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 following individuals for their help in completing this project: 

Linda Candelaria PhD. Of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board. Rich 

Gossett of CRG Laboratory, Steve Bay, Darrin Greenstein, and Keri Ritter of 

SCCWRP, and O.C.Coastkeeper interns; Dustine Min, Holly Doo, Peter Pham, 

Elijah Rosenthal, Alex Ramirez, Chris Lopez, and Shannon Penna. This project 

was funded by the State Water Resources 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 currently 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 Newport Bay at levels that raise concerns 

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

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

significant source of Cu contamination 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 collected 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 Rule standards for water or 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sediment Quick Reference 

Tables (NOAA SQRT) for sediment. Additionally, a statistical analysis of the data 

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

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

water and sediment samples (dry 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 standard 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) exceeding the acute standard greater than 

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

above the corresponding channel Cu concentrations, ANOVA statistical analysis 

shows that there is no statistically significant difference in dissolved copper levels 

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

variability in marina and channel data since marina means are mostly higher than 

channel means. The dissolved copper data 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 samples at each marina only three marinas, 

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

differences in the metals concentrations between the marina and its adjacent 

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

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

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

significant differences in sediment metals in the marinas of west Newport Bay 

(Harbor, Lido Village, and Lido Yacht Anchorage) compared to the other project 
4

marinas. Poor water circulation 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 metals 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 marinas showing significantly higher 

dissolved metals than the west Newport Bay 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 sediment 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 stations, 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 toxicity 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 site to attempt to 

identify the source of the toxicity. The results of the TIE test 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 extracted 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 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
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 Volatile 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 currently 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 (Cd, 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 known 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 with barnacles and algae. The leaching of 

Cu from antifouling boat paints is well 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 sacrificial 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 the sediment may ingest these metals, and 

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

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

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

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

stormwater inputs can be significant in winter. 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 sampled to investigate the impact of storm 

drain inputs into marinas to determine if stormdrains significantly affect metals 

concentrations in marinas. 

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

cleaned, scraped and sandblasted 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 permit). According to marina data, higher 

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

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

pollution of water and good targets for pollution 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. There are two active boatyards in Lower 

Newport Bay that are not in the Rhine Channel (The 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 determine if Cu antifouling boat paints are a 

significant source of Cu contamination 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 the channel adjacent to the marina to serve 

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

throughout the Lower Bay (and lower Upper 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 represent other factors that may influence 

metals concentrations, we selected two marinas with large stormdrains that 

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

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

shipyard influences and marina sites with storm drains or near a shipyard. 

Additionally we scheduled the sampling events 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 within three weeks of a rain event and 

the December sampling event was within seventy-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 significant 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 between the marina and channel data. If 

the Cu from the bottom paint is quickly flushed out of the marinas, there may not 

be a significant difference in marina and channel 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 sites further from the stormdrain (or 
9

shipyard) . The wet and dry season sampling events will allow us to determine if 

the concentrations of metals levels fluctuate during the year. 

Methodology 

Sampling Events and Sites 

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

Newport Bay including sites in eight marinas and adjacent channels, two 

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

were 3 major sampling events on May 10th, August 22nd and 23rd and December 

18th for all marina/channel sites, and a 4th sampling event, November 17th, was 

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

December events water and sediment samples were analyzed for dissolved and 

total metals in water, metals in sediment, and Total Suspended Solids, Dissolved 

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

metals testing, the August event included toxicity testing and organics testing on 

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

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

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

November sampling event was added to collect 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 represent 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 rain event. The August sampling event 

was representative of dry 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 toxicity 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 petite 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 the amount of sediment necessary. 

In May, August and December, the water and sediment samples for chemical 

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

The water samples were analyzed for total 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. Temperature 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 sites, 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 using 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 testing. 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 Village Marina and Lido Yacht Anchorage 

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

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

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

sediment TIE due to its high sediment toxicity 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 the other six project marinas (no channel 

sites) for a total of ten pore water tests. Also, six whole 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, sediment-water interface 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) 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. Whole sediment from the 10 stations was 

loaded into five replicate polycarbonate core tubes with laboratory 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 toxicity measurement using exposure with 

amphipods (Eohaustorius estuarius) was conducted. The exposure was 

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

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

test details.) 

Whole Sediment Toxicity Identification 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 (TIE) was conducted on station 

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

amphipods for the initial sample collected in August and again in November 

when the station was resampled. (See 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 described 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 for toxicity testing were also sent to 

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

samples were sent to SCCWRP for toxicity testing and only pore water samples 

were sent to CRG Marine Labs for metals analyses. 

Data Analysis Methods 

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

determination of whether the data for each site exceeds the criteria selected for 

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

water quality objectives for the Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) and 

Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC). For sediment the criteria selected 

are the NOAA SQRT objectives for the Threshold Effects Level (TEL) Effects 

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

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

metals analyzed for exceedence and the corresponding objectives are detailed 

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

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

exceedences. The parameters measured other than metals are intended to 

support the metals and toxicity analysis and do not have criteria for comparison. 
13

Table 1 -Marina and channel sites 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 Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) and Criterion Continuous 

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

Range Medium (ERM) 

The second type of analysis done for this project was a statistical 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 analyzed the data for all of the metals in the 

above tables to determine if the concentrations 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 objectives 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 detailing the number of exceedences for 

each metal at each marina and channel site for both the sediment and water 

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

broad trends found in the data. 

Water Column 

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

Concentration (CMC) and Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) criteria. 

The CCC is used for long term exposure (chronic) 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) exceeded 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 samples), 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 for more than 50% of the samples were 

confined to the west Newport Bay area containing the Lido Village, and Lido 

Yacht Anchorage marinas 

Sediment 

The Sediment data was analyzed against the 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 slightly higher. The ERM criteria are the 

most significant from a regulatory 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 sites 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 higher 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. However, all of the metals 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 listed for over 50% of the samples: 

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

Newport Dunes Channel Cu (100%); (<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 than the TEL or ERL, this is also the 

criteria used by the State Water Resources 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 the Balboa Yacht Basin Marina and Cu (11%) 

in Bahia Corinthian Marina, all of the exceedences occurred in the West Newport 

area. At Harbor Marina, the samples collected 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 samples collected exceeded for Hg (44%) 

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

site. The overall exceedence analysis 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 the metals exceeding the ERL in sediment 

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

shows that metal concentrations are significantly higher in the marinas and 

channel sites in the west end of the Lower Bay. 
Table 4 Exceedences of CTR (Dissolved) and SQRT (Sediment) objectives 

Sample Site

Newport Dunes Sediment (TEL)/(ERL)/(ERM)

Newport Dunes Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

Newport Dunes (Channel) Sediment (TEL/ERL/ERM)

Newport Dunes (Channel) Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

De Anza Marina Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

De Anza MarDissolved [CCC/CMC]

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 Cadmium (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 Chromium (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 Copper (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 Lead (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 Mercury (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 Nickel (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 Zinc (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 

Sample Site

De Anza Marina (Channel IN) Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

De Anza Marina (Channel OUT) Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

De Anza

Marina (Channel OUT) Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

Balboa Yacht Basin Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

Balboa Yacht Basin Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

Balboa Yacht Basin (Channel) Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

Balboa Yacht Basin (Channel) Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

BaCoSe[TEM]

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

Cadmium (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 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

Copper (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 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 1Mercury (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 2Nickel (Ni) 0/3;0/3 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3 Silver (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 0Zinc (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
19

Sample Site

Bahia

Corinthian (Channel) Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

Bahia Corinthian (Channel) Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

Harbor Marina Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

Harbor Marina Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

Harbor

Marina (Channel) Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

Harbor Marina (Channel) Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

Lido Village Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

Lido Diss[CC

Arsenic (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 Cadmium (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 Chromium (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 

Copper (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 Lead (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 Mercury (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 Nickel (Ni) 0/3;0/3 0/6;0/6 0/3;0/3 Silver (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 Zinc (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 

