0
Matrix Spike precision 4 1 4 100.0
Dupucete 4 1 4 1W.0
An enalnM passed aMe hllanng colors wee ine1:
For Menk-TaMe1 exurno%rapeery e3x MDL.
For Mom spike,int aqM,and mein:make onto uends-Tamer eavrecy%indoor✓8NI M.
For ord rs spike pahbn-TemM prttbbn A RPD Q0%.
For duplkele-Turned IXalakn%RPD ego%ar 9x MDL M aample mean.
Blank 5 1 5 100.0
Blank Spike 5 1 5 100.0
Summer Tool 68(1) Matrix Spike ] 1 6 85.7
Malnx Spike Dup T 1 8 0.7
MsinX Spike precision 7 1 ] 100.0
Duplicae ] 1 ] 1W.0
Blank 2 1 2 100.0
Blank Spike 2 1 2 100.0
1 Matrix Spike 3 1 2 88]
Winter Tool pg
O Matrix Spike Dup 3 1 1 33.3
Matrix Spike Proportion 3 1 3 100.0
Duplicate 3 1 3 1W.0
'An analysispassed it Ibe lollowing cn@na were or.
For blank-Targer acruracy A ecoery e3x MDL.
For blank spike,rrurivspike,and mamaspike duphdo.-TageraWlracy%ro.,O *O,
Formarna spike precision-Target precision%RPD 20%.
FmduplkaM-Targer precision%RPD W%at 3X MDLdwmpla mean.
C-9
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
All analyses were performed within holding times and with appropriate quality control measures, as
stated in the District's CAPP,with the majority 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 deviation from standard
protocol that occurred during sample preparation or analyses are noted in the raw data packages.
Analytical Methods -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 a minimum of once 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 (ICPMS) within a 6-month
holding time. 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).
Analytical Methods - 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. Sediment sample
duplicates, sample spike, and spike duplicates were run approximately once 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 QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-4.
All samples met the QA/QC criteria guidelines for accuracy and precision.
Analytical Methods - Dissolved Sulfides
DS samples were analyzed in accordance with methods described in the LMC SOPS. The MDLfor
DS is presented in Table C-1. Sediment DS QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-4. All
analyses in both quarters met the QA/QC criteria.
Analytical Methods -Total Organic Carbon
TOC samples were analyzed by ALS Environmental Services, Kelso, WA. The MDL for TOC is
presented in Table C-1. Sediment TOC OA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-4. All
analyzed TOC samples passed the QA/QC criteria.
Analytical Methods - Grain Size
Grain size samples were analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Cinnaminson, NJ. The MDL for sediment
grain size is presented in Table C-1. Sediment grain size QA/QC summary data are presented in
Table C-4. All analyzed grain size samples passed the QA/QC criteria of RPD 510%.
Analytical Methods -Total Nitrogen
TN samples were analyzed by Weck Laboratories, Inc., City of Industry, CA. The MDL for TN is
presented in Table C-1. Sediment TN QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-4. The matrix
spikes and their duplicate analyses had a RPD of less than 20%. The associated laboratory control
C-10
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
sample (LCS) met acceptance criteria; however, for the year only 45% and 54% of matrix spikes
and matrix spike duplicates, respectively, met the recovery criteria of 80-120% range due to matrix
interferences in the analysis.
Analytical Methods -Total Phosphorus
TP samples were analyzed by Week Laboratories. The MDL for TP is presented in Table C-1.
Sediment TP QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-4. The matrix spike precisions and
their duplicate analyses had a RPD of less than 20%. The associated LCS met acceptance criteria;
however, for the year only 80% and 70% of matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, respectively,
met the recovery criteria of 80-120% range due to matrix interferences in the analysis.
FISH TISSUE CHEMISTRY NARRATIVE
Introduction
The District's LMC laboratory received 20 rig-fish samples and 38 trawl fish samples from LMC's ocean
monitoring staff during the first quarter of the 2016-17 program year. The individual samples were
stored, dissected, and homogenized according to methods described in the District's 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.
In addition to the percent lipid content determination, the organic chemistry section extracted
20 rig-fish muscle samples, 38 trawl fish muscle tissue samples,and 38 trawl fish liver tissue samples,
and analyzed them for PCB congeners and organochlorine pesticides. Of the 38 trawl fish liver
samples, results from 18 samples, all from the non-ouffall area, were not reported due to a major
instrument error resulting in the failure of all QC samples contained in the 2 batches. No additional
samples were available for reanalysis. A laboratory QAQC corrective action notice was filed.
Atypical organic tissue sample batch included 15 field samples with required QC samples. The QC
samples included 1 hydromatrix blank, 2 sample duplicates, 1 matrix spike, 1 matrix spike duplicate,
1 SRM, and 1 reporting level spike (matrix of choice was tilapia).
For mercury analysis, 1 sample batch consisted of 15-20 fish tissue samples and the required QC
samples, which included a blank, blank spike, SRM, sample duplicates, matrix spikes, and matrix
spike duplicates.
