Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Refuge Resources Water quality in Anaheim Bay is also influenced by past and present activities within the watershed. Throughout the Santa Ana River Basin, urban development, streambed alteration, and the removal of native vegetation from the floodways and floodplains have impacted water quality within the primary drainage channels, as well as within downstream bays and estuaries. Two major control channels, the Bolsa Chica channel and the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg channel, drain into the Anaheim Bay/Huntington Harbour Complex. Water quality in Anaheim Bay is affected by the storm water and urban runoff carried downstream within these two major flood control channels. It is also affected by boats and boating related activities, atmospheric deposition, agricultural runoff, and the loss of historical inputs (County of Orange 2000). In 1989, the California State Legislature established the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program. This program has four major goals: 1) protect present and future beneficial uses of the bays and estuarine waters of California; 2) identify and characterize toxic hot spots; 3) plan for toxic hot spot cleanup or other remedial or mitigation actions; and 4) develop prevention and control strategies for toxic pollutants that will prevent creation of new toxic hot spots or the perpetuation of existing ones within the bays and estuaries of the State. The Regional Toxic Hot Spot Cleanup Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Santa Ana RWQCB 1998), which provides direction for the remediation or prevention of toxic hot spots in the Santa Ana Region, identifies portions of Anaheim Bay as candidate toxic hot spots for sediment toxicity. This cleanup plan defines toxic hot spots as areas in enclosed bays, estuaries, or adjacent waters where the contamination affects the interests of the state and where hazardous substances have accumulated in the water or sediment to levels which 1) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to aquatic life, wildlife, fisheries or human health; 2) adversely affect the beneficial uses of bay, estuary or ocean waters as defined in water quality control plans; or 3) exceed adopted water quality or sediment quality objectives (Santa Ana RWQCB 1998). The candidate toxic hot spots in Anaheim Bay include four sites within the Refuge and an additional site that is located within NWSSB. Specific information regarding each of these sites is provided in Table 4-2. Toxic hot spots are ranked based on the degree to which they impact human health and aquatic life; how often established water quality objectives are exceeded; and the likelihood that the site could improve without intervention. A work plan for cleanup of these problem areas is partly implemented through the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program (mandated under California Water Code Sections 13390-13396). In addition, Anaheim Bay (inland of Pacific Coast Highway) and Huntington Harbour are both designated as no discharge areas for vessel sanitary wastes. Pump out facilities are in place throughout Huntington Harbour to facilitate compliance (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995). The County of Orange’s general stormwater permit also requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and other measures in the watershed to control the introduction of pollutants into the watershed to the maximum extent practicable. Water quality issues in and around Anaheim Bay are addressed in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB or Regional Board) are responsible for the protection and, where possible, the enhancement of the quality of the waters within the Santa Ana River Basin, including Anaheim Bay and Huntington Harbour. The Basin Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, which forms the basis for the Regional Board’s regulatory programs, establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality which must be met and maintained to protect those uses. In order to evaluate whether water quality is adequate in a specific location, the Basin Plan identifies specific thresholds for designated Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment 4-23