Sample Site

Lido Village (Channel) Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

Lido Yacht Anchorage Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

Lido Yacht Anchorage Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

Lido Yacht

Anchorage (Channel) Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

Lido Yacht Anchorage (Channel) Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

H & J Moorings Sediment [TEL/ERL/ERM]

H & J Moorings Dissolved [CCC/CMC]

H 

M(S[R

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 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 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 0Copper (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 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 Mercury (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 3Nickel (Ni) 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9 0/3;0/3 0/9;0/9 Silver (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 0Zinc (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
Graph set 1 Average Dissolved and Sediment Metals Concentrations 

Comparison of average Dissolved Cu concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

0123456

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa Yacht Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/Channel sites

Average Cu concentration (ug/ dry g) M

CCC
21

Comparison of average Cu concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

0.00

50.00

100.00150.00200.00250.00300.00350.00400.00

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa

Yacht

Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/Channel sites

Average Cu concentration (ug/ dry g) M

CTEESS
22

Comparison of average Cd concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

02468

1012

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa

Yacht

Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/Channel sites

Average Cd concentration (ug/ dry g) M

CTEESS
23

Comparison of average Cr concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

0

50

100150200250300350400

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa

Yacht

Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/Channel sites

Average Cr concentration (ug/ dry g) M

CTEESS
24

Comparison of average Pb concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

0

50

100150200250

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa

Yacht

Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/channel sites

Average Pb concentration (ug/ dry g) Ma

ChTEERERShStoDr
25

Comparison of average Hg concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa

Yacht

Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/Channel sites

Average Hg concentration (ug/ dry g) M

CTEESS
26

Comparison of average Zn concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

0

100200300400500600700

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa

Yacht

Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/Channel Sites

Average Zn concentration (ug/ dry g) M

CTEESS
27

Comparison of average As concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

0.00

10.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.00

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa

Yacht

Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/Channel sites

Average As concentration (ug/ dry g) M

CTESSE
28

Comparison of average Ni concentrations (ug/ dry g) at marina and channel sites

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

NP Dunes De Anza

inner

De Anza

outer

Balboa

Yacht

Bahia

Corinthian

Harbor

Marina

Lido Village Lido Yacht H&J

Moorings

Marina/Channel sites

Average Ni concentration (ug/ dry g) M

CSS
29

Marina Dissolved Copper (Cu) Averages Per Month

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.00

May Aug Dec

μg/L

Newport Dunes AverageDe Anza AveragesBalboa Yacht Basin AveragesBahia Corinthian AveragesHarbor Marina AveragesLido Village AveragesLido Yacht Anchorage AveragH&J Moorings AveragesCCCCMC
30

Marina Sediment Copper (Cu) Averages Per Month

0.00

50.00

100.00150.00200.00250.00300.00350.00400.00

123

mg/L 

Newport Dunes AverageDe Anza AveragesBalboa Yacht Basin AverBahia Corinthian AveragHarbor Marina AveragesLido Village AveragesLido Yacht Anchorage AvH&J Moorings AveragesSalt TELSalt ERLSalt ERM

May August December
31

Marina Dissolved Zinc (Zn) Averages Per Month

0.00

10.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

May Aug Dec

μg/L

Newport Dunes AverageDe Anza AveragesBalboa Yacht Basin AveragesBahia Corinthian AveragesHarbor Marina AveragesLido Village AveragesLido Yacht Anchorage AveragH&J Moorings AveragesCCCCMC
32

Marina Sediment Zinc (Zn) Averages Per Month

0

100200300400500600700

123

mg/L

Newport Dunes AverageDe Anza AveragesBalboa Yacht Basin AveragBahia Corinthian AveragesHarbor Marina AveragesLido Village AveragesLido Yacht Anchorage AveH&J Moorings AveragesSalt TelSalt ERLSalt ERM
Statistical Analysis Discussion

A statistical analysis was conducted to determine if the observed differences in 

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

focused on differences in metals concentrations in four scenarios; marina sites 

vs. their adjacent channel site, differences 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 the results of the 

statistical analysis is discussed seperatly 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 significant difference in copper concentrations from 

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

criteria, the lack of a significant difference 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 illustrates the output from the statistical 

program used for DeAnza marina vs outer channel. 

Least Squares Means

1 2

D_ANZA_OUT

0

1

2

3

4

CU
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 concentrations between the marina and channel 

sites, however, the metals with significant differences differed depending on the 

marina examined. A significant difference occurred in sediment metal 

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

Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn; at Bahia for all metals 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 tested. De Anza was designed with two 

channel sites (De Anza (In) and De Anza (Out)) on either side 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 metals analyzed. This suggests that the 

physical barrier may be restricting the movement of contaminated sediment from 

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

significant differences in marinas vs. channels are summarized in table 3. There 

was no significant difference in sediment 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 exceeded 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 Harbor. (ERMs were exceeded for both 

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

(ERMs were exceeded for ‘marinas 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 other marinas individually and there are 

very clear patterns. (Channel 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 Anchorage Marinas are significantly higher 

than the other marinas, although Zn concentrations are below the CTR water 

quality criteria. Cadmimum is significantly higher at Bahia Corinthian Marina than 

at all the other marinas, Nickel concentrations 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 the 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 Newport Dunes to Harbor marina and level 

off at Lido Village before increasing significantly 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 Yacht Anchorage, Pb and Cu in Harbor, Lido 

Village, and Lido Yacht Anchorage marinas with Harbor Marina significantly 

higher than both of the others 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. For 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 differences found for dissolved and sediment 

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

output from the statistical program for the Marina vs. Marina analysis for copper. 

Stormdrains and shipyards

To determine if stormdrains or shipyards are significant factors in the 

concentration of metals in marinas or the 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 throughout 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 contribution of metals in their respective 

marinas can be measured. Shipyards were also identified as potentially 

significant sources of metals (Shelter 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 two shipyards located in the 

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

have on the marina metal concentrations. 

An examination of the marina vs. marina 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 concentrations compared to marinas without 

stormdrain or shipyard influence. Both 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 significant difference in most metal 

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

marina, the other marina with a major stormdrain, does show significantly higher 

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

this may be related to both the presence 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 west 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 structures in them also have elevated metal 

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

stormdrain in Harbor marina and could be affected by flows from this stormdrain. 
Table 4 Significant Differences Between Marina And Channel Sites 

S= Marina sites metals concentration significantly were higher than channel sites metals concentration N= no significant difference. 

Sample Site 

Newport Dunes Sediment 

Newport Dunes Dissolved 

De Anza IN Sediment 

De Anza IN Dissolved 

De Anza Out Sediment 

De Anza Out Dissolved 

Balboa Yacht Basin Sediment 

Balboa Yacht Basin Dissolved 

Bahia Corinthian Sediment 

Bahia CorinthiDissolve

Arsenic (As) N N N N S N N N S N Cadmium (Cd) S N N N S N N N S N Chromium (Cr) S N N N S N N N S N Copper (Cu) S N N N S S N N S N Lead (Pb) S N S N S N N N S N Mercury (Hg) N N S N S Nickel (Ni) N N N N N Silver (Ag) N N S N N Zinc (Zn) S N N N S N N N S N 

Sample Site

Harbor 

Marina Dissolved

Lido Village Sediment

Lido Village Dissolved

Lido Yacht

Anchorage Sediment

Lido Yacht

Anchorage Dissolved

H & J

Moorings Sediment

H 

MD

Arsenic (As) N N N S N N Cadmium (Cd) N N N S N N Chromium (Cr) N N N N N N Copper (Cu) NSNSNNLead (Pb) N N N S N N Mercury (Hg) N N NNickel (Ni) N N N Silver (Ag) N N NZinc (Zn) NSNSNN
Table 5 Significant Differences- Marina vs. Marina 

 The numbers 1-8 represent the marinas being compared to the named marina in the row above. The number parenthesis next to each marina name. S= Sites in named marina have a significantly higher metals concentrationumbered marina it is compared to. Italic S= Sites in named marina have a significantly lower metals concentratithe numbered marina it is compared to. N= no significant difference in metals concentrations. Dissolved Hg, Pb

statistically analyzed due to numerous non detects. 

