# Lower Newport Bay Copper/ Metals Marina Study

Final Report

July 2007

Prepared for the City of Newport Beach by Orange County Coastkeeper

## 2 Special thanks to the followin g individuals for their help in completing this project:
Linda Candelaria PhD. Of the Santa Ana Regional Wa ter Quality Board. Rich Gossett of CRG Laboratory, Steve Bay, Darrin Greenstein, and Keri Ritter of SCCWRP, and O.C.Coastkeeper interns; Dust ine Min, Holly Doo, Peter Pham, Elijah Rosenthal, Alex Ramirez, Chri s Lopez, and Shannon Penna. This project was funded by the State Water Resource s Control Board and the City of Newport

Beach.



# Executive Summary

A Toxics TMDL for Newport Bay was promulgated in June 2002 by USEPA, and

a Metals TMDL for Newport Bay is cu rrently under development by the Santa

Ana Regional Board staff. Metals listed in this TMDL for the Lower Newport Bay

include Cu, Pb and Zn (Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn in Rhine Channel). Recent studies

have shown that metals are present in New port Bay at levels that raise concerns

for the health of the bay ec osystem (Bay, 2003-2004).

The goal of this project was to dete rmine if Cu antifouling boat paints are a

significant source of Cu contaminati on to the water column and sediments in

marinas, and Lower Newport Bay in general , and to determine the amount of Cu

and other metals present in marina waters and sediments.

Water and sediment samples were collect ed from eight representative marinas

and adjacent channel sites (potential control sites) in Newport Bay in May,

August, and December of 2007 and tested for metals, Dissolved Organic Carbon,

Total Suspended Solids, temperature and salinity. The results were then

examined for excedences of the California Toxics Ru le standards for water or

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini stration Sediment Quick Reference

Tables (NOAA SQRT) for sedim ent. Additionally, a statis tical analysis of the data

using the ANOVA test was conducted to determine if observed differences in the

data are statistically significant. Toxici ty testing was done on a subset of the

water and sediment samples (d ry weather) by SCCWRP.

## 3 Water column

The data shows that dissolved copper is the only metal with concentrations

elevated above the CCC (chronic) (67% of all samples) and CMC (acute) (30%

of all samples) CTR standards in the bay water. To break it down further 75.4 %

of the marina samples and 48.1 % of the channel samples exceeded the

dissolved chronic Cu CTR standard with samples from all marinas and four

channel sites exceeding the chronic standar d greater than 50% of the time. Also

26% of the marinas samples and 14.8% of the channel samples exceeded the

acute CTR in samples from two marinas (Lido Village and Lido Yacht Anchorage)

and one channel site (Lido Village) exc eeding the acute st andard greater than

50% of the time. Although mean Cu c oncentrations in each marina are mostly

above the corresponding channel Cu concen trations, ANOVA statistical analysis

shows that there is no statistically signifi cant difference in dissolved copper levels

in the marinas and the adjac ent channel sites. This may be a function of the

variability in marina and channel data sinc e marina means are mostly higher than

channel means. The dissolved copper dat a may also indicate that copper

leached from the boats in the marinas is not being quickly diluted as it leaves the

marinas.

Sediment

An examination of all the project sediment data showed that Cu, As, Cd, Cr, Hg,

Pb and Zn were elevated above NOAAs TEL and ERL standards, and Cu, Hg,

and Zn were elevated above the ERM in the bay sediments. In statistical

comparisons of marina vs. channel samp les at each marina only three marinas,

Balboa Yacht Basin, Harbor Marina and H& J moorings, did not show significant

differences in the metals concentrati ons between the marina and its adjacent

channel site. This was due to the high me tal concentrations in both marinas and

channels in the west bay. In statistical comparisons of the entire sediment

dataset for each marina vs. the other ma rinas, the data shows that there are

significant differences in sediment meta ls in the marinas of west Newport Bay

(Harbor, Lido Village, and Lido Yacht Anchor age) compared to the other project

## 4 marinas. Poor water ci rculation in the area is a likely reason for the elevated

metal levels for dissolved copper and sediment metals found in the west bay, a

large stormdrain located in Harbor marina may also be a factor. In a statistical

comparison of wet vs. dry weather meta ls data at the marina sites, higher

dissolved metal concentrations were found in the west bay during dry weather

and the combined wet and dry data, while in wet weather the trend is reversed

with the Newport Dunes and De Anza ma rinas showing significantly higher

dissolved metals than the west Newport Ba y This could be due to the strong

influence that runoff from San Diego Creek has on the area during wet weather.

Toxicity

Water, sediment-water interface and sedi ment toxicity tests were conducted for

10 sites (8 marina, 2 channel sites) in August, and pore water (10 sites) and

sediment toxicity tests (6 sites) were conducted in November. Significant

sediment toxicity (amphipod test) was found in 80% of the sites tested -(6/8)

marina stations and all (2/2) channel stat ions, and the stations with highest

toxicity were at Newport Dunes and De Anza Marina. In November, significant

sediment toxicity (amphipod test) was also found at all 6 stations tested (4-

Newport Dunes, 2-DeAnza Marina). No to xicity was found for water, sedimentwater interface or porewater tests for 10 stations tested (mussel embryo tests),

however, 3/10 SWI tests and 2/10 pore water tests showed reduced percent

normal alive embryos. A TIE was run on the Newport Dunes si te to attempt to

identify the source of the toxicity. The results of the TIE te st determined that the

most likely source of the toxicity found at the Newport Dunes Marina is a

combination of metals and pesticides.

Additionally the pore water was extrac ted from the sediment collected and

examined for metals. Copper was the only metal found to be in exceedence of

CTR values in the pore water. It exceeded the chronic CT R standard at two

sites, one each at Lido Yacht Anchorage and the H&J moorings. The acute CTR

standard was exceeded only at the H&J moorings site

## 5 Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

Background 6

Sample Design 7

Methodology 9

Data Analysis Methods 12

Objective Exceedence Discussion 14

Statistical Analysis Discussion 33

Toxicity Testing 45

Conclusions 46

Appendix A Maps 47

Appendix B Toxicity Testing Report 56

Appendix C Copper Graphs 57

Appendix D Metals, TSS, Turbidity, Salinity, DOC Means 65

Appendix E Grain size, Pore Water Metals, Acid Volat ile Sulfides 71

## 6 

# Background

A Toxics TMDL for Newport Bay was promulgated in June 2002 by USEPA, and

a Metals TMDL for Newport Bay is cu rrently under development by Santa Ana

Regional Water Board staff. Metals shown to exceed the CTR values in Lower

Newport Bay include Cu, Pb and Zn (C d, Cu, Pb, and Zn in Rhine Channel).

Recent studies have shown that metals are present in Newport Bay at levels that

raise concerns for the health of the bay ecosystem (Bay, 2003-2004, USEPA

303d list). Cu and other metals are known to be toxic to fish and other aquatic

species. Cu antifouling boat paints are a kn own source of Cu to the Lower Bay.

These paints are designed to leach Cu into the water, mostly as cuprous oxide,

to reduce the fouling of boat bottoms wit h barnacles and algae. The leaching of

Cu from antifouling boat paints is we ll documented, and has been quantified in a

study by SCCWRP (SCCWRP report, Schiff et al 2003; Port of San Diego Report

2006). However, the question remains as to the disposition of Cu once it is

released into the marina – Does the Cu remain in the marina, adsorb onto the

sediments, or flush out of the bay with the tides? In addition, Zn plates are

installed on all boats and serve as sacrific ial anodes to prevent corrosion of other

metal parts. Seawater reacts with the Zn anodes which corrode and settle to the

marina sediments.

Copper or other metals in the water may remain in the dissolved phase, adsorb

to suspended particles and settle, form salt precipitates or be flushed out of the

marina. Benthic organisms that lie in t he sediment may ingest these metals, and

filter feeders, such as mollusks, may accu mulate metals from the water. In

addition, sediments may be resuspended and rel ease metals back into the water.

An additional source of metals to Ne wport Bay is urban runoff which may enter

the Bay via storm drains or surface r unoff. Metal inputs to the Bay from

stormwater inputs can be significant in win ter. Over 200 stormdrains empty into

Newport Bay and studies show high metal concentrations around storm drains in

## 7 the Rhine Channel section of the bay (Bay 2003, OCCK 2004). Two marinas

with storm drains in Lower Bay were samp led to investigate the impact of storm

drain inputs into marinas to determine if stormdrains significant ly affect metals

concentrations in marinas.

Boatyards are another potential source of Cu to Newport Bay, boat hulls are

cleaned, scraped and sandblast ed near the water and there is a potential for

discharge into the Bay (although a no discharge rule is in effect via the State

Board’s general industrial stormwater permi t). According to marina data, higher

levels of Cu have been found near main tenance area drains and fuel docks than

at other locations suggesti ng that these two areas are sources of potential metal

pollution of water and good targets for po llution prevention practices (Shelter

Island TMDL SDRWQCB 2004). Other metals such as lead, copper, arsenic,

zinc, mercury, nickel, lead, chromium and tin have many functions in boat

operation, maintenance, and repair. Ther e are two active boatyards in Lower

Newport Bay that are not in the Rhine Channel (T he Rhine Channel has been

investigated extensively in previous projects, Bay 2003, O.C.Coastkeeper 2005).

The largest is located next to the Balboa Yacht Basin Marina and the water and

sediment near this boatyard was tested as part of this project. The other is

located on West Pacific Coast Highway and is not close to marinas included in

this project.



# Sampling Design

The goal of this project was to dete rmine if Cu antifouling boat paints are a

significant source of Cu contaminati on to the water column and sediments in

marinas, and Lower Newport Bay in general, and to determine the amount of Cu

and other metals present in marina waters and sediments.

To achieve this goal we selected eight representative marinas from over forty

marinas in Newport Bay. We established representative sample sites in each of

## 8 the eight marinas along with a site in t he channel adjacent to the marina to serve

as a reference outside each marina. The marinas are spatially distributed

throughout the Lower Bay (and lower U pper Bay) and include linear and block

marina designs. One set of moorings was also included to cover all types of

marina designs in Newport Bay. To r epresent other factor s that may influence

metals concentrations, we selected two marinas with large stormdrains that

emptied into the marinas and one with a sh ipyard located next door to determine

if there was a significant difference bet ween marina sites without storm drains or

shipyard influences and marina sites wit h storm drains or near a shipyard.

Additionally we scheduled the sampling ev ents to represent wet and dry weather

conditions in the bay. Sampling events for all sites were in May, August and

December; the May sampling event was wit hin three weeks of a rain event and

the December sampling event was within se venty-two hours of a rain event. The

August event was in the middle of the dry season. By using this design we were

able to make data comparisons of each marina vs. its channel site, marina vs.

marina, dry vs. wet weather, and marinas with stormdrains or shipyards vs.

marinas without.

This design is critical to answering our primary question, to determine if Cu

antifouling boat paints are a si gnificant source of Cu contamination to the water

column and sediments in marinas, and Lower Newport Bay in general, and to

determine the concentrations of Cu and other metals present in marina waters

and sediments.

If the Cu remains in the marina waters or settles into the marina sediments then

there could be a significant difference betwe en the marina and channel data. If

the Cu from the bottom paint is quickly fl ushed out of the ma rinas, there may not

be a significant difference in marina and cha nnel sediment Cu concentrations. If

stormdrains or shipyards are a significant source of metals to the marinas they

are located in or near then marina sites closest to the storm drain (or shipyard)

may have higher metal concentrations than si tes further from the stormdrain (or

## 9 shipyard) . The wet and dry season sampli ng events will allow us to determine if

the concentrations of metals leve ls fluctuate during the year.



# Methodology

Sampling Events and Sites

For this study, water and sediment sample s were collected from thirty-five sites in

Newport Bay including sites in ei ght marinas and adjacent channels, two

stormdrains, and one shipyard. A list of ma rinas is detailed in Table 1. There

were 3 major sampling events on May 10th, August 22 nd 

## and 23 rd 

## and December

18th for all marina/channel sites, and a 4 th 

## sampling event, November 17 th 

## , was

added later to collect additional toxicity samples. For the May, August and

December events water and sediment samp les were analyzed for dissolved and

total metals in water, metals in s ediment, and Total Suspended Solids, Dissolved

Organic Carbon, water temperature and salin ity in water. In addition to the

metals testing, the August event incl uded toxicity testing and organics testing on

a subset of 10 sites (Table 1). Wate r and sediment samples were analyzed for

toxicity, PCBs and PAHs; and grain size, TOC, and acid volatile sulfides in

sediment were also run. After analysi s of the August toxicity results, the

November sampling event was added to coll ect sediment samples for additional

toxicity and TIE testing. Metals in pore water were also analyzed in the

November sediment samples.

The May and December samples repr esent wet weather conditions with the

December collection occurring within 72 hours of a storm event and the May

sampling occurring within 3 weeks of a ra in event. The August sampling event

was representative of dr y weather conditions. During both the August and

November events samples were collected from a subset of the total sites (10 in

August and 12 sites in November) for toxici ty testing, with the November sample

site locations based on the toxicity test results from the August sampling event.

## 10 Sample Collection and Analyses

All water samples were collected from one meter below the surface using a clean

500ml poly bottle mounted on a six foot PVC sampling pole. All sediment

samples were collected using a petit e ponar grab sampler with the samples

collected from the undisturbed top 10cm of the sediment collected. The larger

sediment samples necessary for toxicity testing were composites from the

multiple grabs required to generate t he amount of sediment necessary.

In May, August and December, the wate r and sediment samples for chemical

analysis were collected and delivered to CRG Marine Laboratories the same day.

The water samples were analyzed for tota l and dissolved title 22 metals including

copper, nickel, chromium, lead, arsenic, nickel, tin, cadmium, mercury and zinc,

using EPA method 1640 by ICPMS (Fe, Pd extraction), DOC using EPA method

415.1, and TSS using SM2540D. Temperat ure and salinity measurements were

taken in the field. Sediments were analyzed for total metals (title 22 metals) using

EPA method 6020 by ICPMS. In August, additional amounts of water and

sediment were collected from 10 site s, and a split of those samples was

analyzed for PCBs and PAHs using EPA method 625(m)/6270C(m), particle size

using SM2560D, Percent Solids us ing EPA method160.3, TOC using EPA

method 415.1,and acid volatile sulfides.

The water and sediment samples collected for toxicity testing during August and

November were sent to the Southern California Coastal Watershed Research

Project (SCCWRP) for toxicity and TIE test ing. The initial toxicity testing was

done in August for ten sites, one at each of the eight marinas, along with two

channel sites, one each outside Lido Vi llage Marina and Lido Yacht Anchorage

marina. Toxicty tests were conducted on water, the sediment water interface,

and whole sediment. Based on the initial to xicity testing results additional sites

were tested in November . Newport D unes site number three was selected for a

sediment TIE due to its high sediment toxi city in the August testing, and pore

water toxicity testing was run on two sites each in Newport dunes and De Anza

## 11 Marinas and at one site from each of t he other six project marinas (no channel

sites) for a total of ten por e water tests. Also, six whol e sediment tests were run,

at four Newport Dunes sites and two DeAnza sites.

Toxicity Tests

Mussel Embryo Development Test

The mussel embryo development test (USEPA 1995) was used to evaluate

acute toxicity on water column, sedi ment-water interface and pore water

samples. This test measures toxic effe cts on mussel embryos, as a reduction in

their ability to normally develop from fertilized eggs. The mussels (Mytilus

galloprovincialis) test consisted of a 48 h exposure of fertilized eggs to marina

water samples. (See Appendix B for test details.)

Sediment-Water Interface (SWI) Test

This is a 48 hour, whole sediment test. W hole sediment from the 10 stations was

loaded into five replicate polycarbonate co re tubes with laborat ory seawater and

equilibrated overnight. The next day, fertilized mussel eggs were added. After

48h, embryos were observed. (See Appendix B for test details.)

Whole Sediment Toxicity Test

For whole sediment, a ten day chronic to xicity measurement using exposure with

amphipods (Eohaustorius estuarius) was conducted. The exposure was

conducted on the same sediment as the SW I testing. This test measures toxic

effects on amphipods by their survival and activity level. (See Appendix B for

test details.)

Whole Sediment Toxicity Id entification Evaluation

A reduced volume and duration (7 day) initial amphipod survival test was

performed on two stations to determine if toxicity was present at a high enough

level to justify conducting a TIE.

