No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscSediment Deposition Mitigation — Lake Houses at Eagle Cove Geotechnical Report Ies) Applicability: Item 13 — Grade and Fill Permit Item 22 — Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Sediment Sampling Report Prepared by Lloyd *& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical LaboratoryAnalysis by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotchnical Investigation — Geotech Consultants, 2010 and 2011 l'cr C lark Oo,,c. ("itv M' Ri2nton. onIN ; copics must be suhniittcci Lloyd & Associates. Inc. 2C1 0-2 1i Sediment Samphnu RUSUIIi DNIMI -I Sediment Sampling and Analytical Results Barbee Maintenance Dredging Barbee Company, P.O. Box 359 Renton, Washington L SuBmr i'FI) To: USACE/ DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Prepared by: Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 255 Camaloch Dr. Carnano Island, WA 98282 Revised: December 12. 2016 I.Iocd K Associates_ Inc. Pale I of 30 2416-213 Sediment Sumphmw RLSuI{� I)NI%M 1-1 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Site History — Historical Dredging Sediment Sampling Results Summary Suitability for Open Water Disposal 2.0 Sediment Sampling Sample Stations Sampling Equipment Field Sampling Procedure Equipment Decontamination Composite Preparation Chain -of Custody Grain Size Distribution/Field Observations 3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses Sediment Chemical Analyses Total Metals Volatile Organic Compounds Semivolatile Organic Compounds Pesticides and PCBs Petroleum Hydrocarbons Dioxins and Furans 4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary Sediment Chemical Analyses Total Metals Volatile Organic Compounds Semivolatile Organic Compounds Pesticides and PCBs Petroleum Hydrocarbons Dioxins and Furans 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Sediment Sampling Considerations IJrnd K nssoc�ate�. �nr Page 2 of 30 10 I!-?. i Sediment Samhiin.0 RCSLIlk OMNI1 -I Table of Contents (continued) Figures and Tables Figure 1-1: Site Photograph Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations Figure 2-2: Sediment core 071021Barbee/G- Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations Table 2-2: Grain Size Data Table 3-1: Sediment Results / Conventional Parameters Table 3-2: Sediment Results / Total Metals Table 3-3. Sediment Results / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Table 3-4: Sediment Results / Pesticides and PCBs Table 3-5: Sediment Results / Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 3-6. Sediment Results / Dioxins & Furans Table 4-1: QA Summary / Conventional Parameters Table 4-2: QA Summary / Total Metals Table 4-3: QA Summary / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Table 4-4: QA Summary / Pesticides and PCBs Table 4-5: QA Summary / Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 4-6: QA Summary / Dioxins & Furans Attachments Attachment A — Sediment Sampling Logs Attachment B — Grain Size Distribution Attachment C - Laboratory Reports and Quality Control Summary Attachment D — Historical Sampling and Analysis Results Note Attachincnts ('an d submitted 5eparatCk I.kovd & Associates_ he Fige 3 of 30 20 16-2 1i Scdimcn! Sampling RV L11IS DMW -I 1.0 Introduction This report provides results of sediment sampling and chemical testing of sediments in conjunction with proposed Maintenance Dredging. The purposes of this sampling and analysis program are: (1) to chemical collect data regarding the level(s) of contamination that may or may not be present within sediments of the permitted dredge area; and (2) to assess the suitability of dredged materials for open -water disposal. The purpose of the proposed dredging is to maintain navigational and recreational access. As currently permitted, we anticipate approximately 2500 to 2700 CY of material will be dredged in 2017 based on 2016 hydrographic data. Site History — Historical Dredging The project area (see Figure 1-1) has been dredged for many decades. In recent history, the area was dredged in 1994, 1997, 2001/2002 and 2011. The boathouse was constructed in the 1950's, and has been in continuous use. A portion of the Barbee Boathouse Navigational Dredge area was last dredged in 2011, concurrent with boathouse renovation under USACE Permit Reference #NWS-2007-10 19. Figure 1-1: Site Navigational Access Photograph. Photograph looking west toward Nfercer Island showing the current status of the Navigational Access to the Boathouse. The navigational assess "channel " is immediately to the left of the line of piling and boom logs. I.I<,N J K Associatr,. Inc Ptli e 4 of 30 201-21 3 SCdnT1Cf1I Sampling ROe Lilly 1)MMI -1 North of the former Barbee Mill facility (approximately 2000 ft), is Quendall Terminals. Quendall Terminals is a CERCLA (superfund) site managed by EPA. Primary contaminants at this site are creosote residues (PAH compounds) and petroleum hydrocarbons. Barbee Lumber Mill operations occurred north of the May Creek Delta, and south of Quendall Terminals. Lumber mill operations were essentially shut down in 1999. The boathouse area has been periodically dredged since the early I950's to maintain navigational access to the boathouse. There is no record of spills or other discharges impacting sediments in the proposed dredge area although low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected during sampling and chemical analysis in 2008. Sediments in the proposed dredge area arise principally from deposition during severe storm events (high energy) when sediment loadings carried from the May Valley Drainage Basin are substantial. Sediments to be dredged in the future are derived from depositional events that have occurred at the May Creek Delta for many years. The project proponents seek to dredge depositional sediments that have infilled the navigational access to the boathouse. The Barbee Company has secured all permits to dredge the area from the USAGE and is currently updating permits from state and local jurisdictions. As permitted by USACE, our proposal is to dredge the permitted profile approved by USACE. This profile will not reach depths that will encounter sediments that are older than dredging work completed in 2011 or in previous dredging events. In all respects we will not be dredging to depths that at or below 10-12' elevation (MSL, Corps Datum). In 2002 the depth at the western edge of the dredge footprint was approximately 15-20 feet deep, well below proposed dredge profile. In 2005, for example, the water depth at the Eagle Roost (also periodically referred to the Osprey Nest) was approximately 10' (12' El. MSL). Since 2005, there has been over 10' of depositional infill from on going erosional events. While the numbers are not well developed, the volume of material deposited in Lake Washington at the May Creek Delta is at least 25,000 CY (and likely substantially higher). The point is that the project proponents are not dredging older lakebed sediments by any means. We are simply looking at dredging the least amount of depositional material possible to maintain access to the boathouse, boat ramp, and shoreline access for protected recreational uses. The proposed depth profile for dredging will occur within recent infill/deposition. These results are also to be considered a supplement to previous sediment sampling and analysis work conducted in 2007 (reported in 2008) and years prior (see Attachment D Historical Summary Data Summary). Sediment Sampling Results - Summary Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-1) is very limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel 1,1o)d & AssucaM,. Inc Pasc 5 of 30 201(b 2l3 Sedimem Samhlim, RESuhS DMMI -1 range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis). Suitability of Dredged Material for Open Water Disposal All data indicate that detected chemical contamination levels are below all low-level screening criteria, and that the materials are acceptable for disposal at a DMMP open - water disposal site. Llo d K Associates. Inc Page 6 of 30 2010-213 Sediment SampIin- Rc,ulls DMW -1 2.0 Sediment Sampling Sediment sampling at the Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area was conducted on Monday July 4, 2016. Sediment samples were collected, composited and preserved for next day delivery to Analytical Resources, Inc. (Seattle, WA). This section provides a summary of sediment sampling information. Sediment Sampling Logs are provided in Attachment A. Sample Stations Differential GPS was utilized to locate sediment sample stations. Sampling occurred close to proposed locations as moderated by observed field and gusty weather conditions. Sampling locations are summarized in Table 2-1 below. All data was collected using North America Datum (NAD83-Washington North). Lake Elevation at the time of sampling was provided by the USACE at Chittenden Locks. Lake elevation was 20.6 feet (MSL), approximately 1.2 feet below the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL). Table 2-1 Sample Stationing Monday, July 04, 2016 Actual Sampling State Plane (ft) Mudline Proposed Sampling Sample Location Easting Northing Elevation Design EL. Thickness (ft) SED-1 SSE about 39' from Osprey pole 1301394.0 195430.7 18.5 14.5 4.0 SED-2 South of peninsula about 38' 1301509.0 195448.0 19.1 16.0 3.1 SED-3 Adjacent to Boathouse Door 1301612.5 195476.9 13.0 12.0 1.0 Average Thickness (ft) = 2.7 Notes SED-f Moved south nearer to sharp increase in depth SED-3 Boathouse door locked, sampled just outside of boathouse door All elevations are in feet. M5L (USACE Datum) Sampling Equipment Samples SED-1 and SED-2 were collected as drive samples using a gravity corer from University of Washington. Sample recoveries were generally very good fro Sample SED-2(> 70%) as shown in Sediment Sampling Logs provided in Attachment A. However, recovery at SED-1 was poor due to nature of materials sampled. The middle section of the drive met little resistance, and it is believed that we hit a homogeneous loose sandy layer that was lost with extraction of the gravity corer. A repeat drive was conducted with the same results. At no time did it appear that we hit a hard substrate such as might be anticipated in a lake bottom. Because of the consistency of core results (mostly fine to medium sand) all sediments appear to Llovd & Associales- [tic Paae 7 of 30 2010-2 13 Sedirw1iI Sampling RUSLIIIS i)MMI -1 of recent depositional origin. Because of the shallow sampling thickness, SED-3, was collected with a small vanVeeen sampler with 100% recovery. Sediment Sampling Stations are shown in Figure 2-1. 0 -g 20? ,E1 gle'S rest �1SED-t (proposed) — SE / SED-1 (actual} ' L Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations (Proposed and Actual) Field Sampling Procedure Because of the recent substantial deposition (arising from May Creek), sampling was accomplished by walking out to the sampling locations with the exception of the boathouse sample (SED-3) which was collected just outside the boathouse from an adjacent float. Depth to mudline (something of a misnomer, since no mud was encountered) was measured with a weighted line. The 8' gravity corer included a 24" extension with an added drive weight. The sampler was generally easily extracted and raised out of the water. The only problem encountered with sampling recovery occurred at SED-1 where we hit a pocket of low resistance, believed to be homogeneous sandy materials. Sediment cores at SED-1 and SED-2 had low water content when extracted. Once extracted from the lined sampler, the sample core was visually inspected and logged. Core contents from within the dredge profile were retained in individual stainless steel bowls. Mixing of the core contents was with a clean stainless steel spoon. No attempt was made to select layers or otherwise alter the sample contents. Equipment Decontamination Prior to sampling, all sampling equipment was decontaminated by scrubbing with a dilute solution of Alconox, rinsed with tap water, and then followed by two rinses of distilled water. In the field, the samplers were rinsed with lake water and visually inspected prior to moving to the next sampling station. A solvent rinse was not utilized at any time. Composite Preparation Hmd & Assneiates. [tic Page 8 of 30 2O10-21 3 Sejimow Sampling Itc�;ults I)\1Ni1!-I A composite sample was constructed from SED-1, SED-2 and SED-3 sediments. The composite was weighted 45% each of SED- I and SED-2, and 10% of SED-3. It is unlikely that dredging will occur at the boathouse (SED-3) in the near future because recent sediment deposition patterns to the west predominate, and there is currently adequate navigational depth. A pre -cleaned stainless steel bowl and spoon was utilized to composite samples. Portions were well mixed to a homogenous consistency. The composite sample was identified as 07042016/SED-C. Chain -of Custody The laboratory provided chain of custody was utilized to record basic sample information and requested analyses. All samples were labeled, bagged in Ziploc bags, chilled with ice, and delivered to the laboratory the next day under chain of custody. A copy of the Chain of Custody is provided in Attachment C. Grain Size Distribution Logs / Field Observations Sediment Sampling Logs are provided in Attachment A. In general, sediment sampling yielded good recoveries because of the cohesive nature of the sediment in the sampling profile. However, recoveries at SED-1 were marginal as the lower portions of the core were lost during sampler extraction. Grain Size Data is provided in Table 2-2 and graphically presented in Figure 2-2. These sands appear to be relatively recent origin and do not suggest that sediments below the proposed dredge profile were encountered. Sediments from SED-1 and SED-2 were odor free and no apparent sheen was observed in any grab sample although a light stringy sheen was observed in SED-3. A transient "rotten" smell was also noticed in SED-3 The upper few inches of each core was layered with coarse sand and pebbles with the exception of SED-3 which had twigs, leaf litter, and milfoil stringers. Milfoil distribution was extensive throughout shallow waters. However, in those areas of recent sediment deposition, the surface was bare of vegetative growth as observed at SED-1 and SED- 2 Sampling Stations. All samples, as collected, were sandy and gritty to the touch. Table 2-2 Grain Size Distribution Data Sample: 07042016Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: PSEP Methodology Sieve Microns Rep, - i Rep. - 2 Rep. - 3 Average (%) 318" 100 100 100 100 Gravel #4 4,750 83.6 80.9 84.6 83.0 #10 2000 80.1 76.4 80.6 79.0 #18 1000 75.9 72.4 76.6 75.0 Very Coarse Sand 935 500 62.4 59.9 63.4 61.9 Coarse Sand #60 250 24.0 23.6 25.6 24.4 Medium Sand #120 125 5.5 6.0 7.2 6.2 Fine Sand #230 63 2.2 2.9 4.0 3.0 Very Fine Sand 31.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 Sill 15.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 7.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 3.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Clay 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 I_lo.d X AswciaUrs, Inc- Page 9 of 30 Krc PEEP Grain Size Distribution Ta: Triplicate Sample Plat GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY - I I 90 f 70 j 50 40 + _.. 30 I i�--- - r 2c 10000 1000 100 10 1 Partlde DIamew (microns) +07042016BARSEE-C +07042018BARBEE-C jL07042016BARBEE-G ITI ]U IF-] 13 Sediment Sam pIm-, Results DMMI I -I 3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources, Inc., Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. The composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters, and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide low level detection limits for COUs. A rinsate sample was not collected, as recommended by USACE/DMMP. As provided in the Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan, I the sediment samples, as a composite was submitted for chemical analysis for the following parameters: • Conventional Parameters - EPA/PSEP Methods • Semi -Volatile Organics - EPA 8270D GC/MS (8270D SIM to achieve the required screening level for 2,4-Dimethylphenol) • Total Metals - EPA 200.8; (Except as noted).z • Pesticides/PCBS — EPA 8081/8082 GC/ECD • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons — N WTPH-D • Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613E Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction/time to analysis) were acceptable and in compliance with accepted PSEP protocols. Conventional Testing Results Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for Total Solids, Preserved Total Solids, N-Ammonia, Total Sulfides, and Total Organic Carbon. These results are provided in Table 3-1 at the end of this section. Laboratory report forms for this data are provided in Attachment C. Hexavalent Chromium was not detected, reported by ARI as a conventional parameter. Total solids were reported at 80.5% and Total Organic carbon was reported at less than 0.2%. These results are consistent with field observations of well draining sands and gravels with only traces of organic matter. There are no Marine or Fresh water screening levels for conventional parameters. Ammonia levels were detected at 19.6 mg-N/Kg (dry basis), Total Sulfide was reported at 1.8 mg/Kg (dry basis). Draft Barbee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan. (L&AI, 2016) Rutcl tin compounds were nol required for chemieai murk sis_ per l IS:ACEI I.losd & As,ociates- Inc. Pap-e I 1 of 30 2016-21 + Sediment Sxiiplinti RcSuI111)%IN]t!-I Total Metals Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are provided in Table 3-2. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Traces of Arsenic, Cadmium, and silver were detected along with Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc. Mercury was not detected. Antimony was analyzed as a supplemental parameter. All detected and undetected metal concentrations were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.' As requested by USACE, antimony is reported as a supplemental parameter extracted and analyzed by ARL All detected and undetected results were less than low-level Screening Levels for both Marine (SLI) and Fresh Water (SL 1). Semivolatile Organics Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds by GCMS Method 8270D per PSEP protocols. Results are provided in Table 3-3. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Several semivolatile organics were detected, including: PAHs, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The total HPAH concentration was 328 ug/Kg-dry. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg-dry, just above the detection limit. The carcinogenic PAH (cPAH, calculated quantity, as TEQ) was 36.3 ug/Kg-dry. Detected and undetected parameters for all semivolatile organic compounds were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Pesticides and PCBs Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/ECD (Dual Column - Methods 8081A and Method 8082, respectively). Results are provided in Table 3-4. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. As shown in Table 3-4, no pesticides or PCBs were detected above detection limits. All reporting limits for all pesticides and PCB's were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Several supplemental parameters were subsequently analyzed by ARL Results are included in the data set tables, as requested by USACE / DMMP. All detected and undetected results were less than DMMPSLI Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Petroleum Hydrocarbons Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by GC/FID (Method NWTPH-Dx). Results are provided in Table 3-5. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Diesel was detected at 8.3 mg/Kg-dry, and Motor Oil was detected at 39 mg/Kg-dry. As noted in sampling logs, a light stringy oily substance was observed when sampling at Station SED-3. This transient type of sheen is typical of decaying organic matter. There were no visible indications of a petroleum sheen in any grab sample or the composite. All detected and undetected results were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Sediment Quality Guidelines t6r Standard Chemicals of Concern and Crum DMMP L ser's MNi7Ual (current edition) I.lo%d & Associates_ Inc Pagc 12 of 30 2 0 II-21 1 SedimenI SainpIirii KC uLdb i)MMI -1 Dioxins and Furans Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method 1613B. Results are provided in Table 3-6. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents were measured and calculated at 0.65 pg/g-dry (ppt or ug/Kg), substantially below the Marine Screening Level of 4 pg/g-dry (ppt). 1_lo.Nd & Assuci,ues- Inc Page 13 of 30 2010-21 ; Sediment Samplulu, Rc>ult, INNIW1-1 Table 3-1: Sediment Results / Conventional Parameters Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte* MTCA Screening Levels 12) Conventional Parameters Units Result Q RL Method A�') Manne (SL1) Fresh (SL1) Hexavalent Chromium mg/Kg-dry < 0.493 U < 0.493 19 - - - Total Solids Percent 80.75 0.01 - - - - - Preserved Total Solids Percent 74.44 0.01 - - - Total Volatile Solids Percent 1.12 0.01 N-Ammonia mg-N/Kg 19.6 0.98 - - - - Sulfide mg/Kg-dry 1.8 1,28 -- - - Total Organic Carbon Percent 0.182 0.02 - - - - Notes: * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are shown above. 12) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition) Table 3-2: Sediment Results / Total Metals Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Methods: EPA 200.8 (Except as noted)* Results MTCA Screening Levels (2) METALS mg/Kg-dry Q LOQ Method AI'} Marine (SU) Fresh (SL1) Antimony 0.25 U 0.25 150 Arsenic 2.1 0.2 20 57 14 Cadmium 0.081 J 0.115 2 5.1 2.1 Chromium 22.1 0.6 2,000 260 72 Chromium + 6 (see Conventionals) Copper 13.9 0.6 - - 390 400 Lead 4 0.1 250 450 360 Mercury (EPA 7471A) 0.03 U 0.03 2 0.41 0.66 Nickel 28.2 0.6 - - - - 38 Selenium 0.577 J 0.577 - - - 11 Silver 0.023 J 0.231 - - 6.1 0.57 Zinc 48 5 - - 410 3200 Notes: * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) {'} Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg {2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition) I.lovd K Associates_ Inc Page 14 of 30 '(I16-21 ; Sediment Samp]Eng RCe LIIts I)MMI'. I Table 3-3: Sediment Results / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sample: 07042016IBarbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: PSDDA Samivolatiles by SW8270D GCIMS' Extraction Method: SW3546 Results MTCA Screening Levels"' SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ug/K_g-dry Q LOQ Method Al" Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) CHLORINATED ORGANICS 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 110 1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 35 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 31 Hexachlorobutadiene < 9.6 U 9.6 Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 22 beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 0.49 7.2 PAHS Naphthalene < 19 U 19 5000", 2,100 Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 560 Acenapthene 8.7 J 19 500 Ftuorene 8.7 J 19 540 Phenanthrene 40 19 - - 1,500 Anthracene 9.6 J 19 960 2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 50000' 670 1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 50OW" Total LPAW1 67 5,200 Fluoranthene 88 19 - 1,700 Pyrene 66 19 - 2,600 Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c -- 1,300 Chrysene 30 19 c - - 1,400 Benzofluoranthenes 55 38 c 3,200`"' Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 1001" 1,600 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c 600 Dibenz(a,h)anthraoene 19 U 19 c 230 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19 670 Total HPAWj 328 12,000 Total cPAH (calc. w/ TEF) 36.3 Total PAW" 395 17,000 PHTHALATES Dimethylphthalate 9,6 U 9.6 71 Di-n-Butylphthalate 8.7 J 19 1,400 380 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 50 Q 1,300 500 Diethylphthalale < 19 U 19 200 Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 63 Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19 6,200 39 PHENOLS Phenol < 19 U 19 420 120 2-Methylphenol < 9.6 U 9.6 4-Methylphenol < 19 U 19 670 260 24-Dimethylphenol"' < 19.1 U 19.1 Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 400 1,200 MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTIBLES Benzoic Acid <190 U <190 650 2900 Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19 Carbazole < 19 U 19 900 Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19 540 200 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 9.6 28 Notes: ' Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 96168-3240) t' I MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unresincted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug7Kg) I`I Marne and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concem and DMMP Use's Manual t'I Total shown for Naphthalene, 1-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalene t+l Totals shown are for both b and k Benzofluoranthenes Does not include undetected parameters or 1-and 2-methylnaphthalene, estimated (J) parameters at 112 reported 1°I Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenz(a,hlanthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,Benzo(btjfk)fluoranthenes and Benzo(a)anthracene Total does not include undetected parameters. Total PAHs calculated er Table 8.2,3 DMMP User Manual {eI Method B - Soil Ingestion Pathway tyl Initial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re anstyzed 2,4-dimethylphenol via 8270D SIM. Llo d K Associates_ Inc Pace 15 of 30 21)10-2 i ; Swill ciiI SL1Inpli1)2 RL'tiLllkS i NIMI--1 Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: PSDDA Samivolatiles by SW8270D GC1MS' Extraction Method: SW3646 Results MTCA Screening Levels"' SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ug/Kg-dry Q LOQ Method A"' Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) CHLORINATED ORGANICS I,4-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 110 I,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 35 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 31 Hexachlorobutadiene < 9.6 U 9.6 Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 22 beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 1 7.2 PAHs Naphthalene < 19 U 19 5000"' 2,100 Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 - - 560 Acenapthene 8.7 J 19 500 Fiuorene 8.7 J 19 540 Phenanthrene 40 19 1,500 Anthracene 9.6 J 19 - - 960 2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 500011' 670 1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000` , Total Lill 67 5,200 Fluoranthene 88 19 -- 1,700 Pyrene 66 19 - - 2,600 Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c 1,300 Chrysene 30 19 c 1,400 Benzo(bfjlk)fluoranthenes 55 38 c - - 3,200'*' Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 100", 1,600 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c 600 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 U 19 c 230 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19 670 Total HPAH'°' 328 12,000 Total ~ (talc- w1 TEF) 36.3 Total PAH"I 395 17,000 PHTHALATES Dimethyiphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 71 Di-n-Butylphthalate 8.7 J 19 1,400 380 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 60 Q 1,300 500 Diethylphthalate < 19 U 19 200 Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 63 Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19 6,200 39 PHENOLS Phenol < 19 U 19 420 120 2-Methylphenol < 9.6 U 9.6 4-Methylphenol < 19 U 19 670 260 2,4-Dimethylphenol'y' < 19.1 U 19.1 Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 400 1,200 MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTIBLES Benzoic Acid <190 U <190 650 2900 Bei Alcohol < 19 U 19 Carbazole < 19 U 19 900 Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19 540 200 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 9.6 28 Notes: Analytical Resources. Inc (Tukwila. WA 98168-3240) �+ MTCA Sail Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and DMMP Users Manual t'r Total shown for Naphthalene. 1-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalere rnr Totals shown are for both b and k Benzofluaranthenes t°r Does rot include undetected parameters or land 2-methyMaphthalene. estimated (J) parameters at 1f2 reported 'Or Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)arthraosne,. lndeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene,Benzo(b!jfk)fluoranthenes and Benzo(a)anthracene. Total does not include undetected parameters. v Total PAHs calculated er Table 8 23 DMMP User Manual Method B - Soil Ingestion Pathway t'I Initial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re analyzed 2,4-dimethylphenul via B270D SIM. Llo}d c- ASSOCtaWS. Inc Page 16 of 30 2fi16-213 Sediment Samplint Pc: tjIls f)MMI -I Table 3-4: Sediment Results / Pesticides and PCBs Sample: 070420161Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GCIECD - Pesticides !PCBs* Results PESTICIDES & PCBS uglKg-dry Q LOQ/RL Heptachlor < 0.49 U 0.49 Aldrin < 0.49 U 0.49 Dieldrin < 0.98 U 0.98 4,4 '-DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 4,4 '-DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 4,4 '-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 Endrin Ketone < 0.98 U 0.98 trans -Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49 cis -Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49 2,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 2,4'-DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 2,4'-DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 Oxychlordane < 0.98 U 0.98 cis-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98 trans-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98 sum of 2,4'-DDD & 4,4'DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 sum of 2,4'-DDE & 4,4'DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 sum of 2,4'-DDT & 4,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 Total DDT(41") < 0.98 U 0.98 Total Chlorodane(5) < 1.47 U 0.98 Notes_ MTCA Screening Levels(2) Method A"' ug/Kg0) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) -. 1.5 -- -- 9.5 -- - - 1.9 4.9 9 -- -- 16 -- -- 12 -- -- -- 8.5 -- -- 310 -- -- 21 -- -- 100 3000 -- -- -- 2.8 -- Aroclor 1016 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - - Aroclor 1242 < 3,9 U 3.9 - - - - - - Aroclor 1248 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - - Aroclor 1254 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - - Aroclor 1260 < 3,9 U 3.9 - - - - - - Aroclor 1221 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - - Aroclor 1232 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - 130 110 Total Aroclors < 3.9 U - - 1000 130 110 * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) {'} MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg (2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and DMMP User's Manual (current edition) (4) Includes DDE, ODD, DDT (5) Sum of cis & trans chlordane, cis & trans nonachlor, and oxychlorodane 11nd & Associates, Inc. Pasc 17 of 30 2016-? 1 ; Sediment �ampI Results I)MM11-1 Table 3.5: Sediment Results / Petroleum Hydrocarbons Sample: 0704201618a rbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GCIFID - NWTPHD" Resujs MTCA Screening Levels {2) NWTPHD mg/Kg-dry Q _ RL Method A(') Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1 Diesel 8.3 6.3 2000 - - 340 Motor Oil 39 12 2000 - - 3600 Notes: Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual (current edition) I.Imd R Associdtes. Inc. PaLyc 18 of 30 201(,-?I ScdiirmntSXT1I)]in�7RCSuhsDMN1�1-1 Table 3-6: Sediment Results Dioxins / Furans Sample: i0720161BarbeeJC Description: Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B* MTCA Screening Levels(2) Results Method A"' Dioxins 1 Furans (ng1Kg) Q RL ng1KgO) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.0776 BJEMPC 0.970 - - - 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.145 JEMPC 0.970 -- - - 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.0737 BJEMPC 0.970 - - -- 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF < 0.0563 U 0.970 - - - - - - 1, 2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.182 BJEMPC 0.970 - - - - - 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.114 BJEMPC 0.970 - - - - - 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.111 BJ 0.970 -- - -- 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.136 BJEMPC 0.970 -- - -- 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.130 BJEMPC 0,970 - - - - - 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.242 BJEMPC 0.970 - - - - - 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.532 BJEMPC 0.970 - - - - - 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.464 BJ 0.970 - - - - - 1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDE 1.69 0.970 - - - - - 1,2,3,4-7,8,9-HpCDD < 0.101 U 0.970 -- - - - - 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 9.93 B 2.42 - - - - - OCFD 2.62 1.94 - - - - - OCDD 62.9 B 0.970 - - - - - Total TCDF &911 EMPC 0.970 - - - - - Total TCDD 1.52 EMPC 0.970 - - - - - Total PeCDF 1.43 EMPC 1.94 - - - - - - Total PeeDJ 1.06 EMPC 0.970 - - - - - - Total HxCDE' 3.15 EMPC 1.94 - - - - - Total HxCDD 5.46 EMPC 1.94 - - - - - Total HpCDF 4.34 1.94 -- - -- Total HpCDD 21.2 1.94 Total2,3,7,8 Equivalents 0.64 -- 4.0 -- (ND = 0, Including EMPC) Total2,3,7,8 Equivalents 0.65 -- 4.0 -- (ND = 0.5 Including EMPC) Notes: * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ng1Kg or pglg (2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual Hovd & Associates. Inc Page 19 of 30 20 13 Sedi3ncnl Sampkin« Results [AIML -1 4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources, Inc., Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. As described in the previous section, the composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide low level detection limits for 07042016Barbee-C. Quality Assurance for the project included (where applicable): • Matrix Spikes • Matrix Spike Duplicates • Blank Spikes • Certified Standard Reference Material SRM 1944 • Puget Sound Reference SRM. • Laboratory controls Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and PSEP protocols (see Attachment C) Conventional Testing Results The QA review summary for Conventional Parameters is provide in Attachment C / Conventionals. Precision data was acceptable with an RPD less than 4 % (except for Sulfide at less than 17%) for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was acceptable for all parameters, and Standard Reference recoveries were greater than 80%. All Method Blanks were at or below reporting/detection limits. All conventional data reported in Table 3-1 is believed acceptable as reported by ARI. Total Metals Composite Sample 07042016/SED-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are provided in Table 3-2. Hexavalent Chromium was also analyzed and reported by ARi as a conventional parameter. As summarized in Attachment C / Metals. Precision data for metals (except Mercury and Hexavalent Chromium) was with control limits for all matrix spike duplicate data. Spike recoveries ranged from 90.3 to 120% and were deemed acceptable. Laboratory Control Sample Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate I.locd K Associates, Inc Page 20 of 30 010-2 13 Sedimrnl Sampling, Results IWNP -1 data were within acceptable limits. Method Blank spike recoveries were acceptable, although trace quantities of zinc and silver were detected in the method blank. Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met the Advisory Range for all metals. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All metals data presented in Table 3-2 are acceptable as qualified by the laboratory. Semivolatile Organic Compounds Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee/C was analyzed for semivolatile organics by EPA GCMS Method 8270D, following PSDDA protocols. Sample reports and QC reports are provided in Attachment C. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 20% for all parameters. Matrix spike and matrix spike recovery data were acceptable, as well acceptably reproducible. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria. Surrogate recovers were with QC warning limits. Initial instrument calibration for bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthaIate was out of control and appropriately qualified, as Q. Standard Reference (SRM-070716) recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All semivolatile organic data reported in Table 3-4 is deemed acceptable as qualified. Pesticides and PCBs Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/ECD (Dual Column - Methods 8081A and Method 8082, respectively) following PSDDA protocols. As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PCBs were detected at reporting limits. All reporting limits for all pesticides and PCB's were not detected and less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally, all undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use. A detailed quality assurance summary of pesticide and PCB data, respectively is provided in Attachment 3. Surrogate recoveries were acceptable and duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 17% for all pesticide parameters and less that 6% for PCB's. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50%. Spike recoveries were greater than zero for all parameters and within acceptance criteria. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates. Standard Reference recoveries for Laboratory Controls for pesticides and PCBs (SRM PSR) were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blanks results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-5 is deemed acceptable as reported by the laboratory. I.lo�d & Associates. Inc Page 21 of 30 2016-21 , Sedmient Sump Iin<= RC,,Ldls I)NlMt'-I Petroleum Hydrocarbons Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by GC/FID (Method NWTHH-D). Results are provided in Table 3-6. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. Spike recoveries gave acceptable precision, and spike duplicate analyses indicated acceptable accuracy. All data reported in Table 3-6 for petroleum hydrocarbons is acceptable as reported. Dioxins and Furans Analysis was performed using the application specific RTX-Dioxin 2 column, which has a unique isomer separation for the 2378-TCDF, eliminating the need for second column confirmation. Initial calibration and continuing calibration verifications were within method requirements. However, the initial calibration verification fell outside the control limits low for 13Cl2-2,3,7,8-TCDF, 13Cl2-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, and 13Cl2-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF. All other compounds were within control limits. Both extraction and cleanup surrogates had recoveries within control limits, and the method blank contained reportable responses for several compounds. "B" qualifiers were applied to associated results that were less than ten times the levels found in the method blank. The laboratory control sample gave percent recoveries were within control limits. The PSR SRM (SRM-072116) was analyzed as a reference material. Specific results have been flagged "EMPC", indicating a response not meeting all requirements of positive identification. The EMPC values were treated as undetects. I.ln%d & Assomiles_ [tic Page 22 of 30 01 h---I ; ic(]iIII eE1l samphn_ Results I)MMl I -I 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Sediment Sampling Sampling work conducted at the Barbee Navigational - Maintenance Dredging area was informative. Prior to sampling we had anticipated that medium to course sandy materials would be encountered based on previous experience. Portions of the proposed dredge area outside of the boathouse were most recently dredged in 2011 and previously in 2002. Depositional infill sediments, currently within the proposed dredge profile, tend to be finer sediments unsuitable for shallow water fish habitat enhancement along the rockery to the immediate south. Therefore, all dredged materials will be disposed in open water. Core sampling in sandy sediments was marginal at best at SED-1 where recoveries were low at 37.5% Nevertheless. we arrived on site with a number of sampling devices. The gravity corer worked out reasonable well, and the vanVeen sampler worked great for the shallow sample near the boathouse. However, given the poor recoveries at SED-1, a better choice for sample collection might be a vibrocore sampler where a longer continuous core is desirable. Nevertheless, vibrocore samplers have similar limitations in dealing with fine sands, as were encountered at the project site. Based on our experience in sampling conditions encountered, it is not clear that a vibrocore sampler would have worked out better. Because actual proposed dredging depths are relatively shallow and generally less than 10 feet, additional sampling data seems unnecessary although a Z sample could be collected for conformational analyses. At no time will dredging reach former lakebed elevations as dredged in 2002 or 2011. In major part the growth of the May Creek Delta severely limits the steepness of slopes that can be sustained within the project area. There are also financial considerations. The project proponent is not interested dredging to the maximum that may be possible. The purpose is to maintain navigational access, not see how much money can be spent to restore historical lakebed elevations in Lake Washington. Sediment Sampling Results - Summary Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-1) is very limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for Lloyd & Assocwzn. Inc, N2.e 23 of 30 ?I] I6-? I1 Sediment SumplinL, Rc>ults D'ti W'-I all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis). Based on Analytical Testing Data and Screening Level comparisons, sediments to be dredged in 2017 at the project site are suitable for open -water disposal. I.lotd K Associates. Inc f a2e 24 of 30 20I,,-!-I ; SC(IIIt1i111 SIIIIPIInu Rcsults 17 qmt -I Attachment A — Sediment Sampling Logs Ho`d &- Associulcs- Inc Page 25 of is Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Location: About 45' S. of Osprey Nesting Pole SAMPLING SUMMARY State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft) Coordinates: Proposed Actual Easting: 1,301,380 1,301,394 Northing: 195,438 195,431 Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 Depth (D) to Mudline: 2.08 Dredged Profile El. (ft. MSL): 14.5 SED Design Thickness: 4.0 % Recovery: 37.5% SAMPLING EQUIPMENT 2" Gravity corer driven to depth Low recovery attributed to fine to medium sand lost during extraction of corer Second core drive gave same results SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Sediment Type: Fine to medium sand (SP) Density: Compact (very loose middriv( Color: Grev Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel Odor: None Stratification: Fine sand at 15.5 feet Vegetation: None Debris: None Oilv Sheen: None 10ther: INOTESICOMMENTS Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden Locks (206-783-7000) Station moved to avoid milfoil bottom and deeper water than anticipated Density / Consistency estimated by resistance to penetration of sampler. Sediment description based on visual -manual ASTM Method Sample Collected: SED-1 er Sample Location: Sample Date: Sample Time: Sample Type: 07042016SED-1 7/4/2016 1235 Gravity core Sediment Section: DMMU-1 EL D (ft) Lithollogy Description 20.6 Lake Elevation Water is very clear 18.5 1 2.1 1 Q I Mudline Contact SP Fine to medium grained sand I I Scatered gravel at surface 16.0 4.6 1 1 1 Loose material in middle of drive fine sand to bottom with low resistance to penetration. 1 14.5 1 6.1 1 ♦ IDesi4n Dredge Elevation (est) Note: Sediments collected have very little water observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content greater than 75% )an Berta ist/Engineering Geologist #2272 Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Location: SAMPLING SUMMARY State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft) Coordinates: Proposed Actual Easting: 1,301, 509 1,301,509 Northing: 195,448 195,448 Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 Depth (D) to Mudline: 1.5 Dredged Profile El. (ft. MSL): 16.0 SED Thickness: 3.1 % Recovery: 80.0% SAMPLING EQUIPMENT 2" Gravity corer driven to depth Bottom 8" believed to be fine to medium sand Sand lost during extraction of corer Second core drive gave same results SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Sediment Type: SP Density: moderately dense Color: Grey Consistency: fine to medium sand Odor : None Stratification: Coarse grading to fine sand Vegetation: None Debris: None Oilv Sheen: None Other: Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden Locks (206-783-7000) Density / Consistency estimated by resistance to penetration of sampler. Sediment description based on visual -manual AS TM Method Sample Collected: SED-2 Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) eject Manager Sample Location: 07042016SED-2 Sample Date: 7/4/2016 Sample Time: 1115 Sample Type: Gravity core Sediment Section: DMMU-1 EL D (ft) Lithology Description 20.6 Lake Elevation 19.1" 1 1.5 1 Q I Mudline Contact SP Surfce ravel/dense Medium to fine sand 1 16.0 1 4.6 1 1 (Design Dredge Elevation (est) Note: Sediments collected have very little water observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content greater than 75% *I Revised 12/12 to correct tmoraohical error. C'46� Dan Berta Registered Geologist/Engineering Geologist #2272 Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Weather: Sunny and warm Location: Adjacent to Boathouse on west side SAMPLING SUMMARY State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft) Coordinates: Proposed Actual Easting: 1201635 1,301,612 Northi na: 195475 195.477 Lake EL (MSL-ft): Depth (0) to Mudline: Dredged Profile El. (ft. MSL): SED Thickness: % Recovery: SAMPLING EQUIPMENT 2" Van Veen Sampler Penetration about 6" SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Sediment Type: Grab Density: Loose/soup Color: Grey to blackish brown Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel Odor : Slight rotting smell Stratification: None Vegetation: Milfoil Debris: twigs, leaf litter (25) Oily Sheen: None, looks like decaying leaf 1Other: NOTES/COMMENTS Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden Locks (206-783-7000) Boathouse locked no access. Sampled near entry of garage door. Sample collected with a van Veen sampler Sediment description based on visual -manual ASTM Method Sample Collected: SED-3 ael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) PM Sample Location: Sample Date. - Sample Time: Sample Type: Sediment Section: EL D (ftj 20.6 13.0 7.6 -m 07042016SED-3 7/4/2016 0930 Grab DMMU-1 lake Elevation Mudline Contact Leaf litter, stems Milfoil Silty with some coaser sand Desiqn Dredge Elevation (e; Dan Berta Registered Geologist/Engineering Geologist #2272 Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Location: Barbee COMPOSITE SUMMARY SED-1 45% of SED-1 SED-2 45% Of SED-2 SED-3 10% of SED-3 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Sediment Tvr)e:1 Composite Density: Compact, rapidly draining Color: Grey to Black Consistent riff Odor: None Stratification: N/A Vegetation: Minor leaf litter Debris: Oily Sheen: None R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) er Sample Location: 07042016SED-C Sample Date: 714J2016 Composite Time: 1300 Sample Type: Composite Sediment Section: DMMU-1 COMMENTS The majority of material to be dredged arises near SED-1 and SED-2. It is unlikely that more than 1% of all material to be dredged arises at SED-3 near the boathouse. Weighting at 10 % is on the high side and may skew chemical and physical testing data. istered Geologist Revised to 10 I -?1 SCill7lenl SamPlmi RCSLilts I)NIN'll -1 Attachment B — Grain Size Distribution I.1md K Associates, Inc Pate 26 of A Geotechnical Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ARI Job ID: BCW 1 Materials Testing 8& Consulting, Inc. Geotechnic:al Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting .,,, ��.,4 Project: BARBEE DREDGING Date Re elved: July 5, 2016 Project #: BCW 1 Sampled By: sera Client: Analytical Resources, Inc. _ Date Tested: July 21, 2016 Source: 07042016BARBEE-C Tested By: B. Goble, K. O'Connell WC Sampk#- T16-1143 CASE NARRATIVE 1. One sample was submitted for grain size analysis according to Puget Sound Estuary Protocol (PSEP) methodology. 2. The sample was run in a single batch and was nm in triplicate. The triplicate data is reported on the QA summary. 3. Two of the sub samples did not contain the required amount of fines (5-25 grams). A sample could not be resplit to meet the required amount of fines and stay within the capacity of the balance. The samples have been qualified on the QA summary. 4. The data is provided in summary tables and plots. 5. There were no other noted anomalies in this project. All a+n.l fur nd mamas Wed As a n aal pweamm w dke Lbe pubis aed vastNm, NI nepws we mhmaW a dk wnuemlal ywpmyaf Kids. and asam is to puElsexwa of ssaesmrs sadsdum a,.waxs 4on x /p�vSiy asn �d i..1—d pu.iry na "u- aR-1. Reviewed by: Corporate 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 + Pbone (360) 755-1990 • F'aa (360) 755-1980 Regional Offices: Olympia - 360,534.9777 Bellingham - 360.647.6111 Silverdale - 360.699,6787 Tukwila - 206.241,1974 Visit our website; www,rntc-inc,net L-,6+1-,W -i - job: !. - Materials Testing &. Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Special inspection Materiels Testing • finvirownenial Consulting Project: BARBEE DREDGING Client: Anal ical Resources, Inc. Projectll: BCWI - - Date Received: July 5, 2016 Sampled by: Others Date Tested: duly 21, 2016 Tested hy: B. Goble, K. O'Connell Apparent Grain Size Distribution Summary Percent FinerThan indicated Size K3 Sample No. Gravel Verycaaesc Coarse Medium Fine Sand Very Fine Silt Clay Saw Sand Sand Sam Phi Size -3 -2 -1 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sieve Size (microns) 3B" 44 110 S18 #35 ma #120 N2M 31.0 15.6 IS 3.9 2.0 1.0 (4750) (2000) 1 (1000) (500) 1 (250) t1251 (63) 07042016B,kRBFX- 100.0 83.6 80.1 1 75.9 62A 24.0 5.5 1 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 100.0 80.9 76.4 1 72.4 59.9 23.6 6-0 1 2.9 2.2 1.6 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 C 100.0 84.6 80.6 1 76.6 63.4 1 25.6 1 7.2 1 4.0 2.3 1.7 1.3 09 0.7 0.6 hSota to the Tracing: Organic matter was not removed prior to eating, lhucthc vaiues tie cite "apparent" gain size disaibutioa Sec nuutive fordiscussion of the testing z Reviewed by: ;elf Corporate - 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1490 • Fax (360) 755-1980 Regional Dices: Olympia - 360.534.9777 Bellingham - 360.647.6111 Silverdale - 360.698.6797 Tukwila - 206.241.1974 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.ne:t Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering - Special Inspection * Materials Testing - Environmental Consulting Project: BARBEE DREDGING Client: Analytical Resources, Inc_ Project lt: BCW 1 - Date Received: July 5, 2016 Sampled by: Others UWt Tested: hU1 21, 2016 Tested by: & Cable, K. O'Connell Apparent Grain Size Distribution Summary Percent Retained in Each Size Fraction W4 'ill S - L r Sample No. Gravel Very Coarse sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Silt Medium MediumFine Silt Silt Very Fine Silt Clay Total Fines Phi Size a-t -1 too oto 1 1102 2to3 3to4 4to5 5to6 6to7 7to8 8to9 9to 10 a 10 >4 Sieve Size (microns) ' a10 ODW to -is (20W 1000) 16-35 (1000.500) 3540 (500-250) 60-120 (250 125) 120-230 425.62) 62,5-31.0 31.0-15.6 15.6-7.8 7.8-3.9 3.9-2.0 10-1.0 cl_0 <230 (<62) �W*201613ARBEE-(23.6 19-9 4.2 13.6 1 38.3 18.6 3.2 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 2.2 4.1 1 12.5 1 36.3 1 17.6 1 3.1 1 0.7 1 0.6 1 0.2 1 0.5 1 0.3 0.1 0.6 2.9 19.4 4.0 1 13.2 1 37.8 1 18.4 1 3.2 1 1.7 1 0,6 1 0.4 1 0-4 1 0.2 0.1 0.6 4.0 lVeles tense Teethn. Orpoic matter wan om removed prkww tdtin( thus the cepartedvahm me the "appmew' grain size distribudaa See namadve for diatUwamof toe W.Odeg. Reviewed by - Corporate _ 777 Chrysler Drive • Ev rlington, WA 98233 - Phone (360) 755-1990 - Fax (360) 7S5-1980 Regional Offices: Olympia - 360.534.9777 Bellingham - 360.647.61 It Silverdale - 360.698.6797 Tukwila -- 206.241.1974 Visit our website; www.mtc-inc.net Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Special bupoctian • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting Project: BARBEE DREDGING Project it: BM1 Date Received: 7UIV 5, 416 Date Tested: Ayr21, 201 B Client: AnaWkal Resources, Inc. Sampled by: others Tested by: B. Goble, K. CYConnall Relative Standard Deviation, By Phi Sine Sample ID -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 07042016BARBEE-C 100.0 53.6 90.1 75.9 62A 24.0 5,5 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 100.0 90.9 76.4 72.4 59.9 23.6 6.0 2.9 2.2 1.6 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 100.0 R4.6 90.6 76.6 63A 25.6 72 4.0 2.3 L7 13 0.9 0.7 0.6 AVE 100.0 83.0 79.0 75.0 61.9 24A 6.2 3.0 2.2 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6 STDEY 0.0 1.6 1.8 1.8 L5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 96RSD 0.0 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.3 3.5 11,8 24.0 2.0 2.4 5.9 2.9 1 2.4 0.8 The Triplicate Applies To The Following Sampleo Client 1D Date Sampled Date Extracted Dale Complete QA Ratio Data Portig 5.t (95-105) Qualifiers 25.0 7/4/2016 7/7/2016 W20/2016 99.1 SS 2.7 07042016BARREE-C 7/4/2016 7/7/2016 W20/2016 99.7 SS 3.6 7/4/2016 7/7/2016 7/20/2016 100.E 5.1 MTC tat "QA1WLU=ys-10546 Notes to the Teutrl: brpa n tu. ,ras oocieamv d prior in testa - thus the repmied values are the "apparent" gate size dptrindon. See osrram Far dmusaion of the teatvrF 151 151 Reviewed by: KI Is. .in Corporate - 777 Chry9kr Drive • Bnrtingtsa, WA 96233 • Phene (360) 755-1990 • Fix (360) 7SS-190 Regienal QfGceal Olympia - 360-534.9777 Bellingham - 360.647.6111 Silverdale - 360.698.6787 Tukwila - 206.241.1474 Visit our webeite: www_mtc-ine.net Materials Vesting & Consulting, Inc. MT Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection - Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting k,. Project: BARBEE DREDGING Date Received: duly 5, 2016 Project M: BCW I Sampled By: Others Client: Analytical Resources, Inc. Date Tested: July 21, 2016 Source: 07042016BARBEEC Tested By: B. Goble, K. O'Connell -- MTC Sampled: T16-1143 Data Qualifiers PSEP Grain Size Analysis SM -The sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This nomially refers to samples contaminated with an organic product that interferes with the sieving process andlor moisture content, porosity and saturation calculations. SS - The sample did not contain the proportion of "fines" required io perform the pipette portion of the grain size analysis. W - The weight of the sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level required for accurate weighing. F - The samples west frozen prior to particle size determination LV - Due to law sample volume provided, the samples could not be rerun to meet QA requuernents. Reviewed by: Corporate _ 777 Chryder Drive + BuriingWn, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fnx (360) 755.1980 Regional Old: Olympia - 360,534.9777 Bellingham 350.647.6111 Silverdale - 360.698.6787 Tukwila - 206,241,1974 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.neL (sl ,SI KI I.;. UI MW PSEP Grain Size Distribution Triplicate Sample Plot GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY 100 - - - - 90 - 70 -- - 60 50 — 3 - - 40 30 -- - 20 10 10000 1000 100 10 1 PertWe MareeW (microns) --+- 07042016BARBEE-C--0-07042016BARBEE-C -—07042016BARBEE-C Materiais Testing & Consulting, Inc. PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS MTC Job No.:,4TM 1-t62MTC Sample I 11,01 Client Sample No.: b 1 � 10 l l�.�s € < Set Up Date: � '� Sample Description: _� l�wNW S k-5-+ :9A SOLIDS CONTENT Moisture Content Initials: Container No. Tare Weight 31 Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight + Tare C a Test Sample Initials: Container No. Tare Weight 1 Wet Weight + Tare Int. Dry Weight + Tare I -+t , t Calgon Batch oar 32 71IW2016 PIPETTE ANALYSIS Ternp_22 Initials: bir- TIME 12.30.00 Tare ID Tare WtAo Dry Wt & Tare 12.30.20 lut `- 4 12:31:49 t� 12:37:15 I } 12•.58:59 t j S. q-q 14,26:00 � l �a— 1•�41Z ftw 1]15FA Lw PSEP Particle Size Distribution SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Date: �' 4 (' Sieve Set # a Initials:1 Sieve Size Weight Retained Tare 4 10-�1 35 q-j. %-; 60 114L •V261*J 120{a .� 230 io PAN O•Q+�C`{'"�- SALT CORRECTION Date: Initials, Tare W ht Dry We ht + Tare Rev. 001 9/21/13 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS MTC .lob No- t SmmD I TG Sample ID-.ELk-1i�L LChent Sample No.: Set Up Date: Sample Description:APZ SOLIDS CONTENT Moisture Content Initials: Container No. { () Tare Weight t Ll, Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight + rare * -� Test Sample Initials- .a^ Container No. Tare Weight '50- 2 Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight + Fare Calgon Batch #: 3 7119001s PIPETTE ANALYSIS Temp:22 Initials: TIME 12:33:00 Tare ID Tare Wt Dry Wt & Tang 12:33:20 12:34:49 ` � . q ka-o S z 12:40:15 l' - 1,�k i . 5) zrO 13:0119 l ty '-Z � ,►�" 14:29:00 t - V O tv -(o01 1.4840 1115F A PSEP 1?"i;le Size Distribution SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Date_ ( L I Sieve Set* �— Initials. Sieve Size Weight Retained Tare '�-D•IP?iV-) 4 N . �� b 10 18�' 35 lot.0732.3 60 1 U 11 --', IT 120 f 230 t-v3.'r}-'-N PAN b -q5 ?- SALTCORRECTION Date: Initials: 4Tare We' ht We' ht + Tare Rev. 001 9121/13 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS MTC Job No.: Z MTC Sample ID.jjj a1 %,3Clien#Sample No.:D-+()q 7-01 iM r4.-��E � Set Up flats: -4 Sample Description: � "41M tti l Qi iZ . SOLIDS CONTENT Moisture Content Initials: Container No. 11 Tare Weight y } 30 Wet Weight + Tare -Z3 Dry Weight+ Tare - Test Sample Initials; YtI2_ Container No, Tare Weight rzI. ZZSZA Wet Weight+ Tare . Dry Weight + Tare Qt Z Calgon Batch A 32� 7/19=16 PIPETTE ANALYSIS TenW.22 Initials: '�_]� TlMF �j 12.36.00 Tare IQ Tara M Dry Wt & Tare 12.36:20 t t 14 -�-e I. Ssro 12:37A9 ItW3-3 tk 12:43�15 it-tfbbbt13 13-04-59 11 111- 3 (.L-q l 51 `1 b 14:3Z00 "' 3 `[ � i , yQ o I144.. 1. t,LAIC ca ` Ll - 1 l ito 1115F A PSEP Particle Size Distribution SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Date; tl 1 1 Sieve Sett P, Initials: I7 Sieve Size Weight Retained Tare SI --Z 12Iq 18 B I . 35 915.Ci` 60 j4�-3(050 120�.�� 230 SALT CORRECTION Date; - Initials: Tare Weight Tare Rev. 001 9121/13 Cal . 3'��] �•1Z•It,� TaA(W Wk (y) Itk,1. �-s I I. NCO cxu%-b a�{`�-5 s �. g _ o Lloyd & Associates, Inc. �&ZAA 39210 Y-" 92rd Street, 5noqualmie. Washingtor 981165 4?5-745-1357 mllordac.oeiatrs rr�rrfai1 cnm August 10, 2011 SUBMITTAL To: Larry Meckling, Building Official City of Renton. From: Michael Lloyd Subject: Special Inspection-Geotechnical Cugini Boathouse Building Permit #13080077 Dear Mr. Meckling: Attached please find a copy of GEOTECH CONSULTANTS' report of geotechnical Observations during pile Installatio. Installed piles were galvanized W 14X74 H-piles as rquired in approved plans. All piles were driven to refusal/embendment with a vibro-hammer_ Hard copy of report to follow in the mail. If you have any questions regarding this work, please call. Sincerely, LLOYD &. ASSOCIATES, INC. 1tl�'Acll,- R. Michael Lloy 425-785-1357 (cell) Attachments: 201 1-121 Piling Inspection Report (Geotech Consultants) Installation Photographs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 Southeast 92"d Street Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 Attention: R. Michael Lloyd Subject: Geotechnical Design Parameters for Anchor Piles New Cugini Boathouse North of 4011 Wells Avenue North Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Lloyd; 13250 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue. Washington 98005 025) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 January 14, 2010 JN 10004 via email This report presents our geotechnical observations and conclusions related to design of the anchor piles to be installed for the new Cugini boathouse. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for design of the piles to withstand lateral loading conditions. This worts was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-7895 dated December 2, 2009. Based on our discussions with you, the existing boathouse, which is supported on driven timber piles, will be replaced with a floating boathouse. The existing boathouse and its supporting piles will be entirely removed as a part of this work. The new boathouse will be approximately the same size, and will be close to the existing location, possibly a few feet further toward the west. Anchor piles consisting of driven steel pipes will be installed to laterally restrain the boathouse against wind and impact loads. Collars around the piles will allow the boathouse to rise and fall with the approximate 2400t seasonal fluctuation in the level of Lake Washington. Excavation of the lake bottom will likely occur at the eastern, shore side of the boathouse, where the water depth is only a few feet. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The existing boathouse is located on the eastern shore of Lake Washington, just north of the existing residence having an address of 4011 Wells Avenue North. This metal structure is supported over Lake Washington on timber piles. A wood dock also supported on driven timber piles extends over the shallower water along the north side of the boathouse. Neither the boathouse or the dock move with the water level in the lake. To the north of the boathouse is the old Barbee Mill property, which is being redeveloped with detached single-family homes. The storm detention pond for this neighboring development is situated on land immediately north of the dock. At the time of our field explorations on January 7, 2010, the level of Lake Washington was low. Based on review of the Corps of Engineers' website (www.nwd-wc.usace.armY.mil) the elevation of the water surface in Lake Washington typically varies between a maximum of 22 feet in mid- Lloyd & Associates, Inc. JN 10004 January 14, 2010 Page 2 summer and 1.95 to 20 feet in winter, The monitoring stations at Kenmore and the Ballard Locks showed a lake elevation of approximately 20.2 feet and 20.0 feet, respectively on the day of our field explorations. These elevations are based on the Corps of Engineers' datum. Information regarding seasonal and recent lake levels is included as an appendix to this report. The lake bottom is relatively shallow underneath the northern side of the dock, but deepens quickly to the south toward the boathouse. At the boring location, the lake bottom was at a measured depth of approximately 13 inches below the current level of the lake. This would result in a lake bottom elevation of approximately 19 feet at the location of the exploration. Measurements taken by Lloyd and Associates indicate that the current water depth at the western, outboard end of the boathouse is approximately 6 feet. Currently, the water depth at the eastem end of the boathouse is less than 3 feet. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling a single test boring at the approximate location shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The drill rig was set up on the western end of the existing wood dock that is located immediately to the north of the current boathouse, The boring was drilled on .January 7, 2010 using a small track -mounted hollow -stem auger drill. Sampies were taken at approximate 5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split - spoon sampler, which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling process, logged the test boring, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. The Test Boring Log is attached as Plate 3. Depths on the log are measured from the lake bottom at the drilling location. The soil encountered to a depth of approximately 5 to 6 feet below -the lake bottom consisted of very loose, slightly gravelly sand. A piece of chain link fencing became wrapped around the auger within this soil, indicating that this soil may be old fill. We next observed very loose sand that contained lenses of organics and sandy sift. This soil unit, which extended to a depth of approximately 18 feet, is likely old lake sediments. Dense, slightly gravelly, silty sand was then encountered between 18 feet and the bottom of the boring at a depth of 34 feet. The sand soils encountered to a depth of approximately 18 feet were wet in the samples and are probably saturated from the overlying lake. The dense soil beneath was not as wet, but it was not possible to determine if it is saturated. The stratification lines on the log represents the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration location. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary away from the exploration location. The log provides specific subsurface information only at the location tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the boring, the depth of the transition was interpreted. Lloyd & Assoc+ates, Inc. January 14. 2010 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JN 10aD4 Page 3 Large -diameter steel pipe piles appear suitable to support lateral loads from the planned floating boathouse. These piles can be installed using either vibratory or impact hammers. Even though the piles will not be subjected to any appreciable vertical loading, it is still important that they be embedded into dense soils. This is necessary to maximize lateral load resistance and prevent vertical settlement under any axial loads that may be transferred to the pile. To achieve this, we recommend that the piles be embedded at least 15 feet into the dense soil. This would require a pile tip elevation of approximately -15 feet, based on the Corps of Engineer's datum. For rough calculation of the maximum allowable lateral load for a pile, the allowable passive resistance for the very loose soils can be assumed to be provided by an equivalent fluid unit weight of 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This passive resistance acts on 1.5 times the diameter of the pile. The passive resistance is not mobilized into the dense soils further down along the pile. Using this method of calculation, an allowable lateral capacity of 23,000 pounds results for an 18-inch- diameter pile. The pile diameter that will be chosen will likely depend largely on the deflection that will result from lateral loading at the collar. The unsupported length of the pile has the most significant impact on the lateral deflection of a vertical pile under loading. Using the current maximum B-foot water depth at the boathouse, a maximum 10-foot water depth would be present when the lake level rises in summer. We expect that the collar encircling the pile will be 2 to 3 feet above the lake's surface, yielding an unsupported design pile length of approximately 13 feet. In order to assist with pile sizing, we completed an LPile analysis for both an 18-inch and 24-inch diameter steel pile having a pile wall thickness of 0.5 inches. We applied a lateral bad of 11,000 pounds to the pile, which is a preliminary load estimated by B & T Design and Engineering for a single pile. Under this loading, the I -Pile analysis yields a top of pile deflection of approximately 2.8 inches and 1.4 inches for an 18-inch and 24-inch pile, respectively. Considering the potential variability in the upper, looser soils and the potential for repeated loading, it appears that a 24-inch pile would be more appropriate for at least the westem end of the boathouse, where the water depth will be the greatest. LIMITA77ONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Lloyd & Associates, the Cugini Family, and their representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the limited scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied_ The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Lloyd & Associates, Inc. January 14, 2010 JN 10004 Page 4 If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. wAk ° rsTF4�'� NAL Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Principal Attachments; • Vicinity Map • Site Exploration Plan • Boring Log • Appendix - Lake Washington Elevation Data • Appendix - LPile Results MRM: jyb cc: B & T Design and Engineering — Jim Trueblood via email 4r, 'Y 7 MEJMA( ME4(m mw ' 06�' 1)41 RHNIfA AlRrcw� nnAl RFMTVh I Itm I pl M PLA01 ORA 4" J'1 7 7 VT, ?IH Si GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. f j4E45_' VC-1 4915T -1221X 1 FIw POP L- 0My CREEK ITH ST Rn L At I = n V LI em ME (Source; The Thoims Gwde, King County, Washington, IM) VICINITY MAP North of 4011 Wells Avenue North Renton, Washington Job Aob, Diata: Plane: Jan. 2010 10004 1 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. (Source King Counly Assessor. 2004) SITE EXPLORATION PLAN North of 4011 Wells Avenue North Renton, Washington Job No: Date: Plate: 10004 Jan. 2010 1 No Scale 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 33 40 BORING 1 Description Gray, slightly gravelly SAND, fine- to medium -grained, wet, very loose 3 SP I WiR Gray SAND with organics and lenses of sandy silt, fine- to medium -grained, wet, very loa SM111111 tp 3 3 k 5 4 Greenish gray, sligMty gravelly, silty SAND, fine-grained, very moist, loose 3 - beoomes gray, dense to very dense as: 36 5 SM 7. 22 6 46 7 I * Test boring was terminated at 34 feet on January 7, 2010. * Ground surface at boring location was 13 inches below the current water level of Lake Washington, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG North of 4011 Wells Avenue North Renton, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 1nnnn .Ian 7n1n MRM 3 APPENDIX - Lake Washington Elevation Data C,EOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. APPENDIX - Lake Washington Elevation Data GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rivers: Lake Washington Basin - Lake Washington Summary Hydrograph Page 1 of 1 Lake Washington Basin Lake Washington Summary Hydrograph M 19 LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL *. 1 4 21 Ar i 4 1 A- i xr. t f AF 20 1 * LEGEND flaxirriurn Eiev 1 --- — Knimi.sr: Eiev a KvelageEie,, I T1 i 19 Jan Per, near ryr may run ju+ targ aep um Nov vac (SUMMARY HYDROGRAPH 1979-1999) Notes: 1. Summary hydrographs are a family of graphs which shoo, for each day of the calendar year, the maximum, minimum, and average water surface elevation over the period of record. 2. Lake Washington water surface data were collected at eight am each day. 3. The Lake Washington Ship Canal is operated primarily as a navigation facility connecting Puget Sound and Lakes Union and Washington. Project authorization documents state that under normal operation the Lake Washington Ship Canal should be maintained within a 2-foot range between 20.0 feet and 22.0 feel (Corps of Engineers Datum), respectively. The minimum elevation is maintained during the winter months to allow for annual maintenance on docks. wails, etc.. by businesses and lakeside residents, minimize wave and erosion damage during winter storms and provide storage space for high inflow. The storage between 20 and 22 feet is used to augment Lake Washington Ship Canal 'inflows for use in operating the locks, the saltwater return system, the smolt passage flume, and the fish ladder facility. 4. The locks and spillway dam regulate the elevation of Salmon Bay. Lake Union, Lake Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The level of Lake Washington was lowered about S feet by the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, but it is still the second largest natural lake in the state. with a surface area of 22, D8 acres and shoreline of about 91 miles at elevation 22 feel. All Data Provided is Provisional Quesitbiis \ghat cloy ti "Provisional" mean`.' 4# Ae HoLML r Mall ' 1%.W' ii L'w lq'oi'rcd 1'rirn d�fu,i-Ari��-7rInJ Rivers: Lake Washington Basin - Lake Washington Elevation at Kenmore Page 1 of 2 Lake Washington Basin Lake Washington Elevation atKenmore Confidence 0 What does the light mean? Graphical Data 20.40 Lake RzVhin ton - Elevation Ft Kenmore Ga e 20.35 - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • -! E 20-30 - - - - • - - . - - - r - - - - • - - 20.25 T 20.20 jJlf,' 1� � �3� i I`�:' Cb- ICES. 20.15 I 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 01 03 05 07 09 11 1 Dec2009 f L7an2010 1 Lake Washington Et Kenmore i How do [ read the ar4pb—;9 ' o l see a black eat the bott4.m_of the—" h All Data Provided are Provisional Man Jan 11 09:20:07 2010 What does "Provisional" mean? Tabular Data Kenmore FIevation Sun 10Jan 2010 090C 20.1E Sun 10Jar. 2010 1000 20.23 Sun 1CJan 2010 1100 20.1E Sun 14,1a❑ 2b10 1200 20.20 Sun 10Jan 2010 1300 26.21 Sun 10Jan 2010 1400 20.23 Sun 10Jan 2010 1500 20,23 Sun 1CJan 2010 1600 20.24 Sun 10,3an 2010 1' 00 20.23 Rivers: Lake Washington Basin - Lake Washington Ship Canal Elevation at Locks Page l of 2 Lake Washington Basin Lake Washington Ship Canal Elevation at Locka Canfi&nce: 4 What does the light mean? Graphical Data 2 2 . 0 -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - 2 1.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - • - - - - - - - - - - 21.6 . . . . _ . _ . . . . - - - • • - - 21.4 - - - - - - • - - - - • - • - - - - • - • - - • - - - - - - E- - - - - - - - - - L 21.2 - - - • - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - E 21.0 - - - - - - - - - I- - - • - - - - - - • - - - - - • - - - - - - - - • - - • - - N 20.8 - - F. - - - - - • - - - . . