HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Analytical Services For Dredging Permit IssuesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 14
June 12, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, (949) 644 -3002
dkiff@citV.newport-beach.ca.us
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources Manager, 949 - 644 -3034
trossmiller@citV.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues —
Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Weston
Solutions, Inc.
ISSUE:
In the event that a Lower Newport Bay dredging project is possible in the near future,
should the City do preliminary testing work to address contaminated sediment issues?
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Weston
Solutions, Inc. and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amendment.
2. Approve budget amendment transferring $104,200 from the unappropriated General
Fund reserve to account 2731- C2370721 Analytical Services Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
Scope of Original Professional Services Agreement
The original Professional Services Agreement was awarded to Weston Solutions for
analytical services necessary to acquire a programmatic permit known as Regional
General Permit (RGP -54), which provides for small project dredging in Newport Bay and
repairs to existing residential docks. The analyses that were performed are complex and
involve examining the chemical quality of sediments for many organic and inorganic
constituents, evaluating the physical makeup of the sediments and evaluating the
biological impacts through bioassay and bioaccumulation studies. This study, which was
awarded for $350,000, helped the City acquire the RGP -54 permit throughout most of
Newport Bay with some exclusions due to relatively local non - compliance with
standards. The proposed amendment will assist in permitting additional areas of the
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 2
harbor for future dredging projects and in finding the source of the pollutants that
caused the standard violation.
Proposed Mercury Contamination Studies
In September 2006, the US Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission,
US EPA (the Agencies), and City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division (the
City) agreed to renew the RGP -54 permit for the City of Newport Beach. Under RGP -
54, the City can administer small dredging projects in support of dock and bulkhead
maintenance. Sediment from these projects is permitted to be disposed of at LA -3 (the
offshore sediment disposal site about 4 miles off of the Newport Pier) or to be used for
beach replenishment project in the Bay. However, two areas in Lower Newport Bay
have been provisionally excluded from the RGP -54 permit due to mercury
concentrations that exceeded the Median Effects Range (ER -M). Sediments that
exceeded the ER -M guidance level were those collected from Stations 1 -1, 1 -2, and 1 -5
(see Figure 1). As a result, the West Lido Channel and the nearshore area on Balboa
Peninsula from 13th Street to 17th Street were provisionally excluded from the RGP -54
permit, pending further investigation.
The City of Newport Beach's Harbor Resources Division proposes to conduct additional
sampling and analysis to further define the nature and extent of mercury contamination
in the West Lido Channel and Balboa Peninsula sediment. The purpose of this
investigation is to refine the boundaries of the areas with elevated mercury
concentrations and to better understand the concentration gradients from the original
sample locations. Ultimately, Harbor Resources is attempting to find the source of the
mercury contamination for future clean -up and to reduce the size of the areas excluded
from RGP -54. The not -to- exceed cost of this phase of the project is $50,000.
Figure 1.
Shaded area denotes shorelines that have been provisionally excluded from the RGP54 permit.
a
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 3
Proposed Amphipod Toxicity Studies
In recent years, sedimentation in Lower Newport Bay has resulted in the narrowing and
shoaling of the Federal Channels that act as the main conduits to marina and harbor
traffic. Although sediment catch basins constructed in Upper Newport Bay are effective
in helping to reduce sedimentation, the Lower Bay has remained subject to heavy
amounts of silt and sediment via tidal activity and storm events. By dredging the Lower
Bay, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and City of Newport Beach
(City) hope to re- establish adequate water depths along the Federal Channels and to
improve navigation for vessels using, entering and leaving Newport Bay.
The channels proposed for dredging are located in Lower Newport Bay are referred to
as the "Federal Channels" and include the Newport Channel, Balboa Reach, Balboa
Island North Channel, Harbor Island Reach, the Federal Anchorage, Lido Isle Reach,
and the Turning Basin. Of particular concern is the Federal Anchorage, located in the
center of Lower Newport Bay (see Figure 2). This is an area of heavy sediment
deposition, where vessels are grounding. The estimated volume for a potential first
phase project is approximately 400,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The total
volume of dredging needed to clean the Lower Bay to design depth is about 1 million
cubic yards. This proposed study could assist in permit acquisition for either alternative.
In order to maintain navigation, the proposed dredge depths range from -10 to -20 ft
mean lower low water (MLLW) with a maximum over - dredge allowance of 2 ft. The
USACE and City are proposing to dispose of the dredged material at LA -3.
Figure 2: Federal Navigational Channels
Y � j
1J• i
<4
L
rF !
2.
a15 416 +Ke
\ 1p:Y
T, .V
Lea�ontl :N yj���
e w —
1A 1
,tc _
E
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 4
In order to determine the suitability for ocean disposal of Federal Channel sediments, a
chemical and biological evaluation was conducted following guidance provided by the
Ocean Testing Manual. The Tier III study tested 28 stations representing a total of four
areas (plus two sub - areas). Sediment composites were evaluated for physical
characteristics, chemicals of concern (COC), and biological effects, including solid -
phase and suspended- particulate phase (SPP) toxicity. Chemical analytes that
exceeded concentrations expected to elicit biological effects [Effects Range -Low (ER -L)
and Effects Range- Median (ER -M)] included DDT and associated congeners and five
metals (mercury, nickel, copper, arsenic, and cadmium). While there were no
exceedences of the limiting permissible concentration for the fish, mysid, or larval
mussels in the SPP tests or for the polychaete solid- phase tests, toxicity was observed
in the amphipod test with Eohaustorius estuarius.