## 12 A whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation (T IE) was conducted on station

6013 from the Newport Dunes Marina. This station was found to be very toxic to

amphipods for the initial sample colle cted in August and again in November

when the station was resampled. (S ee Appendix B for test details.)

Pore Water Toxicity Tests

Pore water samples were extracted from whole sediment by centrifugation and

the supernatant was removed. The pore water samples were tested using the

mussel embryo development test as descri bed above. In addition to the testing of

pore water, a “mini-TIE” was performed by adding EDTA to an aliquot of pore

water from each station. (See Appendix B for test details.)

Split samples sent to SCCWRP in August fo r toxicity testing were also sent to

CRG for metals and other analyses as de scribed above. In November, additional

samples were sent to SCCWRP for toxi city testing and only pore water samples

were sent to CRG Marine Labs for metals analyses.



# Data Analysis Methods

Data analysis was done using two differ ent methods. The first is a basic

determination of whether the data for each si te exceeds the criteria selected for

comparison. For water the criteria sele cted are the California Toxics Rule (CTR)

water quality objectives for the Crit erion Maximum Concentration (CMC) and

Criterion Continuous Concent ration (CCC). For sediment the criteria selected

are the NOAA SQRT objectives for the Th reshold Effects Level (TEL) Effects

Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Medium (ERM). Table one details the the

type of sites associated with each mari na and the toxicity testing done. The

metals analyzed for exceedence and the corresponding objectives are detailed

in the table two and three. Several meta ls including Nickel (Ni), Selenium (Se)

and Tin (Sn) were included in the statis tical analysis but were not analyzed for

exceedences. The paramet ers measured other than metals are intended to

support the metals and toxicity analysis a nd do not have criteria for comparison.

## 13 Table 1 -Marina and channel sit es and toxicity test sites.

Marinas Marina

Sites Channel

sites Stormdrain

or

Shipyard

sites Toxicity

sites –

Aug Porewater

Toxicity

sites -

Nov Sediment

Toxicity

& TIE

sites -

Nov

Newport

Dunes 3 1 0 1 2 1(TIE)

4 Tox

De Anza 3 2 0 1 2 2 Tox

Balboa

Yacht

Basin 3 1 1 (SY) 1 1

Bahia

Corinthian 3 1 1 (SD) 1 1

Harbor 2 1 1 (SD) 1 1

Lido

Village 3 1 0 1+ 1ch 1

Lido Yacht

Anchorage 3 1 0 1+ 1ch 1

H&J

Moorings 1 1 0 1 1

## 14 Table 2 Water Criteria Table 3 Sediment Criteria

California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria are the Criter ion Maximum Concentration (CMC) and Criterion Continuous

Concentration (CCC). The sediment criteria are Threshol d Effects Level (TEL) Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects

Range Medium (ERM)



## The second type of analysis d one for this project was a st atistical analysis of the

data to determine if observed differences in the data sets are truly significant.

Marina vs channel, marina vs. marina and dry vs. wet season data were

compared statistically. This analysis was done with the SYSTAT 11 statistical

analysis program using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with a Bonferroni

Adjustment. Using this method we analyz ed the data for all of the metals in the

above tables to determine if the concent rations of metals in the water and

sediment of the bay show identifiable patterns.



# Results

Objective Exceedence Discussion

As described above, an evaluation for exceedence of CTR Dissolved Metals

criteria and NOAA Sediment Quality criteria (SQRT) was conducted for all the

metals in tables 2 and 3. The objec tives used for determining an exceedence

are the CCC (chronic) and CMC (acute) for dissolved metals in water and the Dissolved Metals CTR Saltwater Criteria ( μg/L)

Element CMC CCC As (Arsenic) 69 36 Cd (Cadmium) 42 9.3 Cr-tot (Chromium –Total) 1100 50 Cu (Copper) 4.8 3.1 Pb (Lead) 210 8.1 Hg (Mercury) 1.8 .94 Ag (Silver) 1.9 Se (Selenium) 290 71 Zn (Zinc) 90 81 Ni (Nickel) 74 8.2 

## NOAA SQRT VALUES (Sediment Criteria)( μg/dry g)

Element Salt TEL Salt ERL Salt ERM
As( Arsenic) 7.24 8.2 70 Cd (Cadmium) 0.067 1.2 9.6 Cr-tot(Chromium –Total) 52.3 81 370 Cu(Copper) 18.7 34 270 Pb (Lead) 30.2 46.7 218 Hg (Mercury) 0.13 0.15 0.71 Ag (Silver) 0.73 1 3.7 Zn (Zinc) 124 150 410

## 15 TEL, ERL and ERM for sediment. To aid in the identification of the exceedences

found, table 4 below has been prepared detai ling the number of exceedences for

each metal at each marina and channel si te for both the sediment and water

standards. For this narrative we will lim it the discussion of the analysis to the

broad trends found in the data.

Water Column

Copper was the only metal to exceed CT R values, both the Criterion Maximum

Concentration (CMC) and Criter ion Continuous Concentrat ion (CCC) criteria.

The CCC is used for long term exposure (chr onic) while the CMC is intended as

a short term maximum level (acute). Dissolved Copper concentrations

exceeded the CCC level in all marinas (75% of marina samples) and in 5/9

channel sites (48% of channel samples). Samples at four of the eight channel

sites (all at the west end of the bay) exc eeded the CCC at least 50% of the time.

CMC exceedences of Cu occurred at all marinas, except Newport Dunes and

Bahia Corinthian (30% of marina sample s), and at the Harbor, Lido Village, and

Lido Yacht Anchorage channel sites (15% of channel samples). The marinas

with exceedences of the CMC for Cu fo r more than 50% of the samples were

confined to the west Newport Bay ar ea containing the Lido Village, and Lido

Yacht Anchorage marinas

Sediment

The Sediment data was analyzed against t he TEL, ERL and ERM criteria. The

TEL criteria are the most protective and the USEPA was initially using TELs for

TMDL work; the ERL criteria are only s lightly higher. The ERM criteria are the

most significant from a regul atory perspective as they are the sediment criteria

used by the State to list an impaired waterbody. Since the ERMs denote

impairment, the ERLs are the criteria of choice for TMDLs since they are more

protective of waterbodies than the ERMs. The sediment data shows

concentrations above the TEL in at least 50% of the samples for As, Cd, Cu, and

Zn in all of the marinas and for Pb and Hg in four of the eight marinas (all at the

## 16 west end of the bay). At the channel si tes the data shows concentrations above

the TEL in at least 50% of the samples for Cd, Cu and Zn at all channel sites and

for As and Hg at five of the eight channel sites.

While the ERL criteria are not much hi gher than the TEL it made a big difference

in the number of exceedences. There were reductions in the number of

exceedences for all metals discussed above with As, Cd and Cr and Pb seeing

the largest reductions in exceedences. Ho wever, all of the me tals that exceeded

the TEL also exceeded the ERL in both the marina and channel sites, just at

fewer sites. The following marinas and the adjacent channels had exceedences

of the ERLs for the metals list ed for over 50% of the samples:

Newport Dunes marina Cd(100%) Cu ( 100%) Zn (77.8%), (<50% -As)

Newport Dunes Channel Cu (1 00%); (<50% -Cd, Zn)

De Anza marina; As (66.7) Cd (55.6% ), Cu (100%) Zn (100%), (<50% -Hg)

De Anza inner channel Cu (100%), Zn (66.7%), (<50% -As, Cd)

Balboa Yacht Basin marina; As (88.99%), Cu (88.9%), Hg (100%) Zn (88.9%),

Balboa Yacht Basin Channel; Cu (100%), Hg (66.7%) Zn (100%), (<50% -As)

Bahia Corinthian marina; As (77.8%),Cd (88.9%),Cu (100%),Zn (100%),

(<50% -Hg)

Bahia Corinthian channel; Cu (100% ),Hg (100%), (<50% -Hg)

Harbor marina; As(83.3%), Cd(83.3%), Cu(83.3%), Pb(66.7%), Zn, (83.3%)

(<50% -Hg)

Harbor marina channel; As(100%), Cd (66.7%), Cu(100%), Pb(66.7%),

Hg(100%), Zn, (100%),

Lido Village marina; As(100%), Cu(100% ), Pb(66.7%), Hg(100%),Zn, (100%),

Lido village channel; As(66.7%), Cu(100%), Hg(100%), Zn, (66.7%), (<50% -Pb)

Lido Yacht Anchorage; As(100%), Cu(100%), Hg(100%),Zn, (100%),

(<50% -Cd, Pb)

Lido Yacht Anchorage channel; As(100%), Cu(100%), Hg(100%),Zn, (100%),

(<50% -Cd, Pb)

H&J Mooring; As(77.8%), Cu( 100%), Hg(100%),Zn, (100%),

H&J Mooring channel; As(100% ), Cu(100%), Hg(100%),Zn, (100%) (<50% -Cd).

## 17 The ERM criteria are significantly higher t han the TEL or ERL, this is also the

criteria used by the State Water Resour ces Control Board for impaired waterbody

listing purposes. At the ERM level only Cu, Hg, and Zn still exceeded the criteria.

With the exception of Hg (22%) in t he Balboa Yacht Basin Marina and Cu (11%)

in Bahia Corinthian Marina, all of the ex ceedences occurred in the West Newport

area. At Harbor Marina, the samples co llected exceeded for Cu (33%),Hg (16%),

and Zn (66%) in the marina and Hg (33%) at the channel site. In Lido Village

Marina the samples collected exceeded for Hg (33%) equally in the marina and

channel sites. At Lido Yacht Anchorage samples collected exceeded for Cu

(89%), Hg (100%) and Zn (66%) in the marina and Hg (100%) exceeded at the

channel site. At the H&J Moorings the sa mples collected exce eded for Hg (44%)

and Zn (11%) in the moorings but ther e were no exceedences at the channel

site. The overall exceedence anal ysis shows that dissolved copper

concentrations exceeded the CTR CCC and CMC criteria in the bay water at

most marinas and some channel sites; Cu, Hg, and Zn exceeded the ERMs, and

Cu, As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Zn exceeded both the TELs and ERLs in the bay

sediments. Additionally Cu, Hg, and Zn are elevated in West Newport Bay

marinas at levels high enough to meet the impaired waterbody listing

requirements for marine sediment.

Graphs for dissolved copper and t he metals exceeding the ERL in sediment

discussed above are presented in graph set 1. An examination of the graphs

shows that metal concentrations are si gnificantly higher in the marinas and

channel sites in the west end of the Lower Bay.Table 4 Exceedences of CTR (Dissolved) and SQRT (Sediment) objectivesSample SiteNewportDunesSediment(TEL)/(ERL)/(ERM)Newport DunesDissolved[CCC/CMC]Newport Dunes(Channel)Sediment(TEL/ERL/ERM)Newport Dunes(Channel)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]De Anza MarinaSediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]De Anza MarinaDissolved[CCC/CMC]De Anza MarinaChannel (IN)Sediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]Arsenic (As) 7/9;2/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;6/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 1/3;1/3;0/3Cadmium (Cd) 9/9;9/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;1/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;5/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;1/3;0/3Chromium (Cr) 2/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 1/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 1/3;1/3;0/3Copper (Cu)9/9;9/9;0/9 5/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;0/9 6/9;2/9 3/3;3/3;0/3Lead (Pb) 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3Mercury (Hg) 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 1/9;1/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3Nickel (Ni) 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9Silver (Ag) 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3Zinc (Zn)9/9;7/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 2/3;1/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 2/3;2/3;0/3Sample SiteDe Anza Marina(Channel IN)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]De Anza Marina(Channel OUT)Sediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]DeAnzaMarina(ChannelOUT)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]Balboa YachtBasin Sediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]Balboa YachtBasin Dissolved[CCC/CMC]Balboa YachtBasin (Channel)Sediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]Balboa YachtBasin(Channel)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]BahiaCorinthianSediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]BahiaCorinthianDissolved[CCC/CMC]Arsenic (As) 0/3;0/3 0/3;/03;0/3 0/3;0/3 8/9;8/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;1/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 7/9;7/9;0/9 0/9;0/9Cadmium (Cd) 0/3;0/3 3/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;8/9;0/9 0/9;0/9Chromium (Cr)0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 1/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 1/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 2/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9Copper (Cu)2/3;0/3 3/3;1/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 8/9;8/9;0/9 6/9;3/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;1/9 5/9;0/9Lead (Pb) 0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 3/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 1/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9Mercury (Hg) 0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;2/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;2/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 2/9;2/9;0/9 0/9;0/9Nickel (Ni) 0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9Silver (Ag) 0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9Zinc (Zn)0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 8/9;8/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;0/9 0/9;0/919Sample SiteBahiaCorinthian(Channel)Sediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]Bahia Corinthian(Channel)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]Harbor MarinaSediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]Harbor MarinaDissolved[CCC/CMC]HarborMarina(Channel)Sediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]HarborMarina(Channel)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]Lido VillageSediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]Lido VillageDissolved[CCC/CMC]Lido Village(Channel)SedimentArsenic (As) 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 5/6;5/6;0/6 0/6;0/6 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 2/3;2/3;0/3Cadmium (Cd) 3/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 6/6;5/6;0/6 0/6;0/6 3/3;2/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;0/3;0/3Chromium (Cr)0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 1/6;0/6;0/6 0/6;0/6 1/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 2/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 1/3;0/3;0/3Copper (Cu)3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 6/6;5/6;2/6 6/6;2/6 3/3;3/3;0/3 3/3;1/3 9/9;9/9;0/9 9/9;6/9 3/3;3/3;0/3Lead (Pb) 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 4/6;4/6;0/6 0/6;0/6 2/3;2/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 6/9;6/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 1/3;1/3;0/3Mercury (Hg) 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 3/6;2/6;1/6 0/6;0/6 3/3;3/3;1/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;3/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;1/3Nickel (Ni) 0/3;0/3 0/6;0/6 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9Silver (Ag) 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/6;0/6;0/6 0/6;0/6 1/3;1/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 3/9;3/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 1/3;1/3;0/3Zinc (Zn)0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 5/6;5/6;4/6 0/6;0/6 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 2/3;2/3;0/3Sample SiteLido Village(Channel)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]Lido YachtAnchorageSediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]Lido YachtAnchorageDissolved[CCC/CMC]LidoYachtAnchorage(Channel)Sediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]Lido YachtAnchorage(Channel)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]H & JMooringsSediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]H & JMooringsDissolved[CCC/CMC]H&JMoorings(Channel)Sediment[TEL/ERL/ERM]H & JMoorings(Channel)Dissolved[CCC/CMC]Arsenic (As) 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 8/9;7/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3Cadmium (Cd) 0/3;0/3 9/9;4/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;1/3;0/3 0/3;0/3Chromium (Cr) 0/3;0/3 3/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3Copper (Cu)3/3;2/3 9/9;9/9;8/9 9/9;6/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 3/3;1/3 9/9;9/9;0/9 6/9;2/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 2/3;0/3Lead (Pb) 0/3;0/3 6/9;3/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 2/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 5/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 1/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3Mercury (Hg) 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;9/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;3/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;4/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3Nickel (Ni) 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3Silver (Ag) 0/3;0/3 2/9;2/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9;0/9 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3Zinc (Zn)0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;4/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 9/9;9/9;1/9 0/9;0/9 3/3;3/3;0/3 0/3;0/3Graph set 1 Average Dissolved and Sediment Metals ConcentrationsComparison of average Dissolved Cu concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites0123456NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboa Yacht BahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/Channel sites

Average Cu concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelCCCCMC21Comparison of average Cu concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites0.0050.00100.00150.00200.00250.00300.00350.00400.00NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboaYachtBahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/Channel sites

Average Cu concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelTELERLERMShip YardStorm Drain22Comparison of average Cd concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites024681012NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboaYachtBahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/Channel sites

Average Cd concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelTELERLERMShip YardStorm Drain23Comparison of average Cr concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites050100150200250300350400NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboaYachtBahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/Channel sites

Average Cr concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelTELERLERMShip YardStorm Drain24Comparison of average Pb concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites050100150200250NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboaYachtBahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/channel sites

Average Pb concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelTELERLERMShip YardStormDrain25Comparison of average Hg concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboaYachtBahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/Channel sites