Dissolved Metals

Dissolved

12345678123456781234567812

Arsenic (As) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cadmium (Cd) N N S N N N N N N S N N N N N N S N N N N SSChromium (Cr) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Copper (Cu) NNNSSSNN NNSSSNNN NSSSNNNNickel (Ni) S S S S S S S S S N N N N N S S S N N N N S N Selenium (Se) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N S S Zinc (Zn) NSNSSSNN NNSSSNSN NSSSNNN

Balboa Yacht Baasin (3) B

Sample Site Newport Dunes (1) De Anza (2)

1234567812345678123456781234

Arsenic (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 Cadmium (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 Chromium (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 Copper (Cu) SSSS NNSSSSSN NSSSSSNN SNNNNNickel (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 Selenium (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 Zinc (Zn) SSSS NNSSSSSN NSSSSSNN SNNNN

Sample Site Harbor (5) Lido Village (6) Lido Yacht Anchorage (7) H&J Mo
40

Sediment Metals 

Sediment

12345678123456781234567812

Arsenic (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 Chromium (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 Copper (Cu) N SSSSSS N N SSSS NSN N SSS NSSN 

Lead (Pb) N N N SSSSN NNSSSNNN NSSSNNNN Mercury (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 Nickel (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 Silver (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 Zinc (Zn) NNNSSSSN NNSSSNNN NSSSNNNN 

Balboa Yacht Basin (3) Ba

Sample Site Newport Dunes (1) De Anza (2)

12345678123456781234567812

Arsenic (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 Chromium (Cr) N N N N S S N S N N S S N S S N N S S N S N N Copper (Cu) SSSN N S SSSSNN S SSSSSSS SSN

Lead (Pb) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N Mercury (Hg) N N N N N S S S S N S N S N S S S S S S S S S Nickel (Ni) N N N N N N N N N N S N N S N N N N N N S N S Silver (Ag) N N N N S N N S S S S S N S S S S S N N S N N Zinc (Zn) SSSS SNSSSSNS SNSSSSNS SSN

Sample Site Harbor (5) Lido Village (6) Lido Yacht Anchorage (7) H
Wet vs. Dry Weather 

Differences in metals concentrations during 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 statistical 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 analysis 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 the CTR water quality criteria (CMC and 

CCC). 

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

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

concentrations were significantly higher in the wet weather. The most significant 

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

all marinas during wet weather. Dissolved Zn levels are higher during wet 

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

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

Balboa Yacht Basin Marinas, dissolved Arsenic 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 Chromium, the higher wet weather dissolved 

metals levels are restricted to Newport 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 concentrations 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 Anchorage had significant differences in 

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

weather levels of Cr and Cu, and Balboa Yacht 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 significant differences in wet and dry 

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

of stormdrains, since the marinas with stormdrains do not show consistent 

differences from the other marinas during wet weather. The differences for both 

dissolved and sediment metals are summarized in table 6. 
Table 6 Significant differences in wet vs. dry weather 

S= Sites in named marina have a significantly higher metals concentration during dry weather. Italic S= Sites in 

significantly higher metals concentration during wet weather. N= no significant difference in metals concentrati

Sample Site

Newport

Dunes Sediment

Newport

Dunes Dissolved

De Anza 

Marina Sediment

De Anza 

Marina Dissolved

Balboa 

Yacht Basin Sediment

Balboa 

Yacht Basin Dissolved

Bahia 

Corinthian Sediment

Bahia 

Corinthian Dissolved

Harbor 

Marina Sediment

Arsenic (As) S NNNN S NNNCadmium (Cd) N N N N N N N N N Chromium (Cr) S S S S N S N S N 

Copper (Cu) NNSNNNNNNLead (Pb) N N N N S N N N N 

Mercury (Hg) N N S N N Nickel (Ni) N S S 

Silver (Ag) S NNNNZinc (Zn) N S N S N S N S N

Sample Site

Lido Village Dissolved

Lido Yacht

Anchorage Sediment

Lido Yacht

Anchorage Dissolved

H & J

Moorings Sediment

H & J

Moorings Dissolved

Arsenic (As) N N N N NCadmium (Cd) N N N N NChromium (Cr) S S S N SCopper (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 Anchorage, and were sent to SCCWRP for toxicity 

testing. In November, additional sediment samples were collected for toxicity 

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

description of the testing methods and results are provided in appendix B in the 

toxicity testing report prepared by SCCWRP. 

To summarize the results, the first round 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 embryos) at any of the ten sites tested, or 

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

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

moorings and the Lido Yacht Anchorage Channel site).. During the second 

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, the pore water 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 (selected due to its high level of toxicity 

in previous testing) found that a combination 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 Bay (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 seasonally. This leads to the conclusion that 

dissolved copper from boat bottom paint from 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 cannel 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 for 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 separates the marina from the main channel. 

The differences found between these two sites suggests that the physical barrier 
46

may be restricting the movement of contaminated sediment from the marina or 

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

Statistical analysis of the marinas against 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 significantly higher levels of sediment metals in the marinas of 

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

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

stormdrain in Harbor Marina; however, the large stormdrain in Bahia Corinthian 

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

Poor water circulation in the west Newport 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 DeAnza 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 stations, 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 stations 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 site to attempt to 

identify the source of the toxicity. The results of the TIE test determined that the 

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

combination of metals and pesticides.
1

Appendix A 

Sample Site Maps 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Final Data Report for Newport Bay DPR Antifouling Paint Monitoring 

Study--January 24, 2007

This report presents the complete data set for samples collected from Newport Bay 

during the DPR antifouling paint monitoring study. This document contains data from 

sediment pore water, whole sediment exposures and a whole sediment toxicity 

identification evaluation (TIE) that were not previously reported, as well as water and 

sediment toxicity data included in a previous report. 

Sampling and testing for this project was conducted in two phases. During the first 

phase, water and sediment samples were collected 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 sediment 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 conducted. Pore water was tested using the 

mussel embryo assay on 10 stations. Whole 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 1995) was used to evaluate toxicity on 

water column, sediment-water interface 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 consisted of a 48 h exposure of fertilized eggs to 

marina water samples. The tests were conducted in glass shell vials containing 10 mL of 

solution at a temperature of 15°C. Four replicates were tested for each sample. A 

seawater blank was included as negative control. 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. Toxic effects are expressed as a reduction in 

normal development percentage. The data are presented as percentage normal-alive 

which was calculated by dividing the number of normal embryos counted by the number 

of fertilized eggs added at the beginning of the exposure. 

Sediment-Water Interface (SWI)

Whole sediment from the 10 stations was loaded into five replicate 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 μm mesh) were added on top of the sediment. 

Fertilized mussel eggs were then added to the screen tubes and given 48 h to develop. 

After 48 h, the screen tubes were removed from the cores and the embryos were washed 

1 

Appendix B
into glass shell vials and preserved. Microscopic examination and data expression were 

the same as above. 

Whole Sediment

For phase one, the whole sediment exposure 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. Two 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 amphipods. 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 other stations. A 10 day, water only, 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 the testing were conducted 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 present 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. Ten amphipods were added to each beaker and 

the exposure was conducted for 7 days. 

A whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) was conducted 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 performed on untreated aliquots of sediment and 

sediment that had been diluted 50% by weight with clean sediment from the amphipod 

collection site. Whole sediments and, in some cases, 50% dilutions were treated with 

three procedures to reduce or eliminate toxicity in different toxicant classes. Each 

treatment was performed on a separate aliquot of homogenized sediment. Cation 

exchange resin was added to the sediment (20% resin by weight) to remove cationic 

metals. Coconut charcoal was added to the sediment (15% by weight) to sequester 

organic chemicals. Piperonyl butoxide (PBO) was added to the overlying water to a final 

concentration of 500 ug/L. This chemical acts on the amphipods to prevent the 

metabolism of organophosphorus pesticides, thus 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 whole sediment by centrifuging aliquots of 

homogenized sediment at 3000 X g for 30 minutes. The supernatant pore water was 

removed from the centrifuge bottle using a glass 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 performed 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 batch 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 significantly 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-adjusted survival of less than 82% to be 

considered toxic. For the mussel tests, samples had to have a control-adjusted %normalalive of less than 77% to be toxic. 

Chemistry Methodology 

AVS/SEM

Acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) were measured 

on sediment samples collected during phase one. Analyses were performed at CRG 

Marine Laboratories. Extraction and measurement 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 collected in the first phase were successfully 

tested using the mussel embryo test for 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 both batches of mussel embryo tests on marina 

water in phase one. Acceptable control survival 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. Therefore, comparison of samples on a percent 

of control basis should be acceptable. Two of the reference toxicant tests associated with 

the mussel tests also experienced lower than acceptable control results. 

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

control survival criteria were also met for both 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 below the EPA criteria of 90%, established for 

whole sediment tests. However, that criterion 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 value 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 mean). The EC50 for the two mussel embryo 

reference toxicant tests that did not pass acceptability criteria were also within normal 

control chart parameters. This indicates that the embryos were not more or less sensitive 

than expected. The reference toxicant exposure 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 stations were found to be toxic with either the 

water or sediment-water interface tests using 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 toxicity established for this 

test method. Therefore, no TIEs were performed 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 stations where pore water was tested with the 

mussel embryos was found to be toxic (Table 5), therefore the results of the EDTA 

addition are mute. Two of the stations (6013 and 6073) had reductions in %normal-alive 

that were significantly different from the control, 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 that the dilution of the sediment by 50% reduced toxicity by 

approximately half. A small reduction in toxicity 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 may 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 addition 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 the 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 researchers have found significant 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 were 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 having the highest copper concentrations (6073 

and 6082) had levels that are below the EC50 for mussel embryos (8.3 μg/L) as 

determined by our laboratory. This is consistent with the fact that no toxicity was 

observed in any of the mussel embryo samples. The laboratory seawater 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 determined the cause of the high readings in the blank 

sample. 

References Cited 

Budd, R., S. Bondarenko and J. Gan. 2005. Survey for Synthetic Pyrethroids 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 contaminants with estuarine and marine amphipods. 

EPA/600/R-94/025. Office of Research and 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 and receiving waters to west coast marine and 

estuarine organisms. Office of Research 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 tested 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 indicates 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 tested 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 * 

9 
Table 9. Acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) from Newport Bay Marina se

NB6013 NB6022 NB6033 NB6041 

umoles/dry g mg/kg umoles/dry g mg/kg umoles/dry g mg/kg umoles/dry g mg/kg u

Cadmium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Copper 0.0325 2.07 ND ND 0.192 12.2 ND ND 

Lead 0.0253 5.24 ND ND 0.0434 8.99 ND ND 

Nickel 0.0379 2.23 0.05 2.94 0.0298 1.75 0.0426 2.50 Zinc 1.01 66.3 1.77 116 1.65 108 1.76 115 

Total SEM 1.11 75.8 1.80 119 1.90 131 1.80 118 

AVS 5.00 160 9.56 306 6.88 220 7.19 230 

Table 9. (continued) 

NB6064 NB6072 NB6074 NB6082 

umoles/dry g mg/kg umoles/dry g mg/kg umoles/dry g mg/kg umoles/dry g mg/kg um

Cadmium 0.0021 0.236 ND ND 0.0028 0.315 0.0028 0.315 Copper 0.0314 2.00 ND ND 0.0157 1.00 0.0161 1.02 

Lead 0.0335 6.94 0.0217 4.50 0.036 7.46 0.0254 5.26 Nickel 0.0209 1.23 0.0489 2.87 0.0423 2.48 0.0397 2.33 

Zinc 0.652 42.6 3.17 207.3 2.36 154 1.83 120 

Total SEM 0.740 53.0 3.24 214.6 2.46 165 1.91 129 

AVS 0.516 16.5 18.9 606 0.741 23.7 1.92 61.5 

ND = Not Detected 

10 
Table 10. Pore water dissolved metals from Newport Bay marina sediment samples. All values are expressed in 

MDL RL 6011 6013 6021 6022 6032 6042 6051 6063 6073 

3

6 Aluminum (Al) 11 12 12

9 11 14 11 11 11 

0.01 0.015 Arsenic (As) 4.33 6.71 4.47 2.57 2.02 2.38 2.98 1.30 2.59 

0.005 0.01 Beryllium (Be) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 

0.025 0.05 Chromium (Cr) 0.38 0.44 0.40 0.44 0.40 0.38 0.41 0.37 0.51 

0.005 0.01 Cobalt (Co) 0.46 0.438 0.424 0.457 0.392 0.341 0.343 0.369 0.336 

0.01 0.02 Manganese (Mn) 505.5 332.5 198.3 382.3 115.6 85.83 127.2 87.46 51.4 

0.02 0.04 Silver (Ag) 0.624 0.641 0.674 0.639 0.609 0.596 0.569 0.555 0.511 

0.005 0.01 Thallium (Tl) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 

0.035 0.07 Titanium (Ti) 0.529 0.977 0.739 0.674 0.498 0.455 0.540 0.408 1.047 

0.02 0.04 Vanadium (V) 1.03 1.51 1.27 0.50 0.34 0.39 0.93 0.24 3.04 

0.005 0.01 Zinc (Zn) 3.149 3.784 4.135 3.710 3.256 3.605 3.059 2.926 3.760 

0.005 0.01 Cadmium (Cd) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 

0.01 0.02 Copper (Cu) 1.48 1.84 1.86 1.95 1.60 1.60 1.52 1.44 4.56 

0.005 0.01 Lead (Pb) 0.03 0.037 0.037 0.011 0.013 0.057 0.045 0.01 0.028 

0.005 0.01 Nickel (Ni) 1.185 1.26 1.207 0.979 0.837 1.054 0.957 0.981 0.673 

0.01 0.015 Selenium (Se) 1.22 1.48 1.32 1.38 1.28 1.15 1.12 1.29 1.74 

0.005 0.01 Tin (Sn) 0.025 0.026 0.033 0.033 0.027 0.021 0.032 0.026 0.14 

ND = Not Detected 

11 
1

Appendix C 

Dissolved Cu Levels (Newport 

Dunes)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

May '06 Aug '06 Dec '06

ug/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. '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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. '06

ug/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. '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/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 '06

ug/g

H&J Mooring 1

H&J Mooring 2

H&J Mooring 3

H&J Mooring 4 (Channel

Site)

TEL

ERL

ERM
1

Appendix D 

Metals Means TSS,DOC,Turbidity,Salinity Means 

Dissolved Metals Means 

Sample Sites

Newport Dunes1

Newport Dunes2

Newport Dunes3

Newport Dunes Marina

Newport Dunes4 (Channel Site) DeAnza 1 De Anza 2 De Anza 3

De M

mean mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean mean mean m

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg

Aluminum (Al) 8.17 15.06 12.28 9.61 

Antimony (Sb) 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.21 

Arsenic (As) 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.19 0.06 1.20 0.08 1.23 1.16 1.21 

Beryllium (Be) 

Cadmium (Cd) 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 

Chromium (Cr) 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.14 0.31 0.15 0.31 0.35 0.35 