What is an Amphipod?
An amphipod is a small crustacean. There are probably more species and more
environments inhabited by amphipods than for any other group. In the sea, amphipods
can be found burrowing in sandy and muddy sediments, living in tubes on hard
surfaces, and dwelling among macro- algae.. Estuarine, freshwater and even terrestrial
species are known. Typically, they are in the size range 1 -10 mm (0:04 to 0.4 inches).
Figure 3 — An Amphipod
More about the Technical Studies
A subsequent round of tests focused specifically on the Federal Anchorage indicated
similar results, with the amphipod test failing to meet the ocean disposal LPC. It is
important to note that amphipod toxicity was not necessarily correlated with the
chemistry observed in the Area composites. For example, the Area 1 composite
(Balboa Channel) had significant amphipod toxicity; however, it had no metals above
ER -L levels and the lowest total DDT concentrations.
4
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 5
The City also evaluated sediment for renewal of RGP -54. During that process, similar
responses were observed for the sediment test with E. estuarius, with reduced survival
in the LA -3 Reference as well as in the test composites, with survival ranging from 8%
to 75% in the test treatments and 65% in the LA -3 reference sediment. While there
were COCs detected in the composites (primarily DDT and congeners, and mercury),
concentrations were not well correlated with amphipod mortality. There was, however,
a relationship between sediment grain size and survival. In particular, the Newport Bay
sediment contains a high percentage of clay ( >30%), with much of the clay size class
falling into the smallest size fraction ( <2.0 pm). Previous studies have indicated that
E. estuarius, while generally considered tolerant of a wide range of sediment grain
sizes, is not well suited to sediment with greater than 20% clay. Test sediments were
reevaluated for amphipod toxicity using both E. estuarius and Ampefisca abdita.
Ampefisca abdita is a sensitive amphipod that is an established species for toxicity
testing. During the retest, E. estuarius responded quite similarly to the first tests, while
the A. abdita survival ranged from 82% to 86 %. Based on these test results, as well as
the lack of toxicity for other test species, the sediments were considered suitable for
ocean disposal, under the provisions of the RGP -54 permit.
Based on the findings of the RGP -54 survey, the City and USACE contracted Weston
Solutions, Inc to conduct a Tier IV evaluation of the proposed Federal Channel project.
The primary objective of this Tier IV evaluation of Federal Channel sediments was to
determine whether the amphipod toxicity observed in previous investigations was due to
sediment grain size. Sediment from the Federal Channels in Lower Newport Bay was
previously evaluated for ocean disposal, however, failed to meet acceptability criteria for
ocean disposal based upon the guidance provided by the Ocean Testing Manual.
These failures resulted from biologically significant responses in the amphipod bioassay
test using Eohaustorius estuarius. Although there were elevated levels of some COCs,
they did not appear to be correlated with the toxicity observed in the amphipod test.
• Based on this investigation, the sediment grain size distributions of Federal
Channel sediments appear to be similar to those observed during the RGP -54
surveys, with sediment generally dominated by fine silts and clays.
• As has been previously observed in Lower Newport Bay, DDT and mercury
appear to be the dominant priority pollutant metals and pesticides present in
Federal Channel sediments.
• DDT and mercury do not appear to be linked to amphipod toxicity.
• Based on amphipod toxicity tests with E. estuarius, Areas 2c and 3b would be
acceptable for ocean disposal, relative to LA -3 Reference.
• Based on A. abdita toxicity tests, Areas 1, 2, and 3 (including their respective
subareas, would be acceptable for ocean disposal relative to LA -3 Reference.
• Sediment grain size appears to be a factor in amphipod toxicity for Areas 2b and
3b, however, amphipod toxicity in Area 4 sediment may be due to other chemical
or physical factors.
5
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 6
Thus toxicity testing of sediments from the Federal Channels of Newport Bay has
shown unacceptable amphipod survival in a number of areas within Lower Newport
Bay. Dredging of sediment and its disposal at unconfined ocean disposal sites
would not be permitted with this level of biological response (toxicity). Toxicity
appears to be highly variable in space and time, as well as in magnitude. While some
of the observed toxicity in Lower Newport Bay appears to be linked to very fine - grained
clay much of the toxicity in sediment from the Federal Channels does not appear to be
grain -size related.
The following proposal presents an approach to address the possible role of Pyrethroids
in amphipod toxicity in Lower Newport Bay. In response to the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, techniques for developing a watershed approach for
managing Pyrethroids in Bay sediments are also examined.
Phase l: Documenting the Cause of Toxicity
The first step towards developing a management strategy for minimizing or removing
the toxicity that has been observed in Newport Harbor sediments is determining the
cause of toxicity. Chemical analysis of sediments has indicated that standard chemicals
of concern are not linked to the observed toxicity in Lower Newport Bay. Only Mercury
and DDT were observed at concentrations exceeding published effects ranges.