Average Hg concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelTELERLERMShip YardStorm Drain26Comparison of average Zn concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites0100200300400500600700NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboaYachtBahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/Channel Sites

Average Zn concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelTELERLERMShip YardStorm Drain27Comparison of average As concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.00NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboaYachtBahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/Channel sites

Average As concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelTELERLShip YardStorm DrainERM28Comparison of average Ni concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites0.005.0010.0015.0020.0025.0030.00NP Dunes De AnzainnerDe AnzaouterBalboaYachtBahiaCorinthianHarborMarinaLido Village Lido Yacht H&JMooringsMarina/Channel sites

Average Ni concentration (ug/ dry g)MarinaChannelShip YardStorm Drain29Marina Dissolved Copper (Cu) Averages Per Month0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.00May Aug Dec

μg/LNewport Dunes AverageDe Anza AveragesBalboa Yacht Basin AveragesBahia Corinthian AveragesHarbor Marina AveragesLido Village AveragesLido Yacht Anchorage AveragesH&J Moorings AveragesCCCCMC30Marina Sediment Copper (Cu) Averages Per Month0.0050.00100.00150.00200.00250.00300.00350.00400.00123

mg/LNewport Dunes AverageDe Anza AveragesBalboa Yacht Basin AveragesBahia Corinthian AveragesHarbor Marina AveragesLido Village AveragesLido Yacht Anchorage AveragesH&J Moorings AveragesSalt TELSalt ERLSalt ERMMayAugust December31Marina Dissolved Zinc (Zn) Averages Per Month0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00100.00May Aug Dec

μg/LNewport Dunes AverageDe Anza AveragesBalboa Yacht Basin AveragesBahia Corinthian AveragesHarbor Marina AveragesLido Village AveragesLido Yacht Anchorage AveragesH&J Moorings AveragesCCCCMC32Marina Sediment Zinc (Zn) Averages Per Month0100200300400500600700123

mg/LNewport Dunes AverageDe Anza AveragesBalboa Yacht Basin AveragesBahia Corinthian AveragesHarbor Marina AveragesLido Village AveragesLido Yacht Anchorage AveragesH&J Moorings AveragesSalt TelSalt ERLSalt ERM

# Statistical Analysis Discussion

A statistical analysis was conducted to det ermine if the observed differences in

the data sets from various project site s were truly significant. The analysis

focused on differences in metals concent rations in four scenarios; marina sites

vs. their adjacent channel site, differenc es between project marina sites (Marina

Vs. Marina), marinas with stormdrains or shipyards vs. marinas without, and wet

weather vs. dry weather data. For each of the scenarios t he results of the

statistical analysis is discussed seperat ly for dissolved metals and sediment

metals, with the dissolved metals discussed first.



# Marinas vs. Adjacent Channel Sites

The dissolved and sediment metals (listed in table 2 and 3) in marina samples

were compared to those in adjacent channel samples.

The analysis found that for dissolved metals there were no significant

differences in metal concentrations between the marina and channels sites

except at De Anza Marina, where the outer channel site (separated by an island

from the marina) showed a si gnificant difference in cop per concentrations from

the marina. Since copper was the only dissolved metal to exceed the CTR

criteria, the lack of a significant diff erence between the marina and channel sites

suggests that copper from the boats in the marinas is not being quickly diluted as

it leaves the marinas. The graph below illus trates the output fr om the statistical

program used for DeAnza marina vs outer channel.

Least Squares Means

1 2 D_ANZA_OUT 0 1 2 3 4

C U

## 34 The same analysis for metal concentrations in sediment samples from the

marinas and adjacent channel sites shows a different pattern. Five marinas had

significant differences in metal conc entrations between the marina and channel

sites, however, the metals with signifi cant differences differed depending on the

marina examined. A significant diffe rence occurred in sediment metal

concentrations between the marina and c hannel sites at Newport Dunes for Cd,

Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn; at Bahia for all meta ls tested except Ag; at Lido Village for

Cu and Zn; at Lido Yacht Anchorage for As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn; and at DeAnza In for

Pb and DeAnza Out for all metals te sted. De Anza was designed with two

channel sites (De Anza (In) and De Anza (Out)) on either si de of a small island

that separates the marina from the main channel. This gave us an opportunity to

see if a physical barrier would make a difference in the channel data. For the

DeAnza (In) site Pb was the only metal that was significantly different in the

marina and channel sites. At the De Anza (Out) site there was a significant

difference from the marina in all of the me tals analyzed. This suggests that the

physical barrier may be restricting the move ment of contaminat ed sediment from

the marina or that Cu and Zn from boats is settling in ma rina sediments. All of the

significant differences in marinas vs. c hannels are summarized in table 3. There

was no significant difference in sedim ent metal concentrations between marina

and channel sites at Balboa Yacht Basin, Harbor marina, and H and J moorings.

This was likely due to high metal concentrations in both marina and channel

sites; for example, the Cu ERL was ex ceeded in marina and channel sites at

BYB (9/9 marina, 3/3 channel, 3/3 shipyard), at Harbor (5/6 marina, 3/3 ch, 3/3

stormdrain) and H & J (9/9 marina, 3/3 ch). Other ERLs were also exceeded at

both marinas and channels at these sites including As, Cu, Hg, Zn at BYB,

Harbor and H&J, and Cd and Pb at Har bor. (ERMs were exceeded for both

marinas and channels for Hg at Harbor, Li do Village, and Lido Yacht Anchorage.

(ERMs were exceeded for ‘m arinas only’ for Cu at Harbor, Lido Yacht Anchorage

and Bahia; for Zn at Harbor, Lido Yacht Anchorage and H&J moorings; and for

Hg at H&J moorings and Balboa Yacht Basin.) Table 4 summarizes the

## 35 significant differences found for dissolved and sediment metals between marinas

and their adjacent channel site.



# Marina vs. Marina

The dissolved and sediment metals (listed in table 2 and 3) in samples within

each marina were compared to all the ot her marinas individually and there are

very clear patterns. (Chann el data comparison was not analyzed.) The findings

for dissolved and sediment metals are discussed seperatly.

The analysis for dissolved metals shows that Copper and Zinc concentrations in

Harbor, Lido Village and Lido Yacht Anchor age Marinas are significantly higher

than the other marinas, although Zn conc entrations are below the CTR water

quality criteria. Cadmimum is significant ly higher at Bahia Corinthian Marina than

at all the other marinas, Nickel concentra tions were significantly higher at

Newport Dunes and and significantly lower at Balboa Yacht Basin than at all the

other marinas. Selenium is significantly higher at Newport Dunes and De Anza

than at all the other marinas For t he other dissolved metals there are no

significant differences in the data between marinas.

The analysis for sediment metals shows that metals concentrations for copper

increase in a stepwise fashon from New port Dunes to Harbor marina and level

off at Lido Village before increasing sign ificantly at Lido Yacht Anchorage Marina

then decreasing at the H&J mootings (see Statistical Graph on pg. 34).

Sediment metals are significantly higher for Cd in Bahia Corinthian and Harbor

marina, Cr in Lido Village and Lido Yach t Anchorage, Pb and Cu in Harbor, Lido

Village, and Lido Yacht Anchorage marinas with Harbor Marina significantly

higher than both of the ot hers for Pb. For Hg, the Balboa Yacht Basin, Lido

Village, and Lido Yacht Anchorage marinas and the H&J moorings show

significantly higher levels than the other marinas with the concentrations at Lido

Yacht Anchorage by far the highest. Fo r Se, and Ag the Lido Village and Lido

## 36 Yacht Anchorage are significantly higher , Sn (not shown in tables) and Zn are

higher at Harbor, Lido Village , and Lido Yacht Anchorage.

Table 5 summarizes the significant diffe rences found for dissolved and sediment

metals for the project marinas and the graph below provides an example of the

output from the statistica l program for the Marina vs. Marina analysis for copper.



# Stormdrains and shipyards

To determine if stormdrains or shipya rds are significant factors in the

concentration of metals in marinas or t he adjacent channel sites we included two

marinas with large stormdrains, Harbor and Bahia Corinthian on opposite ends of

the harbor, and one marina with a shipyard next door, Balboa Yacht Basin. With

over two hundred stormdrains located thr oughout the bay, all of the marinas are

affected by urban runoff. However, a few large stormdrains account for the

majority of the stormdrain flow into the bay, and by including two in the project

design the significance of the stormdrain c ontribution of metals in their respective

marinas can be measured. Shipyards were also identified as potentially

significant sources of metals (Shelte r Island TMDL 2002), there are only six Copper in Sediment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


### Marina 41 104 167 230 293 356



### Cu

## 37 shipyards left in Newport bay with four of those located in the Rhine Channel

area (not included in this study ). The larger of the tw o shipyards located in the

main body of the bay was included in t he study to measure the impact it may

have on the marina metal concentrations.

An examination of the marina vs. mari na data described above, taking into

account the location of the stormdrain and shipyard sites, shows the presence of

a large stormdrain or shipyard in the marina to be insignificant with respect to

dissolved and sediment metal concent rations compared to marinas without

stormdrain or shipyard influence. Bo th the Balboa Yacht Basin marina, where

the shipyard is located, and the Bahia Corinthian Marina, that has one of the

major stormdrains, do not show a si gnificant difference in most metal

concentrations in either water or sediment from the majority of marinas. Harbor

marina, the other marina with a major sto rmdrain, does show significantly higher

concentrations of metals in both water and sediment compared to other marinas;

this may be related to both the presenc e of the stormdrain and the geographic

location of the marina in the west end of harbor (an area where circulation is

poor). All of the marinas in the we st end of the bay had elevated metal

concentrations in marina and channel sediments (Harbor, Lido Village, Lido

Yacht Anchorage and H&J Moorings). Lido Village and Lido Yacht Anchorage

which do not have either of these structur es in them also have elevated metal

concentrations with respect to other ma rinas, however, they are both near the

stormdrain in Harbor marina and could be a ffected by flows from this stormdrain.Table 4 Significant Differences Between Marina And Channel SitesS= Marina sites metals concentration significantly were higher than channel sites metals concentrationN= no significant difference.Sample SiteNewportDunesSedimentNewportDunesDissolvedDe AnzaINSedimentDe AnzaINDissolvedDe AnzaOutSedimentDe AnzaOutDissolvedBalboaYachtBasinSedimentBalboaYachtBasinDissolvedBahiaCorinthianSedimentBahiaCorinthianDissolvedHarborMarinaSedimentArsenic (As) N N N N S N N N S N NCadmium (Cd) S N N N S N N N S N NChromium (Cr) S N N N S N N N S N NCopper (Cu)S N N N S S N N S N NLead (Pb) S N S N S N N N S N NMercury (Hg) NNSNSNNickel (Ni)NNNNNSilver (Ag) NNSNNNZinc (Zn)S N N N S N N N S N NSample SiteHarborMarinaDissolvedLido VillageSedimentLido VillageDissolvedLidoYachtAnchorageSedimentLidoYachtAnchorageDissolvedH&JMooringsSedimentH&JMooringsDissolvedArsenic (As) N N N S N N NCadmium (Cd) N N N S N N NChromium (Cr) N N N N N N NCopper (Cu)NSNSNNNLead (Pb) N N N S N N NMercury (Hg) N N NNickel (Ni) N N N NSilver (Ag) N N NZinc (Zn)NSNSNNNTable 5 Significant Differences-Marina vs. MarinaThe numbers 1-8 represent the marinas being compared to the named marina in the row above. The number for each marina isinparenthesis next to each marinaname. S= Sites in named marina have a significantly higher metals concentration than the sitesin thenumbered marina it is compared to. ItalicS= Sites in named marina have a significantly lower metals concentration than the sites inthe numbered marina it is compared to. N= nosignificant difference in metals concentrations.DissolvedHg, Pb, and Ag were notstatistically analyzed due to numerous non detects.Dissolved MetalsDissolved1234567812345678123456781234567 8Arsenic (As) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NCadmium (Cd) N N S N N N N N N S N N N N N N S N N N NSSS SSS SChromium (Cr) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NCopper (Cu)NNNSSSNN NNSSSNNN NSSSNNNN SSS NNickel (Ni) S S S S S S S S S N N N N N S S S N N N N S N S N N N NSelenium (Se) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N S S N N N N NZinc (Zn)NSNSSSNN NNSSSNSN NSSSNNNN SSS NBalboa Yacht Baasin (3) Bahia Corinthian (4)Sample SiteNewport Dunes (1) De Anza (2)12345678123456781234567812345678Arsenic (As) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NCadmium (Cd) N N N S N N N N N N S N N N N N N S N N N N N N S N N NChromium (Cr) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NCopper (Cu)SSSS NNSSSSSN NSSSSSNN SNNNNSSSNickel (Ni) S N N N N N N S N N N N N N S N N N N N N S N N N N N NSelenium (Se) S S N N N N N S S N N N N N S S N N N N N S S N N N N NZinc (Zn)SSSS NNSSSSSN NSSSSSNN SNNNNSSSSample SiteLido Yacht Anchorage (7) H&J Moorings (8)Harbor (5) Lido Village (6)40Sediment MetalsSediment12345678123456781234567812345678Arsenic (As)Cadmium (Cd) N S S S N N S N N S S N N N S N S S N N N S S S N S S SChromium (Cr) N N N N S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N S S NCopper (Cu)NSSSSSSN NSSSSNSN NSSSNSSN NNSNLead (Pb) N N NSSSSN NNSSSNNN NSSSNNNN SSSNMercury (Hg) N S N N S S S N S N N S S S S S S N N S N N N S N S S SNickel (Ni) N N N N N N N N N N N N N S N N N N N N N N N N N S S NSilver (Ag) N N N N S S N N N N N S S N N N N N S S N N N N N S S NZinc (Zn)NNNSSSSN NNSSSNNN NSSSNNNN SNSNBahia Corinthian (4)Balboa Yacht Basin (3)Sample SiteNewport Dunes (1) De Anza (2)12345678123456781234567812345678Arsenic (As)Cadmium (Cd) S S S N S S S N N N S S N N N N N S S N N N N N S S N NChromium (Cr) N N N N S S N S N N S S N S S N N S S N S N N N N N S SCopper (Cu)SSSN NSSSSSNNSSSSSSSS SSNNNSSSLead (Pb) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N S S SMercury (Hg) N N N N N S S S S N S N S N S S S S S S S S S N S S N SNickel (Ni) N N N N N N N N N N S N N S N N N N N N S N S N N N S SSilver (Ag) N N N N S N N S S S S S N S S S S S N N S N N N N N S SZinc (Zn)SSSS SNSSSSNS SNSSSSNS SSNNNSNSSample SiteH&J Moorings (8)Lido Yacht Anchorage (7)Lido Village (6)Harbor (5)

# Wet vs. Dry Weather

Differences in metals concentrations dur ing wet and dry weather at sites in

marinas was another factor analyzed. The samples collected in May and

December were considered wet weather samples and the August samples

represented dry weather. As in all the previous statisti cal analysis the metals in

table 2 and 3 were analyzed. The samples collected within each marina were

compared to the samples in each of the other marinas. Channel data was not

analyzed for wet vs dry comparison. The statistical analysi s of the data shows

that there are significant differences in wet vs. dry weather metal concentrations

in all marinas during wet and dry weather although all dissolved metal

concentrations, except Cu, were below t he CTR water quality criteria (CMC and

CCC).

For dissolved metals, all metals except Cu we re below the water quality criteria,

however, there were significant diffe rences between wet vs dry data and metal

concentrations were significantly higher in the wet weather. T he most significant

difference is for Chromium. Dissolved Chro mium levels are significantly higher in

all marinas during wet weather. Dissolv ed Zn levels are higher during wet

weather in Newport Dunes, De Anza, Ba lboa Yacht Basin and Bahia Corinthian

Marinas. Dissolved Nickel levels are higher in wet weather in De Anza and

Balboa Yacht Basin Marinas, dissolved Arse nic levels are higher in wet weather

in Balboa Yacht Basin Marina

, and dissolved Pb levels are higher in wet weather

in Harbor Marina. Other than Chromi um, the higher wet weather dissolved

metals levels are restricted to Newpor t Dunes, De Anza, Balboa Yacht Basin,

Bahia Corinthian and Harbor Marinas. This is the opposite of the pattern that

was found for the combined wet and dry dissolved metals data where the higher

levels of metals were found in the West Newport Bay marinas.