Analytical Methods - 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.
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. Fish tissue pesticide and
PCB QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-5. All analyses were performed within the
required holding times and with appropriate quality control measures. 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.
C-11
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Analytical Methods— 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 tarred aluminum weighing boat
and allowed to evaporate to dryness. The remaining residue was weighed, and the percent lipid
content calculated. Lipid content QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-5. All analyses
passed and were performed within the required holding times and with appropriate quality control
measures.
Table C-5 Fish tissue QA/QC summary, July 2016-June 2017.
Number Numbarof Number of %
Quarter Parameter Total samples Qil Sample Type ofUN mpo
QC Co
(Total batches) Samples TxNd Peasetl easatl
Compountle tle
Cased
Tested e '
Blank 12 54 648 100.0
Blank Spike 6 54 316 975
Matrix Spike 6 54 305 94A
Summer PCBs and Pesticides 96(6) Matrix Spike Dup 6 54 306 94.1
Matrix Spike Precision 6 54 320 98.8
Duplicate 9 54 484 998
CRM Analysis 6 40 213 111
'An analysis tested If the IdlWpp pilena ware mat:
Far blank.Tagel acruraq%hkx,"<3x MDL.
Far blank spik-Targel srcuxcy%recovery 60120.
Far malri v spike snot-Me'spike duppi n s,-Tender accuracy%recovery 40-120,
Far malriv spike preasi--Tom"preaelan%RPD<20%.
For duphei-Targel pros %RPD<20%a11MDLW 1=mean.
Far SRManalveis-cent pid-Li%recwery E6140 ar GtllMtl value,wupMvte ISampW
Summer PerPercent
Upid--Liver 1 Duplicate Samples 1 1 1 100.0
Percent Lipid-Muscle 3 Duplicate Samples 5 1 5 100.0
'Anenaly k peseeEd 11.spowrg...were mat:
Far Euplirate-Teryel promakin%RpD<25%.
Blank 6 1 6 100A
Blank Spike 6 1 5 83.3
Matrix Spike 10 1 10 100.0
Summer Mercury 96(2) Matrix Spike Dup 10 1 10 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 10 1 10 100.0
Duplicate 10 1 10 100.0
CRM Arraivels 2 1 2 100.0
Blank 3 2 6 100.0
Blank Spike 1 2 2 100A
Matrix Spike 2 2 4 f00.0
Summer Arsenic&Selenium 20(i) Matrix Spike Dup 2 2 4 100.0
Matrix Spike Precision 2 2 4 100.0
Duplicate 2 2 4 100.0
CRMAnalwis 1 2 2 1000
'An enards pawed i1 the spoesg MIeft were mat:
For blank-Taget accuracy%recwcry<2x sli
For blank sake-Tari exumry%reeni g0.110.
For metre spike and matrix spike dup sele-Terddit eaumry%rxovery 70-130,
For mobs spike promeion-Teryel prouslon%RPD<25%.
For displease-Trips prension%RpD<30%or 10x MDL M sample mean.
For SRM anatyns-Tmdet ackme,A presi 11120 or comped value,whkkever Is dreelx.
Analytical Methods - 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. Fish tissue mercury QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-5. All
samples were analyzed within their 6-month holding times and met the CIA criteria guidelines. Nearly
all samples met the CIA criteria guidelines for accuracy and precision.
C-12
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Analytical Methods -Arsenic and Selenium
Fish tissue samples were analyzed for arsenic and selenium in accordance with LMC SOPS. Atypical
QC analyses for a tissue sample batch included 3 blanks, a blank spike, and a SRM (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 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. Fish tissue arsenic and selenium
QA/QC summary data are presented in Table C-5. All samples were analyzed within a 6-month holding
time and met the QA criteria guidelines. All samples met the QA criteria guidelines for accuracy and
precision.
BENTHIC INFAUNA NARRATIVE
Sorting and Taxonomy QA/QC
The sorting and taxonomy QA/QC follows the District's QAPP. These QA/QC procedures were
conducted on sediment samples collected for infaunal community analysis in July 2016 (summer)
from 29 semi-annual stations(52-65 m)and 39 annual stations(40-300 m), in January 2017 (winter)
from the same 29 semi-annual stations, and in March 2017 (winter)from 2 additional samples taken
at Station 0, for a total of 99 samples for the year(Table A-4).
Sorting QA/QC Procedures
The sorting procedure involved removal, by Marine Taxonomic Services, Inc. (MTS), of all organisms
including their fragments from sediment samples into separate vials by major taxa (aliquots). The
abundance of countable organisms (heads only) per station was recorded. After MTS' in-house
sorting efficiency criteria were met, the organisms and remaining particulates (grunge)were returned
to the District. Ten percent of these samples (10 of 99) were randomly selected for re-sorting by
District staff. A tally was made of any countable organisms missed by MTS. A sample passed QC if
the total number of countable animals found in the re-sort was 55% of the total number of individuals
originally reported.