Chapter 4 “beneficial uses.” The following beneficial uses are identified in the Basin Plan for Anaheim Bay: contact and non-contact recreation; navigation; biological habitat of special significance; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened or endangered species habitat; fish spawning; and marine habitat. Table 4-2 Candidate Toxic Hot Spots in and around Anaheim Bay Water Body Segment Site Identification Reason for Constituents of Name (Latitude/Longitude) Listing Concern (Pollutants Present) Anaheim Bay Naval 33,44,12N/118,05,31 Sediment Chlordane, DDE Reserve W toxicity Seal Beach Navy Marsh 33,43,88N/118,04,72 Sediment DDE NWR W toxicity Seal Beach Bolsa 33,44,65N/118,04,66 Sediment Arsenic NWR Avenue W toxicity Seal Beach Middle 33,44,44N/118,04,40 Sediment Arsenic NWR Reach W toxicity Seal Beach Left Reach 33,44,26N/118,05,18 Sediment Unknown NWR W toxicity Huntington Upper Reach 33,42,80N/118,03,67 Sediment Chlordane, DDE, Harbour W toxicity Chlorpyrifos Source: (Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 1998) The Basin Plan also includes an implementation plan that describes the actions that are necessary to achieve and maintain specific water quality objectives (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995). The Basin Plan’s (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995) water quality objectives for Anaheim Bay and the other enclosed bays and estuaries within the Santa Ana River Basin address algal growth, total coliform, residual chlorine, color, floatables, oil and grease, dissolved oxygen, pH, radioactivity, suspended and settleable solids, sulfides, surfactants, taste and order, temperature, toxic substances, and turbidity. The 1995 Basin Plan identifies Anaheim Bay as a known toxic hot spot for cadmium, copper, lead, and chromium and a potential toxic hot spot for aldrin, chlordane, lindane chlorbenside, PCBs, DDT, chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, heptachlorepoxide, and hexachlorbenzene. Section 305(b) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires the State of California to prepare and submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a report on the status of the state's ambient water quality. This report includes regional water quality assessments (WQA) for the various water bodies within the state. The WQA lists the water bodies that are assessed, the pollutants of concern, and the potential pollutant sources. Water bodies identified in the 305(b) report as not supporting one or more beneficial uses are considered "impaired" and are then placed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Once included on the 303(d) list, the Clean Water Act requires that total maximum daily loads (TMDL) be developed to address the parameters responsible for impairment. In 1991, Anaheim Bay was listed as a Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired Water Body for toxic metals and pesticides, while the adjoining Huntington Harbour was listed for bacteria, toxic metals, and sedimentation (California Water Boards 2007). The listing was based on California’s statewide Mussel Watch data collected prior to 1991. The Mussel Watch program, which is implemented to detect and evaluate the occurrence of toxic substances in marine waters, identified levels of lead, cadmium, selenium, DDT, chlorobenzenes, and lindane above elevated data levels 4-24 Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
Page 1 and 2:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Seal
Page 3 and 4:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seal B
Page 5 and 6:
Abstract The issues addressed in t
Page 7 and 8:
Reader’s Guide Appendix A, Compa
Page 9 and 10:
Table of Contents 2.8 Alternative
Page 11 and 12:
Table of Contents 4.3.4.1 Birds ..
Page 13 and 14:
Table of Contents 5.4.2 Alternativ