Cobalt (Co) 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.05 0.26 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.24 

Copper (Cu) 2.68 2.82 3.69 3.06 0.65 2.09 0.92 2.89 5.02 3.23 

Iron (Fe) 0.88 0.01 

Lead (Pb) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Manganese (Mn) 26.09 27.66 29.01 27.59 5.61 23.04 5.69 17.81 20.49 20.67 

Mercury (Hg)

Molybdenum (Mo) 11.29 11.49 11.66 11.48 1.70 11.72 2.53 10.79 11.15 10.76 

Nickel (Ni) 0.74 0.81 0.83 0.79 0.09 0.77 0.17 0.63 0.66 0.63 

Selenium (Se) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.10 

Silver (Ag) 0.03

Thallium (Tl) 0.00 0.00 

Tin (Sn) 

Titanium (Ti) 0.53 0.46 0.62 0.54 0.23 0.53 0.17 0.48 0.54 0.55 

Vanadium (V) 2.78 2.84 2.88 2.83 0.16 2.77 0.12 2.66 2.67 2.67 

Zinc (Zn) 12.63 12.77 16.92 14.11 4.22 11.38 3.33 14.89 15.60 12.98 
2

Sample Sites

De Anza 4 (Inner Channel Site)

De Anza 5(Outer Channel Site)

Balboa Yacht Basin 1

Balboa Yacht Basin 2

Balboa Yacht Basin 3

Balboa Yacht Marina

Balboa Yacht Basin 4 (channel site)

mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

standadeviat

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) 10.74 11.64 10.90 8.80 8.80 7.04 9.95 1

Antimony (Sb) 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.20 

Arsenic (As) 1.26 0.21 1.20 0.32 1.12 1.15 1.14 1.13 0.16 1.13 

Beryllium (Be) 0.01 0.00

Cadmium (Cd) 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.04 

Chromium (Cr) 0.41 0.21 0.39 0.19 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.18 0.38 

Cobalt (Co) 0.25 0.02 0.23 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.20 

Copper (Cu) 2.59 0.85 1.97 0.90 4.78 3.66 3.25 3.90 1.27 2.18 

Iron (Fe) 0.03

Lead (Pb) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 

Manganese (Mn) 19.82 4.64 18.61 10.53 10.88 10.74 10.84 10.82 3.22 13.51 

Mercury (Hg)

Molybdenum (Mo) 10.71 1.34 11.89 2.64 9.91 10.30 9.27 9.83 0.85 10.27 

Nickel (Ni) 0.65 0.06 0.66 0.15 0.50 0.58 0.42 0.50 0.12 0.53 

Selenium (Se) 0.12 0.03 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.07 

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl) 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Tin (Sn) 

Titanium (Ti) 0.48 0.21 0.44 0.12 0.39 0.44 0.45 0.43 0.13 0.42 

Vanadium (V) 2.75 0.41 2.72 0.74 2.31 2.35 2.38 2.35 0.25 2.40 

Zinc (Zn) 13.75 3.41 10.96 4.66 20.95 15.99 15.90 17.61 5.70 10.73 
3

Sample Sites

Bahia Corinthian 1

Bahia Corinthian 2

Bahia Corinthian 3

Bahia Corinthian Marina

Bahia Corinthian 4 (channel site)

Bahia Corinthian Storm Drain

Harbor Marina 

mean mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean 

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) 8.79 10.04 9.41 6.58 11.82 9.39 7.81 

Antimony (Sb) 0.21 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.15 

Arsenic (As) 1.15 1.15 1.18 1.16 0.19 1.16 0.21 1.13 0.21 1.

Beryllium (Be) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 

Cadmium (Cd) 0.09 0.05 0.29 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.30 0.24 0.

Chromium (Cr) 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.20 0.42 0.31 0.41 0.27 0.

Cobalt (Co) 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.03 0.17 0.05 0.16 0.04 0.

Copper (Cu) 2.91 3.05 2.96 2.97 1.21 2.02 0.77 1.59 0.99 5.

Iron (Fe) 0.60 0.60 5.86 

Lead (Pb) 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Manganese (Mn) 9.56 9.37 11.45 10.13 2.92 10.58 2.96 12.06 1.94 14.

Mercury (Hg)

Molybdenum (Mo) 10.13 9.88 10.32 10.11 0.61 10.02 0.72 10.38 0.14 10.

Nickel (Ni) 0.55 0.52 0.83 0.63 0.24 0.47 0.04 0.83 0.28 0.

Selenium (Se) 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Tin (Sn) 

Titanium (Ti) 0.42 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.41 0.13 0.38 0.06 0.

Vanadium (V) 2.30 2.26 2.40 2.32 0.30 2.37 0.48 2.33 0.43 2.

Zinc (Zn) 12.95 13.63 16.14 14.24 2.95 11.49 0.74 11.60 3.87 25.
4

Sample Sites

Harbor Marina 3 (channel site)

Harbor Marina Storm Drain

Lido Village 1

Lido Village 2

Lido Village 3

Lido Village Marina

Lido Village 4 (channel Site) 

mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

stade

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg

Aluminum (Al) 16.44 11.37 6.60 8.26 15.07 9.65 

Antimony (Sb) 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.29 0.23 

Arsenic (As) 1.12 0.27 1.07 0.19 1.04 1.08 1.07 1.06 0.17 1.08 

Beryllium (Be) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Cadmium (Cd) 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.05 

Chromium (Cr) 0.35 0.12 0.31 0.10 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.30 

Cobalt (Co) 0.19 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.18 

Copper (Cu) 5.04 1.39 3.77 2.18 7.55 4.60 4.78 5.64 2.20 4.35 

Iron (Fe) 0.68 1.09 0.70 0.12

Lead (Pb) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 

Manganese (Mn) 13.66 4.98 19.53 9.17 12.32 13.04 12.38 12.58 3.40 13.08 

Mercury (Hg)

Molybdenum (Mo) 11.39 1.64 19.98 17.46 11.10 10.72 10.82 10.88 0.68 11.02 

Nickel (Ni) 0.56 0.09 0.75 0.40 0.61 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.10 0.56 

Selenium (Se) 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.06 

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Tin (Sn) 

Titanium (Ti) 0.43 0.08 0.39 0.04 0.48 0.38 0.41 0.42 0.13 0.38 

Vanadium (V) 2.30 0.74 2.14 0.59 2.23 2.22 2.27 2.24 0.52 2.24 

Zinc (Zn) 23.29 7.82 21.31 6.81 28.18 20.95 20.55 23.23 4.83 19.48 
5

Sample Sites

Lido Yacht Anchorage 2

Lido Yacht Anchorage 3

Lido Yacht Maina

Lido Yacht Anchorage 4 (channel site)

H&J Moorings 1

H&J Moorings 2

H&J Moorings 3

H&J MooringMarina

mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean mean mean mean

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) 125.40 69.51 119.78 8.36 5.88 8.73 9.06 10.5

Antimony (Sb) 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.2

Arsenic (As) 1.11 1.07 1.08 0.18 0.98 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.0

Beryllium (Be) 0.02 0.02 0.01

Cadmium (Cd) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.0

Chromium (Cr) 0.31 0.50 0.37 0.23 0.31 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.2

Cobalt (Co) 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.03 0.19 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.1

Copper (Cu) 6.04 6.27 5.82 1.94 4.23 0.76 3.87 3.83 3.72 3.8

Iron (Fe) 326.80 326.80 0.64

Lead (Pb) 0.01 0.19 0.08 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.0

Manganese (Mn) 12.12 13.24 12.89 3.84 12.61 4.30 13.64 12.36 12.78 12.9

Mercury (Hg) 0.01 0.0

Molybdenum (Mo) 10.65 10.84 10.84 0.69 10.84 0.75 10.87 10.68 10.83 10.7

Nickel (Ni) 0.55 0.64 0.58 0.14 0.65 0.10 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.5