Sediment grain size has been linked with amphipod toxicity at some locations within
Lower Newport Bay; however, a recent sediment evaluation indicates that the high
proportion of very fine clay is not the principle cause of toxicity for the majority of
Federal Channel sediments.
Based on surveys conducted by SCCWRP and the California Department of Pesticide
Registration, the Pyrethroid, Bifenthrin, is present in the Newport Bay watershed at
concentrations that have been shown to cause toxicity in benthic infauna. Spray
application of Bifenthrin has been used episodically for red imported fire ant control in
the Newport Bay watershed. Anderson et al (2006) conducted a series of sediment
manipulations combined with toxicity tests that indicate a link between Pyrethroids and
amphipod toxicity in Upper Newport Bay.
Based on the presence of Bifenthrin in the Newport Bay watershed, the documented
link between Pyrethroids and amphipod toxicity in Upper Newport Bay, as well as the
episodic source into the watershed, it is reasonable to suspect that Pyrethroids may be
linked to the toxicity observed in sediments from the Lower Newport Bay sediments.
We propose to evaluate the potential link between Pyrethroids and amphipod toxicity in
Federal Channel sediments using two techniques. Sediments will be chemically
analyzed using a specialized extraction and analytical method that can measure
Pyrethroids at effects based levels in sediment and pore- water. While there are
literature values that infer effects -based concentrations of Pyrethroids, many of these
studies have been performed as water -only exposures. Because Pyrethroids adsorb
strongly to sediments, it can be misleading to use these values to infer a link between
6
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit issues
June 12, 2007
Page 7
observed Pyrethroid concentrations and amphipod toxicity. Therefore we propose to
conduct a TIE evaluation that specifically targets pyrethroid toxicity.
Phase II: Document the Source
If Pyrethroids are linked to toxicity, we propose to conduct a review of Pyrethroid use in
the Newport Beach watershed to identify possible sources. This task would involve
assimilating data from a variety of sources including the City of Newport Beach,
California Department of Pesticide Registration, as well as other small user groups
(nurseries, golf courses).
Phase Ill: Document the Transport and Fate Processes
We would also propose to develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to predict the
transport and fate of Pyrethroids from land and surrounding waters to Newport Bay
sediment. The objective of this portion of the Management Plan will be to determine the
best method(s) to minimize the transport of active Pyrethroid toxicants into Newport Bay
sediment; methods to intercept or treat water and sediment moving into the Bay and
any other management methods that can minimize the influence of these materials on
the organisms in Newport Bay or offshore organism after disposal.
In order to determine whether there is a link between Pyrethroids and the toxicity
observed during the City of Newport Beach Federal Channel Tier IV evaluation, we
propose to conduct the TIE evaluation on sediment from the Area 4 composite from the
Federal Channel investigation. This composite was selected because it had the
greatest reduction in amphipod survival and because is represents a priority location for
the City of Newport. The cost for the pyrethroid phase of the proposed study would be
$54,200. The total cost to evaluate both the mercury and pyrethroid contamination
phases would be $104,200.
These studies will assist the City in obtaining permit authority to implement a more
comprehensive dredging program in Newport Bay and thus providing safer harbor
navigation.
Environmental Review: The Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement is not
a project subject to CEQA and does not require environmental review. The dredging
project, when implemented, is Categorically Exempt 15304 — Class 4: Minor Alterations
to Land: Section g exempts maintenance dredging where disposal is in an area
authorized by state and federal regulatory agencies.
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item).
Budqet Amendment: These technical problems with mercury and bifenthrin were not
anticipated at the time of budget preparation and contract negotiation therefore Harbor
Resources is requesting the transfer of $104,200 from the unappropriated General
Fund reserve to account 2731- C2370721.
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 8
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources Da a iff, Assistant City Manager
Manager
Attachments: Amendment No. 1 to PSA
Professional Services Agreement
Previous Related Staff Report (March 8, 2005)
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
WESTON SOLUTIONS INC.
FOR
ANYLITICAL SOLUTIONS FOR THE RENEWAL OF REGIONAL PERMIT 54
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, is
entered into as of this day of , 2007, by and between the CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "CITY'), and Weston Solutions Inc.
California environmental services corporation whose address is 2433 Impala Drive,
Carlsbad, California, 92008 ( "CONSULTANT "), and is made with reference to the
following:
RECITALS:
A. On March 8, 2005, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional
Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT ", for analytical
services for the Renewal of Regional General Permit 54, hereinafter referred to
as "PROJECT ".
B. CITY and CONSULTANT have entered into no other separate AMENDMENTS
of the AGREEMENT.
C. CITY desires to enter into this AMENDMENT NO.1 to reflect additional services
not included in the AGREEMENT and to extend the term of the AGREEMENT to
January 31, 2008.
D. CITY desires to compensate CONSULTANT for additional professional services
needed for PROJECT.
E. CITY and CONSULTANT mutually desire to amend AGREEMENT, hereinafter
referred to as "AMENDMENT NO.1 ", as provided here below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. In addition to the services to be provided pursuant to the AGREEMENT,
CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the services described in
AMENDMENT NO. 1 including, but not limited to, all work set forth in the Scope
of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole
discretion.