The sediment data also shows significant differences in wet vs. dry weather with

dry weather having the higher concentration s of metals for most marinas. Lido

## 42 Village had significant differences in Cr, Cu, Hg, and Pb with the dry weather

concentrations being higher. Lido Yacht An chorage had significant differences in

Cr and Sn with dry weather readings hi gher. De Anza marina had higher dry

weather levels of Cr and Cu, and Balboa Ya cht Basin had significantly higher Pb

and Hg in dry weather. Newport Dunes had significant differences in Ag, As, and

Cr with wet weather being higher. Harbor and Bahia Corinthian marinas along

with the H and J Moorings showed no si gnificant differences in wet and dry

sediment metal concentrations. This data also reinforces the lack of significance

of stormdrains, since the marinas wit h stormdrains do not show consistent

differences from the other marinas duri ng wet weather. The differences for both

dissolved and sediment metals are summarized in table 6.Table 6 Significant differencesin wet vs. dry weatherS= Sites in named marina have a significantly higher metals concentration during dry weather. Italic S= Sites in named marinahave asignificantly higher metals concentration during wet weather. N= no significant difference in metals concentrations.Sample SiteNewportDunesSedimentNewportDunesDissolvedDeAnzaMarinaSedimentDeAnzaMarinaDissolvedBalboaYacht BasinSedimentBalboaYacht BasinDissolvedBahiaCorinthianSedimentBahiaCorinthianDissolvedHarborMarinaSedimentHarborMarinaDissolvedLido VillageSedimentArsenic (As)SNNNNSNNNNNCadmium (Cd) N N N N N N N N N N NChromium (Cr)S SSSNSNSNSSCopper (Cu)NNSNNNNNNNSLead (Pb) N N N N S N N N NSSMercury (Hg) N N S N N SNickel (Ni) NS SNSilver (Ag)SNNNNNZinc (Zn)NSNSNSNSNNNSample SiteLido VillageDissolvedLidoYachtAnchorageSedimentLidoYachtAnchorageDissolvedH&JMooringsSedimentH&JMooringsDissolvedArsenic (As) N N N N NCadmium (Cd) N N N N NChromium (Cr)SSSNSCopper (Cu)NNNNNLead (Pb) N N N N NMercury (Hg) N NNickel (Ni) N N NSilver (Ag) N NZinc (Zn)NNNNN

# Toxicity Testing

The Toxicity testing was conducted by Steve Bay and Darrin Greenstein of

SCCWRP with funding provided by the California Department of Pesticide

Regulation. During the August sampling session, additional water and sediment

samples were collected from one site in each marina and from two channel sites,

Lido Village and Lido Yacht An chorage, and were sent to SCCWRP for toxicity

testing. In November, addi tional sediment samples were collected for toxicity

testing and one TIE test based on the result s from the August testing. A detailed

description of the testing methods and resu lts are provided in appendix B in the

toxicity testing report prepared by SCCWRP.

To summarize the results, the first r ound of toxicity testing found significant

sediment toxicity (amphipod test) at eight out ot ten sites -six of the eight marinas

(all except for Balboa Yacht Basin and Lido Yacht Anchorage) and both the

channel sites tested (Lido Village and Lido Yacht Anchorage). No toxicity was

found in water toxicity tests (mussel embryo s) at any of the ten sites tested, or

insediment-water interface tests (mu ssel embryos); however, reduced percent

normal alive embryos were found at thr ee out of ten sites (Harbor marina, H&J

moorings and the Lido Yacht Anchor age Channel site).. During the second

round of testin, no significant toxicity wa s found in the pore water extracted from

the sediment (mussel embryo test), however, reduced percent normal alive

embryos were found at two of the t en sites tested (Newport Dunes and Lido

Yacht Anchorage). Sediment toxicity (a mphipod test) was found at all six sites

tested (four sites at Newport Dunes and two sites at De Anza marina).

Additionally, the pore wate r was analyzed for metals. Copper was the only metal

found to be in exceedence of CTR values in the pore water. It exceeded the

chronic CTR standard at two sites, one each at Lido Yacht Anchorage and the

H&J moorings. The acute CTR standard was exceeded only at the H&J moorings

site.

## 45 A TIE test run on the Newport dunes site (s elected due to its high level of toxicity

in previous testing) found that a comb ination of metals and pesticides are most

likely responsible for the toxicity.



# Conclusions

The data shows that dissolved copper is the only metal with concentrations

elevated above CTR standards (CMC and CCC) in the bay water, and that As

Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn exceeded the ERL in many marinas and Cu, Hg, and

Zn concentrations are elevated above the ERM in the bay sediments in several

marinas, mostly in western Newport Ba y (Harbor, Lido Village, Lido Yacht

Anchorage, H&J moorings and BYB).

The statistical analysis shows that there is no significant difference in dissolved

copper levels in the marinas and their adjacent channel sites. This may be due to

the seasonal variability of the data over all marinas and channels as the metal

concentrations for most sites varied seasona lly. This leads to the conclusion that

dissolved copper from boat bottom paint fr om the boats in the marinas is not

being quickly diluted as it leaves the marinas. The differences in marina vs.

channel sites for copper suggest that Cu may be settling in marina sediments.

The analysis of marina vs. the adjacent c annel for sediments shows significantly

higher sediment metal concentrations at the marina sites compared to the

channel site at Newport Dunes for Cd, Cr , Cu, Pb, and Zn; at Bahia Corinthian

Marina for all metals tested except Ag; at Lido Village Marina for Cu and Zn; at

Lido Yacht Anchorage marina for As, Cd, Cu , Pb, Zn; and at DeAnza marina at

the (In)channel site for Pb and the (Out) channel site fo r all metals tested. De

Anza was designed with two channel sites (De Anza (In) and De Anza (Out)) on

either side of a small island that separat es the marina from the main channel.

The differences found between these two si tes suggests that the physical barrier

## 46 may be restricting the move ment of contaminated sedi ment from the marina or

that Cu and Zn from boats is settling in marina sediments.

Statistical analysis of the marinas agai nst each other shows that dissolved Cu

and Zn are higher in the west bay than the rest of the bay. Sediment data shows

that there are also significant ly higher levels of sediment metals in the marinas of

west Newport Bay compared to other marinas. The hi gher metal levels in the

sediments of these marinas may be partia lly related to the presence of a large

stormdrain in Harbor Marina; however, t he large stormdrain in Bahia Corinthian

does not appear to increase the sediment me tal concentrations in that marina.

Poor water circulation in the west Newpor t area is a likely reason for the elevated

metals levels for dissolved copper and sediment metals found there.

In wet weather, the Newport Dunes and DeAn za marinas showed higher levels of

dissolved metals than the other marinas in the bay, which is the reverse of the

trend during dry or combined wet and dry weather where significantly higher

dissolved metals were found in the west bay . This could be due to the strong

influence that runoff from San Diego Creek has on the area during wet weather.

There were no other significant differences between wet and dry weather results.

Significant sediment toxicity (amphipod test) was found in 80% of the sites tested

-(6/8) marina stations and all (2/2) channel st ations, and the stations with highest

toxicity were at Newport Dunes and De Anza Marina. In November, significant

sediment toxicity (amphipod test) was also found at all 6 stations tested (4-

Newport Dunes, 2-DeAnza Marina). No water, sediment/water interface or

porewater toxicity was found for 10 st ations tested (mussel embryo test),

however, 3/10 SWI tests and 2/10 pore water tests showed reduced percent

normal alive embryos. A TIE was run on the Newport Dunes si te to attempt to

identify the source of the toxicity. The results of the TIE te st determined that the

most likely source of the toxicity found at the Newport Dunes Marina is a

combination of metals and pesticides.1Appendix ASample Site Maps23456789

# Final Data Report for Newport Bay DPR Antifouling Paint Monitoring Study--January 24, 2007

This report presents the complete data se t for samples collected from Newport Bay during the DPR antifouling paint monitoring st udy. This document contains data from sediment pore water, whole sediment e xposures and a whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) that were not previously reported, as well as water and sediment toxicity data incl uded in a previous report.

Sampling and testing for this project was conducted in two phases. During the first phase, water and sediment samples were collect ed from 10 stations in marina areas of Newport Bay (previously reported). Water samples from the first phase were tested with the mussel embryo development assay. Whole se diment from the first phase was tested using a sediment-water interface exposure with mussel embryos and a whole sediment test using amphipods. Based on the results of the first phase, a second round of more targeted sampling of sediment only was c onducted. Pore water was tested using the mussel embryo assay on 10 stations. Whol e sediment tests using amphipods were

conducted on four stations. One station was targeted for a whole sediment TIE.

Toxicity Methodology

Water column The mussel embryo development test (USEPA 1 995) was used to evaluate toxicity on water column, sediment-water in terface and pore water samples. This test measures toxic effects on mussel embryos, as a reduction in their ability to normally develop from fertilized eggs. The mussels ( Mytilus galloprovincialis ) used in the tests were obtained from Carlsbad Aquafarms. The test consis ted of a 48 h exposure of fertilized eggs to marina water samples. The tests were conduc ted in glass shell vial s containing 10 mL of solution at a temperature of 15°C. Four re plicates were tested for each sample. A seawater blank was included as negative cont rol. A copper reference toxicant test was conducted as a positive control.

After 48 h, the embryos were preserved and examined later with a microscope to assess the percentage of normal development. T oxic effects are expressed as a reduction in normal development percentage. The data are presented as percentage normal-alive which was calculated by dividi ng the number of normal embryos counted by the number of fertilized eggs added at th e beginning of the exposure.

Sediment-Water Interface (SWI)

Whole sediment from the 10 stations was load ed into five replic ate polycarbonate core tubes, with bottom caps in place, to a depth of 5 cm. The loaded tubes were placed in 1 L beakers of seawater to prevent leakage from within the tubes. Laboratory seawater at approximately 33 g/kg was added over the sediment to a depth of about 7 cm and gentle

aeration added. The water and sediment were equilibrated overnight at 15°C. The next day, polycarbonate screen tubes (22 μ m mesh) were added on top of the sediment. Fertilized mussel eggs were then added to the screen tubes and gi ven 48 h to develop. After 48 h, the screen tubes were removed fr om the cores and the embryos were washed

1

## into glass shell vials and pr eserved. Microscopic examina tion and data expression were

the same as above.

Whole Sediment For phase one, the whole sediment expos ure with amphipods was conducted using a modified procedure due to limited sediment sample size. The exposure was conducted on the same sediment as the SWI testing. Tw o days after the SWI test was concluded, the overlying water was siphoned from the core tubes and replaced with 20 g/kg seawater and gentle aeration added. After the water had equilibrated overnight, 10 adult amphipods ( Eohaustorius estuarius ) were added to each of the core tubes. Northwestern Aquatic Sciences (Yaquina Bay, OR) supplied the amphipods. The amphipods were exposed for 10 days at 15°C. At the end of the exposure, the sediment was passed through a 0.5 mm screen to remove the am phipods. The number of surviving amphipods was evaluated and the data expressed as percentage survival. A negative control consisting of amphipod collection site sediment (home sediment) was loaded into a core

tube and treated as the othe r stations. A 10 day, water onl y, reference toxicant exposure with ammonia was conducted as a positive control.

For phase two, whole sediment exposures with amphipods followed the EPA guidelines of 1 L glass jars containing 2 cm of sediment and 800 ml of 20 g/kg seawater (USEPA 1994). Twenty amphipods were added to each jar and the exposure period was 10 days. All other aspects of th e testing were conducte d as described above.

Whole Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation A reduced volume and duration initial amphipod survival test was performed on two stations to determine if toxicity was presen t at a high enough level to justify conducting a TIE. This test was performed in 250 ml beakers with 40 ml of sediment and approximately 150 ml of overlying water. Te n amphipods were added to each beaker and the exposure was conducted for 7 days.

A whole sediment toxicity identification ev aluation (TIE) was conduc ted on station 6013 from the Newport Dunes Marina. This station was found to be very toxic to amphipods for the initial sample collected (Table 4) and again when the station was resampled (Table 7). Baseline toxicity tests were pe rformed on untreated ali quots of sediment and sediment that had been diluted 50% by wei ght with clean sediment from the amphipod collection site. Whole sediments and, in so me cases, 50% dilutions were treated with three procedures to reduce or eliminate toxi city in different toxicant classes. Each treatment was performed on a separate a liquot of homogenized sediment. Cation exchange resin was added to the sediment (20% resin by weight) to remove cationic

metals. Coconut charcoal was added to th e sediment (15% by we ight) to sequester organic chemicals. Piperonyl butoxide (PBO) was added to th e overlying water to a final concentration of 500 ug/L. This chemical acts on the amphipods to prevent the metabolism of organophosphorus pesticides, th us removing the associated toxicity.

There is evidence that the addition of PBO can increase the toxicity associated with pyrethroid pesticides. These TIE exposures were conducted in the same manner as the

2

## initial test with regards to volume and number of animals added, but the duration was 10 days.

Pore Water Pore water samples were extracted from w hole sediment by centrifuging aliquots of homogenized sediment at 3000 X g for 30 mi nutes. The supernatant pore water was removed from the centrifuge bottle using a gl ass pipette. The pore water samples were tested using the mussel embryo development test as described above. In addition to the testing of pore water, a “mini-TIE” was perf ormed by adding EDTA to an aliquot of pore

water from each station. EDTA is a chelator of metals and was added to the sample to remove toxicity that might be associated with the presence of cationic metals. The

concentration of EDTA used in each sample was 5 mg/L.

Data Analysis Toxicity data within each experimental batc h was compared to the control using a T-test, assuming unequal variance. Samples having p ≤ 0.05 were considered to be significantly different from control. Samples that were si gnificantly different were then compared to

thresholds that have been established in our laboratory, based on historical data. For

Eohaustorius tests, samples had to have control-adju sted survival of less than 82% to be considered toxic. For the mussel tests, samp les had to have a cont rol-adjusted %normalalive of less than 77% to be toxic.

Chemistry Methodology

AVS/SEM Acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneou sly extracted metals (SEM) were measured on sediment samples collected during phase one. Analyses were performed at CRG

Marine Laboratories. Extraction and meas urement of AVS was performed using the methods of Plumb (1981). Quantification of the SEM was achieved using EPA 6020M.

Pore Water Metals For the second phase samples, an aliquot of pore water was analyzed for dissolved metals. Samples were filtered at CRG Marine laboratories within 24 hr of pore water collection. Quantification of the metals was performed using EPA method 1640M.

Quality Assurance Completeness All of the 10 water and sediment samples co llected in the first phase were successfully tested using the mussel embryo test fo r the water and SWI, and amphipod whole sediment methods. All samples collected in the second phase were also successfully tested using the methods that had been designated for the particular stations.

Test Acceptability Criteria Test acceptability criteria were met for bot h batches of mussel embryo tests on marina water in phase one. Acceptable control surv ival was also achieved in the amphipod test. For the SWI test, the control percent normal-alive value of 72 was below the acceptability criteria of 80. This seems to be due to a systematic loss of embryos during

3

## the recovery process from the screen tubes, as the percentage of normally developed embryos were within the expected range. Th erefore, comparison of samples on a percent of control basis should be acceptable. Two of the reference toxicant te sts associated with the mussel tests also experienced lower than acceptable control results.

The control acceptability criteria were met fo r the phase two pore water embryo test. The

control survival criteria were also met for bot h the untreated whole sediment test (Table 6) and the TIE screening test conducted in phase two (Table 7). The control survival for the amphipod TIE (Table 8) was slightly belo w the EPA criteria of 90%, established for whole sediment tests. However, that criter ion is for tests in 1 L jars with 20 animals

added. There are no established criteria for the reduced volume and animal number used in the TIE testing procedure. A mean va lue of 88% should be sufficient to make comparisons between treatments.

Reference Toxicant Data The effective concentration (EC50) value for the reference toxicant exposure with mussels that passed test acceptability criteria was within normal control chart parameters (within two standard deviations of the m ean). The EC50 for the two mussel embryo reference toxicant tests that did not pass accep tability criteria were also within normal control chart parameters. This indicates that the embryos were not more or less sensitive than expected. The reference toxicant e xposure with the amphipod was also within control chart parameters.

Water Quality Analysis All samples tested were within normal ranges for the measured water quality parameters (pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen and ammonia) during the course of the exposures. Ammonia values for the SWI test were slightly elevated, but were an order of magnitude below the EC50 value for mussel embryos.