Selenium (Se) 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.0

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0

Tin (Sn) 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0

Titanium (Ti) 0.37 7.14 2.65 6.69 0.61 0.24 0.60 0.49 0.45 0.5

Vanadium (V) 2.36 2.68 2.45 0.76 2.33 0.63 2.30 2.37 2.29 2.3

Zinc (Zn) 23.44 22.22 22.56 4.19 19.33 7.16 17.95 17.56 16.81 17.4
6

Sediment Metals Means

Sample Sites

Newport Dunes1

Newport Dunes2

Newport Dunes3

Newport Dunes Marina 

Newport Dunes Channel Site DeAnza 1 De Anza 2 De Anz

mean mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean mean mean 

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) 4535.77 

Antimony (Sb) 0.57 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.34 0.43 0.42 0.52 0.53 0

Arsenic (As) 7.97 7.75 7.83 7.85 0.85 5.79 1.15 7.90 11.04 

Barium (Ba) 152.10 136.23 141.23 143.19 22.24 97.75 44.36 135.43 135.40 116

Beryllium (Be) 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.10 0.43 0.61 0.18 1.10 1.33 

Cadmium (Cd) 1.44 1.38 1.36 1.40 0.12 0.99 0.38 1.21 1.20 0

Chromium (Cr) 44.61 44.25 45.55 44.81 8.79 29.31 11.69 46.96 54.44 45

Cobalt (Co) 10.49 9.67 9.92 10.02 1.58 6.81 1.68 10.02 11.69 9

Copper (Cu) 72.12 85.17 87.70 81.66 25.85 44.07 9.37 107.03 123.27 103

Iron (Fe) 38315.67 36469.00 38252.33 37679.00 5626.71 24635.67 8257.56 38862.33 44005.67 36529

Lead (Pb) 18.28 19.31 21.14 19.58 2.84 14.46 4.27 21.16 23.18 20

Manganese (Mn) 317.07 302.07 318.57 312.57 54.20 215.97 53.85 309.33 328.70 277

Mercury (Hg) 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.09 0

Molybdenum (Mo) 2.12 2.16 1.81 2.03 0.30 1.53 0.79 1.82 3.07 

Nickel (Ni) 23.73 22.87 23.37 23.32 3.98 15.50 4.64 24.20 27.66 22

Selenium (Se) 1.17 1.11 1.14 1.14 0.17 0.85 0.12 1.31 1.39 

Silver (Ag) 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.08 0.18 0.13 0.32 0.34 0

Strontium (Sr) 83.10 78.96 81.48 81.18 7.38 67.90 20.86 80.63 78.58 65

Thallium (Tl) 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.03 0.23 0.08 0.37 0.40 0

Tin (Sn) 2.81 2.75 2.96 2.84 0.31 1.85 0.82 2.99 3.55 2

Titanium (Ti) 1275.83 1215.17 1263.57 1251.52 683.11 1054.23 770.43 1193.23 1218.23 1248

Vanadium (V) 100.86 94.27 96.93 97.35 19.41 64.43 29.67 98.54 112.67 95

Zinc (Zn) 176.46 199.62 202.82 192.97 43.90 119.79 26.22 215.69 259.69 198
7

Sample Sites

De Anza Inner Channel Site 

De Anza Outer Channel Site 

Balboa Yacht Basin 1

Balboa Yacht Basin 2

Balboa Yacht Basin 3

Balboa Yacht Basin Marina 

mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean mean mean mean

standdevia

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 85

Antimony (Sb) 0.45 0.36 0.28 0.16 0.45 0.39 0.53 0.46 

Arsenic (As) 6.13 2.87 3.96 0.85 10.14 9.39 9.82 9.78 

Barium (Ba) 79.76 57.16 69.38 7.32 117.92 107.05 120.55 115.18 

Beryllium (Be) 1.12 0.60 0.35 0.05 1.02 1.09 1.14 1.09 

Cadmium (Cd) 1.11 0.09 0.63 0.15 0.80 0.73 0.89 0.81 

Chromium (Cr) 43.84 14.42 17.42 3.01 51.18 49.12 51.81 50.70 

Cobalt (Co) 9.53 2.14 4.24 0.82 9.36 8.99 9.52 9.29 

Copper (Cu) 71.47 37.86 32.38 9.71 123.13 158.93 182.80 154.96 

Iron (Fe) 36429.00 8974.65 15445.67 2651.23 38812.33 36902.33 39455.67 38390.11 66

Lead (Pb) 16.09 3.04 10.32 2.90 26.30 22.36 29.85 26.17 

Manganese (Mn) 298.07 77.21 146.67 11.41 281.10 278.90 283.33 281.11 

Mercury (Hg) 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.58 0.30 0.98 0.62 

Molybdenum (Mo) 1.92 0.43 0.94 0.14 1.83 1.74 1.87 1.81 

Nickel (Ni) 22.43 5.70 9.25 1.95 24.26 22.96 24.77 24.00 

Selenium (Se) 0.93 0.22 0.56 0.06 1.14 1.19 0.91 1.08 

Silver (Ag) 0.24 0.16 0.09 0.03 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.30 

Strontium (Sr) 77.69 18.23 56.49 19.54 70.01 69.24 73.96 71.07 

Thallium (Tl) 0.33 0.04 0.18 0.02 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.34 

Tin (Sn) 3.54 1.79 1.33 0.25 4.43 3.64 3.85 3.97 

Titanium (Ti) 1213.17 772.97 730.13 290.51 1314.03 1193.00 1343.10 1283.38 5

Vanadium (V) 95.40 26.86 37.90 6.17 98.86 93.67 100.64 97.72 

Zinc (Zn) 172.69 61.89 85.75 21.87 227.39 220.92 246.49 231.60 
8

Sample Sites

Balboa Yacht Basin Ship Yard 

Bahia Corinthian 1

Bahia Corinthian 2

Bahia Corinthian 3

Bahia CorinthianMarina 

mean

standard deviation mean mean mean mean

standard deviation 

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) 16193.45 7874.35 

Antimony (Sb) 0.57 0.32 0.71 0.58 0.85 0.72 0.38 

Arsenic (As) 10.05 1.35 11.65 8.70 8.01 9.45 2.92 

Barium (Ba) 132.63 27.88 124.20 126.93 105.16 118.76 27.67 

Beryllium (Be) 1.19 0.64 0.86 0.75 0.66 0.76 0.25 

Cadmium (Cd) 0.97 0.16 1.72 1.66 2.52 1.97 0.57 

Chromium (Cr) 53.16 11.83 52.64 44.30 42.47 46.47 8.78 

Cobalt (Co) 10.24 2.11 8.50 7.85 7.45 7.93 1.55 

Copper (Cu) 210.83 63.45 247.57 148.27 157.53 184.46 73.5

Iron (Fe) 41449.00 6997.31 34112.33 31755.67 28322.33 31396.78 5930.9

Lead (Pb) 25.95 0.75 26.21 25.65 31.01 27.62 3.94 

Manganese (Mn) 315.53 64.40 259.40 167.10 218.87 215.12 87.43 

Mercury (Hg) 0.25 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.04 

Molybdenum (Mo) 82.40 139.95 2.31 1.91 3.31 2.51 1.23 

Nickel (Ni) 26.46 5.61 24.10 22.05 21.41 22.52 4.23 

Selenium (Se) 1.05 0.13 1.43 1.12 1.35 1.30 0.23 

Silver (Ag) 0.40 0.08 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.28 0.16 

Strontium (Sr) 80.48 6.23 75.89 71.12 60.12 69.04 12.26 

Thallium (Tl) 0.40 0.01 0.38 0.37 0.34 0.36 0.05 

Tin (Sn) 3.66 0.35 3.67 3.44 4.16 3.76 0.62 

Titanium (Ti) 1210.97 717.77 1111.53 1014.80 939.50 1021.94 517.40 

Vanadium (V) 101.77 23.54 87.85 80.63 73.27 80.58 16.48 

Zinc (Zn) 252.99 54.56 259.22 226.86 264.22 250.10 50.23 
9

Sample Sites

Bahia Corinthian Storm Drain 

Harbor Marina 1

Harbor Marina 2

Harbor Marina 

Harbor Marina Channel Site 

Harbor Marina Storm Drain 

mean

standard deviation mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) 10105.26 15453.63 #DIV/0! 