2. City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed
basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached to the AGREEMENT. Consultant's compensation for all
work performed in accordance with this AMENDMENT NO. 1, including all
reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred and
Four Thousand Two Hundred Dollars and no /100 ($104,200) without prior written
authorization from City.
3. The term of the AGREEMENT shall be extended to January 31, 2008.
4. Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in AGREEMENT shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 1
on the date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
I:
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Mayor
for the City of Newport Beach
CONSULTANT:
(Corporate Officer)
Title:
Print
By:
(Financial Officer)
Title:
Print Name:
F:\ users\ cat\ shared \ContractTemplatesPublishedonl ntranet\FORMPSAAmendment.doc
to
Exhibit A
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluating Mercury
in Lower Newport Bay Sediment
In September 2006, the US Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission,
US EPA (the Agencies), and City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division (the
City) agreed to renew the Regional General Permit for the City of Newport Beach.
Under this permit, the City can administer small dredging projects in support of dock and
bulkhead maintenance. Sediment from these projects is permitted to be disposed of at the
LA -3 offshore disposal site or to be used for beach replenishment project in Bay.
However, two areas in Lower Newport Bay have been provisionally excluded from the
RGP -54 permit due to mercury concentrations that exceeded the Median Effects Range
(Long et al. 1995). Sediments that exceeded the ER -M guidance level were those
collected from Stations 1 -1, 1 -2, and 1 -5 (Figure 1). As a result, the West Lido Channel
and the nearshore area on Balboa Peninsula from 13`h Street to 17`h Street were
provisionally excluded from the RGP -54, pending further investigation.
The City of Newport Harbor Resources Division is conducting additional sampling and
analysis to further define the nature and extent of Hg contamination in the West Lido
Channel and Balboa Peninsula sediment. The purpose of this investigation is to refine
the boundaries of the areas with elevated Hg concentrations and to better understand the
concentration gradients from the original sample locations. Data from this investigation
will be used to define the areas requiring additional biological evaluation.
0
Weston Solutions
Port Gamble Environmental Laboratory
1
I\
This sampling and analysis program will include a field sampling and chemical analysis
component. Methods and data quality objectives for this program will closely follow
those used in the RGP -54 sediment evaluation and this SAP will serve as a supplement to
the existing RGP -54 SAP (Weston Solutions 2005).
FIELD SAMPLING
Weston will conduct high resolution sampling in the immediate vicinity of each of the
stations. A total of 80 samples will be collected in the vicinity of Stations 1 -1, 1 -2, and
1 -5 (Figures 2 through 4). Stations will be sampled in a gradual radiating pattern away
from the original station. This will allow for a contour of Hg concentrations to be plotted
around each station and will allow us to define a boundary of Hg concentrations
exceeding the ER -M. This resolution will also assist in providing an indication of the
location of a potential source.
The original samples were collected at approximately 8' MLLW and were 2 to 3 ft. in
length. Stations for this sampling effort will be one sample shoreward (approximately 6'
MLLW), one at 8' MLLW, one sample seaward but before any slope to the main channel
(approximately 12' MLLW), and one in the shoreward boundary of the main channel
(approximately 15' MLLW; Figure 5).
Samples will be 2 -3 ft. in length and will be collected using a piston corer. The piston
corer is a 3" diameter Lexan® tube fitted with a rubber piston. The piston will be placed
approximately 1 in. from the bottom of the core tube and attached to a fixed point on the
stern of the sampling vessel. As the core tube is inserted into the sediment, the piston will
be held in place, 1 in. above the sediment surface. The top of the core tube will be
clamped to a steel head fitted with extension rods that allow collecting cores at a variety
of water depths. As the corer is inserted into the sediment, the penetration depth will be
noted on the extension tubes. Once the corer reaches project depth, the core will be
retrieved to the boat, where the core will then be extruded into a sediment processing tray
for characterization.
Navigation
All station locations will be pre - plotted and will be located using visual landmarks and
depth. Station positions will be recorded using Global Positioning System (GPS) fitted
with a WAAS antenna.
Core Handling
Each core will be photographed and characterized for general sediment characteristics
(texture, odor, color, length, approximate grain size distribution, and any evident
stratification of the sediment). Sediment from each station will be homogenized and
placed into certified clean glass jars for analytical chemistry. An additional subsample
will be collected for archive. Jars will be labeled (project name, date, sampler ID,
analysis, and, logged into a field chain -of- custody (COC) form, and placed into a cooler
at approximately 4 °C. Samples will be shipped in a cooler packed with ice overnight to
the analytical lab.
Weston Solutions 3
Port Gamble Environmental Laboratory
la
Ir i.
-.1 fli
V.
"L
Z9
zpj G.
c
V
NIN
jil:� 40
rah
G
1,61
t
1
,171. ®...