Results For the phase one samples, none of the stati ons were found to be toxic with either the

water or sediment-water interface tests us ing mussel embryos (Tables 1-3). Three samples from the SWI test had significantly reduced %normal-alive embryos, but the

differences did not exceed the 77% of control threshold for t oxicity established for this test method. Therefore, no TIEs were pe rformed on these samples. For the whole sediment testing, eight of the ten stations were found to be toxic to the amphipods (Table 4).

For the phase two samples, none of the ten stat ions where pore water was tested with the mussel embryos was found to be toxic (Table 5), therefore the re sults of the EDTA addition are mute. Two of the stations ( 6013 and 6073) had reductions in %normal-alive that were significantly different from the c ontrol, but neither were below the toxicity

threshold of 77%. All of the four stations tested for whole sediment toxicity using amphipod survival were found to be toxic (Table 6).

4

## The results of the TIE found th at the dilution of the sedime nt by 50% reduced toxicity by approximately half. A small reduction in toxici ty occurred after treatment with the cation exchange resin in the 50% sample (Table 8). Since no reduction was observed in the 100% sample, the indication is that metals ma y be causing some of the toxicity and the amount of metals present in the 100% sample exceeded the resin’s capacity to remove enough metals to reduce toxicity. The reduction in toxicity observed with the addition of coconut carbon indicates that organic chemicals are also playing a role in toxicity. The poor blank survival in the coconut carbon addi tion is an unexpected result that has not been previously experienced in our laboratory. The fact that this treatment greatly reduced toxicity in the field sediment makes the poor blank survival less of a concern. The increase in toxicity observed for th e PBO addition may indicate a potentiation of toxicity from pyrethroid chemicals. While no chemistry measurements for pyrethroids were made as part of this study, other rese archers have found signi ficant concentrations of pyrethroids in the Newport Bay watershed (Budd et al. 2005).

The theory behind AVS/SEM analyses is that if the molar concentration of sulfide exceeds that of the SEM, then the metals are expected to be bound up as insoluble sulfide compounds that are not bioavailable. For all but three stations, the AVS was at a higher concentration than the SEM (Table 9). For the three stations (6063, 6064 and 6074) where the metals exceeded the sulfides, zinc was the most prevalent metal causing the exceedance. There does not appear to be any relationship between this result and toxicity, as these stations we re only toxic to the amphipods, but to no greater extent than the remaining stations that were also found to be toxic (Table 4).

The pore water chemistry values did not show any stations to be very elevated for any constituent (Table 10). The two stations ha ving the highest copper concentrations (6073 and 6082) had levels that are below th e EC50 for mussel embryos (8.3 μg/L) as determined by our laboratory. This is consis tent with the fact that no toxicity was observed in any of the mussel embryo samples. The laboratory seaw ater blank that was analyzed had a higher concentration of some of the constituents than did any of the samples. At this time we have not determin ed the cause of the high readings in the blank sample.

References Cited Budd, R., S. Bondarenko and J. Gan. 2005. Surv ey for Synthetic Pyre throids within the San Diego Creek/ Newport Bay Watershed. Southern California SETAC Annual Meeting . Los Angeles, CA.

Plumb, R.A.H. 1981. Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples. Technical Report EPA/CE- 81-1. US Army Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, VA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA. 1994. Methods for assessing the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminan ts with estuarine and marine amphipods.

EPA/600/R-94/025. Office of Research a nd Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Narragansett, RI.

5

## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA. 1995. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents a nd receiving waters to west coast marine and estuarine organisms. Office of Resear ch and Development. Cincinnati, OH.

6

### Table 1. Marina water samples tested 8/23/06 in batch MG26 using mussel embryo development test. Asterisk indicates a significant difference from control p ≤ 0.05.

%Normal-Alive

Sample Mean %of
Control Standard

Deviation Number
Counted Sig.

Diff.

Seawater 84 100 4.7 4

NB 6013W 82 97 8.1 4

NB 6022W 79 94 8.7 4

NB 6033W 84 100 4.6 4

NB 6041W 80 95 9.9 4

Table 2. Marina water samples tested 8/24/06 in batch MG29 using mussel embryo development test. Asterisk indicates a significant difference from control p ≤ 0.05.

%Normal-Alive

Sample Mean %of
Control Standard

Deviation Number
Counted Sig.

Diff.

Seawater 81 100 4.8 4

NB 6051 79 98 7.0 4

NB 6063 85 105 6.6 4

NB 6064 84 104 8.7 4

NB 6072 84 103 5.8 4

NB 6074 84 104 2.1 4

NB 6082 90 111 1.6 4

Table 3. Marina sediment samples tested 9/07/06 in batch MG35 using Sediment Water Interface test with mussel embryo development. Asterisk indicates a significant difference from control p ≤ 0.05.

%Normal-Alive

Sample Mean %of
Control Standard

Deviation Number
Counted Sig.

Diff.

Seawater 72 100 7.5 5

NB 6051 62 86 5.3 4 *

NB 6063 61 85 12.5 5

NB 6074 61 84 7.5 4 *

NB 6082 58 80 12.5 5 *

NB 6072 67 93 14.0 5

NB 6064 62 86 16.5 5

NB 6013 66 92 7.5 5

NB 6022 68 94 8.0 5

NB 6033 71 99 7.7 5

NB 6041 72 100 5.9 5



## 7

### Table 4. Marina whole sediment samples te sted 9/12/06 in batch EE76 using the amphipod

Eohaustorius estuarius 10-day survival test. Asterisk indicates a significant difference from control p ≤ 0.05.

%Survival

Sample Mean %of
Control Standard

Deviation Number
Counted Sig.

Diff.

Home Sediment 90 100 7.1 5

NB 6051 44 49 5.5 5 *

NB 6063 60 67 10.0 5 *

NB 6074 60 67 18.7 5 *

NB 6082 58 64 21.7 5 *

NB 6072 84 93 16.7 5

NB 6064 58 64 11.0 5 *

NB 6013 8 9 13.0 5 *

NB 6022 34 38 15.2 5 *

NB 6033 88 98 11.0 5

NB 6041 58 64 17.9 5 *

Table 5. Marina pore water samples tested 11/20/06 in batch MG38 using mussel embryo development test. Asterisk indicates a significant difference from control p ≤ 0.05.

%Normal-Alive

Sample Mean %of
Control Standard

Deviation Number
Counted Sig.

Diff.

Seawater 93 100 7.7 4 EDTA Blank 5 mg/L 90 96 0.7 4

6011 85 91 7.1 4

6013 72 77 5.4 4 *

6021 94 101 11.1 4

6022 93 100 4.7 4

6032 93 100 6.5 4

6042 91 97 5.2 4

6051 87 94 3.5 4

6063 82 88 9.2 4

6073 75 80 10.5 4 *

6082 87 94 10.4 4
6011 EDTA 5 mg/L 95 102 7.0 4
6013 EDTA 5 mg/L 30 33 24.1 4 * 6021 EDTA 5 mg/L 89 96 4.0 4
6022 EDTA 5 mg/L 94 101 5.0 4
6032 EDTA 5 mg/L 83 89 4.9 4 * 6042 EDTA 5 mg/L 95 102 12.0 4
6051 EDTA 5 mg/L 83 89 7.0 4 * 6063 EDTA 5 mg/L 88 95 4.7 4
6073 EDTA 5 mg/L 82 88 7.6 4 * 6082 EDTA 5 mg/L 89 96 7.2 4



## 8

### Table 6. Marina whole sediment samples tested11/27/06 in batch EE79 using the amphipod

Eohaustorius estuarius 10-day survival test. Asterisk indicates a significant difference from control p ≤ 0.05.

%Survival

Sample Mean %of
Control Standard

Deviation Number
Counted Sig.

Diff.

Home Sediment 90 100 6.1 5

6011 11 12 7.4 5 *

6012 29 32 8.2 5 *

6014 41 46 30.7 5 *

6021 11 12 8.9 5 *

Table 7. Marina initial whole sediment samples tested 11/20/06 in batch EE77, using the amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius with the exposure period reduced to 7 days to determine if sediment TIEs were justified. Asterisk in dicates a significant difference from control p ≤ 0.05.

%Survival

Sample Mean %of
Control Standard

Deviation Number
Counted Sig.

Diff.

Home Sediment 90 100 14.1 4

NB 6013 28 31 15.0 4 *

NB 6022 18 19 5.0 4 *

Table 8. . Marina whole sediment TIE test ed 11/27/06 in batch EE78 using the amphipod

Eohaustorius estuarius 10 day survival test. Asterisk indicates a significant difference from control p ≤ 0.05.

%Survival

Sample Mean %of
Control Standard

Deviation Number
Counted Sig.

Diff.

Home Sediment 88 100 11.0 5

NB 6013S baseline 50% 26 30 13.4 5 *

NB 6013S baseline 100% 10 11 7.1 5 *
Cation Exchange Blank 97 110 5.8 3 Cation Exchange 50% 6013 47 53 25.2 3 *
Cation Exchange 100% 6013 7 8 11.5 3 *

Coconut Carbon Blank 33 38 11.5 3 *

Coconut Carbon 100% 6013 77 87 11.0 3

PBO Blank 97 110 5.8 3

PBO 50% 6013 3 4 5.8 3 *

PBO 100% 6013 0 0 0.0 3 *



## 9Table 9. Acid volatile sulfides (AVS) andsimultaneously extracted metals (SEM) fromNewport Bay Marina sediment samples.NB6013NB6022NB6033NB6041NB6063umoles/dry gmg/kgumoles/dry gmg/kgumoles/drygmg/kgumoles/dry gmg/kgumoles/dry gmg/kgCadmiumNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00410.461Copper0.03252.07NDND0.19212.2NDND0.07034.47Lead0.02535.24NDND0.04348.99NDND0.067914.1Nickel0.03792.230.052.940.02981.750.04262.500.05173.04Zinc1.0166.31.771161.651081.761152.57168Total SEM1.1175.81.801191.901311.801182.76190AVS5.001609.563066.882207.192301.9261.6Table 9. (continued)NB6064NB6072NB6074NB6082NB6051umoles/dry gmg/kgumoles/dry gmg/kgumoles/drygmg/kgumoles/dry gmg/kgumoles/dry gmg/kgCadmium0.00210.236NDND0.00280.3150.00280.3150.0050.562Copper0.03142.00NDND0.01571.000.01611.02NDNDLead0.03356.940.02174.500.0367.460.02545.260.083517.3Nickel0.02091.230.04892.870.04232.480.03972.330.05563.26Zinc0.65242.63.17207.32.361541.831203.66239Total SEM0.74053.03.24214.62.461651.911293.80260AVS0.51616.518.96060.74123.71.9261.57.91253ND = Not Detected10Table 10. Pore water dissolved metals from Newport Bay marina sediment samples. All values are expressed in μg/L.MDLRL6011601360216022603260426051606360736082LabBlank36Aluminum (Al)1112129111411111114ND0.010.015Arsenic (As)4.336.714.472.572.022.382.981.302.592.493.320.0050.01Beryllium (Be)NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.2610.0250.05Chromium (Cr)0.380.440.400.440.400.380.410.370.510.393.190.0050.01Cobalt (Co)0.460.4380.4240.4570.3920.3410.3430.3690.3360.3560.2630.010.02Manganese (Mn)505.5332.5198.3382.3115.685.83127.287.4651.4118.50.5800.020.04Silver (Ag)0.6240.6410.6740.6390.6090.5960.5690.5550.5110.4780.5900.0050.01Thallium (Tl)NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.0350.07Titanium (Ti)0.5290.9770.7390.6740.4980.4550.5400.4081.0470.3272.9490.020.04Vanadium (V)1.031.511.270.500.340.390.930.243.040.43.610.0050.01Zinc (Zn)3.1493.7844.1353.7103.2563.6053.0592.9263.7603.1738.8350.0050.01Cadmium (Cd)NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.1350.010.02Copper (Cu)1.481.841.861.951.601.601.521.444.566.203.160.0050.01Lead (Pb)0.030.0370.0370.0110.0130.0570.0450.010.0280.012ND0.0050.01Nickel (Ni)1.1851.261.2070.9790.8371.0540.9570.9810.6730.925ND0.010.015Selenium (Se)1.221.481.321.381.281.151.121.291.741.135.870.0050.01Tin (Sn)0.0250.0260.0330.0330.0270.0210.0320.0260.140.140.051ND = Not Detected11

## 1 

# Appendix C



# Dissolved Cu Levels (Newport Dunes)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/L Newport Dunes 1

Newport Dunes 2

Newport Dunes 3

Newport Dunes 4 (channel site)
Criterion Max

Conc.
Criterion Cont.

Conc.



# Sediment Cu Levels (Newport Dunes)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

May '06 Aug '06 Dec. '06ug/dry g 

## Newport Dunes 1

Newport Dunes 2

Newport Dunes 3

Newport Dunes 4 (channel site)

TEL

ERL

ERM

## 2 

# Dissolved Cu Levels (De Anza Marina)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/L De Anza Marina 1

De Anza Marina 2

De Anza Marina 3

De Anza Marina 4 (inner channel site)

De Anza Marina 5 (outer channel site)

Criterion Max Conc.

Criterion Cont.

Conc.



# Sediment Cu levels (De Anza)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/dry g 

### De Anza Marina 1

De Anza Marina 2

De Anza Marina 3

De Anza Marina 4 (inner channel site)

De Anza Marina 5 (outer channel site)

TEL

ERL

ERM

## 3 

# Dissolved Cu Levels (Balboa Yacht Basin)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/L Balboa Yacht Basin

1
Balboa Yacht Basin

2
Balboa Yacht Basin

3
Balboa Yacht Basin 4 (channel site)
Balboa Yacht Basin Shipyard
Criterion Max Conc.

Criterion Cont.

Conc.



# Sediment Cu Levels (Balboa Yacht Basin)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/dry g 

### Balboa Yacht Basin 1

Balboa Yacht Basin 2

Balboa Yacht Basin 3

Balboa Yacht Basin 4 (channel site)

Balboa Yacht Basin Shipyard

TEL

ERL

ERM

## 4 

# Dissolved Cu Levels (Bahia Corinthian)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/L Bahia Corinthian 1

Bahia Corinthian 2

Bahia Corinthian 3

Bahia Corinthian 4 (channel site)

Bahia Corinthian

Storm Drain

Criterion Max

Conc.

Criterion Cont.

Conc.



# Sediment Cu Levels (Bahia Corinthian)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/dry g 

### Bahia Corinthian 1

Bahia Corinthian 2

Bahia Corinthian 3

Bahia Corinthian 4 (channel site)
Bahia Corinthian Storm

Drain
TEL

ERL

ERM

## 5 

# Dissolved Cu Levels (Harbor Marina)



# 0 2 4 6 8 10

May '06 Aug '06 Dec. '06ug/L Harbor Marina 1

Harbor Marina 2

Harbor Marina 3 (channel site)

Harbor Marina

Storm Drain

Criterion Max

Conc.

Criterion Cont.

Conc.



# Sediment Cu Levels (Harbor Marina)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

May '06 Aug '06 Dec. '06ug/dry g 

## Harbor Marina 1

Harbor Marina 2

Harbor Marina 3 (channel site)

Harbor Marina
Storm Drain

TEL

ERL

ERM

## 6 

# Dissolved Cu Levels (Lido Village)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/L 

## Lido Village 1

Lido Village 2

Lido Village 3

Lido Village 4 (Channel Site)

Criterion Max

Conc.

Criterion Cont.

Conc



# Sediment Cu Levels (Lido Village)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/dry g 

## Lido Village 1

Lido Village 2

Lido Village 3

Lido Village 4 (Channel Site)

TEL

ERL

ERM

## 7 

# Dissolved Cu Levels (Lido Yacht Anchorage)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/L 

### Lido Yacht Anchorage1

Lido Yacht Anchorage 2

Lido Yacht Anchorage 3

Lido Yacht Anchorage 4 (Channel Site)

Criterion Max. Conc.

Criterion Cont. Conc.



# Sediment Cu levels (Lido Yacht Anchorage)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/dry g 

### Lido Yacht Anchorage1

Lido Yacht Anchorage

2

Lido Yacht Anchorage

3

Lido Yacht Anchorage 4 (Channel Site)

ERM

TEL

ERL

ERM

## 8 

# Dissolved Cu Levels (H&J Moorings)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/L 

### H&J Mooring 1

H&J Mooring 2

H&J Mooring 3

H&J Mooring 4 (Channel Site)

Criterion Max. Conc.