Antimony (Sb) 0.63 0.16 1.59 1.89 1.74 1.32 2.99 3.83 2

Arsenic (As) 5.91 2.38 10.63 7.46 9.05 3.87 8.65 1.84 11

Barium (Ba) 72.05 15.57 133.96 90.89 112.43 52.97 107.96 4.15 148

Beryllium (Be) 0.48 0.32 0.87 0.38 0.62 0.34 0.66 0.46 0

Cadmium (Cd) 3.11 2.73 2.02 2.33 2.17 1.20 1.32 0.07 2

Chromium (Cr) 29.27 11.74 52.78 33.92 43.35 18.66 42.20 10.69 54

Cobalt (Co) 5.49 2.43 9.06 6.22 7.64 3.07 7.34 2.41 9

Copper (Cu) 108.40 83.32 280.73 201.68 241.21 109.12 203.03 38.51 348

Iron (Fe) 19979.00 8141.09 36842.67 20527.33 28685.00 12426.49 27829.33 9431.61 34596

Lead (Pb) 20.42 6.48 83.23 51.10 67.17 30.20 86.38 5.23 80

Manganese (Mn) 170.07 60.05 258.63 161.99 210.31 69.41 258.83 55.80 247

Mercury (Hg) 0.48 #DIV/0! 0.41 0.06 0.23 0.28 0.20 0.20 0

Molybdenum (Mo) 3.80 2.64 3.07 7.60 5.33 5.05 45.59 74.83 7

Nickel (Ni) 15.70 7.03 26.17 19.70 22.93 9.70 18.88 8.88 28

Selenium (Se) 1.00 0.45 1.53 1.54 1.54 0.69 6.90 9.78 1

Silver (Ag) 0.19 0.10 0.46 0.36 0.41 0.21 64.95 111.76 0

Strontium (Sr) 51.80 10.03 74.34 55.66 65.00 23.65 39.77 33.85 85

Thallium (Tl) 0.24 0.06 0.37 0.23 0.30 0.14 38.86 66.80 0

Tin (Sn) 2.67 1.05 9.41 7.54 8.47 3.34 5.19 4.34 13

Titanium (Ti) 793.57 352.33 1188.97 715.20 952.08 611.94 718.60 272.72 1206

Vanadium (V) 51.93 16.80 88.41 52.09 70.25 32.84 322.18 427.88 88

Zinc (Zn) 207.12 132.72 443.42 411.74 427.58 203.49 372.26 87.60 649
10

Sample Sites

Lido Village 2

Lido Village 3

Lido Village Marina 

Lido Village Channel Site 

Lido Yacht Anchorage 1

Lido Yacht Anchorage 2

Lido YacAnchora3

mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

standard deviation mean mean mean 

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) 13461.00 16426.09 

Antimony (Sb) 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.57 0.58 0.48 0.60 0.76 0

Arsenic (As) 11.26 10.33 10.88 1.03 9.57 2.79 13.05 12.06 12

Barium (Ba) 132.40 115.81 124.45 36.00 110.85 62.25 117.24 124.03 113

Beryllium (Be) 1.11 0.99 1.08 0.37 0.96 0.54 1.12 1.24 1

Cadmium (Cd) 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.11 0.77 0.32 1.19 1.17 1

Chromium (Cr) 60.14 51.16 55.75 9.75 45.59 20.75 56.31 57.47 52

Cobalt (Co) 10.86 9.43 10.18 1.07 8.73 3.06 10.57 10.77 9

Copper (Cu) 228.37 239.97 232.78 51.85 104.43 47.15 312.63 319.83 318

Iron (Fe) 45396.00 38946.00 42052.67 5833.58 36609.33 13826.61 44206.00 44669.33 41366

Lead (Pb) 58.89 47.05 56.53 15.94 45.28 21.68 43.40 43.54 48

Manganese (Mn) 305.50 260.03 284.59 33.94 253.80 88.15 295.83 303.17 273

Mercury (Hg) 0.65 0.60 0.64 0.33 0.81 0.57 1.55 1.52 2

Molybdenum (Mo) 2.57 2.60 2.54 0.70 2.07 0.67 3.89 3.22 3

Nickel (Ni) 28.32 25.06 26.71 2.89 22.37 8.47 26.71 27.28 25

Selenium (Se) 1.55 1.35 1.44 0.19 0.97 0.30 1.62 1.93 1

Silver (Ag) 0.71 0.66 0.66 0.35 0.43 0.27 0.55 0.66 0

Strontium (Sr) 91.68 80.09 93.59 25.75 68.09 20.47 102.00 140.28 89

Thallium (Tl) 0.41 0.37 0.39 0.08 0.40 0.12 0.43 0.42 0

Tin (Sn) 6.65 5.50 6.41 1.71 4.23 2.40 5.65 5.30 5

Titanium (Ti) 1346.87 1089.57 1205.02 643.91 1113.00 946.00 1147.90 1243.20 1041

Vanadium (V) 114.60 97.47 105.66 21.06 92.20 43.30 108.43 108.87 99

Zinc (Zn) 311.76 305.12 310.99 35.17 182.49 63.18 396.49 401.89 411
11

Sample Sites

Lido Yacht Anchorage Channel Site 

H&J Moorings 1

H&J Moorings 2

H&J Moorings 3

H&J Moorings Marina 

H&J Moorings 4 (channel site)

mean

standard deviation mean mean mean mean

standard deviation mean

Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Aluminum (Al) #DIV/0! 7435.83 

Antimony (Sb) 0.49 0.34 0.52 0.45 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.56 

Arsenic (As) 9.79 0.89 10.16 8.61 8.88 9.22 1.56 9.37 

Barium (Ba) 117.49 32.38 116.13 129.57 132.66 126.12 40.13 143.66 

Beryllium (Be) 1.01 0.27 0.89 0.82 0.90 0.87 0.17 1.04 

Cadmium (Cd) 0.63 0.15 0.99 0.93 0.87 0.93 0.23 1.01 

Chromium (Cr) 49.47 1.36 48.16 44.79 45.76 46.23 9.76 49.61 

Cobalt (Co) 9.46 0.97 9.03 8.65 9.00 8.90 1.34 10.00 

Copper (Cu) 174.70 15.33 196.73 146.97 122.00 155.23 36.42 136.07 

Iron (Fe) 39552.67 712.94 39139.33 36902.67 37409.33 37817.11 7207.23 41666.00 

Lead (Pb) 35.94 5.36 35.07 28.83 27.75 30.55 5.30 29.17 

Manganese (Mn) 279.93 14.21 262.77 257.30 271.40 263.82 45.18 296.67 

Mercury (Hg) 1.23 0.31 1.06 0.51 0.84 0.80 0.60 0.34 

Molybdenum (Mo) 1.56 0.29 1.83 1.65 1.75 1.74 0.51 1.73 

Nickel (Ni) 23.64 1.88 23.12 21.66 16.06 20.28 6.49 25.17 

Selenium (Se) 1.17 0.25 1.21 0.93 0.99 1.04 0.27 1.27 

Silver (Ag) 0.42 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.17 0.41 

Strontium (Sr) 74.47 9.94 94.50 103.60 94.32 97.47 39.39 85.71 

Thallium (Tl) 0.37 0.09 0.39 0.40 0.45 0.41 0.10 0.44 

Tin (Sn) 3.97 0.45 4.23 3.47 3.60 3.77 0.83 3.54 

Titanium (Ti) 1194.67 649.75 1134.57 1139.40 1156.00 1143.32 678.80 1096.20 

Vanadium (V) 95.81 8.31 94.65 91.59 91.75 92.66 24.46 100.83 

Zinc (Zn) 252.02 32.44 354.86 238.96 205.46 266.42 94.57 242.16 
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 Ave May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec Ave