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E2 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T- - - - - _ . _ - . . . _ . . . - • - - - - - 20.4 20.220.0 - �} 4 19.8 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 01 C3 05 07 09 11 1 Dec2009 I Sarn2010 1 -- -- -- LRSC Hyd=omet Oaeerved Elev, Lake Nyshington 0800 Ptoject Observed How do l read th_., a graphs? k�a�i'�(t�illons:�5t Wh do ] sce i ck line at the bottom of'tht grapb2 All Data Provided are Provisional Man Jan 11 09:20:19 2010 What does "Provisional" mean? Tabular Data Locks Boathouse O3Dserved Sun 10Jan 2010 09UG Sun JCJan 2010 1000 20.01 Sun 70Jan 201.0 1100 2n.02 Sun 30jan 2010 1200 20.02 Sun 10Jan 201C 1300 2C.07. Sun -Dian 2010 J400 2C-02 Sun 10Jan 2010 1500 20.01 Sun 1DJan 20:1.0 1600 20.00 0 APPENDIX — LPile Results GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 7N10004 case 1.1po LPILE Plus for windows, version 5.0 (5.0.17) Analysis of Individual Piles and Drilled shafts subjected to Lateral Loading using the p-y Method (c) 1985-2005 by EnSoft, Inc. All Rights Reserved This program is licensed to: Marc McGinnis Geotech Consultants, Inc. Path to file locations: C:\Documents and Settings\marcm\My Documents\LPile Results\ Name of input data file: ]N10004 case 1.lpd Name of output file: 3N10004 Case 1.1po Name of plot output file: 3N10004 Case 1.lpp Name of runtime file: 3N10004 Case 1.1pr - Time and Date of Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: January 13, 2010 Time: 15:47:46 --- - - Problem Title ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JN 10004/cugini Boathouse-18 inch vile with 0.5 inch wall thickness 4- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program options ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ units used in Computations - us Customary units, inches, pounds Basic Program options: Analysis Type 1: - computation of Lateral Pile Response using user -specified Constant EI Computation options: - ❑nly internally -generated p- curves used in analysis - Analysis does not use p-y multipliers (individual pile or shaft action only) - Analysis assumes no shear resistance at pile tip - Analysis includes automatic computation of pile -top deflection vs. pile embedment length - No computation of foundation stiffness matrix elements - output pile response for full length of pile - Analysis assumes no soil movements acting on pile - No additional p-y curves to be computed at user -specified depths solution Control Parameters: Page 1 3N10004 Case 1.1po - Number of pile increments - 80 - Maximum number of iterations allowed = 100 - Deflection tolerance for convergence = 1.0000E-05 in - Maximum allowable deflection = 1.0000E+02 in Printing options: - values of pile -head deflection, bending moment, shear force, and soil reaction are printed for full length of pile. - Printing Increment (spacing of output points) = 1 -------------------------- --- -- Pile Structural Properties and Geometry ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pile Length = 480.00 in Depth of ground surface below top of pile = 156.00 in slope angle of ground surface = .00 deg. structural properties of pile defined using 2 points Paint Depth Pile Moment of Pile Modulus of x Diameter Inertia area Elasticity in in in**4 sq.in lbs/Sq.in --1 0.0000 18.00000000 1053.0000 27.5000 30000000. 2 480.0000 18.00000000 1053.0000 27.5000 30000000, -^ soil and Rock Layering Information ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The sail profile is modelled using 2 layers Layer 1 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al., 1974 Distance from top of pile to top of layer = 156.000 in Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer = 300.000 in p-y subgrade modulus k for top of soil layer = 20.000 lbs/in**3 p-y subgrade modulus k for bottom of layer = 20.000 lbs/in**3 Layer 2 is sand, p-y criteria by APT RP-2A, 1987 Distance from top of pile to top of layer - 300.000 in Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer = 480.000 in p-y subgrade modulus k for top of soil layer = 125.000 lbs/in**3 p-y subgrade modulus k for bottom of layer = 125.000 lbs/in**3 (Depth of lowest layer extends .00 in below pile tip) ---------------------, ------------------------------------------------- Effective Unit weight of soil vs. Depth ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Distribution of effective unit weight of soil with depth is defined using 4 points Point Depth x No. in 1 156.00 2 300.00 Eff. Unit weight lbs/in4*3 ---------------- .06400 .06400 Page 2 3 300.00 4 480.00 IN10004 Case 1.1po .07500 .07500 ------------- ------ --- -- -- - shear strength of soils ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Distribution of shear strength parameters with depth defined using 4 points Point Depth x cohesion c Angle of Friction E50 or RQD No. in lbs/in**2 Deg. k_rm % 1 156.000 .00000 25.00 ------ __-__- 2 300.000 .00000 25.00 ------ ------ 3 300.000 .00000 40.00 ------ ------ 4 480.000 .00000 40.00 ------ ------ Notes: (1) Cohesion = uniaxial compressive strength for rock materials. (2) values of E50 are reported for clay strata. (3) Default values will be generated for E50 when input values are 0. (4) RQD and k_rm are reported only for weak rock strata. -___- ______ ___ - ~ Loading Type Static loading criteria was used for computation of p-y curves -^ -^- Pile -head Loading andPile-headFixityConditions _ - Number of loads specified = 1 Load Case Number 1 Pile -head boundary conditions are shear and Moment (BC Type 1) shear force at pile head - 11000.000 lbs Bendin moment at pile head = .000 in-lbs Axial load at pile head - .000 lbs (zero moment at pile head for this load indicates a free -head condition) ------- --- - ------------------------------------------------------------- computed values of Load Distribution and Deflection for Lateral Loading for Load Case Number 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pile-head boundary conditions are shear and Moment (BC Type 1) specified shear force at pile head = 11000.000 lbs Specified moment at pile head = .000 in-lbs Page 3 7N10004 case 1.1po specified axial load at pile head = .000 lbs (zero moment for this load indicates free -head conditions) Depth Deflect. Moment shear slope Total Soil Res X y M V 5 Stress p in 7n lbs-in lbs Rad. lbs/in**2 lbs/in 0.000 --------- 2.790 ----------- -5.4556E-06 -------------------- 11000.0000 - -.0141655 4.6629E-08 0.0000 6.000 2.705 66000.0000 11000.0000 -.0141592 564.1026 0.0000 12.000 2.620 132000. 11000.0000 -.0141404 1128.2051 0.0000 18,000 2.535 198000. 11000.0000 -.0141091 1692.3077 0.0000 24.000 2.450 264000. 11000.0000 -.0140652 2256.4103 0.0000 30.000 2.366 330000. 11000.0000 -.0140088 2820.5128 0.0000 36.000 2.282 396000. 11000,0000 -.0139399 3384.6154 0.0000 42.000 2.199 462000. 11000.0000 -.0138584 3949.7179 0.0000 48.000 2.116 528000. 11000.0000 -.0137644 4512.8205 0.0000 54.000 2.034 594000. 11000.0000 -.0136578 5076.9231 0.0000 60.000 1.952 660000. 11000.0000 -.0135387 5641.0256 0.0000 66.000 1.871 726000. 11000.0000 -.0134071 6205.1282 0.0000 72.000 1.791 792000. 11000.0000 -.0132629 6769.2308 0.0000 78.000 1.712 858000. 11000.0000 -.0131062 7333,3333 0.0000 84.000 1.634 924000. 11000.0000 -.0129370 7897.4359 0.0000 90.000 1.557 990000. 11000.0000 -.0127552 8461.5385 0.0000 96.000 1.481 1056000. 11000.0000 -.0125609 9025.6410 0.0000 102.000 1.406 1122000. 11000.0000 -.0123541 9589.7436 0.0000 108.000 1.333 1188000. 11000.0000 -.0121347 10153.8462 0.0000 114.000 1.260 1254000. 11000.0000 -.0119028 10717.9487 0.0000 120.000 1.190 1320000, 11000.0000 -.0116584 11282.0513 0.0000 126,000 1.121 1386000. 11000-0000 -.0114014 11846.1538 0.0000 132.000 1.053 1452000. 11000.0000 -.0111319 12410.2564 0.0000 13& 000 .986954 1518000. 11000,0000 -.0108498 12974.3590 0.0000 144.000 .922720 1584000. 11000,0000 -.0105552 13539.4615 0.0000 150.000 .860291 1650000. 11000,0000 -.0102481 14102.5641 0.0000 156.000 .799742 1716000. 11000.0000 -.0099285 14666,6667 0.0000 162.000 .741149 1782000. 10867.3224 -.0095963 15230.7692 -44.2259 168.000 .684587 1846408. 10454.1321 -.0092517 15781.2638 -93.5043 174.000 .630129 1907450. 9757,4972 -.0088952 16302.9879 -138.7074 180.000 .577845 1963498. 8809.0977 -.0085276 16782.0328 -177.4258 186.000 .527798 2013159. 7649.5805 -.0081499 17206.4851 -209.4133 192.000 .480045 2055281. 6317.7917 -.0077636 17566.5026 -234.1830 198.000 .434635 2088972. 4858.8994 -.0073700 17854.4637 -252.1144 204.000 .391605 2113588. 3311.4288 -.0069709 18064.8512 -263.7091 210.000 .350984 2128709. 1712.6754 -.0065680 18194.0975 -269.2087 216.000 .312789 2134140. 64.9638 -.0061632 18240.5102 -280.0285 222.000 .277026 2129489. -1619.3523 -.0057583 19200.7604 -281.4103 228.000 .243690 2114707. -3277.3808 -.0053552 19074.4228 -271.2659 234.000 .212763 2090160. -4935.3809 -.0049559 17864.6188 -281,4008 240.000 .184219 2055483. -6638.9258 -.0045622 17568.2299 -286.4475 246.000 .158017 2010493. -8351.5574 -.0041761 17183.7033 -284.4297 252.000 .134106 1955264. -9977.2950 -.0037995 16711.6599 -257.4828 258.000 .112423 1890766. -11437.7717 -.0034342 16160.3910 -229.3428 264.000 .092895 1818011. -12727.7594 -.0030820 15538.5551 -200.6531 270.000 .075439 1738033. -13845,7203 -.0027443 14854,9798 -172.0005 276.000 .059963 1651862. -14793.4577 -.0024224 14118.4813 -143.9120 282.000 .046370 1560511. -15575.7531 -.0021173 13337.7021 -116.8531 288.000 .034556 1464953. -16199.9930 -.0018300 12520.9681 -91.2269 294.000 .024410 1366111. -16675.7919 -.0015611 11676.1644 -67.3728 300.000 .015822 1264844. -17550.2614 -.0013113 10810,6305 -224.1171 306.000 .008675 1155508. -18612.0278 -.0010814 9876.1375 -129.8051 312.000 .002845 1041499. -19135,5832 -.0008728 8901.7046 -44.7134 318.000 -.001798 925881. -19180,9831 -.0006859 7913.5136 29.6134 324.000 -.005386 811329. -18813.8453 -.0005210 6934.4345 92.7325 Page 4 JN10004 Case 1.lpo 330.000 -.008050 700115. -18101.8129 -.0003774 5983.8885 144.6116 336.000 -.009916 594107. -17111.3288 -.0002545 5077.8383 185.5497 342.000 -.011104 494779. -15906.3489 --.0001511 4228.8804 216.1102 348.000 --.011729 403231. -14546.8332 -6.5836E-05 3446.4179 237.0617 354.000 -.011894 320217. -1.3087.6786 2,8671E-06 2736,8975 249.3232 360.000 -.011695 246179. -11577.9687 5.6656E-05 2104.0919 253.9135 366.000 -.011214 181281. -10060.5136 9.7250E-05 1549.4135 251.9049 372.000 -.010528 125453. -8571.6562 .0001264 1072.2443 244.3809 378.000 -.009698 78421.5072 -7141.3136 .0001457 670,2693 232,4000 384.000 -.008779 39756.8253 -5793.2214 .0001570 339.9019 216.9641 390.000 -.007814 8902.8507 -4545.3474 .0001616 76.0927 198.9939 396.000 -.006840 -14787.3439 -3410.4381 .0001610 126.3876 179.3092 402.000 -.005882 -32022.4061 -2396.6638 .0001566 273,6958 158.6155 408.000 -.004961 -43547.3094 -1508.3310 .0001494 372.1992 137,4954 414.000 -.004089 -50122.3785 -746.6294 .0001405 428.3964 116.4052 420.000 -.003275 -52506.8617 -110.3867 .0001308 448.7766 95.6757 426.000 -.002520 -51447.0195 403.1920 .0001209 439.7181 75.5172 432.000 -.001824 -47668.5580 797.8257 .0001115 407.4236 56.0274 438.000 -.001182 -41873.1117 1077.5159 .0001030 357.8898 37.2027 444.000 -.000588 -34738.3676 1245.9824 9.5699E-05 296.9091 18.9528 450.000 -3.39E-05 -26921.3228 1306.1917 8.9843E-05 230.0968 1.1170 456.000 .000490 -19064.0670 1259.9946 8.5476E-05 162.9407 -16.5160 462.000 .000992 -11801.3876 1107.8893 8.2545E-05 100.8666 -34.1857 468.000 .001480 -5769.3950 848.9277 8.0876E-05 49.3111 -52.1348 474.000 .001962 -1614.2550 480.7829 8.0175E-05 13.7971 -70.5801 480.000 .002442 0.0000 0,0000 8.0022E--05 0.0000 -89.6808 output verification: computed forces and moments are within specified convergence limits. output Summary for Load Case No. 1: Pile -head deflection Computed slope at pile head Maximum bending moment Maximum shear force Depth of maximum bending moment Depth of maximum shear force Number of iterations Number of zero deflection points 2.78956014 in _-.01416550 = 2134140. lbs-in _-19180.88314 lbs - 216.00000 in - 318.00000 in 11 = 2 ---- ---------- ----------- ------------------------- summary of Pile -Head Response(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Definition of symbols for Pile -Head Loading Conditions: Type 1 = Shear and Moment, y = pile -head displacment in Type 2 = Shear and Slope, m = Pile -head moment lbs-in Type 3 = shear and Rot. Stiffness, v = Pile -head shear Force lbs Type 4 = Deflection and moment, 5 = Pile -head Slope, radians Type 5 = Deflection and slope, R = Rot. Stiffness of Pile --head in-lbs/rad Load Boundary Boundary Axial Pile -Head maximum maximum Type condition Condition Load Deflection moment shear 1 2 lbs in in-lbs lbs Page 5 10004 case 1.lpa 1 v= 11000. M= 0.000 0.0000 2.7896 2134140.-19180.8831 ------------------ ---------------------- Pile-head Deflection vs. Pile Length ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Boundary condition Type 1, shear and Moment shear = 11000, lbs Moment — 0. in-lbs Axial Load = 0. lbs Pile Pile Head Maximum Maximum Length Deflection Moment Shear in in in-lbs lbs --- -480.000 ------------ 2.78956014 ----------- 2134140. -19180.88314 456.000 2.79288486 2132072. -18459.17426 432.000 2.79440014 2132835. -18359.19249 408.000 2.79376768 2131404. -18676.33585 384.000 2.81797293 2129709. -20081.75230 360.000 2.93523583 2121594. -23461.49858 336.000 3.37521707 2109850. -27577.33455 312.000 5.61683639 2108529. -34711.69306 The analysis ended normally. Page 6 Lateral Deflection vs. Depi Loading Case 1 1 Mi 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 a� 18 20 m 22 a 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 Deflection, in. 1 2 � I I I 1 I I I i,MLE Plus 5.0, (c) 2004 by Ensofr, Inc. P; ) IA "%; Ift f Bending Moment vs. Dept IF., --Loading Case 1 Maximum Moment, kips- 0 1,000 2,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 a� 16 ? 18 20 a 22 ❑ 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 FILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2004 by Ensoft, Inc. 3N10004 case 2.1po LPILE Plus for windows, version 5.0 (5.0.17) Analysis of Individual Piles and Drilled shafts subjected to Lateral Loading using the p-y Method (c) 1985-2005 by Ensoft, Inc. All Rights Reserved This program is licensed to: Marc McGinnis Geotech Consultants, Inc. Path to file locations: C:\Documents and Settings\marcm\My Documents\LPile Results\ Name of input data file: JN10004 Case 2.lpd Name of output file: JN10004 case 2.1po Name of plot output file: JN10004 case 2.lpp Name of runtime file: IN10004 Case 2.lpr - - - - - ---- Time and Date of Analysis Date: January 13, 2010 Time: 15:51:49 -- ---- - ---------- Problem Title ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JN 10004/cugini Boathouse-24 inch pipe with 0.5 inch wall thickness ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program options ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ units used in computations - us Customary units, inches, pounds Basic Program Options: Analysis Type 1: - computation of Lateral Pile Response Using User -specified constant EI Computation options: - onl internally -generated p-y curves used in analysis - Ana ysis does not use p-y multipliers (individual pile or shaft action only) - Analysis assumes no shear resistance at pile tip - Analysis includes automatic computation of pile -top deflection vs. pile embedment length No computation of foundation stiffness matrix elements out ut pile response for full length of pile - Analysis assumes no soil movements acting on pile - No additional p-y curves to be computed at user -specified depths solution control Parameters: Page 1 IN10004 Case 2.1po - Number of pile increments = 80 - Maximum number of iterations allowed = 100 - Deflection tolerance for convergence = 1.0000E-05 in - Maximum allowable deflection = 1.0000E+02 in Printing options: - values of pile -head deflection, bending moment, shear force, and soil reaction are printed for full length of pile. - Printing Increment (spacing of output points) = 1 -^ - -- - - - - -- ---- _ PilestructuralProperties and Geometry Pile Length = 480.00 in Depth of ground surface below top of pile = 156.00 in slope angle of ground surface - .00 deg. structural properties of pile defined using 2 points Point Depth Pile Moment of Pile modulus of X Diameter Inertia Area Elasticity in in in**4 sq.in lbs/sq.in 1 0.0000 24.00000000 2549.0000 36.9000 30000000. 2 480,0000 24.00000000 2549.0000 36.9000 30000000. ----- --- -- --- -- ---- ------------------------ ------ soil and Rock Layering Information ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ the soil profile is modelled using 2 layers Layer 1 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al., 1974 Distance from top of pile to top of layer - 156.000 in Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer = 300.000 in p-y subgrade modulus k for top of soil layer = 20.000 lbs/in**3 p-y subgrade modulus k for bottom of layer - 20.000 lbs/in**3 Layer 2 is sand, p-y criteria by API RP-2A, 1987 Distance from top of pile to top of layer = 300.000 in Distance from top of ppile to bottom of layer = 480.000 in p-y subgrade modulus k for top of soil layer = 1-25.000 lbs/in**3 p-y subgrade modulus k for bottom of layer = 125.000 lbs/in**3 (Depth of lowest layer extends .00 in below pile tip) - -'--- - - - -- Effective unit weight ofsoilvs. Depth Distribution of effective unit weight of soil with depth is defined using 4 points Point Depth x Eff. unit weight No. in lbs/in**3 1 156.00 .06400 2 300.00 .06400 Page 2 3N10004 case 2.1po 3 300.00 .07500 4 480.00 .07500 ------------------- ------ ---- ------r-shear-Strength of Soils ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Distribution of shear strength parameters with depth defined using 4 points point Depth x cohesion c Angle of Friction E50 or RQD No. in lbs/in**2 Deg. k_rm % --1 156.000 _ - .00000 25.00 ------------ 2 300.000 .00000 25.00 ------ ------ 3 300.000 .00000 40.00 ------ ------ 4 480.000 .0000D 40.00 ------ ------ Notes: (1) cohesion = uniaxial compressive strength for rock materials. (2) values of E50 are reported for clay strata. (3) Default values will be generated for E50 when input values are 0. (4) RQD and k_rm are reported only for weak rock strata. __- -- _-- Loading Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ static loading criteria was used for computation of p-y curves -- - -- pile -head Loading and pile -head Fixity conditions Number of loads specified = 1 Load case number 1 Pile -head boundary conditions are shear and Moment (BC Type 1) shear force at pile head = 11000.000 lbs Bendin moment at pile head = .000 in-lbs Axial � oad at pile head = .000 lbs. (zero moment at pile head for this load indicates a free -head condition) - computed values of road Distribution and Deflection for Lateral Loading for Load case Number 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- pile-head boundary conditions are shear and Moment (BC Type 1) Specified shear force at pile head = 110D0.000 lbs specified moment at pile head = .000 in-lbs Page 3 IN10004 case 2.1po specified axial load at pile head = .000 lbs (Zero moment for this load indicates free -head conditions) Depth Deflect. Moment Shear Slope Total Soil Res X y M V S Stress p in in lbs-in lbs Rad, lbs/in**2 - r lbs/in -- 0.000 -- 1.353 9.4332E-07 11000.0000 - -.0064856 4.4409E-09 0.0000 6.000 1.314 66000.0000 11000.0000 -.0064830 310.7101 0.0000 12.000 1.275 132000. 11000.0000 -.0064752 621.4202 0.0000 18.000 1.236 198000. 11000.0000 -.0064623 932.1302 0.0000 24.000 1.197 264000. 11000.0000 -.0064442 1242.8403 0.0000 30.000 1.159 330000. 11000.0000 -.0064209 1553.5504 0.0000 36.000 1.120 396000. 11000.0000 -.0063924 1864,2605 0.0000 42.000 1.082 462000. 11000.0000 -.0063587 2174.9706 0.0000 48.000 1,044 528000. 11000.0000 -.0063199 2485.6807 0.0000 54.000 1.006 594000. 11000.0000 -.0062759 2796.3907 0.0000 60.000 .968809 660000. 11000.0000 -.0062267 3107.1008 0.0000 66.000 .931604 726000. 11000.0000 -.0061723 3417.8109 0.0000 72.000 .894741 792000. 11000.0000 -.0061127 3728.5210 0.0000 78.000 .858251 858000. 11000.0000 -.0060480 4039.2311 0.0000 84.000 .822165 924000. 11000.0000 -.0059781 4349.9412 0.0000 90.000 .786514 990000. 11000.0000 -.0059030 4660.6512 0.0000 96.000 .751329 1056000. 11000.0000 -.0058227 4971.3613 0.0000 102.000 .716641 1122000. 11000.0000 -.0057373 5282.0714 0.0000 108.000 .682481 1188000. 11000,0000 -.0056467 5592.7815 0.0000 114.000 .648881 1254000. 11000.0000 -.0055509 5903.4916 0.0000 120.000 .615871 1320000. 11000.0000 -.0054499 6214.2016 0.0000 126.000 .583482 1386000. 11000.0000 -.0053437 6524.9117 0.0000 132.000 .551746 1452000. 11000.0000 -.0052324 6835.6218 0.0000 138,000 .520693 1518000. 11000.0000 -.0051159 7146.3319 0.0000 144.000 .490355 1584000. 11000.0000 -.0049942 7457.0420 0.0000 150.000 .460763 1650000. 11000.0000 -.0048673 7767.7521 0.0000 156.000 .431948 1716000. 11000.0000 -.0047353 8078.4621 0.0000 162.000 .403940 1782000. 10869.9940 -.0045980 8389.1722 -43.3353 168.000 .376771 1846440. 10474.6494 -.0044557 8692.5379 -88.4462 174.000 .350472 1907696. 9830.8011 -.0043084 8980.9139 -126.1699 180.000 .325071 1964410. 8984.1900 -.0041565 9247.9068 -156.0338 186.000 .300594 2015506. 7975.0193 -.0040004 9488.4554 -180.3564 192.000 .277066 2060110. 6835.4872 -.0038405 9698.4375 -199.4877 198.000 .254508 2097532. 5595.6632 -.0036774 9874.6108 -213.7870 204.000 .232938 2127258. 4283.4411 -.0035116 10014.5519 -223.6204 210.000 .212369 2148933, 2924.5046 -.0033439 10116.5942 -229.3584 216.000 .192812 2162352. 1542.3075 -.0031747 10179.7652 -231.3739 222.000 .174272 2167441. 158.0674 -.0030049 10203.7233 -230.0394 228.000 .156753 2164249. -1209.2252 -.0028349 10188.6948 -225.7248 234.000 .140253 2152930. -2542.7846 -.0026656 10135.4109 -218.7950 240.000 .124767 2133735. -3827.9938 -.0024974 10045.0460 -209.6080 246.000 .110285 2106994. -5052.3548 -.0023310 9919.1570 -198.5123 252.000 .096794 2073107. -6205.4282 -.0021670 9759.6246 -185.8454 258.000 .084280 2032529. -7278,7601 -.0020060 9568.5954 -171.9319 264.000 .072723 1985762. -8265,8009 -.0018483 9348.4275 -157.0817 270.000 .062101 1933340. -9161.8138 -.0016946 9101.6376 -141.5893 276.000 .052388 1875820. -9963.7770 -.0015451 8830.8515 -125,7318 282.000 .043559 1813774. -10670.2787 -.0014004 8538.7565 -109.7688 288.000 .035584 1747777. -11281.4079 -.0012607 8228.0582 -93.9409 294.000 .028431 1678397. -11798.6407 -.0011262 7901.4389 -78.4700 300.000 .022069 1606193. -12951.4660 -.0009974 7561.5206 -305.8051 306.000 .016463 1522980. -14594.1177 -.0008746 7169.7750 -241.7454 312.000 .011573 1431064. -15855.5079 -.0007587 6737.0589 -178.7180 318.000 .007358 1332714. -16749.1702 -.0006503 6274.0539 -119.1694 324.000 .003770 1230074. -17298.3439 -.0005498 5790.8523 -63.8885 Page 4 JN10004 case 2.1po 330.000 .000760 1125133. -17530.3893 -.0004574 5296.8230 -13.4600 336.000 -.001719 1019709. -17475.6330 -.0003732 4800.5126 31.7121 342.000 -.003718 915426. -17166.3418 -.0002973 4309.5766 71.3850 348.000 -.005287 813713. -16635.8138 -.0002295 3830.7389 105.4577 354.000 -.006472 715796. -15917.5823 -.0001695 3369.7739 133.9528 360.000 -.007320 622702. -15044.7285 - 0001170 2931.5110 156.9984 366.000 -.007875 535259. -14049.3033 -7.1530E-05 2519.8559 174.8100 372.000 -.008179 454110. -12961.8547 -3.2716E-05 2137.8273 187.6729 378.000 -.008268 379717. -11811.0590 -3.9952E-09 1787.6052 195.9256 384.000 -.008179 312377. -10623.4528 2.7148E-05 1470.5882 199.9431 390.000 -.007942 252236. -9423.2586 4.9298E-05 1187.4572 200.1216 396.000 -.007587 199298. -8232.2998 6.7012E-05 938.2425 196.8646 402.000 -.007138 153448. -7069.9961 8.0851E-05 722.3920 190.5700 408.000 -.006617 114458. -5953.4297 9.1361E-05 538.8390 181.6188 414.000 -.006042 82006.9442 -4897.4750 9.9069E-05 386.0664 170.3661 420.000 -.005428 55688.6840 -3914.9786 .0001045 262.1672 157.1327 426.000 -.004788 35027.2009 -3016.9813 .0001080 164.8986 142.1997 432.000 -.004132 19484.9087 -2212.9688 .0001102 91.7297 125.8044 438,000 -.003466 8471.5758 -1511.1416 .0001113 39.8819 108.1380 444.000 -.002796 1351.2094 -918.6915 .0001117 6.3611 89.3454 450.000 -.002126 -2552.7224 -442.0729 .0001116 12.0175 69.5275 456.000 -.001457 -3953.6652 -87.2577 .0001113 18.6128 48.7443 462.000 -.000790 -3599.8150 140.0382 .0001111 16.9470 27.0211 468.000 -.000125 -2273.2067 234.1703 .0001108 10.7016 4.3563 474.000 .000540 -789.7714 189.4339 .0001107 3.7180 -19.2684 480,000 .001204 0.0000 0.0000 .0001107 0.0000 -43.8762 output verification: Computed forces and moments are within specified convergence limits. output summary for Load case No. 1: Pile -head deflection = 1.35281736 in computed slope at pile head =-.00648559 maximum bending moment = 2167441. lbs-in maximum shear force --17530.38929 lbs Depth of maximum bendin moment = 222.00000 in Depth of maximum shear ?orce = 330.00000 in Number of iterations = 5 Number of zero deflection points = 2 ------------------------ --- summary of Pile -Head Response(s) -------------------------------------------------------- Definition of symbols for Pile -Head Loading conditions: Type 1 = shear and Moment, y = pile -head displacment in Type 2 = shear and slope, M = Pile -head Moment lbs-in Type 3 = shear and Rot. stiffness, v = Pile -head Shear Force lbs Type 4 = Deflection and Moment, s = Pile -head slope, radians Type 5 = Deflection and Slope, R = Rot. Stiffness of Pile -head in-lbs/rad Load Boundary Boundary Axial Pile -Head Maximum Maximum Type condition condition Load Deflection Moment shear 1 2 lbs in in-lbs lbs ---- ----------- Page 5 3N10004 case 2.1po 1 V= 11000. M= 0.000 0.0000 1.3528 2167441.-17530.3893 -------------------- -------------------- Pile-head Deflection vs. pile Length ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Boundary condition Type 1, shear and Moment shear = 11000. lbs Moment - 0. in-lbs Axial Load = 0. lbs Pile Pile Head Maximum Maximum Length Deflection Moment Shear in in in-lbs lbs 480,000 1.35281736- - T2167441. -17530.38929 456,000 1.35601874 2163462. -16652.94318 432.000 1.35894303 2162819. -17241.25578 409.000 1.37041005 2156423. -18908.92386 384.000 1.41731734 2140625. -21241.71319 360.000 1.54282857 2116627. -23456.23830 336.000 1.88843431 2094347. -25930.98877 312.000 3.15317353 2056524, -29896.00962 The analysis ended normally. Page 6 Lateral Deflection vs. Depi Loading Case 1 Deflection, in. 0.5 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 v 16 .a) 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 XLE Plus 5. 0, (c) 2004 by Ensoit, Inc. f i l e. R %Fly s- d d Le,)I� f r—Loading Case 1 Bending Moment vs. Dept Maximum Moment, kips- 00 1,000 2,000 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 }. 16 ,2 18 20 Q) 22 O 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 LYILE Pbs 5, 0, (c) 2004 by EnsaB, lnc GEOTEC H CONSULTANTS, INC. Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 Southeast 92nd Street Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 Attention: R. Michael Lloyd Subject: Geotechnical Observations During Pile Installation New Cugini Boathouse 40xx Wells Avenue North Renton, Washingl ,,7 Dear Mr. Lloyd: I i-25h Nurihca.t 'rith .5rrk•cf..-Smir 10 13dluvuc, Wasifm_,Io r 9KW5 l4-15f ;' __i6Ih FAX (4-15) 74-S 61 August 9, 2011 JN 10004 via email rml@centurytel.net Geotech Consultants, Inc. provided geotechnical observations and testing services during the installation of the piles that will provide vertical and lateral support for the new Cugini boathouse. The design approved by the City of Renton called for a total of 12 wide -flange beams driven to refusal to carry the new budding ioads. Six piles were located on each of the north and south sides of the new boathouse. A minimum of 15-foot embedment into dense soils was required by the structural engineer to achieve sufficient vertical capacity and lateral bending resistance. Representatives from our firm observed the installation of the piles on July 25 through 27, 2011. Pacific Piling utilized a large vibratory hammer to install the H-piles vertically_ As required by the plan, galvanized W14x74 beams were installed for the boathouse. Through observation of the penetration rate, we were able to verify that all piles were installed to at least 15 feet of embedment Into the dense soils. The pile lengths necessary to reach sufficient embedment increased from east to west, as was expected. Based on our observations, it is our professional opinion that the piles were driven an acceptable manner and reached sufficient embedment into dense soils to support the design loading. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we can be of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Principal MRM: jyb o N O , i A,I e 44kMRt' 4-1 —� —Vol w 07/26/2011 k a] PA x I I I I � 14 I a`■ �. ' •� a all � , r , C TY;.;, .a`, 1 'warr� f,... L .' Al�. �' '� 1. r ����. lik-r 7 . .� � �• 7TT rr, i W- -� to 08/02/2011 ,14 ✓" 0 O N O 00 O IN 2016-? I i 4cdimcnl Sampling Rcsuh� DNINM:-1 Attachment C — Laboratory Reports and QC Forms This attachment includes the following: 1. Chain of Custody — Cooler Report 2. Case Narrative 3. Conventionals 4. Total Solids S. Metals (Includes supplemental Analysis for Antimony (Sb) 6. Semivolatile Organics (Includes supplemental analysis for 2,4-dimethyIphenol) 7. Pesticides 8. PCBs 9. Dioxins / Furans 10. TPH The full data set, as revised by Analytical Resources, is available (1478+ pages) on request. This data set provides the original analyses and requested supplement parameters as recommended by USACE / DMMP. [_lord & :Associates. Inc 1. (hair 0I'Gu�l«�1� Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants August 11, 2015 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 S E 92`*4 Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 RE: Project: Barbee Dredging, 2016-1 Barbee ARI Job No.: BCW1 Dear Mr. Lloyd: Please find enclosed the Chain of Custody record (COC), sample receipt documentation, and the final data package for samples from the project referenced above. Sample receipt and details of these analyses are discussed in the Case Narrative. An electronic copy of this package will remain on file with ARI. Should you have any questions or problems, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. Cheronne Oreiro Project Manager (206) 695-6214 cheronneofdlarilabs.com www_arilabs. cam cc: eFile: BCW1 Enclosures Page 1 of 4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100 a Tukwila WA 98168 • 206-695.6200 + 206-695-6201 fax Chain of Custody Documentation ARI Job 1D: BCW1 esCW i : 00002 Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request ARI Asslgned Number: �l ' Turn -around Requested: Page: , o; Analytical Resources, Incorporated W Analytical Chemists and Consultants 0 Tukwila, South 134h Place, Suite 100 ARI Client Company; Phone: D t%� �esetlt? � Tukkwila, WA 98168 ��_`�� +a 206-695 620{3 206-645-6201 (fax) Clion Contact: /` No. of Cooler www.aritabs.com L_ L L Coders: Temps: �. Client Project Name: Analysis RequaAted Notes/Comments ClientEfoiect � Samplers� � LZ Sample ID Date Time Matrix Nn.Containers k ZZ V3 a Comments/Special Instructions Rallrqui RsoNved isned by. Recened ty: (Sig na4i {Signature) ? is lure) i5ipr5alvel ,s f PrIn N Prinked Narne: Printed Name: Nrned Name: MI CHI 4pzb Date b Qate &Time: bate S Tune: Gate d Time: Urniis of Liability: ARI will perform all requested services In accordance with apprapnate methodology following ARI Standard Operating rarocedures and the AR! Ouahty Assurance Program_ This program meets standards for the industry. The total liability of ARI, its officers, agents, employees, or successors, arising out of or an connection with the requested services, shall not exceed the Invoiced amount for said services. The acceptance by the client of a proposal for services by ARI release ARI from any liaWlify in excess thereof, not withstanding any provision to the contrary in any contract, purchase order or co- signed agreement between ARI and the Client. Sample Retentlon Policy_ All samples submitted to ARI will be appropriately discarded no sooner than 90 days after receipt or SO days after submission of hardeopy data, whichever is longer, unless afternate retention schedules have been established by work -order or contract. Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants ARI Client: COC No(s): _ �1 NA / Assigned ARI Job No: Cv) ` Prelirnlnary Examination Phase. Cooler Receipt Farm Project Name: sj�I/Z4 Delivered by: Fed -Ex UPS Courier nd D vere Other Tracking No: Were intact, property signed and dated custody seals attached to the outside of to cooler? Were custody papers included with the cooler? .......................................................... YES <!5> NO Were custody papers properly filled out (ink, signed, etc.) ............................................ NO Temperature of Cooler(s) CC) (recommended 2.".0 "C for chemistry) T'nne: If cooler temperature is out of coin fiance fill out form 00070F -7~ s- Temp Gun ID#: QO �� Mr b Cooler Accepted by - .- Date: Timer Complete custody forms and attach all shipping documents Log -in Phase: Was a temperature blank included in the cooler?........................................................ YES What kind of packing material was used?... Bubble Wrap 6� Gel Packs 13aggles Foam Black Paper Other. Was sufficient ice used Cd appropriate)?....................................................................... NA 6z� NO Were all bottles sealed in individual plastic bags?............................................................. NO Did all bottles arrive in good condition (unbroken)?........................................................................ NO Were all bottle labels complete and legible? ........................................................_-.................. NO Did the number of containers listed on COC match with the number of containers received? ............... <lr$,> NO Did all bottle labels and tags agree with custody papers?.......................................................... NO Were all bottles used correct for the requested analyses?.............................................................. KE�> NO Do any of the analyses (bottles) require preservation? (attach preservation sheet, excluding VOCs)... 0) YES NO Were all VOC vials free of air bubbles?................................................................ YES NO Was sufflciant amount of sample sent in each bottle?............................................................. NO Date VOC Trip Blank was made at ARI................................................................................ Was Sample Split by ARI : & YES Datelirmw Equipment: Split by: - V_,\ 2 ` S -) 6- Time:-- Samples Logged by Date: "Nofify Protect Manager of discrepancies or concerns " Sample ID on Bottle Sample ID on COG Sample ID on Bottle Sam le ID on COC Additional Notes. Discrepancies, d Resolutlons. Date: smart Air Ems • . Pfabubbles' 2-4 rr-m ! • �# UM Air y r 4 mm @ I* — - - Small->"sm" (<2 mm ) Peabubbles 4 "pb" ( 2 to < 4 mm ) Large 4 "lg" (4 to, 6 min ) tieadspace 4 "he' (> 6 min } 0016F Cooler Receipt Farm Revision 014 12110 7(712016 Re- Barbee Mill Analyses - Cherwm Oreiro Re: Barbee Mill Analyses Cheronne Oreiro Thu 7/7/2016 9:52 AM "o:Mchael Lloyd <mlloydassociates@gmail_com>; Hi Michael, Thank you! This email is good enough for my records. -Cheronne I will be out of the office July 14th thru July 19th. Cheronne Oreiro Project Manager Analytical Resources, Inc. 4611 S 134th Place, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98168 wvww.arlabs, cam Email: cheranneo@aritabs.com ©irect: 206-695-6214 Fax: 206-695-6201 From: Michael Lloyd <mlloydassociates@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 7:20:46 AM To: Cheronne Oreiro Subject: Re: Barbee Mill Analyses You are correct. My error. Do you need an initial or document of change> Hopefully the samples arrived in good shape. M On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Cheronne Oreiro <cheronneo@arilabs.co > wrote: Hi Michael, Your COC is missing NWTPH-Dx and requests TBT. I just want to confirm that you do= need TBT and you dgneed NWTPH-Dx. Thank you, Cheronne I will be out of the office July 14th thru July 19th. Cheronne Oreiro Project Manager Analytical Resources, inc. 4611 S 134th Place, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98168 wv wv. arilabs. com itittps:rloutlook.alrroacanlowar7viewmodel=ReadNessageltem&16emlD=AAh+IkADgSNTNjMWr2LTZhMGEWC,gyisrlylhQC IiLTAwZTJmtVmYMINQzNQBGA 1/2 5 G W 1 = i3 0 � r,- 7,701E Re: Barbee Mil I Analyses - Chertxvte Oreiro Email: cheranneoParilabs.com Direct: - 5-6214 Fax. 206-695-6201 How was your customer experience? Please take our 5 minute Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants This correspondence contains confidential information from Analytical Resources, Inc. (ARO The information contained herein is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) named above, If you are not the intended reclplent any copying, distrtbution, disclosure, or use of the text and/or attached document(s) is strictly prohibited. if you have received this correspondence in error, please notify sender and delete this message from your computer immediately Thank you. ARI L jh j. Inc. Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc, 38210SE 92nd Street 5noqualmle, WA 9ZD65 425.785-1357 blips,/lotbook.af6ce.com/owagvlewmocW=ReaW"sageltem&Mem10=AAMkAdg5NTNjMW12LTZhMGEtNGQyMy1hOGJILTAwZTJmNm1 P4WQzNQBG,k.. 212 _'. (LI�c NarratINC Case Narrative, Data Qualifiers, Control Limits ARI Job ID: BCWI 8CW i : 0000 t ANALYTICAL A& RESOURCES INCORPORATED Case Narrative Client; Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: Barbee Dredging, 2016.1 Barbee ARI Job No.: BCW1 Sample Receipt One sediment sample was received on July 5, 2016 under ARI job BCW 1. The cooler temperature measured by IR thermometer following ARI SOP was 5.8°C. For further details regarding sample receipt, please refer to the Cooler Receipt Form. Semivolatiles by SW8270D The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method recommended holding times. Initial calibrations were within method requirements. The initial calibration verification (ICV) was outside the 20% control limit high for bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate. All detected results associated with this ICV have been flagged with a "Q" qualifier. No further corrective action was taken. The ICV fell outside the 20% control limit low for Carbazole. The ICV was also outside the control limit high for Di-n-butylphthalate, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, and the surrogate pd5-Nitrobenzene. All detected results associated with this ICV have been flagged with a "Q" qualifier. No further corrective action was taken. Internal standard areas were within limits. The surrogate percent recoveries of d5-Nitrobenzene, d14-p-Terphenyl, and 2,4,6- Tribromophenol were outside the control limits high for LC5-070716. All other percent recoveries were within control limits. No corrective action was taken. The surrogate percent recoveries ofdl4-p-Terphenyl and 2,4,6-Tribromophenol were outside the control limits high for sample 07042016BARBEE-C. All other percent recoveries were within control limits. No corrective action was taken. The surrogate percent recoveries of d14-p-Terphcnyl were outside the control limits high for the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate of sample 07042016BARBEE-C. No corrective action is required for matrix QC. Case Narrative BCW I Page 1 of 4 * Clients are responsible for reporting Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material results to EPA. ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED The method blank was clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. CRM143-050 was analyzed as a reference material. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within control limits. Dioxin/Furans by EPAI(13$ The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method recommended holding times. Analysis was performed using the application specific RTX Dioxin 2 column, which has a unique isomer separation for the 2378-TCDF, eliminating the need for second column confirmation. Initial calibration and continuing calibration verifications were within method requirements. The initial calibration verification fell outside the control limits low for 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF, 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, and 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF. All other compounds were within control limits. No corrective action was taken. Both extraction and cleanup surrogates had recoveries within control limits. The method blank contained reportable responses for several compounds. "B" qualifiers were applied to associated results that were less than ten times the levels found in the method blank. No further corrective action was taken. The OPR (Ongoing Precision and Accuracy or LCS) percent recoveries were within control limits. *The PSSRM was analyzed as a reference material. Specific results have been "EMPC"-flagged indicating a response not meeting requirements of positive identification. The EMPC values are treated as undetects under some programs and as hits under programs with more conservative protocols. The TEQ is presented with WHO2005 with ND=O for undetects and ND=112 for undetects, with EMPCs included as hits. Pesticides by SW8081 The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method recommended holding times. Initial calibrations and initial calibration verifications were within method requirements. Case Narrative SC W 1 Page 2 of 4 * Clients are responsible for reporting Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material results to EPA. ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED The continuing calibration verification on 7/14/16 at 2036 was outside the 20% control limit high for 2,4'-DDE on the first column, but was within the control limit on the second column. No corrective action was taken. The internal standard areas were within control limits The surrogate percent recoveries were within control limits. The method blank was clean at the reporting limit. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. NIST 1944 was analyzed as a reference material. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within control limits. PCB Aroclors by SW80 The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method recommended holding times. Initial calibrations were within method requirements. The initial calibration verification on 7115/16 at 17:29 and the continuing calibration verification on 7/15/16 at 23:30 fell outside the 20% control limit low for Aroclor 1260 on the second column, but both verifications were within the control limit on the first column. No corrective action was taken. The internal standard areas were within control limits The surrogate percent recoveries were within control limits. The method blank was clean at the reporting limit. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. The PSSRM * was analyzed as a reference material. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within control lirnits. 1►MILIAYW:e1�9 The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method recommended holding times. Initial calibrations, initial calibration verifications, and continuing calibration verifications were within method requirements. Case Narrative HCW 1 Page 3 of * Clients are responsible for reporting Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material resuhs to EPA. t1C L-V i 000 i ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED The surrogate percent recoveries were within control limits. 'The method blank was clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within control limits. Metals/Mercury bySW6020/7471 The sample and associated laboratory QC were digested and analyzed within the method recommended holding times. The method blanks were clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. ERA D088540 was analyzed as a reference material. The matrix spike percent recoveries and duplicate RPDs were within control limits. General Chemistry Parameters The sample and associated laboratory QC were prepared and analyzed within the method recommended holding times_ The method blanks were clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. The SRM percent recoveries were within limits. The matrix spike percent recovery soluble hexavalent chromium fell outside the control limits low for sample BARBEE-C. A post verification spike was analyzed and the recovery was within matrix spike control limits. No further corrective action was taken. The replicate RPDs were within control limits. Geotechnical Parameters All sample volumes for grain size were subcontracted to Materials Testing and Consulting (MTQ in Tukwila, WA. All subcontracted data have been included in this data package. Case Narrative BC W 1 Page 4 of 4 * Clients are responsible for reporting Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material results to EPA. YTIGAL Sample ID Cross Reference Report �UME59 XWOgPawwTED ARI Job No: BCW1 Client: Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project Event: 2016-1 BARBEE Project Name: BARBEE DREDGING ARI ARI Sample ID Laub ID LIMB ID Matrix Sample Date/Time VTSR 1. 07042016PARBEE-C BCW1A 16-10088 Sediment 07/04/16 13:00 07/05/16 09:27 Printed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 1 6Gwi 000i-21 Analytical Resources, -^JM ncorpor lyticaal l AnaalyticC %1W AChemists and Consultants Data Reporting Qualifiers Effective 12/31/13 Inorganic Data U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration * Duplicate RPD is not within established control limits B Reported value is less than the CRDL but 2: the Reporting Limit N Matrix Spike recovery not within established control limits NA Not Applicable, analyte not spiked H The natural concentration of the spiked element is so much greater than the concentration spiked that an accurate determination of spike recovery is not possible L Analyte concentration is 55 times the Reporting Limit and the replicate control limit defaults to t1 RL instead of the normal 20% RPD Organic Data U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration * Flagged value is not within established control limits B Analyte detected in an associated Method Blank at a concentration greater than one-half of ARI's Reporting Limit or 5% of the regulatory limit or 5% of the analyte concentration in the sample. J Estimated concentration when the value is less than ARI's established reporting limits D The spiked compound was not detected due to sample extract dilution E Estimated concentration calculated for an analyte response above the valid instrument calibration range_ A dilution is required to obtain an accurate quantification of the analyte. Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan Page 1 of 3 Version 14-003 12131113 Ca iqi CAC1-74 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants Q Indicates a detected analyte with an initial or continuing calibration that does not meet established acceptance criteria (<20%RSD, <20%Drift or minimum RR1=). S Indicates an analyte response that has saturated the detector. The calculated concentration is not valid; a dilution is required to obtain valid quantification of the analyte NA The flagged analyte was not analyzed for NR Spiked compound recovery is not reported due to chromatographic interference NS The flagged analyte was not spiked into the sample M Estimated value for an analyte detected and confirmed by an analyst but with low spectral match parameters. This flag is used only for GC -MS analyses N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a "tentative identification" Y The analyte is not detected at or above the reported concentration. The reporting limit is raised due to chromatographic interference. The Y flag is equivalent to the U flag with a raised reporting limit, EMPC Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) defined in EPA Statement of Work DI-M02.2 as a value "calculated for 2,3,7,8-substituted isomers for which the quantitation and /or confirmation ion(s) has signal to noise in excess of 2.5, but does not meet identification criteria" (Dioxln/Furan analysis only) C The analyte was positively identified on only one of two chromatographic columns. Chromatographic interference prevented a positive identification on the second column P The analyte was detected on both chromatographic columns but the quantified values differ by a40% RPD with no obvious chromatographic interference X Analyte signal includes interference from polychlorinated diphenyl ethers. (Dioxln/Furan analysis only) Z Analyte signal includes interference from the sample matrix or perfluorokerosene ions. (Dloxin/Furan analysis only) Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan Page 2 of 3 Version 14-003 12►31113 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants Geotechnical Data A The total of all fines fractions. This flag is used to report total fines when only sieve analysis is requested and balances total grain size with sample weight. F Samples were frozen prior to particle size determination SM Sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This normally refers to samples contaminated with an organic product that interferes with the sieving process and/or moisture content, porosity and saturation calculations SS Sample did not contain the proportion of "fines* required to perform the pipette portion of the grain sire analysis W Weight of sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level required for accurate weighting Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan Page 3 of 3 Version 14-003 12/31/13 Certificate of Analysis Certified Reference Material BNAs - Sandy Loam ,.,VjFIuka- , Anafytical Number CRM143.50G Lot LRAA4754 SoNont (Matrix) Sandy Loarn Soil Huard lrrilanl Storage &Handling Store at 4eC. Expiration Date See Sample Label Certification tare. April 02, 2013 cenitlea By: Christopher Rucinski - QA Director ,a yr� u C&ffi d 1,4 AADop Sim 2 CQ A*nce Pi l va1tw afW /RWW kd*V l 1,2-Dichlorobenzene P09 6250 t 602 1-96 1650 5710 - 6790 2590 - 9910 1,4-Dichkxnbenzene MXg 6340 t 630 1.96 1960 5780.6890 2460 -10200 Hexachkwoethene pg(Kg 5830 t 577 1.96 1810 5280 - 6300 2230 - 9430 Naphthalene pg/Kg 5630 t 448 1.96 1430 5230.6020 28M - 8450 Pyridine pglKg 1320 1320 2.2D .: 374 989 -1660 423 - 2210 Acemphthene pg(Kp 6380 t 404 1:s38 1300 5990 - 6780 3810 - 8980 Acenaphthyiene P—WQ 6320 t 409 1.96 1340 5W - 5710 3660 - 8980 Antiv-dwe WKg 7080 t 394 1.96 1250 6680 - 7480 4590 - 9670 Benzo(a)snthracene pg,IKg 7970 t 470 1.96 1490 7500 - 8430 5M -109M Benzo(a)pyrene pg1Kg 977 181.2 1.96 2% 8% -1 o60 469 - 14M Benzo(b)fluoranthene pglKg 3070 1216 1.96 703 2850 - 3290 1670 - 4460 Benzo(g,hJ)perylene pg/Kg 2710 t 287 1,96 919 2450 - 2980 892 -4530 Benzo(k)fluoranthene pgfKg 3720 t 280 1.96 903 3450 - 3990 1930 - 5510 Butyl benzyl phthalate WKg 5000 t 282 1.96 884 4720 - 5270 3240 - 6760 4-Chbro-3-methylphenol pglKg 9520 t 486 1.96 1500 9040 - 9990 6530 -125W b1s(2-04omthoxy)methane pg/Kg 9260 t 770 1.96 2420 8540 - 9980 4470 -14100 bis(2-Chbroethyl) ether pg/Kg 6770 t SW 1.96 1540 6290 - 7250 3710 - 9830 bis(2-Chlomisopropyl) ether pg/Kg 3250 1233 1.9s 692 3030 - 3480 18M - 4630 4-Chiorophenyl phenylether pg/Kg 1540 t 90.0 1.96 266 1450 -1630 1010 - 2070 Chrysene pg/Kg 1160 179.4 1.96 247 1080 -1240 669 -1e50 Dibenzo(s,h)anthracene pg(Kg 3490 t 330 1.96 1070 3180 - 3790 1370 - 5610 Di-n-butyl phthalate pg(K9 7700 t 478 1.96 1500 7250 - 8150 4730 - 10700 2,4-Dichiorophenol pg/Kg 5820 t 355 1.96 1090 5490 - 6160 3660 - 7990 bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) pg/Kg 8960 t 549 1.96 1670 8420 - 9510 5640 -12300 SIGMA—ALORICHe RTC Page 1 of 3 21;31 Spldler Sprinpa Rd. Lwamie, lMY�n9 exam USA 1 307-742-5452 roet "raup@aaa.com www:Mgma-alddeh.com 5C,i-q "'_ wait i Certificate of Analysis Certified Reference Material Fluka Analytical Am" it is Ca"7X d 1.4 SY8AY*d 2 Con&kvi -- PM A ft7 VMN Ols7riabcn lr7terv81 lnfewa+ Dlethyl phthalate pg(Kg 0450 1558 1.96 1750 7910 - 9u00 4980 -11900 2,4-Dimethy1phenol pgfKg 105W t 737 1.96 2310 9810 -11200 5w - 15100 DimeW phthalate pglKg 7420 t 519 1.96 1610 6910 - 79M 4230-10600 2,4-0initrotoluene (2,4-DNT) pglKg 6390 1420 1.96 1300 5970 - 6800 3810 - 8960 2,6-Dinitrotoluene (2,6-0NT) poKg 2890 t 196 1.96 598 2690 - 3080 1700 - 4080 Fluaran9mm pg/Kq 4160 ± 239 1.96 774 3920 - 4390 2B20 - 5690 Fluorene }tt NO 7950 ± 512 1.96 1640 7440 - 8470 4890 -11200 Hexachlorobenzene PWXO 6100 ± 360 1.96 1110 $750 - 6450 30M - 8300 1 ndeno(1,2,3-od) pyrene W91Kg 1970 ± 188 1.96 595 1780 - 21W 788 - 3150 I sophomw Aft 2250 ± 167 1.96 503 2080 - 2420 1250 - 3250 2-Methyl-4,6-dinKrophenol pglKg 6180 ± 1040 1.96 2980 5300 - 7060 263 -12100 2-Methyinaphthalene pgA<9 7510 f 559 1.96 1730 6960 - 8050 4070 - 10900 4-Methylphenol (p-Cresd) pg1K9 11100 t 1610 2.11 2630 9490 -12700 5310 -16900 2-Nhmphend P09 6930 t 614 1.96 1930 6320 - 7530 3090.10800 4-Nitroowlol p9mg 2630 ± 246 1.96 723 2390 - 2880 1200 - 4070 n-Mmsodiphenylarrine pglKg 4100 ± 316 1.96 914 3770 -4440 2280 - 5990 Phenanthrene PjXg 3290 t 191 1.96 613 3100 - 3470 2070 - 4500 Phenol pgxg 7350 1578 1.96 1810 6790 - 7910 3750 -11000 Pyrene p9mg 56W ± 300 1.96 972 5350 - 5920 3710 - 7560 2,4,6-Ti ichlorophenol pg/ltg 8770 ± 602 1.96 1840 8170 - WW 6120 -12400 Additional Information Description This sample consists of 10g of soil containing baselneutrals and adds in soil. Four samples have been provided for your axwenience (multiple methods, multiple analysts, 81c.) The soil has been chemically stabilized with f mL of acetone to mirimize degradation of the sample. The soil is a Sandy Loam by ASTM dwactedzedon mathads. Sample Preparation oz. qw Page 2 of 3 Certificate of Analysis Certified Reference Material BNAs - sandy Loam Humber CRM143.50G Lot LRAA4754 Solvent (MatrlK) Sandy Loam Soil Hazard Irritant Storage &Handling Store at 40C. Expiration Date See Sample label Certification Date April 02, 2013 wed By:cf26�Christopher Rucinski - QA Director JQV Fluka- Analytical Sample Preparation Extract the complete contents of a single vial. Transfer entire contents of one vial to extraction vessel. Rinse vial and cap With extras o t solvent Note: Sample extracts and calibration aolutions should be In the same solvent Assume a 10g sample size for all calculations. Values given are based on wet weight. f Certified values are the robust statisitical mean when prepared according to instructions from an Intedaboratory Study and internal rigorous testing. 2 The standard deviation is the robust statistical standard deviation from the round robin interlaboratory sludy. 4 Expanded Uncertainty (Ucrm) - All uncertainty values in this document expressed as t value are expanded uncertainties. 5 k Coverage factor derived from a t-distribution table, based on the degrees of freedom of the data set. Canfldemm Intwtval = 95% TRACEABILITY, The standard was manufactured under an ISO 17025 certified quality System. The balance used to weigh raw materials is accurate to t/- 0.0001g and calibrated regularly using mass standards traceable to NIST. All dilutions were preformed gravimetrlcally. Addltlonally, individual analyzes are traceable to NIST SRMs where available and specified above. HOf110GENEFTY ASSESSMENT: Between -battle homogeneity was assessed in accordance with ISO Guide 35- Completed units were sampled over the course of the bottling operalion. Samples were taken in the following manner: the units produced in the bottling operalion were divided Into three chronological groups, those from the Early third, the Middle third, and the Late third (Groups). A pre -determined number of sample units were then randomly selected from each group. A subset of each group was then randomly selected for chemical analysis. The results of the chemical analysis were then cam pared by Single Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). UNCERTAINTY STATEMENT: Uncertafrity values in this document are expressed as Expanded Uncertainty (Ucrm) corresponding to the 95% confidence Interval. Ucrrn is derived from the combined standard uncertainty multiplied by the coverage factor k, which is obtained from a Fdistributlon and degrees of freedom. The oomponents of combined standard uncertainty Include the uncertainties due to characterization, homogeneity, long term stability, and short tens stability (transport). The components due to stability are generally considered to be negligible unless otherwise indicated by stability studies. THIS PRODUCT WAS DESIGNED, PRODUCED AND VERIFIED FOR ACCURACY AND STABILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISO 17025 (AClass Cart AT-1467) and ISO GUIDE 34 (ACIess Cen AR-1470). MSDS reports for oomponerm comprising greater than f Abe of the solution or 0-1 % for components known to be carcOogens are avall*Ie upon request. Manufactured and Certified by Sigma -Aldrich RTC, Inc. 305.41 SIGMA-ALDFUC14' RTC Page 3 of 3 M1 Solder Sprinp Rd. Lftmmle, Wyoming e2070 l 1 307-742-5452 ndschgrmV*Mal.aam www.sl¢r19-atdr"=M T- -3 91 Olex#ifrrate of rta pis Standard Reference Material' 1944 New York/New Jersey Waterway Sediment Standard Reference Material (SRM) 1944 is a mixture of marine sediment collected near urban areas in New York and New Jersey. SRM 1944 is intended for use in evaluating analytical methods for the determination of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, chlorinated pesticides, and trace elements in marine sediment and similar matrices. Reference values are also provided for selected polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners, selected dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners, total organic carbon, total extractable material, and particle size characteristics. Information values are provided for selected polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) and hexabrornocyciododecanes (HBCDs). All ofthe constituents for which certified, reference, and information values are provided in SRM 1944 were naturally present in the sediment before processing. A unit of SRM 1944 consists of a bottle containing 50 g ofradiation-sterilized, freezer -dried sediment_ Certified Wass Fraction Values: Certified values for mass fractions of PAHs, PCB congeners, chlorinated pesticides, and trace elements are provided in Tables 1 through 4. A NIST certified value is a value for which NiST has the highest confidence in its accuracy in that all known or suspected sources of bias have bees investigated or taken into account [ 11. The certified values for the PAHs, PCB congeners, and chlorinated pesticides are based on the agreement of results obtained at NIST using two or more chemically independent analytical techniques. The certified values for the trace elements are based on NIST measurements by one technique and additional results from several collaborating laboratories. Reference Mass Fraction Values: Referencc values are provided for mass fractions of additional PAHs (some in combination) in Tables 5 and 6, additional PCB congeners and chlorinated pesticides in Table 7, PBDE congeners in Table 8, and additional inorganic constituents in Tables 9 and 10. Reference values are provided in Table 1 I for the 2,3,7,8-substituted polychlorinated dibenzo p-dioxin and dibenwfuran congeners and total tetra-, pents-, hexa-, and hepta-congeners of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran. Reference values for particle size characteristics are provided in Table 12 and 13. Reference values for total organic carbon and percent extractable mass are provided in Table 14. Reference values are noncertified values that are the best estimate of the true value; however, the values do not meet the NIST criteria for certification and are provided with associated uncertainties that may reflect only measurement precision, may not include all sources of uncertainty, or may reflect a lack of sufficient statistical agreement among multiple analytical methods [1]. Information Mass Fraction Values. Information values are provided in Table 15 for mass fractions of additional trace elements, in Table 16 for PCN congeners (some in combination), and in Table 17 for HBCD isomers. An information value is considered to be a value that will be of interest and use to the SRM user, but insufficient information is available to assess the uncertainty associated with the value or only a limited number of analyses were performed [ 11. Expiration of Certification, The certification of SRM 1944 is valid, within the measurement uncertainties specified, until 31 March 2017, provided the SRM is handled and stored in accordance with the instructions given in this certificate (see "Instructions for Handling, Storage, and Use"). The certification is nullified if the SRM is damaged, contaminated, or otherwise modified. Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Certificate Issue Date: 27 September 2011 Cerf,(cnfp lftLv5JOn HISJOry On Page 20 SRM 1944 Stephen A. Wise, Chief Analytical Chemistry Division Robert L. Watters, Jr., Chief Measurement Services Division Page I of 22 Maintenance of SRM Certification: NISI will monitor this SRM over the period of its certification. If substantive technical changes occur that affect the certification before the expiration of this certificate, NIST will notify the purchaser. Registration (see attached sheet) will facilitate notification. The coordination of the technical measurements leading to the certification was performed by M.M. Schantz and S.A. Wise of the NIST Analytical Chemistry Division. Consultation on the statistical design of the experimental work and evaluation of the data were provided by S.D. Leigh, M.G. Vangel, and M.S. Levenson of the NIST Statistical Engineering Division. Support aspects involved in the 'issuance of this SRM were coordinated through the NIST Measurement Services Division. The sediment was collected with the assistance of the New York District of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACENYD), who provided the expertise in the site selection, the ship, sampling equipment, and personnel. L. Rosman of ACENYD and R. Parris (NIST) coordinated the collection of this sediment. Collection and preparation of SRM 1944 were performed by R. Parris, M. Cronise, and C. Fales (NIST); L. Rosman and P. Higgins (ACENYD), and the crew of the Gelberman from the ACE Caven Point facility in Caven Point, NJ. Analytical measurements for the certification of SRM 1944 were performed at NIST by E.S. Beary, D.A. Becker, R.R. Greenberg, J-M. Keller, J.R. Kucklick, M. Lopez de Alda, K.E. Murphy, R. Olfaz, B.J. Porter, D.L. Poster, L.C. Sander, P, Schubert, M.M. Schantz, S.S. Vander Pol, and L. Walton of the Analytical Chemistry Division. Measurements for percent total organic carbon measurements were provided by three commercial laboratories and T.L. Wade of the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University (College Station, TX, USA). The particle -size distribution data were provided by Honeywell, Inc. (Clearwater, FL, USA). Additional results for PBDE congeners were used from ten laboratories (see Appendix A) that participated in an interlaboratory study specifically for PHDEs in Marine Sediment coordinated by H.M. Stapleton ofthe NIST Analytical Chemistry Division. M. LaGuardia of Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Gloucester Point, VA, USA) provided one set of measurements for the HBCDs. Values for the polychlorinated dibenzo p-dioxins and dibenzofuram were the results of an interlaboratory comparison study among fourteen laborelories (see Appendix 13) coordinated by S.A. Wise of the NIST Analytical Chemistry Division and R. Turle and C. Chiu of Environment Canada Environmental Technology Centre, Analysis and Air Quality Division (Ottawa, ON, Canada). Analytical measuretrtents for selected trace elements were provided by the international Atonic Energy Agency (IAEA, Seibersdorf, Austria) by M. Makarewicz and R. Zeisler. Results were also used from seven laboratories (see Appendix C) that participated in an intercomparison exercise coordinated by S. Willie of the Institute for National Measurement Standards, National Research Council Canada (NRCC; Ottawa, ON, Canada). INSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLING, STORAGE, AND USE Handling: This material is naturally occurring marine sediment from an urban area and may contain constituents of unknown toxicities; therefore, caution and care should be exercised during its handling and use. Storage: SRM 1944 must be stored in its original bottle at temperatures less than 30 `C away from direct sunlight. Use: Prior to removal of test portions for analysis, the contents of the bottle should be mixed. The concentrations of constituents in SRM 1944 are reported on a dry -mass basis_ The SRM, as received, contains a mass fraction of approximately 1.3 % moisture. The sediment sample should bedded to a constant mass before weighing for analysis or, if the constituents of interest are volatile, a separate test portion of the sediment should be removed from the bottle at the time of analysis and dried to determine the mass fraction on a dry -mass basis. SRM 1944 Page 2 of 22 PREPARATION AND ANAL YSI9" Sample Collection and Preparation; The sediment used to prepare this SRM was collected from six sites in the v icinity ofNew York Bay and Newark Bay in October 1994_ Site selection was based on contaminant levels measured in previous samples from these sites and was intended to provide relatively high concentrations for a variety of chemical classes of contaminants, The sediment was collected using an epoxy -coated modified Van Veen -type grab sampler designed to sample the sediment to a depth of 10 cm. A total of approximately 2100 kg of wet sediment was collected from the six sites. The sediment was freeze-dried, sieved (nominally 250 µen to 61 pm), homogenized in a cone blender, radiation sterilized at an estimated minimum dose of32 kilograys (6003), and then packaged in screw -capped amber glass bottles. Conversiiott to Dry -Mass Basis: The results for the constituents in SRM 1944 are repotted on a dry -mass basis; however, the material as received contains residual moislure. The amount of moisture in SRM 1944 was determined by measuring the mass loss after freeze drying test portions of 1.6 g to 2.5 g for five days at I Pa with a —10 °C shelf temperature and a —50 °C condenser temperature. The mass fraction of moisture in SRM 1944 at the time of the certification analyses was 1.25 % t 0.03 % (95 % confidence level). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: The general approach used for the value assignment of the PAHs in SRM 1944 consisted of combining results from analyses using various combinations ofdiftierent extraction techniques and solvents, cleanup/isolatiou procedures, and chromatographic separation and detection techniques [2). Techniques and solvents involved were Soxhlet extraction and pressurized fluid extraction (PFE) using dichloromethane (DCM) or a hexane/acetone mixture, clean up of the extracts using solid -phase extraction (SPE), or normal -phase liquid chromatography (LC), followed by analysis using the following techniques: (1) reversed -phase liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection (LC -FL) analysis of the total PAH fraction, (2) reversed -phase LC -FL analysis of isomeric PAH fractions isolated by normal -phase LC (i.e., multidimensional LC), (3) gas chromatographylmass spectrometry (GOMS) analysis of the PAH fraction on four stationary phases of different selectivity, i.e., a 5 % (mole fraction) phenyl -substituted methylpolysitoxane phase, a 50 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase, a proprietary non -polar polysiloxane phase, and a smectic liquid crystalline stationary phase. Seven setts of GCIMS results, designated as GCIMS (1), GCIMS (11), GCIMS (111), GC/MS (IV), GCIMS (V), GC/MS (VI), and GC/MS (Sm), were obtained using four columns with differetlt selectivities for the separation of PAHs. For GCIMS (I) analyses, duplicate test portions of I g from eight bottles of SRM 1944 were Soxhlet extracted for 24 h with DCM. Copper powder was added to the extract to remove elemental sulfur. The concentrated extract was passed through a silica SPE cartridge and eluted with 2 % DCM in hexane. (All extraction and LC solvent compositions are expressed as volume fractions unless otherwise noted.) The processed extract was then analyzed by GCIMS using a 0.25 rnm i.d. x 60 m fused silica capillary column with a 5 %phenyl -substituted metbylpolysiloxane phase (0.25 µm film thickness) (DB-5 MS, MW Scientific, Folsom, CA). The GCIMS (Il) analyses were performed using 1 g to 2 g test portions from three bottles of SRM 1944 and 2 g to 3 g test portions from three bottles of SRM 1944 that had been mixed with a similar amount of water (i.e., a wetted sediment). These test portions were Soxhlet extracted with DCM and processed through the silica SPE as described above. however, the extract was further fractionated usuig normal -phase LC on a semi -preparative aminopropylsilane column to isolate the PAH fraction. The PAH fraction was then analyzed using the same column as described above for GCIMS (1); however, the test portions were extracted, processed, and analyzed as part of three different sample sets at different times using different calibrations for each set_ For the GCIMS (Ill), I g to 2 g test portions from six bottles of SRM 1944 were Soxhlet extracted for 18 h with 250 mL of a mixture of 50 % hexane/50 % acetone. The extracts were then processed and analyzed as described for GCIMS (1I). For GCIMS (IV) analyses. I g to 2 g test portions from six bottles of SRM 1944 were extracted using, PFE with a mixture of 50 % hexane/50 % acetone, and the extracts were processed as described above for GCIMS (11). The GC/MS (V) results were obtained by analyzing three of the same PAH fractions that were analyzed in GC/MS (Ill) and three of the PAH fractions that were analyzed in GCIMS (IV) using a 50 % (mole fraction) phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane stationary phase (0.25 mm i.d. x 60 m, 0.25 µm film thickness) (DB-17MS, J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA). For GCIMS (VI) analyses, three test portions of 0.7 g from one bottle of SRM 1944 were Soxhlet extracted for 24 h with DCM. Copper powder was added to the extract to remove elemental sulfur. The cnncerttrated extract was passed through an aminopropyl SPE cartridge and eluted with 20 % DCM in hexane. The processed extract was then analyzed by GC/MS using a 0.25 mm i.d. x 60 m fused silica capillary column with a proprietary non -polar polysiloxane phase (0.25 Fait film thickness) (DB-XLB, J&W Scientific). For GCIMS (Sm) 1 g to 2 g lest portions from six bottles of SRM 1944 were Soxhlet extracted for 24 It with 250 mL of DCM, The extracts were processed as described above for �"Certajn commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this report to adequately specify the experimrntal procedure. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement try the National Institute ofStandards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose. SRM 1944 Page 3 of 22 GUMS (I) using an aminopropylsi lane SPE cartridge followed by GUMS analysis using 0.2 earn i-d_ x 25 m (0.15 µm film thickness) smectic liquid crystalline phase (SB-Smectic, Dionex, Lee Scientific Division, Salt Lake City, UT). Two sets of LC -FL results, designated as LC -FL (Total) and LC -FL (Fraction), were used in the certification process. Test portions of approximately 1 g From six bottles of SRM 1944 were Soxhlet extracted for 20 h using 200 mL of 50 % hexane/50 % acetone. The extracts were concentrated and then processed through two aminopropylsi lane SPE cartridges connected in series to obtain the total PAH fraction. A second t g test portion from the six bottles was Soxhlet extracted and processed as described above; the PAH fraction was then fractionated further on a semi -preparative aminopropylsilane column (1tl3ondapak NH,, 9 mm i.d. x 30 cm. Waters Associates, Milford, MA) to isolate isomeric PAH fractions. The total PAH fraction and the isomeric PAH fractions were analyzed using a 5-Nat particle -size polymeric octadecylsilane (C,r) column (4.6 mm i.d. x 25 cm, Hypersil-PAH, Keystone Scientific, Inc_, Bellefonte, PA) with wavelength -programmed fluorescence detection. For all of the GUMS and LC -FL measurements described above, selected perdeuterated PAHs were added to the sediment prior to solvent extraction far use as internal standards for quantification purposes. Homogeneity Assessmentfor PAHs: The homogeneity of SRM 1944 was accessed by analyzing duplicate test portions of 1 g from eight bottles selected by stratified random sampling. Test portions were extracted, processed, and analyzed as described above for GUMS (1). No statistically significant differences among bottles were observed for the PAHs at the I g test portion size. PAH Isomers of Molecular Mara 300 and 302: For the determination of the molecular mass 340 and 302 FAH isomers, three test portions of approximately 5 g each were extracted using PFE with DCM. The extracts were then concentrated with a solvent change to hexane and passed through an aminopropyl SPE. cartridge and eluted with 10 % DCM in hexane. The processed extract was then analyzed by GC/MS using a 0.25 men i.d. x 60 in fused silica capillary column with a 50 % phenyl-substitued methylpolysitoxane phase (0.25 pm film thickness; DB-17MS, J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA). Perdeuterated dibenzo[a.r1pyrene was added to the sediment prior to extraction for use as an internal standard. PCBs And Chlorinated Pesticides: The general approach used For the determination of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in SRM 1944 consisted of combining results from analyses using various combinations of different extraction techniques and solvents, cleanuplisolatian procedures, and chromatographic separation and detection techniques 12]. This approach consisted of Soxhlet extraction and PFE using DCM or a hexanefacetone mixture, clean up6sotation using SPE or LC, followed by analysis using GUMS and gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC-ECD) on two columns with different selectivity. Eight sets of results were obtained designated as GC-ECD (1) A and B, GC-ECD (II) A and B, GUMS (1), GUMS (I1), GCIMS (111), and QA Exercise, For the GC-ECD (1) analyses, I g test portions from four bottles of SRM 1944 were Soxhlet extracted with DCM for 18 h. Copper powder was added to the extract to remove elemental sulfur. The concentrated extract was passed through a si lica SPE cartridge and elated with 10 % DCM in hexane. The concentrated eluant was then fractionated on a semi -preparative aminopropylsiiane column to isolate two fractions containing: (1) the PCBs and lower polarity pesticides and, (2) the more polar pesticides. GC-ECD analyses of the two fractions were performed on two colutrms of different selectivities for PCB separations: 0-25 mm x 60 m fused silica capillary column with. a 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiioxane phase (0.25 Jun film thickness) (DB-5, J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA) and a 0.32 mm x 100 m fused silica capillary column with a 50 %(mole fraction) octadecyl (C18) rnethylpolysifoxane phase (0.1 pin film thickness) (CPSil 5 C 18 CB, Chrompack International, Middelburg, The Netherlands). The results from the 5 % phenyl phase are designated as GC-ECD (IA) and the results from the CI8 phase are designated as GC.ECD (1B). A second set of samples was also analyzed by GC-ECD (i.e., GC-ECD iIA and 11B). Test portions of I g to 2 g from three bottles of SRM 1944 and 2 g to 3 g test portions from three bottles of SRM 1944 that had been mixed with a similar amount of water (i.e., a wetted sediment) were extracted, processed, and analyzed as described above for GC-ECD (1); however, the test portions were extracted, processed and analyzed as part of three different sample sets at different times using different calibrations for each act. SRM 1944 Page 4 of 22 Three sets of results were obtained by GUMS. For GUMS (1), 1 g to 2 g test portions from six bottles were Soxhlet extracted with a mixture of 50 % hexane/50 % acetone. Copper powder was added to the extract to remove elemental sulfur_ The concentrated extract was passed through a silica SPE cartridge and eluied with 10 % DCM in hexane. The extract was then analyzed by GUMS using a 015 mm x 60 m fused silica capillary colurrut with a 5 % phenyl -substituted rnethylpolysiloxane phase (0.25 µm film thickness). The GC/MS (11) results were obtained in the same manner as the GUMS (I) analyses except that the six test portions were extracted using PFE. The GUMS (Ill) analyses were performed on the same extract fractions analyzed in GC-ECD (11) using the 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase describe above for GUMS (1). For both the GC-ECD and GUMS analyses, two PCB congeners that are not significantly present in the sediment extract (PCB 103 and PCB 198 [3]), and 4,4'-DDT-dR were added to the sediment prior to extraction for use as internal standards for quantification purposes. In addition to the analyses performed at MIST, SRM 1944 was used in an interlaboratory comparison exercise in 19,95 as part of the NIST Intercomparison Exercise Program for Organic Contaminants in the Marine Environment [4]. Results from nineteen laboratories that participated in this exercise were used as the eighth data set in the determination of the certified values for PCB congeners and chlorinated pesticides in SRM 1944. The laboratories participating in this exercise used the analytical procedures routinely used in their laboratories to measure PCB congeners and chlorinated pesticides. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers: Value assignment of the concentrations of eight PBDE congeners was based on the means of results from two interlaboratory studies [5,6] and two sets of data from MST. The laboratories participating in the interlaboratory exercises (see Appendix A) employed the analytical procedures routinely used in their laboratories to measure PBDEs. For the two methods used at MIST, six test portions (between 1 g and 2 g) were extracted using PFE at 100 °C with DCM, The extracts were cleaned up using an alumina column (5 %deactivated) SPE vvlumn. Size exclusion chromatography (SEC) on a divinyibenzene-polystyrene column (10 firm particle size, 10 nm (100 angstrom)purestne, 7.5 mm W. x 300 mm, PL-Gel, Polymer Labs, Inc.) was then used to remove the sulfur. The PBDEs, as well as PCBs and pesticides, were quantified using GC/MS in the electron impact mode on a 0.18 mm i.d. x 30 m fused silica capillary columm with a 5 % (mole fraction) phenyl methylpoiysiloxane phase (0.18 p n film thickness; DB-5MS, AgilentTechnologies). The PBDEs were also quantified using GUM S in the negative chemical ionization mode on a 0.18 mm W. x 10 m fused silica capi llary column with a 5 % (mole fraction) phenyl methylpolysiloxane phase (0.18 )tm film thickness; DB-5MS, Agilent 'Technologies). Selected Carbon-13 labeled PBDE and PCB congeners were added to the sediment prior to extraction for use as internal standards for quantification purposes, Polychlorinated Dibearo-p-dioxins and Dibenaof°urans: Value assignment of the concentrations of the polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners and the total tetra- through hepta- substituted polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenxofurans was accomplished by combining results from the analysis of SRM 1944 by fourteen laboratories that participated in an interlaboratory comparison study (see Appendix B). Bach laboratory analyzed three test portions (typically I g) of SRM 1944 using their routine analytical procedures and high resolution gas chromatography with high resolution mass spectroretry detection (GC-NRMS). The analytical procedures used by all of the laboratories included spiking with 13C-labeled surrogates (internal standards); Soxhtet extraction with toluene; sample extract cleanupwith acid/base silica, alumina. and carton columns; and finally analysis of the cleaned up extract with GC -TERMS. Most of the laboratories used a 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase capillary column (DB-5), and about half of the laboratories confirmed 2,3,7,8-tetmvhlorodibenzofuran using a 50 % cyanopmpylphenyt-substituted methylpolysiloxane (DB-225, J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA) capillary column. Analytical Approach for lrtorganle Constituents: Value assignment for the concentrations of selected trace elements was accomplished by combining results of the analyses of SRM 1944 from NIST, NRCC, IAEA, and seven laboratories that participated in an interlaboratory comparison exercise coordinated by NRCC [7] (see Appendix C)_ The analytical methods used for the determination of each element are summarized in Table 18. For the certified concentration values listed in Table 4, results were combined from: (1) analyses at NIST using isotope dilution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ID-ICPMS) or instrumental neutron activation analysis ([NAA), (2) analyses at NRCC using ID-ICPMS, graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS), and/or inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICPOES), (3) analyses at IAEA using INAA, and (4) the mean of the results from seven laboratories that participated in the NRCC interlabomtory comparison exercise. The reference mass fraction values in Table 9 were determined by combining results from (1) analyses performed at NIST using INAA; (2) analyses at NRCC using ID-ICPMS, GFAAS,ICPOES, and/or cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS); (3) analyses at IAEA using INAA; and (4) the mean of the results from five to seven laboratories that participated in the NRCC interlaboratory comparison exercise_ The information concentration values in'Tabie 15 were determined by INAA at NIST and IAEA. NIST Analyses using [D-ICPMS: Lead, cadmium, and nickel were determined by ID-ICPMS (8]. Test portions (0.4 g to 0.5 g) from six bottles of the SRM were spiked with 206Pb, " ' Cd, and 6=Ni and wet asbed using a combination ofnitric, SRM 1944 Page 5 of 22 B c w ! 0 -; =-f hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, and perchloric acids. Lead and cadmium were determined in the same test portions; nickel was determined in a second sample set. A small amount of crystalline material remained alter the acid dissolution. Lithium metaborate fusion was performed on this residue to confirm that the residue contained insignificant amounts of the analytes. Cadmium and nickel were separated from the matrix material to eliminate the possibility of spectral interferences, and concentrations were determined from the measurement of the 11'Cd/... Cd and s'Ni16°Ni ratios, respectively. The " *PW "Pb ratios were measured directly because interferences at these masses are negligible. N1ST Analyses using INAA: Analyses were performed in two steps [9]. Elements with short-lived irradiation products (Al, Ca, Cl, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ti, and V) were determined by measuring duplicate 300 mg test portions from each of Zen bottles of SRM 1944_ The samples, standards, and controls were packaged in clean polyethylene bags and were individually irradiated for 15 s in the MST Reactor Pneumatic Facility RT-4. Reactor power was 20 MW, which corresponds to a neutron fluence rate of about 8 x 1013 cm-s-1. After irradiation, the samples, controls, and standards were repackaged in clean polyethylene bags and counted (gamma -ray spectrometry) three times at different decay intervals. A sample -to -detector distance (counting geometry) of 20 cm was used. Elements with long-lived irradiation products (Ag, As, Br, Co, Cr, Cs, Fe, Rb, Sb, Sc, Se, Th, and Zn) were determined by measuring one 300 mg test portion from each of nine bottles of SRM 1944, The samples, standards, controls, and blank polyethylene bags were irradiated together for a total of 1 h at a reactor power of 20 MW . Approximately four days after irradiation, the polyethylene bags were removed, and each sample, standard, control, and blank was counted at 20 cm from the detector. The samples were then recounted at 10 cm from another detector. After an additional decay time of about one month, the samples, standards, controls, and blanks were counted a third time (at 10 cm) from the second detector. Homogeneity Assessment ror Inorganic Constilutents: For some of the trace elements, most notably Cd, Fe, Pb, Rb, Sb, Sc, and Th, the variations among the test portions measured at NIST (between 0.3 g and 0.5 g) were larger than expected from the measurement process. Based on experience, it was concluded that there is some material inhomogeneily for trace elements in the test portions used Sample variations among the MIST measurements are used as slightly conservative estimates of the sample inhomogeneities, Particle Size Information: Dry particle -size distribution measurements for SRM 1944 were obtained as part of a collaborative effort with Honeywelrs Particle and Components Measurements Laboratory (Clearwater, FL). A Microtrac particle analyzer, which makes use of light -scattering techniques, was used to measure the particle -size distribution of SRM 1944. Briefly, a reference {team is used to penetrate a field of particles and the light that scatters in the forward direction from the field is measured and the particle -size as a volume distribution is derived via a computer -assisted analysis. From these data, the total volume, average size, and a characteristic width of the particle size distribution are calculated_ The system has a working range from 0.7 µm to 700 pm. Total Organic Carbon and Percent Extractable Mass: Four laboratories provided results for total organic carbon (TOC) using similar procedures. Briefly, test portions of approximately 200 cog were reacted with 6 mol/L hydrochloric acid and rinsed with deionized water prior to combustion in a gas fusion furnace. The carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide produced were measured and compared to a blank for calculation of the percent TtaC. Each laboratory analyzed test portions from six bottles of SRM 1944. For the determination of percent extractable mass, six test portions of approximately 1 g to 2 g of SRM 1944 were extracted using Soxhlet extraction for 18 h with DCM. The extraction thimbles were allowed to air dry. After reaching constant mass, the difference in the mass before and after extraction was determined. Polychlorinated Naphthalenes: Value assigmnent of PCN congener concentrations was accomplished by combining results from the analysis of SRM 1944 by six laboratories that participated in an interlaboratory comparison study (see Appendix D). Each laboratory analyzed three test portions (typically I g to 2 g) of SRM 1944 using their routine analytical procedures that included high -resolution gas chromatography with either high -resolution mass spectrometry detection (GC-HRMS) or low -resolution MS in the negative chemical ionization mode. Calibration mixtures included either Halowax mixtures with known volume fractions of individual congeners or individual PCN congeners. SRM 19" Page 6 of 22 LILs-4i 1. 00024 HBCDs: Value assignment of the concentrations of three HBCD isomers was accomplished by combining results from the analysis of SRM 1944 in two sets from N1ST and one set from Virginia Institute of Marine Science. For the two sets analyzed at MST, the second fraetion from an acidified silica SPE clean-up was analyzed by LC1MS/MS for the HBCDs using both electrosMy ionization (ESD and almasphetic pressurized photoioniaation (APPI). A C 18 column (3.0 trim x 150 mm x 3.5 pin column, Eclipse Pitts, Agilent Technologies) and YMC Carotenoid S5 C30 column (4.6 mrn x 250 ram x 5 µM column) were used with a solvent gradient using 2.5 nunol/L ammonium acetate in 12.5 % water in methanol and acctonitrile at a flow rate of 0.3 mUmin. Carbon-13 labeled HBCDs. were added to the sediment prior to solvent extraction for use as internal stwxlards for quantification purposes. Table 1. Certified Mass Fraction Values for Selected PAHs in. SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fractions'-°) (niWkg) Phenanthrenet`,d.r.ra) 5.27 t 0.22 Fluoranthene(c'd'`-r4) 8.92 ± 0,32 Pyrenet°A.a.ra) 9.70 ± 0.42 Benzo[c]phenalhrene'"a .fat 0.76 f 0.10 Benz[a]anthracencr`.dcXW,hf 4.72 t 0.11 Chrysene.th.k} 4.96 ± 0.Id" Ttiphenyleneih'k) I.04 ± 0.27 Benzo[b]fluoranthene(0-)) 3.87 ± 0.42 Benzo[J]fluorantheneth') 2.09 t 0,44 Henzo[k]fluoranthene(`-d'`r'�nr) 2.30 * 0.20 Benzo[a]fluoranthenes"'r-'•s) 0.7R ± 0.12 Benxo[ejpyrenetc.dCAN) 3.28 ± 0.11 Benzo[a]pyrene"A-r-r.s.hr) 4.30 + 0.13 Perylene"As't4J'j) 1.17 ± 0.24 Benzo[ghi]perylene&Ae.t,r.kt 2.84 0.10 lndeno[l,2,3-cdjpyrenetcA04Af 2.78 ± 0.10 Dibenz[ajj&nthraceneIVAE'r'rt'1 0.500 ± 0,044 Dibenz[a,c]anthracenetrk) 0.335 ± 0.013 Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneu'k) 0.424 ± 0.069 Pentaphene(`A`'r4.0 0.288 ± 0.026 Benzo[b]chrysene4VA'`'r'Ah) 0.63 t 0.10 Picene"4':'r.),kl 0.518 t 0.093 t•) Mass fractions are repotted cc dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture_ re) Each certified value is a mean of the means from two or more analytical methods, weighted as dcwnbed in Paule and Mandel [101. Each uncertainty, computed according to the Comitf International des Poids et Mesures f C1PM) approach as described in the ISO Guide [11,12], is an expanded uncertainty at the 95 % level of confidence, which includes random sources of uncertainty within each analytical method as well as uncertainty due to the drying study. The expanded uncenainty defines a range of values within which the true value is believed to fie, at a level of confidence of approximately 95 %. t`) Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GUMS) (1) An 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysikixane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM. s0)GC/MS (Ii) on 5 %phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with 0CM. it) GUMS (III) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhiet extraction with 50 % hexane/50 % acetone mixture. GC/MS (1V) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after PFE with 50 % hexane/50 % acetone mixture, +sF LC -FL of total PAH frachOn adcr Soxhlet extraction with 50 % heaane/50 % acetone mixture. GC/MS (Sm) using a smectie liquid crystalline phase alter Soxhlet extraction with DCM. `0 The uncertainty interval for chryscnc was widened in accordance with expert consideration of the analytical procedures, along with the analysis of the data as a whole, which suggests that the half -widths of the expanded uncertainties should not be less than 2 %_ GUMS (V) on 501Y. phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase of extracts from GUMS (1I1) and GUMS (M. o LC -FL of isomeric PAH fractions after Soxhlet extraction with 50 % hexane/50 % acetone mixture. SRM 1944 Page 7 of 22 Table 2. Certified Mass Fraction Values for Selected PCB Congeners"' in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fractiontf.`i (pg/kg) PCB 8 (2,4'-Dichlorobiphenyl)'iL`f4�"J.ki 22.3 t 2.3 PCB 18 (2,2',5-Trichlorobiphenyl)ru.r.r4-"J'�' 51.0 ± 2.6 PCB 28 (2,4,4'-Trichlonobiphenyl)fd'°'''r't'k' 80.8 ± 2.7 PCB 31 (2,4'.5-Trichlorobiphenyl)'d'°'rgji 78.7 + 1.611) PCB 44 (2,2'3,5'-TetmchlorobiphenylY "E"'L""J.k) 60.2 ± 2.0 PCB 49 (2,2'4,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)t6.'r4h.w.k? 53.0 t 1.7 PCB 52 (2,2'.5,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)"`'`'t'a"'Jkl 79.4 ± 2.0 PCB 66 (2,3',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)t`'',h''''i 71.9 t 4.3 PCB 95 (2,T.3,5',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl)" 'ah''J' 65.0 ± 8.9 PCB 87 (2,T,3,4,5'-Pentachlorohiphertyi)la"'r'x'I"'Jt 29.9 ± 4.3 PCB 99 (2,2',4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)'4`'f*k''Jk3- 37.5 ± 2.4 PCB 101 (2,2',4,5.5'-Pentachlorobiphenyly L'` r.s'k''J k' 73.4 + 15 PCB 105 (2,3,3',4,4'-Pentachlorobiphen)4)1"I"@ "," 24.5 ± 1.1 PC13 110 (2,3,31,4',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl)iojjf 63.5 ± 4.7 PCB 118 (2,3',4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)id•,'*1.' }' 58.0 * 4.3 PCB 128 (2,2',3,3',4,4'-14exachlorobiphcnylyd-t.l-",,Il' 8.47 ± 0.28 PCB 138 (2,2',3,4,4',5'-Hexachlorobiphenyly `-f4h'J'k" 62.1 ± 3.0 PCl3 149 (2,2',3,4',5',6-Hexachlorobiphenylyd.c.f'x'h''J kI 49.7 ± 1.2 PCB 151 (2,2',3,5,5',6-Himachlorobipbenyl}tat.t.r n.w k< 16.93 ± 0.36 PCB 153 (2,2',4,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl)id`.f'_h'J}' 74.0 t 2.9 PCB 156 (2,3,3',4,4',5-Hexachlorobiphenyl)""",:.I,'I.K.'J" 6.52 t 0.66 PCB 170 (2,2',3,3',4,4',5-Heptachlorobiphenyl)id.r,r.F.h.WJ0 22.6 t 1.4 PCB 180 (2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-Heptachlorobiphenyl)`'`-f-"-'J.k! 44.3 t 1.2 PCB 183 (2,2',3,4,4',5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl)ra<.r.rh.1J) 12.19 ± 0.57 PCB 197 (2,2',3,4',5,5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl)fcte't.Ih-'Jki 25.1 t lA PCB 194 (2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'-Octachiorobiphenyl)cdx.rr..h.i)a 11.2 ± 1.4 PCB 195 (2,Z,3,3',4,4',5,6-Octschlorbiphenyl)�d''.t,i h W,k) 3.75 ± 0,39 PCB 206 (2,T,3,3',4,4',5,5',6-Nonachlorobiphenyl)i'LeXt.h''J k) 9.21 t 0.51 PCB 209 Decachlorobiphcnylid,�,f,th.,J,kt 6,81 ± 0.33 PCB congeners are numbered according to the scheme proposed by Ballschmiter and Zell [13] and later revised by Schulte and Malisch [3) to conform with IUPAC rules, for the specific congeners mentioned in this SRM, the Ballschnuter-Zell numbers correspond to those of Schulte and Malisch. t°' Mass fractions are reported an dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture. f`t Each certified value is a mean of the means from two or more analytical methods, weighted as described in Paule and Mandel [ 101. Each uncertainty, computed according to the CiPM approach as described in the ISO Guide [ 11,12], is an expanded uncertainty at The 95 % level ofconftdence. which includes random sources of uncertainty within each analytical method as well as uncertainty due to the drying study. The expanded uncertainty defines a range of values within which the true value is believed to lie, at a level of confidence of approximately 95 %. 1d,GC-ECD (]A) on 5 %phenyi-substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM. "d1 GC-ECD (1B) on the 50 % C-18 dimetbylpolysiloxane phase; same extracts analyzed as in GC-ECD (1A). GC-ECD (11A) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM. GC-ECD (IIB) on the So % octadecyl (C-18) methylpolysilexane phase; same extracts analyzed as in GC-ECD (I]A)_ "hi GCiMS (1) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after 5oxhlei extraction with 50 % hexane/50 %acetone mixture. GC1MS (TT) on 5 %phenyl -substituted methylpolys3oxanc phase aPer PFF extraction with 50 %hexane/50 % acetone mixture. o' GC/MS (111) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase; same extracts analyzed as in GC•ECD (11A), Results from nineteen laboratories participating in an iaterlaboratory comparison exercise_ The uncertainty interval for PCB 31 was widened in accordance with expert consideration of the analytical procedures, along with the analysis of the data as a whole, which suggests that the half -widths of the expanded uncertainties should not be less than 2 %. SRM 1944 Page 8 of 22 Table 3. Certified Mass Fraction Values for Selected Chlorinated Pesticides in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fraction{6-" (Rgfkg) HexachlorobenZene(`'r$"`q) 6.03 ± 0.35 cis -Chlordane (a-Chlordane}t`"j� tJ1`-1' 16.51 t 0.83 trans-Nonachlor tc'° �''�h''�� 8.20 t 0.31 t`t Mass fractions are reported on dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture. (hr Each certified value is a mean of the means from two or mom analytical methods, weighted as described in Paule and Mandel [10]. Each uncertainty, computed according to the C11 M approach as described in the ISO Guide 111,12], is an expanded uncertainty at the 95 % level of confidence, which includes random sources of uncertainty within each analytical method as well as uncertainty due to the drying study. The expanded uncertainty defines a range of values within which the true value is believed to lie, at a level of confidence ofapproximately 95 %. t`t GC-ECD (LA) on 5 %phmyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM. rd' GC-ECD ([B) on the 50 % octadecyl (C-19) methylpolysiloxane phase; same extracts analyzed as in GC-ECD (1A). GC-ECD (LIA) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM. rn GC-ECD (11B) on the 50 % octadecyl (C-I 6) methylpolysiloxane phase; same extracts analyzed as in GC-ECD (11A), {_' GCIMS (I) on 5 %phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase aflcr Soxhlet extraction with 50 % hexane150 %acetone mixture. t'r CCNS (11) on 5 % phenyl-substitutcd methylpolysiloxane phase after PFE extraction with 50 % hexanci50 % acetone mixture. 1° GCIMS (IID on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase, same extracts analyzed as in GC-ECD (I1A). br Results from nineteen laboratories participating in an interlaboraroty comparison exercise. Table 4. Certified Mass Fraction Values for Selected Elements in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Degrees of Mass Fraetionstah' Freedorn (%} Alurninum(CAO 4 5.33 t 0,49 Itt7ntcdst 6 3.53 ± 0.16 Mass Fractions("bl (ring/kg) ArsenicN.J,C.cti 10 18.9 ± 2.8 Cadmiudc-'' h'r 6 8.8 3 1.4 Chromium"ALP) 9 266 ± 24 Leadre,h") 5 330 t 48 Manganese°"' -el 8 505 ± 25 Nickelr`'t'O') 6 76.1 ± 5.6 Zincr`4 `&" 9 656 ± 75 The certified value is the mean of four results.- (1) the mean of NIST INAA or lla-ICPMS analyses, (2) the mean of two methods performed at NRCC, and (3) the mean of results from seven selected laboratories panicipating in the NRCC intercomparison exercise, and (4) the mean resuhs from INAA analyses at IAEA. The expanded uncertainty in the certified value is equal to U = kai where r4 is the combined standard uncertainty and k is the coverage factor, both calculated according to the ISO Guide [11,12j. The value of u, is intended to represent at the level of one standard deviation the combined effect of all the uncertainties in the certified value. Here uc accounts for both possible method biases, within -method variation, and material inhomogencity. The coverage factor, k, is the Student's (-value for a 95 %confidence interval with the corresponding degrees of freedom. Because of the material inhomogmeity, the variability among the measurements ofmultiple samples can be expected to be greater than that due to mrasurement variability alone - Mass fractions are reported on dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture. Results from five to seven laboratories participating in the NRCC interlaboratory comparison exercise. iaF Measured at NISI using INAA. Measured at NRCC using ICPOES. to Measured at NRCC using GFAAS- 'gr Measured at IAEA using INAA. t"t Measured at NIST using ID-ICPMS. Measured at NRCC using ID-ICPMS. SRM 1944 Page 9 of 22 Table 5. Reference Mass Fraction Values for Selected PAHs in SRM 1944 Mass Fractions(°t 1m1k$) Naphthalenee" 1,28 ± 0.04"' 1-Methylnaphthalenef"' 0.47 ± 0,02'`' 2-Methy1naphthalenet"' 0.74 ± 0-061" Biphenylf"' 0.25 t 0.02'' Acenaphthene{"I 0.39 ± 0.03'c' Fluoreneu"' 0.48 t 0,04"' Dibenzothiophenefb' 0.50 ± 0,03"`' Anthracem'"' 1.13 ± 0.07" 1-Methylphenanthrene(d'`S4) 1.7 ± 0.Chl 2-Methylphenanthrenetd'c_fg' 1.90 ± 0.061"' 3-Methylphenanzhrene'd'c'4) 2.1 ± O.lt"' 4-Methylphenanthrene and 9-Methylphenanthrene"'i"F4' 1.6 ± 0.2t"t 2-Methylanthraceneice,rR' 0.58 + 0 04"" 3,5-Dimethylphenanthreneid) 1.31 ± 0.04t"' 2,6-Dirnahylphcnanthrcnefd' 0.79 ± 0.02'"" 2,7-Dimethylphenanthrenetd' 0.67 ± 0.02"" 3,9-DitncthylphenanthreneW 2.42 ± 0.05"" 1,6-, 2,9-, and 2,5-Dimethylphcnanlhrenet8' 1.67 ± 0.0P-" 1,7-Dimethylphenanthrene'dF 0.62 ± 0.02t""' 1,9- and 4,9-Dimclhylphenanthrene1d' 1.20 ± 0.0P" 1,8-Dimethytphenanthreneidt 0,24 ± 0,01 t""' 1,2-Dimethylphenanthrene44' 0.28 ± 0.01 rh.1) 8-Methylfluoranthenefd' 0.86 :t 0.02r"''' 7-Methylfluoranthenefdt 0.69 ± 0.021ht 1-Methylfluoranlhenet6' 0.39 ± 0.01r" 3-Methylfluoranthenet"' 0.56 ± 0.02r" 2-Methylpyrenetd' 1.81 ± 0.04rh.o 4-Methylpyrcnefd' 1.44 ± 0.03f"" I-Methylpyrenetd' 1.29 ± 0.03IN Anthanthreneh' 0.9 ± 0,11ht ") Mass fractions arc reported on dry -,moss basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture. rbi GCIMS (VI) on proprietary non -polar methylpolysiloxanc phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM. °t Reference values are the means of results obtained by NISI using one analytical technique. The expanded uncertainty, U. is calculated as tJ = kn., where u, is one standard deviation of the analyze mean, and the coverage factor, k, is determined from the Student's r-distribution corresponding to the associated degrees of frzcdom (df = 2) and 95 %confidence level for each analyze. 'd' GCIMS (1) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM. (" GUMS (11) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methyJpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM. in GCJMS (111) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolystloxane phase after Soxhlel extraction with 50 % hexaneI50 % acetone mixture. 'r' GGMS (IV) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after PFE with 50 % hexww/50 % acetone mixture. ht The reference value for each analyte is the equally -weighted mean of the means from two or more analytical methods or the mean from one analytical technique_ The uncertainty in the reference value defines a range of values that is intended to function as an interval that contains the true value at a level ofconfidence of95 %, This uncertainty includes sources ofuncertainty within each analytical method, among methods, and from the drying study. (i)The uncertainty interval for this compound was widened in accordance with expert consideration of the analytical procedures, along with the analysis of thedata as a whole, which suggests that the half -widths ofthe expanded uncertainties should not be less than 2 %_ u' LC-FI. of isomeric PAH fractions after Soxhlet extraction with 50 % hexarwJ50 % acetone mixture. SRM 1944 Page 10 of 22 Table 6. Reference Mass Fractions for Selected PAHs of Relative Molecular Mass 300 and 302 in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fraction (a,h ' (mg/kg) Coronene 0.53 ± 0.04 Dibertzo[b,e]#luoranthene 0,076 ± 0.008 Naphtho[1,2-6]fluoranthene 0.70 ± 0.06 Naphtho[ 1,241fluoranrhene and Naphtho[2,3y1fluoranthene 0.66 ± 0.05 Naphtho[2,3-blfluomnthene 0.21 t 0.01 Dibenzo[b,k]tluonmthene 0.75 ± 0.06 Dibenzo[a.k]liuoranthene 0.22 ± 0.02 DibenzoU,�fluoranthene 0.56 ± 0.03 Dibenzo[aj]pyrene 0.12 ± 0.02 Naphtho[2,341fluoranthene 0.11 ± 0.01 Naphtho[2,3-e]pyrene 0.33 ± 0.02 Dibenzo[a,e]pynene 0.67 ± 0.05 Naphtho[2,1-a]pyrene 0.76 ± OAS Dibenzo[e,npyrene 0.28 ± 0.02 Naphtho[2,3-a]pyrene 0.23 ± 0.01 Benzo[blperylene 0.43 ± 0.04 Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene 0,30 ± 0.03 Dibenzo[a,h]pyrcne 0.11 ± 0.01 i'f Mass fractions are reported on dry -mass oasis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture. roi Reference values are the means of results obtained by NiST using one analytical technique. The expanded uncertainty, U, is calculated as U = krrr, where u, is one standard deviation of the analyte mean, and the coverage factor, k, is determined from the Student's i- distribution corresponding to the amociaied degrees of fmcdom (df = 2) and 95 % confidence Jcvcl for each analyte. [er GU/MS on 50 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after PFE with DCM. SRM 1944 Page 11 of 22 Bi -W ''Ji 02iZZ74 Table 7. Reference Mass Fractions for Selected PCB Congeners'°' and Chlorinated Pesticides in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fraction'b' (1A8) PCB 45(2,2',3,6-Tetrachlombiphenyl)t`] 1 p $ ± l 4fat PCB 146(2,2',3,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl)t" 10.1 ± 1.(Ydt PCB 163(2,3,3',4',5,6-Hexachlorobiphenyq{" 14.4 ± 2.04' PCB 174(2,21,3,3',4,5,6'-lleptachLorobiphenyl)i" 16.0 ± 0.6'd' a-HCHt14A11 2..0 ± 0.3'e' trans -Chlordane f7-Chlordane)"' 19.0 ± 1.7'd' cis-Nonachlorlt,' ''m' 3.? ± 0.7'`' 2,4'-DDE4(4j.rJA1-1") 19 31c) 2,4%DDD;°u.1L,3"' 38 t $ta 4,4'-DDEtr.4h,tiJ,k.1.m1 86 t 124c1 4,4'-DDD4f48h.1,,.r;,t.mf 108 t 10r 4,4'-DDT'c) 170 ± 32'd' PCB congeners are numbered according to the scheme proposed by Ballschmiter and Zell [131 and later revised by Schulte And IvMalisch 131 to conform with rUPAC rules, for the specific congeners mentioned in this SRM, the Dallschmiter-Zell numbers correspond to those of Schulte and Maiisch. fbt Mass fractions are reported on dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture. NIST participation in the 2007 interlaboratory study using GUMS. ""Reference values are the means of results obtained by NISI using one analytical technique. The expanded uncertainty, U, is calculated as U = ku., where if, is one standard deviation of the analyze mean, and the coverage factor, k, is determined from the Student's 1-distribution corresponding to the associated degrees of freedom (df- 2) and 95 % confidence ]"el far each analyze. t`t The reference value for each analyze is the equally -weighted mean of the means from two ormore analytical methods or he mean from one analytical technique. The uncertainty in the referrme value defines a range of values that is intended to function as an interval that contains the true value at a level of confidence of 95 %. This uncertainty includes sources of uncertainty within each analytical method, among methods, and from the drying study. GC-ECD (1A) on 5 %phenyl -substituted rnethylpolysi loxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM_ 'o' GC-ECD (iB) on the 50 a/a octadccyl (C-18) methylpolysiloxane phase; same extracts analyzed as in GC-ECD (IA). 'h1GC-ECD (11A) on 5 %phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM_ GC-ECD (IIB) on the 50 % octadecyl (C-18) methylpolysiloxane phase, same extracts analyzed as in GC-ECD (I IA), GC/MS (1) on 5 %phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with 50 %hcxanc/50 %acetone mixture. GUMS (II) on 5 % phenyl -substituted mcthylpolysiloxane phase after PFE extraction with 50 % hexane/50 % acetone mixture. f" GC/MS (111) on 5 % phenyl -substituted methylpolysiloxam phase; same extracts anlay2ed as in GC-ECD (ILA). "3Kesults from nineteen Laboratories participating in an interlabomtory comparison exercise. SRM 1944 Page 12 of 22 &CW i 00 ail t Table 8. Reference Mass Fraction Values for Selected PBDEs in SRM. 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fractions('' (44) PBDE 47 (2,2',4,4'-Tetrabrornodipheny1 etheryc` d.e.n 1.72 ± 0 28("' PBDE 99(2,2',4,4',5-Pentabrotnodiphenyl ether)'Af' 1.98 t 0.26("' PBDE 100 (2,2',4,4',6-Pentabromodiphenyl ether)(CA 0,447 t 0.027"' PBDE 153(2,2',4,4',5,5'-Hexabromodiphenyl etherp d.` n 6.44 ± 0.37("' PBDE 154(2,2',4,4',5,6'-Hexabromodiphenyl ether)"'" 1.06 t 0.08"" PBDE 183(2,2',3,4,4',5',6-Heptabromodiphenyl ether)f`-d`'r' 31.8 ± 0.1"1 PBDE 206(2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-Nonabromodiphenyl ether)td.o 6,2 ± 1.0"' PBDE 209 (Decabromodiphenyl ether) t` I"' 93.5 ± 4.4("' ('t Mass fractions arc reportcd on dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 °to- moisture. �tO RCftrcnce values are weighted means of the results from two to four analytical methods 1141. The uncertainty listed with each value is an expanded uncertainty about the mean, with coverage factor 2 (approximately 95 % confidence), calculated by combining a between -method variance incorporating irdcr-method bias with a pooled within -source variance following the ISOJNIST Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurements [i 1, la]. e0i Results from ten laboratories participating in an intertaboratory study for PBDFs in sediment 112]. idf Results from four laborittorics participating in the 2007 interlabomtory study [ 13]. NIST participation in the 2007 interlaboratory study using GCIMS. ri) Data set from NIST for PBDEs using GCIMS following PFE with alumina SPE and SEC clean-up. Table 9. Reference Mass Fraction Values for Selected Elements in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Degrees of Mass Fraction(`''' Freedom( (%) Silicon`'a 81 31 ± 3 Mass Fraction'"" (mg(kg) AntiTtonyt`.`.r;' 18 4.6 ± 0.9 Beryllium(`'i" 17 1.6 t 0.3 Coppe?c,d.n 101 380 ± 40 Mercury("t 18 3A ± 0.5 Seleniurnt` -() 24 1.4 ± o.2 Silvcrtt' $' 8 6A ± 1.7 Thalliurrtl`•n 12 0.59 ± 0.1 Tin" 'n 22 42 ± 6 °F The reference value is the equally weighted mean of available results from, (t) NIST INAA analyses, (2) two methods performed at NRCC, (3) results from seven selected laboratories participating in the NRCC intmomparison exercise, and (4) results from INAA analyses at IAEA. The expanded uncertainty in the reference value is equal to U = ktt, where u, is the combined standard uncertainty and k is the coverage factor, boat calculated according to the ISO Guide [11,12], The value of it, is intended to represent at the level of one standard deviation the uncertainty in the value. Here u, accounts for possible method differences, within -method variation, and material inhomogcncity. The coverage factor, k, is the Student's t-value for a 95 % confidence interval with the corresponding degrees of freedom. Because of material inhomogencity. the variability among the measurements of multiple test portions can be expected to be greater than that due to measurement variability alone. mi Mass fractions are reported on dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture. t`t Results from five to seven laboratorics participating in the NRCC interlaboratory comparison exercise. gar Measured at ]NRCC using GFAAS. Measured at NIST using MAA_ Measured at NRCC using ID-ICPMS. tgt Measured at 1AEA using INAA. ("t Meawred at NRCC using ICPOES- �'t Measured at NRCC using cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS). SRM 1944 Page 13 of 22 Table 10. Reference Mass Fraction Values for Elements in SRM 1944 as Determined by 1NAA (Dry -Mass Basis) Effective Degrees Mass Fraction('-b' of Freedom NO Calcium 21 1.0 ± 0.1 Chlorine 21 1.4 0.2 Potassium 21 1.6 ± 0.2 Sodium 25 1.9 t 0.1 Mass F'raetiona'.b) (mpg) Bromine 10 86 ± 10 Cesium 11 3.0 ± 0.3 Cobalt 10 14 ± 2 Rubidium 14 75 ± 2 Scandium 37 10,2 ± 0.2 Titanium 21 4300 ± 300 Vanadium 21 100 ± 9 t'r The reference value is based on the results from an INAA study. The associated uncertainty accounts for both random and systematic effects, but because only one method was used, the results should be used with caution. The expanded uncertainty in the reference value is equal to U = kr4 where a, is the combined standard uncertainty and k is the coverage factor, both calculated according to the ISO Guide (11,12]. The value of u� is intended to represent at the level ofone standard deviation the uncertainty in the value. Here u, accounts for possible method differences, within -method variation, and material inhomogencity. The coverage factor, k, is the Student's t-value for a 95 % confidence interval with the corresponding degrees of freedom, Because of material inhamogeneity, the variability among the measurements of multiple test portions can be expected to be greater than that due to measurement variability alone. (b) Mass fractions are reported on dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 %4 moisture. SRM 1944 Page 14 of22 Table 11. Reference Mass Fraction Values for Selected Dibenzo p-Dioxin and Dibenzofuran Congeners in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fraction(,,W (ItBfk B) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.133 ± 0.009 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.019 ± 0.002 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorndibenzo-p-dioxin 0,026 ± 0.003 1.2,3,6,7,8-Hexachtorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.056 0.006 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0-053 ± 0.007 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.90 t 0.07 Octachlorodibenza-p-dioxin 5.8 ± 0.7 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofurant`) 0.039 ± 0.0151d' 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenwfuran 0.045 ± 0.007 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.045 ± 0.004 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.22 :L 0.03 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.09 f 0.01 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachiorodibenzofumn 0.054 ± 0.006t°' 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1.0 t 0.1 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenwfuran 0.040 ± 0.006t" Octachlorodibenzofumn 1.0 ± 0.1 Total Toxic Equivalents (TRQ)to 0.25 ± 0.01 Total Tetrachlorodibcnzo-p-dioxins 0,25 * 0A5"" Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 0.19 t 0.06 Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 0.63 t 0,09 Total Heptachlorodibenzo p-dioxins 1.8 ± 0.2 Total Tetrachlorodiberzzofurans 0.7 ± 0.2 Total Pentachlorodibenzofurans 0.74 ± 0.07 Total Hexachlorodibenzofurans 1.0 ± 0.1 Total Heptachlorodibenzofurans 1.5 t 0.1 Total Dibenzop-dioxinstsl 9.7 ± 0.9 Total Dibenzofurans's' 5.0 t 0-5 Each reference value is the mean of the results fi-om up to fourteen laboratories participating in an interlaboratory exercise. The expanded uncertainly in the reference value is equal to U - ku, where of is the combined standard uncertainty calculated according to the ISO Guide [ 11,12] and k is the coverage factor. The value of it, is intended to represent at the level of one standard deviation the combined effect of all the uncertainties in the reference value. Here a, is the uncertainty in the mean arising from the variation among the laboratory results. The degrees of freedom is equal to the number of available results minus one (13 unless noted otherwise). The coverage factor, i(, is the value from a Student's 1-distribution for a 95 % confidence interval. (01 Mass fractions are reported on dry -mass baste; material as received contains Approximately 1.3 % moisture. +" Confirmation results using a 50 % cyanopropyl phenyl polysiloxane or 90 % his-cyanopropyl 10 % cyanopropytphenyl polysitoxanc phase columns. rat Degrees of freedom = 7 for this compound. Degrees of freedom = 12 for this compound. to TEQ is the sum of the products of each of the 2,3,7,8-substituted congeners multiplied by their individual toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) recommended by the North Atlantic Treaty OrganUation (NATO) [15] With regard to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran, the results of the confirmation column were used when available to calculate the TEQ. isz Total of tetra- through octachlorinated congeners. SRM 1944 Page 15 of 22 Table 12. Reference Values for Particle Size Characteristics for SRM 1944 Particle Measurement VaiuetQ Mean diameter (volume distribution, MV, µm� b] 151.2 t 0.4 Mean diameter (area distribution, µmy" 120A f 0.1 Mean diameter (number distribution, PM)1dr 75.7 * 0.3 Surface Area (m'/crn))t`' 0.050 + 0.013 t`t The reference value is the mean value of measurements from the analysis of test portions from four bottles. Each uncertainty, computed according to the CIPM approach as described in the ISO Guide tl 1,121, is an expanded uncertainty at the 95 % level of confidence, which includes random sources of uncertainty. The expanded uncertainty defines a range of values for the reference value within which the true value is believed to lie, at a level of confidence of 95 %f �bl The mean diameter of the volume distribution represents the center of gravity of the distribution and compensates for scattering efScicney and refractive index. This parameter is strongly influenced by coarse panicles. The mean diameter of the area distribution, calculated from the volume distribution with less waphting by the presence ofcoarsc particles than MV. (dr The mean diameter of the number distribution, calculated using the volume distribution weighted to small particles. t`t Calculated specific surface area assuming solid, spherical particles. This is a computation and should not be interchanged with an adsorption method of surface area determination as this value does not reflect porosity or topographical characteristics. Table 13. Percentage of the Volume That is Smaller Than the Indicated Size Percentile Particle Diameter"' (Wn) 95 296 f 5 90 247 ;t 2 80 20I t 1 70 174 ;k 1 60 152 f 1 50h' 135 1 40 120 f 1 30 106 f 1 20 91 f 1 10 74 t 1 The reference value for particle diameter is the mean value of measurements from the analysis of test portions from four bottles. Each uncertainty. computed according to the CIPM approach as described in the ISO Guide [11,121, is an expanded uncertainty at the 95 % level of confidence, which includes random sources of uncertainty. The expanded uncertainty defines a range of values for the reference value within which the true value is believed to lie, at a level of confidence of 95 %. for Median diameter (30 % of the volume is less than 135 tom). SLIM 1944 Page 16 of 22 FA ;i 11_ i�irft ii Table 14. Reference Values for Total Organic Carbon and Percent Extractable Mass in SRM 1944 Mass Fraction M Total Organic Carbon (TOC)"ab) 4.4 0.3 Extractable Mass"A 1.15 f 0.04 t't Mass fraction is reported on a dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture. tbtiThe reference value for total organic carbon is an equally weighted menu value from routine measurements made by three laboratories. Each uncertainty, computed according to the C1PM approach as described in the ISO Guide[ 1 I ,121, is an expanded uncertainty at the 95 % level of confidence, which includes random sources of uncertainty. The expanded uncertainty defines a range of values ror the reference value within which the true value is believed to lie, at a level of confidence of 95 'Na. t`t Extractable mass as determined from Soxhlet extraction using DCM. 14) The reference value for extractable mass is the mean value of six measurements. Each uncertainty, computed according to the CIPM approach as described in the ISO Guide [ 1 1,12], is an expanded uncertainty at the 95 % level ofconfidence, which includes random sources of uncertainty. The expanded uncertainty defines a range of values for the reference value within which the true value is believed to lie, at a level of confidence of 95 %. Table 15. information Mass Fraction Values for Selected Elements in SRM 1944 as Determined by INAA (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fracliod-0 (`%) Magnesium46j 1.0 Mass Fraction") (mg/kg) Cerium(b) 65 Europi urn'b1 1.3 Gold(bt 0.10 Lanthanumfb) 39 ThoriumSb' 13 Uraniurotb' 3.1 t't Mass fraction is reported on a dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisturc. tb� Measured at TAEA using INAA SRM 1944 Page 17 of 22 Table 16. information Mass Fraction Values for Selected Polychlorinated Naphthalenes in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fraction°} (pg/k8) PCN 19 (1,3,5-Trichloronaphthalene) 1.4 PCN 23 (1,4,5-Trichloronsphthalene) 2.4 PCN 42 (1,3,5,7-Tetrachloronaphthalene) 2.7 PCN 47 (1,4,6,7-Tetrachloronaphthalene) 3.5 PCN 52 (1,2,3,5,7-Pentachloronaphthalene► 2-5 60 (1.2,4,6,7-Pentachloronaphthalene) PCN 50 (1.2,3,4,6-Pentachloronaphthalene) 1.0 PCN 66 (1,2,3,4,6,7-Hexaehlorortaphiholene) 0-63 67 (1,2,3,5,6,7-Hexachioconaphthalene) PCN 69 (1.2,3,5,7,8-Hexnehloronaphthalene) L,6 PCN 73 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7-Hepiachloronaphthalerte) 0.51 PCN 75 (pctachloronaphthalene) 0.20 t't Mass fractions reported on, dry -mass basis, material as received contains approximately 1.3 %moisture. lnfbniWioo values arethe median of the results from six laboratories participating in an interlaboratory comparison exercise (Appendix Dl. Table 17. Information Mass Fraction Values far Three HBCD Isomers in SRM 1944 (Dry -Mass Basis) Mass Fraction" N (us/kg) alpha-HBCD" 2.2 beta-HBCD"" 1 0 gamma-H13CY"I 18 "' The information value h the median of the results From three analytical methods. (h) Mass fractions are reported on dry -mass basis; material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture, SRM 1944 Page 19 of 22 SRM 1944 Table 18. Analytical Methods Used for the Measurement of Elements in SRM I W Elements Analytical Methods Aluminum FAAS, ICPDES, INAA, XRF Antimony GFAAS, HGAAS, ICP-MS, ID4CPMS, INAA Arsenic GFAAS, HGAAS, ICPMS, INAA, XRF Beryllium GFAAS, ICP-AES, ICPMS Bromine INAA Cadmium FAAS, GFAAS, ICPMS, ID-ICPMS Calcium INAA Cerium INAA Cesium INAA Chlorine INAA Chromium FAAS, GFAAS, ICPMS, ID-ICPMS, INAA, XRF Cobalt INAA Copper FAAS, GFAAS, ICPDES, ICPMS, IDdCPMS, XRF Europium INAA Gold INAA Iron FAAS, ICPDES, ICPMS, ID=ICPMS, INAA, XRF Lanthanum INAA Lead FAAS, GFAAS, 1CPMS, ID-ICPMS, XRF Magnesium INAA Manganese FAAS, ICPDES, ICPMS, INAA, XRF Mercury CVAAS, ICPMS Nickel GFAAS, ICPDES, ICPMS, ID-ICPMS, INAA, XRF Potassium INAA Rubidium INAA Scandium INAA Selenium GFAAS, HGAAS, ICPMS, INAA Silicon FAAS, ICPDES, XRF Silver FAAS, GFAAS, ICPMS, INAA Sodium INAA Thallium GFAAS.ICPOES, ICPMS, ID-ICPMS, Thorium INAA Tin GFAAS, ICPMS, ID-ICPMS Titanium INAA Uranium INAA Vanadium INAA Zinc FAAS, ICPDES, ICPMS, ID-ICPMS, XRF, INAA Methods CVAAS Cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry FAAS Flame atomic absorption spectrometry GFAAS Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry HGAAS Hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry ICPDES Tnductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry ICPMS Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry ID-ICPMS Isotope dilution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry INAA Instrumental neutron activation analysis XRF X-ray fluorescence spectrometry Page 19 of 22 REFERENCES [1 ] May, W.; Parris, R.; Beck, C.; Fassett, J_; Greenberg, R_; Guenther, F.; Kramer, G.; Wise, S_; Gills, T.; Colbert, J.; Gettings, R.; MacDonald, B.; Definitions of Terms and Modes Used at NIST for Value Assignonent of Reference Materials for Chemical Measttrernents; NIST Special Publication 260-136, U.S. Government Printing Office: Gaithersburg, MD (2000); available at http://ts.nist.gov/McasuremmntServices/€teferenceMaterials/PUBLICA'1-IONS.Cfin (accessed Sep 2011) [2] Wise, S.A.; Foster, D.L.; Schantz, M.M_; Kucklick, J.R.; Sander, L.C.; Lopez de Alda, M.; Schubert, P.; Parris, R.M.; Porter, B.J.; Two New Marine Sediment Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) for the Determination of Organic Contaminants; Anal. Bioanal. Chem., Vol. 378, pp. 1251-1264 (2004). [3] Schulte E.; Malisch, R.; Calculation of the Real PC8 Content in Environmental Samples. 1, htvestiRation of the Composition of Two Technical PCB Mixtures; Fresenius Z. Anal. Chem_, Vol. 314, pp_ 545-551 (1983). [4) Parris, R.M.; Schantz, M.M,; Wise, S.A.; N1ST{NOAA NS&T/EPA EMAP Intercomparison Exercise Program for Organic Contaminants in the Marine Environment: Description and Results of 1995 Organic lntercompariso t Exercises, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 104, Silver Spring, MD (1996). [5] Stapleton, H.M.; Keller, J.M.; Schantz, M.M.; Kucklick, J.R.; Wise, S.A.; NIST Inter -Comparison Exercise Program for Poh•bronrinuted Dotenyl Ethers (PBDEs) in Marine Sediment; Description and Results of the 2004 Inter -Comparison Exercise; NISTIR 7278 (2005). [6] Schantz, M.M_; Parris, R.M.; Wise, S.A.; NIST Intercomparison Exercise Program for Organic Contaminants in the Marine Environment: Description and Results of the 2007 Organic Intercornparison Exercises: N1ST1R 7501 (2008). (7) Willie, S; Berman, S.; NOAA National Status and Trends Program Tenth Round lntercamparison Exercise Results for Trace Metals in Marine Sediments and Biological Tissue; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 106, Silver Spring, MD (1996). (8) Beaty, E.S.; Paulson, P.J_; Selective Application of Chemical Separations to Isotope Dilution Inducti vi'r Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Standard RefereneeMaterials: Anal_ Chem., Vol. 65, pp. 1602-1608 (1993). (9] Greenberg, R. R.; Flemming, R.F.; Zeis let, R.; Nigh Sen.sitivirti•Neutron Activation Anal}'sis of Environmental and Biological Standard Reference Materials; Environ. Intern., Vol. 10, pp. 129-136 (1984). [ 101 Paule, R.C.; MaDdel, J.: Consensus haloes and Weighting Factors; J. Res. Net, Bur. Stand., Vol. 87 pp. 377-385 (1982). [ I 1 ] JCGM 100:2008; Evaluation of Measurement Data —Guide it) the Expression of Uncertain(' in Mearuremeirl (iSO GUM 1995 with Minor Corrections); Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (2008); available at http://www.biprn.org/u6ls/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf (accessed Sep2011); see also Taylor, B.N.; Kuyatt, C.E.; Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncerrainrt• of NIST Measurement Results; NiST Technical Note 1297; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC (1994); available at htip://www.nist.gov/pbystab/pubs/index.cfm (accessed Sep 2011). (12) JCGM 101.2008, Evaluation of measurement data - Supplement 1 to the Guide to Expression of Uncertainly in Measurement; Propagation of Distributions Using a Monte Carlo Method; Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (BIPM, IEC,IFCC, [LAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML), International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), Sevres, France (2008); available at http://wviw.bipm.or&tilstoommon/documents)jcgnvJCGM_101_2008_E,pdf (accessed Sep 2011). [13] Ballschmiter, K,;Zell, M.; Analysis of Pol vhlorinaied Biphenyls (PCB) by Glass Capillary Gas Chroinatograplty - Composition of Technical Aroclor- and Clophen-PCB MWirres: Fresenius Z. Anal. Chem,.Voi 302, pp. 20-31 (1980). [14] Ruhkin, A.L,;Vangel, M.G. Estimation of a Cottnnon Mean and Weighted Means Slatrstics; J. Am. Statist. Assoc., Vol. 93, pp. 303-308 (1998). [ 15] International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (1-TEF) Method of RiskA.ssessrnent for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee on Challenges in the Modem Society, Report No. 176, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Brussels, Belgium (1988). itnmie Revlaton history: 27 Septnaber 2811 (hddiuon of mass fraction ~aloes for PSDE and PCN congcnr rs; change or mass fraction reference values, cdiimml changcn); 22 December 20�0 tEx(cmion of certification perrod); 11 May 1999 (Original certificate date). Users of tltts SRM should ensure that the Certificate ofAnalrsis in their possession is current. This can be accomplished bt•conracting ilre SRM Program at: telephone (301) 975-2200, fax (301) 926.4751; e-mail srminfo@nist.gov; or via the hiternet at http://ww►s.rtisr.govArm, SRM 1944 Page 20o€22 APPENDIX A The analysts and laboratories listed below participated in the interlaboratory comparison exercise for the determination of PBDEs in SRM 1944 [4]_ D. Hoover and C. Hamilton, AXYS Analytical, Sidney, BC, Canada & Klosterhaus and J. Baker, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons. MD, USA S_ Backus, Environment Canada, Ecosystem Health Division, Burlington, ON, Canada E. Sverko, Environment Canada, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, ON, Canada P. Lepom, Federal Environmental Agency, Berlin, Germany R. Hites and L. Zhu, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA G, Jiang, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Beijing, China H. Takada, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo, Japan A. Covaci and S. Vorspoels, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium A. Li. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA APPENDIX B The analysts and laboratories listed below participated in the interlaboratory comparison exercise for time determination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p•dioxins and dibenzofurans in SRM 1944. W.J. Luksemburg, Alta Analytical Laboratory, Inc., El Dorado Hills, CA, USA L, Phillips, AXYS Analytical Services Ltd., Sidney, British Columbia, Canada M.J, Armbruster, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH, USA G. Reuel, Canviro Analytical Laboratories Ltd., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada C. Brochu, Environment Quebec, Laval, Quebec, Canada G. Poole, Environment Canada Environmental Technology Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada B. Henkelmann, GSF National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Germany R. Anderson, Institute of Environmental Chemistry, limes University, UmeA, Sweden C. Lastoria, Maxxam Analytics Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada E. Reimer, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada J. Macaulay, Research and Productivity Council, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada T.L. wade, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA C. Tashire, Wellington Laboratories, Guelph, Ontario, Canada T.O. Tiernan, Wright Stale University, Dayton, OH, USA APPENDIX C The analysts and laboratories listed below participated in the inlerlaboratory comparison exercise for the determination of trace elements in SRM 1944. A. Abbgy, Applied Marine Research Laboratory, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA A. Scott, Australian Government Analytical Laboratories, Pymble, Australia H. Mawhinney, Animal Research Institute, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Australia E. Crecelius, Battelle Pacific Northwest, Sequim, WA, USA M_ Stephenson, California Department of Fish and Game, Moss Landing, CA, USA B. Presley, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA K. Flrick, U.S. Geological Survey, Atlanta, GA, USA SRM 1944 Page 21 of 22 APPENDIX D The analysts and laboratories listed below participated in the interlaboratory comparison ex=ise for the determination of polychlorinated naphthalenes in SRM 1944, J. Kucklick, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Charleston, SC, USA E. Sverko, Environment Canada, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, ON, Canada P. Helm, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Etobicoke, ON, Canada N. Yamashita, National Institute of Advanced industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Tsukuba, Japan T. }lamer, Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada R. L,ega, Ontario Ministry of the Environmwnt, Etobicoke, ON, Canada SRM 1944 Page 22 of 22 B Co�1 Ora43140 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Cunaultstnta Analytical Standard Record Standard ID: D00337I Printed: 8/11/2016 3:07:40PM Description: Puget Sound reference-SRM Expires: 11-Aug-2016 Standard Type: Analyte Spike Prepared: 11-Aug-2015 Solvent: NA Prepared By: Amanda Volgardsen Final Volume (cols): 30 Department: QC Vials: 1 Last Edit: 07-00-2015 16:16 by VTS Vend or: QATS Lab Lot # SR0431 Vendor Catalog M Cammeata PSRM0056 Mukilteo Multomodal For Cheronne Oreiro An■lyte CAS Number Concentration Units 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 5711741-6 0,00000123 mg/Kg 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 67562-394 0.0000187 mg/Kg 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 58200-70-7 0.00000163 mg/Kg 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 39227-28-6 0.00000159 mg(Kg 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 70648-26-9 0,00000302 mg/Kg 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 57653-85-7 0.00000388 mg/Kg 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 57117-44-9 0.00000109 mg/Kg 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 19408-74.3 0.00000304 mg/Kg 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3582246-9 0.0000906 mg/Kg 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 40321-764 0,00000108 mg/Kg OCDF 39001-02-0 0.0000584 m)Kg 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 60851-34-5 0.00000183 mg/Kg 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 57117-314 0.00000107 mg/Kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1746-01-6 0.00"105 mglKg 2,3,7,8=UC13F 51207-31-9 0.00000111 mg(Kg Aroclor 1260 11096-82-5 0.108 mg/Kg Aroclor 1260 [2C] 11096-82-5 0.108 mg/Kg OCDD 3268-87-9 0,00081.1 mg/Kg 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 72918-21-9 0,000000511 mg(Kg Reviewed By Date Page 1 of 1 Analytical Resources, Incorporated lLodytical Cb�ete sa,d Coaiul�4 Analytkal Standard Record Standard ED: D003371. Printed: 8/11/3015 4:10:27PM Description: Puget Sod rekmxe-sw Explrea: 11-Aug 2016 Stwkkrd Type: Ref6vme Mate! Pncpered: 11-Aug 2015 Solvent: NA pmpared By: Amanda Volgm*M Fine! Volume (mis): 30 DgmVnwt: QC diets: l Last F k. 1 i-Aug 2015 16:09 by AV Vendor: QATS Lab Lot It: SR0431 Vendor Catalog #: Go�ab PSRM0056 Mnlciiteo Mul muxlal For Cheraw Omiro Aulgte CAS Nent air Cometrafign Unto SAM Control Llanka 1,2,3,7,"eCDF 5711741-6 0.00D00123 mglKg 50-150 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 67562.39-4 0.0000187 M9lK9 50-150 1,2,3,4,7,8,4-HpCDF 58200-70-7 0.00000163 MWKS 50-150 l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 39227-28-6 D,00000159 mlrU 50-150 1,2,3,4,7,&ffx:CDF 70643-26-9 0.00000302 mg/Kg 50-150 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 57653-M-7 0.00000388 M WU 50-150 1,2,3,6,7,&4bcC-DF 571174" 0.00000109 mgxx 50-13p 1,2,3,7,9,9-HxCDD 1%03-74.3 0.00000304 n*fKg 50-150 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 33922.4" 0,0000906 mg/Kg 50-150 1,2,3,7,8-P*CDD 40321-76-4 0.0D000 i 08 m 50-150 OCDF 39001-02-0 0.0D00584 mglKg 50-150 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 23,4,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,74-TUDD 2,3,7,5-TCl)F 60831-34-5 0.00000193 mg1Kg 50-150 57117-31-4 0.00000107 tnglKg 50-150 1746-01-6 0,00000105 fnwKg 50-150 51207-31-9 0.00000111 mFJKg 50-150 Aroclo+r 1260 11096-92-5 0,108 mp,JKR 38-167 Aroclat 1260 [2C] 110%V-5 0.108 mglKg 39-167 OCDD 326"7 9 0.000811 m$VKg 50-150 IA3,7,8,9-HxCDF 72919-21-9 0.400000511 mglKg 50-150 1DOi0221he RU9d SM+d SRM $ON"*! Lct MA PhW BltIMMS byAV Elp: &11r"s LAcabm 0 Page 1 of 1 0 • Recipient Copy CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY RECORD Order Number: C8012892 date Shipped: 811=015 From: OATS LABORATORY To: CHEROWNE OREIRO 2700 CWINOLER AVENUE, SM. B ANALYTICAL RESOURCES LAS VEGAS, NV 89120 4011 8. 134TH PLACE, SUITE 100 PHONE:1-702-MA-W12 TUKWILA WA 96144 FAX 1702 72"210 2054106. = COC No. 13435 AirBiN No(s): 560647655403 Sample ID Qty DescrlptloWROUft Catalogue Nturlber PSRM00W 1 PUGET SOUND SEDIMENT RM PS-SRM - 4 4 PROJECT SITE NWE: MUKILTEO MULTOMODAL Pkme use an endeead Sample Praparadon Irratrucftw. If alelowe wnrbar(s) Oro Inked at Ow lop of Me Sample Preparation IrmftdPona us■ the Rreperatlon Mabustlons wltli catalogue nurnbar(s) matrK g the catalogue Ir~s} of bath of the samples low above. DAWTW e� � b+f Oatie![ints qZb,,* Custody Sea!(sJ: PmswNAbswg ftemarlu: ftum u4ired by. aa6ernm PA00 ad by: DafelTksw {8lgnatore} (Sipnaturo} ftiW ft LV W1112 t4 sw Version a 3 Sow i 000"- . y QUALITY ASSURANCE TECHNICAL SUPPORT LABORATORY pAn ISO 9WI.-2 od Cer~Program - Instructions for OATS Catalog Number: PS-SRM Alarms SecNment: GDDIICI.?FXB Congenera/Arodors PUGET SOUND SEDIMENT REFERENCE MATERIAL OATS LABORATORY INSTRUCTIONS FOR HRGCIHRMS CDDICDFICB CONGENER AND GCIECD AROCLOR ANALYSIS NOTE: These instruebons are for advisory purposes only. If any apparent confild exists between these instructions and the analytical protocols or your contract, disregard these instructions. APPLICA770N. For the analysis of CDD/CDF and CB Congener snalytes using project-spectfied HRGCMRMS methods, and Arodom using project specified GVECD methods. CAUTION.,, Read tnstructions cwek&y before opening bottles and Px ceeding with the analyses. (A) SAMPLE DESCRKKa77ON Enclosed is a Puget Sound (Washington State) Sediment Reference Material (SRM) set for chlorinated dlbenzo-p-dioxinslchlorinated dibenzohwans (CDD/CDF), and/or chlorinated biphenyl (CB) congener analysis using project -specified high resolution gas chromatography/ high resolution mass spec*ometry (HRGCIHRMS) methods. This SRM is also suitable for Arodors analysW using project -specified gas chromatography/electron capture detixton (GCIECD) methods. This set consists of one (1) or more bottles, each with approximately 30 grams of Puget Sound SRM oontaining CDDICDF, CB Congener, and/or Arodor analytes. Check the chain -of -custody record to dst�ermina the number of bottles provided for CDDICDF, CB Congener. and/or Ardor analysis. None of the bottles are to be opened until SRM preparation/analysis is to occur. CAURQH: The SRM could contain compounds that are light sensitive and should be protected from light during storage. Store the SRM at!; V C, preferably at < 0° C, until SRM preparation and analysis is to occur. Allow the bottle(s) to resch ambient temperature before opening. (8) BREAKAGE OR MISSING ITEMS Check the contents of the shipment carefully for any broken, leaking, or missing items. Refer to the erred chain-of-(=tody record. Report any problems to Mr. Keith Strout, CS&I Few Services LLC, at (702) 895-8722. If requested, return the chain -of -custody record with appropriate annotations and signatures to the address provided below. QUALITY ASSURANCE TECHNICAL SUPPORT LABORATORY CBSI Federal Seroicss LLC 2700 Chandler Avonue - Building C Las Vegas, NV 89120 Pape , of 2 P34RM6 OATS F&M 2-007F159RO3, 06-15-2014 "z NO The Qudly A&eur{v" reMneW SUWW i0ATSJ c *iO is Wwafad by C8M FedPW 54rV*W LLC. • QUALITY ASSURANCE T`ECC�HJ�NIC�AI...wSUPPORT LABORATORY �An ISO 90i�y.�8 C+���IIV�J PmgmmN InsUvctlons for QATS Catalog Number; PS43RM Merfae Sedknwtt: CDOMM" Corysir&WArocloa The SRM Is to be analyzed as described in the project -specified me0oft employed for the analysis of CDDICDF and/or CB Congeries analyles using HRGCJHRMS Instrumentation and/or Aroclors using GVECD instrumentation. These instructions are for advisory purposes only. If any apparent conflict exists between twee instructions and the project -specified methods, or your contract, drsregenl ftse kmtr ct ons. (D) SAMPLE AMALYSIS The SRM contains CDDICDIF, CB Congener, and Arodor arralyres which are known or suspeded to have severe health affects. Employing appropriate safety precautions, this SRM is to be handled, prepared, and analyzed exactly as you would process samples receiveed from a known or suspected hazardous waste site. The SRM should be handled only by trained and experienced analysts in facilf *s expressly designed to handle such materials. When calculating the concentrations of analyses, use D% as the soil moisture content. Allow the bottle(s) to reach ambient temperature before opening and removing gravimetric amounts for sample preparation. To begin the extraction and analysis procedure, break the seal and open the bottle carefully. Weigh out the appropriate aliquot for extraction and analysis as prescribed in the project-opeWed methods (typically 10 gram for HRGCIHRMS methods and 30 grams for GC/ECD methods), or in accordance with your contract. Proceed immediately with the extraction and analysis as described in the projed-specified methods or your oontrad, (E) REPORTING Report the results for the prepared SRM as received. Report the analytical results for the SRM to EPA or other appropriate Agency, using the format and other instructions for submission of data packages as specified In your contract. "2 of 2 QATS Form 20-407F956RD3, M15-2014 Analytical Method Information Printed, 08/03/2016 12:07 pm 8270D SVOC (20-200 ug/kg) or (0.2-2 ug/L Sepp) in Solid (EPA 82701)} Preservation: Cool <60C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 8 oz Amount Required: 300 g Hold Time: 14 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %ReC RPD Phenol 8.23 20.0 ug/kg 30 34-120 30 34-120 30 bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 6.78 20.0 ug/kg 30 36-120 30 36-120 30 2-Chlorophenol 6.47 70.0 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30 1,3-Dichiorobenzene 5.07 20.0 ugJkg 30 40-120 30 40-120 30 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4.39 20.0 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30 1,2-Dichk)robenzene 4.66 20.0 ugJkg 30 40-120 30 40-120 30 Senzyl Alcohol 14.9 20.0 ug/kg 30 19-120 30 19-120 30 2,2'-Oxybis(1-chloropropane) 5.67 20.0 ug/kg 30 32-120 30 32-120 30 2-Methylphenol 7.84 20.0 ug/kg 30 28-120 30 28-120 30 Hexachloroethane 5.65 20.0 ug/kg 30 36-120 30 38-120 30 N-Nitroso-di-n-Propylamine 10.8 20.0 ug/kg 30 34-120 30 34-120 30 4-Methytphenol 14.7 20.0 ug/kg 30 29-120 30 29-120 30 Nitrobenzene 7.95 20.0 ug/kg 30 36-120 30 36-120 30 Isophorone 7.75 20.0 ug/kg 30 37-120 30 37-120 30 2-Nitrophenol 692 20.0 ug/kg 30 30-120 30 30-120 30 2,4-Dimethylphenol 26.8 100 ug/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 6.34 20.0 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30 2,4-Dichiorophenol 32.0 100 ug/kg 30 28-120 30 28-120 30 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 5.96 20.0 ug/kg 30 35-120 30 35-120 30 Naphthalene 5.25 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-120 30 43-120 30 Benzoic acid 59.1 200 ug/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30 4-Chloroaniline 33.7 100 ug/kg 30 11-120 30 11-120 30 Hexachlombutadiene 5.01 20.0 ug/kg 30 37-120 30 37-120 30 4-Chloro-3-Methyl phenol 28.9 100 ug/kg 30 32-120 30 32-120 30 2-Methyinaphthaiene 5.67 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-120 30 43-120 30 Hexachlorocyclopentadlene 41.3 100 ug/kg 30 ID-120 30 10-120 30 2,4,6 Trichlorophenol 25.4 100 ugJkg 30 30-120 30 3D-120 30 2,4,5-Tbchlorophenol 26.9 100 ug/kg 30 28-120 30 28-12D 30 2{hloronaphthalene 4A4 20.0 ug/kg 30 40-120 30 40-120 30 2-N troaniline 30.2 100 ug/kg 30 31-126 30 31-126 30 Acenaphthylene 4.77 20.0 ug/kg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30 DimethylphthMate 6.44 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-120 30 43-120 30 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 26.7 100 ug/kg 30 33-123 30 33-123 30 Acenaphthene 5.13 20.0 ug/kg 30 45-120 30 45-120 30 3-Nitroaniline 37.7 100 ug/kg 30 22-120 30 22-120 30 2,4-Dinitrophenol 41.3 200 ug/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30 Dibenzofuran 4.61 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-120 30 43-120 30 4-Nitrophenol 44.4 100 ug/kg 30 15-138 30 15-138 30 2,4-Dinitrotoiuene 22.9 1D0 ug/kg 30 35-127 30 35-127 30 Fluorene 4.95 20.0 ug/kg 30 45-120 30 45-120 30 4-Chlorophenyiphenyl ether 6.96 20.0 ug/kg 30 32-120 30 32-120 30 Diethyl phthalate 17.7 20.0 ug/kg 30 50-120 30 50-120 30 4-Nitroaniline 34.9 100 ug/kg 30 24-125 30 24-125 30 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 50.5 200 ugJkg 30 24-120 30 24-120 30 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 9.57 20.0 ug/kg 30 36-120 30 36-120 30 4-Bromophenyi phenyl ether 6,07 20.0 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30 Hexachlorobenzene 4,74 20.0 ug/kg 30 33-120 30 33-120 30 Pentachlorophenol 31.3 100 ug/kg 30 16-120 30 16-120 30 Phenanthrene 4.69 20.0 ug/kg 30 49-120 30 49-120 30 Anthracene 5.93 20.0 ug/kg 30 45-120 30 45-120 30 Carbazole 7.37 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-135 30 43-135 30 Di-n-Butylphthalate 5.31 20.0 ug/kg 30 48-126 30 48-126 30 Fluoranthene 4.52 20.0 ug/kg 30 53-120 30 53-120 30 Pyrene 5.55 20.0 ug/kg 30 48-121 30 48-121 30 Page l of 2 3' Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:07 pm (Continued) 8270D SVDC (20-200 ug/kg) or (0.2-2 ug/L SepF) in Solid (EPA 8270D) (Continued) Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Butt' benzylphtha late 8.05 20.0 ugJkg 30 45-132 30 45-132 30 Benzo(a)anthracene 5,18 20.0 ugJkg 30 49-120 30 49-120 30 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 31.2 100 ug/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30 Chrysene 5.22 20.0 ugJkg 30 47-120 30 47-120 30 bis(2- Ethyl hexyl)phthalate 28.8 50,0 ugJkg 30 34-130 30 34-130 30 Di-n-Octylphthalate 8.72 20.0 ug/kg 30 28-124 30 ZB-124 30 Senzo(b)fluoranthene 7.02 20.0 ugJkg 30 42-132 30 42-132 30 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.01 20.0 ugJkg 30 39-129 30 39-129 30 Benzofluoranthenes, Total 10.2 40.0 ugJkg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30 Benzo(a)pyrene 6.48 20.0 ugJkg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30 1ndeno(1,2,3�d)pyrene 5.99 20.0 ugfkg 30 42-123 30 42-123 30 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.16 20.0 ugJkg 30 30-133 30 30-133 30 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5.82 20.0 ugJkg 30 38-126 30 38-126 30 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 22.4 40.0 ugJkg 30 17-120 30 17-120 30 Aniline 16.9 100 ug/kg 30 10-134 30 10-134 30 Retene 4.01 20.0 ugJkg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30 Pyridine 86.6 100 ugJkg 30 10-147 30 10-147 30 1-Methyl naphthalene 5.95 20.0 ugJkg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30 Azobenzene (1,2-DP-Hydrazine) 4.61 20,0 ugfkg 30 35-120 30 35-120 30 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 5.37 20.0 ugJkg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30 Benzidine 100 200 ugJkg 30 57-120 30 57-120 30 Tetrachloroguaiacol 10.1 40.0 ugJkg 30 30 30 3,4,5-Trichki'roguaiacoi 3.90 20.0 ug/kg 30 30 30 3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol 20.0 ug/kg 30 30 30 4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol 7.91 20.0 ug/kg 30 30 30 Guaiacol 6.47 20.0 ug/kg 30 30 30 Surr: 2-Fluorophenol 27-120 Surr: Phenol-6 29-120 Surr: 2-Chlorophenol-d4 31-120 Surr: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4 32-120 Surr; Nitrobenzene-6 30-120 Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 35-120 Surr: 2,4,6-Tribromophenal 24-134 Surr: p-Terphenyl-04 37-120 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 Naphthalene -dB Acenaphthene-dl0 Phena nthrene-d 10 Chrysene-d12 Di-n-Octylphthalate-d4 Perylene-d 12 Page 2 of 2 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08103/2016 12:07 pm 1613B Dioxin In Solid (EPA 1613B) Preservation: Coal <6°C Container: Glass WM, Amber, 8 oz Amount Required: 150 g Hold Time: 365 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit °/aRec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.244 1,00 ngJkg 25 75-158 25 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.214 1.00 ngJkg 25 67-158 25 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.472 1,00 ngJkg 25 80-134 25 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.625 1,00 ng/kg 25 68-160 25 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.590 1.00 ngJkg 25 70-142 25 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.784 1.00 ngJkg 25 72-134 25 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.623 1.00 ng/kg 25 84-130 25 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.574 1.00 ngJkg 25 70-156 25 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.953 1,00 ng/kg 25 78-130 25 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.479 1.00 ng/kg 25 70-164 25 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.702 1.00 ngJkg 25 76-134 25 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.722 1.00 ngJkg 25 64-162 25 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.881 1.00 ngJkg 25 82-122 25 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.703 1.00 ngJkg 25 78-138 25 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.14 2.50 ng/kg 25 70-140 25 OCDF 1.77 2.00 ngJkg 25 63-170 25 OCDD 9.42 10.0 ngJkg 25 78-144 25 Total TCDF 1.00 ngJkg Total TCDD 1.00 ngJkg Total PeCDF 1.00 ngJkg Total PeCDD 1.00 ngJkg Total HxCDF 1.00 ng/kg Total HxCDD 1.00 ngJkg Total HxCDF 1.00 ngJkg Total HpCDD 1.00 ng/kg Surr: 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF 24-169 Surr. 