Criterion Cont. Conc.



# Sediment Cu Levels (H&J Mooring)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06ug/g 

### H&J Mooring 1

H&J Mooring 2

H&J Mooring 3

H&J Mooring 4 (Channel Site)

TEL

ERL

ERM1Appendix DMetals Means TSS,DOC,Turbidity,Salinity MeansDissolved Metals MeansSample SitesNewportDunes1NewportDunes2NewportDunes3NewportDunesMarinaNewportDunes4(ChannelSite) DeAnza 1 De Anza 2 De Anza 3De AnzaMarinamean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al)8.17 15.06 12.28 9.61 10.95 9.68Antimony (Sb)0.30 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.18Arsenic (As)1.19 1.19 1.18 1.19 0.06 1.20 0.08 1.23 1.16 1.21 1.20 0.15Beryllium (Be)0.00 0.00Cadmium (Cd)0.04 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.02Chromium (Cr)0.31 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.14 0.31 0.15 0.31 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.13Cobalt (Co)0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.05 0.26 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.05Copper(Cu)2.68 2.82 3.69 3.06 0.65 2.09 0.92 2.89 5.02 3.23 3.72 1.34Iron (Fe)0.88 0.01 0.52Lead (Pb)0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00Manganese (Mn)26.09 27.66 29.01 27.59 5.61 23.04 5.69 17.81 20.49 20.67 19.66 5.93Mercury (Hg)Molybdenum (Mo)11.29 11.49 11.66 11.48 1.70 11.72 2.53 10.79 11.15 10.76 10.90 0.97Nickel(Ni)0.74 0.81 0.83 0.79 0.09 0.77 0.17 0.63 0.66 0.63 0.64 0.07Selenium (Se)0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.03Silver (Ag)0.03Thallium (Tl)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Tin (Sn)0.01 0.00Titanium (Ti)0.53 0.46 0.62 0.54 0.23 0.53 0.17 0.48 0.54 0.55 0.52 0.16Vanadium (V)2.78 2.84 2.88 2.83 0.16 2.77 0.12 2.66 2.67 2.67 2.67 0.25Zinc(Zn)12.63 12.77 16.92 14.11 4.22 11.38 3.33 14.89 15.60 12.98 14.49 4.842Sample SitesDe Anza 4(InnerChannelSite)De Anza5(OuterChannelSite)BalboaYachtBasin 1BalboaYachtBasin 2BalboaYachtBasin 3BalboaYachtMarinaBalboaYachtBasin 4(channelsite)BalboaYachtBasin ShipYardmeanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al)10.74 11.64 10.90 8.80 8.80 7.04 9.95 10.98 10.47Antimony (Sb)0.25 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.00 0.22Arsenic (As)1.26 0.21 1.20 0.32 1.12 1.15 1.14 1.13 0.16 1.13 0.20 1.17 0.22Beryllium (Be)0.01 0.00Cadmium (Cd)0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02Chromium (Cr)0.41 0.21 0.39 0.19 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.18 0.38 0.24 0.38 0.25Cobalt (Co)0.25 0.02 0.23 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.19 0.04Copper (Cu)2.59 0.85 1.97 0.90 4.78 3.66 3.25 3.90 1.27 2.18 0.54 2.85 0.24Iron (Fe)0.03Lead (Pb)0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00Manganese (Mn)19.82 4.64 18.61 10.53 10.88 10.74 10.84 10.82 3.22 13.51 4.05 12.46 3.55Mercury (Hg)Molybdenum (Mo)10.71 1.34 11.89 2.64 9.91 10.30 9.27 9.83 0.85 10.27 0.95 10.37 1.00Nickel (Ni)0.65 0.06 0.66 0.15 0.50 0.58 0.42 0.50 0.12 0.53 0.02 0.57 0.10Selenium (Se)0.12 0.03 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.01Silver (Ag)Thallium (Tl)0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01Tin (Sn)0.01Titanium (Ti)0.48 0.21 0.44 0.12 0.39 0.44 0.45 0.43 0.13 0.42 0.12 0.40 0.14Vanadium (V)2.75 0.41 2.72 0.74 2.31 2.35 2.38 2.35 0.25 2.40 0.33 2.36 0.40Zinc (Zn)13.75 3.41 10.96 4.66 20.95 15.99 15.90 17.61 5.70 10.73 2.06 13.88 3.933Sample SitesBahiaCorinthian1BahiaCorinthian2BahiaCorinthian3BahiaCorinthianMarinaBahiaCorinthian4 (channelsite)BahiaCorinthianStormDrainHarborMarina 1HarborMarina 2HarborMarinamean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation mean mean meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al)8.79 10.04 9.41 6.58 11.82 9.39 7.81 8.71 9.31 5.90Antimony (Sb)0.21 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.15 0.24 0.19Arsenic (As)1.15 1.15 1.18 1.16 0.19 1.16 0.21 1.13 0.21 1.02 1.03 1.09 0.16Beryllium (Be)0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.05Cadmium (Cd)0.09 0.05 0.29 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.30 0.24 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02Chromium (Cr)0.41 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.20 0.42 0.31 0.41 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.10Cobalt (Co)0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.03 0.17 0.05 0.16 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.01Copper (Cu)2.91 3.05 2.96 2.97 1.21 2.02 0.77 1.59 0.99 5.57 4.84 5.20 1.84Iron (Fe)0.60 0.60 5.86 1.78Lead (Pb)0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01Manganese (Mn)9.56 9.37 11.45 10.13 2.92 10.58 2.96 12.06 1.94 14.25 15.11 14.68 3.81Mercury (Hg)Molybdenum (Mo)10.13 9.88 10.32 10.11 0.61 10.02 0.72 10.38 0.14 10.46 11.29 10.87 1.60Nickel (Ni)0.55 0.52 0.83 0.63 0.24 0.47 0.04 0.83 0.28 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.13Selenium (Se)0.06 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.03Silver (Ag)Thallium (Tl)0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00Tin (Sn)0.01Titanium (Ti)0.42 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.41 0.13 0.38 0.06 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.13Vanadium (V)2.30 2.26 2.40 2.32 0.30 2.37 0.48 2.33 0.43 2.13 2.19 2.16 0.47Zinc (Zn)12.95 13.63 16.14 14.24 2.95 11.49 0.74 11.60 3.87 25.66 24.67 25.16 4.654Sample SitesHarborMarina 3(channelsite)HarborMarinaStormDrainLidoVillage 1LidoVillage 2LidoVillage 3LidoVillageMarinaLidoVillage 4(channelSite)Lido YachtAnchorage1meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation meanUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al)16.44 11.37 6.60 8.26 15.07 9.65 1.84 13.63Antimony (Sb)0.26 0.20 0.26 0.29 0.23 0.28 0.23Arsenic (As)1.12 0.27 1.07 0.19 1.04 1.08 1.07 1.06 0.17 1.08 0.18 1.06Beryllium (Be)0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01Cadmium (Cd)0.05 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.07Chromium (Cr)0.35 0.12 0.31 0.10 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.30 0.17 0.30Cobalt (Co)0.19 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.19Copper (Cu)5.04 1.39 3.77 2.18 7.55 4.60 4.78 5.64 2.20 4.35 0.93 5.15Iron (Fe)0.68 1.09 0.70 0.12Lead (Pb)0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02Manganese (Mn)13.66 4.98 19.53 9.17 12.32 13.04 12.38 12.58 3.40 13.08 3.63 13.32Mercury (Hg)Molybdenum (Mo)11.39 1.64 19.98 17.46 11.10 10.72 10.82 10.88 0.68 11.02 0.97 11.03Nickel (Ni)0.56 0.09 0.75 0.40 0.61 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.10 0.56 0.11 0.56Selenium (Se)0.08 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06Silver (Ag)Thallium (Tl)0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01Tin (Sn)0.00Titanium (Ti)0.43 0.08 0.39 0.04 0.48 0.38 0.41 0.42 0.13 0.38 0.15 0.43Vanadium (V)2.30 0.74 2.14 0.59 2.23 2.22 2.27 2.24 0.52 2.24 0.65 2.32Zinc (Zn)23.29 7.82 21.31 6.81 28.18 20.95 20.55 23.23 4.83 19.48 2.06 22.035Sample SitesLido YachtAnchorage2Lido YachtAnchorage3LidoYachtMainaLido YachtAnchorage4 (channelsite)H&JMoorings1H&JMoorings2H&JMoorings3H&JMooringsMarinaH&JMoorings4(channelsite)mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al)125.40 69.51 119.78 8.36 5.88 8.73 9.06 10.57 7.12 4.10Antimony (Sb)0.24 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.24 0.16 0.20Arsenic (As)1.11 1.07 1.08 0.18 0.98 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.01 0.13 1.03 0.17Beryllium (Be)0.02 0.02 0.01Cadmium (Cd)0.04 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.02Chromium (Cr)0.31 0.50 0.37 0.23 0.31 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.12 0.26 0.08Cobalt (Co)0.18 0.21 0.20 0.03 0.19 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.18 0.01Copper (Cu)6.04 6.27 5.82 1.94 4.23 0.76 3.87 3.83 3.72 3.81 0.89 3.54 1.08Iron (Fe)326.80 326.80 0.64Lead (Pb)0.01 0.19 0.08 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01Manganese (Mn)12.12 13.24 12.89 3.84 12.61 4.30 13.64 12.36 12.78 12.93 2.75 13.29 2.62Mercury (Hg)0.01 0.01Molybdenum (Mo)10.65 10.84 10.84 0.69 10.84 0.75 10.87 10.68 10.83 10.79 0.74 10.68 0.96Nickel (Ni)0.55 0.64 0.58 0.14 0.65 0.10 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.07 0.87 0.44Selenium (Se)0.06 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03Silver (Ag)Thallium (Tl)0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00Tin (Sn)0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00Titanium (Ti)0.37 7.14 2.65 6.69 0.61 0.24 0.60 0.49 0.45 0.51 0.12 0.40 0.11Vanadium (V)2.36 2.68 2.45 0.76 2.33 0.63 2.30 2.37 2.29 2.32 0.49 2.21 0.53Zinc (Zn)23.44 22.22 22.56 4.19 19.33 7.16 17.95 17.56 16.81 17.44 4.28 16.50 5.196Sediment Metals MeansSample SitesNewportDunes1NewportDunes2NewportDunes3NewportDunesMarinaNewportDunesChannelSite DeAnza 1 De Anza 2 De Anza 3De AnzaMarinamean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum(Al)4535.77 12373.53Antimony(Sb)0.57 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.34 0.43 0.42 0.52 0.53 0.44 0.50 0.25Arsenic(As)7.97 7.75 7.83 7.85 0.85 5.79 1.15 7.90 11.04 8.41 9.12 1.93Barium(Ba)152.10 136.23 141.23 143.19 22.24 97.75 44.36 135.43 135.40 116.01 128.95 28.81Beryllium(Be)1.15 1.10 1.05 1.10 0.43 0.61 0.18 1.10 1.33 1.01 1.15 0.48Cadmium(Cd)1.44 1.38 1.36 1.40 0.12 0.99 0.38 1.21 1.20 0.99 1.13 0.20Chromium(Cr)44.61 44.25 45.55 44.81 8.79 29.31 11.69 46.96 54.44 45.79 49.06 9.72Cobalt(Co)10.49 9.67 9.92 10.02 1.58 6.81 1.68 10.02 11.69 9.62 10.44 2.00Copper(Cu)72.12 85.17 87.70 81.66 25.85 44.07 9.37 107.03 123.27 103.73 111.34 24.75Iron(Fe)38315.67 36469.00 38252.33 37679.00 5626.71 24635.67 8257.56 38862.33 44005.67 36529.00 39799.00 7058.66Lead(Pb)18.28 19.31 21.14 19.58 2.84 14.46 4.27 21.16 23.18 20.31 21.55 2.67Manganese(Mn)317.07 302.07 318.57 312.57 54.20 215.97 53.85 309.33 328.70 277.67 305.23 59.69Mercury(Hg)0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.05Molybdenum (Mo) 2.12 2.16 1.81 2.03 0.30 1.53 0.79 1.82 3.07 1.83 2.24 0.69Nickel(Ni)23.73 22.87 23.37 23.32 3.98 15.50 4.64 24.20 27.66 22.84 24.90 4.61Selenium(Se)1.17 1.11 1.14 1.14 0.17 0.85 0.12 1.31 1.39 1.04 1.25 0.24Silver(Ag)0.23 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.08 0.18 0.13 0.32 0.34 0.24 0.30 0.10Strontium(Sr)83.10 78.96 81.48 81.18 7.38 67.90 20.86 80.63 78.58 65.37 74.86 11.05Thallium(Tl)0.33 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.03 0.23 0.08 0.37 0.40 0.33 0.37 0.06Tin(Sn)2.81 2.75 2.96 2.84 0.31 1.85 0.82 2.99 3.55 2.70 3.08 0.52Titanium(Ti)1275.83 1215.17 1263.57 1251.52 683.11 1054.23 770.43 1193.23 1218.23 1248.93 1220.13 677.90Vanadium(V)100.86 94.27 96.93 97.35 19.41 64.43 29.67 98.54 112.67 95.16 102.12 21.30Zinc(Zn)176.46 199.62 202.82 192.97 43.90 119.79 26.22 215.69 259.69 198.19 224.52 40.477Sample SitesDe AnzaInnerChannelSiteDe AnzaOuterChannelSiteBalboaYachtBasin 1BalboaYachtBasin 2BalboaYachtBasin 3BalboaYachtBasinMarinaBalboaYachtBasinChannelSitemeanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 8531.33Antimony (Sb) 0.45 0.36 0.28 0.16 0.45 0.39 0.53 0.46 0.25 0.48 0.36Arsenic (As) 6.13 2.87 3.96 0.85 10.14 9.39 9.82 9.78 1.64 8.81 1.80Barium (Ba) 79.76 57.16 69.38 7.32 117.92 107.05 120.55 115.18 31.74 128.90 19.17Beryllium (Be) 1.12 0.60 0.35 0.05 1.02 1.09 1.14 1.09 0.47 1.14 0.63Cadmium (Cd) 1.11 0.09 0.63 0.15 0.80 0.73 0.89 0.81 0.19 0.86 0.03Chromium (Cr) 43.84 14.42 17.42 3.01 51.18 49.12 51.81 50.70 8.13 50.22 8.29Cobalt (Co) 9.53 2.14 4.24 0.82 9.36 8.99 9.52 9.29 1.73 9.83 1.83Copper (Cu)71.47 37.86 32.38 9.71 123.13 158.93 182.80 154.96 68.04 110.23 28.37Iron (Fe) 36429.00 8974.65 15445.67 2651.23 38812.33 36902.33 39455.67 38390.11 6644.32 39339.00 6406.82Lead (Pb) 16.09 3.04 10.32 2.90 26.30 22.36 29.85 26.17 6.02 21.93 1.97Manganese (Mn) 298.07 77.21 146.67 11.41 281.10 278.90 283.33 281.11 47.93 301.00 60.71Mercury (Hg) 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.58 0.30 0.98 0.62 0.57 0.18 0.05Molybdenum (Mo) 1.92 0.43 0.94 0.14 1.83 1.74 1.87 1.81 0.30 1.77 0.20Nickel (Ni) 22.43 5.70 9.25 1.95 24.26 22.96 24.77 24.00 4.33 24.69 4.53Selenium (Se) 0.93 0.22 0.56 0.06 1.14 1.19 0.91 1.08 0.32 1.01 0.16Silver (Ag) 0.24 0.16 0.09 0.03 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.14 0.27 0.14Strontium (Sr) 77.69 18.23 56.49 19.54 70.01 69.24 73.96 71.07 11.86 73.88 5.64Thallium (Tl) 0.33 0.04 0.18 0.02 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.36 0.04Tin (Sn) 3.54 1.79 1.33 0.25 4.43 3.64 3.85 3.97 0.84 3.19 0.07Titanium (Ti) 1213.17 772.97 730.13 290.51 1314.03 1193.00 1343.10 1283.38 549.18 1259.53 507.24Vanadium (V) 95.40 26.86 37.90 6.17 98.86 93.67 100.64 97.72 17.65 101.13 13.22Zinc (Zn)172.69 61.89 85.75 21.87 227.39 220.92 246.49 231.60 50.13 191.56 40.338Sample SitesBalboaYachtBasin ShipYardBahiaCorinthian1BahiaCorinthian2BahiaCorinthian 3BahiaCorinthianMarinaBahiaCorinthianChannelSitemeanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al) 16193.45 7874.35 276.48Antimony (Sb) 0.57 0.32 0.71 0.58 0.85 0.72 0.38 0.83 1.09Arsenic (As) 10.05 1.35 11.658.70 8.01 9.45 2.92 5.53 1.86Barium (Ba) 132.63 27.88 124.20 126.93 105.16 118.76 27.67 80.10 56.11Beryllium (Be) 1.19 0.64 0.86 0.75 0.66 0.76 0.25 0.41 0.12Cadmium (Cd) 0.97 0.16 1.72 1.66 2.52 1.97 0.57 2.35 3.17Chromium (Cr) 53.16 11.83 52.6444.30 42.47 46.478.78 27.01 15.33Cobalt (Co) 10.24 2.11 8.50 7.85 7.45 7.93 1.55 5.08 1.83Copper (Cu)210.83 63.45 247.57 148.27 157.53 184.46 73.51 79.42 69.79Iron (Fe) 41449.00 6997.3134112.33 31755.67 28322.33 31396.78 5930.91 18642.33 7611.61Lead (Pb) 25.95 0.75 26.21 25.6531.01 27.62 3.94 21.92 21.07Manganese (Mn) 315.53 64.40 259.40 167.10 218.87 215.12 87.43 157.93 55.54Mercury (Hg) 0.25 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.04 0.24 0.19Molybdenum (Mo) 82.40 139.95 2.31 1.91 3.31 2.51 1.23 2.96 3.75Nickel (Ni) 26.46 5.61 24.10 22.05 21.41 22.52 4.23 14.05 6.98Selenium (Se) 1.05 0.13 1.43 1.12 1.35 1.30 0.23 0.95 1.02Silver (Ag) 0.40 0.08 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.28 0.16 0.25 0.26Strontium (Sr) 80.48 6.23 75.89 71.12 60.12 69.04 12.26 48.86 23.29Thallium (Tl) 0.40 0.01 0.38 0.37 0.34 0.36 0.05 0.24 0.12Tin (Sn) 3.66 0.35 3.67 3.44 4.16 3.76 0.62 2.21 1.80Titanium (Ti) 1210.97 717.77 1111.53 1014.80939.50 1021.94 517.40 860.97 479.80Vanadium (V) 101.77 23.54 87.8580.63 73.27 80.58 16.48 49.92 27.88Zinc (Zn)252.99 54.56 259.22 226.86 264.22 250.10 50.23 158.13 137.649Sample SitesBahiaCorinthianStormDrainHarborMarina 1HarborMarina 2HarborMarinaHarborMarinaChannelSiteHarborMarinaStormDrainLidoVillage 1meanstandarddeviation mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation meanUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al) 10105.26 15453.63 #DIV/0! 18264.57Antimony (Sb) 0.63 0.16 1.59 1.89 1.74 1.32 2.99 3.83 2.03 0.14 0.77Arsenic (As) 5.91 2.38 10.63 7.46 9.05 3.87 8.65 1.84 11.44 2.81 11.05Barium (Ba) 72.05 15.57 133.96 90.89 112.43 52.97 107.96 4.15 148.46 31.74 125.14Beryllium (Be) 0.48 0.32 0.87 0.38 0.62 0.34 0.66 0.46 0.90 0.57 1.13Cadmium (Cd) 3.11 2.73 2.02 2.33 2.17 1.20 1.32 0.07 2.38 1.25 1.02Chromium (Cr) 29.27 11.74 52.78 33.92 43.35 18.66 42.20 10.69 54.41 16.19 55.96Cobalt (Co) 5.49 2.43 9.06 6.22 7.64 3.07 7.34 2.41 9.22 2.62 10.24Copper(Cu)108.40 83.32 280.73 201.68 241.21 109.12 203.03 38.51 348.47 176.91 230.00Iron (Fe) 19979.00 8141.09 36842.67 20527.33 28685.00 12426.49 27829.33 9431.61 34596.00 10269.26 41816.00Lead (Pb) 20.42 6.48 83.23 51.10 67.17 30.20 86.38 5.23 80.72 13.74 63.66Manganese (Mn) 170.07 60.05 258.63 161.99 210.31 69.41 258.83 55.80 247.13 76.41 288.23Mercury (Hg) 0.48 #DIV/0! 0.41 0.06 0.23 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.46 0.50 0.69Molybdenum (Mo) 3.80 2.64 3.07 7.60 5.33 5.05 45.59 74.83 7.78 5.01 2.45Nickel (Ni) 15.70 7.03 26.17 19.70 22.93 9.70 18.88 8.88 28.38 6.57 26.76Selenium (Se) 1.00 0.45 1.53 1.54 1.54 0.69 6.90 9.78 1.92 0.79 1.42Silver (Ag) 0.19 0.10 0.46 0.36 0.41 0.21 64.95 111.76 0.63 0.23 0.61Strontium (Sr) 51.80 10.03 74.34 55.66 65.00 23.65 39.77 33.85 85.73 16.71 109.00Thallium (Tl) 0.24 0.06 0.37 0.23 0.30 0.14 38.86 66.80 0.33 0.11 0.38Tin (Sn) 2.67 1.05 9.41 7.54 8.47 3.34 5.19 4.34 13.56 2.27 7.06Titanium (Ti) 793.57 352.33 1188.97 715.20 952.08 611.94 718.60 272.72 1206.77 718.96 1178.63Vanadium (V) 51.93 16.80 88.41 52.09 70.25 32.84 322.18 427.88 88.03 26.71 104.90Zinc(Zn)207.12 132.72 443.42 411.74 427.58 203.49 372.26 87.60 649.19 356.88 316.0910Sample SitesLidoVillage 2LidoVillage 3LidoVillageMarinaLidoVillageChannelSiteLido YachtAnchorage1Lido YachtAnchorage2Lido YachtAnchorage3Lido YachtAnchorageMarinamean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al) 13461.00 16426.09 10935.44Antimony (Sb) 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.57 0.58 0.48 0.60 0.76 0.51 0.63 0.43Arsenic (As) 11.26 10.33 10.88 1.03 9.57 2.79 13.05 12.06 12.14 12.42 1.39Barium (Ba) 132.40 115.81 124.45 36.00 110.85 62.25 117.24 124.03 113.05 118.11 22.90Beryllium (Be) 1.11 0.99 1.08 0.37 0.96 0.54 1.12 1.24 1.11 1.16 0.47Cadmium (Cd) 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.11 0.77 0.32 1.19 1.17 1.19 1.18 0.21Chromium (Cr) 60.14 51.16 55.75 9.75 45.59 20.75 56.31 57.47 52.15 55.31 7.76Cobalt (Co) 10.86 9.43 10.18 1.07 8.73 3.06 10.57 10.77 9.81 10.38 1.78Copper (Cu)228.37 239.97 232.78 51.85 104.43 47.15 312.63 319.83 318.13 316.87 40.04Iron (Fe) 45396.00 38946.00 42052.67 5833.58 36609.33 13826.61 44206.00 44669.33 41366.00 43413.78 4396.85Lead (Pb) 58.89 47.05 56.53 15.94 45.28 21.68 43.40 43.54 48.10 45.01 4.30Manganese (Mn) 305.50 260.03 284.59 33.94 253.80 88.15 295.83 303.17 273.53 290.84 40.77Mercury (Hg) 0.65 0.60 0.64 0.33 0.81 0.57 1.55 1.52 2.28 1.78 0.58Molybdenum (Mo) 2.57 2.60 2.54 0.70 2.07 0.67 3.89 3.22 3.02 3.38 1.01Nickel (Ni) 28.32 25.06 26.71 2.89 22.37 8.47 26.71 27.28 25.08 26.36 4.00Selenium (Se) 1.55 1.35 1.44 0.19 0.97 0.30 1.62 1.93 1.55 1.70 0.28Silver (Ag) 0.71 0.66 0.66 0.35 0.43 0.27 0.55 0.66 0.44 0.55 0.20Strontium (Sr) 91.68 80.09 93.59 25.75 68.09 20.47 102.00 140.28 89.74 110.67 33.88Thallium (Tl) 0.41 0.37 0.39 0.08 0.40 0.12 0.43 0.42 0.38 0.41 0.05Tin (Sn) 6.65 5.50 6.41 1.71 4.23 2.40 5.65 5.30 5.11 5.35 0.65Titanium (Ti) 1346.87 1089.57 1205.02 643.91 1113.00 946.00 1147.90 1243.20 1041.30 1144.13 513.90Vanadium (V) 114.60 97.47 105.66 21.06 92.20 43.30 108.43 108.87 99.60 105.63 12.88Zinc (Zn)311.76 305.12 310.99 35.17 182.49 63.18 396.49 401.89 411.39 403.26 64.7911Sample SitesLido YachtAnchorageChannelSiteH&JMoorings1H&JMoorings2H&JMoorings3H&JMooringsMarinaH&JMoorings4 (channelsite)meanstandarddeviation mean mean mean meanstandarddeviation meanstandarddeviationUnits μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/LAluminum (Al) #DIV/0! 7435.83 #DIV/0!Antimony (Sb) 0.49 0.34 0.52 0.45 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.56 0.40Arsenic (As) 9.79 0.89 10.16 8.61 8.88 9.22 1.56 9.37 0.61Barium (Ba) 117.49 32.38 116.13 129.57 132.66 126.12 40.13 143.66 48.87Beryllium (Be) 1.01 0.27 0.89 0.82 0.90 0.87 0.17 1.04 0.13Cadmium (Cd) 0.63 0.15 0.99 0.93 0.87 0.93 0.23 1.01 0.19Chromium (Cr) 49.47 1.36 48.16 44.79 45.76 46.23 9.76 49.61 7.94Cobalt (Co) 9.46 0.97 9.03 8.65 9.00 8.90 1.34 10.00 0.27Copper (Cu)174.70 15.33 196.73 146.97 122.00 155.23 36.42 136.07 34.81Iron (Fe) 39552.67 712.94 39139.33 36902.67 37409.33 37817.11 7207.23 41666.00 4442.98Lead (Pb) 35.94 5.36 35.07 28.83 27.75 30.55 5.30 29.17 1.87Manganese (Mn) 279.93 14.21 262.77 257.30 271.40 263.82 45.18 296.67 16.76Mercury (Hg) 1.23 0.31 1.06 0.51 0.84 0.80 0.60 0.34 0.09Molybdenum (Mo) 1.56 0.29 1.83 1.65 1.75 1.74 0.51 1.73 0.43Nickel (Ni) 23.64 1.88 23.12 21.66 16.06 20.28 6.49 25.17 1.00Selenium (Se) 1.17 0.25 1.21 0.93 0.99 1.04 0.27 1.27 0.33Silver (Ag) 0.42 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.17 0.41 0.20Strontium (Sr) 74.47 9.94 94.50 103.60 94.32 97.47 39.39 85.71 10.93Thallium (Tl) 0.37 0.09 0.39 0.40 0.45 0.41 0.10 0.44 0.09Tin (Sn) 3.97 0.45 4.23 3.47 3.60 3.77 0.83 3.54 0.60Titanium (Ti) 1194.67 649.75 1134.57 1139.40 1156.00 1143.32 678.80 1096.20 843.57Vanadium (V) 95.81 8.31 94.65 91.59 91.75 92.66 24.46 100.83 23.20Zinc (Zn)252.02 32.44 354.86 238.96 205.46 266.42 94.57 242.16 47.00