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 

DeAnza 1 De Anza 2 De Anza 3 Channel Site)

De Anza 4 (Inner 

Channel Site)

Balboa Yacht Basin 

Sample Sites

Marin

a 

Avera

ges

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

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

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

Marina 

Averages

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

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

Harbor Marina 3

(channel site)

Harbor Marina Storm 

Drain

Lido Village 

Sample Sites

Marina 

Average

s

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

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 Ave May Aug Dec Ave May Aug Dec Ave

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

Marina 

Averag

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

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 Moorings 4

(channel site)

 
1

Appendix E 

Organics, Grain Size, Pore Water Metals, Acid Volatile Sulfid

PAH(Seawatwer) 

Sample ID MDL 42956 42959 42978 42981 43239 43240 43242 43244 43246 43Client Sample ID NB6013W NB6022W NB6033W NB6041W NB 6063 W NB 6064 W NB 6072 W NB 6074 W NB 6082 W NB 6Replicate Number R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 RDate 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 8/23Matrix Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater Seawater SeaUnits ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L n(d10-Acenaphthene) 96 84 91 92 92 99 88 93 88 (d10-Phenanthrene) 96 95 99 98 98 101 96 105 98 (d12-Chrysene) 82 105 109 87 94 98 100 105 98 (d12-Perylene) 75 105 103 80 77 82 81 91 87 (d8-Naphthalene) 86 76 86 84 83 91 81 88 81 1-Methylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 21-Methylphenanthrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2-Methylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3Acenaphthene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3Acenaphthylene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7Anthracene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benz_a_anthracene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzo_a_pyrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzo_b_fluoranthene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzo_e_pyrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzo_g,h,i_perylene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzo_k_fluoranthene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Biphenyl 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 5Chrysene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dibenz_a,h_anthracene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dibenzothiophene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Fluoranthene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Fluorene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1Indeno_1,2,3-c,d_pyrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Naphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1Perylene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Phenanthrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1Pyrene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total Detectable PAHs NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
2

PAH (Sediment) 

Sample ID MDL 43255 43255 43256 43258 43260 43262 43265 43298 4330Client 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 NB602Replicate Number R1 R2 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 8/22/2Matrix Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SedimUnits 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 (d10-Acenaphthene) 59 56 80 56 68 51 56 66 38 (d10-Phenanthrene) 82 93 83 70 81 70 63 86 65 (d12-Chrysene) 104 101 108 111 101 99 102 106 96 (d12-Perylene) 98 94 96 104 96 94 96 105 87 (d8-Naphthalene) 42 33 60 38 39 32 46 40 24 1-Methylnaphthalene 1 1.8 0.9 <1 <1 <1 <1 9.6 <1 0.2 1-Methylphenanthrene 1 1 0.8 <1 0.6 <1 <1 9.8 0.3 0.5 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 1 1 0.3 <1 <1 <1 <1 5.5 <1 <1 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 1 3.4 2.3 0.6 0.7 <1 <1 18.6 0.5 0.5 2-Methylnaphthalene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 12.8 <1 <1 Acenaphthene 1 1.5 1.1 0.6 1 <1 <1 4.7 0.6 0.6 Acenaphthylene 1 1.2 1 0.8 4.3 0.9 1 2.8 0.4 0.4 Anthracene 1 4.1 3.6 1.8 9.9 1.1 1.3 18.4 1.5 1 Benz_a_anthracene 1 21 16.1 5.7 28.1 4.6 4.5 93.3 8 5 Benzo_a_pyrene 1 31.1 21.2 8.4 37.4 6.3 4.7 126 11.8 7.6 Benzo_b_fluoranthene 1 31.1 22.9 10.9 40.7 6.8 6 129 13 6.9 Benzo_e_pyrene 1 31.5 22.9 9.4 35.4 6.5 5.3 126 11.8 4.6 Benzo_g,h,i_perylene 1 43.6 27.6 11.1 32.3 7.3 6.7 150 16.9 9.5 Benzo_k_fluoranthene 1 36.4 25.7 10.5 47.6 6.9 6.3 149 13.2 8.5 Biphenyl 1 0.9 <1 <1 0.4 <1 <1 2.1 0.6 0.5 Chrysene 1 35.9 25.3 10 59 7.6 14.5 166 14.6 7.7 Dibenz_a,h_anthracene 1 9.7 5.8 1.4 9 <1 <1 29.5 2.9 <1 Dibenzothiophene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4.7 0.5 <1 Fluoranthene 1 40.7 29.1 11 32 7.1 7.7 252 15.1 8.6 Fluorene 1 <1 <1 <1 0.3 <1 0.3 3.9 <1 0.5 Indeno_1,2,3-c,d_pyrene 1 32.3 21.4 8 31.8 5.4 4.6 121 14.2 8.4 Naphthalene 1 2.6 0.8 0.6 2.7 1 0.4 6.4 2 1.5 Perylene 1 10.2 6 2.5 14.5 1.5 1.2 44.4 5.9 2.6 Phenanthrene 1 13.1 9.1 2.1 6.9 <1 <1 101 3.9 3.6 Pyrene 1 45.8 33.4 13.1 38.6 8.7 8 259 17.2 10 Total Detectable PAHs NA 400 277 108 433 71.7 72.5 1845 155 88.7 
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 8/23/2006 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 13.1
5

Grain Size 

phi 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 

Microns

>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 

very very very very very very very

Lab coarse coarse med med med med fine fine fine fine fine fine coarse coarse coarse fine fine fine 

Sample ID Rep. Sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand silt silt silt silt silt silt silt clay clay NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 

Summary Percentile Percentile micron 

(microns) (phi) 

Lab Analysis SiltSample ID Rep. Date Gravel* Sand Silt Clay Clay 5% 16% 50% 84% 95% 5% 16% 50% 84% 95% Mean Median Mode 

NB 6013 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 0.51 81.31 18.18 99.49 0.83 2.47 7.99 19.54 29.61 10.26 8.67 6.97 5.68 5.08 10.69 7.99 9.37 

NB 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 NB 6022 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 4.25 78.79 16.96 95.75 0.91 2.64 8.80 25.64 42.52 10.12 8.58 6.83 5.29 4.55 13.58 8.80 9.27 NB 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 NB 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 NB 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 NB 6063 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 1.36 82.06 16.58 98.64 0.86 2.70 8.26 19.97 32.13 10.19 8.54 6.93 5.65 4.96 11.25 8.26 9.31 NB 6063 S 2.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 3.89 79.80 16.31 96.11 0.88 2.74 8.49 21.90 40.72 10.16 8.52 6.89 5.51 4.62 12.76 8.49 9.28 NB 6064 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 4.50 76.44 19.06 95.50 0.78 2.36 7.70 22.07 42.62 10.33 8.74 7.03 5.50 4.55 12.63 7.70 9.11 NB 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 NB 6074 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 2.92 80.55 16.53 97.08 0.86 2.71 8.42 21.52 38.00 10.19 8.54 6.90 5.54 4.72 12.24 8.42 9.28 NB 6082 S 1.00 13-Sep-06 0.00 5.41 77.98 16.60 94.59 0.88 2.69 8.95 26.01 45.93 10.16 8.55 6.81 5.27 4.44 14.12 8.95 9.30 
6
7