NOV
�1 tl11RL r±1t� '11i tiw ��� f i d�I
- {�I •JJ r �l a7 >n zap 1 ,
s Z;Aps _11 g
ril
%,yr➢ 3 r, e
1
al
iu
OL
Ptl
Ali
it
E{ f
- a i
Y
I : ,r• , i
Y 7
� t
Y L, 1 L rtv, 1 1 Ir
Nil
ITO
65� Ila
IF,
Owl
F"I
Fm
w,_mmmwmlw
•
SD
10
Mtrwit" n'
14
IF,
Owl
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Each sample will be analyzed for total mercury. Analytical Resources, Inc. of Tukwila,
Washington will conduct all chemical analyses. Mercury analysis will be conducted using
cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA) using EPA 7471M (USEPA 1994). The target
detection limit will be 0.05 mg/kg.
The QA objectives for chemical analysis conducted by the ARI are detailed in their
Laboratory QA Manual(s). These objectives for accuracy and precision involve all
aspects of the testing process, including the following:
• Methods and SOPS
• Calibration methods and frequency
• Data analysis, validation, and reporting
• Internal QC
• Preventive maintenance
• Procedures to ensure data accuracy and completeness
Results of all laboratory QC analyses will be reported with the final data. Any QC
samples that fail to meet the specified QC criteria in the methodology or QAP will be
identified, and the corresponding data will be appropriately qualified in the final report.
All QA/QC records for the various testing programs will be kept on file for review by
regulatory agency personnel.
REPORTING
At the completion of this phase, we will provide a report with observed mercury
concentrations by location. Mercury concentration contours will be created using
interpolation, which will then be used to define a boundary where sediment Hg
concentrations exceed the ER -M. In collaboration with the City and the Agencies,
stations that remain within the exclusion area will be identified for subsequent biological
evaluation.
SCHEDULE
Field sampling will occur in October or early November 2006. A data report indicating
the nature and extent of Hg in sediment will be completed approximately 3 weeks after
the field sampling event.
Weston Solutions
Port Gamble Environmental Laboratory
7
IG
REFERENCES
Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse
Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine
Sediments. Environmental Management, Vol 19, No. 1, pp 81 -97.
MBC (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences). 2000. Physical and Chemical Sediment Testing
Associated with the Regional General Permit for Dredging in Newport Harbor. Prepared for
Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department. Prepared by MBC Applied Environmental
Sciences, Costa Mesa CA.
MEC (MEC Analytical Systems). 2001. Results of Physical, Chemical, and Bioassay Testing of
Sediments Collected From Newport Bay, CA. Report Prepared for City of Newport Beach,
Division of Harbor Resources. Prepared by MEC Analytical Systems, Sequim, WA.
MEC (MEC Analytical Systems). 2003. Results of Bioassay Testing of Sediments Collected
From Bayside Village Marina, Newport Beach, CA. Report Prepared for De Anza Bayside
Village Marina. Prepared by MEC Analytical Systems, Sequim, WA.
USEPA. 1994. Method 7471A: Mercury in Solid or Semisolid Waste. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
2001. SW -846 On -line Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical /Chemical
Methods. URL: < http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer /hazwaste/test/sw846.htm >. Office of Solid
Waste.
Weston Solution, Inc. (2005). Dredged Material Evaluation for the Renewal of Regional
General Permit -54 Newport Beach, California Sampling and Analysis Plan. Submitted to
the City of Newport Harbor Resources Division. by Weston Solutions, Port Gamble,
WA.
Weston Solutions
Port Gamble Environmental Laboratory
l�
Pyrethroid Management Strategy
Recent toxicity testing of sediments from the Federal Channels of Newport Bay has
shown unacceptable amphipod survival in a number of areas within Lower Newport Bay.
Dredging of sediment and its disposal at unconfined ocean disposal sites would not be
permitted with this level of biological response (toxicity). Other testing efforts have also
indicated amphipod toxicity at various locations in both Upper and Lower Newport Bay
( SCCWRP 2005, 2006; MEC 2001; Weston Solutions 2005). Toxicity appears to be
highly variable in space and time, as well as in magnitude. While some of the observed
toxicity in Lower Newport Bay appears to be linked to very fine - grained clay (Weston
Solutions 2005), much of the toxicity in sediment from the Federal Channels does not
appear to be grain -size related. Recent studies outside of Newport Bay ( SCCWRP 2005)
and in Upper Newport Bay (Anderson et al. 2006) have implicated Pyrethroid pesticides
at low concentrations (normally not measured in sediment) as a potential cause of
amphipod toxicity.
The following proposal presents an approach to address the possible role of Pyrethroids
in amphipod toxicity in Lower Newport Bay. In addition, suggestions for a Bay -wide
approach for managing Pyrethroids in Bay sediments are provided.
Phase I. Documenting the Cause of Toxicity
The first step towards developing a management strategy for minimizing or removing the
toxicity that has been observed in Newport Harbor sediments is determining the cause of
toxicity. Chemical analysis of sediments has indicated that standard chemicals of
concern (COCs: metals, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated pesticides, including DDT) are not
likely to be linked to the observed toxicity in Lower Newport Bay. Only Hg and DDT
were observed at concentrations exceeding published effects ranges; however, there was
a poor relationship between the observed concentrations of Hg and DDT and toxicity,
indicating that these COCs were not the principle cause of toxicity. Sediment grain size
has been linked with amphipod toxicity at some locations within Lower Newport Bay;
however, a recent sediment evaluation indicates that the high proportion of very fine clay
is not the principle cause of toxicity for the majority of Federal Channel sediments.