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCD1) 25-164 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 24-185 Surr: 13C12-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 21-178 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCOD 25-181 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 26-152 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 26-123 Surr: 13C12-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 28-136 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 29-147 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 32-141 Sun': 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 28-130 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 28-143 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HxCDF 26-138 Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 23-140 Surr: 13C12-OCDD 17-157 Sum 37C14-2,3,7,8-TCDD 35-197 13C12-1,2,3,4-TCDD 13C12-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD Page 1 of 1 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12_07 pm 8081B Pest (PSDDA J Low Level) in Solid (EPA 808115) Preservation: Cool <6°C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 8 az Amount Required: 150 g Hold Time: 14 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD alpha-BHC 0.0836 0.500 ug/kg 30 41-120 30 41-120 30 alpha-BHC [2C] 0.0836 0.500 ug/kg 30 41-120 30 41-120 30 beta-BHC 0.0915 0.500 usift 30 42-120 30 42-120 30 beta-BHC [2C] 0.0915 0.500 ug/kg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.0677 0.500 ug/kg 30 49-120 30 49-120 30 gamma-BHC (Undane) [2C] 0.0677 0.5DO ug/kg 30 49-120 30 49-120 30 delta-BHC 0.0655 0.500 ug/kg 30 19-140 30 19-140 30 delta-BHC [2C3 0.0655 0.500 ug/kg 30 19-140 30 19-14D 30 Heptachlor 0.0464 0.500 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30 Heptachlor[2C] 0.0464 0.500 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30 Aldrin 0.369 0.500 ug/kg 30 41-120 30 41-120 30 Aldrin [2C] 0.369 0.500 ugJkg 30 41-120 30 41-120 30 Heptachlor Epoxide 0.170 0.500 ug/kg 30 42-132 30 42-132 30 Heptachlor Epoxide (2C] 0.170 0.500 ug/kg 30 42-132 30 42-132 30 trans -Chlordane (beta -Chlordane) 0.327 0.500 ug/kg 30 45-130 30 45-130 30 trans -Chlordane (beta -Chlordane) 0.327 0.500 ug/kg 30 45-130 30 45-130 30 [2C] cis -Chlordane (alpha -chlordane) 0.111 0.500 ug/kg 30 44-129 30 44-129 30 cis -Chlordane (alpha -chlordane) [2C] C.111 0.5DO ug/kg 30 44-129 30 44-129 30 Endosulfan I 0-0691 0.500 ug/kg 30 39-141 30 39-141 30 Endosulfan I [2C] 0.0691 O.SOO ug/kg 30 39-141 30 39-141 30 4,4'-DDE 0.135 1.00 ug/kg 30 57-143 30 57-143 30 4,4'-DDE [2C] 0.135 1.00 ugJkg 30 57-143 30 57-143 30 Dieldidn 0.115 1.00 ug/kg 30 44-135 30 44-135 30 Dielddn [2C] 0.115 1.00 ugJkg 30 44-135 30 44-135 30 Endrin 0.142 1.00 ug/kg 30 53-129 30 53-129 30 Endrin [2C] 0,142 1.00 ug/kg 30 53-129 30 53-129 30 EndosulfanII 0.313 1.00 ug/kg 30 32-139 30 32-139 30 Endosulfan II [2C] 0.313 1.00 ug/kg 30 32-139 30 32-139 30 4,4'-DDD 0.320 1.00 ug/kg 30 55-124 30 55-124 30 4,4'-DDD [2C] 0.320 1.00 ug/kg 30 55-124 30 55-124 30 Endrin Aldehyde 0.390 1.00 ug/kg 30 13-120 30 13-120 30 Endrin Aldehyde [2C] 0.390 1.00 ug/kg 30 13-120 30 13-120 30 4,4'-DDT 0.325 1.00 ugJkg 30 45-133 30 45-133 30 4,4'-DDT [2C] 0.325 1.00 ug/kg 30 45-133 30 45-133 30 Endosulfan Sulfate 0.123 1.00 ug/kg 30 16-152 30 16-152 30 Endosulfan Sulfate [2C] 0.123 1.00 ug/kg 30 16-152 30 16-152 30 Endrin Ketone 0.282 1.00 ugJkg 30 26-144 30 26-144 30 Endrin Ketone [2C] 0.282 1.00 ug/kg 30 26-144 30 26-144 30 Methoxychlor 0.298 5.00 ug/kg 30 43-125 30 43-125 30 Methoxychlor[2C] 0.296 5.00 ug/kg 30 43-125 30 43-125 30 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.342 1.00 ugJkg 30 30-120 30 30-120 30 Hexachlorobutadiene [2C] 0.342 0.500 ug/kg 30 30-120 30 30-120 30 Hexachlorobenzene 0.145 1.00 ug/kg 30 26-120 30 26-120 30 Hexachlorobenzene [2C] 0.145 0.500 ug/kg 30 26-120 30 26-120 30 2,4'-DDE 0.249 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 2,4'-DDE [2C] 0.249 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 2,4'-DDD 0.195 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 2,4'-DDD 12C] 0.195 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 2,4'-DOT 0.187 1.00 ugJkg 30 30 30 2,4'-DDT [2C] 0.187 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 Oxychlordane 0.128 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 Oxychlordane[2C] 0.128 1.00 ugJkg 30 30 30 cis-Nonachlor 0.210 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 Page i or 2 - W Z Obazi4 9 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08103/2016 12:07 pm (Continued) $0816 Pest (PSDDA j Low Level) In Solid (EPA 80818) (Continued) Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spiker--- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Pec RPD %Rec RPD cis-Nonachlor [2C] 0.210 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 trans-Nonachlor 0.228 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 trans-Nonachlor [2C] 0.228 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 Mirex 0.644 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 Mirex [2C] 0.644 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 Hexachloroethane 0.571 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 Hexachloroethane [2C] 0.571 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30 Toxaphene 4A8 25.0 ug/kg 30 30 30 Toxaphene [2C] 4.48 25.0 ug/kg 30 30 30 Chlordane, technical 10.0 ug/kg Chlordane, technical [2C] 10.0 ug/kg Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 30-160 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl [2C] 30-160 Surr: Tebachlorometaxyiene 30-160 Sum Tetrachlorornetaxytene PC] 30-160 1-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene Hexabromobiphenyl 1-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene [2C] Hexabramobiphenyl [2C] Page 2 or 2 uuiaj'a iiin+y Analytical Method Information Nnted:08/031201612;08Im 8082A PCB Solid 4 in Solid (EPA 8082A) Preservation: Cool <6°C Container: Glass WM, Gear, 8 oz Amount Required: 150 g Hold Time: 14 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike J LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Arodor 1016 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor-1016 (1) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor-1016 (2) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor-1016 (3) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arocior-1016 (4) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor 1016 [2C] 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor-1016 (1) [2C) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor-1016 (2) [2C] 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor-1016 (3) [2C] 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor-1016 (4) [2C] 30 56-120 30 56-120 30 Arodor 1221 1.56 4,00 ug/kg 30 Aroclor-1221 (1) 30 Arockx-1221(2) 30 Aroclor-1221 (3) 30 Arodor 1221 [2C] 1.56 4,00 ug/kg 30 Amcor-1221(1) [2C] 30 Aroclor-1221(2) [2C] 30 Arodor-1221(3) [2C] 30 Arodor-1221(4) [2C] 30 Arodor 1232 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arodor-1232 (1) 30 Arodor-1232 (2) 30 Arodor-1232 (3) 30 Aroclor-1232 (4) 30 Arodor 1232 [2C] 1,56 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arodor-1232 (1) [2C] 30 Arodor-1232 (2) [2C] 30 Arodor-1232 (3) [2C] 30 Arodor-1232 (4) [2C] 30 Arodor 1242 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arodor-1242 (1) 30 Aroclor-1242 (2) 30 Arocior-1242 (3) 30 Aroclor-1242 (4) 30 Arodor 1242 [2C] 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arocior-1242 (1) [2C] 30 Aroclor-1242 (2) pq 30 Arocior-1242 (3) [2C] 30 Arodor-1242 (4) [2C] 30 Arodor 1248 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arodor-1248 (1) 30 Arodor-1248 (2) 30 Arodor-1248 (3) 30 Arodor-1248 (4) 30 Arodor 1248 [2C] 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arodor-1248 (1) [2C] 30 Arodor-1248 (2) [2C] 30 Arodor-1248 (3) [2C] 30 Arodor-1248 (4) [2C] 30 Arodor 1254 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 Aroclor-1254 (1) 30 Arodor-1254 (2) 30 Arodor-1254 (3) 30 Arodor-1254 (4) 30 Page 1 of 2 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:08 pm (Continued) 8082A PCB Solid 4 in Solid (EPA 8082A) (Continued) Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Aroclor-1254 (5) 30 Aroclor 1254 [2C] 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arodor-1254 (1) [2C] 30 Arodor-1254 (2) [2C] 30 Arodor-1254 (3) [2C] 30 Arodor-1254 (4) [2C] 30 Arodor-1254 (5) [2C] 30 Aroclor 1260 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30 W120 30 58-120 30 Aroclor-1260 (1) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Aroclor-1260 (2) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Aroclor-1260 (3) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Aroclor-1260 (4) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Arodor-1260 (5) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Arodor 1260 [2C] 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Arodor-1260 (1) [2C] 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Arodor-1260 (2) [2C] 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Arodor-1260 (3) [2C] 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Arodor-1260 (4) [2C] 30 58-120 30 58-120 30 Arodor 1262 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arodor-1262 (1) 30 Arodor-1262 (2) 30 Arodor-1262 (3) 30 Arodor-1262 (4) 30 Aroclor-1262 (5) 30 Arodor 1262 [2C] 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30 Aroclor-1262 (1) [2C] 30 Aroclor-1262 (2) [2C] 30 Arodor-1262 (3) [2C] 30 Aroclor-1262 (4) [2C] 30 Aroclor-1262 (5) [2C] 30 Arodor 1268 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30 Arodor-1268 (1) 30 Arodor-1268 (2) 30 Arodor-1268 (3) 30 Arodor-1268 (4) 30 Arodor 1268 [2C] 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30 Aroclor-1268 (1) [2C] 30 Aroclor-1268 (2) [2C] 30 Arodor-1268 (3) [2C] 30 Arodor-1268 (4) [2C] 30 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 40-126 Surr: Tetrachlorometaxylene 44-120 Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl [2C] 40-126 Surr: Tetrachlorometaxylene [2C] 44-120 1-Bromo-2-N Itrobenzene Hexabromobiphenyl 1-Broma-2-Nitrobenzene [2C] Hexabromobiphenyl [2C] Page 2of2 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/201612:08 pm TPH NW (Extractables) In Solid (NwTPH-Dx) Preservation: Cool <6°C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 8 oz Amount Required: 15 g Hold Time: 14 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Diesel Range Organics (C12-C24) 2.34 5.00 mg/kg 30 63-120 30 63-120 30 Diesel Range Organics (C10-C25) 1.98 5.00 mg/kg 30 30-160 30 75-125 30 Diesel Range Organics (Tol-C18) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30 Diesel Range Organics (C10-24) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30 Diesel Range Organics (C10-C28) 2,50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30 Diesel Range Organics (C12-C22) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30 Motor Oil Range Organics (C24-C38) 2.99 10.0 mg/kg 30 30 30 Motor Oil Range Organics (C25-C36) 3.42 10.0 mg/kg 30 30 30 Motor Oil Range Organics (C24-C40) 5.00 10.0 mg/kg 30 30 30 Residual Range Organics (C23-C32) 5.00 10.0 mg/kg 30 30 30 Mineral Oil Range Organics (C16-C28) 5.00 10.0 mg/kg 30 30 30 Mineral Spirits Range Organics 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30 (Tol-C12) JP8 Range Organics (C8-C18) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30 JP5 Range Organics (CIO-C16) 2,50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30 3P4 Range Organics (Tol-C14) 2.50 5.00 mgft 30 30 30 ]et -A Range Organics (C10-C18) 2.22 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30 Kerosene Range Organics (Tol-C18) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30 Stoddard Range Organics (CS-C12) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30 Creosote Range Organics(C12-C22) 2.50 5.DO mg/kg 30 30 30 Bunker C Range Organics (C10-08) 2.50 5.D0 mg/kg 30 30 30 Transformer Oil Range Organics 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30 (C12-C28) Surr: o-Terphenyl 50-150 Surr: n-Triacontane 50-150 Page 1 of 1 Analytical Method Information Printed; D6103/201612:08 Pm Met 74718 Mg in Solid (EPA 7471B) Preservation: Cool <60C Container: Glass WM, Clear, Z oz Amount Required: 100 g Hold Time: 28 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Mercury 0.002100 0.02500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Page 1 of 1 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/201612:08 pm Met 200.8j6020A Master List in Solid (EPA 6020A) Preservation: Cool <6°C Container: Class WM, Clear, 4 oz Amount Required: 100 g Hold Time: 180 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit a/oRec RPD o/oRec RPD %Rec RPD Aluminum-27 0.550 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Antimony-121 0.0199 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Antimony-123 0.0183 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Arsenic-75a D.0298 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Arsenic-75b 0.120 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Barium-135 0.0314 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Barium-137 0.0336 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Beryllium-9 0.00954 0.200 nag/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Cadmium-111 0.00716 0.100 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 8D-120 20 Cadmium-114 0,00500 0.100 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Calcium-44 3.81 50.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Chromium-52 0.0685 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Chromium-53 0.0373 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Cobalt-59 0.00572 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Capper-63 0.0372 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Copper-65 0.0259 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Iron-54 4.01 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Iron-57 1.31 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Lead-208 0.00800 0.100 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Magnesium-24 0.614 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Manganese-55 0.0133 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Molybdenum-98 0.0100 0.2D0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Nickel-6D 0.0168 0.5D0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Nickel-62 0.268 0.5D0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 BD-120 20 Potassium-39 2.81 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 BD-120 20 Selenium-82 0.0322 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Selenium-78 0.391 2.00 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Silver-107 0.00310 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Sodium-23 14.4 100 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Thallium-205 0.00619 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Vanadium-51a 0.0214 0.20D mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Vanadium-51b D.0214 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Zinc-66 0.285 4.00 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Zinc-67 0.226 4.00 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Zinc-68 0.326 4.00 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20 Lithium Scandium Germanium Indium Terbium Page 1 of 1 ".� C 1 Oh OR 05 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:09 prn Chromium, Hexavalent, 7196A Solid in Solid (EPA 7196A) Preservation: Cool <60C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 4 oz Amount Required: 100 g Hold Time: 30 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD I Hexavaient Chromium 0.0100 OADO mg/kg 20 75-125 90-110 20 Page i of 1 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/D3/2016 12:1D pm Solids, Total Volatile (TVS) PSEP in Solid (PSEP 1986) Preservation: Cool <6°C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 4 Oz Amount Required: 100 g Hold Time: 7 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike 1 LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Volatile Solids 0.0100 % 20 Page 1 of 1 Rewi . OOC"T;1 7, Analytical Method Information Prinked: 08103/2016 12:10 pm Ammonia-N, SM 4500-NH3 H-97 Solid In Solid (SM 4500-NH3 H-97) Preservation: Cool <b°C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 4 oz Amount Required: 100 g Hold Time: 28 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike I LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Ammonia-N 0.0300 0.100 mglkg 20 75-125 90-110 20 NH3-N Page 1 of 1 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/201612:10pm Sulfide, SM 4500-S2 D-0, Solid (PSEP) in Solid (SM 4500-52 D-00) Preservation: ZnOAc, Cool <6°C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 2 oz Amount Required: 100 g Hold Time: 7 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Sulfide O.a750 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 90-110 20 Page 1 of 1 Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/201612:10 pm Organic Carbon, Total, Plumb In Solid (Plumb 1981, Combustion IR) Preservation: Cool <6°C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 4 oz Amount Required: 100 g Hold Time: 14 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS-- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD Total Organic Carbon 0.0200 % 20 75-125 90-110 20 Solids, Total, Dried at 103 -105 °C, Solid In Solid (SM 2540 G-97) Preservation: Coal <6°C Container: Glass WM, Clear, 4 oz Amount Required: 100 g Hold Time: 28 days Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike---- --Blank Spike / LCS•- Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD rota) Solids 0.04000 % 20 Page 1 of 1 s i, �. llil�l'11t9illl�i�ti General Chemistry Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ARI Job ID: BCWI SAMPLE RESULTS-CONV€NTIONALS ANALYTICAL (o RCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. RESOUFICEB INCORPORATED Matrix: Sediment Project: BARBEE DREDGING Data Release Authorized: Lj Event: 2016-1. BARBEE Reported: 07/1.9/16 Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Cl.iont ID; 07042016DARUB-C ARI ID: 16-10088 ECM A Analyte Date Method Units RL Sample Hexavalen Chromium 07/12/16 SW7196A mg/kg 0.493 [ 0.493 U 071216#1 Total Solids 07/11/16 SM254OG Percent 0.01 80.75 070816#1 Preserved Total Solids 07/06/16 SM254OG Percent 0.01 74.44 070616#1 Total. Volatile Solids 07/11/16 SM254OG Percent 0.01 1.12 071116#1 N-Ammonia 07/07/16 SM450ONH3H mg-N/kg 0.98 19.6 070716#1 Sulfide 07/07/16 SM4500-s2D mg/kg 1,28 1.80 070716*1 Total Organic Carbon 07/14/16 Plumb,1981 Percent 0.020 0.182 071416#1 RL Analytical reporting limit U Undetected at reported detection limit Hexavalent Chrome prepared using Method 3060. Ammonia determined on 2N RC1 ex: -acts, Soil Sample Report -Will MS/MSD RESULTS-CONVENTIONALS ANALYTICAL (o BCHl-Lloyd S Associates, Inc. RESMRCES INCORPORATED Matrix: Sediment Project: BARBEE DREDGING Data Release Au--horized: 1 Event: 2016-1 BARBEE Reported: 07/18/16 LI Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Spike Analyte Date Units Sample Spike Added Racovemy ARI ID: BMA Client ID: 07042016BARBSE-C Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 mg/kg < 0.493 9.36 24.4 38.4% Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 mg/kg < 0.493 682 710 96.1% N-Ammonia 07/07/16 mg-N/kg 19.6 138 123 96.1% Sulfide 07/07/16 mg/kg 1.80 211 233 89.8% Soil MS/NSD Report-BCW1 A-Cw - 00-205 RMPLICATE RESULTS-CONVKN IOXhLS ANALITCA1_ BCW1-Floyd i Aasociates, Inc. RESOUACES 1I 1 w RpnRATED Matrix: Sediment Project: BARBEE DREDGING Data Release Authorized: tJ Event: 2016-1 BARBEE Reported: 07/18/16 Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Analyte Data Units Sample Replicate(a) RPD/RSD ARI ID: BCWlA Client ID: 07042016BARBEE-C Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 mg/kg < 0.493 < 0.496 NA Total Solids 07/11/16 Percent 80.7u 79.96 1.0� Preserved Total Solids 07/06/16 Percent 74.44 74.53 0.1% Total Volatile Solids 07/11/16 Percent 1.12 1.12 Mt N-Ammonia 07/07/16 ng-N/kq 19.6 20.1 3.6% 18.7 Sulfide 07107/16 mg/kg 1.80 1.52 16.9% Soil Replicate Report-BCW1 Bcw i , 01 206 LAB CONTROL RESUL 'S-CDMAMIONALS ANALYTICAL BCW2-Lloyd S Associates, Inc. RESWRCES matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized: [) Reported: 07/18/16 Analyte/Method QC ID Data Sulfide 'PREP SM450C-52D Total Organic Carron TCVL P-usnb, 1981 INCORPORATM Project: BARBEE DREDGING Event: 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: NA. Date Received- NF Spike Units LCS Added Recovery 07/07/16 mg/kq 9.07 8.76 07/14/16 Percent 0.056 0.100 103.5% 96.0� Soil Lab Control Report-BCWI A—Gw i : 00207 METHOD BLAM RESULTS-CONVLrNTIONALS ANALYTICAL 0 BM -Lloyd 6 Associates, Inc. RESOURCES INCORPORATED Matrix: Sediment Project: BARBEE DREDGING Data Release Authorized: (1) Event: 2016--1 BARBEE Reported. 07/18/16 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Anal.yte Qato Units Blank QC ID Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 mg/kg < 0.395 U ?REP Total Solids 07/11/16 Percent < O.01 U ICB Preserved Total Solids 07/06/16 Percent < 0.01 U ICB Total Volatile Solids 07/11/16 Percent < 0.01 U ICB N-Am_nonia 07/07/16 mg-N/kg < 0.40 U PREP Sulfide 07/07/16 mg/kg < 0.05 U PREP Total 0-rgar.ic Carbon 07/14/16 Percent < 0.020 U IC$ Soil Method Blank Report-SCw1 STANDARD REFERENCE RESULT$-CONVENTIONALS AHgLYnCgL BCi11-Lloyd 6 Associates, Inc. RESOURCES (b Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized: Reported: 07/18/16 Analyte/SRH ID Date Soluble Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 Insoluble Hexavalent Chromiu07/12/16 ERA #300614 N-Ammonia 07/07/16 ERA #360114 Total Organic Carbon 07/14/16 NIST 1941B INCORPORATED Project: BARBEE DREDGING Event: 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA True Units SRH value Recovery mg/kg 20.6 mg/kg 705 mg-N/kg 98.4 Percent 3.02 19.8 701 100 2.99 104.0% 100.6% 98.4% 101.0% Soi', Standard Reference Report-SCWI 4. 1 ntal Solid,, Total Solids ARI Job ID: BCW1 acw i ; an228 Extractions Total Solids-extt,s Data By: Yen Luu Created: 7/ 5/16 Oven ID: Samples In: Date: Time: Samples Out: Date: Time: ARI ID Tare Wt Wet Wt Dry Wt CLIENT ID (9) (g; (g) TS 1. BCW1A 1,12 12.48 10.17 79.7 16-10088 0704201EBARBEE-C Warklist: 6U75 Analyst: YL Comments: P.al ante 1D: Temp: Analyst:_ Temp: Analyst: Dcnt 5g log 12.5g Yes 6.2-7 12.55 15.68 Warklist 1D: 6075 Page: 1 Extracticns 'Total Sclids-extts Worklist: 60.15 Data By: Yen Tuu Analyst: YL Created: 7/ 5/16 Comments: p �j Oven 10: 4 f _�_ 3a1ance TD: Samples In: Date: �j Qt 'ime: - Temp Analyst: Samples Out: Dater Time: Temp: J Analyst: ARI ID _'are Wt Net Wt Dry Wt CLIENT ID (g) (g) (g) 5 TS Dent 5g log 12.5g 1. BCW1A i...._ 7� 1.6-1008e 07C92016BARBEE-C Worklist TD: 6075 Parse: 1 N 6 . Solids Data Entry Report Checked by: J-1 Date: 7/ K /tL Date: 07/12/16 Data Analyst: AR Solids Determination performed on 07/11/16 by AR JOB SAMPLE CLIENTID TAREWEIGHT SAMPDISH DRYWEIGHT SOLIDS _-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BCW1 A 07042016BARBEE-C 1.002 10.504 8.655 80.54 0 VAnalytical Resources, Incorporated A I teal Ch d Consultants Total Solids Bench Sheet na y i emists an Laboratory Section 041. Oven Identification: d Balance ID: 43na-�-?3sn Samples In Oven: Date: tl I i6 Time: )Doi _ Temp:_ 1ol'c _ Analyst: 1 Removed from Oven: Date: -�l 6 Time: OVS Temp; l021,- Analyst:-1140 ARI Sample ID Tare Weight (9) Tare + Sample Wet Tare + Sample D Date � Time Last Weight Finalii Weighting h n V-)rllr A 1.004 10,13Lt �qjrzr'lj' ea3o Y -W I A t_ o a Z to. 5-oLt 9-65-5- M7116 0$30 1/ $ofm A f- v t Iv. oo 6 to. 003 411ria, 083d 1) Place a check mark in this column if samples have dried > 12 but r 24 hours. When samples have been at 104"C < 12 hours, constant weight must be verified as described in SOP 10023S. Use a 2w bench sheet for additional weightings. 505OF Page 07114 Revision 003 0)A0jv,116 . 1-" 11120/09 Total Solids Percent Solids r ! ! 16GO027-013.:� ' •� I • Page 1 I otaI Melal�, See attachcd &ta p ichagc IOr ,lntimnn" Metals Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ARI Job ID: BCW I BC W 1 . 00178 Cover Page I1509CCANIC ANALYSIS DATA PACE CLIENT: Lloyd S Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING 5DQ- BCW1 CLIENT ID ARI ID ANALYTICAL RESOURCESNW INCORPORATED ARI LIMB ID REPREP 07042016BARBEE-C RCKA 16-10088 07042016BARBEE-CD BCW1ADUP 16-10OR8 07042016BAMEE-CS BCWiASPR 16-1" 88 PBS BCNifti 16-10088 LCSS BCW114815Px 16-20068 LCSS BCWIREFI 16-10088 Were ICP intQrelement corrections applied ? Were ICP background corrections appiied ? if yes - were raw data generated before application of background corrections ? Comments: Yes/No YES Yes/ -No YES Yes/No NO THIS DATA PAGE OAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AUTHORIZED FOR RELEASE BY: signature: ` �/°� Name: Eric Larson Date: - �`''/ _ __._...._. Title: Inorganics Director COVER PAGE RGW i 1 roo 'P E INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL !METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: BCW1A LIMS ID: 16-10086 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized:[, Reported: 08/08/16 �J Percent Total Solids: 80.5% ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C SAMPLE QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Prop Prep Analysis Analysis meth Date !method Date CAS Number Analyte DL LOQ 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/26/16 7440--38-2 Arsenic 0.03 0.2 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-43-9 cadmium 0.008 0.115 3050B 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-47-3 Chromium 0.08 0.6 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-50-8 Copper 0.043 0.6 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7439-92-1 Load 0.009 0.1 GIJP 07/11/16 7471A 07/19/16 7439-97-6 Mercury 0.0015 0.03 3050B 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-02-0 Nickel 0.019 0.6 3050B 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7782-49-2 Selenium 0.037 0.577 3050D 01/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-22-4 Silver 0.004 0.231 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-66-6 Zinc 0.33 5 U-Analyte undetected at given DL J-Analyte detected between DL and LOQ DL-Method Detection Limit Results reported below the LOQ are for statistical purposes only and have not been evaluated by either an analyst or data reviewer. mg/kg 4 2.1 0.081 J 22.1 13.9 4.0 0.03 U 28.2 0.577 J 0.023 J 48 FORM- I & L W i - 0.04,'60 INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID; BCW1A LIMS ID: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized; Reported: 08/08/16 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES 1NWRPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BAsME-C MATRIX SPINE QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & ASSaciates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING, 2016-1 BARBEE Cate Sampled; 07/04/16 Date Received; 07/05/16 bMTRIR SPIKE QUALITY CONTROL RZPCRT Analysis Spiko % Analyte Method Sample Spikes Added Recovery Q Arsenic 6020A 2.1 31.2 20.8 101� Cadmium 6020A 0.1 U 29.3 28.8 102% Cnramium 6020A 22.1 54.3 28.8 112% Capper 6020A 13.9 44.0 20.8 105% Lead 6020A 4.0 37.2 26.8 115% Merczry 7471A 0.03 U 0.34 0.283 120% '_nickel 6020A 28.2 57.3 28.8 101% selenium 6020A 0.6 83.9 92.2 90.3% Silver 6020A 0.2 U 26.8 28.8 93.1% Zinc 6020A 48 141 92.2 101% Reported in mg/kg-dry N-Control Limit Not Met R- Recovery Not Applicable, Sample Concentration _oo High NA -Not Applicable, Analyte Not Spiked Percent Recovery Limits; 75-125t wars-v J rh1AJ JR J INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SMMT TOTAL METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: BCW1A LTMS ID: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized:( Reported: 08/08/16 !� ANALY nCAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE -C DUPLICATE QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 MATRIX DUPLICATE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Analysia Control Analyte Method Sample Duplicate RPD Limit 4 Arsenic 6020A 2.1 2.1 0.0% +/- 20% Cadmium 6020A 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.0% +/- 0.1 L Chromium 6020A 22.1 24.1 8.7% +/- 20% Copper 6020A 13.9 14.3 2.8% +/- 20% Lead 6020A 4.0 4.6 14.0% +/- 20% Mercury 7471A 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.0% +f- 0.03 L Nickel 6020A 28.2 27.7 1.8% +f- 20% selenium 602CA 0.6 0.6 U 0.0% +/- 0.6 L Silver 6020A 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.0% +/- 0.2 L Zinc 6020A 48 47 2.1% +/- 20% Reported in mg/kg-dry *-Control Limit Not Met L-RPD Invalid, Limit = Detection Limit FORTY! -VI INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL H TALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample 1D: BLWILCS LIMS ID: 16-100B8 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized:[ Reported: 06/08/16 ANALYTICAL RESBOURCES INCORPORATED SaWls ID: M CONTROL QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Tnc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA BLUM SPIKE WALITY CONTROL REPORT Analyte Analysis Method Spike Found Spike Added % Recovery Arsenic 6020A 23.4 25.0 102% Cadmium, 6020A 25.3 25.0 lcl% Chromium 6020A 25.5 25.0 102% Copper 6020A 27.0 25.0 108% Lead 6020A 27.4 25.0 110% Mercury 1471A 0.56 0.50 112% Nickel 6020A 25.1 25.0 100% Selenium 6020A '16.0 80.0 95.0% Silver 6020A 24.6 25.0 98.4% Zinc 6020A 79 80 98.8% Reported in mg/kg-dry N-Control limit not met NA -trot Applicable, Analyte Not Spiked Control Limits: 88-120% 0 FOrm-vi i bcw 00 .61-'€ INOIWICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: BCW1MB LIMS ID: 16-10088 Ma ---ix: Sediment Data Release A ft or'zed: Reported: 08/08/16 Percent Total Solids: NA ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INOORPOfUT19D Sample ID: METHOD BLANK QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd 6 Associates, Inc. Projec": BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Prop Prep Analysis Analysis Moth Date Method bate ChS Number Analyte DL LOQ 3050B 07/12/16 6020A 07/26/16 7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.03 0.2 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-43--9 Cadmium 0.007 0.1 3050B 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-47-3 Chromium 0.07 0.5 30.50E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-50-8 Copper 0.037 0.5 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7439-92-1 Lead 0.008 0.1 CLP 07/11/16 7471A 07/19/16 7439-97-6 Mercury 0.0013 0.02 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-02-0 Nickel 0.017 0.5 3050B 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7782-49-2 Selenium 0.032 0.5 30508 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-22-4 Silver 0.003 0.200 3050E 07/12/16 6020A 07/25/16 7440-66-6 zinc 0.29 4.00 U-Analyte undetected at given DL J-Analyte detected between DL and L0Q DL-VeLhod Detection -,imit Results reported below the LOQ are for statistical purposes only and Nave not been evaluated by either an analyst or data reviewer. mg/k$ Q 0.2 U 0.1. U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.1 U 0.02 U 0.5 (1 0.5 U 0.010 J 0.74 J TORM-I ANALYTICAL RESOURCES 1NCORPOF ATED INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL METALS Sample ID: STD REFEUNCE Page 1 of 1 ERA D089540 Lab Sample ID: BCWISRM QC Report No: 8CW1-Lloyd s Associates, Inc. LIMS ID: 16-10088 `j f. Project: BARBEE DREDGING Matrix: Sediment 2016-1 BARBEE Data Release Authorized: Cate Sampled: NA Reported: 07/27/16 Date Received: NA Analysis Analysis Certified Advisory Anal.yte Method Date aq/kq-dry Value Range Arsenic 200.8 07/26/16 12C 114 E9.7-139 Cadmium 200.8 07/25/16 92.4 93,2 77.2--109 Chromium 20C.6 07/25/16 96.4 109 66.9-131 Copper 200.6 C7/25/16 125 122 99.1-144 Lead 200.E 07/25116 107 102 82.9-120 Mercury 7471A 07/20/16 1C.9 9.2 6.6-11.9 Nickel 200.8 07/25/16 83.2 79.7 66.1-93.4 Seleni:.uu 200.8 07/25/16 185 186 145-227 Silver 200.8 07/25/16 40.5 41.6 31.5--52.1 Zinc 200.8 07/25/16 260 230 190-270 FORM-VII Cal±brat±on Verif±cation CT.TF.,NT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SDO: BCw1 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED UNITS:ug/L ANALYTE $L M RUN TCVTV ICV %R CCVTV CCV1 $R CCV2 %R CCV3 %R CCV4 %R CCV'5 $R Cadmium CD PMS NS072511 50.0 46.75 97.5 50.0 52.05 104.1 50.91 101.8 52.91 105.8 50.74 101.5 Chromium CR PMs Ms072511 50.0 51.34 102.7 50.0 50.'72 101.4 48.33 96.7 47.17 94.3 48.54 97.1 Copper CT) PMS MS072511 50.0 50.88 101.8 50.0 49.57 99.1 47.19 94.4 50.55 101.1 49.76 99.5 Lead PR PMS M9072511 50.0 50.52 101.0 50.0 50.11 100.2 50.61 101.2 50.36 100.8 50.91 101,8 Mercury FIG CVA HGD71902 8.0 8.51 106.4 4.0 4.17 104.3 4.14 103.5 4.24 106.0 4.20 105.0 4.46 111.5 Nickel NT PMS MS072511 50.0 51.05 102.1 50.0 47.99 96.0 47.63 95.7 50.34 100.7 48.21 96.4 selenium SE PMS MS072511 60.0 75.53 94.4 50.0 50.36 100.8 50.78 101.6 52.29 104.6 52.60 105.2 Silver AG PMS MS072511 Solo 47.91 95.8 50.0 48.66 97.7 46.42 92,8 46.58 93.2 47.77 95.5 7inr ZN PMS MS072511 50.0 48.E2 97.2 50.0 50.64 101.7 51,06 102,1 53.49 107.0 51.59 103.2 Control Limits: Mercury 80-120; Other Metals 90-110 FORM II (1) Calibration Verification CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGTNG SDG: BCW1 ANALYTICAL Ift RFsoURCss ENCORPORATS0 QHITS: ug/L ANALYTE EL M RUN TCVTV ICV %R CCVTV CCV1 •R CCV2 %R CCV3 RJR CCV4 %A CCV5 %R Arsenic AS PMS MS072601 50.0 48.35 96.7 50.0 51.40 102.9 50.80 101.6 50,29 100.6 Mercury eG CVA EG072001 8.0 6.63 107.9 4.0 4.22 105.5 4.25 106.3 42" is: _ ......._-_.................. Control Limits: Mercury 80-120; Other Metals 90-110 FORD II (1) CRDL Standard CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SDG: BCwl AMALYTE EL M Rw CRA/I TV CR-1 %R Cadmium CD PMS MS072511 0.1 0.12 120.0 Chromium CR PMS MS072511 0.5 0.57 124.0 Capper CU PMS M5012511 0.5 0.50 100.0 Lead PB PMS MS072511 0.1 0.11 110.0 Mercury HG CVA HG071902 0.1 0.05 50.0 Nickel N1 PMS MS072511 0.5 0.51 102.0 Selenium sE PMS Hs072511 0.5 0.46 92.0 Silver AG PMS MS072.511 0.2 0.20 100.0 Zinc ZN PMS MSC72511 4.0 4.25 106.3 ANALYTICAL RESOURCESNW INCORPORATED UNITS:ug/L CR-2 It CR-3 tR CR-4 IdR CR-5 %R CR-6 %R Control Limits: no control limits have been established by the EPA at this time. FORM iI (2) CRDL Standard CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SDG: BCW1 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED UNITS:ug/L ANALYTZ ZL M RUN CRA/I TV CR-1 %R CR-2 9R CR-3 #R CR-d %R CR-5 %R CR-b %R Arsenic AS PISS MS072681 0.2 0.18 90.0 Mercury KG CVA UG072001 0.1 C.12 120.0 Control Limits: no control limits have been established by the EPA at this time. FOPM II (2) 1; E 5 7� VI 51 Calibration Blanks CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED PROJECT: RARSEE DREDGING UNITS:ug/L SDG: eCW1 ai►NALYTt IL NETS RLM CRDL IDL ICR C CCB1 C CCR2 C CC133 C CCB4 {C CCB5 C Cadmium CC PMS MS072511 5.0 0.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Chromium CR FMS M9072511 10.0 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 V 0.5 U 0.5 U Copper CU PMS 14S072511 25.0 0.5 0.5 V 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Lead PR FNS MS072511 3.0 0.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U a.I U 0.1 U Mercury HG CVA KG071902 0.2 0.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U C_1 U 0.1 U 0.1 B Nicket MT PMS M3072511 40.0 0.5 0.5 U 0-5 U 0.5 U 0.5 V 015 U Selenium SE PMS MS072511 5.0 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 H 0.5 U 0.5 U Silver AG PMS MS072511 10.0 0,2 0.2 u 0,2 U 0.2 u 0.2 U 0.2 U Zinc ZN PMS MSC72511 20.0 4.0 4.0 V 4.0 U 4.0 T3 4,0 V 4.0 V FORM III Calibration Blanks CLIENT. Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SOG: BCW1 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED UNITS:ug/L ANALYTE ZL MTN RUN CRdL IDL ICB C CC BI C C M2 C CCB3 C CCB4 C CC B5 C Arsenic AS PM& M8072661 10.0 0.2 C.2 u D,2 U 0.2 U 0.2 v Mercury SG CVA MG072001 0.2 0.1 C'1 U 0.1 V 0.1 v FCoiiMi III ICP Interference Check Sample CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROTECT: BARBEE DREDGING SDO: SCW1 ANKLYTE IC9A TV" ICBM TV Icam ICS"i $R IC8A2 IC8A22 6R Antimony 0.1 -0.1 Arsenic 20 0.4 19.6 98.0 Cadmium 20 0.0 19.4 97.0 Chromium 20 0.7 19.7 90.3 Copper 20 0.5 19.5 97.5 Lead 0.1 0.1 Manganese 20 0.8 18.6 93.0 Molybdenum 400 400 426.1 422.4 105.6 Nickel 20 0.2 19.9 99.5 Selenium -0.1 -0.1 Silver 20 0.0 18.9 94.5 Zinc 20 0.6 18.8 94.0 FORM IV ANALYTICAL tft RESOURCESNW INCORPORATED ICS SOURCE: I.V. RUNID: MS072511 INSTRUMENT ID: NEXION 300D UNITS: ug/L ICSA.3 IC8"3 %R ICP Interference Check Sample CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SBG: BCW1 AN ALYTICAL REBOURCESNW INCORPORATED ICS SOURCE: I.V. RUNID: MSO-72581 INSTRUMENT ID: NEXION 350D UNITS: ug/L PJULLT= 2CGA TV IC " TV leshl ICSAB1 U ICa" IC"82 %R Zcw res"3 %R Arsenic 20 0.0 1915 97.3 Cadmium 20 0.0 19.4 97.0 Chromium 20 C,7 20.4 102.0 Copper 2C 6.5 20.3 101.3 Manganese 2C 0.9 20.6 103.0 Molybdenum 400 4CC 39i.7 407.4 101.9 Nicke..l 20 0.2 2C.4 102.0 Selenium 0.1 C.1 silver 20 0.1 24.4 122.0 Zinc 20 0.6 20.0 100.0 FORM IV IDLs and ICP Linear Ranges CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING >4; BCW1 Grk ANXLM EL 1022 3316T UMZNT IMVZL1il1'!B BACK- CLP RL (mi) CROM C EM ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED UNITS: ug/L RL XCP LIiPW 1C;P LR LATZ RAWX (ut/L) nh?z Ar3enic AS PHS NEXION 350D MS 0.00 10 p,2 4/1/2012 Cadmium CD PMS NEXION 300D MS 0.00 5 0.1 4/1/2012 Chromium CR PMS NEXION 3001) MS 0.00 10 0.5 4/l/2012 Copper cTl PMS NEXION 300D MS 0.00 25 0,5 4/1i2012 Lead PB PMS NEX1014 300D MS 0.00 3 0.1 411/2012 Mercury RG CVA CETAC MERCURY 253.70 0.2 0.1 411/2012 Nickel NI PMS 14EXION 30GD MS 0.00 4C 0.5 4/1/2012 Selenium 5E PMS NBXION 300D Ms O,OC 5 0,5 4/1/7012 Silver AG PMS NEXION 3COD MS 0.00 10 0.2 4/1/2012 Zinc ZN PMS NEXION 300C MS 6.00 20 4.0 4/1/2012 FORK X/X11 Preparation Log CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SM: BCW1 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED ANALYSIS METHOD: PMS ARI PREP CODE., SWN PRE,PDATE : 7 /12 /2016 XXXTIM FUGAL i oUbm CLIP ID AAI IA M29 (g) VQL9101 EML) (ML) 0-1042016BARBLT-C SCM1A 1.076 0,0 5010 07042016BARSEE-CD S MIADCF 1.073 0.0 50.0 07042016HAXBEE-CS BCMIASPR 1.077 0.0 50.0 PBS BCM]."1 1,000 0.0 50.0 LOSS 8CW1M81S M 11000 0,0 50.0 LOSS SC911REF1 1.003 0.0 50.0 FORK XTII Preparation Log CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SDG: RCW1 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED ANALYSIS METHOD; CVA AR1 PREP CODE: SNM PREPDATE: +/11/2016 TM FINAL VOLUM MANNT ID AR1 ID l4IJ6 l4i VOLudZ IaLI (ML) 07042016BARBEE-C BCV1A 0.215 C,0 50.0 0704201bBARBEE-Gn BCw1A0tJP 0.214 C.0 50.0 C7042C16BARBEE-CS SCw1ASPx 0.219 C.0 50.0 PBS ECw1MB1 0.200 0.0 50.0 LCSW BCw1MB1SPK 0.200 0.0 50.0 LCS➢l-CVA BCw1REF1 0.204 0.0 5C.0 FORK xIrI Analysis Run Lag CLIENT; Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING BGG: BCW1 CLIP:! ID nRI rn DIL_ TXM 30 s0 1.00 12470 Sl S1 1.00 12520 S2 $2 1.00 1251iC s3 53 1.00 13C2C S4 S4 1.00 13070 S5 S5 1.00 13140 zzzzzz Rinse 3ampl 1.00 13220 S0 5o 1.00 13240 ICv MTCv 1.010 13340 Ica ICE I.00 13420 CCv 17CCvl 1.00 13480 GCB CCE1 1.00 13550 CRT MCRI 1.00 140nO ICSA ICSAI 1.00 1405C ICSAS ICSABI 1.00 1410C z7z22z LR200 1.00 14170 ZZZZZz LR30C 1.00 14220 zzzzzz BI 1,00 14300 zzzzzz 82 1.00 14370 CCv MCCv2 1.00 1443C Cca CC82 1.00 14510 zzzzzz BDM3mB1 1.00 14560 PBS BCW1M81 20.00 1501C 07042016BAR6££-C❑ 9CW1Appp 20.00 150,50 C7042016BARBEE-C BCW1A 20.00 15100 07042016BARREE-CS BCW1ASPx 20.00 15150 1 zzzzzz zzzzzz 20A D15200 1105S 8CW1mBlspK 20.00 1.5260 N� LCSS F3CW1R£FI 20.00 15320 zzzzzz BrM3B 1.00 15340 zzzzzz Rum3MR1SPR 1.00 15450 CCv MCCV3 1.00 15510 CCB CC83 1.00 1559C C7042016BARBEE-CD BCWlAIx1P 300.00 16C4C 07042C16BARBEE-C BCWIA 100.00 1609C AWALY 1CAL (9 RESOURCES INCORPORATED INSTRUMENT ID: NEXION 300D MS START HATE: 7/25/2016 RUNID: MS072511 METHOOc PMS END DATE: 712512016 %R Ar. AL Aa B Bid S CJl CD CC cR Cu FS A$ E m w m !ILIA m PB S8 BE 8I 9i TI TL O V ZW x x 7C X; x x x x, xx, x x x x x x x x' x x xix x Ix x 'x` x x x x x fix'' x x: xlx x x` x x', x x x x ix x xj x x x; x x € ;x x'' x i x' xi x ;x x ix xj xi x x' x x x I x x! xl x x x x x; x x x' x ExI ;xx xi xix EX 1 x !x' ! I xl x x xix ;x x x �� x' x xj x x x x r0RH x ! x I -Ai Analysis Russ Log CLIENT: Lloyd 6 Associates, PROJECT: BARDEE DREDGING SDG: BCW1 CLIM" ID Ala ?D INSTRUMENT III; NEXION 300D MS RUNIC: 4S072511 METHOD: PMS ANALYTICAL RESOURCESNW INCORPORATED START DATE: 7/25/2016 END DATE: '/25/2016 D21. 2IRo ►R AG AL AS s RA ffi CIL CD CO CR CV !E RG JC MG WN MO R K HI PS SS = S1 9K 'T2 TL U V ZK C7042016BARBEF-CS BC-WIASPx 100.0016130 zzzzzz zzzzzz I11G.00 1618C LCSS RcW1REF1 1G0.00 16240 i x zzzzzz 9DM3AllI3P 1.90 16320 � 1 i z$2222 BDH3A 1.00 16370 zzzzzz B[M3ASPK I A10 16410 j I 27zzzz BTa55A I.00 16490 I i ii wzzxzZ BDS5MBSPR 1.00 I6550 ' i CCV mccV4 1.00 17010 x x x x x x x� � x eCE CCtl4 1.00 17080 x X x X x x x X FOPS! XIV Analyais Run Lag CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SDG: BCW1 CLIENT ID ARM = ANALYTICAL RESOURCF-SNW INCORPORATED INSTRUMENT ID: NEXION 350D MS START DATE: 7/26/2016 RUNID: MS072681 METRO❑: PMS END DATE: 7/26/2016 DIL. T22O SR AG AL " B BARE CA CD CD CR CV iE 8G K NG NN UO KA NI PB SB SE SI SN TI TL U V zN 50 50 1.00 14000 x S1 S1 1.00 14040 x S2 S2 1.00 14080 x 93 S3 1.00 14130 x S4 S4 1.00 14160 x S5 65 1.00 14240 ZZZZ2z RINSE 1.0014310 ICV MICV 1.0014370 x ICB ICE 1.0014410 x CCV MCCV1 1.00 14460 x j CCB CCB1 1.00 14510 x CRI 14CRI 1.00 14550 x ICSA ICSAI 1.00 14590 x ICSAB ICSABI 1.00 15040 x I zzzzzz LR200 1.00 1508C zzzzzz LR300 1.00 15120 zzzzzz B1 1.00 15190 zzzzzz B2 1.00 15260 CCV MCCV2 1.00 15330 x CCB CCB2 1.00 15410 x PBS BCWIMBI 20.00 15460 x 07042016BABBEE-CD BCWIADUP 20.00 15500 x 07042016BARBEE-C BCW1A 20.00 15540 x i 07042016BARBEE-CS BCWlASPK 20.00 15590 X Zzzzzz zzzzzz 20.00 16030 ` k € LCSS BCWIM61SPK 20.0016080 x LCSS BCWIREFI 20.0016130 x � ZZZZZZ BDW7A 5.00 16200 f i I %Zzzzz BDWBA 1.00 16270 zzzzzz BDT9C 1C.0016320 i CCV MCCV3 1.00 16380 x i CrR CCB3 1.00 16450 x I 01 Analysis Run Log ANALYTICAL tAft RESOURCES CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates. INCORPORATED PROJECT: BARBED: DREDGING INSTRUMENT ID: CETAC MERCURY START DATE: 7/1.9/2016 8DG: BCWI RUNID: HG071902 METHOD: CVA END DATE: 7/19/2016 CLIRM m #RT 303 BIL. Tns !It AG AL AS a aA W CA CD OD CR CU ps HBO R DAB 10 NO NA 14T VA 98 93 ST SM TT TL V V ZH SO g0 I- Of] 13160 x t 50.1 50,1 1.00 13173 50.5 S11.5 1.00 13191 K S1 $1 3.00 13205 X S2 S2 1.00 13223 X i as S5 1.00 13240 K 510 S10 1,00 13254 x ICv AICV 1.00 13274 Ix TCB TCB 1.00 13291 X CCv ACCvl 1.00 13395 I x I CCR CC81 1.00 13323 CRA CRA 1.00 '3341 I iix j ZZZ22Z BCTIMBI 1.00 13354 ! ; ZZTZZZ BCTIMBISM 1.00 13372 ! j ZZZZZ2 BCTIC 1.00 13385 2ZZZZ2 BCTICDOP 1.00 13403 ZZZ2ZS BCTICSPK 1.00 13421 Z2ZZZZ BCZ4MB1 1.00 13434 i z%ZZZZ BC24MBISPR 1.00 13452 Zz2ZZ2 BC94B 1.0013470 1717 I �i I z222z9, 9CZ490up 1.00 1.3494 � 3 I CCv ACCv2 1,0013502 �� ix CCB CCB2 1.00 13520 i x ZZZ22Z BCZ4i1SPK 1.0013533 it f ! i I P13M BCT93MB1 1.00 13551 j ( x LCSR BCWIMBISPK 1.0013564 LCSW-CVA BCw1REFS 3.00 13582 07042016BARBEE-C BCNIA 1.00 14020 X 07042015BRRREE-CD BCW1ADGp 1.00 14039 X 07042016BARBEE-CS BcwtASl'K 1.00 14052 x CCv ACCV3 1.00 14065 X CCB CC93 1.00 14083 �x Z' Z Z1.00 LZZ BpC7M91 1414fl Z22ZZZ BOC7MB1 1.0014195 I , ' I i CCv ACCv4 1.00 14265 X I ! FORM x v W. Analysis Run Log CLIENT; Lloyd & Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SDG: BCW1 CLIENT ID ARX = ANALrncAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED INSTRUMENT ID: CETAC MERCURY START DATE: 7/19/2016 RUNID: HG071902 METHOD: CVA END DATE: 7/19/2016 DIL. TndZ %R AG AL AS B BA 8E CA CD Co CR CO FE 8C K w. 2m m NA NI PB Sg 9R 9I ME TI TL V V ZN cCB CC84 1.00 14283 Si 22Z222 BCZ4B 1.00 14301 i 22ZZZ2 13CZ4RnUP 1.00 14314 2ZZZZZ BCZ4BSPK 1.00 14332 LCSW-CVA BCMTIREFI 10.00 14345 CCV ACCV5 1.00 14363 � � X CCB _ CCR5 1.00 14381 I X — F'OIiM XIV Analysis Run Log CLIENT: Lloyd 6 Associates, PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING SDG: BCW1 CLIK? ID ARI ID OIL. TnM ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED INSTRUMENT ID: CETAC MERCURY START DATE. 7/20/2016 RUNID: HG072001 METHOD: CVA END DATE: 7/20/2016 •R Aa AL AS B BA BE CA CD CO Ot CU MR BG: 1C M ! M UK III PH SB 9E SI ffK TI TL V V SN S0 50 1.00 11070 x S0.1 SO.1 1.00 11084 x S0.5 SO.5 1.00 11101 x S1 S1 1.00 11115 x 82 S2 1.00 11133 x 55 S5 1.00 11151 ; x S10 S10 1.00 11164 x Icv AICV 1.00 11191 x ICs ICB 1.00 11204 x CCV ACCV1 1.00 11222 X CCB CCB1 1.00 11240 x CRA CRA 1.00 11254 x LCSW-CVA BCWIREFI 10.00 11271 x Z22222 BDC7MB1 1.00 11285 $Z2222 BDC7MB1SPK 1.00 11303 Z222Z2 BDC7A 1.00 11320 i Z22222 13DC7ADUP 1.00 11334 CCv ACCV2 1.00 11352 x CCB CCB2 1.00 11370 x JT1 FORM XIY Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants 14 November 2016 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates 38210 SE 92nd Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 RF,: Barbee Dredging SLIPj)1 mCI`)W1 Pavametev: Antimony Please find enclosed sample receipt documentation and analytical results for samples from the project referenced above. Sample analyses were performed according to ARI's Quality Assurance Plan and any provided project specific Quality Assurance Plan. Each analytical section of this report has been approved and reviewed by an analytical peer, the appropriate Laboratory Supervisor or qualified substitute, and a technical reviewer. Should you have am- questions or problems. please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Associated Work Crrder(s1 16)0436 Associated SDG ID(sl NIA 1 certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract.. both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed in the enclose Narrative. ARL an accredited laboratory. certifies that the report results for which ARl is accredited meets all the regirements of the accrediting body. A list of certified analyses. accreditations. and expiration dates is included in this report. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or his/hcr designee, as verified by the following signature. Analytical Rcsources, Inc. Cheronne (heiro, Project Managcr Page 1 of 378 1 he ri�wdl, u1 rhls itpurr upph° 1n die wnpplex ana47eel m wcor luoxe n ilk the Awn o imod}' dortnaeon. 77u, a ah oral nrnri naw hr Ap"Ole eel nn iI, enim-11 fe }H Ae:C aAe PJI,A Testing Cend 100006 Accreditation ti 66169 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants Analytical Report Lloyd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging 38210 SL 92nd Street Project Number 2016-1 Rarbee Reported: 5noqualmie WA, 98065 Project Manager 'Michael I.loyd 14-Nov-2016 13:53 Case Narrative Sample receipt One sediment sample was removed from frozen archive on October 24, 2016 and logged under ARI workorder 16J0423. For details regarding sample receipt, please refer to the Cooler Receipt Form. Antimony - EPA Method SW6020A The sample and associated laboratory QC were digested and analyzed within the recommended holding times. The method blank was clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. ERA D088-540 was analyzed as a reference material. The matrix spike percent recovery of 07042016BARBEE-C fell outside the control limits low for sample 07042016BARBEE-C. A post digestion spike was analyzed and the recovery was within control limits. All relevant data have been flagged with a "' qualifier. No further corrective action was taken. The duplicate RPD was within control limits. 2,4-Dimethylphenol - EPA Method SW8270D-SIM The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the recommended holding times. Initial calibrations and initial calibration verifications were within method requirements. The internal standard area of Perylene-d12 fell outside the control limits low for BEK0139-BLK1 All other internal standard areas were within limits. No corrective action was taken. The surrogate percent recovery of p-Terphenyl-d14 was outside the control limits high for BEK0139-BLK1. All other percent recoveries were within control limits. No corrective action was taken. 2,4-Dimethylphenol was present in BEK0139-BLK1 at a level that was greater than the reporting limit. The associated sample result was undetected for this compound_ No corrective action was taken. The LCS percent recovery was within control limits. CRM 143-50G was analyzed as a reference material. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within limits. Page 2 of 378 15 ISI 151 Isl U1 Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request ARI Assigned Number: y C',! Turn -around nd ""quested: J Rafe: of Analytical Resourcm, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants Tuk 1 South i 981h Place, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 9$ t fi$ 0 206-695-6200 206-695-6201 (fax) wvauv.arilabs.com ARI Clent Company: Phone: D /¢ /L �t --I", q 7V Ice Present? s Clien Contact: � � � � No. of Cooler Capers: i Temps: 1 Client Project Name: Analysis R lad Notes/Cornmants Q� ClientjlojeCl �[� Samplers: !3 1 Sample ID I Cate Time Matrix No. Carta G 70 �6 a 6 �. z z_.. Comrnents/Special Instructions +� Cf)%if1/;jd,S [ S 5��j{ iif 1 N F� ,~� • Fkin* (egnatu Ram%*d / _ (SiOrratt+rol -��� mrsed by: leS RaGermd by: (SIBna�+rel P6n Na . c N. Name: arts PfirMtlftme: cam` /_4AT7 n: C-W-V. ()SW a T b Da* a Tuna: thus a Time: Date a Time: Limits of Lteblllty: ARI will perform aN requested services In accordance *0 appropriate rnethodohW kibi Ong ARI ,Standard Operabng Praaedtrres and ilia ARI Qua* Assurance Program. This program meets standards for the industry. The total liability of ARf, its effjcws, agents, employees, or successom arising out of or in connection with the requested services, shall not exceed the lnvokVd amount for said services. The acceptance by the client of a proposal tar services by ARI release ARI from any liability Irr excess thereof, not wit WWWl ng any provision to the contrary In any contract purchase order or co- signed agreement between ARI and the Client. Sample Retention Policy. All samples subrnitted to ARI will be Wpnopriately ckcarded no sooner than 90 days attar receipt or 60 days after subrrrssion of hardcopy data, whichever is longer, unless alternate retention schedules have been established by work -order or contract. Analytica[ Resources, Mcerporated ������ Receipt Form Analytical Chemists and Consultants � ARI Client: Project Name: COC No(s): _ NA Delivered by: Fed -Ex UPS Courier and D mere Other Assigned ARI Job No: �W i Tracking No: Prelkninary Examination Phase: Were intact, properly signed and dated custody seals attached to the outside of to cooler? YES Were custody papers included with the cooler?.......................................................... t NO Were custody pa pus properly filled out (Ink, signed, etc.) ............... ... ... ....... I............... NO Temperature of Cnoler(s) CC) (recommended 2.040'C for chemistry) Time: If cooler temperature is out of co Iiancs fill out form 00(170F Temp Gun ID#: 6CX3 Z� -_ Accepted Z7 Cooler _bate: T-ime: by _Date Complete custody fonds and attach an shipping documents Log -Iran Phase: Was a temperature blank indudad in the cooleR........................................................ YES What kind of packing material was used? ... Bubble Wrap eg� Gel Packs Gaggles Foam Block Paper Other. Was sufficient Ice used Cd appropriate)? ..............................,........................................ NA (SBO NO Were all bottles sealed in individual plastic bags7............................................................ NO Old all bottles arrive In good condition (unb(oken)?....................................................................... NO Were ail bottle labels complete and legible?........................................................... .............. <0> NO Did the number of containers listed on COC match with the number of containers received? ................ NO Did all bottle labels and tags agree with custody papers7.......................................................... NO Were all bottles used correct for the requested analyses?.............................................................. 'E3`t NO Do any of the analyses (bottles) require preservation? (attach preservation sheet, excluding VOCs)... YES NO Were all VOC vials free of air bubbles'? ................................................................ YES NO Was sufficient amount of sample sent In each bottle7............................................................ NO Date VOC Trip Blank was mads at ARI ................................................................................. Was Sample Split by ARI : Cp YES DatefrimQ, Equi//pment Split by: tTVV\ Date: - ) Cv Samples Logged by: Time: ' NoVIYP fect Manager of discrepancies or concerns " Sample 10 on Bottle Sample I on OC Sarade I➢ on Battle Sam le ID on COC ddditfonal Notes. Discrepancies, d Resolutions: g . Date: Small Air Bubhtps Pesbut>t>I�' LARGEA} 2aM r4mm + ' * O 0 i Peabubblts4 "pb"(2ta<4mm) Lame 4 "Ig" (4 to < 6 mat) Headspact 4 "hs" (> 6 mm } 0016F X/I 0 Cooler Receipt Form Revision 014 Page 4 of 378 rirJ'jl. - 009-10 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants Lloyd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging 38210 SF. 92nd Street Project Number: 2016-1 Barbee Reported: Snoqualmie. WA 99065 Project Manager: Michael Lloyd 1 Il14/2016 13:53 ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received 07042016BARBEE-C 16JO436-01 Solid 07/04/16 13 00 07/05i100927 Page 5 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Internal Chain of Custody Client: Lloyd & Associates Received: 05-Jul-2016 09:27 Project: Barbee Dredging Received By: Justin Meyer Number: 2016-1 Barbee Temp (°C): 0.00 16J0436-01 (07042016BARB1~ E-C) Sampled 0710412016 13:00 Current Status Out 16J0436-01 .4 [Glass WW. Clear, 16 o_] Sample Receiving Metals 10/26/2016 16:28 by JFM 10/31/2016 07:27 by AR 10/31 /2016 09:17 by AR 10/31/2016 09:17 by AR 1 I/07/2016 09:36 by AR 1 ]/07/2016 14:13 by AR 11/10/2016 08:32 by AR 1 IA 0/2016 09:28 by AR Location In Hazard Info: Chromium-52 124. 94543mg:'kg]; Chromium-53 [24.0,7033mg4g] ***S IAR7*** 10/26/2016 16;28 by JEM Metals Prep Lab 10l3112016 09:17 by Alt R02 D-13 11M712016 09:36 by AR R02 D-13 10/31 /2016 09:17 by AR Metals Prep Lab 11/07/2016 14:13 by AR R02 D-13 1 111 W2016 08:32 by AR Metals Prep Lab 11 /10/2016 09:28 by AR R02 D-13 by 16J0436-01 B [Glass W,W, Clear: 16 o_] Ha=aid Iflfo: Chromium-52 [24 94543mg%kg]; Chromium-53 (24.07033mg kg] Sample Receiving 10/26/2016 16:28 by JEM ***START*** 10/26,12010 16:28 by JEM Extractions 11/03/2016 15:29 by YQL Organic Extractions 11/03/2016 16:14 by YQL 11/04/2016 16:19 by YQL F-05 07 by Page 6 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated QUALIFIERS AND NOTES Qualifier Definition tI This analyte is not detected above the applicable reporting or detection limit. J F,stimated concentration value detected below the reporting limit. D The reported value is from a dilution B This analyte was detected in the method blank_ Flagged value is not within established control limits, DET Afialyle DFTECrFD ND Analyie NOT DETECTED at or above 1he reporting limit nR Not Reported dry Sample results reported on a dry weight basis RPD Relative Percent Difference Page 7 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Form 1 INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lahoratory: Analvtical Resources, Inc. Client: Lloyd & Associates Matrix: Soil Sampled: 07/04/ 16 13:00 Solids (wt%): 78,74 Batch: BEK0278 Sequence: EPA 6020A Coral Metals Project: Barbee Dredging Laboratory ID: 16J0436-01RE2 Prepared: 11 / 10/ 16 08:36 Preparation: S WI*i EPA 3050R SEK0159 Calibration: ZK00042 07042016RARREE-C SDG: 16J0436 File ID: XDT m2161110-077 Analyzed: 11 / 10/ 16 1631 Initial/Final: 1.03�50 ml, [nstrument: ICPMS2 CAS NO, Analyte Concentration (mglkgdry) Dilution Factor MDL MRL Q 7440-36-0 Antimony-121 0.25 1 0.02 0.25 U Page 8 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants PREPARATION BATCH SUMMARY EPA 6020A Laboratory: Analvtica] Resources, Inc,SDU 16JO436 Client: Llo vd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging Batch: BEK0278 Hatch Matrix: Solid Preparation: SWN EPA 3050B SAMPLE NAME LAB SAMPLE ID LAB FILE ID DATE PREPARED OBSERVATIONS 07042016BARBEE-C 16JO436-01 RE2 XDT_ m2161 ] 10-077 11/10/16 08:36 Need MS/I)up+ PS + SRM (E001354) Blank BEK0278-BLK1 XDT m21611 ]0-075 11/10/16 08:36 LCS BEK0278-BS1 XDT m2161110-080 I I/10/16 08:36 07042016BARBEE-C BEK0278-DUPI XDT m2161110-076 I1I10/16 08:36 07042016BARBEE-C BEK0278-MS] XDT m2161110-078 11/10/1608:36 Reference BEK0278-SRM] XDT m2161110-081 11/10/1608:36 Page 9 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Batch: BEK0278 Matrix: Solid Sequence: SEK0159 Form I METHOD BLANK DATA SHEET EPA 6020A Total Metals Laboratory TD: BEK0278-BLK1 Preparation: SWN EPA 3054B Calibration: LK00042 Blank Prepared: ]1/10/1608:36 Analyzed: 1 l / 10/ 16 16:21 Instrument: ICPMS2 CAS NO. 11 Analyte Concentration Dilution (mglkg wet) Factor MDL MRL Q 7440-36-0 Antimony-121 ND 20 0.02 0.20 U 7440-36-0 Antimony-123 0.02 20 0.02 0.20 J Page 10 of 378 Analytical Incorporated Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. Client: Llovd&Associates Matrix: Solid Batch: BEK0278 Preparation: SWN EPA 30508 Source Sample Name: 07042016BARBEE-C DUPLICATES EPA 6020A Total Metals SDG: 16JO436 Project: Barbee Dredainp Laboratory [D: BEK0278-DUPI Lab Source ID: 16J0436-01RE2 Initial/Final: 1.029y/ 50 mL % Solids: 78,74 07042016RARREE-C SAMPLE DUPLICATE CONTROL CONCENTRATION C CONCENTRATION C RPD � ANALYTE LIMIT (mg/kg dry) (mg)kg dry) % Anti mony-121 ND U ND U * Values outside ot'QC limits L Analyte concentration is <=5 times the reporting limit and the replicate control limit defaults to pup = +I- Rh instead of 20% RPD Page 11 of 378 Analytical INSTRUMENT BLANKS Resources, FPA 6020A Incorporated Laboratory; Analytical Resources. Inc. SDG: 16JO436 Client, Lloyd & Associates Instrument ID: [('PMS2 Sequence; SEK0159 Project: Barbee Dredging Calibration; ZKO0042 Date Analyzed: 11/10/16 10:21 Lab Sample ID Analyte Found MDL MRL Units C SEK0159-IBLI Antimony-121 0.0560 0.018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0540 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-1CB1 Antimony-121 0,0120 0.018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0 [30 0.028 0.200 ug/l. SEKOI59-CCBI Antimony-121 0,0670 0.018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0670 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-IBL2 Antimony-121 0.215 0.018 0.200 ug/[, Antimony-123 0.223 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEKO15941313 Antimony-121 0.0700 0,018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0670 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-CCB2 Antimony -121 0.0820 0.018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0830 0,028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-CCB3 Antimony-121 0.0620 0.018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0600 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-CCB4 Antimony-121 0.0590 0.018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0560 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-CCB5 Antimony-121 0.0620 0.018 0.200 ug/l, Antimony-123 0.0610 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-CCB6 Antimony-121 0.0610 0.018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0650 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-CC137 Antimony-121 0.0600 0.018 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0.0590 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEKO159-CCB8 Antimony-121 0.0550 0,018 0.200 ug/l. Antimony-123 0.0540 0.028 0.200 ug/L SEK0159-CCI39 Antimony-121 0.0600 ().()l8 0.200 ug/L Antimony-123 0,0610 0.028 0,200 ug/L Page 12 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants LCS / LCS DUPLICATE RECOVERY EPA 6020A Total Metals Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. Sll 1610436 Client: Llovd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging Matrix: Solid Analyzed: 11/10/1616:47 Batch: BEK0278 Laboratory tD: BEK0278-BSl Preparation: SN N EPA 3050B Sequence Name: LCS Initial/Final: I e / 50 mL SPIKE LCS LCS QC ADDED CONCENTRATION % I.IM1T8 COMPOUND (mg/kg wet) (mg/kg wet) REC. 4 REC. Anti mony-121 25.0 26.2 105 80 - 120 Antimony-123 25.0 26.3 105 80 - 120 * Values outside of QC limits Page 13 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants MS / MS DUPLICATE RECOVERY EPA 6020A Total Metals Laboratory: Analytical Resources. Inc. SDG: 16JO436 Client: Lllov d & Associates Project: Barbee DredQlnQ Matrix: Solid Analyzed: 11/10/161636 Batch: BEK0278 Laboratory ID: BEK0278-MSI Preparation; SW-N EPA 3050B Sequence Name:: Matrix Spike Initial/Final: 1.02� 50 mL Source Sample: 07042016BARBEE,-C 07042016BA RBE E-C SPIKE SAMPLE MS MS QC ADDED CONCENTRATION CONCENTRAHON % LIMITS COMPOUND (mg/kg dry) (mg/kg dry) (mg/kg dry) REC. 4 REC. Antimony-]21 30.9 ND 5.14 16.6 75- 125 * Values outside of'QC limits Page 14 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated POST DIGEST SPIKE SAMPLE RECOVERY 07042016BARBUE-C EPA 6020A Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. Client: Lloyd & Associates Matrix: Solid Batch: BE.K0278 Preparation: S11 N EPA 3050B Source Sample Name: 07042016BARBEL-C SD(;: W0436 Project: Barbee Dredging Laboratory ID: BEK0278-PS] Lab Source ID: 16JO436-01 RE2 Initial/Final: 0.125 / 6 mL % Sol ids: 78.74 Control Spike Sample Sample Spike Limit Result (SSR) Result (SR) Added (SA) "/oR Analyte %R (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) Antimony-121 80- I20 493 ND 500.00 98.5 * Values outside of QC limits Page 15 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL RECOVERY EPA 6020A Laboratory: Analytical Resources Inc. Client: Lloyd & Associates Matrix: Solid Batch: B! K0278 Preparation: SWN CPA 3050B Standard ID: E001354 Description: Metals In Soil SDG: 16JO436 Project: Barbee Dredging Laboratory ID. BEK0278-SRM] Initial/Final: 1.003 a / 50 mL Analyzed: 11 / 10/2016 16:52 Expires: 09/30/2018 SRM QC TRUE FOUND % LIMITS ANALYTE (mg)kgwet) (mglkg-aet) NEC. REC. Antimony-121 107.00 5.19 4.85 0 - 208.4 * Values outside of QC limits Page 16 of 378 0 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA EPA 6020A Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. Client: Lloyd & Associates Calibration: 7KO0042 Calibration Date: 11/10/2016 9A0 SDG: 16JO436 Project: Barbee Dredging Instrument: ICPM52 Compound Level01 Level02 Level03 Level04 Leve105 Level06 RF RF RF RF RF RF Antimony-121 0 0 0.' 13570 10 13280.8 20 13188.05 50 12474.5 100 12286.61 Antimony-123 0 0 0.2 I D690 10 10264 6 20 9918.3 50 9552.12 100 9321.97 Page 17 of 37a Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA EPA 6020A Laboratory: Analytical Resources. Inc. Client: l,lovd & Associates Calibration: ZK00042 Calibration Date: I U10/2016 9:46 SDG: 16J0436 Project: Barbee Dredging Instrument: 1CPMS2 COMPOUND 'Bean RF RF RSD Linear COD Quad CUD COD Limit Q Antimony -121 10799.99 49.2 0.9998 0.998 Antimony -123 8291.498 49.3 0.9997 0998 Page 18 of 378 0,'.�V1111%olilt he" Sec 11t�)Chk�d 5upplr111CIIIal D'ItLi Semivolatile Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ARI Job ID: BCWI ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW0270D GC/MS Extraction► Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 2 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C SAMPLE Lab Sample ID: BCW1A QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. LIMS ID; 16-10088 Project: BARBEE DREDGING Matrix: Sediment 2016-1 BARBEE Data Release Authorized:li_l Bate Sampled: 07/D4/16 Reported: 11/01/I6 Date Received: 07/05/16 Date Extracted: 07/0'7/16 Sample Amount: 10.38 g-dry--wt Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 20:06 Final ExtracC Volume: 1.0 mL Instrument/Analyst: NT10/YZ Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3% CAS Number Analyte LOQ Result 108-95-2 Phenol 19 < 19 U 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 9.6 < 9.6 U 100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 19 < 19 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 9.5 < 9.6 U 95-19-7 2-Methylphenol 9.6 < 9.6 U 106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 19 < 19 U 105-67-9 2, 4-Dimethylphenol 48 < 48 U See upplemcmal 65-85-0 Benzoic Acid 190 < 190 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9.6 < 9.6 U 91--20-3 Naphthalene 19 < 19 U 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 9.6 < 9.6 U 91-57 E. 2-Methylnaphthalene 19 < 19 U 131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 9.6 < 9.6 U 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 19 < 19 U 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 19 8.7 J 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 19 < 19 U 84-66--2 Diethylphthalate 19 < 19 U 86-73-7 Fluorene 19 8.7 J 86-30-6 H-Nitrosodiphenylamine 9.6 < 9.6 U 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 9.6 < 9.6 U 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 96 < 96 U 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 19 40 86-74-6 Carbazole 19 < 19 U 120-12-7 Anthracene 19 9.6 J 84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 19 8.7 J 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 19 88 129-00-0 Pyrene 19 66 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 9.6 < 9.6 U 56-55-3 Senzo(a)anthracene 19 27 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 50 Q 218-01--9 Chrysene 19 30 117-84-0 Di-n-Octyl Phthalate 19 < 19 U 50-32-B Benzo(a)pyrene 19 24 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 < 19 U 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19 90-12-0 1--Methylnaphthalene 19 < 19 U FORM I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 2 of 2 Lab Sample ID: BCW1A LIMS ID: 16-10068 Matrix: Sediment Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 20:06 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C SAMPLE CC Report No: BCW1-1,loyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE CAS Number Analyte TOTBFA Total Benzofluoranthenes Reported in Ug/kg (ppb) Seiaivolatile Surrogate Recovery LO¢ Result 38 55 d5-Nitrobenzene 97.2% 2-Fluorobiphenyl 105% d14-p-Terphenyl 132% d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene 76.8% d5-Phenol 14.1% 2-Fluorophenol 67.9-% 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 136% d4-2-Chlorophenol 71.7% FORM I FI n . 1,1 C)j ),)ir,/ f . �, y, t ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 2 Lab Sample ID: SRM-070716 LIMS ID: 16-1008B Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized: A 1 Reported: 11/01/16 } Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 19:30 Instrument/Analyst: NT10/YZ GPC Cleanup: Yes ANALYnCAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: CRM143-050 070716 STANDARD REFERENCE QC Report No: BCw1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Sample Amount: 2.00 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 1.0 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: 0.0% CAS Number Analyte LOQ Result 108-95-2 Phenol 100 6,700 B 106-46--7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 5,200 100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 100 < 100 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 100 5,700 95-98-7 2-Methylphenol 100 < 100 U 106-44-5 4-14ethylphenol 100 9,600 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 500 8,000 65-85--0 Benzoic Acid 1,000 < 1,000 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 100 < 100 U 91-20-3 Naphthalene 100 5,200 8'7-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 100 < 100 U 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 100 7,100 131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 100 8,300 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 100 5,200 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 100 7,400 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 100 < 100 U 84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 100 11,000 86-73-7 Fluorene 100 7,800 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylam,ine 100 3,300 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 100 6,100 8,7-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 500 < 500 U 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 100 3,600 86-74-8 Carbazole 100 180 120-12-7 Anthracene 100 4,800 84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 100 9,800 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 100 4,600 129-00-0 Pyrene 100 6,000 85-68-7 Butylbenxylphthalate 100 5,300 56-55-3 Senzo(a)anthracene 100 7,800 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 250 9,900 Q 218-01-9 Chrysene 100 1,100 117-84-0 Di-n-Octyl phthalate 100 < 100 U 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 100 680 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 100 2,200 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 100 3,500 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 100 2,800 90-12-0 1-Methy1naphthalene 100 < 100 U FORM I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Sema.volatiles by SW0270D GC/MS Extraction Nethod= SW3546 Page 2 of 2 Lab Sample ID: SR.M-070716 LIMS ID: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 19:30 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: CRM143-050 070716 STANDARD REFERENCE QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE CAS Number Analyte TOTHFA Total Senzofluoranthenes Reported in ug/kq (ppb) Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery Log 200 Result 8,600 d5-Nitrobenzene 104% 2-Fluorobiphenyl d14-p-Terphenyl I09% d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene d5-Phenol 88.5% 2-F'lucrophenol 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 120% d4-2-Chlorophenol FORM I 110% 86.2% 33.3% 77.3% ANALYTICAL RESOUNCE8 ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCORPORATED PSDDA Sesnivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C Page 1 of 1 MS/MSD Lab Sample ID: BCWlA QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & As5ociates, Inc. LIMS ID: 16 ]COBB Project: BARBEE DREDGING Matrix: Sediment 2016-1 BARBEE Data Release Authorized:,A. Date Sampled: 07/01/16 Reported: 11/01/16 Date Received: 07105/16 Date Extracted MS/MSD: 07/07/16 Sample Amount M5: 10.40 g-dry-wt MSD: 10,38 g-dry-wt Date Analyzed MS: 07/13/16 20:42 Final Extract Volume MS: 1.0 mL MSD: 07/13/16 21:18 MSD: 1.0 mL Instrument/Analyst MS: NT10/YZ Dilution Factor MS: 1.00 MSD: NT10/YZ MSD: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3 % Spike Ms Spike MSD Analyte Sample MS Added -MS Recovery MSD Added-MSD Recovery RPD Phenol < 19 U 313 B 481 65.1% 313 B 482 64.9% 0.0% 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 299 481 62.2% 306 482 63.596 2.3% Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 304 481 63.2% 335 482 69.5% 9.7% 1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 314 481 65.3% 346 482 71.8% 9.7% 2-Methylphenol < 9.6 U 318 481 66.1% 365 482 75.7% 13.8% 4-Methylphenol < 19 U 313 481 65.1% 355 482 73.7% 12.6% 2,4-Dimethyluhenol < 48 U 1310 1440 91.0% 1330 145C 91.7% 1.5% Benzoic Acid < 190 U 2000 2640 75.8% 1930 2650 72.8% 3.CA 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 346 487 71.9% 309 482 76.62% 6.4% Naphthalene < 19 U 368 481 76.5% 368 482 76.3g 0.0% Hexachlorobutadiene < 9,6 U 438 481 91.1% 432 462 89.6% 1.4% 2-Methyinaphthalene < 19 U 352 481 73.2% 353 482 73.2% 0.3% Dimethylphthalate < 9.6 U 430 481 89.496 451 482 93.6% 4.6% Acenaphthylene < 19 U 393 481 81.7% 426 482 88.4% 8.1% Acenaphthene 8.7 J 453 481 92.4% 457 482 93.0% 0.9% Dibenzofuran < 19 U 419 481 87.1% 442 482 91.7% 5.3% Diethylphthalate < 19 U 487 481 101% 512 482 106% 5.0% Fluorene 8.7 J 412 481 83.8% 431 482 87.6$ 4.5% N--Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 338 481 70.3% 366 482 75.9% 8.0% Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 410 481 85.2% 406 482 84.2% 1-0% Pentachiorophenoi < 96 U 1230 1440 85.4% 1330 1450 91.7% 7.8% Phenanthrene 40 413 481 77.5% 421 482 79.0% 1.9% Carbazole < 19 U 399 481 83.0% 435 462 90.2% 8.6% Anthracene 9.6 J 383 481 77.6% 403 482 81.6% 5.1% Di-n-Butylphthalate 8.7 J 453 48i 92.4% 465 462 94.7% 2.6% Fluoranthene 88 573 481 101% 5"10 482 100% 0.5% Pyrene 66 553 461 L01% 557 482 102% 0.7% Butylbenzylphthalate < 9.6 U 580 481 121% 571 482 118% 1.6% Benzo(a)anthracene 27 438 481 65.41t 418 482 81.1% 4.7% bis(2-Ethyihexyl)phtha1ate 50 Q 439 Q 481 80.9% 478 Q 482 88.8% 8.5% Chrysene 30 429 481 83.0% 425 482 82.0% 0.9% Di-n-Octyl phthalate < 19 U 389 481 80.9% 395 462 82.0% 1.5% Senzo(a)pyrene 24 430 481 84.4% 461 482 90.7% 7.0% Tndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 402 481 79.6% 484 482 96.5% 18.5% Dibenz(a,h)anthracene < 19 U 399 481 83.0% 477 482 99.0% 17.81 Senzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 409 481 81.1% 487 482 97.1% 17.4% 1-Methyinaphthalene { 19 U 311 481 64.7% 329 482 68.3% 5.6$ Total Benzofluoranthenes 55 744 962 71.6% 886 963 86.3% 17.4% Reported in µg/kg (ppb) RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846. FORM III f ` ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCORPORATED PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Sample ID: 01042016BARBEE-C Extraction Method: SW3546 MATRIX SPIKE Page 1 of 2 Lab Sample ID: BCW1A QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. LIMS TD: 16-10088 Project: BARBEE DREDGING Matrix: Sediment 2016-1 BARBEE Data Release Authorized..,"j,) Date Sampled: 0-7/04/16 Reported: 11/01/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Sample Amount: 10.40 g-dry-wt Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 20:42 Final Extract Volume: 1.0 mL Instrument/Analyst: NT10/YZ Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3� CAS Number Analyse LOQ Result 108-95-2 Phenol 19 --- 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 19 - 100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 19 --- 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 19 --- 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 19 --- 106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 19 -- 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 96 - 65-85-0 Benzoic Acid 190 --- 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 19 --- 91-20-3 Naphthalene 19 --- 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 19 --- 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 19 --- 131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 19 --- 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 19 --- 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 19 --- 132-64-9 Dibenzcfur.an 19 -- 84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 19 --- 86-73-7 Fluorene 19 -- 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 19 --- 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 19 --- 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 96 --- 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 19 --- 86-74-8 Carbazole 19 --- 120--12-7 Anthracene 19 --- 84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 19 --- 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 19 --- 129-00-0 Pyrene 19 - - 85-66-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 19 --- 56-55-3 Benzo W anthracene 19 --- 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 --- 218-01-9 Chrysene 19 --- 117-84-0 Di-n-Octyl phthalate 19 - 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 19 --- 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 - - 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 ---- 191-24-2 Benzo(q,h,i)perylene 19 --- 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 19 --- FORM I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 2 of 2 Lab Sample TD: BCWIA LIMS 1D: 16-100B8 Matrix: Sediment Date Analyzed: 0'7/13/16 20:42 GAS Number Analyte ANALYTICAL Ara RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARREE-C MATRIX SPIKE Ql� Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project:: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE TOTBF'A Total Benzofluoranthenes Reported in dig/kg (pph) Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery d5-Nitrobenze:ie 102% 2-Flucrobiphenyl d14-p-Terphenyl 13'7% d4-1,2-Dichlcrobenzene d5-Phenol '78.8% 2-Fluorophenol 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 122% d4-2-Chlorophenol FORM I LOQ Result 38 --- 102% 77.4% 64.8% -73.1% d •, ANA YnCAL RESOURCES ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCORPORATED PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C Extraction Method: SW3546 MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE Page i of 2 Lab Sample ID: BCW1A QC RepQrL No: BCW1-Lloyd S Associates, In(:. L1MS ID: 16-10088 Project: BARBEE DREDGING Matrix: Sediment 2016-1 BARBEE Data Release Authorized--,'.' Sampled: 07/04/)6 Reported: 11/01,/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Sample Amount: 10.38 g-dry--wt Date Analyzed: 01/1.3/16 21:18 final Extract Volume: 1-0 mL Instrument/Analyst: NT10/YZ DiluLion Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3% CAS Number Analyse LOQ Result 108-95-2 Phenol 19 -- 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 19 - 100--51--6 Renzyl Alcohol 19 --- 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 19 --- 95-48--7 2-Methylphenol 19 --- 106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 19 -- 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 96 - 65-85-0 Berizoic Acid 190 --- 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 19 _-- 91-20-3 Naphthalene 19 --- 87-68--3 llexachlorobutadiene 19 --- 91-57-6 2-Methy1naphthalene 19 --- 131-11-3 ❑imethylphthalate 19 --- 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 19 --- 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 19 --- 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 19 --- 84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 19 --- 86-73-7 Fluorene 19 ---- 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenyiamine 19 --- 118-74-1 flexachlorobenzene 19 --- 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 96 --- 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 19 --- 86-74-8 Carbazole 19 - - 120-12-7 Anthracene 19 --- 84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 19 --- 206-44 0 Fluoranthene 19 --- 129-00-0 Pyrene 19 --- 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 19 --- 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 19 --- 117-81-7 bis(2--Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 --- 218-01-9 Chrysene 19 --- 117-84-0 Di-n--Octyl phthalate 19 - 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 19 --- 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3--cd)pyrene 19 --- 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 --- 191-24-2 Benzo(q,h,i)perylene 19 --- 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 19 --- FORM I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Extraction Metbod: SW3546 Page 2 of 2 Lab Sample ID: 3CW1A LIMS ID: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 21:18 CAS Number Analvte ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, IiiC. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE LOQ Result TOTBFA Total Benzofluoranthenes 38 - Reported in µg/kg (ppb) Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery d5-Nitrobenzene 112% 2-Fl{iorobiphenyl 103% d19-p-Terphenyl 131% d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene 81.2% d5-Phenol. 84.3% 2-Fluorophenol -73.9% 2,4,6--Tribromophenal 129% d4-2-Chlorophenol 78.1% FORM I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW$270D GC/MS Page 1 of 2 Lab Sample ID: LCS-070716 LIMS ID: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized;'V Reported: 11/01/16 ANALYTICALiIIImIl AESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: LCS-070716 LAB CONTROL QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Date Extracted: 07/0'7/16 Sample Amount: 10.00 g Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 18:17 Final Extract Volume: 1.0 mL Instrument/Analyst: NT10/YZ Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: Yes Percent Moisture: NA Lab Spike Analyse Control Added Recovery Phenol 499 B 500 99.8% 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 419 500 83.8% Benzyl Alcohol 499 500 99.8% 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 434 50C 86.8% 2-Methylphenol 412 500 82.4% 4-Methylphenol 372 500 74.4% 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1320 1500 68.0% Benzoic Acid 2250 2750 81.8% 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 415 500 83.0% Naphthalene 417 500 83.4% Hexachlorobutadiene 510 500 102% 2-Methylnaphthalene 438 500 87.6% Dimethylphthalate 588 500 118% Acenaphthylene 494 500 98.8% Acenaphthene 531 500 107% Dibenzcfuran 535 500 107% Diethylphthalate 651 500 130% Fluorene 528 500 106% N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 397 500 79.4% Hexachlor.obenzene 432 500 86.4% Pentachlorophenol 1150 1500 76.7% Phenanthrene 480 500 96.0% Carbazole 443 500 88.6% Anthracene 461 500 92.2% Di-n-Butylphthalate 577 500 115% Flucranthene 509 50D 102% Pyrene 488 500 97.6% Butylbenzylphthalate 517 500 103% Benzo(a)anthracene 500 500 100% bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthaiate 532 Q 500 10616 Chrysene 482 500 96.4% Di-n-Octyl phthalate 490 500 98.0% Benzc (a) pyrene 561 500 112% Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 609 500 122% FORM III r ANALYTICAL RESOURCESNW ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCORPORATED PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Sample ID: LCS-070716 Page 2 of 2 LAB CONTROL Lab Sample ID: 'CS-070716 QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. LlM5 ID: 16 10088 Project: BARBEE DREDGING Matrix: Sediment 2016--1 BARBEE Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 18:17 Lab Spike Analyte Control Added Recovery Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 568 500 114% Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 564 500 113% 1-Methy1naphthalene 408 500 81.6% Total Benzofluoranthenes 1350 1000 135% Reported in Ng/kg (ppb) Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery d5-Nitrobenzene 128% 2-Fluorobiphenyl 118% d14-p-Terphenyl 123% d4-1,2--Dichlorobenzene 96.6% d5-Phenol 104% 2-Fluorophenol 90.3% 2,4,6-Tribrcmophenol 141% d4-2-Chlorophenol 95.9% FORM III 4B SEMIVOLATILE METHOD BLANK SUMMARY BLANK NO. Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No: BCW1 Lab File ID: 16071805 Instrument ID: NT10 Matrix: SOLID BCWIMBSI Client: LLYOYD Project: BARBEE DREDGING Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed: 07/18/16 Time Analyzed: 1459 THIS P=HOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS and MSD: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 page 1 of 1 CLIENT SAMPLE NO. BCWILCSSI CRM1.43-050 07042016BARBEE-C 07042016BARBEE- 07042016BARBEE- LAB SAMPLE ID BCWILCSSI BCWISRMI BCWIA BCWIAMS BCWIAMSD LAB FILE ID 16071309 16071311 16071312 16071313 16071314 DATE ANALYZED 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16 FORM IV SV ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSODA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 2 ?.al; Sample ID: MB-070716 LIMS ID: 16-10068 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized:,`,; Reported: 11/01/16 Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed: 07/18/16 14:59 Instrument/Analyst: NTIC/YZ GPC Cleanup: Yes ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: M33-070716 METHOD BLANK QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Sample Amount: 10.00 g-dry-wt Final extract Volume: 1.0 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: NA C14S Number Analyte LOQ Result 108-95-2 Phenol 20 8.2 J 106-46-7 1,4-Dichloroben2ene 20 < 20 U 100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 20 < 20 U 95-50--1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 20 < 20 U 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 20 < 20 U 106-44-5 4-Methylpnenol 20 < 20 U 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethy.lphenol 100 < 100 U 65-85-0 Benzoic Acid 200 < 200 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-`Irichlorobenzene 20 < 20 U 91-20-3 Naphthalene 20 < 20 U 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 20 < 20 U 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 20 < 20 U 131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 20 < 20 U 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 20 < 20 U 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 20 < 20 U 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 20 < 20 U 84-66-2 Diethyiphthalate 20 < 20 U 86-73-7 Fluorene 20 < 20 U 86-30-6 N-Nitrosediphenylamine 20 < 20 U 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 20 < 20 U 87-66-5 Pentachlorophenol 100 < 1C0 U 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 20 < 20 U 86-74-8 Carbazoie 20 < 20 U 120-12-7 Anthracene 20 < 20 U 84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 20 < 20 U 2C6-44-0 Fluaranthene 20 < 20 U 129-00-0 Pyrene 20 < 20 U 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 20 < 20 U 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 20 < 20 U 11-7-81-7 bis(2-Ethy1hexyl)phthalate 50 < 50 U 218-01-9 Chrysene 20 < 20 U 117-84-0 Di-n-Ortyl phthalate 20 < 20 U 50-32-8 Senzo(a)pyrene 20 < 20 U 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3 cd)pyrene 20 < 20 U 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 20 < 20 U 191-24-2 Benzo(q,h,i)perylene 20 < 20 U 90-12-0 1-Methyinaphthalene 20 < 2C U FORM I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Semivolatiles by SN8270D GC/MS Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 2 of 2 Lab Sample ID: MB 070716 L£MS ID. 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Gate Analyzed: 07/18/16 14:59 CAS Number Analyte TOTBFA ANALYTICAL RESOU14CES INCORPORATED Sample ID: MB-070716 METHOD BLANK QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc, Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Log Total Benzofluoranthenes 40 Reported in µg/kg (ppb) Semivolat.tle Surrogate Recovery d5-Nitrobenzene 10796 Q d14-p-Terphenyl 116% db-Phenol 84.816 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 120% FORM I Result £ 40 U 2-Fluorobiphenyl d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2-Fluorophenol d4-2-Chlorophenol 103-% 86.2% 78.4% 7B.7$ 5B SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK DECAFLUOROTRIPHENYLPHOSPHINE (DFTPP) Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Instrument ID: NT10 DFTPP Injection Date: 04/21/16 m/e 51 68 69 70 127 197 198 199 275 365 441 442 443 ION ABUNDANCE CRITERIA Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING DFTPP Injection Time: 1336 10.0 - 80.0t of mass 198 Less than 2.0 of mass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance Less than 2.0V of mass 69 10.0 - 80.0% of mass 198 Less than 2.0% of mass 198 Base Peak, 100% relative ce 5.0 to 9.0% of mass 198 10.0 - 60.0W of mass 198 Greater than 1.0% of mass 198 0.0 - 24.0% of mass 442 50.0 - 200.0% of mass 198 15.0 - 24.0% of mass 442 ABUNDANCE 32.7 0.0 Q.Q 1 43.7 0.3 0.8 1 43.5 0.0 100.0 7.1 28.5 3.84 11.1 T 15.1 F2 74.0 14.$ 26.1 2 1-Value is % mass 69 2-Value is mass 442 THIS CHECK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS, MSD, BLANKS, AND STANDARDS: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CLIENT SAMPLE NO. LAB SAMPLE ID SED0054-CALS SED0054-CAL7 SED0054-CALL SED0054-CAL3 SED0054-CAL6 SED0054-CAL4 SED0054-CAL2 LAB FILE ID 16042102 16042103 16042104 16042105 16042106 16042108 16042110 DATE ANALYZED 04/21/16 04/21/16 04/21/16 04/21/16 04/21/16 04/21/16 04/21/16 TIME ANALYZED 1351 1429 1506 1543 1621 1735 1850 page 1 of 1 FORM V SV 5B SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK DECAFLUOROTRIPHR YLPHOSPHINE (DFTPP) Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Instrument ID: NT10 DFTPP Injection Date: 07/13/16 m/e 51 68 69 70 127 197 198 199 275 365 441 442 443 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BAFJ3EE DREDGING DFTPP Injection Time: 1650 10.0 - 60.0% of mass 198 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance Less than 2.0k of mass 69 10.0 - 80.0% of mass 198 Less than 2.0% of mass 198 Base Peak, 100%- relative abundance 5.0 to 9.0t of mass 198 10.0 - 60.0$ of mass 198 Greater than 1.0% of mass 198 0.0 - 24.OW of mass 442 50.0 - 200.0t of mass 198 15.0 - 24.0%- of mass 442 ABUNDANCE 39.6 0.2 0.5)1 45.2 0.4 0.9 lj 43.4 0.0 100.0 6.7 29.7 5.69 12.4 15.7 2 78.9 15.0 T 19.0 F2 1-Value is V mass 69 2-Value is k mass 442 THIS CHECK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS, MSD, BLANKS, AND STANDARDS: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 CLIENT SAMPLE NO. BCWILCSSI CRM143-050 0704201GRARBEE-C 07042016BARBEE- 07042016BARBEE- LAB SAMPLE ID CC0713 BCWILCSSI BCWISRMI HCWIA BCWIAM,S BCWIAMSID LAB FILE ID 16071307 16071309 16071311 16071312 16071313 16071314 DATE ANALYZED 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16 TIME ANALYZED 1705 1817 1930 2006 2042 2118 page 1 of 1 FORM V SV R a w i : LA L-1 7 2 5B SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK DECAFLUORCTRIPHENYLPHOSPHINE (DFTPP) Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Instrument ID: NT10 DFTPP Injection Date: 07/18/16 We 51 68 69 70 127 197 198 199 275 365 441 442 443 ION ABUNDANCE CRITERIA Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING DFTPP Injection Time: 1256 10.0 - 80.0% of mass 198 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance Less than 2.0% of mass 69 10.0 - 80.0t of mass 198 _ Less than 2.0W of mass 198 Base Peak, 100% relative abundance 5.0 to 9.0k of mass 198 10.0 - 60.0$ of mass 198 Greater than 1.0t of mass 198 - 0.0 - 24.0W of mass 442 50.0 - 200.0% of mass 198 15.0 - 24.0W of mass 442 ABUNDANCE 46.3 0.8 1.6 1 53.4 0.3 0.6)1 46.8 0.4 100.0 7.5 27.5 5.65 11.7 16.2 2 72.6 13.7 18.9 2 1-Value is mass 69 2-Value is %; mass 44 THIS CHECK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS, MSD, BLANKS, AND STANDARDS. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CLIENT SAMPLE NO. BCWIMBSI LAB SAMPLE ID CC0718 BCWIMBSI LAB FILE ID 16071802 16071805 DATE ANALYZED 07/18/16 07/18/16 TIME ANALYZED 1311 1459 Page 1 of 1 FORM V SV acw 1 C-ILO 7 6B SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING Instrument ID: NT10 Calibration Date: 04/21/16 LAB FILE IA; RRF0.2=16042104 RRF2.5=16042108 RRF20=16042103 RRF0,5=16042110 RRF5=16042102 RRF1=16042105 RRF10=16042106 RRF RRF RRF RRF I RRF RRF I RRF I%RSD I COMPOUND 10.2 10.5 1 1 1 2,5 15 1 10 I 20 1 RRF I/R-2 I (Phenol 1 1.7131 1.4841 1.5021 1.5741 1.5691 1.5781 1.4581 1.5541 5.51 1Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 1 1.2991 1.2181 1.1381 1.1111 1,1081 1,1061 1.0441 1,1601 9.01 12-Chlorophenol 11.3531 1.3711 1.2481 1.2211 1.2721 1.2381 1.2011 1.2721 5.11 11,3-Dichlorobenzene 11A061 1.5041 1.5291 1.5081 1.4331 1,5031 1,3681 1.5221 9.01 11,4-Dichlorobenzene 11,6511 1.5111 1.4371 1,4651 1,4471 1.5171 1,3391 1,4811 6.41 11,2-Dichlorobenzene 11.4001 1.5001 1,3441 1.4141 1.3911 1.4111 1.2881 1.3921 4.71 113enzyl alcohol 10,703I 0.8381 0.7301 0.7551 0.7521 0.789I 0.742I 0.7581 5.81 12,2-oxybis(1-Chloropropane)I 0,6961 0.5021 0.4001 0.4861 0.4601 0.4311 0.416I 0.48410.9991 12-Methylphenol 11.2091 1.0491 0.995I 1.0231 1.0661 1.1011 1.009I 1.0641 6.91 IHexachloroethane 10.854I 0,81,91 0,649I 0,7111 0.6441 0.6.961 0.641I 0,7161 12,11 IN-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine_1 1.0871 1.1191 0,8811 0.9621 0.9601 0.9801 0.9031 0.984I 9.01 I4-Methylphenol 1 1,3481 1,2321 1.110{ 1,0861 1.1261 1.1081 1.044 1.1501 9.01 (Nitrobenzene 1 0.4901 0.4901 0.4771 0.4621 0.4551 0.4671 0.4481 0.4701 3.5j IIsophorone 1 0.7611 0.7861 0.7201 0.7651 0.7421 0.764j 0.7671 0.7591 2.41 12-Nitrophenol 1 0.2181 0.2121 0.1981 0.2231 0.2241 0,2191 0.2261 0.2171 4.41 I2,4-Dimethylphenol 1 0.4621 0,4741 0.4581 0.4891 0.4661 0.4591 0,4361 C.463I 3.51 IBis(2-Ch1oroethoxy)methane_ 1 0.4061 0.3951 0.3881 0.3591 0.3701 0.3701 0.3651 0.3791 4.61 12,4-Dichlorophenol 1 0.3251 0.3291 0.3291 0.3431 0.3441 0.3421 0.3401 0.3361 2.41 11,2,4-Trichlcrobenzene 1 0.4681 0.4671 0.4161 0.4101 0.3891 0.4021 0.3821 0.419I 8.41 INaphthalene 11.0621 0.935� 0.9431 0,9481 0.959I 0,9501 0.9631 0.9661 4.51 !Benzoic acid 1 1 0.1591 0.2641 0.2851 0.3201 0.3271 0,3241 0,28010.9991 14-Chloroaniline 10.3991 0,3951 0.3761 0.3961 0.3981 0.4181 0.4261 0.4011 4.11 IHexachlorobutadiene 10.406I 0.2771 0.3321 0.3261 0.3121 0.3191 0.294I 0,3241 12.71 14-Chloro-3-methylphenol 10.361I 0.3581 0.3471 0.3821 0.4001 0,4101 0.4181 0.3821 7.31 I2-Methylnaphthalene 10.783I 0.7841 0.7341 0.7451 0.7551 0.7671 0.786.1 0,7651 2,71 IHexachlorocyclopentadiene_ I 10.5051 0.5041 0.520I 0.5501 0,5761 0.5711 0,538I 6.01 12,4,6-Trichlorophenol 10.3391 0.3581 0.4141 0.4261 0.4381 0,4561 0.4581 0.4131 11.41 I2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 10.396I 0,4151 0.418I 0,4501 0,4591 0,4801 0.478I 0.4421 7.54 I2-Chloronaphthalene 1 1,1791 1.0501 1,0491 1.0941 1.0731 1.0981 1.104I 1,0921 4.11 12-Nitroaniline 1 0.3941 0.3561 0.3611 0.3831 0.3841 0.3981 0,3911 0.3811 4.31 lAcenaphthylene 1 1.7721 1.5221 1.5791 1.5641 1.4911 1.5161 1.5181 1.5661 6.11 IDimethylphthalate 1 1.5221 1.2651 1.4121 1.3621 1.3061 1.3261 1.2631 1.3511 6.81 12,6-Dinitrotoluene 10.295I 0.285I 0,3041 0.3151 0.3081 0.3121 0.3101 0.3041 3.51 lAcenaphthene 11.127I 0.8881 1.0111 0.996I 0.9771 1,0151 1.0221 1.0051 7.01 13-Nitroaniline I 10.295I 0.2671 0.263I 0.2351 0.2691 0.2681 0.2661 7.21 12,4-Dinitrophenol I 10.0901 0.1341 0.192} 0.2121 0.2341 0.2481 0.18510.9991 1Dibenzofuran 11,603I 1.5271 1.5351 1.5221 1.53BI 1.6031 1.5591 1.5551 2.21 <- Outside QC limits: %-RSD <20% or R-2 > 0.990 page 1 of 3 FORM VI SV-1 6B SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING Instrument ID: NT10 Calibration Date: 04/21/16 LAB FILE ID: RRF0.2=16042104 RRFo.5=16042110 RRF1=16042105 RRF2.5=16042108 RRF5=16042102 RRF10=16042106 RRF20=16042103 I ! I I RRF RRF RRF RRF I RRF I RRF ! RRF ( I%-RSD I COMPOUND 0.2 1 0.5 { 1 12.5 1 5 10 ! 20 I RRF I/R"2 I 14-Nitrophenol 11 0.3051 0.2821 0.3551 0.3411 0.3621 0,3421 0.3311 9.41 12,4-Dinitrotoluene 1 0.3821 0.4021 0.4011 0.4121 0.4191 0,4431 0.4321 0,4131 5.01 IFluorene 1 1.3901 1,2031 1.2361 1.2691 1.2281 1.2841 1.2601 1,2671 4.81 14-Chlorophenyl-phenylether_ 1 0.8911 0,0091 0.7771 0,7591 0.7381 0.7561 0.7431 0.7801 6.41 IDiethylphthalate 1 1.5471 1.3871 1.3001 1.3661 1.3301 1,3221 1.2861 1.3631 6.51 14-Nitroaniline 1 0.2441 0,3181 0.3341 0.2311 0.2701 0.2871 0.2611 0.2811 13.21 14,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol_ 1 0.1021 0.1111 0.1391 0.1491 0.1601 0.17DI 0,1711 0.1431 19.11 IN-Nitrosodiphenyla-nine (1)_1 0,6381 0.5261 0.5011 0.4851 0.4821 0,4691 0.4481 0.5071 12.41 14-Bromophenyl-phenylether_ 1 0.2801 0.2521 0.2531 0,2511 0.2571 0.2591 0.2671 0,2601 4.01 lHexachlorobenzene 1 0.2951 0.2511 0.2541 0,2621 0.2471 0,253: 0.2501 0.2591 6.51 lPentachlorophenol I 1 0.1321 0.1701 0.1701 0.1881 0.1861 0.1881 0.1721 12.41 lPhenanthrene 1 1,0291 0.9651 0.8961 0,9321 0,9191 0.9421 0.9781 0.9521 4.61 lAnthracene 1 1.1021 0.9441 0.9561 0.9691 0.9941 1.0401 1.0421 1.0071 5.7{ ICarbazole 1 0.9321 0.8821 0.8501 0.8091 0,6311 0.7191 0.7051 0.7901 13.71 IDi-n-butylphthalate 1 1.2361 1,0261 1,1551 1.1351 1.2351 1.3011 1.3521 1,2061 9.11 IFluoranthene 11,0421 1.0551 1.1181 1.0651 1.1231 1.1961 1.2141 1.1191 5,91 IPyrene 1 1,2271 1.1501 1.1221 1,1511 1.1551 1.2251 1.2591 1.1641 4.41 lButylbenzylphthalate 1 0.4811 0,4291 0.4991 0,4941 0.4951 0.5031 0.4791 0.4831 5,31 lBenzo(a)anthracene 1 1.2521 1.2141 1,1681 1.2051 1.1741 1.2201 1,2041 1.208{ 2.11 13,31-Dichlorobenzidine 1 0.4601 0.4661 0.4931 0.4371 0.3181 0.3391 0,3901 0.4151 16.21 IChrysene 1 1,0901 0,3721 0.9911 0.9901 0.9841 1.0181 1,0141 1.0081 3.91 Ibis(2-Rthylhexy1)phtha1ate_1 0.5181 0,4321 0.4961 0,5061 0.4921 0.5121 0.45BI 0.4881 6.41 IDi-n-octylphthalate 1 1.0671 0.9841 0.9351 0,9761 0.9311 0.9431 0.9171 0.9651 5.31 lBenzo(b)fluoranthene 1 1.0541 1.1361 1.1601 1.1501 1.2021 1.1551 1,1781 1.1481 4.01 IBenzo(k)fluoranthene ! 1.2781 1.1491 1.2331 1.2581 1.2651 1.2351 1.1311 1.2211 4.81 lBenzo(a)pyrene 1 1.1401 0.9941 1.0651 1.0741 1.1451 1.0881 1,0661 1.0821 4.71 IIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 1.3301 1.2561 1.3381 1.3171 1.3621 1.3211 1.2441 1,3101 3.31 1Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1 1.0351 0.9621 1.0581 1,0851 1.0601 1.0121 0.9611 1.0251 4,81 1Benzo(g.h,i)perylene 1 1.2011 1,0411 1.1011 1.0811 1.1621 1.0931 1.0551 1.1051 5.21 IN-Nitrosodimethylamine 1 0.842) 0.6851 0.6711 0.6641 0.6701 0.6921 0.6641 0.6981 9.21 (Aniline 1 1.7011 1.4921 1.5531 1.5441 1.5451 1,6061 1.4921 1,5621 4.71 laenzidine 1 0,5901 0.5171 0.5391 0.4431 0.2471 0.3281 0.3461 0.43010,9921 lRetene 1 0.5311 0.4971 0.487I 0-5031 0.5091 0,5321 0.5051 0.5091 3.31 lPerylene 1 1.0871 1,0191 1.015f 1.0461 1.0431 1.0821 1.0451 1.0481 2.61 (Pyridine 1 1.4601 1.1701 1.150{ 1.0921 1.1691 1.1871 1.1311 1.1941 10.21 I1-riethy1naphthalene__ _I 0.774I 0.7591 0.7681 0.7951 0.7811 0.8301 0.8451 0.7931 4.11 IAzobenzene (1,2-DP-Hydrazine! I I 1.394{ I 1.3741 I 1.3621 I 1.4131 1.2961 I 1.3091 ! 1,2651 1.3451 4.11 (1) Cannot be seperated from Diphenylamine I c- Outside QC limits: %RSD <20% or R"2 > 0.990 page 2 of 3 FORM VI SV-2 6B SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Jab No: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING Instrument ID: NT10 Calibration Date: 04/21/16 LAB FILE ID: RRF0.2=16042104 RRF2,5=1604210E RRF20-16042103 RRF0.5=16042110 RRF5=16042102 RRF1=16042105 RRF10=16042106 I RRF RRF RRF I RRF I RRF I RRF I RRF I I%RSD I COMPOUND 10.2 10.5 11 12.5 15 I 10 I 20 # _ RRF I/R-2 I I2,3,4,6-Tetrach1orophenol_ 10.411I 0.3691 0.3561 0.4151 0.410I 0.4261 0.4301 0.4021 7.11 (Total Benzofluoranthenes 11.109I 1.1091 1.1561 1,1591 1.1781 1.1361 1.100I 1.1351 2.61 I2-Flucrophenol 1 1.3301 1.1021 1.0821 1.078[ 1.158I 1.1661 1.0891 1,1441 7,91 Ipzenol-d5 11.4361 1.3471 1.3301 1.3911 1.4351 1.5001 1.4761 1.4161 4.51 12 Chlorophenol-d4 11.505I 1.2981 1.276I 1.2031 1.2321 1.2501 1.1831 1.27BI 8.41 I1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4 11.067I 0.8031 0.910I 0.910I 0.870I 0.9001 0.8641 0.9031 9.0I (Nitrobenzene-d5 10.527I 0.4611 0,4301 0.4701 0,4661 0,4721 0.4621 0.4701 6.1I I2-Fluorobiphenyl 11.384I 1.3391 1.3371 1.3121 1.2871 1.3251 1.2971 1.3261 2.41 I2,4,6-Tribromophenol 10.148I 0.1411 0.2211 0.2021 0.2171 0,2351 0.2361 0.20DI 19.81 ITerphenyl-dl4 10.832I 0.8191 0.8641 0.8411 0.8401 0.85DI D.800I 0,8351 2.51 <- Outside QC limits: %RMD <20% or R"2 > 0,990 page 3 of 3 CW 4 - �vspb-76 7B SEMIVOLATILB 8270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job Na: BCW1 Instrument ID: NT10 Init. Calib. Date: 04/21/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project; BARBEE DREDGING Cont. Calib. Date: 07/13/16 Cont. Calib. Time: 1705 CalArrt CC Amt MIN CURVE WD or COMPOUND or ARF or RF RRF TYPE Drift Phenol T~ 1.554 1.732 0.800 AVRG 11.4 Bis(2-ChloroetFyMether 1.160 1.029 0.700 AVRG -11.3 2-Chlorophenol 1.272 1.260 0.800 AVRG -0.9 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.522 1.468 0.010 AVRG -3.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.481 1.480 0.010 AVRG -0.1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.392 1.388 0.010 AVRG -0.3 Benzyl alcohol 0.758 0.791 0.010 AVRG 4.4 2,21-oxybis(1- oropropane) 5.000 5.417 0,010 20RDR 8.3 2-Methylphenol 1.064 1.127 0.700 AVRG 5.9 Hexachloroethane 0.716 0.847 0.300 AVRG 18.3 N-Nitroso-di-n-propy amine 0.984 1.148 0.500 AVRG 16.7 4-Methylphenol 1.150 1.134 0.600 AVRG -1.4 Nitrobenzene 0.470 0.581 0.200 AVRG 23.6 Isophorone 0.759 0.857 0.400 AVRG 12.9 2-Nitrophenol 0.217 0.213 0.100 AVRG -1.8 2,4-Dimethylplienol 0.463 0.466 0.200 AVRG 0.6 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy met e_ 0.379 0.390 0.300 AVRG 2.9 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.336 0.360 0.200 AVRG 7.1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.419 0.433 0,010 AVRG 3.3 Naphthalene 0.966 0.975 0.700 AVRG 0.9 Benzoic acid 20.00 16.62 0.010 20RDR -16.9 4-Chloroaniline 0.401 0.420 0.010 AVRG 4.7 Hexachlorobutacliii e 0.324 0.395 0.010 AVRG 21.9 4-Chloro-3--methylp 0.362 0.447 0.200 AVRG 17.0 2-Methy1naphthalene 0.765 0.815 0.400 AVRG 6.5 Hexachlorocyclopentaa a� 0.538 0.582 0,050 AVRG 8.2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.413 0.460 0.200 AVRG 11.4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0.442 0.493 0.200 AVRG 11.5 2-Chlcronaphthalene 1.092 1.165 0.800 AVRG 6.7 2-Nitroaniline 0.381 0.523 0.010 AVRG 37.3 Acenaphthylene 1.566 1.486 0.900 AVRG -5.1 Dimethylphthalate 1.351 1.421 0.010 AVRG 5.2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.304 0.304 0.200 AVRG 0.0 Acenaphthene 1.005 1.033 0.900 AVRG 2.8 3-Nitroaniline 0.266 0.260 0.010 AVRG -2.2 2,4-Dinitropheno 20.00 13.54 0.010 20RDR -32.3 Dibenzofuran 1.555 1.644 0.800 AVRG 5.7 <- rmxceeas QL� limzL of Zvi u * RF less than minimum RF page 1 of 3 FORM VIZ SV-1 7C SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D CONTINIIING CALIBRATION CHECK Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No: BCW1 Instrument ID. NT10 Init. Calib. Date: 04/21/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBER DREDGING Cont. Calib. Date: 07/13/16 Cont. Calib. Time: 1705 CalAmt CC Amt MIN CURVE VD or COMPOUND or ARF or RF RRF TYPE Drift 4-Nitrophenol 0.331 0.500 0.010 AVRG 51.0 2,4-Dinitroto uene 0.413 0.462 0.200 AVRG 11.9 Fluorene 1.267 1.249 0.900 AVRG -1.4 4-Chloropheny -p eny et r 0.780 0.793 0.400 AVRG 1.7 Diethylphthalate 1.363 1.582 0.010 AVRG 16.1 4-Nitroaniline 0.281 0.254 0.010 AVRG -9.6 4,6-Dinitro-2-met y p eno 0.143 0.156 0.010 AVRG 9.1 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine(1) 0.507 0.456 0.010 AVRG -10.0 4-Brcmophenyl-phenylether 0.260 0.282 0.100 AVRG 8.5 Hexachlorobenzene 0.259 0.239 0.100 AVRG -7.7 Pentachlorophenol 0.172 0.152 0.050 AVRG -11.6 Phenanthrene 0.952 0.940 0.700 AVRG -1.3 Anthracene 1.007 0.980 0.700 AVRG -2.7 Carbazole 0.790 0.717 0.010 AVRG -9.2 Di-n-butylphthalate 1.206 1.400 0.010 AVRG 16.1 Fluoranthene 1.119 1.201 0.600 AVRG 7.3 Pyrene 1.184 1.236 0.600 AVRG 4.4 Butylbenzylphthalate 0.483 0.529 0.010 AVRG 9.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.208 1.254 0.800 AVRG 3.8 3,31-Dichloroben.zi ine 0.415 0.394 0.010 AVRG -5.1 Chrysene 1.008 1.000 0.700 AVRG -0.8 bis(2-Ethylhexy p t ate 0.488 0.613 0.010 AVRG 25.6 Di-n-octylphthalate 0.965 0.906 0.010 AVRG -6.1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.148 1.284 0.700 AVRG 11.6 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.221 1.237 0.700 AVRG 1.3 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.082 1.175 0.700 AVRG 8.6 Indeno(1,2,3-c pyrene 1.310 1.428 0.500 AVRG 9.0 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.025 1.011 0.400 AVRG -1.4 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.105 1.129 0.500 AVRG 2.2 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.698 0.690 0.010 AVRG -1.1 Aniline 1.562 1.624 0.010 AVRG 4.0 Benzidine 10.00 4.570 0.010 20RDR -54.3 Retene 0.509 0.002 0.010 AVRG -99.6 Perylene 1.048 1.078 0.010 AVRG 2.9 Pyridine 1.194 1.192 0.010 AVRG -0.2 1-methylnaphthalene 0.793 0.876 0.010 AVRG 10.5 (1) Cannot be separate rom c- Exceeds QC limit of 20% D * RF less than minimum RF page 2 of 3 FORM VII SV-2 E- r- 7C SEMIVOLATILE 6270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No: BCW1 Instrument ID: NT10 Init, Calib. Date: 04/21/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Cont. Calib. Date: 07/13/16 Cont. Calib. Time: 1705 Calknt CC Amt MIN CURVE D or COMPOUND or ARF or RF RRF TYPE Drift Azobenzene�(1,2-DP-Hydrazine 1.345 1.833 0.010 AVRG 36.3 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 0.402 0.411 0.010 AVRG 2.2 Total Benzofluoranthenes 1.135 1.183 0.010 AVRG 4.2 2-Fluorophenol 1.144 1.091 0.010 AVRG -4.6 Phenol-d5 - 1.416 1.397 0.010 AVRG -1.3 2-Chlorophenol-d4 1.278 1.187 0.010 AVRG _7.1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene- 4 0.903 0.877 0.010 AVRG -2.9 Nitrobenzene-d5 0.470 0.544 0.010 AVRG 15.7 2-Fluorobipheny 1.326 1.326 0.010 AVRG 0.0 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 0.200 0.218 0.010 AVRG 9.0 Terphenyl-d14 0.835 0.831 0.010 AVRG -0.5 C- EXceeas w 11m1L oI LUi D * RF less than minimum RF page 3 of 3 FORM VII SV-3 Fir i 7B SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No: BCW1 Project: BARGEE DREDGING Instrument ID: NT10 cont. calib. Date: 07/18/16 Init. Calib. Date: 04/21/16 Cont. Calib. Time: 1311 CalArnt. CC Amt MIN CURVE %D or COMPOUND or ARF or RF RRF TYPE Drift Phenol 1.554 1.772 0.800 AVRG 14.0 Bis(2- aroet y et er 1.160 1.036 0.700 AVRG -10.7 2-Chlorophenol 1.272 1.261 0.800 AVRG -0.9 1,3-Dichl.orobenzene 1.522 1.486 0.010 AVRG -2.4 1,4-Dichlorobenze.ne 1.481 1.461 0.010 AVRG -1.4 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.392 1.390 0.010 AVRG -0.1 Benzyl alcohol 0.758 0.845 0.010 AVRG 11.5 2,21-oxybis(1- oropropane) 5.000 4.891 0.010 2ORDR -2.2 2-Methylphenol 1.064 1.121 0.700 AVRG 5.4 Hexachloroethane 0.716 0.946 0.300 AVRG 32.4 N-Nitroso-di-n-propy amine 0.984 1.131 0.500 AVRG 14.9 4-Methylphenol 1.150 1.092 0.600 AVRG -5.0 Nitrobenzene 0.470 0.619 0.200 AVRG 31.7 Isophorcne 0.759 0.892 0.400 AVRG 17.5 2-Nitrophenol 0.217 0.224 0.100 AVRG 3.2 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.463 0.476 0.200 AVRG 2.8 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy met e_ 0.379 0.364 0.300 AVRG -4.0 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.336 0.377 0.200 AVRG 12.2 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.419 0.426 0.010 AVRG 1.7 Naphthalene 0.966 0.938 0.700 AVRG -2.9 Benzoic acid 20.00 18.98 0.010 2ORDR -5.1 4-Chloroaniline 0.401 0.413 0.010 AVRG 3.0 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.324 0.391 0.010 AVRG 20.7 4-Chlorc-3-methylphenol 0.382 0.461 0.200 AVRG 20.7 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.765 0.772 0.400 AVR-G 0.9 Hexachlarocyclopenta i� 0.538 0.590 0.050 AVRG 9.7 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.413 0.480 0.200 AVRG 16.2 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0.442 0.480 0.200 AVRG 8.6 2-Chloronaphthalene 1.092 1.171 0.800 AVRG 7.2 2-Nitroaniline 0.381 0.566 0.010 AVRG 48.6 Acenaphthylene 1.566 1.539 0.900 AVRG -1.7 Dimethylphthalate 1.351 1.469 0.010 AVRG 8.7 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.304 0.328 0.200 AVRG 7.9 Acenaphthene 1.005 1.015 0.900 AVRG 1.0 3-Nitroaniline 0.266 0.235 0.010 AVRG -11.6 2,4-Dinitropheno 20.00 21.99 0.010 2ORDR 10.0 Dibenzofuran 1.555 1.715 0.800 AVRG 10.3 <- rmceeas w iimiu or zvt o * RF less than minimum RF page 1 of 3 FORM VII SV-1 6c : 00�ssa i-73 7C SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job NO: BCW1 Instrument ID: NT10 Init. Calib. Date: 04/21/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Cont. Calib. Date: 07/18/16 Cont. Calib. Time: 1311 --- CalAmt CC Amt MIN CURVE gD or COMPOUND or ARF or RF RRF 'TYPE Drift 4-Nitrophenol------ 0.331 0.527 0.010 AVRG 59.2 2,4-Dinitroto uene 0,413 0.461 0.200 AVRG 11.6 Fluorene 1.267 1.257 0.900 AVRG -0.8 4-Chlorop eny -p eny a er 0.780 0.811 0.400 ,AVRG 4,0 Diethylphthalate 1.363 1.613 0.010 AVRG 18.3 4-Nitroaniline 0.281 0.252 0.010 AVRG -10,3 4,6-Dinitro-2-met 1phenol 0.143 0.178 0.010 AVRG 24.5 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine(l) 0.507 0.461 0.010 AVRG -9.1 4-Bromopheryl-phenylether 0.260 0.281 0.100 AVRG 8.1 Hexachlorobenzene 0.259 0.277 0.100 AVRG 6.9 Pentaehlorophenol 0.172 0.156 0.050 AVRG -9.3 Phenanthrene 0.952 0.991 0.700 AVRG 4.1 Anthracene 1.007 1.014 0.700 AVRG 0.7 Carbazole 0.790 0.604 0.010 AVRG -23.5 Di-n-butylphthalate 1.206 1.464 0.010 AVRG 21.4 Fluoranthene 1.119 1.196 0.600 AVRG 6.9 Pyxene 1.184 1.242 0.600 AVRG 4.9 Buty zylphthalate 0.483 0.534 0.010 AVRG 10.6 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.208 1.201 0.800 AVRG -0.6 3,31-Dichlorobenzi ine 0.415 0.266 0.010 AVRG -35.9 Chrysene 1,008 0.979 0.700 AVRG -2.9 bis(2-Et y p t ate_ 0.488 0.662 0.010 AVRG 35.6 Di-n-octylphthalate 0.965 0,908 0.010 AVRG -5.9 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.148 1.441 0.700 AVRG 25.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthen6 1.221 1.249 0.700 AVRG 2.3 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.082 1.155 0.700 AVRG 6.7 Indeno(1,2,3-c pyrene 1.310 1.394 0.500 AVRG 6.4 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1,025 1.061 0.400 AVRG 3.5 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.105 1.161 0.500 AVRG 5.1 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.698 0.657 0.010 AVRG -5.9 Aniline 1.562 1.631 0.010 AVRG 4.4 Benzidine 10.00 4.094 0.010 20RDR -59.1 Retene 0.509 0.002 0.010 AVRG -99.6 Perylene 1.048 1..057 0.010 AVRG 0.8 Pyridine 1.194 1.165 0.010 AVRG -2.4 1-methyliiaphthalene 0,793 0.838 0.010 AVRG 5.7 � i ) cannot be separates r ran . <- Exceeds QC limit of 20k D * RF less than minimum RF page 2 of 3 FORM VII SV-2 c- c- 7C SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ART Jab No: BCW1 Instrument ID: NT10 Init. Calib. Date: 04/21/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARGEE DREDGING Cont. Calib. Date: 07/18/16 Cont. Calib. Time: 1311 CalAmt CC Amt MIN CURVE D or COMPOUND or ARF or RF RRF TYPE Drift Azobenzene (1,2-DP-Hydrazine 1.345 1.957 0,010 AVRG 45.5 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorcphenol_ 0.402 0.429 0.010 AVRG 6.7 Total Benzofluoranthenes 1.135 1.262 0.010 AVRG 11.2 -1.144 2-Fluorophenol 1.122 0.010 AVRG -1.9 Phenol-d5 1.416 1.380 0.010 AVRG -2.5 2-Chlorop eno - 4 1.278 1.159 0.010 AVRG -9.3 1,2-Dichlorcbenzene- 4 0.903 0.876 0.010 AVRG -3.0 Nitrobenzene-d5 0.470 0.604 0.010 AVRG 28.5 2-Fluorobipheny 1.326 1.343 0.010 AVRG 1.3 2,4,6-Tribromopheno 0.200 0.228 0.010 AVRG 14.0 Terphenyl-d14 0.835 0.798 0.010 AVRG -4.4 <- txceeas v-= -Limir- of zvv i) * RF less than minimum RF page 3 of 3 FORM VII SV-3 8B SEMIVOLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No: BCW1 Ical Midpoint ID: 16042102 Instrument ID: NT10 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Ical Date: 04/21/16 Cont. Cal Date: 07/13/16 ICAL MIDPT UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT CCAL UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT ISl DCB AREA # 45223 90446 22612 51556 RT # 8.96 7.55 8.05 7.05 IS2 NPT AREA # 154192 308384 77096 182401 RT # 11.45 9.97 10.47 9.47 IS3 ANT AREA ## 109962 219924 54981 135628 74868 80700 90614 88264 87447 RT # 15.07 13.52 14.02 13.02 BCWILCSSI CRM143-050 07042016BARB 07042016BARB 07042016BARB 32645 36213 44217 42768 40714 7,56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 116160 134127 146457 136095 136433 9.97 9.97 9.97 9.97 9.97 13.52 13.52 13.51 13.52 13.52 IS1 = 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 IS2 = Naphthalene-d8 IS3 = Acenaphthene-d10 AREA UPPER LIMIT = +100% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint AREA LOWER LIMIT = - 50% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal RT LOWER LIMIT = - 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal * values outside of QC limits. page 1 of 3 FORM VIII SV-1 c iL : 0-0 = 8B SEMIVOLATILE INTIIiAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No: BCW1 Ical Midpoint ID: 16042102 Instrument ID: NT10 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Ical Date: 04/21/16 Cont. Cal Date: 07/13/16 ------------ �ICAL-MIDPT UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT CCAL UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT IS4 PHN AREA # ---------- 206264 412528 103132 264545 RT # ------- 18.12 16.51 17.01 16.01 IS5 CRY AREA # ---------- 236540 473080 118270 307106 RT # ------- 23.23 21.73 22.23 21.23 IS6 PRY AREA # ---------- 248744 497488 124372 265133 RT # ------- 25.88 24.07 24.57 23.57 BCWILCSSI CRM143-050 07042016BARB 07042016BARB 07042016BARB 171639 162101 198311 183579 165483 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.51 197835 195161 182347 166381 173440 21.72 21.73 21.72 21.72 21.73 149475 164773 167221 192206 169750 24.06 24.06 24.06 24.06 24.06 IS4 = Ph,enanthrene-d10 IS5 = Chrysene-dig IS6 = Perylene-d12 AREA UPPER LIMIT = +100% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint AREA LOWER LIMIT = - 50% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal RT LOWER LIMIT = - 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal * values outside of QC limits. page 2 of 3 FORM VIII SV-2 8B SEDIVOLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No: 13CW1 Ical Midpoint ID: 16042102 Instrument ID: NT10 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Ical Date: 04/21/16 Cont. Cal Date: 07/13/16 ICAL MIDPT UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT CCAL UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT IS7 AREA # 324358 648716 162179 389498 RT # 24.31 22.99 23.49 22.49 AREA # RT # AREA # RT # _ BCWILCSSI CRM143-050 070420165ARB 07042016BARE 07042016EARB 273668 284224 254558 256459 249539 22.99 22.99 22.99 22.99 22.99 IS7 = Di-n-octylphthalate-d4 AREA UPPER LIMIT = +100% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint AREA LOWER LIMIT = - 50% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal RT LOWER LIMIT = - 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal * Values outside of QC limits. page 3 of 3 FORM VIII SV-3 �%` - 0008-5 8B SEMIVQLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Joky No: BCW1 Ical Midpoint ID: 16042102 Instrument ID: NT10 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11' 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Ical Date: 04/21/16 Cont. Cal Date: 07/18/16 ICAL MIDPT UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT _-RCCAL UPPER LIMIT LAWS LIMIT IS1 DCB AREA # 45223 00446 22612 53382 RT # 8.96 7.28^ 7.78 6.78 IS2 NPT AREA 154192 308384 77096 185221 RT # 11.45 9.69 10.19 9.19 IS3 ANT AREA # 109962 219924 54981 135482 RT # 15.07 13.22 13.72 12.72 BCWIMBSI 34576 7.29 126761 9.68 77145 13.21 IS1 = 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 IS2 = Naphthalene-d8 IS3 = Acenaphthene-d10 AREA UPPER LIMIT = +100% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint AREA LOWER LIMIT = - 50%- of internal standard area from Ical midpoint RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal RT LOWER LIMIT = - 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal * Values outside of QC limits. page 1 of 3 FORM VIII SV-1 t �.J i _ vi 8B SEMIVOLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT KWARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ART Job No: BCW1 Ical Midpoint ID: 16042102 Instrnanent ID: NT10 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: HARBEE DREDGING Ical Date: 04/21/16 Cont. Cal Date: 07/18/16 ICAL MIDPT UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT ---- --- - C'CAL UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT IS4 PHN AREA ## 206264 412528 103132 -- 260819 RT # 18.12 --- 16.18 16.68 15.68 ISS CRY AREA # 236540 473080 118270 309206 RT # 23.23 21.42 21.92 20.92 IS6 PRY AREA # 248744 497488 124372 ---- 253454 RT # 25.88 23.75 24.25 23.25 BCWIMBSI 169232 16.18 187479 21.40 170284 23.73 IS4 = Phenanthrene-d10 IS5 = Chrysene-d12 IS6 = Pexy1ene-d12 AREA UPPER LIMIT = +100%- of internal standard area from Ical midpoint AREA LOWER LIMIT = - 50% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal RT LOWER LIMIT = - 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal * Values outside of QC limits. page 2 of 3 FORM VIII SV-2 GW i : 00 8 7 8B SEMIVOLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No: BCW1 Ical Midpoint ID: 16042102 Instrument ID: NT10 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Ical Date: 04/21/16 Cont. Cal Date: 07/18/16 IC'AL MIDPT UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT COAL UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT IS7 AREA # - 324358 648716 162179 378634 RT # 24.31 22.72 23.22 22.22 AREA # RT # AREA # RT # BCWIMBSI 247316 22.70 IS7 = Di-n-octylphthalate-d4 AREA UPPER LIMIT = +100?6 of internal standard area from Ical midpoint AREA. LOWER LIMIT = - 50W of internal standard area from Ical midpoint RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal RT LOWER LIMIT = _ 0,50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal * Values outside of QC limits. page 3 of 3 FORM VIII SV-3 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants 14 November 2016 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates 38210 SE. 92nd Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 RE: Barbee Dredging Please find enclosed sample receipt documentation and analytical results for samples from the project referenced above. Sample analyses were performed according to ARI's Quality Assurance Plan and any provided project specific Quality Assurance Plan. Each analytical section of this report has been approved and reviewed by an analytical peer, the appropriate Laboratory Supervisor or qualified substitute, and a technical reviewer. Should you have any questions or problcros. please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Associated Work Order(s) 16J0436 Associated SDG ID(s) NIA I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed in the enclose Narrative. ARI, an accredited laboratory. certifies that the report results for which ARI is accredited meets all the reqirements of the accrediting body. A list of certified analyses, accreditations. and expiration dates is included in this report. Release of the data contained in this hardeopy data package has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or his/her designee. as verified by the following signature. Analytical Resources. Inc. r Cheronne Oreiro. Project Manager Page 1 of 378 the A su!!s in dux rrporl apple ru the smnplex anah_ed in acronlauce r Ilk I& Chain u/ cu.,7udr <luclulrelrr. 7In, onah rira! repwl ARlsr hip n'prrnka<d w m MUMI • r r. PJLA Testing ceneiaraa Accred,[at—il0,1Ge Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants Analytical Report Lloyd & Associates Project Barbee Dredging 38210 SF 92nd Street Project Number. 2016-1 Barbee Reported: Snoqualmie WA, "065 Project Manager. Michael Lloyd 14-Nov-2016 13:53 Case Narrative Sample receipt One sediment sample was removed from frozen archive on October 24, 2016 and logged underARI workorder 16J0423. For details regarding sample receipt, please refer to the Cooler Receipt Form. Antimony - EPA Method SW6020A The sample and associated laboratory QC were digested and analyzed within the recommended holding times. The method blank was clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. ERA D088-540 was analyzed as a reference material. The matrix spike percent recovery of 07042016BARBEE-C fell outside the control limits low for sample 07042016BARBEE-C. A post digestion spike was analyzed and the recovery was within control limits. All relevant data have been flagged with a —" qualifier. No further corrective action was taken. The duplicate RPD was within control limits. 2.4-113imeftiohenat - EPA Method SW82700-SIM The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the recommended holding times. Initial calibrations and initial calibration verifications were within method requirements. The internal standard area of Perylene-d12 fell outside the control limits low for BEK0139-BLK1. All other internal standard areas were within limits. No corrective action was taken. The surrogate percent recovery of p-Terphenyl-d14 was outside the control limits high for BEK0139-BLK1. All other percent recoveries were within control limits. No corrective action was taken. 2,4-Dimethylphenol was present in BEK0139-BLK1 at a level that was greater than the reporting limit. The associated sample result was undetected for this compound. No corrective action was taken. The LCS percent recovery was within control limits. CRM 143-50G was analyzed as a reference material. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within limits. Page 2 of 378 m m m W is 61 61 f5l fil Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request ARI Assigned Number: `� � �}C.W Turn -around Requested: Pam: of Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants 4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98168 206-695-6204 206-695-6201 (fax) www.arilabs.cam ARI Client Company: Phone. "-tA-4 1 p r�,,,r ��i Pr8>'drit4 Chen Contact: L O 4 / No. of Cooler Coolers, � Tempe � Client Project Name: ';. L=- -A>(� Analysis Reque4led NoiesJCommerts M ` � k i 1, N client Po�Samplers: -TVA e! Sample IQ Date Tire Matrix NaCo�uiners D 6 - A. 1 �- % Z ' Z. 2— c4mrMn t .special Instructions irLl� �i�JdJ� l Ji t S 1 S�,bf-n- � S-3 t�� b1- by; Prl .11 c PrlrAed Nana: vi:nted Namtr. PArged Name; �f-T- AkZ- care a Dare a Tone: �t Oaw 6 Tone: Dam d Tinn: Limits of L"Ity. ARI wigperform all requested services in accordance with appropriate methodology Wowing ARI Standard Operating Procedures and the ARI OvaW Assurance Program. This program meets standards for the industry The total liabilby of ARI, its officers, agards, employees, or successors, arising out of or in connechon wO the requested services, shall not exceed the Invoiced amount br said services. The acceptance by the client of a proposal for services by ARI release ARI f rorn any liablllty in excess thereof, not withstanding any provision to the contrary in any contrad, purchase order or co- signed agreement between ARI and the Client. Sample Retention Policy: All samples submitted to ARI will be Wpropriately discarded no sooner than 90 days after receipt or 60 days after submission of ha►doopy data, whichever is longer, unless alternate retention schedules have been established by work -order or contract. 0 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants Form 1 ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET EPA 8270D-SIM 8270D SIM Dual Scan (17042016 BA RBE E-(' Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc, SDO: 16JO436 Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging Matrix: Soil Laboratory ID: 16JO436-01 File ID: N1016110907.D Sampled: 07/0411613:00 Prepared: 11/04/1012:15 Analyzed: 11/09/1614:51 Solids: Preparation: EPA 3546 (Microwave) Initial/Final: 13.07 g / 1 mL Batch: 13EK0139 Sequence: SEK0126 Calibration: ZH00023 Instrument: NT10 Column: 713-5MSi CAS NO. COMPOUND DILUTION CONC. (ugxE were I Q DL RL 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol I 191 1 U 1 7.8 ]9,] SURROGATES ADDED{ugfkFwei) CONC( glgwet) %REC QC LIMITS Q 2-Fluorophenol 573.83 318 55,4 27- 120 p-Terphenyl-d14 382.56 390 102 37- 120 Page 142 of 378 Analytical Form [ Resources, Incorporated METHOD BLANK DATA SHEET Blank EPA 8270D-SIM l:ahoratory: Analytical Resources. Inc. SDG: 16JO436 Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredkint; Matrix: Solid Laboratory 1D: BEK0139-BLKI File ID: N1016110903.D Sampled: NIA Prepared: 11/04/1612:15 Analyzed: 1110911612:27 Solids: Preparation: EPA 3546 (Microwave) initial/Final: 10 Batch: BEK0139 Sequence: SEK0126 Calibration: ZH00023 Instrument: NTIO Column: ZB-5MSi CAS NO. COMPOUND DILUTION CONC. (ug/kg wet) Q I DL R1, 105-67-9 2,4-DimethyIphenol 1 1 29.5 1 1 10.2 25.0 SURROGATES .ADDED (ug,kg wet) CONC {ug kg wet % REC QC LIMITS 2-Fluorophenol 750.00 390 52.0 27 - 120 p-Terphenyl-d14 500.00 775 155 37 - 120 Page 150 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Anaiytical Chemists and Consultants LCS / LCS DUPLICATE RECOVERY EPA 8270D-SIM Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. SDG: 16JO436 Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging Matrix: Solid Analyzed: 11109/1613703 Batch: BEK0139 Laboratory ID: BEK0139-13S1 Preparation: EPA 3546 (Microwave) Sequence Name: LCS Initial/Final: 10 9 / I mL SPIKE LCS LCS QC ADDED CONCENTRATION % LIMITS COMPOUND (uglkg wet) (ug/kg wet) RFC. # REC. 2,4-Dimethylphenal 1500 786 52.4 10 - 120 * Values outside of QC limits Page 173 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants MS / MS DUPLICATE RECOVERY EPA 8270D-SIM Laboratory: Analytical Resources, inc. SDG: W0436 Client: Llovd & Associates Project: Barbcc Dredgine Matrix: Solid Analyzed: 11,109/1615:27 Batch: BEK0139 Laboratory ID: BEK0139-MSI Preparation: EPA 3546 (Microwave) Sequence Name:: Matrix Spike Initial/Final: 13.05 /p. 1 niL Source Sample: 07042016BARREE-C 07042016BARB L E-C SPIKE SAMPLE MS MS QC ADDED ('ONCEN I RAHON CONCENTRAHON % LIMITS COMPOUND (ug/kg dr)) (ug/kg dry) (ug/kg dry) REC. # REC. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1430 ND 1040 73.3 10 - 120 * Values outside of QC limits Page 198 of 378 Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants MS / MS DUPLICATE RECOVERY EPA 8270D-SIM Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. SDG: 10J0436 Client: Lloyd&Assoc iates Project: Barbee Dredgine, Matrix: Solid Analyzed: 11/09/1616:03 Batch: BEK0139 Laboratory ID: BEIC0139-MSDI Preparation: EPA 3546 (Microwave) Sequence Name:: Matrix Spike Dun Initial/Final: 13.04 g / 1 mL Source Sample: 07042016BARBEE-C 07042016 BA RBE E:-C COMPOUND SPIKE MSD ADDED CONCENTRATION (ug/kg dry) (ug/kg dry) MSD % REC. # % RPD # QC LIMITS RPD REC. 2.4-Dimethylphenol 1430 1020 71.7 2.13 30 10 - 120 * Values outside of QC limits Page 199 of 378 esourc Resource e, Incorporated STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL RECOVERY EPA 8270D-SIM Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. Client: Lloyd & Associates Matrix: Solid Balch: BEK0139 Preparation: EPA 3546 (Microwave} Standard ID: 0002847 Description: CRM 143-50G SDG: 1630436 Project: Barbee Dredging Laboratory ID. BFK0139-SRMI initial/Final. 2.03 g / I mL Analyzed: l 1 /09/2016 14:15 Expires: 12/31/2017 SRM QC TRITE FOUND % LIMITS ANALYTE (ug/kg wet) (ug/kg wet) REC. REC. 2.4-Dimethylphenol 5172.4 5630 IN 57 - 144 * Values outside ofQC limits Page 228 of 378 I. 11c,,ticide Pesticide Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ARI Jab ID. BCWI ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: BCW1A LIMS ID: 16-10088 Matrix; Sediment Data Release Authorized A) Reported: 11/08/16 Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed: 07/14/16 19:03 Instrulient/Analyst: ECD6/YZ GPC Cleanup: Yes Sulfur Cleanup: Yes Florisil Cleanup: No Acid Cleanup: No ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 070420162ARBEE-C SAMPLE QC Report No: BCW1-Llcyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received. 07/05/16 Sample Amount: 12.8 9-dry-wr Final Extract Volume: 2.5 mL DiluLiorr Factor: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3E CAS Number Analyse RL Result 319-85-7 beta-BNC 0.49 < 0.49 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 0.49 < 0.49 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 0.49 < 0.49 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 0.98 < 0.98 U 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 0.98 < 0.98 U 12-54-8 4,4'-DDD 0.98 < 0.98 U 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 0.98 < 0.98 U 53494-70-5 Endrin Ketone 0.98 < 0.98 U 5103-74-2 trans -Chlordane 0.49 < 0.49 U 5103-71-9 cis -Chlordane $ 0.49 < 0.49 U i89-02-6 2,4'-DDT 0.98 < 0.98 U 3424-82-6 2,4'-DDE 0.98 < 0.98 U 53-19-0 2,4'-DDD 0.98 < 0.98 U �7304-13-8 oxy Chlordane 0.98 < 0.98 U D103-73-1 cis-Nonachlor 0.98 < 0.98 U 39765-80-5 trans-Nonachlor 0.98 < 0.98 U Reported in Pg/kg (ppb) Pest/PC8 Surrogate Recovery Decachlorobiphenyl 78.5% Tetrachlorometarylene 89.2% V This analyte (CAS registry No. 5103-74-2) is named trans -Chlordane in EPA Method 8081B(Feh 2007). It has also been named beta -Chlordane. $ This analyte (CAS registry No. 6103-71-9) is named cis -Chlordane in EPA Method 8081B(Feb 2007). It has also been named alpha -Chlordane. Exu;ik'C-L; �'�' MIU FORM I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDflA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of I Lab Sample ID: SRM SRM 1944 LINES ID: 16-10085 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized: ,i y Reported: 11/08/16 Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed: 07/14/16 18:45 Instrument/Analyst: ECD6/YZ GPC Cleanup: Yes Sulfur Cleanup: Yes Flcrisil Cleanup: No Acid Clean:ap: No ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: SRM SRM 1944 STANDARD REFERENCE QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Sample Amount: 2,50 g-dry-wr final Extract Volume: 2.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: 1.3% CAS Number Analyte RL Result 319-85-7 beta-3HC 350 < 350 Y 76-44-8 Heptachlor 2.5 6.5 309-00-2 Aidrin 2,5 < 2-5 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 16 < 16 Y 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 130 < 130 Y 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 5.0 68 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 5-0 150 53494-70-5 Endrin Ketone 100 < 100 Y 5103-74-2 trans -Chlordane 2.5 41 P 5103-71-9 cis -Chlordane 2.5 26 P 789-02-6 2,4'-DDT 5.0 < 5.0 U 3424-82-6 2,4'-DDE 18 < 18 Y 53-19-0 2,4'-DDD 76 < 16 Y 27304-13-8 oxy Chlordane 5.0 68 P 5103-73-1 cis-Ncnachlox 5.0 < 5.0 U 39765-80-5 trans-Nonachlor 5.0 160 Reported in Ng/kg (ppb) Post/PCB Surrogate Recovery Decachlorcbiphenyl uR Tetrachlorometaxylene 104% 4rt1'"i1j- ^ J7,'• ll4,t)II 1 FORM I ANALYTICAL RESOURCE$ INCORPORATED SW8081 PESTICIDE SOIL/SEDIMENT SURROGATE RRCOVERY SC3QiKiRY [�-atri.x: Sediment QC ,tepert No; 3Cv11-Lloyd s Associates, Inc. Prcjec�: BARB€E OREDGING 2016 6ARBEE Client ID DCBP TCMK TOT OUT M£i-C70"16 110% 73.8% 0 79.5% 47.2i 0 SRM SRP: 1944 NR 104'e 0 0704201EBARBEE-C '78.594 69.2$ 0 0704201EBARBEE-C MS 100�A 62.0� 0 07042016BARBEE-C MSD 110* 76.0� 0 (DCBP) = 0ecachlorobiphenyl (TCMX) = Tetrachlororetaxylene QC LIMITS 13C-160) (3C-160) Prep method; SW35,�6 Log Number Range: 16-1C088 to 16-10088 Page 1 fcr Br%; FORM -II SW8081 5C Le i : C'FQi i i = '' ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD Qage 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: BCW1A LIMS ID: 16-10088 Ma7-rix: Sediment Data Release Authorized; Reported: 11/08/16 Date Extracted MS/MSD: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed MS: 07/14/16 19:22 MSD: 07/14/16 19:40 instrument/Analyst MS: ECD6/YZ MSD: ECD6/YZ GPC Cleanup: Yes Sulfur Cleanup: Yes Elorisil Cleanup: No Acid Cleanup: No &nalyte beta-SHC lieptachloz Aldr in Dieldrin 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DOT Endrin Ketone trans -Chlordane cis -Chlordane Sample MS < 0.489 < 0.489 < 0.489 < 0,978 < 0.9'18 0.978 < 0.978 < 0.978 < 0.489 < 0.489 ARFALYM CAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C MS/MSD QC Report No: BCW1-1,loyd 6 Associates, Inc Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 2,72 2.78 P 2.45 4.70 5.21 P 6.90 P 5.67 5.67 2.71 P 2.57 Sample Amount MS: 12,8 g-dry-wt MSD: 12.8 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume MS: 2.5 mL MSD: 2.5 mL Dilution factor MS: 1.00 MSD: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3% Spike Added -US 3.90 3.90 3.90 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 3.90 3.90 US Recovery MSD 69.7% 71.3% 62.8% 60.3% 66.8% 88.5% 72.7$ 72.7§ 69.5% 65.9% Reported in Wg/kg (ppb) RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846. FORM III 3.60 P 2.62 P 2.55 4.89 4.79 6. 85 P 6.69 P 5.99 2.51 2.22 Spike MSD Added-MSD Recovery 3.91 92.1°% 3.91 67.0% 3.91 65.2% 7.82 62.5% 7.82 61.3% 7.82 87.6% 7.82 85.5% 7.82 76.6% 3.91 64,2; 3.91 56.8% PpD 21.8t 9 .0� 8 . 4'k 0.7% 16.5% 5.5�k 7.7% 14.645 �7C t i 7 . cloij- ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample 10: BCW1A LIMS ID: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authori7ed:N-) Reported: 11/0B/16 Date Extracted. 01/01/16 Date Analyzed: 0-1/14/[6 i9:22 Instrument/Ana1ys-,: ECD6/YZ GPC Cleanup: Yes Sulfur Cleanup: Yes Florisil Cleanup: No Acid Cleanup: No ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample iD: 07042016BARBEE-C MATRIX SPIKE QC Report No: SCwl-i.loyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Sample Amount: 12.8 g-dry-wt Yinaw1 Extract Volume: 2.5 mL Dilution Faztor: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3% GAS Number Analyte RL Result 319-85-7 beta-BHC 0-49 --- 76-44-8 Heptachlor 0,49 --- 309-00-2 Aldrir. 0,49 --- 60 57-1 Dieldrin 0.98 -- 72-55-9 4,4'-DOE 0.98 --- 72-54--B 4,4'-])DD 0.98 - - 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 0.98 -- 53494-70-5 Fndrin Ketone 0-99 5103-74-2 trans -Chlordane 0.49 --- 5103-71-9 cis --Chlordane 0.49 --- V89-02-6 2,4'-DDT 0.98 < 0.98 U 3424-82-6 2,4'-Dt)E 0.98 < 0.98 U 53-19-0 2,4'-ODD t+-98 < 0.98 U 27304-13-8 oxy Chlordane 0.98 < 0.98 U 5103-73-1 cis-Nonact:lor 0.98 < 0.98 U 39765-80-5 trans-Nonachlor 0.98 < 0.98 U Reported in Ng/kg (ppb) Pest/PCB Surrogate Recovery GecachIoro:bipheny1 100P6 Tetrachlorometaxylene 82.0% FORM I n IAt'L, F'J'(;�)'1f'L', fYlhla�' oRGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: 8CW1A LIMS ID: 16-10088 Macrix: Sedimerit Data Release Authorixed',1 Reported: ll/08/16 Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Dace Analyzed: 07/14/16 19:40 Instrument/Analyst: ECD6/Y2 GPC Cleanup: Yes Sulfur Cleanup: Yes Florisil Cleanup: No Acid Cleanup: No CAS Number Afnalyte 319-85-1 beta-BHC 76-44-8 Heptachlor 309-00-2 Aldrin 60-57-1 Dieldrin 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 72-54-8 4,4'-DD0 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 53494-70-5 Endrin Ketone 5103-74-2 trans -Chlordane 5103-71-9 Cis -Chlordane 789 02 6 2,4'-DDT 3424-82--6 2,4'-DDF 53-19-0 2,4'-DDD 27304-13-8 oxy Chlordane 5103-73.1 cis-Nonachlor 39765-80-5 f.rans-Nonachlor ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C MATRIX SPIKE DUP QC Report No: BCN1-Lloyd S Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Sample Amount: 12.8 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volune: 2.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3% RL Result D.49 --- 0.49 --- 0.49 --- 0.98 --- 0-98 --- 0.98 -- 0.98 --- 0.98 --- 0.49 --- 0. 4 9 --- 0.98 < 0.98 U 0-98 < 0.98 U 0.98 < 0.98 0 0.98 < 0.98 U 0.98 < 0.98 U 0.98 < 0,98 t1 Reported in vg/xg (ppb) Peat/PCB Surrogate Recovery Decachlorobiphenyl 1101 Tetrachlorometaxylene 76.0% • .,"e-k-4, hne ;I-;--4 ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Pesticides/PCS by GC/ECD Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample 10: LCS-070116 LIMS TD: 16-100B8 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized:+_ Reported: 11/0B/1.6 Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed. 07/'--4/16 17.50 Instrument/Analyst: ECD6/YZ GPC Cleanup: Yes Sulfur Cleanup: Yes Florisil Cleanup: No Acid Cleanup: No ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: LCS-070716 LAB CONTROL QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd 5 Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Sample Amount: 17.5 9-dry-wt. Final Extract Volume: 2.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: NA Lab Spike Analyse Control Added Recovery :aeta-BHC 2.30 4.00 57.5% Heptachlor 2,04 4.00 51.0% Aldrin 1.96 4.00 49.0% Dieldrin 4.62 8.00 60.2% 4,4'-DDE 4.65 8.00 58.2% 4'4'-DDD 7.76 P 8.00 97.0% 414'-DDT 7.39 8.00 92.2% F.ndrin Ketone 6.58 8.00 B2.2% trans -Chlordane 2.28 4.00 57.0% cis -Chlordane 2.11 4.00 53.5% Reported in pg/kg (ppb) Pest/PCB Surrogate Recovery Decachlorobiphenyl 79.5% Tetrachlorometaxylene 41.2% FORM 1Y1 FORM 4 PESTICIDE METHOD BLANK SLZ24ARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Lab Sample ID: BCWIMBSI Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed: 07/14/16 Time Analyzed: 1731 BLANK NO. BCw1MBS1 Client: LLYOYD Project: BARGEE DREDGING Lab File ID: 16071414 Matrix: SOLID Instrument ID: ECD6 GC ColEmm: STX-CLPl/STX-CLP2 THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES 70 THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS and MSD: CLIENT LAB DATE SAMPLE NO, SAMPLE ID ANALYZED - 01 BC"WILCSSI ! BCWILCTSSI- 07/14/16- 02 SRM 1944 i BCWISRMI 07/14/16 03 07042016BARBEE-C BCW1A ! 07/14/16 04 07042016BARBEE- MS BCW1AMa 07/14/16 05 07042016BARBEE- MSD BCWlAMSD 07/14/1.6 ALL RUNS ARE DUAL COLUMN Page 1 of 1 FORM IV PCB ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 0l 1 Lab Sample ID: MB-070716 U MS 1D: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized: Reported: 11/08/16 Date Extracted: 07/07/16 Date Analyzed: 07/14/16 17:31 Instrument/Analyst: ECD6/Y2 GPC Cleanup: Yes Sultur Cleanup: Yes Florisil Cleanup: No Acid Cleanup: No CAS Number Analyse 319-85-7 beta-BHC 76-44-8 Heptachlor 309-00-2 Aldrin 60-57-1 Dieldrin 72-55-9 414'-DDF 72-54-8 4,4'-DOD 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 53194-70-5 Endrin Ketone 5103-74-2 trans -Chlordane 5103-71-9 cis -Chlordane 789-02-6 2,4'-DDT 3424-82-6 2,4'-DDE 53-19-0 2,4'-DDO 27304-13-8 oxy Chlordane 5103-73-1 cis-Nonachior 39765--80-5 trans-Nonachlor ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID' MB-070716 METHOD BLANK QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd 6 Associates, Inc. Pro)ect: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Sample Amount: 12.5 9-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 2.5 mL Dilution Ea::tor: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: NA RL Result 0.50 < 0.50 U 0.50 < 0.50 U 0.50 < 0-50 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1,0 < 1.0 U 0.50 < 0.50 U 0.50 < 0.50 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1.0 < 1.0 U 1.0 < 1.0 U Reported in p9/kg (ppb) Peat/FC8 Surrogate Recovery Decachlorobighenyl 110% TetrachlorOnetaxylene 73.8% FORM I n} lrtI(i, t✓ r (;-AV -,j I r.'�:.hi i 6D 8081 =TIAL CALIBRATION RETMTION TIMES Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Proj ect : RAP= DRE[7GING GC Colum: STX-C'LP1 ID: 0.53 (mm) Instnnent ID: ECD6 Calibration Date: 06/16/16 RT OF STANDARDS 1 MEAN I RT WINDOW COMPOUND ILVL 1 :LVL 2 1LVL 3 1LVL 4 ILVL 5 ILVL 6 1LVL 7 1 RT 1 FROM 1 TO ----sr--s----- -===l alpha-BHC ... _....... __._...1 ------ 4 .36 4.361 4,361 4.361 4.36 4.361 4.361 4.361 4.311 4.41 1 beta-BiiC 1 4.741 4,741 4.741 4,741 4.74 4.741 4,741 4.741 4.691 4,79 1 delta-BHC 1 4,921 4.92 4.931 4.931 4.931 4.921 4.921 4.921 4.871 4.97 gamma-B1iC (LindaneY_1 4.661 4.66 4.661 4.661 4.661 4.661 4,661 4.661 4,61'1 4.71 Heptachlor 1 5.151 5.151 5.151 5.15 5.151 5.151 5.151 5.1.91 5.101 5.20 1 Aldrin 1 5.471 5.471 5.471 5.47 5.471 5.471 5.471 5.471 5.421I, 5.52 Heptachlor epoxide b 6.151 6.14: 6,141 6.3.41 6.151 6.14€ 6.141 6.141 6.101 6.20 Endosulfan I 1 6.581 6.58; 6.581 6.581 6.591 6.58€ 6.581 6,581 6.531 6.63 1 Dieldrin 1 6.841 6.841 6,841 6.841 6.851 6.84� 6,841 6.841 6,791 6,99 1 4,4'-DDE 1 6,511 6.511 6.511 6.511 6,511 6,51E 6.501 6.511 6.461 6.56 1 Endrin I 7.101 7.091 7.09 7.091 7.101 7.091 7.101 7.091 7.os1 7,15 1 Endosulfan Il 1 7.331 7.331 7.33 7.331 7.331 7,331 7.331 7,331 7.281 7.38 1 4,4'-ODD 1 7.151 7.151 7.151 7.151 7.151 7.151 7.151 7,151 7.101 7,20 Endosulfan sulfate_ 1 8.191 8.151 8.191 8.191 8,201 8.191 8.191 8.191 6.141 8.24 4,41-DDT 1 7.45 7.451 7.451 7.451 7.451 7,441 7.451 7.451 7.401 7,50 Methoxychlor 1 7.93 7,931 7.931 7.931 7.931 7.931 7.931 7.931 7,881 7.99 1 Endrin ketone 1 8.471 8.471 8.471 8,471 8.471 8,471 8.471 8.471 8.421 8,52 1 Endrin aldehyde 1 7.761 7.761 7.761 7.761 7.761 7.761 7.761 7.761 7.711 7.81 1 trans -Chlordane 1 6.281 6.281 6,281 6,281 6.291 6.28 6.261 6.281 6 .231 6.33 1 cis -Chlordane 1 6.431 6,431 6.431 6.431 6,431 6.431 6.431 6,431 6.381 6,48 1 Hexachlarobutadiiene_l 2.341 2,341 2,341 2.341 2.341 2.341 2,341 2.341 2.291 2.39 1 Hexachlarobenxene_ 1 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.151 4.25 1 Tetrachloro-m-xylenel 3.851 3.851 3.851 3.851 3,851 3.841 3.851 3,851 3.801 3.90 1 Decachlorobiphenyl_ 1 9.381 9.381 9.381 9.381 9.391 9,381 9.381 9.381 9.331 9.43 FORM VI PEST-1 B--i,-ii - 0C i •i Z4 6D 8081 INITIAL CALIBRATION RETENTION] TIMES Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLO D & ASSOCIATES ARI Jnb No.: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (Mm) Instrument ID: ECD6 Calibration Date: 06/16/16 RT OF STANDARDS ! MEAN I RT WINDOW i COMPOUND €LVL l ILVL 2 ILVL 3 ILVL 4 ILVL 5 ILVL 6 JLVL 7 1 RT FROM ', TO alpha-BHC [C] 4.881 4.881 4.881 4.681 4.B8I 4.881 4.881 4,88I 4,831 4.93 beta-BHC ICI 5,361 5.361 5.36 5.361 5,351 5.361 5.361 5.35 5.311 5.41 delta-BHC [C] 5.711 5.71I 5.711 5.71I 5.711 5,711 5.71I 5.71I 5.661 5.76 I gamma-BHC (Lindane) I 5.271 5.281 5.271 5.281 5.281 5.271 5.281 5.281 5,231 5.33 I Heptachlor (C] 5.801 5.801 5.801 5.801 5.801 5,801 5.801 5.801 5.751 5.85 I Aldrin [C] 6.201 6.201 6.20I 6,20i 6.201 6.20I 6.201 6.20 6.151 6.25 I Heptachlor epoxide b� 6.861 6.861 6.861 6.861 6.861 6,861 6,861 6.86' 6.811 6.91 Endosulfan I [C] 1 7.301 7.301 7.301 7.30 7.301 7.301 7.301 7.30 7.251 7,35 Dieldrin [C] 1 7.591 7.591 7.591 7.591 7,601 7.591 7.591 7.591 7.541 7.64 1 4,4'-DDE {C] 1 7.381 7.3Bf 7.381 7.381 7.381 7,381 7,381 7,381 7.331 7.43 1 Endrin [C] 1 7.921 7.921 7.921 7.921 7,921 7.921 7.921 7.921 7.871 7.97 1 Endosulfan iI [C] 1 8.131 8,131 8.131 8.131 8.131 8.131 8.131 8.131 8,081 8.18 1 4,4'-DDD [C] 1 7.991 7.991 7,991 7.991 7,991 7.991 7.991 7.991 7.931 8.03 Endosulfan sulfate [1 8.731 8.73' 8.731 8.731 8.73i 8.731 8.731 8,731 8.681 6.78 4,4'-DDT [C3 1 8,301 8.30: 8.301 8.301 8.31j 9,301 8,301 8.301 8,251 8.35 Methoxychlor [C] 1 8.951 8.95: 8.951 8.951 8.9SI 9.951 8.951 8.951 8.901 9.00 Endrin ketone [C]__ 1 9,251 9.25; 9.251 9.261 9.261 9.251 9,251 9.251 9.20 9.30 Endrin aldehyde [c]_1 8,461 8.40 8.461 8.461 8.461 8,461 6.461 8,461 8.41 8.51 trans -Chlordane [C]_1 7,071 7,071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7,001 7.10 I cis -Chlordane ICI �.1 7,231 7.231 7,231 7.231 7.231 7,221 7.231 7,231 7.171 7.27 Hexachlorobutadiene I 2.521 2.521 2,521 2,521 2.521 2.521 2,521 2,521 2.471 2.57 j Hexachlorobenzene [C€ 4.731 4.731 4.731 4.731 4.741 4,731 4,741 4.731 4.691 4.79 I Tetrachlora-m-xylene( 4.241 -4.241 -4.241 4.241 4.24�- 4.24� 4,241 �4.241 4.191 -4.29 1 Decachlorobiphenyl [1 10,471 10,471 10.481 10.481 10.48I 10,471 10.481 10.491 10.431 10.53 FORM VI PEST-1 6E 8081 PESTICIDE INITIAL CALIBRATION Lab Name: ANALYTICAL, RESOURCES ARI Job No .: BC'W1 GC Column; STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (mm) Calibration Date: 06/16/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARGEE DREDGING Instrument ID: ECD6 1 I CALIBRATION FACTORS I � R-2 COMPOUND I LVL 1 I LVL 2 I LVL 3 I LVL 4 I LVL 5 I LVL 6 I LVL 7 I MEAN I %RSu-D (alpha-BHC I 1,06961 1.17481 1,32221 1.32981 1.40041 1.66391 1.87421 1.40781 19.5 (beta-BHC I 0,43461 0.47471 0.55561 0.51951 0,50121 0.56041 0.6C751 0.52191 11.1 Idelta-BHC I 1.18391 1.13901 1.29721 1.27941 1.35541 1.64021 1.83881 1.39041 18.4 Igamma-BHC (Lindane) -I 1.11641 1.1255I 1,30831 1.29091 1.3421I 1,57431 1.75041 1.35831 17.0 (Heptachlor f 1,25861 1,25101 1.46621 1.39651 1.40361 1.61021 1-72321 1.4442I 12.0 IAldrin 1 1.14601 1,14601 1,49641 1,28971 1,29751 1.52241 1.6354I 1.36221 14.1 (Heptachlor epoxide b I 0.86131 0.66211 1.05661 1.00121 1.08151 1,17521 1.26941 1,04391 14.5 IEndosulfan I I 1.13401 1.19591 1.43701 1.34441 1.36181 1.47871 1.55251 1.35781 11.1 IDieldrin I 1.39971 1,29791 1.39441 1.39461 1.37311 1.54731 1,57651 1,42621 7.0 14,4'-DDE I 0.68321 1.01491 1,13061 1.06351 1,04181 1.15591 1.25271 1.0775I 10,9 IEndrin I 1.00271 1.02011 1.16751 1.11861 1.19331 1,21821 1.28121 1.14311 9.0 IEndosulfan II I 1.16701 1.09831 1,13971 1.04161 1.04351 1.14741 1.20101 1.11981 5.5 14,4'-DDD I 0,72751 0,77941 0.89071 0.83591 0.92501 0.95591 1,02741 0.87741 11.9 IEndosulfan sulfate_ I 0.86291 0.91671 1.26541 1.02691 1.10001 1.08591 1.12851 1.05521 12.8 14,4'-DDT I 1.05091 0.87501 0-90371 C.88081 0,95981 1,03241 1.12971 0.91601 10.0 IMethoxychlor I 0.45871 0.45681 0.69471 0.52'71I 0.48631 0.47091 0,49571 C,5114I 16.5 IEndrin ketone I 1.09461 1,00361 1.22061 1.14101 1.2187I 1.2092I 1.27751 1.16501 8.1 IEndrin aldehyde I 0.76321 0.8075I 0.84371 0.75751 0.79911 0.8288I 0.9C89I 0.81551 6.4 Itrans-Chlordane I 1.13341 1.13711 1,46001 1.35691 1.45641 1.45491 1.5732I 1.36741 12.5 Icia-Chlordane I 1.45111 1.3807I 1.44841 1.29351 1,29701 1,37981 1.46431 1.38921 5.6 IHexachlorobutadiene_ I 1.51101 1.56711 1,76821 1.7367I 1.72541 1.94131 2.06431 1,75911 11.0 IHexachlorobenzene I 1.53811 1,53891 1.69511 1.57961 1.5263I 1.71701 1,82511 1.63141 7.1 ITetrachloro-m-xylene_I 0.48891 0,48761 0.53651 0.48521 0.47541 0.50411 0.54491 0.50321 5.4 IDecachlorobiphenyl_ I I 0.96711 0.94161 1.01611 0,97701 0.974581 1.01351 1.06921 0.9945 4.2 FORM VI PEST-2 Lei wZ : 0e]7 -�,Z 6E 8081 PESTICIDE INITIAL CALIBRATION Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LL0YD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Project. BARBEE DREDGING GC Col.=: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (tmt) Instrument ID: ECD6 Calibration Date: 06/16/16 CALIBRATION FACTORS I I R-2 COMPOUM LVL 1 I LVL 2 I LVL 3 I LVL 4 I LVL 5 I LVL 6 I LV- 7 MEAN %-PM (alpha-S14C [C] I 2.02421 1,84491 1.93111 1.85161 1.89491 1.91851 2.05501 1,93161 4,2 Theta-BHC [C]_._ 1 0.65011 0.62481 0.70811 0.66401 0.68471 0,69851 0.70211 0,67601 4.6 Idelta-MC [C] I 1.50691 1,49851 1.53511 1.44661 1.43101 1,44711 1.45791 1.47471 2.6 I9amma-BHC (Undaae) [1 1.59761 i.53631 1.70461 1.67791 1,71311 1,75761 1.75481 1.67741 4.5 Heptachlor [C] I 1.52971 1.5843I 1.7630; 1.60661 1.60111 1.60331 1.55441 1.62031 4,9 IAldrin [C]__ I 1,57181 1.46641 1.56571 1.4689' 1,47141 1.48121 1,44841 1,49621 3.4 (Heptachlor epoxide b I 1,31781 1,28621 1.35401 1.2973j 1.24001 1,22761 1.14761 1.2672I 5.4 IEndosulfan I ,C] I 1.14101 1.16271 1.24791 1.18951 1.14831 1.14871 1,07421 1.1S89I 4.5 IDieldrin [C] I 1.21891 1,20401 1.29711 1,22791 1.15211 1.11941 1.02931 1,17841 7.4 14,4'-ME (C] I 1.13831 1.13761 1.24571 1,15361 1,15251 1.17121 1.17371 1.17321 3,2 JEndrin [C] 1 1,98461 1,B6841 1.99521 1.84041 1.86201 1.71841 1.58701 1.6366I 7.9 EEaadosulfan 11 [C' I 2.00391 1.6308i 1.93131 1.82001 1.7919I 1.6764I 1.57621 1,80441 a,0 14,41-MD (C] I 1.82451 1.64651 1.77631 1.65341 1.71191 1.6629I 1.61201 1.69821 4.5 IEndosulfan sulfate [CI 1.666671 1.60471 1.7182I 1.58841 1.58731 :. 53311 1.46341 1.59451 5.2 14,4'-WT [C) I 1.55731 1,50711 1.65131 1.56761 1.56921 1.61641 1,60711 1.58231 3,0 IMethoxychlor [C] I 0.5672I 0.6520I 0.67331 0.5949I 0.56231 0.6 311 0.52911 0.60161 10.4 IEndrin ketone [C] I 1.43771 1.35481 1.44111 1.30171 1.17201 1-27511 1,25051 1.31901 7.5 IEndrin aldehyde (C]_I 1.52571 1,44621 1,52791 1.40001 1.39001 1,3293I 1.27961 1.41471 6.6 Itrans-Chlordane (C] _I 1,33211 1.33901 1.52651 1.38931 1,24051 1.35081 1.31901 1.37071 5.3 Icia-Chlordane (C] I 1.16301 1.17741 1.25601 1.19901 1.17261 1.20721 1.1761# 1.1,3591 2.5 IHexachlorobutadlene [{ 1.13421 1.15311 1.201,31 1.10641 0.93841 1.0569I 1.040SI 1.09011 B.0 jEexachlorobenxene [C)I 1.9766I 1,96731 2.18_31 2.10101 2-12:6 2,0854I 2.1289I 2.08031 3.8 lTetrachloro-rn-xylene I 1.03481 0.96301 0.99041 0.91301 0.89531� 0.85641 0,82841 0.92591 8,0 IAecachlorobipheryl [CI 1.20471 1.14451 1.20441 1.10061 1.09491 1.09001 1.09701 1.13371 4.6 FORM VT PEST-2 6D 8081 INITIAL CALIBRATION RETENTION TIMES Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Project: BARGEE DREDGING GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (mm) instr=ent ID: ECD6 Calibration Date: 06/16/16 I RT OF STANDARDS I MEAN I RT WINDOW I COMPOUND ILVL 1 ILVL 2 ILVL 3 1LVL 4 1LVL 5 1LVL 6 ILVL 7 l RT I FROM � TO Oxychlordane 1 6.031 6.03? 6.a3I 6.031 6.031 6.031 6,031 6.031 5.981 6.08 2,4-DDE 1 6.121 6.12 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6,121 6.121 6.071 6.17 trans-Nonachlor I 6.411 6.411 6.411 6.411 6.411 6.411 6.411 6.411 6,361 6.46 12,4-DDD I 6.701 6,701 6.70I 6.701 6.70} 6.701 6,701 6,701 6.651 6.75 12,4-DDT I 6.971 6.971 6.971 6.971 6,971 6.971 6.971 6.971 6.921 7.02 1 cis-Nonachlor I 7.131 7.131 7.131 7.131 7.131 7.131 7,131 7.131 7.081 7.18 1 Mirex I 8.101 8.101 8.101 8.101 8.101 8.101 8.101 8.101 8.051 B.15 --------------------- ------ k-Tetrachloro-m-xylenel 3.851 ------ 3,851 ------ 3.851 3-85I ------ 3.851 ------ 3.841 3.851 ------ 3.851 ------ ------ 3-B01 3.90 I Decachlorabiphenyl_ I I 9,381 9.381 9.381 9-381 9,391 9.381 9.381 9.381 9.331 9.43 FORM VI PEST-1 6D 8081 INITIAL CALIBRATION RETENTION TIMES Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCTATES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Project. BARBEE DREDGING GC Column- STX-CLP2 ID. 0.53 (m ) Irnstrment ID: ECD6 Calibration Date. 06/16/16 1 RT OF STANDARDS I MEAN 1 RT WTNWw COMPOUND LVL 1 1LVL 2 ILVL 3 1LVL 4 1LVL 5 1LVL 6 1LVL 7 1 RT 1 FROM 1 TO Oxychlordane [C1 6.751 6.751 6.751 6.751 6.7-91 6.751 6.7S1 6.751 6.701 6.80 1 2,4-DDE [C] 1 7.051 7.051 7.051 7.051 7.051 7.051 7.051 7.051 7.001 7.10 1 trans-Nonachlor [G]_1 7,161 7.161 7.161 7.161 7.161 7.161 7.16! 7.161 7.111 7.21 1 2,4-DDD [C] 1 7.601 7.601 7.601 7.601 7.601 7.601 7.60 7.601 7.5551 7.65 1 2,4-DDT [O] 1 7.921 7.921 7.921 7,92E 7.921 7,921 7.92 7.921 7.87 7.97 1 cis-NoTiachlor [C] _ 1 7.98; 7.981 7.981 7.981 7.981 7.981 7.981 7.981 7.931 8.03 1 Mirex CC] 1 9.231 9,231 9.231 9.211 9.231 9,a31 9.231 9.231 9.181 9.28 == .............. Tetrachloro-m-xylenel 4.241 4.24 4.241 4.241 4.241 4.241 4.241 4.241 4.191 4.29 Decachlorohiphenyl [1 10.471 10.471 10.481 10.481 10.4$1 10.471 10.48 10.481 10.431 10.53 FORM VI PEST-1 6E 8081 PESTICIDE INITIAL CALIBRATION Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No.: RCW1 GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (mm) Calibration Date. 06/16/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARGEE DREDGING Instrument ID: ECD6 I I CALIBRATION FACTORS I I R-2 COMPOUND I LVL 1 I LVL 2 I LVL 3 I LVL 4 I LVL 5 I LVL 6 I LVL 7 I MEAN I %RSD lOxychlordane [C] I 1.3,9101 1.18621 1.22161 1,16001 1,14751 1.07771 1.0307I 1,14501 5,9 f2,4-DDE [C] j 0.83191 0.62251 0.84061 0.78471 0,77211 0.73221 0.66101 0.77871 8.0 Itrans-Nonachlor [C] -I 2,19341 2.14541 2.20091 2.02081 2.05921 1.91921 1,91821 2,06531 5.8 12,4-DDD [Ca 1 1.22401 1.25201 1,29241 1.16051 1,20301 1,10091 1.01971 1.17691 7.9 12,4-DDT (C) I 1,36601 1.37741 1.40421 1.29501 1.33461 1,22301 1,16611 1.30951 6.7 Icis-Nonachlor [Cl I 2.49451 2.47451 2.54661 2.34411 2.40941 2.22811 2,29001 2,3982I 4.8 IMirex (Cl I 1,14771 1.08601 1.07231 0.93871 0,94431 0.8848I 0.86421 0.99111 11.1 ITetrachloro-m-xylene I 1,03481 0.96301 0.99041 0.91301 0,89531 0.85641 0.8264I 0.9259} 8,0 IDecachlorobiphenyl (Cl I 1,20471 1,14451 1,20441 1.10061 I,0949I 1,09001 1.0970I 1.13371 4.6 FORM VT P85T-2 6E 8081 PESTICIDE INITIAL CALIBRATION Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING GC Column: M-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (mm) Instrument ID: ECD6 Calibration Date: 06/16/16 I I CALIBRATION FAMRS { I R" 2 COMPOUND I LVL 1 I LVL 2 I LVL 3 I LVL 4 I LVL 5 I LVL 6 I LVL 7 I MFM 196RSD ---------- ___________1=========1=========1==------ loxychlordane I 0.8973I 0.93701 =la= 0.94271 =-====1=====----Ix========1=========1=====- 0.86751 0.94131 0.90471 0.95401 ==I-===== 0.92061 3.4 12,4-DDE 0.3774f 0.4271} 0.49941 0.50291 0,59451 0.56011 D.60331 0.50921 16.6 itrans-Nonachlor I 1.31121 1.33551 1.35561 1.24241 1.36731 1.3274I 1.39641 1.33371 3.7 12,4-DDD I 0.48361 0.63031 0.60081 0.53441 0.59391 0.58721 0.61561 0.57001 8.9 12,4-DDT I 0.65211 0.68931 0.71711 0.68491 0.78761 0.76611 0.6040f 0.72871 7.9 Icis-Nonachlor I 1.26081 1.29241 1.41631 1.31081 1.4844I 1.45651 1.5338I 1.3950I 7.5 IMirex I 0.75201 0.71291 0.76691 0.72371 0.75811 0.71391 0.7312I 0,73701 3.0 ITetrachlorv-m-xylene_I 0.48891 0.48761 0.53651 0.48521 0,47541 0.50411 0.54491 0.50321 5.4 IDecachlorobiAhenyl_ I I D.9671� 0.94161 1.01611 0.97701 0.97681 1.01351 1.06924 0.9945I 4.2 FORM VI PEST-2 7E 8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ART Job No.: BCW1 GC Column- STX-CLPI ID: 0.53 (mm) Init. Calih. Date: 06/16/16 Lab Ccal ID: INDAE Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,1445 PEST RT wnmow CALC NOM COMPOUND RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT WD (ng) (ng) alpha-BHC 4.36 4.31 4.41 19.9 20.0 -0.3 beta-BHC 4.74 4.69 4.79 18.9 20.0 -5.4 delta-BHC 4.93 4.87 4.97 18.4 20.0 -7.8 gamma-BHC Lz e 4.66 4.61 4.71 19.8 20.0 -1.1 He�pptachlor 5.15i 5.10 5.20 19.4 20.0 -3.0 Alclr3-n 5.47 5.42 , 5.52 19.1 20.0 - 4.3 Heptachlor epoxide 6,141 6.101 6.20 23.4 20.0 16.8 Endasulfan I 6.58, 6.53E 6.63 19.3 20.0 -3.2 Di,eldrin 6.85 6.79 6.89 38.4 40.0 -4.0 4,4'-DDE 6.51E 6.461 6.56 37.8 40.0 -5.5 Endrin 7.10' 7.05 7.15 37.8 40.0 -5.5 Endosulfan iI 7.33' 7.281 7.38 40.6 40.0 1.5 4,4'-DDD 7.15; 7.10 7.20 42.5 40.0 € 6.2 Endosulfan sulfate 8.19 8.14'� 8.24 40.4 40.0 1.0 4,4'-DDT 7.45 7.40`,` 7.50 43.5 40.0 8.9 Methoxyc or 7.93` 7.88'' 7.98 190.4 200.0 -4.8� Endrin ketone 8.47 8.42 8.52 42.0 40.0 ! 5.0 Endrin aldehyde - 7.76i7.71' 7.81 44.5 40.0 i 11.3E trans -Chlordane 6.28: 6.23 6.33 18.9 20.0 -5.4 cis -Chlordane j 6.43' 6.38 6.48 17.7 20.0 �-11.511 Hexachlorobuta iene 2.34i 2.29, 2.39 20.7 20.0 3.7 Hexachlorobenzene ; 4.20 4.15', 4.25 18.0 20.0 `-10.2'; Tetrachloro-tn-xylene ; 3.85; 3.80I 3.90 40.2 40.0 0.6` Decachlorob.ipheny1 9.38: 9.331 9.43 38.7 40.0 ! -3.3 FORM VII PEST-2 7E 8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (mm) Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16 Lab Ccal ID: INDAE Date/Time Analyzed. 