2016-17 Sorting QA/QC Results
Sorting results for all QA samples were well below the 5% QC limit.
Taxonomic Identification OA/QC Procedures
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 data sets 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 T. = (1#Taxa R„�d -#Taxa odgmail ' #Taxa R„d,,d) x 100
Equation 2. %Error#iddiaid,ai,=Q#Individuals R0Wd„d-#Individuals odg�nai�'# Individuals R„.,,,,d)x 100
Equation 3. %Error#,Draaa = (#Taxa Mi,ideatm�oa =#Taxa R„ Wd)x 100
Equation 4. %Error#iD mdihddaia = (# Individuals W.....t.,=# Individuals ReBOiJ x 100
Please refer to the District's QAPP for detailed explanation of the variables. The first 3 equations
are considered gauges of errors in accounting (e.g., recording on wrong line, miscounting, etc.),
C-13
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
which, by their random nature, are difficult to predict. Equation 4 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 was conducted upon completion of all
data entry and CA. 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.
2016-17 Taxonomic QA/QC Results
QC objectives for identification accuracy(Equation 4)were met in 2016-17(Table C-6). No significant
changes to the 2016-17 infauna dataset were made following the synoptic data review.
Table C-6 Percent error rates calculated for July 2016 QA samples.
S MIon
Error Type Mean
4 68 22
1.%Error#Tax. 2.8 12.2 1.4 5.5
2.%Error#IndlMd..I. 0.4 2.4 1.2 1.3
3.%Ennr#IDTax. 1.8 18.4 2.8 7.7
4.%Error#ID IndiNdu.I. 0.4 6.4 1.6 2.8
OTTER TRAWL NARRATIVE
The District'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 m/s (1.5 to 2.0 kts). Since 1985, the District
has trawled a set distance of 450 m 310% (the distance that the net is on the bottom collecting fish
and invertebrates). This contrasts with previous regional trawl surveys which factored in time on the
bottom, not distance. 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.
For Summer 2016, trawl distances averaged 459 m and average trawl speed was 1.9 Ids
(Table C-7). All trawls were within the required distance of 450 m except at Stations T17 and T25.
All trawls were conducted at speeds between 1.5-2.0 kts except at Station T19. All trawls passed
through the designated 100-meter radius and all trawls were within±10%of the nominal station depth
except at Station T18.
For Winter 2017, trawl distances averaged 450 m and average trawl speed was 1.9 kts (Table C-7).
All trawls were within the required distance of 450 m except at Station T1. All trawls were conducted
at speeds between 1.5-2.0 Ms, passed through the designated 100-meter radius, and were within
t10%of the nominal station depth.
C-14
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Table C-7 Trawl track distance, vessel speed, bottom depth, and distance from nominal station
position for sampling conducted in Summer 2016 and Winter 2017. Trawl QA variables
that did not meet QA criteria are denoted by an asterisk (*).
Season Station Trawl Depth Distance Veasel Average Trawl Distancefrom
Range Trawled(m) Speed(Me) Track Depth Nominal tenter
Tt 49.6-60.5 4582 1.8 58 12
T2 31.5-38.5 456.2 1.9 36 38
T6 32.4-39.6 459.3 19 38 5
T10 123.3-150.7 457.0 1.9 135 26
T11 54-68 485.8 1.9 64 30
T12 51.3-62.7 481.1 1.9 58 B
T14 123.3-150.7 456.4 2.0 139 22
Summer T17 54-66 3793 19 61 21
T18 32.4-39.8 451.8 1.7 40` 87
T19 123.3-150.7 456A 2.1' 136 7
T22 54-86 455.2 1.7 63 23
T23 52.2-M.8 458.2 1.9 60 ]
T24 324-396 457.1 1.9 37 8
T25 1233-15a 7 355.9` 1.8 135 100
Mean 459.4 1.9
T1 49.5-60.5 397.9- 1.9 56 6
T11 31.5-38.5 455.2 1.9 59 26
T12 51.3-:2.7 466.8 1.9 58 4
Winter T17 54-88 460.2 2.0 62 3
T22 54-66 457A 19 62 7
T23 51.3-62.7 460.9 1.8 61 3
Mean - M9.7 1.9 - -
C-15
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
REFERENCES
Kelly, M., D. Diehl, B. Power, F. Stern, S. Walther,T Petry, M. Mengel, K. Sakamoto, L.Terriquez, 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.
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.
C-16
Y 9�
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Laboratory, Monitoring,and Compliance Division
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018
714.962.2411
www.ocsewers.com
3116