Based on surveys conducted by SCCWRP and the California Department of Pesticide
Registration, the Pyrethroid, Bifenthrin, is present in the Newport Bay watershed at
concentrations that have been shown to cause toxicity in benthic infauna. Spray
application of Bifenthrin has been used episodically for red imported fire ant control
(RIFA) in the Newport Bay watershed. Anderson et al (2006) conducted a series of
sediment manipulations combined with toxicity tests [Toxicity Identification and
Evaluation (TIE) studies) that indicate a causal link between Pyrethroids and amphipod
toxicity in Upper Newport Bay.
Based on the presence of Bifenthrin in the Newport Bay watershed, the documented link
between Pyrethoids and amphipod toxicity in Upper Newport Bay, as well as the episodic
source into the watershed, it is reasonable to suspect that Pyrethroids may be linked to the
toxicity observed in sediments from the Lower Newport Bay sediments.
12
We propose to evaluate the potential causal link between Pyrethroids and amphipod
toxicity in Federal Channel sediments using two techniques. Sediments will be
chemically analyzed using a specialized extraction and analytical method that can
measure Pyrethroids at effects based levels in sediment and pore -water (GC/MS in the
NCI mode). While there are literature values that infer effects-based concentrations of
Pyrethroids, many of these studies have been performed as water -only exposures.
Because Pyrethroids adsorb strongly to sediments, it can be misleading to use these
values to infer a causal link between observed Pyrethroid concentrations and amphipod
toxicity. Therefore we propose to conduct a TIE evaluation that specifically targets
pyrethroid toxicity.
TIE studies are actually a series of laboratory manipulations designed to selectively alter
the toxicity of a certain chemical or chemical groups that are combined with toxicity tests
to identify the cause of toxicity. For sediments, it is generally recommended that TIE
manipulations be performed on both whole sediment as well as interstitial pore water.
Because we have information implicating Pyrethroids, we suggest conducting
manipulations that target Pyrethroids. We would propose conducting four manipulations:
➢ Organic carbon: organic carbon is added to bind organic contaminants. If
toxicity is associated with organics, toxicity would decrease. While not specific
to Pyrethroids, this step effectively rules out toxicity associated with any metals
or sediment grain size.
➢ Piperonyl butoxide (PBO): piperonyl butoxide additions alter toxicity for both
Pyrethroids (increases toxicity) and organophosphorus pesticides (decreases
toxicity). This step can not only implicates Pyrethroids, but also rule out
organophosphorus pesticides.
➢ Temperature control: tests are conducted at three or four different temperatures.
Pyrethroid toxicity increases with decreasing temperature; whereas, toxicity of
other contaminants generally decreases.
➢ Carboxylase: carboxylase breaks down Pyrethroids, thereby decreasing
Pyrethroid- related toxicity. This method is proven in pore water, but is more
experimental in whole sediment.
TIE studies also include a confirmation step, where the implicated COC is added back
into the test media at concentrations measured in the original field - collected sample. If
the implicated COC is indeed the cause of toxicity, a similar level of toxicity would be
expected.
Phase H. Document the Source
If Pyrethoids are linked to toxicity, we propose to conduct a review of Pyrethroid use in
the Newport Beach watershed to identify possible sources. This task would involve
assimilating data from a variety of sources including the City of Newport Beach,
California Department of Pesticide Registration, as well as other small user groups
(nursuries, golf courses).
I
Phase III: Document the Transport and Fate Processes
We would also propose to develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to predict the
transport and fate of Pyrethroids from land and surrounding waters to Newport Bay
sediment. The objective of this portion of the Management Plan will be to determine the
best method(s) to minimize the transport of active Pyrethroid toxicants into Newport Bay
sediment; methods to intercept or treat water and sediment moving into the Bay and any
other management methods that can minimize the influence of these materials on the
organisms in Newport Bay or offshore organism after disposal.
EX7
Specific Proposal for Phase I
In order to determine whether there is a causal link between Pyrethroids and the toxicity
observed during the City of Newport Beach Federal Channel Tier IV evaluation, we
propose to conduct the TIE evaluation on sediment from the Area 4 composite from the
Federal Channel investigation. This composite was selected because it had the greatest
reduction in amphipod survival and because is represents a priority location for the City
of Newport.
Sediment Sampling: We would propose to sample sediment from the Federal
Anchorage area within Lower Newport Bay. This would require collecting samples
following methods used during the recent Federal Channel investigation. Briefly, cores
will be collected at stations sampled from Area 4 (Stations 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 29) using an
electric vibracore equipped with pre - cleaned 4 -inch diameter aluminum tubing and a
stainless steel cutter head/catcher assembly. If refusal is encountered, the vessel will be
moved and a second core attempted. Sediment from each station will be homogenized,
subsampled for archive, and combined with all other Area 4 samples. The Area 4
composite will be used for the TIE evaluation.