07/14/16,1445 PEST MIX RT WINDOW CALL ATOM COMPOUND RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT SkD (ug/L) (ug/L) alpha-BHC [C] 4.88 4.83 4.93 20.3 20.0 1.7 beta-BHC [C] 5.36 5.31 5.41 20.4 20.0 1.8 delta-BHC [C] 5.71 5.66 5.76 22.4 20.0 11.8 gamma-BHC (L' e C 5.28 5.23 5.33 21.2 20.0 5.8 Heptachlor [C] 5.80 5.75 5.85 21.0 20.0 4.8 Aldrin [C] 6.20 6.15 6.25� 20.4 20.0 1.9 Heptachlor epoxi e- b [Cl- 6.86 6.81 6.91 20.1 20.0 0.5 Endosulfan I [C] 7.30 7.25 7.35 20.4 20.0 1.8 Dieldrin [C] 7.59 7.54 7.64 39.7 40.0 -0.8 4,4'-DDE [C] 7.38 7.33 7.43 39.9 40.0 -0.2 Endrin [C] 7.92 7.87 7.97 35.8 40.0 -10.4 Endosulfan II CT 8.13 8.08 8.18 37.9 40.0 -5.3 4,4'-DDD [C] 7.99 7.93 8.03 38.6 40.0 -3.6 Endosulfan sulfate C 8.73 8.68 8.78 38.2 40.0 -4.4 4,4'-DDT [C] 8.31 8.25 8.35 41.2 40.0 3.0 Meth,oxychlor 8.95 8.90 9.00 178.6 200.0 -10.7 Endrin ketone [C 9.26 9.20 9.30 38.2 40.0 -4.4 Endrin aldehyde (CT ; 8.46 8.41 8.51 38.0 40.0 -5.0 trans -Chlordane [C] 7.07 7.00 7.10 19.4 20.0 -3.0 cis -Chlordane [C] 7.23 7.17 7.27 20.4 20.0 1.8 Hexachlorobutadiene C 2.52 2.47 2.57 24.8 20.0 23.9 Hexachlorobenzene [C] 4.74 4.69 4.79 20.5 20.0 2.3 Tetrachloro-m-xylene TC-T- 4,24 4.19 4.29 40.3 40.0 0.9 Decachlorobiphenyl [C] 10.48 10.43 10.53 38.1 40.0 -4.8 FORM VII PEST-2 d4LW-i ; rbCA3216 7E 8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL, RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No.; 33CW1 Project: B,ARBEE DREDGING GC Column. STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (MM) Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16 Lab Ccal ID. WND Oxychlordane 2,4-DDE trans-Naiac or 2,4-DM 2,4-DDT cis -Nona- car Mirex Tetras aro-m-xy ene Decachlorobiphenyl Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,1503 RT 6.03 6.12 6.41 6.70 6.97 7.13 8.10 3.85 9.38 FROM TO I AMO= E AMOUNT (ng) (rig) 5.98' 6.08- 45.0 40.0 6.07 6.17' 45.8 40.0 6.36 6.461, 39.5 i 40.0 6.65' 6.75I 38.7 I 40.0 6.92I 7.021, 41.8 40.0 7.0811i 7.181` 41.1 40.0 8.05I 8.15: 45.5 40.0 3.801, 3.90 42.1 40.0 9.331 , 9.43� 43,1 40.0 FORM VII PEST-2 WD 12.4 14.5' -1.1' -3.3 4.4 2.9 13.7 5.2 7.7 7E 8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (mm) Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16 Lab Ccal ID; WND Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,1503 OOMPOUND RT FROM TO AMOUNT (Ug/L) Oxychlordane [C] 6.75; 6.70 6.801 40.8 2, 4-DDE [C] 7.05; 7.00 7.10 38.5 trans -Nona or C 7.16 7.11 7.21 43.3 2,4-DDD [C] 7.60 7.55 7.65 39.2 2,4-DDT [C] 7.921 7.67 7.97 37.9 cis-Nonachlor [cl 7.98i 7.93 8.03 37.7 Mirex (C] 9.231 9.16, 9.281, 36.2 Tetrachloro-m-xy ene [C] 4.241 4.19 4.29': 42.4 Decachlorobiphenyl [C] 10.48 10,431 ' 10.53; I 41.8 FORM VII PEST-2 WOW (ug/L) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 %-D 2.0 -3.7 8.2 -2.0 -5.2 -S.9 -9.5 5.9 4.4 G cwl- i - oo i ao 7E 8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No.. BCW1 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (rnm) Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16 Lab ccal ID: INDAE Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,2017 PEST MIX RT WINDOW CALC NOM COMPOUND RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT 5CD (ng) (ng) alpha-BHC 4.36 4.31 4.41 20.2 20.0 0.9 beta-BHC 4.74 4.69 4.79 18.7 20.0 -6.4 delta-BHC 4.93 4.87 4.97 18.9 20.0 -5.6 gamma-BHC Lin a 4.66 4.61 4,71 19.9 20.0 -0.3 Heptachlor 5.15 5.10 5.20 19.1 20.0 -4.5 Aldrin 5.47 5.42 5.52 19.1 20.0 -4.6 Heptachlor epoxide b 6.14 6.10 6.20 22.5 20.0 12.6 Endosulfan I 6.58 6.53 6.63 19.1 20.0 -4.6 Dieldrin 6.84 6.79 6.89 37.4 40.0 -6.5 4,4--DDE 6.51 6.46 6.56 38.5 40.0 -3.8 Endrin 7.09 7.05 7.15 44.1 40.0 10.2 Endosulfan 11 7.33 7.28 7.38 43.4 40.0 8.6 4,41-DDD 7.15 7.10 7.20 46.5 40.0 16.2 Endosulfan sulfate 8.19 8.14 8.24 41.4 40.0 3.4 4,4--DDT 7.45 7.40 7.50 45.3 40.0 13.2 Methoxychlor 7.93 7.88 7.98 207,7 200.0 3.8 Endrin ketone 8.47 8.42 8.52� 43.5 40.0 8.7 Endrin aldehyde 7.76 7.71 7.81 48.0 40.0 20.0 trans -Chlordane 6.28 6.23 6.33 18.8 20.0 -5.9 cis -Chlordane 6.43 6.38 6.48 17.3 20.0 -13.2 Hexachlorobutadiene 2.34 2.29 2.39 20.0 20.0 -0.2 Hexachlorobenzene 4.20 4.15 4.25 18.7 20.0 -6.3 Tetrachloro-m-xylene 3.85 3.80 3.90 40.2 40.0 0.5 Decachlorobiphenyl 9.38 9.33 9.43 40.3 40.0 0.8 FORM VII PEST-2 7E 8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Colunn, STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (mm) Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16 Lab Ccal ID= INDAE Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,2017 PEST MIX RT WSJ CALC NOM C XAPWND RT FROM TO AA+K3Ui T AM XW %D (Ug/L) (ug/L) - = _ alpha-BHC=[C] 4 88! 4,83 4.93 20.1 20.0- 0 3 beta-BHC [Cj 5.361, 5.311 5.41 20.5 20.0 2.4; delta-BHC [C 5,71il 5.661: 5.76; 22.3 20.0 11.7 gamma-BHC (L' e) [C 5.28;` 5.231, 5.33 20.8 20.0 4.11 Heptachlor [C] 5.80; 5.75�! 5.85; 20.4 20.0 2.2 Aldrin [C] 6.20 6.15 6.25 19.8 20.0 --0.8 Heptachlor epoxide C 6.86 6.81`; 6.91 19.8 20.0 -1.2 Endosulfan I [C] - 7.30` 7.25�! 7.35 19.2 20.0 -4.0 Dieldrin [C] 7.59 7.54; 7.64 40.4 40.0 1.0 4,4'-DDE [C] 7,38' 7.33' 7.43: 38.1 40.0 -4.7 Endrin [C1 7.92' 7.87'1 7.97' 36.8 40.0 -8.0 Endosulfan II LCJ 8.13.8.08 8.18 36.6 40.0 -8.5 4,4'-DDD [C] 7.99 7.93' 9.03 38.5 40.0 -3.8 Endosul€an sulfate Mr- 8.73 8.68: 8.78 36.6 40.0 -8.6 4,4'-DDT [C] 8.31 8.25 8.35' 41.0 40.0 2.6 Methoxychlor C 8.95; 8.90 9.W 194.0 200.0 -3.0 Endrin ketone [C] 9.26' 9.20 9.301 38.4 40.0 -4.0 Endrin aldehyde [C] 8.46 8.411 8.51! 37.4 40.0 -6.5 tram -Chlordane [C] 7,071 7.001 7.101 18.5 20.0 -7.6 cis -Chlordane [C] 7.23j 7.17j 7.27i 19.4 20.0 -2.9 Hexachl.orobutadiene C 2.521 2.471 2.571 24.3 20.0 21.7 Hexachlorobenzene [C] 4.74 4.69: 4.791 20.5 20.0 2.7 C Tetrachloro-m-xylene IQ- 4.24 4.19 4.29' 40.2 40.0 0.6 Decachlorobiphenyl (C] 10.481 10.431 10.5311 39.3 40.0 -1.8 FORM VII PEST-2 5C--W!'- = 00=-ter 7E 8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLflYD & ASSOCIATES ARI Job No.: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (mm) Init. Ca.lib. Date: 06/16/16 Lab Ccal ID: WND Y?Wl: MIA COMP4un Oxychlordane -� 2,4-DDE trans -Nonachlor 2,4-DDD 2,4-DDT cis -Nona or Mirex Tetrac oro-m-xy ene Decachlorobiphenyl Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,2036 RT 6.03 6.12 6.41 6.70 6.97 7.13 8.10 3.85 9.38 IWIWI el 5.98 6.07 6,36 6.65 6.92 7.08 8105 3.80 9.33 6.08 6.17 6,46 6.75 7.02 7.18 8.15 3.90 9.43 FORM VII PEST-2 F_,K'* iI �1 N (ng) i (nq) - - 47.4 40.0 50.3 ' 40.0 43.2 40.0 42.2 40.0 42.9 40.0 43.7 40.0 44.6 40.0 41.9 40.0 44.5 40.0 E'er 18.6 25.8 8.0 5.4 7,1 9.3 11.5 4.8 11.2 PC :74 7E 8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES ART Job No.: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREDGING GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (mm) Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16 Lab Ccal ID: WND Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,2036 PEST MIX COMPOUND Oxychlordane [C] 2,4-DDE [C] trans-Nonachlor tC1 2,4-DDD [C] 2,4-DDT [C] cis-Nonachlor Mirex [C] Tetrachloro-m-xylene [C] Decachl.orcbiphenyl [C] RT WINDOW RT FROM 6.75 6.70 7.05 7.00 7.17 7.11 7.60' 7.55 7.92 7.87 j 7.99 7.93 9.23, 9.18 4.244.19 10.48 10.43 TO 6.80 7.10 7.21 7.65 7.97 8.03 9.28 4.29 10.53 C'ALC AMOUNT (ug/L) 41.8 38.7 47.5 43.3 42.3 40.9 43.7 43.1 42.2 NOM AMOUNT (ug/L) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 %-D 4.6 -3.3 18.7 8.2 5.9 2.1 9.1 7.9 5.5 i FORM VII PEST-2 FORM 8 PESTICIDE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Colin: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (rnm) Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARGEE DREDGING Instrument ID: ECD6 THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MIXTURES, BLANKS, SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS IS GIVEN BELOW: ISl I I IS2 AREA RT I AREA I RT ICAL MIDPT 761555 13.166 I 796988 19.538 UPPER LIMIT 1 1523110 13.216 I IS93976 1 9.588 LOWER LIMIT i 380778 3.116 398494 9.488 CLIENT ' LAB DATE ' IS1 I SAMPLE NO. I SAMPLE ID ANALYZED TIME AREA RT Oil ------------ISEPOOB6 CAL5I 06/16/16 11350 I 761555 1 3.166 021 ISEF0086-CAL11 06/16/16 11408 I 759671 13.166 031 ISEFOO86-CAL21 06/16/16 11427 1 780608 13.165 041 ISEFOO86-CAL31 06/16/16 11445 I 710903 13.165 051 ISEFOO86-CAL4I 06/16/16 I IS03 I 766550 1 3.165 061 ISEFOOBG-CAL61 06/16/16 11522 1 727564 1 3.165 071 ISEF0086-CAL71 06/16/16 I IS40 1 698374 13.165 081 ISEFOO86-CALDI 06/16/16 11636 1 735679 13.165 D9I ISEFOO86-CAL91 06/16/16 11654 1 771540 13.16S lOI ISEFOO86-CALAI 06/16/16 11713 1 763928 3.166 11I ISEFOO86-CA.LDI 06/16/16 11731 I 709601 f 3.166 121 ISEF0086-CALCI 06116/16 11750 I 752220 1 3.165 131 ISEFOO86-CALEI 06/16/16 11808 I 737398 13.165 141 ISEFOO86-CALFI 06/16/16 11827 I 695619 13.165 151 IDS 107/14/16 11426 I 704501 13.165 161 IINDAE 107/14/16 11445 I 820213 13.166 171 IWND 107/14/16 1503 I 028379 13.166 1BIBCWIMBSI IBCWIMBSI 107/14/16 + 1731 I 840813 13.165 19IBCWILCSSI IBCWILCSSI 107/14/16 11750 I 953472 1 3.165 201SRM 1944 IBCWISRMI 107/14/26 1 1845 110631B4 13.165 21107042016BARBIBCWlA 107/14/26 1 1903 I 830886 13.165 22107042016BAU IBCWIAMS 107/14/16 11922 I 988590 1 3.164 23107042016BARBIBCWlAMSD 107/14/16 11940 I 986588 13.164 241 IDS 107/14/16 11959 1 785457 13.166 251 IINDAE 07/14/16 12017 894405 1 3.166 261 �WND 07/14/16 12036 887129 13.166 IS1 = 1-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene RT Window = RT +/- .05 min IS2 = Hexabromobiphenyl * Indicates value outside QC Limits IS2 AREA RT 796988 9.538 828954 19.537 855696 19.536 771527 19.537 839326 9.536 827959 19.535 789217 19.536 804226 19.536 839759 19.536 824563 19.536 767921 19.536 843579 19.536 641828 19.536 799915 19.536 729698 1 9.535 852013 19.536 875264 19.535 567647 19.535 701483 19.536 1266421 19.548 547399 19.536 763125 19,536 742262 19.536 614052 19.535 801873 19.536 869883 9.536 B3 -w i . Din FORM 8 PESTICIDE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ART job No.. BCwl GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0,53(mm) Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16 Client: LLOYD S: ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING Instr=ent ID: ECD6 THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MIXTURES, BLANKS, SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS IS GIVEN BELOW: LAB ICAL UPPER LOWER DATE MIDPT LIMIT LIMIT 12013841 IS1 I AREA I 4027682 13.378 8055364 13.428 .' I51 ( RT 3.328 I I IS2 I AREA 12017878 1403575E 11006539 IS2 I RT 111.068 111.118 111.018 CLIENT SAMPLE NO. I SAMPLE ID ANALYZED I TIME 1 AREA 1 RT AREA 1 EST Oil ISEP0086-CAL51 06/16/16 11350WIF4027682 3.378 2017878 111.066 021 ISEP0086-CAL11 06/16/16 1 1408 13927001 3.376 2050423 111.067 031 ISEFOO86-CAL21 06/16/16 1 1427 1 3922635 1 3.376 1 2068638 111.067 041 ISEFOOSG-CAL31 06/16/16 11445 1 3582932 13.376 1 190517S 111.067 051 ISEF0086-CAL4I 06/16/16 1 1503 1 3748752 1 3.376 1 2038084 111.067 061 ISEFOO86-CAL61 06/16116 1 1522 1 3613506 1 3.376 1 1934215 111.066 071 ISEFO086-CAL71 06/16/16 11540 1 3504452 1 3.376 1 1854901 111.067 081 ISEFOO86-CALDI 06/16/16 11636 13662441 13.376 ; 1959615 111.068 091 ISEF0086-CAL91 06/16/16 1 1654 13757859 13.376 1 2026651 111,068 101 ISEFOO86-CALA:I 06116116 11713 3732554 13.376 12009709 111,068 11I ISEF0086--CALK; 06/16/16 11731 13499699 13.376 11863699 111.067 121 ISEFOO86-CALCI 06/16/16 11750 1 3708831 3.376 12046819 111.068 131 ISEFOO86-CALEI 06/16/16 11808 1 3651377 j 3.376 12025867 111.066 14I ISEP0086-CALFI 06/16116 11827 13494322 13.376 11972734 111.067 1 151 IDS 107/14/16 11426 1 3423313 1 3.377 1 1787565 111.068 16 IINDAE 07/14/16 11445 3679419 1 3.377 1 1961200 111.069 17 IWND 07/14/16 11503 3676854 13.378 1 1991329 111.069 18IBCW1MBS1 IBCWIMBSI 1 07/14/16 1 1731 13331287 ';` 3.377 11147419 111.068 19IBCWlLCSSI IBCWILCSSI 1 07/14/16 1 1750 1 4002848 3.377 11484994 111.069 201SRM 1944 IBCWISRMI 1 07/14/16 1 1845 12881651 1 3.377 11237770 111.073 21107042016BARBIBCWIA 107/14/16 11903 12775162 13.376 1 1237100 111.069 22107042016BARBIBCWIAMS 107/14/16 1922 13233809 13.376 1 1300149 111.069 23107042016BARBIBCWIAMSD 107/14/16 1 1940 1 3265955 13.376 1 1405587 111.06.9 241 IDS 107/14/16 1959 12707630 13.377 ] 1289148 111.068 251 IINDAE 107/14/16 2017 13837606 13.378 1 1906160 111.068 261 JWND 07/14/16 12036 1 3917749 1 3.377 11,376320 111.069 ISl = I-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene RT Window = RT +/- .05 min IS2 - Hexabromobiphenyl * Indicates value outside QC Limits S. Pc,�t1cidL: Aii iI%-,iti PCB Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA PCS by GC/FCD Extraction Method: SW3546 ?age 1 of 1 Lab Sample 1b: BCti1A LIMS ID: 16-1008C Matrix: S edimcn_ Data Release AuthcrLzec:INIQ Reported: 07/19/=6 Cate Extr4cted: V /13/16 Date An6lyzed• 07/15/l6 20:52 xr.strument /r3nallst: CCD7/JGR GPC. C' eatlup: No Sill*:ur Cleanup: Yes Acid. Cleanup: Yes Florisil Cleanup: No CAS Number Analyte 1.2674-11-2 Aroclor 1316 53469-21-9 Aroclor 1242 12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248 11097-69-1 Atoclor 1254 ,.1G5b-8 -5 Aroclor 1260 '1104-28-2 Ar©clar 1221 11141-16-5 Aroclor 1232 ANALYnCAL RESOURCES FNCQRPQFWTED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C SAMPLE QC Report No; BCW1-L1oyd & Asscciates, Inc. Pro-'ect: EA'RBEE CREC(,ING 201a-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Care Received: 07/05/16 Sample Aamount: 1.2.9 g-dry-wt Fi:ial Extract Volume: 2.50 ^L Dilution Factor: 1.00 silica Cel: Yes Percent Moist.'.jre: 2iJ.3� Reported in P.q/ kg (ppb) =� 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 PC$ Surrogate Recovery Decachlorobipher.yl 39.8� Tetrachlcrocnetaxylene B4.24 Result < 3.9 U c 3.9 U < 3.9 U < 3.9 D < 3.9 < 3.9 .. < 3.9 U FORM I a ; ir�W � t$ ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID. SRM PSR LIMS =D: 16-1C08E Matrix: Sedi�en� Data Release Aul.horized: Reported: 07/19/16 Date Extracted: 07/13/16 Date Analyzed: 07/15/16 20.29 Instruiner=t/Ana=yst: ECD7/,JGR GPC Cleanup: No Sulfur Clear.so: Yes Acid Clear.-ip: Yes Flcrisil Cleanup: No ANALYTICAL RESOURCE$ INCORPORATED Sample ID: SRM PSR STANDARD REFERENCE QC Report No: BM -Lloyd & Assoc.ates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BAR.BEE Dare Sampled: Nr Date Received: NA wavLnl e Axr:ount : 5,06 a-dry--wt E-r_al Extract voll.)rr;e: 2.50 inL Gilutiori Facwor: ;.QC Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: CAS Number Analyte LOQ Result 12674-11-2 Aroclor 1C16 9.9 < 9,9 'J 53469-21-9 Aroclor 1242 9.9 < 9.9 rJ 12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248 25 < 25 Y 11097-69-1 Aroclor 1254 9.9 100 11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 9.9 110 11IC4-28-2 Aroclor 1221 9.9 < c.c U 11141-1_6-5 Arcclor 1.232 9.9 < 9.9 U Reported in uglkg (ppb} PCA Surrogate Recovery Decac''alcrobi Fher.v1 Tetrachlorcmetaxylene 84.C% 7' V9 J r0N' I ANALYTICAL RESOURCE8 INCORPORATED SW8082/PCB SOIL/SOLID/SEDIM NT SURROCATE RECOVERY SUMMAY Matrix: Sediment QC Report No: BCW1-L1oyd S Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE DCBP DCBP TCNX TCMX Client ID % REC LCL-UCL % REC LCL-UCL TOT OUT '4B-071316 72.2% 40-126 66.0� 44-120 0 LCS-071316 87.2a 40-126 86.2� 44-12C 0 SRM PSR 84.0� 40-126 75.0% 44-120 C 07042016BARBEE-C 89.8� 40-126 64.2t 44-120 0 07042016BARBEE-C MS 81.5� 40-126 77.M 44-120 0 07042016BARBEE-C MS❑ 85.0% 40-126 77.8� 44-120 0 MLcrowave {MARS) Control Limits PCBSMM Prep Method: SW3546 Log Number Range: 16-10088 to 16-10088 FORM -II SW8O82 Page 1 for BCW1 ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD Page I of 1 Lab Sample ID: BC61A LIMS ID: 16-1C088 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized: � Reported: 07/19/16 Date Extracted MS/MSD: 07/13/16 Date Analyzed MS: 07/15/16 21:14 MSD: 07/15/16 21:37 Instrument/Analyst MS: ECD7/JGR MSD: ECD7/JGR GPC Cleanup: No Sulfur Cleanup: Yes Acid Cleanup: Yes Florisil Cleanup: No ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BAR.BEE-C MS/MSD QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd 5 Associates, Inc. Prcject: BARBEE DREDSINS 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Sample Amount MS: 12.8 9-dry-wt. MSD: 12.8 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume MS: 2.5 mL MSD: 2.5 mL Dilution Factor MS: 1.00 MSD: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3t Spike MS spike MSD Analyte Sample MS Added -MS Recovery MSD Added-MSD Recovery RPD Aroclor 1016 < 3.9 U 79.3 98.6 80.4" 83.8 96.7 84.9€ 5.5s Aroclor 1260 t 3.9 U 83.8 98.6 85.01� 68.6 96.7 89.8!i 5.6- Results reported in Ng/kg ;ppb) RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846. FORM III =ice-, : 004 U ORWICS ANALYSIS DATA. SKEET PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 1 .ab Sample IDt BCWIA .,I._6-1^0R8 Matrix: ;'zeaimen Data Release Alutl:crize^: ?ep�rted: �3";;`191i6 Cate Ex-�racted: 07/13/16 Date Analyzed: 07/15/16 21:14 Instrument/Analyst: ECD7/JGR GPC Cleanup: No Sulfur Cleanmo-- Yes Acid Cleanup: Yes Flur:.sil Clears;,_ Nc ANALYTICAL RESWRCE$ INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE -C MATRIX SPIKE i�C Report No: RC Wl-Lloyd 6 A55ociates, Inc. Frr�Fc.t: BARREE DREDGING Y 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/N /16 Date 'Received: 07/05/16 Sample At o-mt: 12.#3-dry-wt. Fir_al Extract Vol -,Me: 2.50 Rni D lutiol Factor: 1.^0 Silica ,:gel: `_'es 'ercen, Moisture: 20.3i. CAS Number Analyse Log Result 2674-1'--2 Arccior 1C16 3.9 ---- 53469-21-9 Aroclor. 1242 3.9 c 3.9 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248 3.9 < 3.9 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor 1254 3.9 < 3.9 U 11C96-92-5 Aroclor 126C 3.9 --- 11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221 3.9 < 3.9 U 11141-I6-5 Aroclor 1232 3.9 < :3.9 Reported in ug/kg (ppb) PCB Surrogate Recovery Diecachlorobiphenyl 81.5h Tetrachlorometaxylene FORM I "Gw i 7 00 1 14-a ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD Extraction Method; SW33546 Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: RCWIA. LIYS ID; - 6-14G88 Matrix:: Sediwer,r Data Release Authorized: Reported: 07119/1-6 Date Extracted; 07/13/16 Da.e Ana:yzed.: 0'7/15/16 21:37 Instrument/Analyst; ECD7/JGR GP^ Clear.'ap: No Sulfur Clear,ap: Yes Acid vleanip: Yes Florisil Cleanup, No ANALYTICAL lak RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C MATRIX SPIKE DUP QC Report No: 3CW1-Lloyd & Associates, inc. P-cject: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBE . Date Sampled: 07/04116 Date Received: 0i/05/=6 Sample Anou:it : 12. 8 g-cry -wt Final Extract V .lur.e: 2.50 mL Giluti"-i Factcr: 1.00 Silica Gel_: Ye; Percent Moisture: 20.3� GAS Number Analyte Log Result 126?4-1.1-2 Aroclor 1016 3.9 --- 53469-2.1-9 Aroclor 1242 3.9 < 3.9 €j 12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248 3.9 < 3.9 IJ 11097-69-1 Aroclor 1234 3.9 < 3.9 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 3.9 --- 11104-28-2 Arecicr 1221 3.9 < 3.9 U 11141-16-:, Aroclor 1232 3.9 < 3.9 U, Reported in �,Eti'kg (ppka) PCB Surrogate Recovery Cecachloro:b7 phenyl T'etrach-- orometaxylene 85.O�c FORM I F—%G W i _ e.0 , i3 :�l ORGANICS ARALYSIS DATA SHEET FSDDA PCB by GC/ECD Page 1 of 1 Lair Sample Tip: LCS-G' f].316 L_M5 IJ: 16-i0v8u �i�:vri,r.: Sed�mynt Da7a Release Autt;orized: Ccepor-ed: 0�/19/16 Date Extracted: 07/13116 nape Analyzed: 07!15116 19:44 Instrument/Analyst: ECD lJGR GPC Cleanup: No Stlfur Cleanup: Yes Acid Clear,tap : Yes F_cri.sil Nc Aralyte A:c3Clc7r '.016 Arcclar 1260 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: LCS-071316 LAB CONTROL QC. Report No: BCfirI-Lloyd & Assoc-ateS. Tnc. Project: BAR EE DREDGING 20.6-1 3AR?EE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA :ample Amount: 12.E g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 2.50 mL C'Aution "actor: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Mvisture: NA Lab Control 91.7 89.1 Spike Addod l ry- .1 PCB Surrogate Recovery Decachlorob_phenyl 37.2`a Tetrachlorometaxylene 86.2� Results reported in pglkz ;upb, Recovery 9J.3 89.2t ]FORM I I I C-�CW X . ain i "" 4 PCB METHOD BLANK SUMMARY BLANK NO. Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 Lab Sample ID: BCWIMBSI Date Extracted: 07/13/16 Date Analyzed: 07/15/16 Time Analyzed: 1922 BCWIMBSI Client: LLYOYD Project: BARBEE DREDGING Lab File ID: 16071517 Matrix: SOLID Instrument ID: ECD7 GC Columns: ZB5/ZB35 THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS and MSD: CLIENT LAB DATE SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID ANALYZED 01 BCWILCSSI - JBCWILCSSI -07/15/16 02 NOT REQUESTED IBCWlSRM1 07/15/16 03 07042016BARBEE-C �BCW1A 07/15/16 04 07042016BARBEE- MS IBCW1AMS 07/15/16 05 07042016PARBEE- MSD IBCWIAMSD 07/15/16 page 1 of 1 ALL RUNS ARE DUAL COLUMN FORM IV PCB — �'�. y ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PSDDA PCS by GC/ECD Extraction Method: SW3546 Page i of 1 rah Sample :D: MB-07131E !1MS 1U: 16--10088 Matrix: ;ecimen: Any Data Release Aathorized: Reported: 33/19/16 Date Extracted: 0/13/16 Dare Analysed: 07/15/l6 19:22 Instrumen /Aralys_:=C'C7/,7GR CPC Cleanup: No Sulfur Cleanup: Yes Acid Cleanup: Yes Florisil Cleanup; NU ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: MB-071316 METHOD SLANK QC Report Nc: BCW1-Llayd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016 WRB E Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Sample Amcunt; 12.5 g Final Extract Volume: 2.50 mL Dilutior. Factor: 1.00 Silica Gel: Yes Percent Hoist -are: NFL CAS NumbOr Analyte L()Q Result 12674-11-2 F.roclor 1016 4.0 < 4.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor 1.242 4.0 < 4,0 U _2672-29-6 Aroclor 1246 4.0 < 4. C U 1109:-69-1 Aroclor 1254 4.0 < 4,0 U 11C96-B2-5 Aroclor 1260 4.0 < 4.G U 11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221 4.0 < 4.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor 1232 4.0 < =.q ;; Reported in pg/kq Ippb) PCH Surrogate Recovery Dec�ch�.oraripheny Tetra^.hlcrometaxy'_ene FORM I E37 $R.1 W i - 0—;-0 wi 6 6? 8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF AROCWR 1016/1260 Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Jab No.. BCW1 GC Column: ZB5 Calibration Date: 07/01/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DREDGING Instxwnent ID: ECD7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aroclor-1016 LVLI f LVL2 { LVL3 LVL4 LVL5 LVL6 MEAN I %RSD ;Peak RT WIN .02 0.05 { 0.1 25 0.5 1-0 R^2 { --- { 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------...---------------------{ 5.70- 5.901 0.0114 1 0,0104 { 0,0102 0.0096 { 0.0092 0.0090 0.0100 9.1 { { 2 6.70- 6.901 0.0147 ( 0.0141 { 0,0138 0.0129 0.0122 0,0117 10.0132 8.6 { { 3 7,11- 7.311 0,0451 1 0.0423 1 0,0419 1 0.0405 { 0,0398 { 0.0400 0,0416 4.8 j 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------{ 7.61- 7.81l 0.0082 1 0-0077 1 0,0078 t 0.0073 0,0069 { 0,0066 0.0074 8.1 { AROCLOR AVERAGE %RSD = 7.6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� lAroclor-1260 I LVL1 LVL2 I LVL3 ! LVL4 i LVL5 I LVL6 MEAN kRSD lPeak RT WIN 1 .02 I 0.05 1 0.1 f .25 { 0.5 1 1.0 R"2 ------------------------------------• 1 1 10.64-10.641 0.0297 1 0.0245 -------------- 0.0216 ...--------------------------- j 0.0207 { 0.0195 0,0199 _-------- 0.0226 { 17.1 1 2 11.34-11.541 0.0726 1 0.0852 0.0640 F 0.0740 { 0.0640 0.0688 0.0714 11.2 1 3 11.74-11.941 0.0334 1 0,0320 0,0322 C a.0331 { 0.0323 0.0343 0.0329 2.7 1 4 11.93-12.131 0.0232 0,0222 0,0224 k 0.0230 { 0.0225 0.0239 0.0229 { 2.7 5 12.60-12,801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------.--------------------- 0,0231 0,0302 0.0235 0,0271 10.0236 0.0253 0,0255 { 10.7 , ARCC P AVERAGa WRSD - 6-9 FORM VI PCB-1 6F 8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF AROCLOR 1016/1260 Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Jab No.: BCW1 GC Cvlut n: ZB35 Calibration Date: 07/01/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DREDGING Instrument ID: ECD7 ----------...------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAroclor-1016 I LVL1 I LVL2 I LVL1 I LVL4 { LVLS , LVL6 I MEAN VESD Peak RT WIN 1 .02 1 0.05 1 0.1 1 .25 { 0.5 j 1.0 1 R 2 ------------------------•---------------------------------------------. 1 6.09- 6.291 0.0209 10.0198 1 0.0190 1 0.0178 1 0.0169 ----------------------� 1 0.0160 0.0184 110.1 f 1 2 6.80- 7.001 0.0547 10.0494 1 0.0479 10A437 1 0.0413 1 0.0390 0.0460 12,6 1 3 7.44- 7.641 O.1Q74 1 0.1002 1 0.0992 1 0.0945 1 0.0918 1 0.0983 1 0.0969 7.0 E 1 4 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. 7.84- 8.041 0.0266 1 O.0246 ; 0.0252 10.0240 1 0.0234 10.0228 1 0.0244 5.5 -I AROCWR AVERWE %RSD = 8.8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� �ArOClor-1260 1 LVL1 I LVL2 I LVL3 f LVL4 LVL5 LVL6 I MEAN VRSD JPeak RT WIN 1 .02 { 0.05 I 0.1 f .25 k 0.5 1.0 R-2 { I_ 1 _...---------------- 10.95-1.1.151 0.0613 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.0538 l 0.0520 1 0.0497 0.0464 U.0455 0.0514 11.2 2 11.41-11.611 0.0677 1 0.0606 J 0.0591 1 0.0570 0.0540 10.0532 10.0566 I 9.1 3 11.58-11.681 0.1363 1 0.1247 1 0.1242 1 0,1217 { 0.1164 0.1152 0.1211 6.2 I 4 ....------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 12.21-12.411 0.0515 1 0.0401 1 0.0396 1 0.0509 1 0,0355 1 0.0350 0.0421 17.4 { AROCWR AV8'PWR %RSD ■ 11.0 FORM VI PCB-1 6G 8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF SINGLE POINT PCBs Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column: ZB5 Calibration Date: 07/02/16 Client: LLC7YD & ASSOC Project: BARRF'E DREDGING Instrument ID: ECD7 ------------------------------ Aroclor-1221 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 3.884 3.78- 3.98 0.00311 2 5.691 5.59- 5.79 0.00495 3 --------------------------------------- 5.799 5.70- 5.90 0.01454 --------------------------------------- Aroclor-1232 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 3.883 3.78- 3.98 0.00190 2 7.207 7.1, 7.31 0.01764 3 7.469 7.37- 7.57 0.00661 -------8_193---------5---------------- --------- -------- - ------ Aroclor-1242 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 6.798 6,70- 6.90 0.01119 2 7.208 7.11- 7.31 0.03319 3 7.357 7.26- 7.46 0.01529 4 8.194 8.09- 8.29 0.01560 --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Aroclor-1248 Cal Peale RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 7.204 7.10- 7.30 0.01833 2 7.714 7.61- 7.81 0.00960 3 8.193 8.09- 8.29 0.02000 4 --------------------------------------- 8.864 8.76- 8.96 0.02352 FORM VI PCB-2A page 1 of 2 i k e Li :, : sip CA i q 6G 8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF SINGLE POINT PCBs Lab Naive: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column: ZB5 Calibration irate: 07/02/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project_ BARBEE DREDGING Instrument ID: ECD7 --------------------------------------- AroClor-1254 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 9,325 9.23- 9.43 0.01860 2 9,463 9.36- 9.56 0.03603 3 9.816 9.72- 9.92 0.03491 4 10.129 10.03-10.23 0.01380 5 --------------------------------------- 10.510 10.41-10.61 0.03891 --------------------------------------- Aroclor-1262 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 11.061 10.96-11.16 0.02503 2 11.842 11.74-11.94 0,02465 3 12.031 11.93-12.13 0.03810 4 --------------------------------------- 12.703 12.60-12.80 0.03506 Aroclor-1268 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor ---------------------------------------- 1 11.958 11.86-12.06 0.08891 2 12.029 11.93-12.13 0.11215 3 12,419 12.32-12.52 0.09810 4 --------------------------------------- 13.212 13.11-13.31 0.41477 FORM VI PCB-2B page 2 of 2 c Li 0i E-t 6G 8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF SINGLE POINT PCBs Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column: ZB35 Calibration Date: 07/02/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBER DREDGING Instrument ID: EM7 --------------------------------------- Aroclor-1221 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 5.815 5.71- 5.91 0.01361 2 6.186 6.09- 6.29 0.02477 3 ---------------------------------------- 6.910 6.81- 7.01 0.00848 --------------------------------------- Aroclor-1232 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1. 6.900 6.8Q- 7.00 0.02144 2 7.538 7.44- 7.64 0,04168 3 8,466 8.37- 8.57 0.01804 4 --------------------------------------- 8.999 8.90-- 9.10 0.01547 Aroclor-1242 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 6.185 6.09- 6.29 0.01566 2 7.539 7.44- 7.64 0.07587 3 8.466 8.37- 8.57 0.02645 4 --------------------------------------- 8.999 8.90- 9.10 0.02442 --------------------------------------- Aroclor-1248 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 6.898 6.80- 7.OA 0.01572 2 7.534 7.43- 7.63 0.04385 3 9.000 8.90- 9.10 0.04013 4 --------------------------------------- 9.357 9.26- 9.46 0.05148 FORM VI PtB - 2A page 1 of 2 pF-71 C.vii 0 0 i 3i 6G 8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF SINGLE POINT PCBs Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No., BCWi1 GC Column: ZB35 Calibration Date. 07/02/16 Client. LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBER DREDGING Instrument ID: ECD7 --------------------------------------- Aroclor-1254 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 9.777 9.68- 9.88 0.03464 2 9.929 9.83-10.03 0.08726 3 10.173 10.07-10.27 0.08884 4 10.397 10.30-10.50 0.04128 5 --------------------------------------- 10.957 10.86-11.06 0.06691 --------------------------------------- Aroclor-1262 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 11.052 10.95T11.15 0.06772 2 11,781 11.68-11.88 0.13225 3 12.376 12.28-12.48 0.08726 4 --------------------------------------- 13.116 13.02-13.22 0.04800 Aroclor-1268 Cal Peak RT RT WIN Factor --------------------------------------- 1 12,311 12.21-12.41 0.14609 2 12.378 12.28.12.48 0.13239 3 12,782 12.68-12.88 0.11330 4 --------------------------------------- 13.609 13.51-13,71 0.33157 FORM VI PCB-2B page 2 of 2 r3ir--W i � 0Oni 5 7F PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Colurrm - Z135 Init. Cali.b, Date: 07/01/16 Lab Standard ID: AR1254ICV1 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DREDGING Intrument: ECD7 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed :1706 RT WINDOW CALC NOM COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT %D (ng) (ng) Aroclor--1254-1 9.33 9.23 9.43 254.8 250.0 1.9 Aroclor-1254-2 9.46 9.36 9.56 276.6 250.0 10.6 Aroclor-1254-3 9.82 9.72 9.92 294.6 250.0 17.8 Aroclor-1254-4 10.13 10.03 10.23 302.4 250.0 21.0 Aroclor-1254-5 10.51 10.41 10.61 274.2 250.0 9.7 AROCiOR AVG: 280.5 CAL %D = 12.2 FORM VII PCB 7F PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name. ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.; BCW1 GC Column: ZB35 Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Lab Standard ID; AR1254ICV1 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARGEE DREDGING Intrument: ECD7 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed :1706 RT WINDOW CALC NOM COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT %D (ng) (ng) Aroclor-1254 [2C]-1 9.78 9.68 9.88 198.1 250.0 -20.8 Aroclor-1254 [2C1-2 9.93 9.83 10.03 251.9 250.0 0.7 Aroclor-1254 [2C]-3 10.17 10.07 10.27 249.9 250.0 -0.0 Aroclor-1254 [2C]-4 10.39 10.30 10.50 225.4 250.0 -9.8 Aroclor-1254 [2C]-5 10.96 10.86 11.06 258.1 250.0 3.2 AROCLOR AVG: 236.7 CAL %D = -5.3 FORM VI PCB T - 0-ka11-Zis 7F PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUH4ARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column: Z55 Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Lab Standard ID: AR1660ICV2 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC ;v. • �E 1 t Intrument: ECD7 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed :1729 RT WINDOW CALC NOM COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT %D (ng) (ng) - _ Aroclor-1016-1 5.80 5.70 5.90 257.0 250.0 2.6 Aroclor-1016-2 6.80 6.70 6,90 260.2 250.0 4.1 Arocior-1016-3 7.21 7.11 7.31 255.7 250.0 2.3 Aroclor-1016-4 7.71 7.61 7.81 259.3 250.0 3.7 Lab Standard ID: AR1660ICV2 AROCLOR AVG-. 258.0 CAL *D = 3.2 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed :1729 RT WINDOW CALL NON SOUND/PEAK NO. RT Fitom TO AMOUNT AMOUNT %D (ng) (ng) -�....�- Aaroclor-1260-1 10.74 10.64 10.84 288.7 250.0 15.5 Aroclor-1260-2 11.44 11.34 11.54 273.5 250.0 9.4 Aroclor-1260-3 11.84 11.74 11.94 284.8 250.0 13.9 Aroclor-1260-4 12.03 11.93 12,13 295.0 250.0 18.0 Aroclor--1260-5 12.70 12.60 12.80 271.2 250.0 8.5 AROCLOR AVG: 282.6 CAL *D = 13.1 FORM VI PCB 7F PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SLHIA.RY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column: ZB35 Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Lab Standard ID: AR1660ICV2 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DREDGING Intrument: ECD7 Date Analyzed .07/15/16 Time Analyzed :1729 RT Wn4DOW CALC NOM CYJMPOLW/ PEAX NO. RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT $D (ng) (ng) - - AroClor-1016 [2C1-1 6.18 6.08 6.28 247.7 250.0 -0.9 Aroclor-1016 [2C]-2 6.90 6.80 7.00 246.1 250.0 -1.6 Aroclor-1016 [2Cj-3 7.54 7.44 7.64 246.7 250.0 -1.3 Aroclor-1016 [2C]-4 7.94 7.83 8.03 246.3 250.0 -1.5 Lab Standard ID: AR1660ICV2 AROCLOR AVG: 246.7 CAL $D = -1.3 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed -1729 RT WINDOW CALL NOM COMPOUM/PEAK NO. RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT %D (ng) (ng) -10.95 Aroclor-1260 [2C]-1 11.05 11.15 200.5 250,0 -19.8 Aroclor-1260 [2C]-2 11.51 11.41 11.61 211.3 250.0 -15.5 Aroclor-1260 [2C1 -3 11.78 11.68 11.88 173.2 250.0 -30. 7 Aroclor-1260 12C1-4 12.31 12.21 12.41 190.8 250.0 -23.7 AROCLOR AVG: 193.9 CAL %D = -22.4 FORS! VII PCB E- 7F PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column: ZB5 Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Lab Standard ID: AR1248CCVI Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project. BARBEE DREDGING Intru meat : ECD7 Date Analyzed :07/15/3.6 Time Analyzed :2307 RT WINDOW CALC NGM COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT FROM TO AMOUR AMOUNT SkD (ng) (ng) Aroclor-1248-1 7.21 7.11 7.31 280.5 250.0 12.2 Aroclor-1248-2 7.71 7.61 7.81 281.5 250.0 12.6 Aroclor-1248-3 8.19 8.09 6.29 283.1 250.0 13.2 Aroclor-1248-4 8.86 8.76 8.96 284.2 250.0 13.7 ARQCLOR AVG. 282.3 CAL %D = 12.9 FORM VII PCB 7F PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column: ZB35 Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Lab Standard ID: AR1248CCV1 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DREDGING Intrument : ECD7 Date Analyzed .07/15/16 Time Analyzed :2307 RT WINDOW CALC NON[ COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT %D (ng) (ng) Aroclor-1248 [2C]-1 6.90 6.80 7.00 267.6 250.0 7.0 Aroclor-1248 [2C]-2 7.53 7.43 7.63 255.6 250.0 2.2 Aroclor-1248 [2C]-3 9.00 8.90 9.10 189.4 250.0 -24.2 Aroclor-1248 [2C]-4 9.36 9.26 9.46 255.5 250.0 2.2 AROCLAR AVG: 242.0 CAL %D = -3.2 FORM VII PCB 7F PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMFIRY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column: ZB5 Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Lab Standard ID: AR1660CCV2 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DREDGING Intrument: ECD7 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed :2330 RT WINDOW CALL NOM COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT %-D (ng) (ng) Aroclor-1016-1 5.80 5.70 5.90 306.4 250.0 22.6 Aroclor-1016-2 6.60 6.70 6.90 305.6 250.0 22.2 Aroclor-1016-3 7.21 7.11 7.31 273.3 250.0 9.3 Aroclor-1016-4 7.71 7.61 7.81 314.4 250.0 25.7 Lab Standard ID: AR1660CCV2 AROCLOR AVG-. 299.9 CAL $D = 20.0 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed :2330 RT WINDOW CALC NOM COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT D (ng) (ng) Aroclor-1260-1--- 10.74 10.64 10.84 290.6 250.0 16.2 Aroclor-1260-2 11.44 11.34 11.54 273.1 250.0 9.2 Aroclor-1260-3 11.84 11.74 11.94 286.5 250.0 14.6 Aroclor-1260-4 12.03 11.93 12.13 295.7 250.0 18.3 Aroclor-1260-5 12.70 12.60 12.80 270.9 250.0 8.4 AROCL.OR AVG : 2 63 .4 CAL 96D = 13.4 7F PCD CALIBRATION VERIFICATION R"KARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column- ZB35 Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Lab Standard ID; AR1660CCV2 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DREDGM Intrument; ECD7 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed :2330 RT W CALC NQM COMPOUND/PEAK ND. RT FROM TO AMOL)NT AMOURT LSD (ng) (ng) - Aroclor-1016 f2C]-1 6.18 6.08 6.28 249.6 250.0 -0.2 Aroclor-1016 [2C]-2 6.90 6.80 7.00 246.0 250.0 -1.6 Aroclor-1016 [2C]-3 7.54 7.44 7.64 246.6 250.0 -1.3 Aroclor-1016 [2C]-4 7.93 7.83 8.03 246.6 250.0 -1.4 Lab Standard ID; AR1660CCV2 AROCLOR AVG. 247.2 CAL %D = -1.1 Date Analyzed :07/15/16 Time Analyzed :2330 RT WINDOW {',ALC NOM COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT FRC3M TO AMdLiN'F' ANK)UNT LSD (nng) (ng) Aroclor-1260 [2C]-1 11.05 10.95 11.15 201.5 250.0 -19.4 Arocl.or-1260 [2C]-2 11.51 11.41 11.61 212.4 250.0 -15.0 Aroclor-1260 [2C]-3 11.78 11.68 11.88 174.E 250.0 -30.2 Aroclor-1260 [2C) -4 12.31 12.21 12.41 190.8 250.0 -23.7 AROCLOR AVG: 194.8 CAL %D = -22.1 FORM V.II PCB FORM 8 PCB INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUM++FARY Lab Nam: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCWl GC Column: Z35 IA: 0.53(mm) Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Client: LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DRII3GING Instrument ID: EC.D7 THE ANALYTICAL SMUENCE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MIXTURE'S, BLANKS, SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS IS GIVEN BELOW: a aanaes��s =as ICAL MIDPT UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT IS1 I I IS2 ,AREA ! RT I AREA I RT ammsa=a:a�aaamaa='axa�cvvs as 133188761 2.439 1 17748878 266377521 2,539 1 35497756 66594381 2.339 1 8874439 CLIENT I LAB I DATE 1 1 IS1 SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID I ANALYZED I TIME I ARRA 0IIZZZZZ {ZZZZZ 107/01/16 11959 113145774 021 I0.25PPMAR166� 07/01/16 12021 113318876 031 �0.02PPMAR1661 07/01/16 12044 113260186 041 i0.05PPMAh1661 07/01/16 12107 113375853 051 11PPMAR1660 107/01/16 12129 1131.30293 061 ]0.1PPMAR16601 07/01/16 12152 113578889 071 10.5PPMAR16601 07/01/16 12214 113627383 0$1 IAR1242 j 07/01116 12237 113606936 091 JAR1248 107/01/16 12259 113580797 10; IAR1254 107/01/16 J 2322 113333172 III IAR2162 107/01/16 12344 113137772 121 IAR3268 107/02/16 10007 113069683 131ZZZZZ IZZZZZ 107/02/16 10029 113076402 141ZZZZZ IzZZzz 107/02/16 10052 123122312 15jZZZZZ IzzZzB 107/02/16 1 0114 113176996 16 ZZZZZ IZZZZZ 107/02/16 10137 113223315 17�ZZZZZ IZZZZZ 107/02/16 10159 113187813 18IZzzZZ IZZZZZ 107/02/16 0222 113162462 191 I0.1PPM DDT 107/02/16 1 0245 113845926 201 JAR12541CV1 107/15/16 1 1706 112318632 211 IAR16601CV2 107/15/16 11729 112280285 22]BCWIMBS1 IBCN1MB81 107/15/16 1 1922 114231591 23IBCWILCSS1 IBCwILCSSI 107/15/16 1 1944 113081705 241ZZZZZ IZZZZZ 107/15/16 12007 113891625 251NOT REQU-ESTEIHCW1SRM1 107/15/16 [ 2029 113643241 26107042016BARBIBCWIA 107/15/16 12052 113193862 27107042016BARBIBCNlAMS 107/15/16 12114 114118382 28107042016BARBIBCKIAMSD 1 07/15/16 12137 114194326 291 JAR1240CCV1 107/15/16 E 2307 112826013 301 JAR1660CCV2 1 07/15/16 1 2330 112506335 page 1 of 1 RT 2,439 2.439 2.439 2.439 2.438 2.439 2.439 2.438 2.439 2,438 2.439 2.439 2.438 2.438 2.439 2.436 2.438 2.438 2.437 2.442 2,440 2.441 2.442 2.441 2.441 2.442 2.441 2.442 2.441 2.440 IS1 w 1-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene RT Window = RT f/- 0.1 min IS2 = Hexabromobiphenyl * Indicates value outside QC Limits FORM VIII PCB 182 AREA n�re usaec cae 17638599 17748878 17850628 18100122 17439255 19509789 18493537 18045407 18517791 18168791 17949482 17921406 18010822 18007648 18066379 18305672 18176633 18106439 13.984 14.084 13.884 E:1w A 113.984 113.984 113.983 113.984 113.984 113.984 113.983 113,984 I13.983 113,983 113.983 113.983 113.984 113.983 I13.983 113.983 113.984 113,982 16153642 113.983 16165538 113.984 18925913 113.983 18149286 113.983 19443793 113.983 13947116 113.983 13962776 113.983 14902683 113.983 15082664 113.984 16594495 113.983 16045202 113,983 FORM 8 PCB INTERNAL STANWD AREA AND RT SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ARI Job No.: BCW1 GC Column. ZB3 5 ID; 0.53 (mn) Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16 Client. LLOYD & ASSOC Project: BARBEE DREDGING Instrument ID: ECD7 THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MIXTURES, BLANKS, SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS IS GIVEN BELOW: IS1 I IS2 AREA ( RT AREA RT ICAL MIDPT 118430989 1 3.007 122328101 114.919 1 UPPER LIMIT 136861979 1 3.107 144656202 115.019 1 LOWER LIMIT 9215495 1 2.907 111164051 114.819 1 CLIENT LAB DATE I ] IS1 1 1 IS2 1 SAMPLE NO. I SAMPLE ID ANALYZED I TIME 1 AREA 1 RT I AREA Oljzzzzz ',ZZZZZ 07/01/16 1 1959 118176330 1 3,007 122141587 02 0.25PPMAR1661 07/01/16 1 2021 118430989 1 3.007 122328101 031 10.02PPMAR1661 07/01/16 1 2044 118262773 1 3.007 122247489 041 10.05PPMAR166; 07/01/16 1 2107 118392705 1 3,007 J22846162 051 11PPMAR1660 1 07/01/16 1 2129 18070099 1 3.005 122581345 061 10.1PPMAR16601 07/01/16 1 2152 118845677 1 3.006 i23397239 071 10.SPPMAR16601 07/01/16 1 2214 113749063 3.007 123667483 081 1AR1242 07/01/16 1 2237 118662128 3.005 123393575 091 !AR1248 07/01/16 1 2259 118629302 1 3.006 123835583 10 rAR1254 j 07/01/16 1 2322 118257998 1 3.005 123441866 11 jAR2162 1 07/01/16 1 2344 117915869 1 3.006 123283790 121 IAR3268 1 07/02/16 1 0007 117862966 1 3.006 123282463 131ZZZZZ jzzzzz ! 07/02/16 1 0029 118047425 1 3.005 123759164 14]ZZZZZ jzZZZZ ] 07/02/16 1 0052 118087767 1 3,005 ;24011430 15 zzzzz izzzzz 1 07/02/16 0114 118200014 1 3.007 j24197736 161ZZZZZ lzzzzz 1 07/02/16 1 0137 118344250 1 3.004 124797525 171zzzzz 1zzzZZ 1 07/02/16 1 0159 118096324 1 3,005 124816665 181zzzzz IZZZZz ] 07/02/16 1 0222 118147878 'I 3.006 124884300 191 10.IPPM DDT 1 07/02/16 1 0245 118930080 1 3.005 1 201 1AR1254IC'V1 1 07/15/16 1 1706 116777766 1 3.008 124093165 211 1AR1660IC'iV2 1 07/15/16 1 1729 116797286 1 3.006 124169197 221BCWiMBS1 1BCW1MBS1 1 07/15/16 1 1922 119624843 1 3,007 127209277 231BCWlLCSSI 1BCW1LCSS1 1 07/15/16 1 1944 118362636 1 3.008 126484069 241ZZZZZ jzZZZZ 1 07/15/16 1 2007 119509412 1 3,007 128326611 251NOT REQUESTEIBCWISRMI 1 07/15/16 1 2029 118911551 1 3.007 125067783 26107042016BAR.BIBCWIA j 07/15/16 1 2052 110300291 1 3.008 123957317 27107042016BARBIBCWIAMS 07/15/16 1 2114 119211853 1 3,007 125209032 28107042016BARBjBCW1AMSD 07/15/16 1 2137 119467533 1 3.007 125459684 291 AR1249CC"VI 07/15/16 1 2307 117356029 1 3.007 124776847 30? tAR1660CCV2 1 07/15/16 1 2330 117065859 1 3.006 124352055 181 = I-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene RT Window = RT +/- 0.1 min IS2 = Hexabromobiphenyi + Indicates value outside QC Limits page 1 of 1 FORM VIII PCB RT 114.919 114.919 114.918 114.919 114.918 114.919 114.918 114.919 114.919 114.919 114.918 114.918 114.918 114.918 114.918 114,918 114.918 114,918 14.916 14.916 14.s17 14.916 14,916 14,915 14.916 14.917 14,917 14,916 14.916 6!c1 i,1i I. = iv- 01 C-3 Dioxin Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ARI Job ID: BCW1 9. Diu.tiin acw 1 : ro0069 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCORPOFtATED Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613E Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: BCWIA QC Report No: HCW_-Lloyd 5 Associates, Inc. L=MS ID: 16-10088 Proect: 3ARBEE DREDGING Matrix: Sediment 2C16-1 BARBE£ Data Release Authorized: Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Reported: 08/10/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Date Extracted: 01/21/16 Sample AViount: 10.3 g-dry-wt Date Analyzed: 07/28/16 00:59 Final Extract ValLme: 20 uL Instrument/Analyst: ASl/FK Extract Split: 1.00 Acid Cleanup: Yes Silica-florisil Cleanup: Yes Silica -Carbon Cleanup: No Dilution Factor: 1.00 Analyse Ion Ratio Ratio Limits EDL R1. Result 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.64 0.65-0.89 0.970 0.0776 BJEMPC 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.21 0.65-0,89 0.970 0.145 JEMPC 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2.68 1,32-1.78 0.970 O.C737 BJEMPC 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1.32-1.78 0.3563 0.970 < 0.0563 U 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,92 1,32-1.78 3.970 0.182 BJEMPC 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.14 1.05-1.43 0.970 0.114 BJ Z,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.91 1.05-1.43 0.970 0_111 BJEMPC 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.01 1.05-1.43 0.970 G,136 JEMPC 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.91 1.05-1.43 0.970 0.130 BJEMPC 1,2,3,9,7,8-HxCDD 1.75 1.05-1.43 0.970 0.242 BJEMPC 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.58 1.05-1.43 0.930 0.532 BJEMPC 1,2,3,'7,8,9-HxCDD 1.18 1.05-1.43 0.970 0.464 SJ 1,2,3,4,6,7,E-HpCDF 1.02 C,88-1,2C 0.970 1.59 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.88-1.20 0,101 0.970 < 0.101 ,J 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.04 C.88-1.20 2.42 9.93 B OCDF 0.81 0.76-1,02 1.94 2.62 OCDD 0.89 G.76-1.02 9,70 E2,9 B Homologue Croup EDL RL Result Total TCDF' 0.970 0.911 EMPC Total TCDD 0,970 1.52 EMPC Total PeCD= 1,94 1.43 EMPC Total PeCDD 0.970 1.06 EMPC Total HxCDF 1.94 3.15 EMPC Total HxCDD 1.94 5.46 EMPC Total -3pCDF 1.94 4.34 Total HpCDD 1.94 21.2 Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalence (WH02005, ND-O, Including EMFC); 0.64 Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalence (WH02005, ND-1/2 EDL, Including FMPC),: 0.65 Reported in pq/g ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613E Page 1 (:- 1 Lab Sar..p_e _D: 2Cn73n LIh3S Ivy: 16-IGC88 Marrix: Sed'ment Gaza Release Aathorized:V Reported: tic/1�i16 Cate Extracted: 07/21,116 Date Analyzed: 07/28/16 00:39 nstr1arr.ent/Analyst: AS.7./PK A aiyte 13C-2, 3, 7, 8-TCI)F 13C-2, 3, 7, 8-TCDC lK -1, 2, 3, 7, 8-PrwIiF 1 3C-2, 3, 4, 7, ;-�-reCD4 i3C-1, 2, 3, 7, 8-FeC�L 3C-1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-Hx,''DF 13C.-2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-Y,x^ME- _3C-1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9-'4x4Cf 13C -1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8-f1xCDL 13C-1, 2, 1, 6, By- ixCuD I -X-1, 21 3r 4? 64 !, 8-Rr)CDL ,3C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Ha^UE _3G-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8--PiPC,:A) 13C'.-13CDU 37C14-2,3,7,E-TCDD Icn Ratio 0.79 0.79 1,57 0.51 C.51 v.52 1.28 1.26 U.45 0.45 1.Oo 0.90 AftL ANALYTICAL RESOURCE13 9 INCORPORATED 5aMple ID: 07042016RARBEE-C QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & 1iSsociaLes, T7c. Project: BAR.BEE DR.EDG--N3 2016-1 BAR13EE Date Sampled: 0t/04/16 Hate Received: 07/05/16 Sample Amount: 1C.3 g-dry-rtt. 1'ira1 Extract Volune: 20 uL Extract. Spl't: 1.0C . Ii;t can Eac'_cr: 1.C: Lim' is 0.65-0.89 0.65-0.89 �.32-1.78 1.32-1,73 1,32-1."IS 0.43-0.59 0.13-0.59 1.05-1.43 1..05-1.43 0.37-0,51 0.37-4.51 0.88-1.20 0.76-;.02 Repertec in Percent ieccvery Kest:-:. Lli;its Exceedance 91.14 2 -169 9017 25-164 88.8 24-185 9:.0 21-178 88.9 25-161. 89.8 26-152 82.6 2G-123 83.'7 28-136 81.3 29-147 87.8 :32-141 F3.0 28-13C 74.8 28-143 68.9 26-':38 81.6 23-140 64.7 17-157 10 35-19"? Gw :i. - 01-7709 i ApiwLrncAh (f RESOURCES ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCOAFpORATED Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C Page 1 of 1 DUPLICATE Lab Sample ID: BCWIADU? QC Report No: 3CWl-Lloyd & Associates, its. LIM!" TD: 16-10088 Project: BARBEE DREDt,iN,, Matrix: Sediment 2016-1 BARBEE Data Release Author!zedf"Wory,r Daze 5arpled: 17/04/16 Reported: 08/10/16 Date Receive;: 07/05/16 Daze Extracted: 07/21/16 Sample Amount; 10.4 g-dry-w'. Date Analyzed- 0?/28/16 02:00 Final Extract Volume; 2C uL nstruTrentlAnalyst: AS1/?lt Dilution Factor. 1.0.0 Acid cleanup. Yes Silica-Fiorisil Cleanup: Yes Silica -Carboy. Cleanup. No Analyre ;ors Ratio Ratio Limits EDL RL ReSuit 2, ?. 7, 8-TCOF ,.. 63 . 6 5-0. 89 0.958 C . 06" 0 B.JFMPC 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.Z 0.65-C.89 0.958 0.14�- ,;'EMPC 1,2,3,1,8-PeCDF 1.98 1.32-1.78 0.958 0.0556 BJEMPC 2,3,4,?,8-PeCP.F 1.7P 1..32-1.76 0.958 0.0345 J 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.32 1,32i .78 0.958 0.1:%6 BJ 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8-HxC0F 1.4 7 1, 05-,.43 C. 958 0.0977 BJEMP: 1, 2, 3, 6, ', E - xCDr 1.90 1. 05-1.43 0.958 C . 0785 PJEMPC 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-HxCDE" 1.03 1. 05-1 . 43 :1. 958 0.0765 JT;MPC 1,2'3, ',8,9-HXCDF 1.05-1.43 0.053E 0.958 < 0.0536 U 1, 2, 3, W, WxCDD 1,44 1. 05-1.43 0.959 0.130 EJEMPC 1,2,3,6,7,8-rxCDD 1.30 1.05-1.43 0.958 0.289 5i 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.13 i.05-1.43 0.958 0.326 S, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCGF 0.9; C.68-1,20 oase 0.778 BJ 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9-HpCDF 3.50 C.88-1..20 0.958 2.0479 ,JENPC 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, B-HpWD 1. 09 036-1.20 2.39 5.57 B DCDF 005 0.76�.02 1_92 1.28 BJ OCDD 0.8B 0.76-1.02 9.58 36.4 B HOrncicque GrCLP EilL RL Result Total TC` F 0.95B 0.581 EMPC Total TCDD C.958 1.03 EMPC Total PeCCF 1.92 0.872 EMPC Total Pe: C`J 0.958 0.641 EN.P, Toza.i HxCDF 1.92 1.62 UPC Total HxCTDC 1.92 3.90 UK Total HpCDF 1 . 92 2.07 EMPC_ Total HpCDD 1.92 12.6 Total 2, 3, 7, 8--TCDD Equivalence =02005, ND-0, including EMPC)- 0.48 Tonal 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD Equivalence (WH02005, ND-1/2 ELL, Tnclud_ng EMPQ : 0.48 Reported it pg!g ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613a Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample M.- RI-WIAMP LIMS ID: 16-10088 Matr4x: Sediment Data Release Au*_ror? zed:r'AN� Reported. 08/10231E Date Extracted: 07/21!16 _,ate Ar-,alyzed: 07i28/16 02: C'O _nstrurren"/Anal,,'st. ricid E'wt-a;nu ?: Yes Swl_ca-Carblor; Cleanup: No .oral. yte 2, 3, 7, 3- CDF 2, 3, - tCI. D' _, 2, 3, 7, 8--PS"DF 2, 1, 4, !, 8-PeCDF 1, ?, 3, 7, 8-remD 1, 2, 3, 4, j, B-HxCD1= 1, 2, 3, 6, 1, 8-1ixCDF 2, {, 4, 6, 7, B-HxCDF 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9-HxCI)F 2, 2, 3, 4, 1, 8-HxCDD 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8-4ixCDD 1, 2, 3, 7, B, 9WHxLDD 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-F:pCOF 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 3, 9-HpCD- 2, 3, 4, 6, ?, 8-1~pCDD OCDC' OCDD ANALYTICAL RESMRCES INCORPORATED Sampla ID: 01042O16BARBEE-C DUPLICATE QC Report No: B;"Wi-Lloyd & A: saczates, 1ric. F,rciect : BARBEE LREGL 3IN 2C16-- BARBEE Gate Sampled: 37/04/16 Date Reca_eed: 07/05/16 Sample Amoulnt : 10,4 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 20 uL Di l.ut.icr Factor. 1,00 Silica-Flor1S11 Cleanup: Yes Sample 0.0776 ().145 0.0737 < 0.0563 0.182 0.114 D..1'. J.13v 0 . 532 0.464 1.3g 9.93 2,62 62.9 DuPlicate 0. C670 0.149 0,0556 J.0345 0.09? 7 0.07E;5 0.0 7. 85 < n. 1536 0.130 D.328 0 -7 0.0471� 5.5? 1,23 3C.4 RPt) 14.? c.. I _18.0 0 28.? _5.4 34. 53.6 n 60,2 :9.2 34,3 6P. 6 V 56.3 6B, 53.4 ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: BCWIADUP LIMS ;D: 16-1C088 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized. Reported: 08/10/16 Date Extracted: 07/21/16 Date Analyzed: 07/28/16 02:00 Inst_ument/Analyst: AS1/PK Analyte 13C-2, 3, 7, 8-'TCDF 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 13C-1, 2, 3, 7, 8-PeCDF 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCCD 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCD- 13C-2,3,4,6,7,8-IZXCDE 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDE 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 13C-1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9-HpCDF 13C-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-HxCDD 13C-OCDD 37C14-2,3,1,8-7CDD Ion Ratio 0.78 0.79 1.61 1.57 1.57 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.52 1.27 1.23 0.46 0.45 1.04 0.90 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: 07042016EARBEE-C DUPLICATE QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: 07/04/16 Date Received: 07/05/16 Sample Amount: 10.4 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 20 uL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Ratio Limits 0.b5-0.89 0.65-0.8'3 1.32-1.78 1.32-1.78 1.32-1.78 0.43-0.59 0.43-0.59 0. 4 3-0.59 0.43-0.59 1.05-1.43 1.05-1.43 0.37-0.51 0.37-0.51 0.8B-1.20 0.76-1.02 Reported in Percent Recovery Result Limits Exceedance 94.5 24-169 93.2 25-164 100 24-185 102 21-178 102 25-181 87.7 26-152 83.8 26-123 88.5 28-136 88.9 29-147 90.7 32-141 88.4 28-130 83.3 2B-143 79.1 26-138 92.1 23-140 79.1 17-157 102 35-197 ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Dioxins/Furmns by EPA 1613E Page - cat 1 Samplo ID: SRM-072116 PSR ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED �,ah Sample ID. -SRX-072116 QC Report No: SCW'_-Lloyd & Associates, Ir.c. LIWS IG: 16-_0088 Project: LARBEE tD.RFDGTNI G Matrix: Sedi.4ert 2016-1 BARHEE Data release Authorized-INNNJ Gate Sampled: NA Reported: 08/10/16 Date Received: NA Date 'Extracted: ^7/21/16 Sample Anour.t: 10.2. g-dry-wt Date Analyzed: 07/29/16 02:53 Final Extra;.t Volume: 20 uL Instrument/Ana.l.yst: ASIIPM Dilution Factor: ..00 Acid Cieanup: Yes Silica-Florisil C1ea.r.up: Yes Silica -Carryon C'l.eanap: No Analyte Ion Ratio Ratio I im1!]5 EDL RL Result 2,3,7,8-TCDF C.75 0.65-0.89 0.9$4 0.904 2,3,7,E-i'CUD 1,2,3,7,8-2eCDF 1.78 1.32-1.78 0.980 1.1- 2,.3,4,7,8-PeCDr 1.60 1.32-=.-,P 3.?80 0.790 1,2,3,',E-PeC�D 1.41 1.32-1.75 G.?80 1.24 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8-HxuDF' 1.22 1.05-'_ .43 ?. 960 2.98 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8-HxCI]F 1.401 1. C5-1 .43 Q. 980 0.996 1.27 _.0 -'_,43 0.98C 1.87 1, 2, 3,7,6,9-HxCD 1. 5 1.05-1.43 0.36o M 63 1, 2, 3, 4. ,, 6-Hx'4DD 1.27 -. 5-1. 4s . 980 1.79 2,z,6,+,L-HxCDD 1.23 98( 4.12 1,2,3,7,r,9-HxCG:) 1.28 1.0a-1.4; 0.980 2.51 1.07 0. n$-'.:. 20 0.960 18.3 112, 3,�,�,8o ,i-HPCDF 111.89 J.8E ._. 0 0_980 1.47 1, 2, i,4,6,7,8-jincn. 1.02 0.r8-1_.1Cy 2.45 9ra.5 OCDp 0.8i3 0.75-:,C2 9.3f 763 Homo' -pale Group EDI, RI. Result Total TCDF 0.980 16.6 3NfP-- Testa_ TwU,^, 0.98G' 7.89 EMFC Total PeCDF _.96 17.6 ENPC Total PeCE;:, 01980 6.75 EMPC ='otal HxCOF 1.96 32_1 E:V`pc To -al HxCDG 1.96 39.3 T:,-aI HpC0F 1.96 58. Erpc Total HpCDD i.96 249 Total 2, 3,'7, 8-TCDU E( u.ivalence (W30200 , MD-.0, .-nc-Udir.q E` PC; ; w. 63 Total 2, 3, 7.8-TCDD Equivalence (W--'W 01).T, N?-_/2 _P.L, inc'udin a EMPC`, . 5.53 Reported in p;iq J FYPC J B JEMPC B EMPC AvftL ANALYTICAL 9 RESOVFICES ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCORPORATED Dioxins/Foram by EPA 1613E Sample ID: SRM-072116 Page 1 of 1 PSR Lab Sample I,: SRM-072116 ', : Report No: KWI-LLoyd & Associate: , Inc. LIMS 1D: 16-'-0088 Projec=. BARBEE DRLDC-INN Malik; Sediment 2016-1 3ARBEE Data Release Authurized: Date aampled: NA Re crted: 08/10/16 mate Received: NA Late Extracted: 07/2l/16 Sample Amount: 10.2 g-dry-wt D4—te Analyzed: 07/28/16 02:53 Final Extract volume: 20 uL :nstrument/Analyst_ A '_J' Dilution Factor: 1.00 Analyze -on Raiio Ranio Limits Result Limits Exceedarce ;3C-2,3,7,8-TC0F W8 3.65-0.89 95.6 24-169 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.5u Cf.65-0.89 94.1 25-164 13C-1, 2, W, 8-PeCDF 1139 1.32--. 78 i?9.2 24-185 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1_58 1.32-1.78 91.5 2i-178 _3C--1,2,3, 7,8-FeCDD 1.56 1.32.-1 .78 92.8 25-181 13C-1,2,3XV ,8-R xCDF 0.53 0,43-0_59 Ili 25_152 13C-1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8-HXCDF 0.:2 0.43-0.59 110 26-123 13C-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.53 a.43-0.59 115 28-136 -3C-1,2,3,7,6,9-HxCDF 0.53 0,43-0.59 96.0 29-147 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxW 1.28 1.C5-1,43 122 ?2-1.41 13C--1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8-HxCDO 1.26 1 .05-1.43 112 28-139 _ C-I, 2, 3, 4, 6, ?, 3-' pCDF C. 43 0.3'-0.51 94.5 7.f3-143 !3C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpUF 0.46 0.37-0.51 93.6 26-138 13C-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-HpC:DD 144 C.88--1.21 103 23"AO 13C-JC.DC ^,.90 v.7E-1.02 73.9 17-157 37C14-2, 3, %, 8-TC. D 105 3,5-".97 Repvrzed in Percent Recovery ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B Pare of 1 Sample ID: OPR-072116 ANALYTICAL RESOURCE$ INCORPORATED Lab Eample ID; GF?R-G '2:16 QC Report Nu: & Associates, Ir,c. LIMS 7D-. 16-10088 ?rojec.: BARBEE DREDGING N.atrix: Sediment (� 2016-1 BARBEE Data Release Aut�:ori Zed: 11VW Date Samplen: NA Reported, OS/1G/16 Date Received: NA n<�-e Ex-racted: 0i/21/16 Sample Amount.: 1C.0 g-dry-w: rare Analyzed: 07/2.=/16 17:43 Final Extract Volume: 20 or, Instrument/Aralys�: F,Sl/?K Dilution Factor: 1.00 Acid Civanup: Yes Silica-Flvrisil Cleara�: '.es Silica-Carh-,cn Cleanup: No Analyte. Ion Ratio Ratio Li.mivs RL Result 2,?,7,8-TCDF 0.74 0.05-0.89 1. a 21.-7 2,3,7,6-TC:1,D 0. =8 55-0,89 .1.00 22.0 It2,.3,?,B-?eC:DE 1.55 1.37-1. 8 .00 107 2,3,4,7,a-?ecw 7.52 1.32-"."b 1.00 1 ; 3 1,2,3,7,8-?eCCD 1.58 1.32-1.78 1.00 110 1, 2, 3,4, ?, a-laxC DF 1.21 1.05-1.43 1.00 108 1, 2, 3, o, 7, B-Hx^C5r 1.22 I . 05-I .4.3 2,3,4,6,7,8-3xCD; 1.21 1.05-1.43 1.0G 108 -, 2, 3, ;', H, 9-SxC1.}_ 1.22 1 .05-1 .43 1. UC 1G° ?,2,3,4,7,8-EXCDD 1.24 1.05-1.43 1.wi: 110 1,2,3,6,?,8-HxCDD 1.26 1.05-1.43 1.00 109 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.21 1.05-'_.43 W.00 122 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-Hpl'-'D F 1.03 0. 68.-=.20 1 , OCR 115 1,2,3,4,7,9,9-Ho'cDF 1.04 0.88-=.20 1.00 106 1, 2, s, 4, 6, ?. u-_PC DD 1.03 0. 8a-1 . 20 2. 50 16 D F 0.90 0.76-1.02 2.00 225 XC D 0.90 0.16-1,02 10.0 242 H^m.010cae Group EDL RL Result -otal CD 1.00 22.7 T0,al aCDC 1.00 22.9 EwPC Total FeCDF 2. 00 2:_ 7 ENTFC; Total FeCD 1.1c lit EMFC: Total HxCbF 2 . 0."_. 437 FMPC Total HxCDO 2.00 347 EMFC Total 11pCGF 2.00 222 EMFC. Total €ip= 2. DC 1-9 Reported in pg/g ORGANICS ARALYSIS DATA SHEET Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613E Page of Lab Sample I G?R-c3:211u L-I-YS =G: 16-=�088 matrix: sediment. :-ata Release zed:*VCki Reported: 08:.10/16 Cate EY_racted: 07/21/16 Date Vralyzed: 07/27/16 11:13 nst.-,,2ment/Analyst: AS1/PK Anaiyte 13C-23, 3}}, 7, 8-TCfPE' 13C-2, , 7, 8-ri CD IK-1, 2, 3, 7r 9-F'eCUD 13C -1, 2. 3, 4, ?, 6-Hxi-O ' 13'v-1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8-FY.C.,F 13w-2, 3, 4, F, 7, 8-HzC%F �3C-1,2r3,6,',L-Hx [;. 1..3C-1, 2„ 3, 4, 6, 7, I3C-1,2,?,9,7,8,9-HpCGF 3,v-1 , 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, B-EipCdL) _ 3C-01-DC 3�C14-2,3,7,8-TCCD ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: OPR-072116 QC Report No: K-WI-Lloyd & AsSCCF.ates, I%c. Project:: BARSEE > REX-ING 2016-1 HAR3£ Cate Sampled: NA Date Rece.vea: NA Sa mpl.e Arv-unt: 10. C q-dry-wt Final Extract VOIAMe: 2G uM r:1ution Fa�7tor: 1.00 Tor: Ratio Ratio :,units Result Limits Exceedance C_79 e.�c 1.62 1,5E 1,w8 0. 52 0.53 t?.52 1.27 1.26 0.44 0.45 1,06 0.90 G.65-1.89 9&.6 29-169 v.65-;1.89 93.2 25-164 1.32-1_'8 9911 24-185 1.32-."8 86.4 21-178 2:-181 0.43-0.59 89.6 26-152 u.43-0,59 89,3 26-123 0. 43-0, 59 82.8 2,-136 3.43-0.59 8w.4 25-_47 1.05-1..43 86.6 32-141 1.05-1.43 S?.5 28-=30 L.31-0.51. 19.6 28-_43 0.37-0,51 78.8 2.6-138 0.88--1.20 84.2 23-140 0,76--1.02 h-.5 1.7-1a7 Reported in Fercen� Recovery 104 35-197 ANALYTICAL (O RESOURCES ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCORPORATED Dioxins/Pu.rans by EPA 1613B Sample 10: OPR-072116 Page 1 of 1 J,ab Zample 7P: GPR-07211E QC Report No: BCW'--L1oyd & Assnc':.ates, T3nc. L-iMS ID: 16-1Q068 Project: BARSE2, CRED=INN Mawrix: Sediment Release Auuhorized. 201E-1 BAR3EE Date Samples. N Re�or=e�: G8/7::I16 Date Receives:. Da_e Extracted: 0%/21/16 Sample knount: 1rQ.0 g-dry-wt Date Analyzed: Final Extract Volume: 20 jL Instrument/Analyst: AS1/PK Dilutior,. Factor. 1.00 Analyte OPR. Spiked Recevery Lim:`ts 2,3,7,8-TCDF 21.7 20.0 105 75-158 2, 3, 7, 8 - TCDD 22.3 e0. C 110 6'i-158 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 1G7 Ou 11. BC-134 2,3,4,7,8--PeCCF 103 _0^ 103 68-160 1,2„3,7, 8-PRCDD 110 110 1- 1 70-142 1, 2, ?, 4, 7, R-.gxCDF 108 100 108 72-134 '.2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 110 100 1TO 84-130 2, 3, 4, 6, -" , 8- sxCDF 109 100 1IV) 8 70-156 2, 3, /, 8, J- HxCD_ 109 100 IC.9 7.8-130 -.., 2, 3, 4, 7, � -HxCDD 1110 100 _0 'u-164 ,2,3,6,7,8-HxCE-D 109 100 109 '6-13A i, 2, 3 r, 8, 9-"hxCDD 122 100 122 64-] 62. ,3,4,E,",8-HpCDF 15 100 115 32-132 ,407,8,9-HpCCF -06 100 106 78-i38 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, ?, 8-HpcCD ' 18 10:1 118 70-140 (,)CDF 225 1100 1 :2 63-170 OCDD' 242 20 i21 7.8-144 RepDrted in p /q 0 MaltkW Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants PREPARATION BATCH SUMMARY EPA 1613B Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. SDG: 16CY0074I6ctol, Client: Lloyd&Assucia� Project: 8arbeeDred¢inQ Batch: BEG0106 Batch Matrix: Solid Preparation: EPA 1613 SAMPLE NAME LAB SAMPLE ID LAB FILE ID DATE PREPARED OBSERVATIONS 07042016BARBEE-C 16GO074-01 16072713 07/21/1615.05 Blank BEG0106-BLK1 16072704 07/21/1615:05 LCS BEGO106-BSL 16072705 07/2111615:05 07042016BARBEE-C BEG0106-DUP1 16072714 07121/1615:05 Reference BE00106-SRM 1 16072715 07/21 / 16 15:05 r`44cfry'-. ooic90 AMALYMAL RESOURCES ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET INCORPORATED Dioxina/FUrans by EPA 167.3E Sample ID: MH-072116 Page 1 of I Lab Samp^e ID: MB-072116 QC Report No: BCW--Lloyd & Associates, Inc. LIMS ID: 16-1OC88 Project: BARBEE DREDGING matrix: Sediment {{rr�� 201E--1 BARBEE Data Release Authorized: i� Date Sampled: NA Reported: 08/10/16 Date Received; NA Cate Extracted: 07/21/16 Sample Acr,ount: 10.0 g-dry-wt Date Analyzed: 0-1/2"//16 16:50 Final Extract Volune. 20 uTL Instrument/Analyst: AS1/PK Dilution Factor: 1.00 Acid Cleanup: Yes Silica-Florisil Cleanup: Yes Silica -Carbon Cleanup: No Analyte Ion Ratio Ratio Limits EDL RL Result 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.57 0.65-0.89 1.00 0.0540 JEMPC 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.65-0.89 C.0500 1.00 < 0.0500 U 1,2,3,7,8-PeCUF 1.34 1.32-1.78 1.00 0.0690 U 2,3,4,7,8--PeC1)F 1.32-1.78 0.0500 1.00 < 0.0500 U 7,L,3,'i,8-PeCDD 1.37 1.32-1.78 1.00 0.1,32 J 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.81 1.05-1.43 1.00 0.0360 JEMPC 1,2,3,6,-!,6-HxCDF 1.20 1.05-1.43 1.00 0.0412 J 2, 3, 4, 6, !, 8-HxCDF 1.05--1 .43 0.0420 1.00 < 0.0420 U 1,2,3,'7,8,9-HxCDF C.79 1.05-1.43 1.00 0.0520 JEMPC 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.09 1.05-1.43 1.00 0.142 J 1,2,3,6,f,8-HxCDD 1.27 1.05-1.43 1.00 0.230 J 1,2,3,7,8,9-1ixCDD 1.30 1.05-1.43 1.00 0.278 J 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.66 0.88-1.20 1.00 0.0640 JEMPC 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.88-1.20 0.0580 1.00 < 0.0580 U 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.03 0.88-1.2D 2.50 4.62 OCCF 1.05 0.76-1.02 2.00 0.206 JEMPC GCDD 0.87 0.76-1.02 10.0 31.1 Homcloque Group EDL RL Result Total TCDF 1.00 0.0982 EMPC Total TCDD 1.00 C,46i EMPC Total PeCDF 2.00 0.0690 Total PeCCD 1.00 0,795 EMPC Total HxCDF 2.00 0.13D EMPC Total HxCDD 2.00 4.77 EMPC Total HpCDF 2.00 0.0836 EMPC Total HpCDD 2.00 14.3 Total 2,3,7,8-7-CDD Equivalence (Mg02005, ND=O, Including EMPC): 0.27 Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalence (WE02005, ND-112 EDL, Including EMPC): 0.31 Reported in pq/g F7%rwWJ : eM-; 4J ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SKEET Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B Page 1 of ]. Lab Sample ID; MB-072116 MS ID: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment Data Release Authorized: Reported: 08/10/16 Date Extracted: O7/21/16 Date Anaiyzed: 07/2i/16 16:50 Instrurrent/Analys-: AS1/PK OF ANALYTICAL fAoh RESOURCE$ 1NCORPORATEQ Samplo ID; MB-0?2116 QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBE.E Date Sampled: NA Hate Received: NA Sample Amount: 10.0 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 2C uL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Analyte Ion Ratio Ratio Limits Result Limits 13C-2,3,7,E-TCDF 0.78 0,65-0.89 104 24-169 13C-2,3,7,8-TC1XD 0.80 0.65-O.E9 99.2 25-164 13C-1,2,3,7,E-PeCDF 1.60 1.32-1.16 99.2 24-165 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1.57 1.32-1.78 92.0 21-178 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.55 1.32-1.78 91.8 25-181 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-IxCDF 0.52 0.43-0.59 91.8 26-152 13C-_,2,3,6,7,E-HpCDF 0.50 0.43-0.59 96.8 26-123 13C-2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-"F,xCL)F 0.52 0. 43-0 . 59 91.4 28-136 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HpC1)F 0.51 0.43-0.59 91.6 29-147 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-FxCDD 1.27 1.05-1.43 96.0 32-141 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-ExCDD 1.30 1.05-1.43 95._ 28-130 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,E-HpCDF 0.44 0.3?-0.51 87.0 28-143 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.45 0.37-0.51 86.7 26-138 13C-7,2,3,4,6,7,E-hpCDC 1.04 0.88-1.20 94.8 23-140 13C-OCDD 0.92 0.76-1.02 77.4 17-157 ?7C14-2,3,7,8-7CDD 110 35-197 Reported in Percent Recovery Exceedance 1'�! ��� •i i�u � Its x' 0 AnWydcal Resourars, lrlcorponled AnaWkal Chemists and Consultants INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA EPA 1613E Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc, SDG IWM74 t& 10 Client: Lloyd & Associates ProjoM Bmbee Dm4n Calibration: ZEOOO16 Instrument: AiT O PEC01 Calibration Date: 05/1012016 15:20 ColumK1(1 ): RTX-Aioxin2 CDli1p011[id Level Ol Level02 Level 03 Level 04 Level 05 icvei 06 RF RF $F RF 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.5 O.&797361 2 OM95275 10 0.9408094 40 0.9588917 200 0.WA9929 I,3,7,8.TCDD 0.5 1,115377 2 1.1011376 10 1A44028 40 1.150807 200 1.1591.35 1,2,3,7,8-PcCDF 0.5 0.9485384 2.5 0.9209936 1 10 0 "W15 50 0.9633152 100 0,94149803 1000 0.9869675 2,3.4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 09035144 2.5 0.9573729 10 0.9682178 50 0.9666401 200 09842584 1000 0."73965 1,2,3,7,0-PeCDD 0.5 0.9219366 2-5 0.9579214 10 019b28134 50 1,001705 2w 0."93907 1000 1.019547 1,2,3,4,7,8.HxCDF 0.5 1.117191 2.5 1.125003 10 1.135W V 3.142157 200 1.152665 1000 1.14638 113,6,7,8•HaCOF 0.5 t.063648 2.5 1.068909 I 1,111093 56 1.110729 200 t.121041 1000 1.116234 2,3,4,6,7,8•HxCDF 0.5 1.14t715 23 1.111651 10 1.170072 50 1,160341 200 1.194913 1000 1.212323 12,31A,9-HxCDF 0.5 1.124362 25 1.074347 10 1.0413361 E 50 1064959 200 1.119352 1900 1.138494 1,2 3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.5 1.042764 2.5 0.98100L3 10 1.023544 50 1.046135 200 1.040716 1000 1.052574 1,2,3b,7,1-11xCDD 0.5 0.9324052 2.5 0.97447M 10 0.963403 50 0.994897 200 0.9876577 low 0.9757835 i i,3,7,1,9 HxCDD 0_5 1 0.%78897 2,5 0.9321997 10 L.003559 50 1,0249% 1 200 1.023361 1000 1.018307 1,2A4,6,7,8-WDF 0.5 1.241865 2.5 U96787 10 L.27$741 30 1.3094" 200 1.322647 ION 1.347196 1,2,3,4,7,1,9-HPCDF 0.5 1.209233 2.5 1,291743 10 1.260792 50 1327622 100 11390769 1000 1,354006 1,2,3,4,6.7,6-HFCDV 0.3 0.9974601 2,$ 1.037504 10 1.0047 50 1.427276 200 1. W07 1000 1,050065 ow" 1 1.095681 5 1,1002$5 20 1.164797 1w 1.19331d 400 1.212513 2000 1.22@252 4CDD 1 11036U43 5 1,527806 20 1.00888 100 0125001 400 1.021189 2 W 1.023204 3704.2A7A-TCDD 0,1 1.015129 0.5 0.9696672 2 I.037502 it) 1.033134 40 1,080686 200 1.193229 Anafydcil Resources, Incorporated Ma"cal Chornis s and Consultants INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA EPA 1613B Laboratory; Analytical Resources, Inc. SDG: 16CM74IW4 Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging Calibration: ZE00016 Instrument: AUTOSPEC01 Calibration Date; 0511012016 15:20 Column (1 }: RTX-Dioxin2 COMPOUND Mean RF RF RSD Linear COD Quad COD RSD Limit Q 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0,9347915 3.6 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.133965 2.2 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.9519161 3.5 2,3,4,7,8-PcMF 0,9629117 3.4 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.9753974 3.6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.136547 1.2 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.098742 2.3 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.163504 3.0 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1.100821 2.8 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.031167 2.6 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.9714371 2.3 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.9950452 3.8 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,302789 2.4 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.317361 3.7 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.028016 2.0 OCDF 1, 165 807 4,6 OCDD 1.107021 18.6 37C 14-2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.066558 7.0 0 Ana"c l Resources, kicowrated Analytical Chemists and Consultants INITIAL CALIBRATION CHECK EPA 1613B Laboratory: vticalResources.IncInc. SDG: �t f1R?a�,Cfi7 Clienr. Ll1nr_d &_A;t;tociates Project: Bad= 121cd¢is a tnstrulrletlt ID: AUTIOSPEC01 Calibration: ZEDW 16 Lab File IEk tM2702 Calkmtioa Ditc: 05!104613:20 Sequeme. 5EH0033 Injection Date: ?47 27116 Lab Sample ID: SEH0033•ICV 1 Injection Time: 14,03 COMPOUND TYPE COLIC. (1tiTj1111.,) RESPONSE FACTOR % DIFF J DRIFT STD LCV ICAL ICV MIN ICv Lih+fiT 2,3,7,8-TCDF A us,000 10.2 0.9347913 0,95.13732 2.0 16 2,3,7XTCI)D A 113.000 10-2 1,111%50 1.1600330 23 21 1.2,3,7.8-PaCDF A 50.000 49.9 0,9519161 0,9508307 -0.1 19 2,3,4,7,9-PL,CDF A 50.000 51.1 0.9629117 0,964001 2.2 18 1,2,3,7,E-PeCDD A 50.000 51.3 09733974 L0195900 4.5 22 1.2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF A 50.000 48.2 1.1365470 1.0%7200 -1.5 10 1.2,3 F,7,8 HxCi7F A 50.000 51.0 1.0997420, 1.1217190 2.1 17 2,3,4,6,7,E-HxCDF A 50-000 50.1 1.1635D40 I.t684420 0.4 12 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF A 50.0p0 49.5 1.10M10 1.0894900 -1.4 10 1,2,3,4,7,E-HxCDti A 50.000 49.3 1.0311670 10174890 -13 22 [,2 3 6,7,8-HaCDD A 50.000 51.0 0.9714371 0-9906192 2.0 22 1,2,3,7,8,9,HxCpp A 50.000 R.8 0.99510452 1.0744410 0.0 18 12,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDF A 50.000 49,9 L3027890 1.2741330 •2.2 10 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-F*CDF A 50.000 49.E L3173610 1,3064860 4N 14 1,1,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD A 59.DDD 51.4 1.0289160 1.0558730 2.7 14 OCDF A 100.00 105 1.1658070 1.221iQ0 4,7 37 Ql37D A Ii1DA0 92.3 LIMA L0215050 -7.7 21 134C12.2,3,7,8-TC0F A 100.00 109 1.56741" 1-7101167E -36.2 29 • 13Cf2-22,7,8-T'CDD A MOM 106 13.9077481 0.9377454 101 I8 13Cl2.1,2,3,7,8-ftCDF A 100,00 115 1.274MI3 1.4681368 -21.5 24 13C12-2,3,4,7,8-Ps47DF A 100.00 116 1.1346M 3.4323254 -19.0 23 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD A ID0.00 116 0,7557554 0.874190E 32.3 38 1302-1,2,3,4,7,8-11xCDF A 100.00 94.4 t.3E09190 1,303%" -27.6 24 1% 13C12-1.2,3.6.1,8•HxC.DF A IW00 94.0 1.5694530 1,4748242 -36.3 30 13C12-2,34,6.7,8-MCDF A 100.00 96.3 1.3453300 1.2952975 .25.7 27 13C12-1,1,3,7,8,9•HxCpF A 100,00 106 1.1E28950 1.2493633 45-5 26 13Cl2-1,2,3,4,7,8-HACDF A 1IMA 94.E 1.0559M 1.001404 -5.3 1$ 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,84L&CDD A 100.00 9E,9 I.1630360 1.1498160 44.0 15 13C12.1,2,3,4.6,7,8-HpCDF A 10om 102 1.1783620 1.19E6250 -15.1 22 13C12-1�-3,4,7,8,9-HpC1DF A IDOM 111 0.E777992 0.9731364 13.9 73 13C12-1,2,3,4,6.7,8-H;CDU A 100,00 t06 03091061 0.9679367 10.0 18 13C124DCDD A 2D0.00 223 0--0195753 0,914940S 22.0 $2 • Whiesout3kk afQC kwils B1.- w : ooi0z�i Ana"cal Resources, Moorpormd Analytical Chemists and Consultants INITIAL CALIBRATION CHECK EPA 1613B Laboratory: Analytical Rcsourccs, Inc. SDG: Clieni: Lloyd dt Associates Project: Instrument ID: AUTOSPEC01 Calibration: Lab File ID: 16072702 Calibration Date: Sequence: ES H0033 Injection Date: Lab Sample ID: SEH0033-ICV 1 Injection Time: 74 iW_t Barbee Dred¢ina ZE00016 05/10/16 I5 N 07127/16 1k u COMPOUND TYPE CONC. (ng/mL) RESPONSE FACTOR % DIFF / DRIFT STD I ]CAL ICV MIN ICV LIMIT 31CA-2,3,7,0--TCDD A t4.D00 11-0 1.0M5580 1.17t10929 9.9 • Valu= outside of QC limits 0 AnaytkW PAnurm, Rmrp*MW Analytical Chemists and Consultants CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK EPA 1613B Laboratory_ Angyti"l Rrsourccs, Inc. SDG: t6CM74 lrN4A- Client: Lloyd do Assoc Project: Barbee Dreditirtl� Inst unumt ID: AUTOSPECOI Calibration: ZE00016 Lab File ID-- 16072712 Calibration Date' 105/10/16 15:20 Seq we: ULM3 Irljcction Date, 07128/16 Lab Sample ID: SBl•I(1I133-CCV 1 injection Tittle, NM COMPOUND TYPE CONC. (ngltnL) RESPONSE FACTOR % DlFF 1 DRIFT STD CCV 1CAL CCV MM CCV LIMIT 2,3,7,8-TCDF A MOM 10.2 0.9347915 0.9YM26l 1.7 16 2,3,7,8-rCDD A 10.01D0 10.1 L.1339650 1.1418910 0.7 22 1,2,3,7,8-PcMF A 50.000 49.3 019519161 0.9392889 •1.3 18 2,3,4,7,84WDF A 50.000 49.6 0.9629117 0.9554712 -0.1; is L,2,3,7,8-PeCDD A 50.0DO 51.5 0.9753974 1.00S5560 3.1 22 1,2,3,4.7,i-HxCDF A 50.000 49.0 0365470 1.L149430 •1.9 10 t,2,3A7,3-HxCDF A 50.000 49.1 IJM7420 1.0796M -1.7 12 2,3,4A7,8-HxCDF A 50-000 49.9 1-163swo 1.1589950 -0.4 12 1,2,3,7,"-HxCDF A 50.00D 49.7 1.1008210 1.13950510 -0.5 10 1.,3,4,7.8-ttxCDD A 50.000 $1.0 10311670 I.O509160 J.9 22 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxC13D A SO.ODO 50.2 0-9714371 0.9751461 0.4 22 1,",7,8,9-HxCDD A 50.000 54.4 0A9304S2 1,1234970 8.7 18 1,"A,6,7,8-HpCDF A 50.000 49.0 1.3027990 1,2755430 -2.1 10 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF A 50.000 49.1 1.3173610 1.2W1440 t.8 14 1,2,3,4,6,7,E-HpCDD A 50.000 50.0 1.0290160 1.0284490 0.04 14 DCDP A 100,00 77.7 1.169070 0.905786E 22.3 37 DCDD A 100,00 90.6 1.1070210 1-0030450 -9A 21 1302-2,3,7,8 TCDF A 100.00 103 1,5674190 1.6166950 ]A 29 13C12-ZJ,7,8-TCDD A 100.00 106 0,9077491 0.9590806 i 7 19 1302-12,3,7.3-ftcDF A 100.410 M 1,2740970 1,4335082 12.5 24 13C12-2,3A7,$-PcCDF A 100.00 124 1.2346260 1.5324787 24,1 23 L7CQ2 "33."rCDD A 100.00 123 0.1551554 0.9324744 23.4 38 I3Cl2-1,2,3,4,7,E-HxCDF A 100.00 99A 1 750➢190 L.2340817 -J0,6 24 t)CL2-1,2,3A7,8-HxCEW A IDO.00 $9.8 1.5691530 tAM696 -10.2 30 1XL2-L3,4,6,7,8-ttxCDF A 100.410 93.3 1,3433300 1.2559317 -6.1 27 13Ct2-JJ,3,7,&,9.JfxCDF A 100.00 93.3 f.1828950 L.l036991 -6.7 26 13CL2-1A3,4,7,8-H%CDD A 100.00 90.6 1.0599040 0.9567739 -9,4 15 13C12-9x,3,6,7,8-HxCDD A 100.00 97.3 1.1630360 1.1315105 -2.7 13 13C12-1,2,3A6,7,8-HpC1)F A 100.00 99.4 I.I783620 1.0536%3 -10.6 22 1302-1,2,3A,?,8,9-NpCDI" A 100.00 93.3 9.8777"1 0.7310904 .16.7 21 13CL2-1,2,3A6,7,841pCDD A J00.00 97.3 0.9091061 0.Lt844521 -2.7 18 13CL2-0CDD A 200.00 L79 0.11195733 0.7354312 -10.3 52 37CL4-2,3,7,&rCDD A 10.000 10.$ 1.0665584 1.1516448 L 1 8.0 4 VWM w3ide of OC limin 4 Vetaev o¢lsidc of QC Limits Ti(_1;Ii i • 0 t--3 :L 0 7 AnaNtal Rasounms. lncorpowed Analyrtical Chemists and Consultants CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK EPA 1613H Laboratory: Analytical Rcsvurl:es. Inc. SDG: 1600074 U 2� Client: Lloyd & Associates Projcct: Barbee Deed" lnstnunem ID: AUTOSPECOI Calibration: ZE00016 Lab Fi le ID. 16072721 Calibration Date: O910/16 15:20 Sequence: SEH0033 Injection Date: 0 /7 2W16 Lab Sample ID; SEH0033-CCV2 Injection Time: 2L& COMPOUND 'TYPE CONC. (ng/mL) RESPONSE FAC`F0R % DIFF I DRIFT STD CCV ICAL CCV MIN CCV LIMIT 2,3,7,8-TCDF A 10.000 998 0.9347913 0.9326176 -0.2 l6 Z3,7,0-TCDD A 10.000 10.1 1.1339650 1.1419380 0.7 22 1,2,3,7,"cCDF A 50.000 49.3 0.9519161 0.9389786 -1A 19 2,3,4,7,84'eCDF A 50.000 50.2 0.9629117 0.9671719 0A IS 1,23,7,8-PeCDD A 50,000 51,6 0.9753974 1.0065340 3.2 22 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF A 50.000 49.4 1.1365470 J.1232010 -1.2 10 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF A 50.000 30.5 1,0997410 1.1102500 1.0 12 2,3,4,6,7A-HxCDF A 50.000 30.2 1. 