## 12 Newport Dunes

Sample Sites Marina Averages

Date May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec Ave

DOC 4.58 1.09 5.15 3.61 3.84 0.99 5.00 3.28 4.20 1.39 5.24 3.61 5.25 3.97 1.38 5.18 3.51 TOC (%) 1.80 Salinity (ppm) 33 32.5 32 32.5 33 33 29 31.7 32 33.5 29 31.5 31.9 31 34 27 30.7 Turbidity (FAU) 4 6 5 5 314 2.7 1 34 2.7 3.5 28 7 2 12.3 TSS (mg/L) 4.9 52.3 6.3 21.2 6.9 43.75 7.7 19.45 2.8 48.5 6.5 19.27 19.96 8.3 60.5 7 25.3 Newport Dunes1 Newport Dunes2 Newport Dunes3 Newport Dunes4 (Channel Site)



## De Anza

Sample Sites Marina Averag

es Date May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve DOC 3.54 0.60 3.3 2.48 3.56 1.05 3.14 2.58 3.38 1.04 3.41 2.61 2.56 3.32 0.68 3.28 2.43 3.39 0.55 3.60 2.51 TOC (%) 1.74 Salinity (ppm) 33 34 32 33 32.5 33 33 32.8 32.5 33 32 32.5 32.8 33 34 32 33 32.5 33 31 32.2 Turbidity (FAU ) 0 10 3 4.3 01 3 1.3 050 1.7 2.4 0 6 ND 3 1 13 4 6 TSS (mg/L) 5.1 43.5 4.3 17.63 5.2 31 6 14.07 3.6 46.3 4.5 18.12 16.61 5.7 34 5.3 15 7 48.8 15.3 23.7 De Anza 5(Outer

Channel Site) DeAnza 1 De Anza 2 De Anza 3 De Anza 4 (Inner Channel Site)



## Balboa Yacht Basin

Sample Sites Marin

a
Avera

ges Date May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve DOC 2.75 0.52 2.38 1.88 2.92 0.49 2.56 1.99 2.45 0.69 2.39 1.84 1.90 2.57 0.55 3.00 2.04 3.17 0.52 2.77 2.15 TOC (%) 1.54 Salinity (ppm) 33.5 34 32 33.2 33 34 32 33 33.5 38 31 34.2 33.5 33.5 34.5 32 33.3 33 35 33 33.7 Turbidity (FAU) 0 0 3 1 551 3.7 075 4 2.9 524 3.7 004 1.3 TSS (mg/L) 5.3 4.5 3.5 4.43 9.4 34.8 3.5 15.88 6.1 3.8 34.8 14.9 11.73 4.5 8.5 6.3 6.43 4.3 11.8 6.7 7.58 Balboa Yacht Basin Ship Yard Balboa Yacht

Basin 1 Balboa Yacht

Basin 2 Balboa Yacht

Basin 3 Balboa Yacht Basin 4 (channel site)

## 13 Bahia Corinthian

Sample Sites Marin

a
Avera

ges Date May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve DOC 2.79 0.60 2.97 2.12 4.73 0.68 2.50 2.64 3.79 0.61 2.98 2.46 2.41 2.62 0.55 2.64 1.94 3.98 0.57 3.00 2.52 TOC (%) 2.72 Salinity (ppm) 33 35 33 33.7 33.5 35 32 33.5 33 34 30 32.3 33.2 33 34 33 33.3 33.5 33 32 32.8 Turbidity (FAU 0 1 0 0.3 0 1 ND 0.5 0 5 ND 1.7 0.8 000 0 0 23 1.7 TSS (mg/L) 7.8 3.5 3 4.77 7.7 8.25 3.6 6.52 5.6 33.25 4.2 14.35 8.46 8.6 39.5 6.3 18.1 6.6 10 4 6.87 Bahia Corinthian

Storm Drain Bahia Corinthian

1 Bahia Corinthian 2 Bahia Corinthian 3 Bahia Corinthian 4 (channel site)



## Harbor Marina

Sample Sites M ar i na Averages 

### Date May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve DOC 3.50 0.69 2.97 2.39 2.31 2.58 2.45 2.42 2.68 0.57 2.56 1.94 3.17 0.55 2.73 2.15 TOC (%) 4.74 Salinity (ppm) 33.5 35 32 33.5 33 34 30 32.3 32.9 34 33 32 33 33.5 33 31 32.5 Turbidity (FAU) 3 0 0 1 2 00 0.7 0.9 000 0 0 00 0 TSS (mg/L) 2.3 1.5 2.8 2.3 3.47 3.33 4.35 3.72 3.01 2.7 3.5 4.5 3.57 2.3 7 3.2 4.17 Harbor Marina 1 Harbor Marina 2 H ar b or M ar i na 3 (channel site) H ar b or M ar i na S torm