Chemical Analysis: Sediment from the Area 4 composite will analyzed for sediment
grain size, total organic carbon, and Pyrethroids. Pyrethroid analysis will be conducted
by CRG Laboratories, in Torrence, CA. Samples will be extracted following methods
outlined by Weston et al. (2006). Samples will be analyzed using gas chromatography
with mass spectrometry in the negative chemical ionization mode (NCI). This is a
method that has been specifically developed to detect pyrethoids in sediment at the sub-
parts- per - billion level.
TIE Testing: As a first step, toxicity in the Area 4 composite will be confirmed by
conducting a standard 10 -d toxicity test with the amphipods Eohaustorius estuarius and
Ampelisca abdita. Ampelisca abdita will only be tested with the whole, unmanipulated
sediment to confirm that sediment grain size is not the cause of the observed toxicity.
TIE testing will be conducted with both Area 4 Composite sediment, as well as pore
water from the Area 4 composite. TIE procedures will follow methods outlined in
Norburg -King et al. (2005), as well as more recent methods outlined in Weston Solutons
(2006a, b), Anderson et al. (2006), SCCWRP (2006), and Weston et al. (2006).
TIE manipulations
The following manipulations will be performed on both sediment and pore water
samples. The amphipod Eohaustorius estuaries will then be exposed to each treatment
and exposed for 10 -days. Porewater will be collected by centrifuging whole sediment
and decanting off the supernatant into glass container. Because some of the treatments
adsorb strongly to plastic, only glass will be used in all phases of testing.
�.1
Carbon Treatment Tests
Coconut charcoal will be added to sediment or pore water at a concentration of 15% by
weight to bind organic contaminants. If toxicity in the test sediment is caused by organic
contaminants, toxicity would be expected to decrease. For sediment, the carbon will be
added to overlying water, and then the sample will be stirred with a glass rod for 1
minute. Alternatively, the carbon may be mixed into sediment by gently rolling the
sample, minimizing the disturbance to the sediment. For pore water samples, the carbon
will be added and then gently stirred to mix in the carbon.
Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Tests
PBO tests are performed to identify whether the causative agents are organophosphate
pesticides or pyrethroids. Specifically, PBO blocks specific cytochrome P450 enzymes
that are involved in metabolizing chemicals such as organophosphates to more toxic
metabolites and chemicals such as pyrethroids to less toxic metabolites. Thus, if results
from this test demonstrate increased toxicity in the stormwater sample, this is indicative
of chemicals (e.g. pyrethroids) that are metabolized to less toxic forms by cytochrome
P450 enzymes. In contrast, if the results demonstrate decreased toxicity in the
stormwater samples, this is indicative of chemicals (e.g. malathion, organophosphates)
that are metabolized to more toxic forms by cytochrome P450 enzymes.
Three concentrations of PBO tests will be used during each TIE and will be determined
prior to testing. A stock solution of 2.5 mg PBO /L will be prepared in deionized water.
For whole sediment tests, PBO will be added to the overlying water prior to testing. For
pore water, PBO treatments will be prepared by adding the PBO stock solution to
seawater to target the final test concentrations.
Temperature Tests
Recent TIE studies have indicated that decreasing temperature increases Pyrethroid
toxicity. This is in contrast to other organic contaminants for which toxicity decreases
with decreasing temperature. Standard 10 -d acute amphipod tests will be conducted at
four test temperatures (I PC, 13 °C, 15 °, 17 °C).
Carboxyl Esterase Tests
Carboxyl esterase treatments are performed to remove toxicity in samples that may
contain pyrethroids. Carboxyl esterase is an enzyme that degrades type I and type H
pyrethroids. Thus, recent studies have been performed in which carboxyl esterase has
been used to reduce pyrethroid - associated toxicity to test organisms such as H. azteca
(Wheelock et al., 2004). In this method, the protein Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) is
used as a control for the esterase. Specifically, if toxicity is reduced in both the BSA
treatment and the carboxyl esterase treatment, this indicates that both BSA and esterase
are adsorbing the chemicals in the water samples. In contrast, if toxicity is only reduced
in the carboxyl esterase treatment, this indicates that the chemicals in the water sample
have been enzymatically altered by the carboxyl esterase, and that these chemicals may
be pyrethroids due to the affinity of carboxyl esterase for these compounds.
For sediment treatments, a standard, 10 -d acute toxicity test will be performed with the
amphipod, Eohaustorius estuarius. The tests will be conducted in accordance with
procedures described in ASTM Standard E1367 -99 (ASTM 2003c). Each sediment
manipulation will be run with five replicates. Control sediment will be sediment from the
area where the organisms were collected (i.e. native sediment) will also be tested with
round of tests. In addition, for the carbon, PBO, carboxyl esterase tests, control sediment
will be spiked with similar concentrations of each respective treatment to evaluate the
potential effect of the TIE manipulation alone.
Test organisms will be exposed to the sediment for ten days in 1 -liter glass test chambers.