163 5040 1.1682420 0.4 12 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF A 50.000 49.3 1.1000210 1.0656330 -1A 10 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD A 50.1100 50.9 1M11670 1.0476770 1.6 22 1,2,3,6,7,8-ExCDD A 50.000 50,3 0.9714371 0.9779330 0.7 22 1,2,3,7,8,9•tixCDD A 50,000 53.6 0.9950452 J.1014250 7.2 18 1,2,3A6,7,8-HpCDF A 50.000 49.7 1,3027890 1.2930560 -0.7 10 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF A 50.000 48.3 1.3173610 1.2736150 -3.3 14 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD A 50.000 51.2 1.0290160 1.0522960 2A 14 0CDF A 100,00 76.3 1.1658070 0.9889322 -23.7 37 OCDD A 100.00 09.7 1.1070210 0."35385 -10.3 21 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF A 100.00 lot 1.56741" 1.5963500 1.2 29 13Ci2-23,7,8-TCDD A 100.00 101 0,9077481 0,9133901 0.6 la I3Cl2-1,2,3,7,k-PcCDF A 100.00 106 1.2740970 1.3496916 5.9 24 13C12-2,3A7,&PeCDF A 100.00 107 12346260 1.3179395 6,7 23 13C12-1,2,3,7.8-PeCDD A 100.00 111 0.7557554 0.9402107 11.2 38 13Cl2-1,2,3A,7,8-HxCDF A 100.00 90.9 1.3809190 1.2542885 -9.2 24 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF A 100.00 90.7 1.5694530 1.4228430 -9.3 30 13C12-2,3,4,6,7,&HxCDF A 100.00 99J 1.3453300 i.2684458 -5-7 27 13C12-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF A 100.00 90.9 1.1828950 1.0755138 -9-1 26 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,&HXCDD A 100-00 92.2 1.0539040 0.9737639 -7.8 15 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,0-HxCDD A 100.00 98.1 1.1630360 1.1404700 -1.9 I5 DC12-],2,3,4,6,7,8-HpC:DF A 100.00 98.0 1.1783620 1.0369481 -12.0 22 13C12.1,2,3,4,7,9,9-HpCDF A 100,00 82,4 0,9777992 0.7229543 -17A 23 13C 12-1,2,3A6,7,8-HpCDD A 100.00 95.0 0.9091061 0.0638179 -5.0 Is 13C12-OCDD A 200.00 179 0.8195753 0.7348495 -10,3 52 37C14-2,3,7,&TCDD A 10-000 10.3 1.0665580 1.0918141 3.0 ` Values outside of QC limits 1 U. I PI I All"lk sis TPHD Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ARI Job ID: BCW 1 ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL DIESEL RANGE HYDROCARBONS N-RTPHD by GC/FID Extraction Method: SW3546 Page 1 of 1 Matrix: sediment Da'.a Release. AuLho-ized:* Reported: 07/13/16 ART ID Sample ID M3-077-11.6 Method Blank l G-'_ "T88 H" ID: --- AML ANALYnCAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Q Repor-- No. 6CW1-1dovd & Assr:C .at.es, Inc. Frcject: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARSEE Date Received: 0'1/05/16 Extraction Analysis EFV Date Date DL Range/Surrogate LOQ 07/11/16 07/11/16 .'10 Diesel Range 5.0 'ID4A 1.0 Moor Cif Range , C o-Terphenyi Result < 5.0 U < 10 U 72.8� PCWIA 070420I6BARBEE-C 07ID3i"16 'i/11/16 1.00 Diesel Range 6.3 8.3 16-10088 HC 1D: DRO/RRO F1D4A 1.0 Motor 011 Range 12 39 o-Terphenyl 83.2a Reported in rr.y/kg (pp-, Er-N--Ef ective Final Volume in DL-Dilution of extract pr o,r to analysis. L:yK-f m�C of QuantitQ-iun Diesel range g^�ar,t!tat ion on total peaks in the range from C12 -o C24. Motor Cil range quantitation on tctai peaks in the rar.ye fror.: w24 to C38, d--- ID: DFG/FRO indicates results of organics a: add:-ticnai h.draoar�ar.s _:, tanyes are not idenL2fidble. FORM I ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED TPHD SURROGATE RECOVERY SUMMARY Matrix: Sediment QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Client ID OTER TOT OUT 071116MB 78.8` 0 071116LCS 8C.8� 0 07042016BARBEE-C 83.2� 0 07042016BARBEE-C MS 91.9,1 0 07042016DARBEE-C MSD 63.4� 0 LCSJMB LIMITS QC LIMITS (OTER) = o-Terphenyl (50-150) (50-150) Prep Method: SK3546 Lag Number Range: 16-10OBB to 16-10088 FORM -II TPHD Page 1 fox BCWI ORG"ICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET NWTPHD by GC/FID Pace 1 of '. Lab Sample -D: BCWIA LiMS ID; 16-10088 Matrix: Sedlmen Data Release Aa`hot'iaed: Date Extracted MS/MSD: 07/11/16 Date Analyzed MS: 0/11/16 14:33 MSO: 0'7/11/16 14:`5 Instr Iment/Analyst MS: FID4A/m7- MSC: FIC4A/ML Rance �•ie�e_ Sample MS S -.5' ANALYTICAL FtESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample IA: 07042016HARBEE--C MSMSD QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016-1 BARBEE Date Sampled: )7,/C4/16 Date Received: 07/C5/16 Sample Amount MS: 7.99 g-cry-w-- MSD: 8.D1 g-dry•-wt Final K'xtract. Volume MS: 1.0 mL MSC-: 1.0 mL D-lution Factor MS: 1.1CO YSD: _.00 Fercen7 '-"4isture: 20.3 Spike HS Spike MSA Added -Mg Recovery M= Added-MSD Recovery RPD '83 79.1 156 187 79.6r, 0-6i TPHD Surrogate Recovery o-Terphenyl NS MSD 91.9� 83.44, Results reported in my/kg RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846. FORM III L: tom'? - (b 0 --I "� ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET NWTPHD by GC/FID Page, .f of 1 Lab Sample ID, T., S-07i116 LIME TD: 16-10088 Matrix: Sediment. Data Release Authorized:�{� Reported: 07/13/16 Date Extracted: 07/11/16 Ca'_e Analyzed: 0-/11/16 13c2a InStrurent/Analyst: FIEMA/M7, Range Diesel Resu is reported In mq/kq ANALYTICAL RESOURCE MCORPORATED Sample ID. LCS-071116 LAB CONTROL QC Report Flo: BCWl-Lloya &, AsscCiates, lric. Project: BARBEE DREDGING 2016--1 ]+ARBEE Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Final ExtraCY Volzme: 1.0 mL Dilution Facto_: 1.00 Lab Spike Control Added Recovery TPHD Surrogate Recovery c-Tezpheayl 80.8% FORM III ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED TOTAL DIESEL RANGE HYDROCARBONS -EXTRACTION REPORT ARI Job: BCW1 Matrix: Sediment Project: BARHEE DREDGING Date Received: 07/05/16 2016-1 BARHEE Client Final Prep ARI ID Client ID Amt Vol Basis Date 16-10088-071116MBI Method Blank 10,0 g 1.00 mL - 07/11/16 16-10088-071116LCS1 Lah Control 10.0 q 1.00 mI, - 07/11/16 16-10088-BCWIA 07042016BARBEE-C 7.98 g 1.00 mL D 07/08/16 16-10088-BCWIAMS 07042016BARBEE-C 7.99 g -.00 mL D 07/11116 16-10088-BCWIAMSD 07042016BARBEE-C 8.01 q ;.00 mL D 07/11/16 Basis: D=Dry Weight W=As Received 4 TPH METHOD BLANK SUMMARY BLANK NO. Lab Name: ARI SDG No.; BCW1 Date Extracted: 07/11/16 Date Analyzed : 07/11/16 Time Analyzed : 1303 BCWIMBSI Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project No.; BARBEE DREDGING Matrix: SOLID Instrument ID : FID4A THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS, and MSD: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SAMPLE NO. BCWILCSSI 07042016BARB 07042016BARB 07042016BARB page 1 of 1 LAB SAMPLE ID BCWILCSSI BCW1A BCWIAMS BCWIAMSD DATE ANALYZED 07/11/16 07/11/16 07/11/16 07/11/16 6a DIESEL INITIAL CALIBRATION Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. Instrument: FID4A.I Calibration Date: 09-MAR-2016 Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: BARBEE DREDGING SDG No.: BC'W1 { Diesel { RF1 RF2 RF3 RF4 I RF5 Range 50 100 250 500 { 1000 f I WA Diesel 1 215511 220011 21272� 209411 20168 t AK Diesel I 263201 261131 25109� 247211 24086 1 OR Diesel I 264261 262301 252471 24866� 24235 ICal Diesel 1 262741 260581 25051� 24647I 24013 1 C12-C22 1 209971 214091 206711 203431 19568 O-Texph 1 282891 28560f 282441 286531 27692 RF6 j Ave RF { $RSD 2500 j f 1 18582� 207531 5.9 220171 247281 6A 221421 24858I 6.3 219461 2466SI 6.4 180671 201761 6.0 257231 278601 3.9 <- Indicates %RSD outside limits Surrogate areas are not included in Diesel. RP calculation. Quant Ranges : WA Diesel C12-C24 (3.837-7.652) AK Diesel C10-C25 (3.024-7.950) OR Diesel C10-C28 (3.024-8.771) Cal Diesel C10-C24 (3.024-7.652) C12-C22 C12-C22 (3.837-7.026) Calibration Files Analysis Time fl 09-MAR-2016 17:54 f2 09-MAR-2016 18:16 f3 09-MAR-2016 18:38 f4 09-MAR-2016 19:01 f5 09-MAR-2016 19:22 f6 09-MAR--2016 19:45 6a NW MOTOR OIL RANGE INITIAL CALIBRATION Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. Instrument: FID4A.I Calibration Date: 15-MAR-2016 I I I I Product I RK 1 RF2 I RF3 I RF4 RancTe I 100 I 250 500 1000 Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: BARGEE DREDGING SDG No.: BCW1 RF5 f RF6 I Ave RF 1 %RSD 2500 5000 WA M.Oil 1 187141 164941 158311 166011 161121 13969I 162871 9.4 1 C24-C38 CA M.Oil 1 148071 128271 126021 133201 131421 111431 129731 9.13 1 C23-C32 I I I I I I AS Bunk C 1 I 140051 I 130411 I 129641 I 126261 I I --�--�, 122121 I I 129691 5.13 1 C23-C32 1 I I 1 1 Triac Surr1 I f 268601 I I I I i I 244991 223201 I I I I 245021 6,0 1 I 245151 I 238721 I 249431 I <- Indicates WRSD outside limits Surrogate areas are not included in Motor Oil RF calculation. Calibration Files f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 Analysis Time 15-MAR-2016 11:54 15-MAR-2016 12:17 15-MAR-2016 12:39 15-MAR-2016 13:03 15-MAR-2016 13:26 15-MAR-2016 13:48 i;'_ aJ 1 J 7a DIESEL CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION Lab Name; ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. ICal Date; 15-MAR-2016 CCal Date: 11-JUL-2016 Analysis Time; 12;18 Instrument: FID4A.I Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: BARBEE DREDGING SDG No.: BCW1 Lab ID: DEISEL #1 Lab File Name: 16071104.D Diesel Range Area* CalcAmnt NomAmnt % D WADies(C12-C24) 4569613 220.2 250 -11.9 AK102 (C10-C25) 5376702 217.4 250 -13.0 NASDies(CIO-C24) 5349357 216.9 250 -13.2 Terphenyl 110203+6 39.6 45 -12.1 Creos (C12-C22) 4417414 218.9 250 -12.4 * Surrogate areas are subtracted from range areas <- Indicates a %D outside QC limits pi of 1 FORM VII-Diesel 7a MOTOR OIL CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. Client: Lloyd & Associates ICal Date: 15-MAR-2016 Project: BARBEE DREDGING CCal Date: 11-JUL-2016 Analysis Time: 12:41 Instrument: FID4A.I 5DG No.: BCW1 Lab ID: MOIL #1 Lab File Name: 16071105.D M oil Range Area* CalcAmnt NomAmnt % D WAMoil(C24-C38) 7169501 440.2 500 -12.0 AK103 (C25-C36) 6287019 436.1 500 -12.8 OR MOIL(C28-C40) 5422715 718.0 500 43.6 CRUDE(Tol--C40) 8274744 1095.6 500 119.1 n-Triacontane 975986 39.8 45 -11.5 * Surrogate areas are subtracted from range areas <- Indicates a %D outside QC limits P1 of 1 FORM VII-Diesel 7a DIESEL CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION Lake Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. ICal Date: 15-MAR-2016 CCal Date: 11-JUL-2016 Analysis Time: 15:18 Instrument: FID4A.I Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: BARBEE DREDGING SDG No.: BCW1 Lab ID: DEESEL#2 Lab File Name: 16071112.D Diesel Range Area* CalcAmnt NomAmnt % D WADies(M -C24) 4860459 234.2 250 -6.3 AK102 (C10-C25) 5689947 230.1 250 -8.0 NASDies(C10-C24) 5649798 229.1 250 -8.4 Terphenyl 1137846 40.8 45 -9.2 Creos (C12-C22) 4680714 232.0 250 -7.2 * Surrogate areas are subtracted from range areas <- Indicates a LSD outside QC limits pl of 1 FORM VII-Diesel 7a MOTOR OIL CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. Client: Lloyd & Associates ICal Date: 15-MAR-2016 Project: BARBEE DREDGING CCal Date: 11-JUL-2016 Analysis Time: 15:40 Instrument: FID4A.I SDG No.: BCW1 Lab ID: MOIL#2 Lab File Name: 16071113.D M.oil Range Area* CalcAmnt NomAmnt % D WAMoil(C24-C38) 7440557 456.8 500 -8.6 AK103 (C25-C36) 6520486 452.3 500 -9.5 OR MOIL(C28-C40) 5711927 756.3 500 51.3 CRUDE(Tol-C40) 8630087 1142.6 500 128.5 n-Triacontane 1015086 41.4 45 -7.9 * Surrogate areas are subtracted from range areas <- Indicates a %D outside QC limits PI of 1 FORM VII-Diesel raid=� Z - �iCa 8 TPH ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE Lab Name: ART SDG No.: 13CW1 Instrument ID: FID4A Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES Project: BARBEE DREDGING GC Column: RTX-1 THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF BLANKS, SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS, IS GIVEN BELOW: 01. 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 SURROGATE RT FROM DAILY STANDARD TERPH: 5.75 TRIAC: 9.09 CLIENT LAB DATE TIME TERPH TRIAC SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID ANALYZED ANALYZED RT # RT # RT RT 07/11/16 1133 5.75 9.09 ID IB 07/11/16 1156 5.75 9.09 BARBEE DREDG DEISEL #1 07/11/16 1218 5.75 9.09 BARBEE DREDG MOIL #1 07/11/16 1241 5.74 9.09 BCWIMBSI BCWIMBSI 07/11/16 1303 5.75 9.09 BCWILCSSI BCWILCSSI 07/11/16 1325 5.75 9.09 07042016BARB BCW3A 07/11/16 1411 5.75 9.09 07042016BARB BCW1AM.S 07/11/16 1433 5.75 9.09 07042016BARB BCWIAMSD 07/11/16 1455 5.75 9.09 BARBEE DREDG DSISEL#2 07/11/16 1518 5.75 9.10 BARBEE DREDG MOIL#2 07/11/16 1540 5.74 9.10 TERPH = o-terph TRTAC = Triacon Surr * Values outside of QC limits. page 1 of 1 QC LIMITS 0.05 MINUTES) 0.05 MINUTES) FORM VIII TPH -R i. : 0 0 i ; is 8 TPH ANALYTICAL, SEQUENCE Lab Name: ARI SDG No.: BCW1 Instrument ID: FID4A Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: HARBEE DREDGING GC Column: RTX-1 THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF BLANKS, SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS, IS GIVEN BELLOW: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 SURROGATE RT FROM DAILY STANDARD TERPH: 5.92 TRIAL: 9.26 { SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID SEC0025-IBL1 SEC0025-IBL2 SECO025-CALL SEC0025-CAL2 SEC0025-CAL3 SEC0025-CAL4 SEC0025-CAL5 SEC0025-CAL6 SEC0025-SCV1 SEQ-IBL1 SEQ-IBL2 SEQ- CAL1 SEQ-CAL2 SEQ-CAL3 SEQ-CAL4 SEQ-CAL5 SEQ-CAL6 SEQ-SCV1 SEQ - C'AL7 SEQ-CAL8 SEQ-CAL9 SEQ-CALA SEQ-CALB SEQ-CALL TERPH = o-terph TRIAL = Triacon Surr * values outside of QC limits. page 1 of 1 DATE ANALYZED 03/09/16 03/09/16 03/09/16 03/09/16 03/09/16 03/09/16 03/09/16 03/09/16 03/09/16 03/15/16 03/15/16 03/15/16 03/15/16 03/15/16 03/15/16 03/15/16 03/15/16 03/15/16 03/16/16 03/16/16 03/16/16 03/16/16 03/16/16 03/16/16 M Wb 1710 1732 1754 1816 1838 1901 1922 1945 2006 1109 1130 1154 1217 1239 1303 1326 1348 1411 0342 0403 0424 0447 0508 0529 QC LIMITS 0.05 MINUTES) 0.05 MiN[PI'ES) FORM vlzl TPH RT # 5.92 5.91 5.90 5.90 5.91 5.92 5.94 5.97 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.90 5.90 5.92 5.91 5.88 5.90 5.91 5.87 5.93 5.93 5.92 5.92 5.92 RT # 9.26 9.24 9.24 9.24 9.24 9.24 9.24 9.23 9.23 9.24 9.24 3.23 9.23 9.24 9.26 9.30 9.33* 9.24 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.25 9.31* 'U16-'1 i �cdimcit Santhline Re5ulls i)MMI'-1 Attachment D — Historical Sampling and Analysis May Creek Delta Sediment Sampling (L&AI, 1999) Sediment Sampling and Analysis Results (L&AI 2008) L.lo%d & Associates- Inc '016-213 sediIII C111 sampling, ReskiISS DMW [-I May Creek Delta Sediment Sampling (1999) Table 1 L&AI Bark Sampling Data -1999 Parameter (mg/Kg-dry) I MC-1 WTPH (silica cleanup mg/Kg-dry) Gasoline - - Diesel* -1-9* Motor Oil*, Hydraulic Oil, U. or other petroleum product Volatile Organics (Method 8240) Semivolatiles (EPA Method 8270, mg/Kg-dry) 4-Methylphenol ND Naphthalene ND 2-Methylnaphthaiene ND Acenaphthylene ND Acenaphthene ND Fluorene ND Phenanthrene ND Anthracene ND Fluoranthene ND Pyrene ND Benzo(a)anthracene** ND Chrysene** ND Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene** ND Benzo(a)pyrene** ND Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene** ND Dibenz(a,h)anthracene** ND Benzo(g,h,l)perylene ND Dibenzofuran ND bis(2-Ethylhexyl phthalate) ND Other SVOC's ND PCB's (as 1254, mg/Kg-dry) - - RCRA Metals (Total, mg/Kg-dry) Silver ND Arsenic ND Barium 48.7 Cadmium ND Chromium 28.2 Mercury ND Lead 9 Selenium ND Total Solids (from % moisture) 89.8 FP = finished, milled product ND = not detected at method detection limit M = Poor spectral match J = estimated quantity MC = May Creek Delta sample BA = Bark Area "A" sample t.io�d &- Associates_ Inc. 201b-2 3 Sediment Sampling Rc5Lills DMM11-1 Sediment Sampling and Analysis Results (L&AI, 2008, next page) Llonvd & Associates. Inc .��� _1"T'? em�� January 31, 2008 TRANSMITTAL & Associates, Inc. Snoqualmic, Washington 98065 425-888-1905( Susan Powell Regulatory Branch U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 Reference: NWS-2007-1019-NO Barbee Company Boathouse Area Dredging Subject: Boathouse Area Sampling and Analysis Dear Ms. Powell: Enclosed are two copies of the Sampling and Analysis Report for Barbee Boathouse Dredging Area. My apologies for the time it has taken to wrap this up. Between the Christmas Holidays and a vacation to Hawaii, this has report has been on the back burner. If possible, please forward a copy to David Kendall. I will also provide an electronic copy to you and Dr. Kendall by email. Thank you for your time and patience in consideration of the JARPA application. If you have any questions, comments, or recommendations, please call. Sincerely, LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. R. Michael Lloyd, Ph ' D 425-785-1357 (cell) cc. R. Cugini (Barbee Company) 2008-50 Transmittal to USACE Barbee Sampling.doc Sediment Sampling and Analysis (JARPA Submittal Supplement) Barbee Maintenance Dredging and Boathouse Renovation Barbee Company, P.O. Box 359 Renton, Washington Prepared by: [.loud & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92"`I Street Snoqualmie, WA 99065 January 31, 2008 2008-0 Barbee Sedmment Samphig, Kesult,.doc Page 1 of 20 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Sediment Sampling Results Summary Suitability of Dredged Material for Shallow Water Habitat Enhancement 2.0 Sediment Sampling Sample Locations Sample Collection Composite Preparation Equipment Decontamination Chain -of Custody Grain Size Distribution Field Observations 3.0 Sediment/Rinsate Chemical Analyses Sediment Chemical Analyses "Dotal Metals Volatile Organic Compounds Semivolatile Organic Compounds Pesticides and PCBs Petroleum Hydrocarbons Rinsate Chemical Analyses Total Metals Semivolatilc Organic Compounds 4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary Sediment Chemical Analyses 'Dotal Metals Volatile Organic Compounds Semivolatile Organic Compounds Pesticides and PCBs Petroleum Hydrocarbons Rinsate Chemical Analyses Total Metals Semivolatile Organic Compounds 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Sediment Sampling Considerations 2008-50 Barbee Sediment Sampling Results.doc Page 2 of 20 Table of Contents (continued) Contaminant Analysis Figures and Tables F igure 1- I : Site Photograph Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations Figure 2-2: Sediment core 071021 /Barbee/G- Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations Table 2-2: Grain Size Data Table 3-1: Sediment / Conventional Parameters Table 3-2: Sediment / Total Metals Table 3-3: Sediment / Volatile Organic Compounds Table 3-4: Sediment / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Table 3-5: Sediment / Pesticides and PCBs Table 3-6: Sediment / Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 3-7: Rinsate / Total Metals Table 3-8: Rinsate / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Table 4-1: QA Summary / Conventional Parameters Table 4-2: QA Summary / Total Metals Table 4-3: QA Summary / Volatile Organic Compounds Table 4-4: QA Summary / Semivolatile Organic Compounds "fable 4-5: QA Summary / Pesticides Table 4-6: QA Summary / PCBs Table 4-7: QA Summary / Petroleum Hydrocarbons Attachments Attachment A — Sediment Sampling Logs Attachment B — Laboratory Report Dorms 2008-50 Barbee Sediment Sampling Res«Ils.doe Page 3 of 20 1.0 Introduction This report provides results of sediment sampling and chemical testing of sediments in conjunction with proposed Barbee Maintenance Dredging and Boathouse Renovation work. The purposes of this sampling and analysis program were (1) to collect sufficient data of adequate quality for decision making purposes regarding the level(s) of contamination that may or may not be present within sediments of the proposed boathouse dredge area, and (2) to assess the suitability of dredged materials for habitat enhancement. The purpose for proposed dredging at the boathouse is to maintain navigational access and continued recreational use of the boathouse. The project summary, site history, potential site contaminants, and additional information are provided in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (L&AI. 2007) previously submitted to the USACE. The project area is shown in Figure 1-1 below. Figure 1-1; Site Photograph Yhotr raph IwAing to the worth, shoiring the boathouse and the sorrthow peninsula of land at the 11ar Creek Dclta. the former Barbee hill Vacilil'v (current!° ou-ned 6u ( 'or7ner Development) is in the distance. 117c proposed drect�=e area (approximate) is outlined in while. Sediment Sampling Results Summary Detected chemical contamination in the proposed boathouse area (DMMU-1) is relatively limited. Testing results are below both fresh water sediment and marine sediment screening levels for all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless. some motor oil and diesel range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 95 mg/kg (dry basis). Benzene was not detected. These 2f108-50 Bzirbee Sediment Sampling Resultti doe Page 4 of 20 results are consistent with historical sampling and analysis data, and arc below MTCA Method A criteria for unrestricted residential land use. Suitability of Dredged Material for Shallow Water Habitat Enhancement The Barbee JARPA Submittal provided that sediments could potentially be used for habitat enhancement along the rockery face immediately south of the dredge area, if sediment characteristics were suitable and potential contaminant levels were acceptable. Gradation results of sediment sampling (see Section 2.0) indicate that the use of imported clean materials (such as spawning gravel) from an approved WSDOT source would be more appropriate. Sediments to be dredged are typically line to medium sands and silt that would appear to be more appropriate for upland beneficial uses. Therefore. dredged sediments will not be disposed or placed in open water under the Dredge Material Management Program (DMMP). 2008-50 Barbee Sediment trampling Nesults.doc Page 5 of 20 2.0 Sediment Sampling Sediment sampling at the Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area was conducted on Sunday October 21, 2007. As proposed, grab samples were collected, composited and preserved for next day delivery to Analytical Resources, Inc. (Seattle, WA). This section provides a summary of sediment sampling information. Sediment Sampling Logs are provided in Attachment A. Sample Stations Differential GPS was utilized to locate sediment sample stations. Sampling occurred close to proposed locations as moderated by observed field and gusty weather conditions. Proposed and actual sampling locations are summarized in Table 2-1 below. All data was collected using North America Datum (NAD83-Washington North). Lake Elevation at the time of sampling was provided by the USAGE at Chittenden Locks. Lake elevation was 20.6 feet (MSL), approximately l .2 feet below the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL). Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations (Proposed sand Aclual) Proposed Stationing State Plane ft Profile Station Location Eastine Northing,- Elevation BBSED-I 'Near western edge of dredge area 1,301.490 195A25 El = 14' BBSE❑-2 At north/central edge of dredge area 1,101,550 195,435 H - 12' BBSED-3 At south/eastern edge of dredge area 1,301,600 195.420 EL = 10' BBSED-4 Mid -point in front ofthe boathouse 1,101,625 195,460 EL - 10' BBSED-5 Within the boathouse footprint 1,301,640 195,465 Fl. = 10' Actual Stationin BBSED- I Core location at western edge 1.301.486 195,421 El - 14' BBSED-2 Core location at north/central edge 11301,552 195,436 El = 12' BBSED-3 Station moved to reach dredge profile 1,301,61 1 195,421 EL - 10' BBSED-4 station moved to avoid steep slope 1.301,622 195,467 F.C. = 12' BBSED-5 Within the Boathouse Footprint 1,301,640* 195,475* EL - 10' * Because there %tints no [Xil's si4nat inside the Boadiume. Sampling station location is estimated Sampling Equipment Sediment sample collection was initially conducted from the walkway inside the boathouse using several types of core samplers which included a gravity corer, spilt 20Q8-�0 13arlxe Sediment Sampling Kesults.duc Page 6 Of 20 spoon, modified Shelby tube sampler, and a VanVeen sampler. Under the field conditions observed, the modified Shelby sampler proved to be the most effective coring device. The only modification to the sampler was to adapt extension rods and convert it into a push or drive sampler. Sample recoveries were generally very good (> 70%) as shown in Sediment Sampling Logs provided in Attachment A. The gravity corer worked very well with good penetration, but small sticks and woody debris, commonly encountered on the lakebed surface, tended to reduce the effectiveness of this sampler. Sediment Sampling Stations are shown in Figure 2-1. WAbshroon ra BRSED2 z UBSED q �1 /% SCALET. (tt) Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations Field Sampling Procedure Except in the boathouse, where sampling occurred from the walkway. sampling occurred from the side of a 21' sampling boat. The boat was anchored in position at the sampling station and powered down. Depth to bottom was physically measured with a weighted line. Depth sounding from the vessel's depth meter tended to be very inaccurate because of intense growth of milfoil throughout the proposed dredge area. The Shelby sampler was equipped with a push rod extension(s) to reach the bottom of the proposed depth profiles). The sampler was generally easily extracted and raised out of the water. The sampler was placed in the bottom of the boat on clean visquine. A light tap on the extension rod and/or sampler casing was all that was required to release the sample. In practice, extreme care was necessary to avoid jostling or banging the sampler during extraction. Sediments from below the proposed dredge profile tended to be coarse sands that were difficult to sample without substantial loss. Because of the difficulty of sampling coarse sands below the proposed dredge profile in a representative manner, a "L" was not collected. 2008-50 Barbee Sedhenl Sampling Results doc Page 7 of 20 The gravity corer worked very well inside the boathouse, but small woody debris in the dredge zone tended to deflect the sampler or decrease the energy of the drop. The Shelby sampler w-as much more amenable to reaching desired depths from the sampling vessel. Once extracted from the sampler, the sample core was visually inspected and legged. Core contents form within the dredge profile were transferred to sample _jars after thorough mixing of the core contents using a clean stainless steel spoon. A picture of the core collected from inside the boathouse is shown in Figure 2-2. Figure 2-2: Sediment core 071021/Barbee/G-5 collected at Station BBSED-5 Because of the limited thickness of sediment material to be dredged at IMSED-4 (approximately 6-), a VanVeen sampler was utilized at this station. The VanVeen sampler worked extremely well where a core was not required to get greater depth. In practice the extensive acCUmulation ol' woody debris at this station severely limited coring efficiency. The VanVccn sampler is the sampler of choice for conlirmational sampling in the over=depth profile_ Equipment Decontamination Prior to sampling. all sampling equipment was decontarninated by scrubbing with a dilute solution of Alconox, rinsed with tap water, and then followed by two rinses of distilled water. In the field. the samplers were rinsed with lake water and visually inspected prior to moving, to the next sampling station. At the conclusion of trampling 2008-?(1 Bai Sediment 5aIli pline ItCsLIII ,dut Pa-e 8 120 a decon rinse was collected. A solvent rinse was not utilized at any time. Analytical testing results of the decontamination sample are presented in Section 3 -- Chemical and Physical Data. The rinsate/decon sample was identified as 07 102 1 /Barbee/R. Composite Preparation A composite sample was constructed from equal portions of the five (5) individual grab samples. Grab samples were identified as 07 102 1 /Barbee/G- I through G-5. A pre -cleaned stainless steel bowl and spoon was utilized to composite samples for laboratory analyses. Portions were well mixed to a homogenous consistency. The composite sample was identified as 071021/Barbee/C. Chain -of Custody The laboratory provided chain of custody was utilized to record basic sample information and requested analyses. All samples were labeled, bagged in Ziploc bags, chilled with ice, and delivered to the laboratory the next day under chain of custody. A copy of the Chain of Custody is provided in Attachment B. Grain Size Distribution Logs / Field Observations Sediment Sampling Logs of the 5 grab samples are provided in Attachment A. Page 6 of the series provides a more complete summary of sample location data presented in Table 2-1 and includes conversion of state plane data into latitude and longitude. In general. sediment sampling yielded better recoveries than anticipated because of the cohesive nature of the sediment in the dredge profile. Below the dredge profile we observed generally coarse sands which were poorly recovered. Grain Size Data for sample 071021/Barbee/C (composite sample) is provided in Table 2-2 and graphically presented in Figure 2-3. These coarse sands within the proposed over - depth appear to be relatively undisturbed by previous dredging in the area. Sediments were odor free and no apparent sheen was observed in any grab sample although a light stringy sheen was observed rising to the surlace at Station BBSED-4 when the VanVeen sampler was withdrawn from the sediment. In general the upper few centimeters of each core was layered with leaf litter. twigs, small sticks, milfoil roots and other vegetation. Milfoil distribution was extensive and thick throughout the entire dredge area except within the boathouse footprint where sunlight is extremely limited. 'p11A-50 Barbee Sedirncnl Sampling Resulls doc Page 9 of 20 Table 2-2 Grain Size Sample: 0710211113a rbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: Grain Size by ASTM D422 Mesh Inches Microns % Finer - 0.0029 74 14.9 0.00588 149 30.6 - - 0,00983 250 54.1 - 0.01655 420 80.1 -- 0.03306 840 91.7 - - 0.07875 2,000 96.5 - 0.5 4,750 99.2 #4 0.187 9,525 100 #10 0.375 12,700 100 #20 0.75 19,050 100 #40 1.0 25,400 100 #60 1.5 38,100 100 #100 20 50,800 100 #200 3.0 76,200 100 Composite is equal portions of grab samples G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 & G-5 Grain Size Distribution By ASTM D422 4100 #20 #4 100 90 80 70 60 m c i� 50 s� `m 40 a 30 20 10 0 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 Particle Diameter (microns) Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution 200-50 Harbee Sediment Sampling Results_doc Page 10 of 20 3.0 Sediment / Rinsate Chemical Analyses All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources, Inc.. Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. The composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide low level detection limits for COC's. Specialized analyses for Volatile Organic Compounds and Total Volatile Solids were conducted on grab sample 071021/13arbee/G-l. Rinsate analyses included Total Metals and Semivolatile Organic Compounds. As provided in the Sampling and Analysis Plan,l the sediment samples (composite and grab where required) were submitted for chemical analysis for the following parameters: • Conventional Parameters - EPA/PSEP Methods • Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA 8260 GC/MS * Semi-Volatilc Organics - EPA 8270D GC/MS • Total Metals - EPA 200.8; (Except as noted) • Pesticides/PCBS — EPA 8081/8082 PSDDA GC/ECD • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons — N WTPH-D Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and accepted PSEP protocols. The rinsate sample (071021/Barbee/R) was analyzed for Semi - Volatile Organics and Total Metals. Sediment Analyses Conventional Testing Results Composite Sample 07102 1 /Barbee/C was analyzed for Total Solids, Preserved Total Solids, N-Ammonia, Total Sulfides, and Total Organic Carbon. Total Volatile Solids were analyzed on grab sample 971021/Barbee/G-1 from the western edge of the proposed dredge area. These results are provided in Table 3-1 at the end of this section. Laboratory report forms for this data are Barbee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (I.&AI. ?007) 2008-50 Barbee Sedimenl Sampling Results doc Page 1 I of 20 provided in Attachment B. Hexavalent Chromium was analyzed and reported by ARI as a conventional parameter. These results will be discussed under the Total Metals section. There are no Marine or Fresh water screening levels for conventional parameters. Ammonia levels were detected at 28 mg-N/Kg (dry basis). Total Sulfide was reported at 126 mg/Kg (dry basis), and Total Organic carbon was reported at approximately 2%. Total Metals Composite Sample 071021/Barbee/C was analyzed for total metals. These results are provided in Table 3-2. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment B. Hexavalent Chromium was undetected at 0.589 U (mg/Kg- dry). Traces of Arsenic and Cadmium were detected along with Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc. Antimony, Chromium (V1), Mercury, Selenium, and Silver were not detected. All detected and undetected metal concentrations were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.' Additionally, all detected and undetected reporting limits were less than MTCA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use.' Volatile Organics Grab Sample 071021/Barbee/G-1 was analyzed for volatile organics by EPA GCMS Method 8260. Results are provided in Table 3-3. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment B. As shown in Table 3-3, the only detected volatile organic parameter was acetone at 17 ug/Kg-dry. Although acetone is a common laboratory contarninant, it was not detected in the method blank. Reporting limits for all detected and undetected volatile organic compounds were less than Screening bevels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally. all detected and undetected volatile organic compounds levels were less than MTCA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use. Semivolatile Organics Composite Sample 071021/Barbee/C was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds by GCMS Method 8270D. Results are provided in Table 3-4. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment B. Several semivolitile organics were detected, including: PAHs and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The total HPAH concentration was 275 ug/Kg-dry. Benzo[A]pyrene was not detected. Detected and undetected parameters for all semivolatile organic compounds were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally, all detected and undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A - Sol] Cleanup Levels for [Unrestricted Land Use. Scdomem (duality Guidelines For Standard Chemicals ofConeern ( Qratt Table 7-1 ) and from DMMP Users Manual (current edition) Development of Method A Cleanup l.eNcls WAC 173-340-720 (WS Departmem of Fcologc_ 2001 # 2008-SO Barbee Sediment Samphne Results doc Page 12 of 20 Pesticides and PCBs Composite Sample 071021/Barbee/C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/LCD (Dual Column - Methods 8081 A and Method 8082. respectively). Results are provided in Table 3-5. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment B. As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PCBs were detected. All reporting limits for all semi -volatile organic compounds were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally. all detected and undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use. Petroleum Hydrocarbons Composite Sample 071021 Barbee/C was analyzed For petroleum hydrocarbons by GC/FID (Method NWTPH-Dx). Results are provided in Table 3-6. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment B. Diesel was detected at 15 mg/Kg-dry, and Motor Oil was detected at 95 rng/Kg-dry. As noted in Sampling Logs, a light stringy oily substance was observed when sampling at Station BBS) D-4. 'There were no visible indications of a petroleum sheen in any grab sample or the composite. Benzene was not detected (sec Volatile Organic Compounds. Table 3-3). All detected and undetected results were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally, all detected and undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use. Nevertheless, the use of dredged sediments containing petroleum hydrocarbon residues (motor oil and diesel) for shallow water enhancement is not recommended. Rinsate/Decon Analyses A rinsate/decors sample was collected as described in Section 2.0. The rinsate sample was collected from sampling equipment at the conclusion of sampling. Rinsate/decon results are provided in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 at the end of this section. No metals were detected in the rinsate/decon sample (071021 Barbee/R). Several phthalates. (diethyl-. di-n-Butyl-, and butylbenzyl-) were detected at low concentrations in the rinsate sample (see Table 3-8. 071021 /Barbee/R). These same phthalatcs were not detected in the composite sediment sample. The detected phthalates may arise from contact with plastic materials (distilled water carboy. examination gloves, visquine. etc) as a potential artifact of sampling and/or rinsate sample preparation. 2008-�,Q Barbee Sediment Sampling Roults dux. Page 13 of 20 Table 3-1: Sediment Results 1 Conventional Parameters Sample: 0710211Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte (see Sampling and Analysis Plan) MTCA Screening Levels (2) Conventional Parameters Units Result Q RL Method A" Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) Hexavalent Chromium mg/Kg-dry 0.589 U 0.589 19 - - - - Total Solids Percent 67.6 0.01 - - - - - - Preserved Total Solids Percent 65.9 0.01 - - - - - - N-Ammonia mg-NIKg 28 0.72 - - - - - - Sulfide mg/Kg-dry 126 15.4 - - - - - - Total Organic Carbon Percent 2.03 0.2 - - - - - - Sample: 071021IBarbee/G-1 Description: Grab Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte MTCA Screening Levels"} Conventional Parameters Units Result Q RL Method A Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) Total Solids Percent 80.1 0.01 - - - - - - Total Volatile Solids Percent 0.95 0.01 - - - - - - Notes: i Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are shown above. {2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern - Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition) Table 3-2: Sediment Results 1 Total Metals Sample: Description: Analytical Methods: METALS 0710211BarbeelC Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 EPA 200.8 (Except as noted) MTCA mpg -dry Q RL Method A(') Screening Levels (2) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) _ Antimony _ 0.3 N 0.3 - - 150115) - - Arsenic 2.8 0.3 20 57 20 Cadmium 0.3 0.3 2 5.1 1.1 Chromium 21.1 0.7 2,000 260 95 Chromium+6 (SM3500Cr-D) 0.589 U 0.589 19 - - - - Copper 15.3 0.7 - - 390 80 Lead 10 1 250 450 340 Mercury (EPA 7471A) 0.06 U 0.06 2 0.41 0.28 Nickel 24.7 0.7 - - 140(2a) 60 Selenium 0.7 U 0.7 - - 3(3) - - Silver 0.03 U 0.3 - - 6.1 2.0 Zinc 48 6 - - 410 130 Notes: * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg (2} Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern - Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition) (3) Numerical value shown is for Bioaccumulation Trigger (BT) - DMMP User's Manual (current addition) Table 3-3: Sediment Results 1 Volatile Organics Compounds Sample: 071021/Barbee/G-1 Description: Grab Sample from Station BBSEDA Analytical Method: EPA 8260 GCIMS Volatile Organics Analysis MTCA Screening Levels (2) VOLATILE ORGANICS ug/Kg-dry Q RL_ Method At') Marine (5L1) Fresh (SL1) Chloromethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Bromomethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Vinyl Chloride 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Chloroethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Methylene Chloride 2.7 U 0.7 20 - - - - Acetone 17 6.7 - - - - - - Carbon Disulfide 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,1-Dichloroethene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,1-Dichloroethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Cfhloroform 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,2-Dichloroethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 2-Butanone 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Carbon Tetrachloride 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Vinyl Acetate 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - Bromodichloromethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,2-Dichloropropane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Trichloroethene 1.3 U 1.3 - - 160 - - Dibromochloromethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Benzene 1.3 U 1.3 30 - - - - 2-Chloroethyivinylether 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - Bromoform 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 2-Methyl-2-pentanone 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - 2-Hexanone 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - Tetrachloroethene 1.3 U 1.3 - - 57 - - 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Toluene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Chlorobenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Ethylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 6 10 - - Styrene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Trichlorofluoromethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 2.7 U 2.7 - - - - - - m,p-Xylene 1.3 U 1.3 - - 4oO) - - o-Xylene 1.3 U 1.3 - - 4d3) - - 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Acrolein 67 U 67 - - - - - - Methyl Iodide 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Bromoethane 2.7 U 2.7 - - - - - - Acrylonitrile 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - 1,1-Dichloropropene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Dibromomethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Table 3-3: Sediment Results I Volatile Organics Compounds Sample: 071021IBarbee/G-1 Description: Grab Sample from Station BBSED-1 Analytical Method: EPA 8260 GCIMS Volatile Organics Analysis MTCA Screening Levels (2) VOLATILE ORGANICS u /K -d Q RL Method A('} Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 U 1.3 -- -- -- 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 2.7 U 2.7 - - - - - - trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Hexachlorbutadiene 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - Ethylene Dibromide 1.3 U 1.3 5 - - - - Bromochloromethane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 2,2-Dichloropropane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,3-Dichloropropane 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Isopropylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - n-Propylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - Bromobenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 2-Chlorotoluene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 4-Chlorotoluene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - tert-Butylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - sec-Butylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 4-Isopropyltoluene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - n-Butylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 - - - - - - 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - Naphthalene 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 6.7 U 6.7 - - - - - - Notes: * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg) �2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern - Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition) (3) Screening Level shown is for Total Xyienes (o, m, p) Table 3-4: Sediment Results I Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sample: 0710211Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: EPA 8270D GC/MS Semivolatile Organics Analysis MTCA Screening Levels(2) SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ug/Kg-dry _Q RL Method A(') Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) PAHs Total LPAH") 70 5,200 6,600 Naphthalene 20 U 20 5000(3) 2,100 500 Acenapthylene 20 U 20 - - 560 470 Acenapthene 20 U 20 -- 500 1,100 Fluorene 20 U 20 -- 540 1,000 Phenanthrene 70 20 - - 1,500 6,100 Anthracene 20 U 20 -- 960 1,200 2-Methylnaphthalene 20 U 20 5000(3, 670 470 1 -Methyl naphthalene 20 U 20 500013, - - - - Total HPAH(8i 275 N/A 12,000 31,000 Fluoranthene 99 20 - - 1,700 11,000 Pyrene 56 20 - - 2,600 8,800 Benz(a)anthracene 28 20 - - 1,300 4,300 Chrysene 39 20 - - 1,400 5,900 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 29 20 - - 3,200(4) 600(4) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 24 20 - - 3,200(4) 600(4} Benzo(a)pyrene 20 U 20 100(S) 1,600 3,300 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 20 U 20 -- 600 4,100 Diben(a,h)anthracene 20 U 20 - - 230 800 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 20 U 20 -- 670 4,000 CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 20 U 20 - - 170 - - 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 20 U 20 - - 110 - - 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 20 U 20 - - 35 - - 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 20 U 20 - - 31 - - Hexachlorobenzene 20 U 20 -- 22 -- PHTHALATES Dimethylphthalate 20 U 20 - - 71 46 Diethylphthalate 20 U 20 - - 200 - - Di-n-Butylphthalate 20 U 20 - - 1,400 - - Butylbenzylphthalate 20 U 20 - - 63 260 bis(2-Ethylhexy1)phthalate 82 20 - - 1,300 220 Di -n-Octy 1phtha late 20 U 20 - - 6,200 26 PHENOLS Phenol 20 U 20 -- 420 -- 2-Methyiphenol 20 U 20 - - 63 - - 4-Methylphenol 20 U 20 - - 670 - - 2,4-Dimethylphenol 20 U 20 - - 29 - - Pentachlorophenol 100 U 100 400 - - MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTIBLES Benzyl Alcohol 20 U 20 - - 57 - - Benzoic Acid 200 U 200 - - 650 - - Hexachloroethane 20 U 20 - - 1,400 - - Hexachlorobutadiene 20 U 20 - - 22(7) - - Sample: 071021 /Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: EPA 8270D GC1MS Semivolatile Organics Analysis MTCA Screening Levels(2) SEMIVOLATiLE ORGANICS ug/Kg-dry Q RL Method A('� marine (5L1) Fresh (SU) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 20 U 20 - - 28 - Dibenzofuran 20 U 20 - - 540 400 Notes: " Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug1Kg) (2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern - Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition) {3) Total shown for Naphthalene, 1-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalene 14) Totals shown is for both b and k Benzofluoranthenes �6i Does not include undetected parameters or 1-and 2-methyl naphthalene (6) Senzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,Benzo(b & k)fluoranthene and Benzo(a)anthracene. Total does not include undetected parameters. (7) Draft value is 11 ug/Kg in DMMO Table 7-1 (September 30, 2005) "" Method B - Soil Ingestion Pathway Table 3-5: Sediment Results I Pesticides and PCBs Sample: 0710211Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GCIECD - Pesticides !PCBs PESTICIDES & PCBS ug/Kg-dry Q RL gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.98 U 0.98 Heptachlor 0.98 U 0.98 Aldrin 0.98 U 0.98 Dieldrin 2.0 U 2.0 4,4'-DDE 2.0 U 2.0 4,4'-DDD 2.0 U 2.0 4,4'-DDT 20 U 2.0 gamma Chlordane 0.98 U 0.98 alpha Chlordane 2.0 U 2.0 Total DDT41,5) 3.0 - - MTCA Screening Levels(2) Method A(1) Marine (W) Fresh (W) 10 -- -- 1.5 - - -- 9.5 -- -- 1.9 -- -- 16 -- -- 9 -- 3000 12 -- - - 2.8�31 - - -- 2.8(3) -- - - 6.9t2a) Aroclor 1016 20 U 20.0 - - - - - - Aroclor 1242 20 U 20.0 - - - - - - Aroclor 1248 20 U 20.0 - - - - - - Aroclor 1254 20 U 20.0 - - - - - - Aroclor 1260 20 U 20.0 - - - - - - Aroclor 1221 20 U 20.0 - - - - - - Aroclor 1232 20 U 20.0 - - - - - - Total PCBs(5) 70 U - - 1000 130 60 Notes: Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) ") 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg s2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern - Draft (Table 7-1) and from (2a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition) (3) Screening Level for alpha and gamma Chlordane 0) Includes DDE, DDD, DDT (5) Includes undetected parameters at 50% of reporting Limit (RL) Table 3-6: Sediment Results 1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Sample: 0710211Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GCIFID - NWTPHD MTCA Screening Levels c2) NWTPHD mg/Kg-dry Q RL Method A(') Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) Diesel 15 7.0 2000 - - - - Motor Oil 95 14 2000 - - - - Benzene not detected (see Volatile Organics Results) Notes: * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) ri> 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg f2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern - Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition) Table 3-7: Rinsate / Total Metals Sample: 071021 /Barbee/R Description: Decon/Rinsate Sample Analytical Method: EPA 200.8 and 7471A (Mercury) Parameter ug/L Q RL Antimony 0.2 U 0.2 Arsenic 0.2 U 0.2 Cadmium 0.2 U 0.2 Chromium 0.5 U 0.5 Copper 0.5 U 0.5 Lead 1 U 1 Mercury 0.1 U 0.1 Nickel 0.5 U 0.5 Selenium 0.5 U 0.5 Silver 0.2 U 0.2 Zinc 0.4 U 0.4 Metals Analysis Table 3-8: Rinsate / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sample: 071021/Barbee/R Description: Decon/Rinsate Sample Analytical Method: EPA 8270D GUMS Semivolatile Organics Analysis SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ug/L Q RL _ Phenol 1 U 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1 Benzyl Alcohol 5 U 5 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1 2-Methylphenol 1 U 1 4-Methylphenol 1 U 1 Hexachloroethane 1 U 1 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1 U 1 Benzoic Acid 10 U 10 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1 U 1 Naphthalene 1 U 1 Hexachlorobutadiene 1 U 1 2-Methylnaphthalene 1 U 1 Dimethylphthalate 1 U 1 Acenapthylene 1 U 1 Acenapthene 1 U 1 Dibenzofuran 1 U 1 Diethyl phtha late 1 1 Fluorene 1 U 1 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1 U 1 Hexachlorobenzene 1 U 1 Pentachlorophenol 5 U 5 Phenanthrene 1 U 1 Anthracene 1 U 1 Di-n-Butylphthalate 3.9 1 Fluoranthene 1 U 1 Pyrene 1 U 1 Butylbenzylphthalate 4.1 4.1 Benz(a)anthracene 1 U 1 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1 U 1 Chrysene 1 U 1 Di-n-Octylphthalate 1 U 1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 U 1 Benzo(k)fl uo rant hene 1 U 1 Benzo(a)pyrene 1 U 1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 U 1 Diben(a,h)anthracene 1 U 1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 U 1 4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources, Inc., Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. As described in the previous section, the composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals. which have been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide low level detection limits for COC's. Specialized analyses for Volatile Organic Compounds and Total Volatile Solids were conducted on grab sample 071021 /Barbee/G- 1. Sample containers, preservation. holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and PSEP protocols. The rinsate sample (071021/Barbee/R) was analyzed for Semi -Volatile Organics and Metals. Conventional Testing Results The QA review summary for Conventional Parameters is provide in Table 4-1 Precision data was acceptable with an RPD less than 20% for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was acceptable for all parameters. and Standard Reference recoveries were greater than 80%. All Method Blanks were at or below reporting/detection limits. All conventional data reported in Table 3-1 (previous section is acceptable as reported by the laboratory without additional qualification. Total Metals Composite Sample 071021 /Barbee/C was analyzed for total metals. These results are provided in Table 3-2. Hexavalent Chromium was also analyzed and reported by ARI as a conventional parameter. As summarized in Table 4-2. Precision data for metals (except Mercury and Hexavalent Chromium) was marginal with RPDs greater than 20% for all parameters yet within a Factor of` 2. The highest value for each duplicate pair is reported in Table 3-2. Although a source of error could not be determined, the consistency of duplicate data suggests that a dilution error may have occurred. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than zero for all parameters 200850 Barbee Sediment Sampling RC,LIIIS,t)UC Page 14 of20 and marginally low for several parameters as identified in Table 4-2. I.aboratory Control Sample Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate data were acceptable. Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met the Advisory Range for all metals. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All metals data presented in Table 3-2 are acceptable as reported by the laboratory except as qualified. Antimony data was qualified as N (not acceptable) because of poor matrix spike recovery. Rinsate/decon metals testing results are provided in Tables 3-7 at the end of this section. No metals were detected in the rinsate/decon sample (071021/Barbee/R). Volatile Organic Compounds Grab Sample 071021/Barbee/G-1 was analyzed for volatile organics by EPA GCMS Method 8260. Results arc provided in Table 3-3. As shown in Table 3-3: Volatile Organics, the only detected volatile organic parameter was acetone at 17 ug/Kg-dry. acetone is a common laboratory contaminant even though it was not detected in the method blank. Table 4-3 provides a quality assurance review summary of volatile organic data. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 35% for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was acceptable although matrix spike recoveries were marginally low for several analytes in both the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate, as noted in Table 4-3. Surrogate recoveries were acceptable for all parameters. Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable, and method blanks results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-3 is deemed acceptable. Semivolatile Organic Compounds Composite Sample 071021/Barbee/C was analyzed for semivolatile organics by EPA GCMS Method 8270D. Table 4-4 provides a quality assurance summary of semivolatile organic data. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 35% for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50% except as noted in Table 4-4, All matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries were greater than zero for all parameters. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria although a number of surrogate recovers were less than the 50% warning limit. 2008-50 Barbee sediment Sampling Rcsults_doc Page 15 of 20 Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All semivolatile organic data reported in Table 3-4 is deemed acceptable. Pesticides and PCBs Composite Sample 071021/Barbee/C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/F.,CD (Dual Column - Methods 8081 A and Method 8082, respectively). As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PCBs were detected at reporting limits. All reporting limits for all scmi-volatile organic compounds were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally, all undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 provide a quality assurance summary of pesticide and PCB data, respectively. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 35% for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50%. Spike recoveries were greater than zero for all parameters. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates. Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blanks results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-5 is deemed acceptable as reported by the laboratory. Petroleum Hydrocarbons Composite Sample 07102 UBarbee/C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by GC/FID (Method NWTHH-D). Results are provided in Table 3-6. Table 4-7 provides a quality assurance summary of petroleum hydrocarbon data. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 35% for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50%. Spike recoveries were greater than zero for a]I parameters. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-6 for pesticides and PCBs is acceptable as reported. 2008-50 Barbee Sediment Sampling Results doc Page 16 of 20 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Sediment Sampling Sampling work conducted at the Barbee Boathouse Area Dredging Project was informative. Prior to sampling we had anticipated that medium to course sandy materials would be encountered based on previous experience. Portions of the proposed dredge area outside of the boathouse were most recently dredged in 2002 during the last May Creek Delta Dredging. Sediments below the proposed dredge profile (within the over -depth) were more typical of what we anticipated. Infill material currently within the proposed dredge profile tends to be finer sediment unsuitable for shallow water fish habitat enhancement along the rockery to the immediate south. Therefore, all dredged materials will be off-loaded to land of or placed in open water under the Dredge Material Management Program (DMMP). Core sampling in sandy sediments is marginal at best. Nevertheless, we arrived on site with a number of' sampling devices. Because of the extensive milfoil and lakebed accumulation of small woody debris (sticks, twigs, leaves), the gravity corer did not prove to very effective. A modified Shelby Tube that was hand driven proved to be very effective with the dredge profile where intill materials tend to be fine sands with appreciable silt content. The VanVeen sampler worked extremely well in limited use at Sampling Station BBSED-4. This sampler should be ideal for conformational sampling, if required, after dredging. As indicated in Section 2.0, over -depth sediments tend to be much coarser, and core recoveries in the over -depth zone were very poor such that it was not possible to get a representative sample of the over -depth. The over -depth sediments (below the proposed dredge profile) more closely approximated the kind of dredge material anticipated (based on prior experience) prior to sampling. Because dredging has largely been conducted at the former Barbee Mill on fairly regular 3-4 years cycles, we were surprised at how much milfoil was encountered throughout the proposed dredge area. If this is typical of Lake 2408-50 Barbee Sediment Sampl ing ResuIts _doe Page 17 of 20 Washington. then the problem is more extensive than previously considered by our project team. Chemical Contamination Based on sediment results provided in Section 3.0 of this report, the Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area is remarkably clean. All detected and undetected results were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally. all detected and undetected contaminant levels were less than MICA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted band Use. Like most urban areas, low levels of PAH compounds, as well as, phthalate esters, were encountered. No pesticides or PCBs were detected and concentrations of detected metals were unremarkable. Petroleum hydrocarbon residues (motor oil at 95 mg/Kg-dry, and diesel at 14 mg/Kg-dry) were detected. The presence of motor oil was somewhat of a mystery because no visible sheen was apparent in any grab sample or in the prepared composite sample. Nevertheless, we did observe a stringy streak of oily material at sampling station BBSED-4 near the boathouse. This material did not spread into a sheen as might be anticipated. Base on our experience, the stringy material appeared to be decomposed plant material. In any case, the laboratory confirmed the spectral match for motor oil in the composite sample. Because of the presence of detected motor oil in the composite sample, the use of dredged sediments containing petroleum hydrocarbons (motor oil and traces of diesel) for shallow water habitat enhancement should not be encouraged. Because detected contaminant levels for all Treasured chemicals of concern were below screening criteria for marine and fresh water disposal or beneficial uses, further biological testing is not recommended. Recommendations for Conlfirmational J Future Sampling As soon as an area is dredged in the future. conformational sampling (if required) should be conducted with a VanVeen Sampler in the over -depth profile with testing for petroleum hydrocarbon residues (diesel and motor oil). Operationally this could be accomplished in conjunction with dredging. For example when a reasonably defined area is dredged, such as the boathouse footprint, a sample would be collected and analyzed on a rush basis for NWTPH-Dx to determine whether additional dredging is necessary to remove petroleum hydrocarbon impacted sediments. Observational data of any potential sheen would supplement over -depth sampling and analysis data such that the work can be completed in a timely manner. Based on sediment data collected to date, there is no evidence that sampling and chemical analysis for other potential contarninants of concern is necessary. 2008-50 Barbee Sediment sampling ReSL[ItS.doc Page 18 of 20 Table 4-1: QA Summary / Conventional Parameters Sample: 0710211Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte Meets Warning Meets Action Quality Assurance Checks Limits Criteria? Crite rialOther?t1} Precision Actual RPQ % < 20% RPD? 071021/BarbeelC - Duplicate Hexavalent Chromium Not detected Yes N-Ammonia 5.4 Yes Sulfide 16.3 Yes Total Solids 0.9 Yes Preserved Total Solids 1.7 Yes Total Organic Carbon 12 Yes Total Volatile Solids 7.9 Yes Matrix Spikes Actual Recovery (°/s) Recovery > zero? 0710211Barbee/C - Matrix Spike Hexavalent Chromium 72.7 Yes N-Ammonia 99.2 Yes Sulfide 90.1 Yes Total Organic Carbon 118.5 Yes Laboratory Control Sample Sulfide 90.7 Yes Total Organic Carbon 107.6 Yes Meets Advisory Reference Materials Recovery >80% Range? SRM N-Ammonia (SPEX28-24AS) Yes Yes Total Organic Crbon (NIST 8704) Yes Yes Hexavalent Chrome (SRM) Yes Yes At or Below Method Blanks Detection Limit Hexavalent Chromium Yes N-Ammonia Yes Sulfide Yes Total Solids Yes Preserved Total Solids Yes Total Organic Carbon Yes Total Volatile Solids Yes Notes: "I See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits (DMMP Users' Manual - Current Edition) Table 4-2: QA Summary 1 Total Metals Sample: 071021/Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: EPA 200.8 and 7471A (Mercury) Metals Analysis Meets Warning Meets Action Quality Assurance Checks Limits Criteria? Criteria/Other?�'S Precision None 20% RPD 0710211Barbee/C - Duplicate Yes( Arsenic N/A No Chromium N/A No Copper NIA No Lead NIA No Nickel NIA No Zinc NIA No 75-125% Matrix Spikes None Recovery? 071021/Barbee/C - - Yes(3) Antimony - - No 071021/Barbee/R - - Yes Lab Control Sample (LCS - - Yes Meets Advisory Reference Materials None _ Range? ERA D044540 - - Yes(") Selenium No Method Blank No detected parameters in method blank at RL Notes: (" See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits (DMMP Users' Manual - Current Edition) (2) As noted immediately below, Action Limits were not met for low level detections where small differences create large RPD's. May also be a preparation and/or a dilution problem with either the sample or duplicate. Highest values reported. (3J Meets Recovery Criteria except for Antimony. Actual recovery at 6.7% on spike. Control Limit Not Met for Antimony Note case narrative regarding strong acid digestions for Antimony. {4) Except as noted below for Selenium, which exceeded UCL (upper control limit for CRM) Table 4-3: QA Summary 1 Volatile Organic Compounds Sample: 071021/Barbee/G-1 Description: Grab Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: EPA 8260BGCIMS Volatile Organics Analysis Meets Warning Meets Action Quality Assurance Checks Limits Criteria? Criteria/Other?(') < 50% COV or Precision < 35% RPD Factor of 2 Laboratory Control Spike/Spike Duplicate Yes Yes 071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Matrix Spikes 70 -150% Recovery Recovery > zero? 071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike (MS) Yes" Yes 2-Chloroethylvinylether 41.9 Yes 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 56.6 Yes Naphthalene 57.9 Yes 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 52.2 Yes 071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Yes('? Yes 2-Chloroethylvinylether 42.2 Yes 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 56.6 Yes Naphthalene 59.5 Yes 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 51.7 Yes Laboratory Control Spike (LCS-102707) Yes Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate(LCS) I Yes Yes Reference Materials None None Laboratory Control Spike/Spike Duplicate - - - - Meets Recovery _Surrogate Recovery > 85 % Recovery? Limits?l21 071021/Barbee/C Yes Yes Laboratory Control Spike (LCS-102707) Yes Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate (LCSD) Yes Yes 071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike (MS) Yes Yes 071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Yes Yes Method Blank (102707) Yes Yes Method Blank No detected parameters in method blank at RL Notes: (1) Warning Limit criteria met except as listed immediately below. (2) EPA/CLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits Table 4-4: QA Summary 1 Semvolatile Organic Compounds Sample: 071021113arbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: EPA 82670-D GC/MS Semi -Volatile Organics Analysis Meets Warning Limits Meets Action Quality Assurance Checks Criteria? Criteria/Other?(') < 50% COV or Precision < 35% RPD Factor of 2 Laboratory Control Spike/Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Matrix Spikes 50 -150% Recovery Recovery > zero? Laboratory Control Spike (LCS-11026607 Yes(') Yes 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 46.4% Yes 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 45.8% Yes 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 48.2% Yes 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 46.6% Yes 2,4-Dimethylphenol 42.6% Yes Benzyl Alcohol 48.6% Yes Hexachloroethane 44.8% Yes Hexachlorobutadiene 46.6% Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate{LCS} ! Yes(') Yes 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 46.2% Yes 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 47.4% Yes 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 48.4% Yes 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 48.6% Yes Benzyl Alcohol 49.8% Yes Hexachloroethane 44.8% Yes Hexachlorobutadiene 49.0% Yes Acenapthene 49.8% Yes Reference Materials None None LCS-110207 SRM SO-1"' Meets Recovery Recovery >50 % Minimum Limits?(" _Surrogate 071021 /Barbee/C Yes'' Yes d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene 49.2% Yes 2-Fluorophenol 48.3% Yes 0710211Barbee/R (rinsate sample) Yes Yes Laboratory Control Spike (LCS-110207) Yes(') Yes d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene 43.2% Yes 2-Fluorophenol 45.1 % Yes 2,4,6 Tribromophenol 49.3% Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate (LCSD) Yes(') Yes d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene 44.0% Yes 2-Fluorophenol 44.0% Yes SQ-1 111207 Yes(i) Yes d5-Nitrobenzene 47.6% Yes d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene 40.8% Yes d5-Phenol 49.3% Yes 2-Fluorophenol 45.3% Yes 2,4,6 Tribromophenol 42.1% Yes d4-2-Chlorophenol 49.1 % Yes Method Blank (102067) Yes Yes Method Blank-102607 No detected parameters in method blank at RL Notes: Warning Limit criteria met except as listed immediately below �za EPA/CLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits (3) Sequim Bay Reference Material (1998) Table 4-5: QA Summary ! Pesticides Sample: 071021 /Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GC/ECD - Pesticides (Method 8081A) Meets Warning Limits Meets Action Quality Assurance Checks Criteria? Criteria/Other?(') < 50% COV or Precision < 35% RPD Factor of 2 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS-MS/MSD) Yes Yes Matrix Spikes 50 - 150% Recovery Recovery > zero? Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Yes Yes 071021/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike Yes Yes 07W21/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Reference Materials None None LCS-111607 -- -- SRM SO-11" _ Meets Recovery Surrogate Recovery_ > 60 % Recovery? Limits?(2) 071021 /Barbee/C _ Yes Yes 071021/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike Yes Yes 071021/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Laboratory Control Sample (LCS-111607) Yes Yes Standard Reference Material (SQ-1) Yes Yes Method Blank (111607) Yes Yes Method Blank No detected parameters in method blank at RL Notes: "I See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits (4 EPA/CLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits (3) Sequim Bay Reference Material (1998) Table 4-6: QA Summary 1 PCBs Sample: 071021/Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GC/ECD - PCBs Meets Warning Limit Meets Action Quality Assurance Checks Criteria? Criteria/Other?(') Precision < 50% COV or < 35% RPD Factor of 2 071021/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Matrix Spikes 50 -150% Recovery Recovery > zero? 071021/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Reference Materials LCS-110307 SRM SQ-1t3' None None Meets PSEP Control - - Meets Recovery Surrogate Recovery > 60 % Recovery? Limits?12) _ 071021/Barbee/C Yes Yes 071021/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike Yes Yes 071021/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Laboratory Control Sample (LCS-110307) Yes Yes Standard Reference Material (SQ-1) Yes Yes Method Blank (110307) Yes Yes Method Blank No detected parameters in method blank at RL Notes: (1� See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits (DMMP Users' Manual -Current Edition) (2> EPA/CLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits (3) Sequim Bay Reference Material (1998) Table 4-7: QA Summary ! Petroleum Hydrocarbons Sample: 0710211Barbee/C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GCIFID - NWTPHD Meets Warning Meets Action Quality Assurance Checks Limits Criteria? Criteria/Other?(') < 50% COV or Precision < 35°% RPD Factor of 2 071021/Barbee/C - Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Matrix Spikes 50 -150°% Recovey Recovery > zero? 071021IBarbee/C - Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Meets Recovery Surrogate Recovery > 50 °% Recovery? Limits?121 071021/Barbee/C Yes Yes 071021/BarbeelC - Matrix Spike Yes Yes 071021/BarbeelC - Matrix Spike Duplicate Yes Yes LC Spike/Spike Duplicate Yes Yes Method Blank Yes Yes Reference Materials None None LC Spike/Spike Duplicate (LCS-102507) - - - - Notes: "I See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits (DMMP Users' Manual - Current Edition) fs} EPA/CLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits LAKE STUDY LAKE HOUSES AT EAGLE COVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITION MITIGATION Prepared for Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Prepared by Meridian Earlreo*entel,lot. December 23, 2016 Lake Study Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................ Lloyd and Associates, Inc. .................. 4 1.1 Background and Purpose................................................................................................. 4 2.0 Existing Conditions and Ecological Functions...................................................................... 5 2.1 Description of the Study Area.......................................................................................... 5 2.2 Critical Areas and Habitat................................................................................................. 5 LakeWashington..................................................................................................................... 5 MayCreek............................................................................................................................... 9 Wetlands.................................................................................................. ....................... 12 Habitat.................................................................................................................................. 12 Soils/Substrates---------------------------------•-----............................................................................. 12 Wildlife.................................................................................................................................. 13 2.3 2016 Aquatic Habitat Survey.......................................................................................... 13 SurveyMethods.................................................................................................................... 13 2016 SCUBA Survey Results.................................................................................................. 14 3.0 Project Description............................................................................................................ 19 3.1 Project Purpose.............................................................................................................. 19 3.2 Proposed Shoreline Modifications................................................................................. 19 4.0 Analysis of Alternatives...................................................................................................... 20 5.0 Impact Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 21 5.1 Habitat............................................................................................................................21 5.2 Large Woody Debris....................................................................................................... 22 5.3 Overwater Cover............................................................................................................ 22 5.4 Lighting ........................................................................................................................... 23 5.5 Water Quality (substrate disturbance and discharge of waste products) ..................... 23 6.0 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................25 7.0 References......................................................................................................................... 26 Tables Table 1. Summary of observations recorded during the December 16, 2016 project area SCUBA survey............................................................................................................................................ 15 Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 2 C:\Users\frys\Appaata\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-i.docx Lake Study Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. surface). . Figure 10. Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Figures Project area map (Lloyd and Associates 2016).......................................................... Coho salmon juveniles observed during the 2007 SCUBA survey ............................. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site(1990)................................................... Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site(2016)................................................... 2016 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations......................................................... Leaf litter substrate near the west end of Transect 1............................................... Silt substrate with low densities of M. spicatum and P. crispus along Transect 2..., Dense stands of P. crispus observed along Transect 3.............................................. Dense stands of M. spicatum observed along Transect 3 (note log boom at the .6 .8 11 11 14 16 16 17 ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crispus, and E, conadensis at the mid -point of Transect 4. .......................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 11. Gravel and cobble substrate (fish rock) observed along Transect 7.......................... 