Drain



## Lido Village

Sample Sites Marina Average

s 

### Date May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec A ve DOC 2.68 0.59 2.38 1.88 2.69 0.57 2.40 1.89 2.97 0.70 2.41 2.02 1.93 2.86 0.66 2.44 1.99 TOC (%) 2.79 1.06 Salinity (ppm) 34 33 32 33 33 34 33 33.7 33.5 33 31 32.5 33.1 33 34 33 33.3 Turbidity (FAU) 3 0 0 1 010 0.3 610 0.3 0.5 014 1.7 TSS (mg/L) 2.5 2 4.3 2.93 2.9 5.75 3.7 4.12 2.2 2.25 4 2.82 3.29 1.6 5 5 3.87 Lido Village 1 Lido Village 2 Lido Village 3 Lido Village 4 (channel Site)

## 14 Lido Yacht Anchorage

Sample Sites Marina Averag

es 

### Date May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve DOC 2.84 0.60 2.27 1.90 4.35 0.74 2.39 2.49 4.39 0.58 2.85 2.61 2.33 2.58 0.73 2.70 2.00 TOC (%) 2.44 2.03 Salinity (ppm) 33 34 32 33 33 33 33 33 33.5 34 33 33.5 33.2 34 32 32 32.7 Turbidity (FAU) 0 1 4 1.7 223 2.3 027 3 1.4 0 2 ND 1 TSS (mg/L) 3.8 13.8 9.2 8.92 2.9 4.5 7.8 5.07 3.3 3.5 9.5 5.43 6.47 4.4 7.5 11.8 7.9 Lido Yacht Anchorage 1 Lido Yacht Anchorage 2 Lido Yacht Anchorage 3 Lido Yacht Anchorage 4 (channel site)



## H&J Mooring

Sample Sites M ar i na Averag 

### Date May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec A ve
DOC 2.43 2.58 2.51 3.73 0.64 2.32 2.23 3.18 0.85 2.32 2.12 2.29 3.31 0.61 1.99 1.97 TOC (%) 1.79 Salinity (ppm) 32.5 34 30 32.2 33 35 31 33 33.5 35 31 33.2 32.8 33.5 32 32 32.5 Turbidity (FAU) 2 11 0 4.3 050 1.7 1 10 0 3.7 3.2 020 0.7 TSS (mg/L) 5.3 56.5 7 22.93 7.2 5.25 8.5 6.98 4.3 6.25 10 6.85 12.25 3.9 37 11.3 17.4 H&J Moorings 1 H&J Moorings 2 H&J Moorings 3 H&J M oor i ngs 4 (channel site)1Appendix EOrganics, Grain Size, Pore Water Metals, Acid Volatile SulfidesPAH(Seawatwer)Sample ID MDL 42956 42959 42978 42981 43239 43240 43242 43244 43246 43249Client Sample ID NB6013W NB6022W NB6033W NB6041W NB 6063 W NB 6064 W NB 6072 W NB 6074 W NB 6082 W NB 6051 WReplicate Number R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1Date Sampled 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006Matrix Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater SeawaterUnits ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L(d10-Acenaphthene) 96 84 91 92 92 99 88 93 88 98(d10-Phenanthrene) 96 95 99 98 98 101 96 105 98 89(d12-Chrysene) 82 105 109 87 94 98 100 105 98 86(d12-Perylene) 75 105 103 80 77 82 81 91 87 71(d8-Naphthalene) 86 76 86 84 83 91 81 88 81 951-Methylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 28.11-Methylphenanthrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12-Methylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 33.1Acenaphthene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3.6Acenaphthylene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 73.7Anthracene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benz_a_anthracene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzo_a_pyrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzo_b_fluoranthene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzo_e_pyrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzo_g,h,i_perylene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzo_k_fluoranthene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Biphenyl 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 5.5Chrysene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibenz_a,h_anthracene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibenzothiophene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Fluoranthene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Fluorene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 10.9Indeno_1,2,3-c,d_pyrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Naphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 172Perylene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Phenanthrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 10.2Pyrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Total Detectable PAHs NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3372PAH (Sediment)Sample ID MDL 43255 43255 43256 43258 43260 43262 43265 43298 43301 43307 43310Client Sample ID NB 6063 S NB 6063 S NB 6064 S NB 6072 S NB 6074 S NB 6082 S NB 6051 S NB6013 S NB6022 S NB6033 S NB6041 SReplicate Number R1 R2 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1Date Sampled 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006Matrix Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SedimentUnits ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g(d10-Acenaphthene) 59 56 80 56 68 51 56 66 38 79 40(d10-Phenanthrene) 82 93 83 70 81 70 63 86 65 93 56(d12-Chrysene) 104 101 108 111 101 99 102 106 96 109 80(d12-Perylene) 98 94 96 104 96 94 96 105 87 100 73(d8-Naphthalene) 42 33 60 38 39 32 46 40 24 57 311-Methylnaphthalene 1 1.8 0.9 <1 <1 <1 <1 9.6 <1 0.2 0.3 <11-Methylphenanthrene 1 1 0.8 <1 0.6 <1 <1 9.8 0.3 0.5 2.3 2.92,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 1 1 0.3 <1 <1 <1 <1 5.5 <1 <1 <1 <12,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 1 3.4 2.3 0.6 0.7 <1 <1 18.6 0.5 0.5 <1 0.32-Methylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 12.8 <1 <1 <1 <1Acenaphthene 1 1.5 1.1 0.6 1 <1 <1 4.7 0.6 0.6 1.5 2.1Acenaphthylene 1 1.2 1 0.8 4.3 0.9 1 2.8 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.4Anthracene 1 4.1 3.6 1.8 9.9 1.1 1.3 18.4 1.5 1 6.3 6.8Benz_a_anthracene 1 21 16.1 5.7 28.1 4.6 4.5 93.3 8 5 25.3 33.7Benzo_a_pyrene 1 31.1 21.2 8.4 37.4 6.3 4.7 126 11.8 7.6 34.5 43.5Benzo_b_fluoranthene 1 31.1 22.9 10.9 40.7 6.8 6 129 13 6.9 33.4 39.9Benzo_e_pyrene 1 31.5 22.9 9.4 35.4 6.5 5.3 126 11.8 4.6 32.2 38.7Benzo_g,h,i_perylene 1 43.6 27.6 11.1 32.3 7.3 6.7 150 16.9 9.5 37.6 41.6Benzo_k_fluoranthene 1 36.4 25.7 10.5 47.6 6.9 6.3 149 13.2 8.5 48.2 53.1Biphenyl 1 0.9 <1 <1 0.4 <1 <1 2.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3Chrysene 1 35.9 25.3 10 59 7.6 14.5 166 14.6 7.7 42 54.5Dibenz_a,h_anthracene 1 9.7 5.8 1.4 9 <1 <1 29.5 2.9 <1 7.1 8.4Dibenzothiophene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4.7 0.5 <1 <1 <1Fluoranthene 1 40.7 29.1 11 32 7.1 7.7 252 15.1 8.6 52.7 70.3Fluorene 1 <1 <1 <1 0.3 <1 0.3 3.9 <1 0.5 2.1 1.2Indeno_1,2,3-c,d_pyrene 1 32.3 21.4 8 31.8 5.4 4.6 121 14.2 8.4 34 33.5Naphthalene 1 2.6 0.8 0.6 2.7 1 0.4 6.4 2 1.5 1.7 1.2Perylene 1 10.2 6 2.5 14.5 1.5 1.2 44.4 5.9 2.6 10.5 13.3Phenanthrene 1 13.1 9.1 2.1 6.9 <1 <1 101 3.9 3.6 22 27.7Pyrene 1 45.8 33.4 13.1 38.6 8.7 8 259 17.2 10 52.8 72.1Total Detectable PAHs NA 400 277 108 433 71.7 72.5 1845 155 88.7 449 546

## 3 PCB (seawater)

Sample ID MDL 42956 42959 42978 42981 43239 43240 43242 43244 43246 43249 Client Sample ID NB6013W NB6022W NB6033W NB6041W NB 6063 W NB 6064 W NB 6072 W NB 6074 W NB 6082 W NB 6051 W Replicate Number R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 Date Sampled 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/2 3/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006

Matrix Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Units ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/ L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L

PCB018 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB028 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB031 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB033 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB037 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB044 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB049 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB052 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB066 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB070 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB074 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB077 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB081 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB087 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB095 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB097 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB099 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB101 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB105 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB110 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB114 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB118 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB119 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB123 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB126 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB128+167 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB138 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB141 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB149 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB151 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB153 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB156 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB157 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB158 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB168+132 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB169 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB170 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB177 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB180 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB183 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB187 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB189 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB194 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB200 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB201 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB206 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total Detectable PCBs NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

## 4 PCB (sediment)

Sample ID MDL 43255 43255 43256 43258 43260 43262 43265 43298 43301 43307 Client Sample ID NB 6063 S NB 6063 S NB 6064 S NB 6072 S NB 6074 S NB 6082 S NB 6051 S NB6013 S NB6022 S NB6033 S Replicate Number R1 R2 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 Date Sampled 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/23/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006 8/22/2006

Matrix Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Units ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g ng/dry g

PCB018 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB028 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB031 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB033 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB037 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB044 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB049 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB052 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB066 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB070 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB074 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB077 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB081 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB087 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB095 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.2 <1 <1 <1

PCB097 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB099 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB101 1 1.8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.7

PCB105 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB110 1 1.4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.3 <1 <1 1.5

PCB114 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB118 1 <1 1.5 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.8

PCB119 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB123 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB126 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB128+167 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB138 1 2.7 2.7 1 2.8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2.3

PCB141 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB149 1 1.8 1.6 <1 1.1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.2 1.1

PCB151 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.3 <1

PCB153 1 2.1 2.7 1.1 2.1 <1 <1 1.6 <1 <1 1.8

PCB156 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB157 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB158 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.5

PCB168+132 1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB169 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB170 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB177 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB180 1 2.6 <1 <1 1.2 <1 <1 3.5 <1 <1 1.4

PCB183 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB187 1 1.3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1

PCB189 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB194 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB200 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB201 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

PCB206 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total Detectable PCBs NA 15.7 9.5 2.1 8.2 0 0 8.6 0 2.5 13.15Grain Sizephi Size<-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 >12Microns>2000 1410 1000 710 500 354 250 177 125 88.4 62.5 44.2 31.3 22.1 15.6 11.1 7.8 5.5 3.9 2.8 1.95 1.38 0.98 0.69 0.46 0.35 <0.24very very very very veryvery veryLab coarse coarse med med med med fine fine fine fine fine fine coarse coarse coarse fine fine fineSample ID Rep. Sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand silt silt silt silt silt silt silt clay clay clay clay clay clay clay clayNB 6013 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 3.20 8.07 11.91 13.28 13.90 12.75 10.60 7.52 6.28 3.81 2.05 2.14 2.11 1.31 0.48 0.00NB 6013 S 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.22 3.98 6.90 8.43 9.02 9.64 10.26 11.04 10.20 8.70 6.00 5.07 3.17 1.75 1.68 1.57 1.01 0.39 0.00NB 6022 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 3.37 6.63 8.93 10.49 11.47 12.48 11.73 9.94 7.12 5.96 3.62 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.14 0.37 0.00NB 6033 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.96 2.82 5.07 7.17 9.02 10.70 11.72 12.35 10.92 8.70 5.94 4.85 2.96 1.65 1.71 1.76 1.16 0.43 0.00NB 6041 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 1.43 3.47 5.91 7.30 8.21 9.26 10.41 10.99 11.18 9.47 7.19 4.66 3.61 2.12 1.17 1.16 1.17 0.75 0.19 0.00NB 6051 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 1.48 3.86 6.11 6.70 6.94 7.95 9.77 11.42 12.32 10.46 7.68 4.82 3.66 2.13 1.19 1.14 1.11 0.77 0.32 0.00NB 6063 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.25 3.94 7.50 11.03 13.55 15.06 13.46 10.51 7.01 5.64 3.38 1.86 1.96 2.01 1.28 0.46 0.00NB 6063 S 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.11 2.60 4.67 7.17 10.23 12.91 14.66 13.15 10.21 6.80 5.52 3.36 1.87 1.93 1.91 1.25 0.48 0.00NB 6064 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.31 2.86 4.72 6.74 9.10 11.26 13.20 12.83 10.87 7.72 6.47 3.98 2.17 2.25 2.27 1.42 0.50 0.00NB 6072 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 1.84 3.51 4.73 6.05 8.10 10.84 12.96 13.81 11.54 8.48 5.40 4.19 2.46 1.37 1.41 1.44 0.92 0.33 0.00NB 6074 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 2.25 4.74 7.53 10.53 12.92 14.51 13.11 10.31 6.91 5.58 3.37 1.87 1.96 2.03 1.27 0.44 0.00NB 6082 S 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 1.49 3.74 6.16 8.31 10.35 11.84 12.96 11.88 9.71 6.77 5.63 3.46 1.91 1.98 2.01 1.21 0.41 0.00DispersionSummary Percentile Percentile micron phi Sorting Distribution(phi)(microns) (phi)IndexLab AnalysisSiltSample ID Rep. Date Gravel* Sand Silt Clay Clay 5% 16% 50% 84% 95% 5% 16% 50% 84% 95% Mean Median Mode Mean Median ModeSkewness KurtosisNB 6013 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 0.51 81.31 18.18 99.49 0.83 2.47 7.99 19.5429.61 10.26 8.67 6.97 5.68 5.08 10.69 7.999.37 6.55 6.97 6.74 1.50 -0.28 -2.73NB 6013 S 2.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 12.30 73.05 14.65 87.70 1.05 3.02 10.97 37.99 64.72 9.91 8.38 6.51 4.72 3.95 19.32 10.97 9.31 5.70 6.51 6.75 1.83 -0.45 -2.63NB 6022 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 4.25 78.79 16.96 95.75 0.91 2.64 8.80 25.6442.52 10.12 8.58 6.83 5.29 4.55 13.58 8.809.27 6.21 6.83 6.76 1.64 -0.38 -2.69NB 6033 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 8.93 76.54 14.52 91.07 0.97 3.04 10.35 31.46 57.84 10.03 8.37 6.60 4.99 4.11 17.14 10.35 9.41 5.87 6.60 6.74 1.69 -0.43 -2.75NB 6041 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 18.45 71.38 10.17 81.55 1.51 4.12 13.93 49.66 90.61 9.38 7.93 6.17 4.33 3.46 25.90 13.93 9.53 5.27 6.17 6.72 1.80 -0.50 -2.64NB 6051 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 18.31 71.37 10.32 81.69 1.49 4.05 12.65 49.80 92.46 9.40 7.96 6.31 4.33 3.43 25.15 12.65 9.43 5.31 6.31 6.73 1.82 -0.55 -2.65NB 6063 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 1.36 82.06 16.58 98.64 0.86 2.70 8.26 19.9732.13 10.19 8.54 6.93 5.65 4.96 11.25 8.269.31 6.48 6.93 6.75 1.45 -0.31 -2.81NB 6063 S 2.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 3.89 79.80 16.31 96.11 0.88 2.74 8.49 21.9040.72 10.16 8.52 6.89 5.51 4.62 12.76 8.499.28 6.30 6.89 6.76 1.50 -0.39 -2.84NB 6064 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 4.50 76.44 19.06 95.50 0.78 2.36 7.70 22.0742.62 10.33 8.74 7.03 5.50 4.55 12.63 7.709.11 6.31 7.03 6.78 1.62 -0.44 -2.79NB 6072 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 10.70 77.18 12.12 89.30 1.23 3.55 10.72 32.68 68.77 9.68 8.15 6.55 4.94 3.86 18.84 10.72 9.48 5.73 6.55 6.73 1.61 -0.51 -2.81NB 6074 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 2.92 80.55 16.53 97.08 0.86 2.71 8.42 21.5238.00 10.19 8.54 6.90 5.54 4.72 12.24 8.429.28 6.36 6.90 6.76 1.50 -0.36 -2.82NB 6082 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 5.41 77.98 16.60 94.59 0.88 2.69 8.95 26.0145.93 10.16 8.55 6.81 5.27 4.44 14.12 8.959.30 6.15 6.81 6.75 1.64 -0.40 -2.7467