Page 15 and 16:
Table of Contents ─────
Page 17 and 18:
Table of Contents ─────
Page 19 and 20:
Ventura County Hopper Mt. NWR P a c
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 1 The development of this
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter 1 document, or administrat
Page 25 and 26:
Chapter 1 e) The use is consistent
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 1 area now meets the defin
Page 29 and 30:
Chapter 1 Additional ecosystem pla
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 1 Goal 2: Protect, manage,
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 1-3. Artist’s Rendition of
Page 35 and 36:
Chapter 2 recovery, and wildlife-d
Page 37 and 38:
Chapter 2 2.5 Management Concerns/
Page 39 and 40:
Chapter 2 Refuge Access The Refuge
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 2 approved CCP will be imp
Page 43 and 44:
San Gabriel River California Nevada
Page 45 and 46:
Chapter 3 implementation of the fo
Page 47 and 48:
Chapter 3 activities at NWSSB are
Page 49 and 50:
Chapter 3 Alternative C a larger p
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 3 3.4.2.2 Features Common
Page 53 and 54:
Pacific Co ast H wy A n a h e i m B
Page 55 and 56: Chapter 3 For the California least
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 3 requires that all pestic
Page 59 and 60: Chapter 3 species habitat; the sea
Page 61 and 62: Chapter 3 Wildlife Photography. Ca
Page 63 and 64: l Bolsa Ave. Seal Beach National Wi
Page 65 and 66: Pacific Co ast H wy A n a h e i m B
Page 67 and 68: Chapter 3 BMPs that further define
Page 69 and 70: Chapter 3 greater than three miles
Page 71 and 72: Chapter 3 6. Increase Efforts to I
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 3 The upland areas to the
Page 75 and 76: Chapter 3 Native American subsiste
Page 77 and 78: Chapter 3 One proposal that would
Page 79 and 80: Chapter 3 clean sand suitable for
Page 81 and 82: Chapter 3 Improve Public Access on
Page 83 and 84: Issue Raised During Scoping Habitat
Page 85 and 86: Figure 4-1. Seal Beach NWR - Site P
Page 87 and 88: Figure 4-2. Historical (1894) Coast
Page 89 and 90: Figure 4-4. Aerial View of Anaheim
Page 91 and 92: Chapter 4 With the exception of th
Page 93 and 94: im Bay California Nevada Seal Beach
Page 95 and 96: Pacific Co ast H wy A n a h e i m B
Page 97 and 98: Chapter 4 The results of studies c
Page 99 and 100: Figure 4-10. Anaheim Bay-Huntington
Page 101 and 102: Figure 4-11. Tidal and Freshwater C
Page 103 and 104: Chapter 4 lead to a breach in the
Page 105: Chapter 4 salinity, and alternatel
Page 109 and 110: Chapter 4 Station Location East of
Page 111 and 112: Chapter 4 address issues related t
Page 113 and 114: Chapter 4 The CALFED Independent S
Page 115 and 116: Chapter 4 Within the South Coast A
Page 117 and 118: Chapter 4 while also preparing a s
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 4 Site Number Table 4-4 Su
Page 121 and 122: Chapter 4 At present, there are ap
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 4 The Shorebird Plan ident
Page 125 and 126: Chapter 4 acres within the Refuge
Page 127 and 128: Chapter 4 roots and rhizomes of th
Page 129 and 130: Chapter 4 following a period of si
Page 131 and 132: Chapter 4 A variety of foraging ha
Page 133 and 134: Chapter 4 Harbor seals (Phoca vitu
Page 135 and 136: Chapter 4 Wandering Skipper. A but
Page 137 and 138: Chapter 4 artificial containers, a
Page 139 and 140: Chapter 4 Mollusk communities in s
Page 141 and 142: Chapter 4 The data collected durin
Page 143 and 144: Chapter 4 sand, in which one to fo
Page 145 and 146: Chapter 4 experienced late rain sh
Page 147 and 148: Chapter 4 stems is pulled over and
Page 149 and 150: Chapter 4 condition that could be
Page 151 and 152: Chapter 4 individuals are also obs
Page 153 and 154: Chapter 4 north as Alaska (Southwe
Page 155 and 156: Chapter 4 The 2008 report encompas
Page 157 and 158:
Chapter 4 Presented in Table 4-12
Page 159 and 160:
Chapter 4 Protection Plan for Nava
Page 161 and 162:
Chapter 4 mobile early occupants.