Two centimeters of sediment (approximately 150 mL) will be placed into each chamber
with 800 mL of overlying water. Initial stocking densities in each replicate will be 20
organisms per test chamber. Trickle -flow aeration will be provided through glass or
plastic pipettes, in such a way as to avoid disturbing the sediment surface. Water quality
measurements will be taken in one chamber from each test treatment daily and will
include pH, salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. At test termination, the
sediments from each chamber will be carefully sieved to remove the test organisms and
then survivorship will be assessed. To evaluate the relative sensitivity of the organisms,
reference toxicity tests will be performed using standard reference toxicants (Lee 1980).
For pore -water exposures, a 10 -d liquid -phase test will be performed following a
modified testing protocol (Weston Solutions 2006). Tests will be conducted with either
15 -ml, test volume in a 20 -ml, glass scintillation vial or 150 mL volume in a 250 glass
beaker. This will be determined by the extractable volume of pore water available. If the
test is conducted in 15 -ml, test volume, one animal will be placed in each replicate and
the test will be conducted with 10 replicates. If the test is conducted in 150 -mL test
volume, ten amphipods will be placed in each replicate and the test will be conducted
with five replicates. Amphipods will be fed prior to testing to prevent starvation and test
will be conducted in the dark to prevent "burial' behaviors during the test. At the end of
the 10 -day exposure, survivorship will be assessed.
All test results and ancillary data will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Comparisons
will be made between the test treatments and untreated sediment.
The final report will include the signed chain -of- custody forms, condition of samples
upon receipt, a summary of methods used and any deviations from the protocols, all raw
data, mean toxicity data, mean control response, reference - toxicant response, and a
summary of water quality data. Both electronic (Microsoft Excel) and hardcopy versions
of the report will be provided.\
Meeting with SCCWRP: As a first step in this process, Weston will coordinate a
meeting with the Southern California Coastal Water Resources Program ( SCCWRP) to
discuss sediment toxicity in Newport Bay. Amphipod toxicity observed in Newport Bay
sediment during these surveys was greater than that observed during the dredged- material
programs. We will meet with SCCWRP scientists to discuss the reasons for these
differences and implications of their findings to the City of Newport Beach.
�3
Cost Proposal
This section outlines the estimated costs for conducting the TIE study described in the
section above.
Summary of Proposed Cost Summary by Task
Task Name and Number
Cost for Task
1. Sediment Sampling and Sample Processing (if
combined with Hg study)
$4,500
2. Chemical Analysis of baseline samples
$3,000
3. TIE Testing
$28,000
4. Data Entry/Data Analysis, Reporting,
Management
$14,700
5. Pretest meeting with SCCWRP to discuss
toxicity in Newport Bay; review of Bight data
$4,000
The total cost for this program would be $54,200.
References
Anderson, BS, B Phillips, J Hunt, S Clark, J Voorhees, R Tjeerdema, J Casteline, and M.
Stewart. 2006. Evidence of sediment toxicity due to pyrethoid pesticides at two marine
sites in southern California. Presentation at 27`h Annual Meeting of the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Montreal, Canada.
MEC. 2003.
SCCWRP. 2005. Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation for the Mouths of Chollas
and Paleta Creek, San Diego. Technical Report prepared by the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Weston, D, RW Holmes, J You, and MJ Lydy. 2005. Aquatic Toxicity Due to
Residential Use of Pyrethroid Insecticides. Env. Sci. Tech. 39: 9778 -9784.
Weston Solutions. 2006. Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) of County of San
Diego and Co- permittees Cholas Creek Stormwater Sample. Prepared for County of San
Diego and Copermittees. Prepared by Weston Solutions, Carlsbad, CA.
Weston Solutions. 2006, in prep. Supplemental Sampling and Tier III and IV Analysis
for the Los Angeles River Estuary (LARE).
zy
Weston Solutions. 2005. Wheelock, CE, JL Miller, MJ Miller, BM Phillips, SA
Huntley, SJ Gee, RS Tjeerdema, BD Hammock. 2006. Use of Carboxylesterase Activity
to Remove Pyrethroid- Associated Toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia and Hyalella azteca in
Toxicity Identification Evaluations.
-�-5
City of Newport Beach
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2006 -07
EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates
X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND
Transfer Budget Appropriations
SOURCE:
from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
PX from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
NO. BA- 07BA -079
AMOUNT: $104,200.00
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
To increase expenditure appropriations to approve amendment no.1 to the professional services agreement with Weston
Solutions Inc. to provide analytical services for resolution of dredging permit issues.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE
Fund Account Description
010 3605 General Fund - Fund Balance
REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund /Division Account Description
9230 6000 NO Tide & Submerged Land - Transfers In
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Division Number
Account Number
Division Number
Account Number
Division Number
Account Number
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Approval: Administrative Services Director
Administrative Approval: City Manager
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit Credit
$104,200.00
$104,200.00
Automatic
$104,200.00
$104,200.00
Date
Date
Date
Description
Division
Number
9010
ND General Fund
Account
Number
9900
Transfers Out
Division
Number
7231
Tidelands - Capital
Account
Number
C2370721
Maintenance Dredging Permit
Division Number
Account Number
Division Number
Account Number
Division Number
Account Number
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Approval: Administrative Services Director
Administrative Approval: City Manager
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit Credit
$104,200.00
$104,200.00
Automatic
$104,200.00
$104,200.00
Date
Date
Date