Page 163 and 164:
Chapter 4 German immigrants from S
Page 165 and 166:
Chapter 4 date for sites located t
Page 167 and 168:
Chapter 4 ability for the public t
Page 169 and 170:
Figure 4-16. Land Use in the Vicini
Page 171 and 172:
Chapter 4 City of Seal Beach excee
Page 173 and 174:
Chapter 4 Table 4-15 Economic/Empl
Page 175 and 176:
Chapter 4 household income in 1999
Page 177 and 178:
Chapter 5 Hydrology - An adverse
Page 179 and 180:
Chapter 5 liquefaction, settlement
Page 181 and 182:
Chapter 5 Surflan AS, with the act
Page 183 and 184:
Chapter 5 sea level rise in the ge
Page 185 and 186:
Chapter 5 per week. The sum of the
Page 187 and 188:
Chapter 5 contaminants related to
Page 189 and 190:
Chapter 5 erosion at the project s
Page 191 and 192:
Chapter 5 would ensure that no sig
Page 193 and 194:
Chapter 5 Spray applications will
Page 195 and 196:
Chapter 5 The USEPA (2008b) descri
Page 197 and 198:
Chapter 5 Measures shall be imple
Page 199 and 200:
Chapter 5 Equipment will be calib
Page 201 and 202:
Chapter 5 Refuge. Removal of concr
Page 203 and 204:
Chapter 5 Public Use Expanding the
Page 205 and 206:
Chapter 5 GHG emissions. Therefore
Page 207 and 208:
Chapter 5 restoration/creation usi
Page 209 and 210:
Chapter 5 Replacement of the exist
Page 211 and 212:
Chapter 5 5.3.3 Alternative C (Pro
Page 213 and 214:
Chapter 5 An action would result
Page 215 and 216:
Chapter 5 conducted once a month,
Page 217 and 218:
Chapter 5 Methoprene applied at le
Page 219 and 220:
Chapter 5 in mammals, methoprene i
Page 221 and 222:
Chapter 5 associated with the appl
Page 223 and 224:
Chapter 5 moderately toxic to fish
Page 225 and 226:
Chapter 5 impacts on nontarget spe
Page 227 and 228:
Chapter 5 alternative as described
Page 229 and 230:
Chapter 5 The removal of the drop
Page 231 and 232:
Chapter 5 established on NASA Isla
Page 233 and 234:
Chapter 5 Pest Management Herbicid
Page 235 and 236:
Chapter 5 Pest Management Implemen
Page 237 and 238:
Chapter 5 Public Use No adverse or
Page 239 and 240:
Chapter 5 Proposals to better unde
Page 241 and 242:
Chapter 5 Pest Management The anal
Page 243 and 244:
Chapter 5 Section 800.5(1) Criteri
Page 245 and 246:
Chapter 5 An archaeological monito
Page 247 and 248:
Chapter 5 included in this section
Page 249 and 250:
Chapter 5 that extends along Bolsa
Page 251 and 252:
Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Economic Impac
Page 253 and 254:
Chapter 5 residents and visitors.
Page 255 and 256:
Chapter 5 5.7.3.5 Effects Related
Page 257 and 258:
Chapter 5 Harmony Cove Residential
Page 259 and 260:
Chapter 5 desalination facility ut
Page 261 and 262:
Chapter 5 abundance of mosquitoes
Page 263 and 264:
Chapter 5 Table 5-5 Summary of Pot
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Chapter 6 6.2 Refuge Goals, Object
Page 271 and 272:
Chapter 6 Objective 1.1 - Californ
Page 273 and 274:
Chapter 6 affecting reestablishmen
Page 275 and 276:
Chapter 6 Objective 1.6 - Protect
Page 277 and 278:
Chapter 6 Objective 2.3 - Control
Page 279 and 280:
Chapter 6 Objective 2.6 - Restore
Page 281 and 282:
Chapter 6 for migratory birds thro
Page 283 and 284:
Chapter 6 Alternative A B C
Page 285 and 286:
Chapter 6 Goal 4: Further strength
Page 287 and 288:
Chapter 6 public outreach at on- a
Page 289 and 290:
Chapter 6 describes when and how m
Page 291 and 292:
Chapter 6 Native American Graves P
Page 293 and 294:
Chapter 6 (The Service lands and w
Page 295 and 296:
Chapter 6 Water Quality Conservati
Page 297 and 298:
Chapter 6 CCP, additional staff wi
Page 299 and 300:
Chapter 6 Table 6-3 (continued) Pr
Page 301 and 302:
7 References Cited Anderson, J., F.
Page 303 and 304:
References Cited California State W
Page 305 and 306:
References Cited Extension Toxicolo
Page 307 and 308:
References Cited Kus, B.E. 1990. St
Page 309 and 310:
References Cited National Marine Fi
Page 311 and 312:
References Cited Robinson, W.W. 197
Page 313 and 314:
References Cited Underwood, J. and
Page 315 and 316:
References Cited U.S. Fish and Wild
Page 317:
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
show all

Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?