18 Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 3 C:\Users\"s\Appoata\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. LAKE STUDY LAKE HOUSES AT EAGLE COVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITION MITIGATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This Lake Study was prepared to obtain a 10-year permit from the City of Renton to allow dredging of an expanded area of Lake Washington located directly south the May Creek delta (adjacent to the Lake Houses at Eagle Cove) (Figure 1; Appendix A). Periodic maintenance dredging is needed at this location to preserve navigational access to the docks and boathouse; and to preserve access for swimming, canoeing, and other water sports. While maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments has occurred within and near the May Creek delta for over 50 years, the proposed project addressed in this study is focused on the expanded zone shown in Appendix A1, and could entail the removal of as much as 4,000 to 8,000 cubic yards (CY) of sediment every 3 to 4 years, due to increasing volumes of sediment that are delivered to the project area as a result of activities in the upper May Creek watershed. In addition to expanding the dredging prism, the proposed project would involve seven environmental protection and enhancement measures in the local area. These include the following: • Place 20 CY "fish rock„2 along the rockery as well as several yards of fish rock adjacent to the boat ramp on Lot A; • replace a solid wood float with a grated float that maximizes light transmission; • Replace three treated wood piles securing the old float with two 10-inch galvanized pipe piles; • Replace two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each), at the south end of the project site with a single 12-inch galvanized pipe pile at each location; • Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline north of the dredging zone to protect near -shore habitat that may be used by rearing Chinook salmon; 1 Currently federal permits are focused on the north end of the project site. 2 Spawning gravel sized substrate used to enhance nearshore aquatic habitat for salmonids. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 4 C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Enhance the north end of the project boundary through the placement of large woody debris (LWD) (approximately five to ten rootwads) to improve aquatic habitat, help stabilize the shoreline, and facilitate sediment deposition to reduce the need for future maintenance dredging; and 0 Conduct dredging only during the NMFS approved July 16 —September 15 work window. In Renton, shoreline areas are governed by the Shoreline Master Program and regulated specifically by RMC 4-3-090. Because Lake Washington is considered a critical area by the City of Renton, Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-OSO-F-2(c) requires that a lake study be conducted as part of any modification to a lake critical area. Specifically, the lake study must demonstrate that the proposed modifications would result in no net loss, meaning the applicant must demonstrate that the modifications, combined with any mitigation efforts, would result in equivalent or better protection of shoreline functions. This lake study fulfills the City's requirement. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The proposed project area includes five waterfront lots in the Eagle Cove area of Lake Washington located immediately south of the May Creek Delta at 3905 - 3909 Lake Washington Boulevard, Renton, WA 98056, including the boat house parcel (Figure 1). Appendix A shows the proposed expanded dredging zone. In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during dredging, the study area includes the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington within approximately one half mile of the May Creek delta. It is anticipated that the one half mile project area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in turbidity during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in the delta. 2.2 CRITICAL AREAS AND HABITAT Lake Washington Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state of Washington with 80 miles of shoreline, including about 30 miles along the shore of Mercer island. Lake Washington is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and is classified as a Type-S waterbody. Over 82 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored and is shaded by more than 2,700 piers and docks. Regulated lake levels and extensive armoring have hampered sediment transport and sandy beaches need to be augmented by periodic sediment supplies. Additional factors affecting the Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 5 C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Cake Study-1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. habitat features in the Lake Washington basin include a lack of riparian vegetation due to clearing and development; loss of channel and shoreline complexity including a lack of woody debris and pools; the development of fish passage barriers with the construction of road crossings, weirs, and dams; and degraded water and sediment quality caused by increases in pollutants and high temperatures. rwarcw loam .ebn $"SW +wr.Twi u� l4r..r Ti�rNil� '� NIrtgal,er Envirpnmeqial F_ mhancement at Fagle L'oYe R EPOsE sedttnem Depw" a4alm DATUM USACE Seattle !)W0a ;NADB3) Ap}ACENf PROPERTY OM ERS 1 Barbee Foreu PMarmCb�l.alre Maces 2 Barbee Mim Develow" BurWgW Nolwrn-Sarin: °e Nelgh whwd Detail Map Area Barbee Lill Develo m i BNSF Railroad Scale (ft) 0 500 lnnn APPLICANT: Lake -louses at Eagle Cove PROPOSED:=nvvnnmenlal Enharrcemerit WATERBODY Lake Wasfrrrxtnn LOCATION ADDRESS ]9L~, Lake WutwgE n Sw N NEIGHBORHDOO DETAIL 1A Rarar. Krrg Canty. WA WH5 Sew Tas &w Rage NW 32 24 05 . x 47N 31' 40' Long t22W 12' 29' Figure 1. Project area map (Lloyd and Associates 2016). Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 6 C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. The Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and Sammamish, and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It also includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain into the system from the north. Historically, Lake Washington had a vegetated shoreline of wetlands, trees, brush, and other mixed vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for juvenile salmonids and other aquatic species. Habitat degradation started with heavy logging of old growth forest throughout much of the watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle began diverting water out of the upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910 through 1920, the natural Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake Washington to Lake Union and then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake that was not connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of the Lake Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to 10 feet and the loss of over 10 miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. During that same decade, the Cedar River was redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington. In the ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been the expansion of urban and suburban development. Despite the heavy alteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support numerous salmonid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest salmonid populations, the Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye, coho, steelhead, rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char (bull trout). Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout are currently listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and coho salmon are a Species of Concern under the ESA. Some of the small independent Puget Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and cutthroat. Maps illustrating known and presumed distributions for each of these species are available in Kerwin (2001). Additionally, at least 40 non-native fish species (of which approximately 24 persist) have been introduced into the Lake Washington basin, most notably smallmouth and largemouth bass, creating numerous trophic interactions with native species, including substantial predation on native salmonids. Sockeye salmon in the lake system are believed to be primarily the descendants of fry transplanted from Baker Lake in the 1930s. While many species have been introduced, native species such as Cedar River pink and chum salmon have been extirpated. Over the past 23 years3 numerous salmonid species have been documented at or near the proposed project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout/steelhead, and cutthroat trout (Figure 4). No bull trout spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been 3 Lake surveys associated with permitting dredging and other activities at the Barbee Mil site began in 1993. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 7 C:\Users\fry5\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-1.docx Lake Stud and Associates, Inc. observed in May Creek, and no distinct spawning populations are known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse. Nan-salmonid species documented during surveys in the study area included largemouth and smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three -spine stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental Inc. 2007; and Meridian Environmental Inc. 2012). These findings are consistent with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database list for the project site, which includes all of the above salmonid species, as well as bull trout. Figure 2. Coho salmon juveniles observed during the 2007 SCUBA survey. Adult Chinook typically migrate into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid -June, peaking in late -August (Kerwin 2001). Spawning typically occurs from mid -September through November. Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from approximately January through June. Most juvenile Chinook move through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the entire outmigration period is unknown (Kerwin 2001). Adult coho begin entering Lake Washington in late -August and continue to enter the lake through early December. Most coho spawning occurs in November and December (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater. In Lake Washington, the peak of the outmigration occurs in early May (Kerwin 2001). Adult steelhead spawn from mid -December through early June in the Lake Washington basin. Juveniles can spend several years in freshwater before migrating to saltwater, Therefore, juvenile steelhead could be present in Lake Washington all year. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 8 C:\UsersVrys\AppData\Local\7emp\2016 Lake Study-1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Adult sockeye salmon enter Lake Washington from late May to late August, and arrival peaks in early July (Hodgson and Quinn 2002). Adult sockeye hold in the lake below the thermocline all summer (Newell and Quinn 2005) and spawn in September —January. Juvenile sockeye rear for 1 or 2 years in the lake, although they are also found in the inlet and outlet streams of the lake. Six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented in the project vicinity; elodea (Elodea canadensis), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), white -stemmed pondweed (Potamogeton prelongus), curly -leaf pondweed (P. crispus), American wild celery (Vallisneria omericana), and common water nymph (Najos guodalupensis) (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001). Elodea is a native species found throughout most of Lake Washington. Eurasian milfoil is a non-native species that first appeared in Lake Washington in the mid-1970s. According to Kerwin (2001), Eurasian milfoil has colonized a large percentage of the littoral zone and replaced much of the native aquatic vegetation present in littoral areas of Lake Washington. Curly -leaf pondweed, American wild celery, and common water nymph are also non-native to Lake Washington and are often found in ponds, lakes and sluggish streams to depths of 12 feet. In general, high densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and curly -leaf pondweed have been observed in the nearshore portion of the proposed project area (at depths less than 12 feet) during the summer months (Harza 2000). The highest abundance is typically seen in depths of 6 to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the deeper water transects (greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and less abundant. Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15 feet (Harza 1993 and 2000). May Creek The mouth of May Creek is located on Lake Washington approximately 2 miles north of the Cedar River in Renton, Washington. The May Creek Basin drains an area approximately 14 square miles west of the Cascade Foothills between Issaquah Creek, Coal Creek, and the Cedar River. The headwaters of the basin include Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and the East Renton Plateau. The main stem of May Creek contains approximately 7 river -miles of habitat and is fed by 13 primary tributaries. Historically, the May Creek watershed was forested with predominantly coniferous stands. Over recent decades, land uses in the western one-third of the basin have changed to intensive residential development. The eastern two-thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural residential, small farms, and some forested areas (King County 2001). Developed communities in the watershed include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honey Creek, and Lake Kathleen (Foster Wheeler 1998). The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban -scale development from encroaching on the headwaters of the basin. Land development in the lower basin has substantially reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces, and filled Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 9 C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. wetlands. Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage basin -wide is approximately 7 percent. In addition, under current zoning, full build -out would result in approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being covered in impervious surfaces (King County 2001). This is significant, as basin -wide impervious surface areas of 10 percent or greater have been found to have considerable impacts on the health of aquatic ecosystems (May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991). Logging, coal mining, and agricultural activities have resulted in channelized streams, floodplain encroachment, and eroding slopes in the May Creek watershed. The lower 4 miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the creek experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of LWD (Foster Wheeler 1998). The lack of LWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat. Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to forest removal, the presence of rock quarries, and the expansion of road networks. Vegetation removal throughout the basin has resulted in higher maximum flows and lower minimum flows. The increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding and sediment deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and flooding and sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 2001). Analysis of past, existing, and forecast storm runoff and flooding conditions of the May Creek Basin indicate that flooding will probably continue to increase as the basin is developed. As a result, the May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) includes several restoration goals, one of which is to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin. However, implementation of habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on funding availability. Historically, the Barbee Mill property (located adjacent to the May Creek delta) was highly modified, with mill operations dominating the land use (Figure 3). Approximately 85 percent of the site was covered by impervious surfaces in the form of pavement associated with mill operations and approximately 15 structures used for mill offices, log handling, sawing, milling, and storage of wood products. Over the past 15 years, and coinciding with the construction of the Barbee Mill housing development, the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area from its confluence with Lake Washington to Lake Washington Boulevard by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation (Figure 4). In this area, the vegetated stream buffer ranges from approximately 5 to over 100 feet in width. In addition, the Barbee Mill Company has placed clean fish rock over 2,100 square feet of the shoreline along the lake's rockery shoreline to the south of the boathouse dock to enhance shallow water habitat for fish. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page io C:\Users\frys\AppData\Loca1NTemp\2016 Lake Study 1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (1990). Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (2016). Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 11 C\Jsers\fr"\Appdata\Lo[a1\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.dorx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. According to Foster Wheeler (1998), the lower reaches of May Creek experience the heaviest use by fish. However, the primary limiting factor for Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is available spawning area and incubation success. The primary limiting factor for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and over - wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998). Wetlands According to King County's iMap database there are no wetlands located within the immediate vicinity of the proposed expanded dredging site. Nor do any other publicly available data indicate the presence of aquatic areas aside from Lake Washington and May Creek. Habitat As discussed above, the littoral zone and shoreline of Lake Washington have been extensively modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake level; construction of piers, docks, and bulkheads; removal of LWD; and the expansion of Eurasian milfoil and other non-native aquatic macrophytes (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000). The previously hardstem bulrush- and willow - dominated shoreline community has been replaced by developed and hardened shorelines with landscaped yards. According to Toft (2001), an estimated 71 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored with riprap or bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers have been built. This loss of natural shoreline has reduced the occurrence of complex shoreline habitat features such as overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen trees with branches and/or rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches, which has reduced the availability of refuge habitat and forage for juvenile salmonids. Like most of the shoreline along Lake Washington, the shoreline in the proposed project area is armored with riprap; however, emergent vegetation (soft rush, grasses, sedges, etc.) grows at depths less than 3 feet in areas to the north and east of the proposed dredge site. In 2007, juvenile rainbow trout, coho salmon, and sticklebacks were observed using this emergent vegetation as cover. Soils/Substrates Sediments in the proposed expanded dredge area (arising from May Creek depositional events) tend to be fine to medium sands (SP - MP) grading to gravels in closer proximity to May Creek. Sediments distal to May Creek trend to finer materials and silt. Within the May Creek delta, larger cobbles and gravels are the dominant substrates. Riprap, cobble, sand and gravel generally occur at depths less than 3 feet to the north and east of the proposed dredging zone. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the property (upslope of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) contains Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC) soil; however, this area would not be disturbed by the project. 4 http://www..kirgcounty.gov/services/gis/MaLsliLmap.asRx Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 12 C:\Users\frys\AppData\local�Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx Lake Study Wildlife Lloyd and Associates, Inc. In addition to the fish species described above, the WDFW PHS database lists three bald eagle nests within 1 mile of the project site. All three nests are located to the west of the May Creek delta on the southeastern tip of Mercer Island. it is reasonable to assume that bald eagles may fly over the project site and that they may forage in the project area based on the presence of documented nest sites and potential forage species, such as waterfowl, seagulls, and salmon, which occur in and around May Creek and the southern portion of Lake Washington. There is an existing osprey nest platform at the mouth of May Creek that has been occupied during the breeding season (March through September) in the past, but no nest was seen on the structure in December 2016. In addition to osprey, Meridian biologists have observed a variety of ducks, Canada geese, and turtles during fish habitat and fish population surveys in the project area. 2.3 2016 AQUATIC HABITAT SURVEY On December 16, 2016, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed detailed SCUBA - based aquatic habitat and fish presence surveys at the project site. Areas surveyed were (1) within the proposed expanded dredging zone to the inner harbor line; and (2) along the eastern and northern shoreline adjacent to the proposed dredging area; and (3) around the boat house. The objective of these surveys was to: • Document the existing aquatic habitat conditions during the winter of 2016; • Determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and • Describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the survey. An additional objective was to compare the results of 2016 surveys with the results of fish habitat and fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in 1993, 2000, 2001, 2007, and 2012). Survey Methods A Meridian fisheries biologist established seven underwater transects between the south end of the May Creek delta and the existing dock and log boom located at the south end of the proposed project area (Figure 5). Transects were designed to cover a large portion of the proposed expanded dredge prism, ranged from 100 to 225 feet in length, and extended approximately 500 feet into Lake Washington. Similar to previous surveys, two fisheries biologists then used SCUBA equipment to swim each of the seven transects approximately 2-3 feet above the surface of the lake bed. While swimming each transect, divers recorded the water depth, dominant substrate, the species and Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 13 C:\Userslfrys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. size class of any fish encountered, aquatic macrophyte composition and density, and underwater visibility. Aquatic macrophyte densities were visually estimated and classified as low (less than or equal to 10 stems per square yard), moderate (11 to 100 stems per square yard), or high (greater than 100 stems per square yard). In addition, divers recorded underwater video of representative habitat conditions along each transect. Figure 5. 2016 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations. 2016 SCUBA Survey Results As discussed in Section 2.2, numerous salmonid and non-salmonid species have been documented at or near the proposed project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout/steel head, cutthroat trout, largemouth and smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three -spine stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental Inc. 2007, and Meridian Environmental Inc. 2012). All of these species were observed using the project site (primarily along the margins of the lake) during spring, summer, and fall surveys. The 2016 survey represents the first time that a winter aquatic habitat survey was completed at the site. No fish were observed in the project area during the December 16, 2016 survey (Table 1). While their absence from the project area was surprising, salmonids and other fish rearing in Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 14 C:%llsersVrvs%AppData\LoLa1\Ten,,p\2CIC Lake Study-1.docx Lake Lloyd and Associates, Inc. freshwater have been found to shift to different habitats in the winter, and may have moved into deeper water to overwinter. Table 1. Summary of observations recorded during the December 16, 2016 project area SCUBA survey. Transect # General Aquatic Habitat Notes Fish Observations 1 Proceeded west from osprey nest pole heading offshore (Figure 5). 4-8' depth None following the edge of sandy shelf on delta, Substrate was comprised of mostly leaf litter with low to low densities of E. canadensis and M. spicatum (Figure 6). 2 Proceeded southeast from end of T1 to 2^d log boom piling (Figure 5). 18' max None depth approximately 14' average depth, Substrate was comprised of a mixture of leaf litter and silt with low densities of M. spicatum and P, crispus (Figure 7). 3 Proceeded north from eastern most log boom piling to point near osprey nest None pole (Figure 5). 15' maximum depth with dense stands of P, crispus and M. spicatum. Very tall patches -10' tall and only 2 to 3' feet below the surface (Figures 8 and 9). 4 Proceeded south from the midpoint of log to the dock with the boat lift (Figure None 5). 7' max depth. Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crispus, and E. canadensis at the mid -point of the transect (Figure 10). 5 Proceeded north from base of dock/boat lift to the end of the boathouse dock None (Figure 5). 6' max depth, Large expanses of sand with low to moderate densities of P. crispus, E, canadensis, and M, spicatum. 1 live freshwater mussel (Figure 11). 6 Proceeded from the end of transect 5 past the boat house to boat ramp None (Figure 5). 5' max depth. Low densities of M. spicatum and E. canadensis, 7 Proceeded along shoreline from the boat ramp to the base of the dock at None south end of proposed dredge prism (Figure 5). Substrate was comprised of mostly gravel, cobble, and leaf litter. Depths average 2-3 and aquatic vegetation was sparse. Abundant small freshwater mussels (Figure 12). As in past SCUBA/snorkel surveys, the substrate in the proposed project area was observed to be a mixture of silt and sand, riprap cobble, leaf litter, and fish rock patches. Riprap cobble, sand, and gravel were the dominant substrates observed along transect 7 (Figure 5). The riprap cobble and gravel was typically located within 6 feet of the shoreline to a depth of approximately 3 feet. Sand was the dominant substrate along Transect 1 and silt and organic debris (e.g., leaf material) were the dominant substrates along the remaining transects. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 15 C:\Userslfrys\AppData\Loca1\Temp\2016 Lake Study 1.docx Lake Study Figure b. Leaf litter substrate near the west end of Transect 1. and Associates, Inc. Figure 7. Silt substrate with low densities of M. spicatum and P. crispus along Transect 2. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 16 C:\Users\frys\Appdata\Local\Temp\20] 6 Lake Stu dy-I.docx Lake Study Figure 8. Dense stands of P. crispus observed along Transect 3. Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Figure 9. Dense stands of M. spicatum observed along Transect 3 (note log boom at the surface). Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Wage 17 C;\Users\fry5\aPpbata\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study- I.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Figure 10. Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crispus, and E. canadensis at the mid -point of Transect 4. Figure 11. Gravel and cobble substrate (fish rock) observed along Transect 7. As discussed in Section 2.2, six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented within and near the proposed expanded dredging area during past SCUBA/snorkel surveys. In general, high densities of E. conodensis, M. spicatum, and P. crispus have been observed in the nearshore portion (depths less than 12 feet) during the summer months (Harza 2000, Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2007; Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2012). The highest abundance is typically seen in depths of b to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the Lake Houses At Eagle Cove C.\Users\fry$\AppData`,Lcca1\Ternp\2016 Lake Study-1.ducx Page 18 Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. deeper water transects (greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and less abundant. Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15 feet. In 2016, biologists observed low, moderate, and high densities of E. canadensis, M. spicatum, and P. crispus in the project vicinity, depending on the transect. Densities were highest along transects 3 and 4 at depths less than 12 feet (Figure 4) and lowest along transects 1, 2, 3, and 7. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT PURPOSE For decades, the Barbee Mill site (owned by the Cugini family) and May Creek delta have been affected by ongoing development in the upper May Creek valley. Upstream development has resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased impervious surface in the watershed. Peak flows have increased approximately 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year flood event return intervals (King County 2001). In addition, this increased run-off has resulted in severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper basin, which is deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. Subsequently, wave action in Lake Washington transports fine sediment from the delta to the boathouse area, which is located to the south of the May Creek delta. Dredging of the May Creek delta and Cugini property boathouse area has occurred for over 50 years on a 3- to 4-year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. The amount of sediment deposition has been described as increasing from 3,000 to 4,000 CY every 3 to 4 years throughout the 1990s to 4,000 to 6,000 CY per in the 2000s. 3.2 PROPOSED SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS The proposed project would involve amending the current Corps programmatic permit to allow dredging of up to an additional 4,000 cubic yards of sediment in an area located adjacent to the existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). Dredging to achieve the desired navigational depth profile would deepen the expanded dredge prism by approximately 10 feet (Appendix A). This expansion of the dredge prism would align it with the existing property and inner harbor lines, facilitate safe navigational access to the boathouse, and promote future recreational uses. The current permit reference is NWS-2007-1019-N0. There would be no change in the frequency of dredging events. Dredging events would continue to occur in both the existing and expanded dredge prisms every 3 to 5 years, based on periodic evaluation of sediment depth. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 19 C-lusers\frys\Appoata\Loca1\Temp12016 Lake study-1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. There would be no change in the duration or timing of dredging events. As in the past, work would be accomplished within a 3- to 5-day period, and would be scheduled to occur within the in -water work window specified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The NMFS in - water work period, which is designed to limit impacts to aquatic species, is July 16th to September 15tn As is currently permitted, accumulated sediments would be removed with a small dredge and clamshell bucket. Portions of the work may also be conducted with a long -reach excavator from the land or an excavator mounted on a fenced flat barge. Use of any other type of dredge would require prior approval from the Corps and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Sediments would be loaded on a barge, transported, and off-loaded at an approved fill material stockpile zone for beneficial upland uses. 4.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES An alternative location for the project is not feasible, as the project is intended to ensure continued safe navigational access to the boathouse and promote future recreational uses. However, pursuant to RMC 4-9-050-L(I)(b), measures to avoid, minimize, and rectify impacts to the on -site shoreline critical area have been incorporated into the dredging plan. Minimization techniques include lining the perimeter of the barge with hay bales wrapped with filter fabric to prevent dredge material from entering Lake Washington, where it could cause turbidity. Conducting dredging only during the NMFS approved July 16 —September 15 work window would also minimize the risk of turbidity, by avoiding work during the rainy season. To protect and enhance aquatic habitat in the project vicinity, the project proponent is also proposing to: • Place 20 CY fish rock along the rockery as well as several yards of fish rock adjacent to the boat ramp on Lot A; Demolish the existing solid -surface 38-foot float and replace it with a grated float that is 24 feet long. Replace three treated wood piles securing the old float with two 10-inch galvanized pipe piles; • Replace two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each), at the south end of the project site with a single 12-inch galvanized pipe pile at each location; • Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline north of the dredging zone to protect near -shore habitat that may be used by rearing Chinook salmon; and Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 20 C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-1.docx Lake Stud Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Enhance the north end of the project boundary through the placement of LWD (approximately five to ten rootwads) to improve aquatic habitat, help stabilize the shoreline, and facilitate sediment deposition to reduce the need for future maintenance dredging. 5.0 IMPACT EVALUATION The proposed mitigation measures described above were designed using best available science, in accordance with RMC 4-8-120-19, and RMC 4-3-050-L-1-c, to avoid and minimize potential project impacts on aquatic habitat and salmonids and provide adequate mitigation. A discussion of project effects, including the effects of mitigation, is presented below. 5.1 HABITAT The proposed project is unlikely to have an adverse effect on adult salmon and steelhead spawning habitat, as no dredging would take place in May Creek. The proposed in -water work window (July 161h to September 15th) and relatively short dredging period (3 to 5 days of work) would also limit the potential to delay migration or spawning in May Creek. The proposed project may affect juvenile salmon and steelhead by causing physical changes to their early rearing habitat in Lake Washington. However, according to Tabor et al. (2006), Chinook fry begin entering Lake Washington around the first of the year, peaking in February, while parr and smolts enter the lake from April through July, peaking in late May. Past studies of juvenile Chinook salmon distribution and abundance in Lake Washington indicate that they are concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington from February to May; however, their density along the shorelines in the spring decreases logarithmically with increasing distance from the mouth of the Cedar River (Tabor et al. 2006). These studies also found that juvenile Chinook salmon prefer shallow water habitats with overhanging vegetation, with an approximately 4.5:1 ratio of fish using overhanging vegetation to fish occurring away from overhanging vegetation (Tabor et al. 2004, 2006). While data describing juvenile steelhead and coho use of Lake Washington are limited, both Tabor et al. (2004) and Meridian Environmental, Inc. (2007) have documented the presence of juvenile steelhead and coho in the proposed project area. Like juvenile Chinook, both of these species appeared to prefer the shallow water habitat located along the shoreline to the north and northeast of the proposed expanded dredging area, and were typically associated with overhanging brush and emergent vegetation. Juvenile coho were also abundant in the shallow water areas (less than 3 feet deep) located along the northeastern corner of the boathouse dock. No steelhead or coho were observed at depths greater than approximately 3 feet. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 21 C:1Users\frys\App©ata\Loca1\Temp\2016 Lake Study 1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Based on the results of previous studies completed in the project area, water depths in the proposed expanded dredging zone are generally deeper than those preferred by rearing juvenile Chinook, coho and steelhead. In addition, the aquatic habitat located immediately to the south of the May Creek delta and along the shoreline of the lake to the south is not heavily used by juveniles of these species (Taboret al. 2004). Limiting in -water work to the NMFS approved work window would minimize the potential to adversely affect juvenile Chinook, as the vast majority of juveniles in Lake Washington are expected to migrate prior to July. This in - work window would also minimize potential impacts on juvenile coho and steelhead. While the proposed project may cause a short-term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended sediment (see below) and a reduction in benthic invertebrates in the dredging zone, overall long-term water quality would be improved by removal of the toxic creosote pilings. Primary productivity and the fish forage base would be improved as a result of increased light penetration into the lake, and shoreline and instream habitat quality would be improved through the addition of fish rock. 5.2 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS LWD (logs with attached rootwads) is an important component of a healthy stream ecosystem. Large trees that fall into streams perform an important role in forming pools, regulating storage and routing of sediment, and trapping spawning gravel. LWD also provides complex fish habitat that increases carrying capacity, high -flow refugia for fish, and substrate for macroinvertebrates. The delivery and routing of LWD in May Creek has been altered by past timber harvest and urban and rural development and its role in forming habitats (especially pool habitat) is very limited. The placement of approximately five to ten anchored rootwads along the north end of the project boundary, as a component of the proposed project, would likely improve aquatic habitat salmonids, help stabilize the shoreline, and may facilitate sediment deposition to reduce the need for future maintenance dredging south of the delta. These large pieces of LWD are also expected to provide relatively stable habitat elements and trap pieces of naturally recruiting wood to form increasingly complex logjams that would be retained during periods of high flow. As a result we expect the LWD structures to slightly increase resident and anadromous fish productivity in lower May Creek. 5.3 OVERWATER COVER Juvenile Chinook salmon tend to avoid overwater structure. Tabor et al. (2006) found that upon approaching a pier, juvenile Chinook will move into deeper water and either pass under or swim around the pier. Similarly, in acoustic tracking studies, Chinook smolts avoided areas under overwater structures and changed course to move around such structures (Celedonia et al. 2008). The change in light levels associated with piers and other overwater structures may Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 22 C:\UsersVrys\AppOata\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-i.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. make it difficult for juvenile Chinook salmon to detect predators (Tabor etal. 2006), and salmon predators like smallmouth bass are often associated with pier piles (Celedonia et al. 2008). The project proponent would remove a solid -decked float in the project area and replace it with a new fully grated float to maximize natural light transmission. The new grated float would likely improve primary productivity and the fish forage base by allowing greater natural light penetration to the lakebed. Grating specifications would comply with previously approved permit conditions for light transmission. The project proponent would also remove two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each) at the south end of the project site and replace those with a single, much smaller 12-inch galvanized pipe pile at each location to reduce the amount of structure that would attract predatory fish. Overall, these measures are expected to improve juvenile salmon habitat conditions and reduce predation in the project area. 5.4 LIGHTING Artificial nighttime lighting has been shown to affect the behavior of various aquatic organisms, including many salmonids. Light -mediated behaviors may include changes in foraging, predator avoidance, reproduction, and migration. Often fish are attracted to artificial nighttime lighting (positive phototaxis) and their behavior may more resemble daytime behavior than nighttime behavior, which can potentially make them more vulnerable to predation (Taboret al. 2015). No artificial lighting is proposed as part of the expanded dredging project. 5.5 WATER QUALITY (SUBSTRATE DISTURBANCE AND DISCHARGE OF WASTE PRODUCTS) Dredging has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e., reduce water clarity) and increase total suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action area. Turbidity and TSS levels have been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect salmonid survival. The potential for adverse effects depends upon several factors, including the duration of TSS increases, the area of the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambient water (dilution factor), and the size of suspended sediments. In the case of the proposed project, increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and increases would last for only short periods of time; based on previous dredging activities, these periods are expected to be less than several hours. Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as such conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms, landslides, or other natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic exposure to increased turbidity that has been found to be the most potentially damaging to salmonids. Studies have found that when habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid localized areas of increased turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological impacts (Bisson and Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003). Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 23 C:\Users\frys\AppOata\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and Martens 1991), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a, 1987b). Studies have found that fish that inhabit waters with elevated TSS may experience a reduction in predation from piscivorous fish and birds (Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases, salmonids may actually increase foraging activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from predators (Gregory 1993). However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired byturbidities in excess of 70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Sisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mg/L suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/L of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982). The highest turbidity values recorded during dredging activity at the site in 2002 were less than 7 NTU, and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less than 1.4 NTU greater than turbidity outside the dredging zone. Overall turbidity values of less than 7 NTU are very low, and the effect of slightly increasing turbidity by 1 or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be considered discountable. Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short-term (3 to 5 days every 3 to 5 years) and localized elevation of turbidity (less than 5 NTU elevation above background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed project would rise to the levels that would be expected to cause harm to salmonids that may be present in the dredging zone. While some return water from dredged materials placed on a barge is anticipated to enter Lake Washington, it is extremely import to understand that the dredged material is highly porous and drains very quickly during dredging as the bucket is raised out of the water. This return water is the subject of the Water Quality Certification approved by Ecology. Notably, there is very little silt or clay content in dredged materials as indicated in recent sediment testing. Essentially, the sediments are virtually dry as loaded onto the barge. The perimeter of the barge will be lined with hay bales wrapped with filter fabric to further reduce the potential for introduction of sediments into Lake Washington. Considering that the turbidity produced by any construction activity would be localized and temporary, the most probable impact on juvenile salmonids would be a behavior modification (avoidance response), rather than injury or reduction in growth potential. An avoidance response could expose juvenile salmonids to increased predation or force them away from preferred rearing areas. The project proponent would employ the most effective strategy for minimizing or eliminating potential construction related impacts, which is to restrict construction to periods when the presence of Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, and bull trout is improbable. In -water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the spill of toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging or pile placement equipment. This potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by maintaining a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a SPCCP Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 24 C:1Userslfrys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx Lake St Lloyd and Associates, Inc. would specify areas for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention and emergency response strategies, requirements for keeping emergency response spill containment kits onsite, and for having trained personnel be onsite during in -water work. For this project, preparation of a SPCCP would limit the potential for toxic material spills during dredging and pile replacement. If oil or other unknown substances appear on the water surface or in dredged material while equipment is being operated, the contractor will cease operations immediately to identify the source of the contaminant and remedy the problem. If necessary, an oil absorbent boom secured to a debris boom will be utilized to encircle the work zone to capture sheen or potential floating debris. Finally, replacing the three creosote treated wood piles and two dolphins in the project area with galvanized pipe piles is expected to provide an overall increase in water quality, as slow solution of some creosote components and physical breakdown of the treated wood leads to toxicity in the surrounding water and sediment.. These piles would be pulled concurrent with the May Creek enhancement work. All creosote treated pilings would be cut into 4-foot lengths and disposed of in an approved upland landfill. 6.0 CONCLUSION Periodic maintenance dredging every 3-5 years in the proposed expanded dredge prism coupled with the protection and enhancement measures outlined in Section 4.0 are expected to preserve navigational access to the project proponent's docks and boathouse; maintain and possibly improve water quality conditions in the project area; enhance aquatic habitat and hydraulic functions in lower May Creek; slightly increase primary productivity and near -shore habitat quality in Lake Washington; and reduce predation in the project area. Overall, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions will result from the proposed project. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 25 C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx Lake Study 7.0 REFERENCES Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371-374. Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings of the Watershed '93 Conference. U.S. GPO, Washington D.C. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Bothell, Washington. Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000, Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous salmonids in the Lake Washington watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525-544 in E.E. Knudsen, C.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser (editors). Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton. Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241-246. Gregory, R.S., and C.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(2):275-285. Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization Assessment for the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA. Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA. Hodgson S., Quinn T.P., Hilborn R, Francis R.C., Rogers D.E. (2006). Marine and freshwater climatic factors affecting interannual variation in the timing of return migration to fresh water of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Fish Oceanogr 15(1):124. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long -neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications, 1:66-84. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 26 C:\UsersVrys\AppData\Loca1\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. Keister, J.P., Jr., R.G. Anthony, and E.J. O'Neill. 1987. Use of communal roosts and foraging areas by bald eagles wintering in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(2): 4154.20. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar-Sammamish basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 2001, Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA. 587 pp. King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 2001. May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4): 483- 494. Meridian Environmental Inc. 2007. Barbee Boat House Renovation and Maintenance Dredging Project Biological Assessment. Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared by: Prepared by: Meridian Environmental, Inc. July 11, 2007. Meridian Environmental Inc. 2012. Cugini Property Boathouse Expansion of the Existing Lake Washington Dredge Prism Biological Assessment. Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared by: Meridian Environmental, Inc. August 27, 2012. Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 2001. Cugini property May 2001, aquatic habitat and fish population survey and joint -use dock biological assessment. June 25, 2001, Newell, J. C., and T. P. Quinn. 2005. Behavioral thermoregulation by maturing adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerku) in a stratified lake prior to spawning. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1232-1239. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW. Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003. Redding, J.M., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1 16:737-744. Servizi, J.A., and Martens, D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 493-497, Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources. Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 27 C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx Lake Study and Associates, Inc. Appendix A Site Plan - Dredge Area Expansion Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 28 C:\Users\frys\Appoata\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-i.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. I Q It Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 29 C:\Users�frys\AppData\Loca1\Temp\2016 Lake Study 1.docx Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc. �1, ,�Ai Ali \ `� .v v �.- - r. , 1141, too Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 30 C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx '016-' I ; Scdimcm Sampling Rcsulb I)NM 1-1 Sediment Sampling and Analytical Results Barbee Maintenance Dredging Barbee Company. P.O. Box 359 Renton, Washington SuBmi rrro To: USACE/ DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Prepared by: Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 255 Camaloch Dr. Camano Island, WA 98282 Revised: December 12. 2016 I_lo)d & ASSo�:iuty' . Inc- Page ! of 30 _010-213 SCdIMCIA ti&mpinr_ KOLIIIs UTtiMW -I Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Site History — Historical Dredging Sediment Sampling Results Summary Suitability for Open Water Disposal 2.0 Sediment Sampling Sample Stations Sampling Equipment Field Sampling Procedure Equipment Decontamination Composite Preparation Chain -of Custody Grain Size Distribution/Field Observations 3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses Sediment Chemical Analyses Total Metals Volatile Organic Compounds Semivolatile Organic Compounds Pesticides and PCBs Petroleum Hydrocarbons Dioxins and Furans 4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary Sediment Chemical Analyses Total Metals Volatile Organic Compounds Semivolatile Organic Compounds Pesticides and PCBs Petroleum Hydrocarbons Dioxins and Furans 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Sediment Sampling Considerations 1.1o%d K AssocuiieN_ Inc page 2 of 30 2(116-71 i cedmicnt', mplin- RemOI1 D MMI1-1 Table of Contents (continued) Figures and Tables Figure 1-1: Site Photograph Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations Figure 2-2: Sediment core 071021/Barbee/G- Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations Table 2-2: Grain Size Data Table 3-1: Sediment Results / Conventional Parameters Table 3-2: Sediment Results / Total Metals Table 3-3: Sediment Results / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Table 3-4: Sediment Results / Pesticides and PCBs Table 3-5: Sediment Results / Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 3-6: Sediment Results / Dioxins & Furans Table 4-1. QA Summary / Conventional Parameters Table 4-2: QA Summary / Total Metals Table 4-3: QA Summary / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Table 4-4: QA Summary / Pesticides and PCBs Table 4-5: QA Summary / Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 4-6: QA Summary / Dioxins & Furans Attachments Attachment A — Sediment Sampling Logs Attachment B — Grain Size Distribution Attachment C - Laboratory Reports and Quality Control Summary Attachment D Historical Sampling and Analysis Results IJoyd & Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 30 ?U lb-21 ; Scdmicnl S2miphng Results 1)hM -1 1.0 Introduction This report provides results of sediment sampling and chemical testing of sediments in conjunction with proposed Maintenance Dredging. The purposes of this sampling and analysis program are: (1) to chemical collect data regarding the level(s) of contamination that may or may not be present within sediments of the permitted dredge area, and (2) to assess the suitability of dredged materials for open -water disposal. The purpose of the proposed dredging is to maintain navigational and recreational access. As currently permitted, we anticipate approximately 2500 to 2700 CY of material will be dredged in 2017 based on 2016 hydrographic data. Site History — Historical Dredging The project area (see Figure 1-1) has been dredged for many decades. In recent history, the area was dredged in 1994, 1997, 200 1 /2002 and 2011. The boathouse was constructed in the 1950's, and has been in continuous use. A portion of the Barbee Boathouse Navigational Dredge area was last dredged in 2011, concurrent with boathouse renovation under USACE Permit Reference 4NWS-2007-10 19. Figure 1-1: Site Navigational Access Photograph. Photograph looking west loivard Alercer Island, .showing the current status of the Xavtgational access to the Boathouse The navigational assess "channel " is immedialely to the left of the line of piling and boom logs. I -hied & Associaes. ]nr F'a'oe 4 of")0 21116-21 3 �cdiment Sampling RcaiIZ� I )V MI I -i North of the former Barbee Mill facility (approximately 2000 ft), is Quendall Terminals. Quendall Terminals is a CERCLA (superfund) site managed by EPA. Primary contaminants at this site are creosote residues (PAH compounds) and petroleum hydrocarbons. Barbee Lumber Mill operations occurred north of the May Creek Delta, and south of Quendall Terminals. Lumber mill operations were essentially shut down in 1999. The boathouse area has been periodically dredged since the early 1950's to maintain navigational access to the boathouse. There is no record of spills or other discharges impacting sediments in the proposed dredge area although low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected during sampling and chemical analysis in 2008. Sediments in the proposed dredge area arise principally from deposition during severe storm events (high energy) when sediment loadings carried from the May Valley Drainage Basin are substantial. Sediments to be dredged in the future are derived from depositional events that have occurred at the May Creek Delta for many years. The project proponents seek to dredge depositional sediments that have infilled the navigational access to the boathouse. The Barbee Company has secured all permits to dredge the area from the USACE and is currently updating permits from state and local jurisdictions. As permitted by USACE, our proposal is to dredge the permitted profile approved by USACE. This profile will not reach depths that will encounter sediments that are older than dredging work completed in 2011 or in previous dredging events. In all respects we will not be dredging to depths that at or below 10-12' elevation (MSL, Corps Datum). In 2002 the depth at the western edge of the dredge footprint was approximately 15-20 feet deep, well below proposed dredge profile. In 2005, for example, the water depth at the Eagle Roost (also periodically referred to the Osprey Nest) was approximately 10' (12' El. MSL). Since 2005, there has been over 10' of depositional infill from on going erosional events. While the numbers are not well developed, the volume of material deposited in Lake Washington at the May Creek Delta is at least 25,000 CY (and likely substantially higher). The point is that the project proponents are not dredging older lakebed sediments by any means. We are simply looking at dredging the least amount of depositional material possible to maintain access to the boathouse, boat ramp, and shoreline access for protected recreational uses. The proposed depth profile for dredging will occur within recent infilUdeposition. These results are also to be considered a supplement to previous sediment sampling and analysis work conducted in 2007 (reported in 2008) and years prior (see Attachment D — Historical Summary Data Summary). Sediment Sampling Results - Summary Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-1) is very limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel Uoyd cg Asaoci&n. Inc. page 5 of 3(] '_;1Ir,-'13 Sedinunt Sampling Re>ults IAIMI 1 range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis). Suitability of Dredged Material for Open Water Disposal All data indicate that detected chemical contamination levels are below all low-level screening criteria. and that the materials are acceptable for disposal at a DMMP open - water disposal site. I_loYd K Associates. Inc. 'age 6 oF30 21010 13 Sed3mern Suinl)ling RCSLllIS I)MMU- I 2.0 Sediment Sampling Sediment sampling at the Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area was conducted on Monday July 4, 2016. Sediment samples were collected, composited and preserved for next day delivery to Analytical Resources, Inc. (Seattle, WA). This section provides a summary of sediment sampling information. Sediment Sampling Logs are provided in Attachment A. Sample Stations Differential GPS was utilized to locate sediment sample stations. Sampling occurred close to proposed locations as moderated by observed field and gusty weather conditions. Sampling locations are summarized in Table 2-1 below. All data was collected using North America Datum (NAD83-Washington North). Lake Elevation at the time of sampling was provided by the USACE at Chittenden Locks. Lake elevation was 20.6 feet (MSL), approximately 1.2 feet below the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL). Table 2-1 Sample Stationing Monday, July 04, 2016 Actual Sampling State Plane (ft) Mudline Proposed Sampling Sample _ Location Easting Northing Elevation Design EL. Thickness (ft) SED-1 SSE about 39' from Osprey pole 1301394.0 195430.7 18.5 14.5 4.0 SEC-2 South of peninsula about 38' 1301509.0 195448.0 19.1 16.0 3.1 SED-3 Adjacent to Boathouse Door 1301612.5 195476.9 13.0 12.0 1.0 Average Thickness (ft) = 2.7 Notes SED-1 Moved south nearer to sharp increase in depth SED-3 Boathouse door locked, sampled just outside of boathouse door All elevations are in feet, MSL (USACE Datum) Sampling Equipment Samples SED-1 and SED-2 were collected as drive samples using a gravity corer from University of Washington. Sample recoveries were generally very good fro Sample SED-2(> 70%) as shown in Sediment Sampling Logs provided in Attachment A. However, recovery at SED- I was poor due to nature of materials sampled. The middle section of the drive met little resistance, and it is believed that we hit a homogeneous loose sandy layer that was lost with extraction of the gravity corer. A repeat drive was conducted with the same results. At no time did it appear that we hit a hard substrate such as might be anticipated in a lake bottom. Because of the consistency of core results (mostly fine to medium sand) all sediments appear to Uo%d &- &ociam,. Inc, Page 7 of 30 21110-' 1 3 Sedi r1C111 SLIMPIIm RCIUIIS iANI -1 of recent depositional origin. Because of the shallow sampling thickness, SED-3, was collected with a small vanVeeen sampler with 100% recovery. Sediment Sampling Stations are shown in Figure 2-1. ENgle's rest 1 ,SEE-1 (proposed) ' i 1 �) SED-1 (actual) Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations (Proposed and .Actual) Field Sampling Procedure Because of the recent substantial deposition (arising from May Creek), sampling was accomplished by walking out to the sampling locations with the exception of the boathouse sample (S1D-3) which was collected just outside the boathouse from an adjacent float. Depth to mudline (something of a misnomer, since no mud was encountered) was measured with a weighted line. The 8' gravity corer included a 24" extension with an added drive weight. The sampler was generally easily extracted and raised out of the water. The only problem encountered with sampling recovery occurred at SED-1 where we hit a pocket of low resistance, believed to be homogeneous sandy materials. Sediment cores at SED-1 and SED-2 had low water content when extracted. Once extracted from the lined sampler, the sample core was visually inspected and logged. Core contents from within the dredge profile were retained in individual stainless steel bowls. Mixing of the core contents was with a clean stainless steel spoon. No attempt was made to select layers or otherwise alter the sample contents. Equipment Decontamination Prior to sampling, all sampling equipment was decontaminated by scrubbing with a dilute solution of Alconox, rinsed with tap water, and then followed by two rinses of distilled water, In the field, the samplers were rinsed with lake water and visually inspected prior to moving to the next sampling station. A solvent rinse was not utilized at any time. Composite Preparation LloNd &- Associates, [Tic Page 8 of 30 2U14-21 3 5edimcmSamplmg Rcsulis I)NIMI -1 A composite sample was constructed from SED-I, SED-2 and SED-3 sediments. The composite was weighted 45% each of SED-1 and SED-2. and 10% of SED-3. It is unlikely that dredging will occur at the boathouse (SED-3) in the near future because recent sediment deposition patterns to the west predominate, and there is currently adequate navigational depth. A pre -cleaned stainless steel bowl and spoon was utilized to composite samples. Portions were well mixed to a homogenous consistency. The composite sample was identified as 07042016/SED-C. Chain -of Custody The laboratory provided chain of custody was utilized to record basic sample information and requested analyses. All samples were labeled, bagged in Ziploc bags, chilled with ice, and delivered to the laboratory the next day under chain of custody. A copy of the Chain of Custody is provided in Attachment C. Grain Size Distribution Logs / Field Observations Sediment Sampling Logs are provided in Attachment A. In general, sediment sampling yielded good recoveries because of the cohesive nature of the sediment in the sampling profile. However, recoveries at SED-1 were marginal as the lower portions of the core were lost during sampler extraction. Grain Size Data is provided in Table 2-2 and graphically presented in Figure 2-2. These sands appear to be relatively recent origin and do not suggest that sediments below the proposed dredge profile were encountered. Sediments from SED-1 and SED-2 were odor free and no apparent sheen was observed in any grab sample although a light stringy sheen was observed in SED-3. A transient "rotten" smell was also noticed in SED-3 The upper few inches of each core was layered with coarse sand and pebbles with the exception of SED-3 which had twigs, leaf litter, and milfoil stringers. Milfoil distribution was extensive throughout shallow waters. However, in those areas of recent sediment deposition, the surface was bare of vegetative growth as observed at SED-I and SED- 2 Sampling Stations. All samples, as collected, were sandy and gritty to the touch. Table 2-2 Grain Size Distribution Data Sample: 07042016Ba rbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: PSEP Methodology Sieve Microns Rep. - 1 Rep. - 2 Rep. - 3 Average (%) 3181, 100 100 100 100 Gravel #4 4,750 83.6 80.9 84.6 83.0 #10 2000 80.1 76.4 80.6 79.0 #18 1000 75.9 724 76.6 75.0 Very Coarse Sand #35 500 62.4 %9 63.4 61-9 Coarse Sand #60 250 24,0 23,6 25.6 244 Medium Sand #120 125 5.5 6.0 7.2 6.2 Fine Sand #230 63 2.2 2.9 4.0 3.0 Very Fine Sand 31.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 Silt 15.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 7,8 1.2 1A 1.3 1.3 3.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Clay 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1,1oNd K, Associates. Inc Page 9 of 30 MTC PEEP Grain Size Distribution T + Triplicate Sample Plat '7 GFIAVEL SAND SILT CLAY 100 -- -- I' -- i 90 80 70 - .- 60 50 E ' - --- — -- { -� — - ` 40 30 I I k 2C 10000 1000 100 10 t Particle Mmeter (micraaa) —+-07042016BARBEE-G --—07042016BARBEE-G t07042616BA9BEE-G ITI 2016 I3 SedIMUN St1111pli11L ROL11Is IA9NR'-I 3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources, Inc., Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. The composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters, and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide low level detection limits for COC's. A rinsate sample was not collected, as recommended by USACE/DMMP. As provided in the Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan,I the sediment samples, as a composite was submitted for chemical analysis for the following parameters: • Conventional Parameters - EPA/PSEP Methods • Semi -Volatile Organics - EPA 8270D GC/MS (8270D SIM to achieve the required screening level for 2,4-Dimethylphenot) • Total Metals - EPA 200.8; (Except as noted).2 • Pesticides/PCBS — EPA 8081/8082 GC/ECD • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons — NWTPH-D • Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction/time to analysis) were acceptable and in compliance with accepted PSEP protocols. Conventional Testing Results Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for Total Solids, Preserved Total Solids, N-Ammonia, Total Sulfides, and Total Organic Carbon. These results are provided in Table 3-1 at the end of this section. Laboratory report forms for this data are provided in Attachment C. Hexavalent Chromium was not detected, reported by ARI as a conventional parameter. Total solids were reported at 80.5% and Total Organic carbon was reported at less than 0.2%. These results are consistent with field observations of well draining sands and gravels with only traces of organic matter. There are no Marine or Fresh water screening levels for conventional parameters. Ammonia levels were detected at 19.6 mg-N/Kg (dry basis), Total Sulfide was reported at 1.8 mg/Kg (dry basis). Draft Barbee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan. (L&AI, 2016) BUI� 1 tin Compounds ueN nol required for chemical anah sis_ per �ISA(T I.loed & Associates, Ilse Page I 1 of 30 2010-213 Sediment Sampling Result. I)14 W I-" Total Metals Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are provided in Table 3-2. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Traces of Arsenic, Cadmium, and silver were detected along with Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc. Mercury was not detected. Antimony was analyzed as a supplemental parameter. All detected and undetected metal concentrations were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water 3 As requested by USAGE, antimony is reported as a supplemental parameter extracted and analyzed by ARL All detected and undetected results were less than low-level Screening Levels for both Marine (SL1) and Fresh Water (SL1). Semivolatile Organics Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds by GCMS Method 8270D per PSEP protocols. Results are provided in Table 3-3. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Several semivolatile organics were detected, including: PAHs, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The total HPAH concentration was 328 ug/Kg-dry. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg-dry, just above the detection limit. The carcinogenic PAH (cPAH, calculated quantity, as TEQ) was 36.3 ug/Kg-dry. Detected and undetected parameters for all semivolatile organic compounds were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Pesticides and PCBs Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/ECD (Dual Column - Methods 8081A and Method 8082, respectively). Results are provided in Table 3-4. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. As shown in Table 3-4. no pesticides or PCBs were detected above detection limits. All reporting limits for all pesticides and PCB's were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Several supplemental parameters were subsequently analyzed by ARL Results are included in the data set tables, as requested by USAGE / DMMP. All detected and undetected results were less than DMMPSL 1 Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Petroleum Hydrocarbons Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by GC/F[D (Method NWTPH-Dx). Results are provided in Table 3-5. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Diesel was detected at 8.3 mg/Kg-dry, and Motor Oil was detected at 39 mg/Kg-dry. As noted in sampling logs, a light stringy oily substance was observed when sampling at Station SED-3. This transient type of sheen is typical of decaying organic matter. There were no visible indications of a petroleum sheen in any grab sample or the composite. All detected and undetected results were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Sediment Quoht� Guidelines Ibr Standard Chemicals of Concern and from IAIM P I.'scr", Manual (current edition) I ill%d & rlssocwles. lice Nate 12 of 30 1116-2 13 Sediment Sampling RCSLII(} i1YlW -I Dioxins and Furans Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method 1613B. Results are provided in Table 3-6. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents were measured and calculated at 0.65 pg/g-dry (ppt or ug/Kg), substantially below the Marine Screening Level of 4 pg/g-dry (ppt). Hocd &- Aswciales. Inc Pa,le 13 of _30 2010-2 13 Scd1 cilt lallli hq! Rcsuit. D%1\111-1. Table 3-11: Sediment Results / Conventional Parameters Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte{ Conventional Parameters Units Result Q RL MTCA Screening Levels I2) Method Ai'} Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) Hexavalent Chromium mg/Kg-dry < 0.493 U < 0.493 19 - - - Total Solids Percent 80.75 0.01 - - - Preserved Total Solids Percent 74.44 0.01 - - - - Total Volatile Solids Percent 1.12 0.01 N-Ammonia mg-N/Kg 19.6 0.98 - - - Sulfide mg/Kg-dry 1.8 1.28 - - - Total Organic Carbon Percent 0.182 0.02 - - - - Notes: * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are shown above. (21 Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition) Table 3-2: Sediment Results / Total Metals Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Methods: EPA 200.8 (Except as noted)" Results MTCA Screening Levels (2) METALS mg/Kg-dry Q LOQ Method Ai') Marine (SL1) fresh (SL1 Antimony 0.25 U 0.25 150 Arsenic 2.1 0.2 20 57 14 Cadmium 0.081 J 0.115 2 5.1 2.1 Chromium 22.1 0.6 2,000 260 72 Chromium + 6 (see Conventionals) Copper 13.9 0.6 - - 390 400 Lead 4 0.1 250 450 360 Mercury (EPA 7471A) 0.03 U 0.03 2 0,41 0.66 Nickel 28.2 0.6 - - - - 38 Selenium 0.577 J 0.577 - - - - 11 Silver 0.023 J 0.231 - - 6.1 0,57 Zinc 48 5 -- 410 3200 Notes: * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) t'} Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg �4 Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition) I- u%d & Associates. Inc. Page 14 of 30 ?015-21 ; Sedinlenl S;umPlmg Results 1)MMI -I Table 3-3: Sediment Results / Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sample: 070420161Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: PSDDA Samivolatiies by SW8270D GClMS* Extraction Method: SW3646 Results MTCA Screening Levels` SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS uglKg-dry Q LOQ Method Al" Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) CHLORINATED ORGANICS I,4-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 110 1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9-6 U 9.6 35 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <9-6 U 9.6 31 Hexachlorobutadiene < 9-6 U 9.6 Hexachlorobenzene < 9-6 U 9.6 22 beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 0.49 7.2 PAHs Naphthalene < 19 U 19 500011' 2,100 Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 560 Acenapthene &7 J 19 500 Fluorene 8.7 J 19 540 Phenanthrene 40 19 1,500 Anthracene 9.6 J 19 960 2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 500011, 670 1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 500011' Total LPAH"r 67 5,200 Fluoranthene 88 19 1,700 Pyrene 66 19 2,600 Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c 1,300 Chrysene 30 19 c 1,400 Benzofluoranthenes 55 38 c - - 3,200` Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 1001*1 1,600 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c 600 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 U 19 c 230 Benzo(g,hJ)perylene 19 19 670 Total HPAHI" 328 12,000 Total cPAH (talc- wl TEF) 36.3 Total PAW) 395 17,000 PHTHALATES Dimethylphthalate < 9-6 U 9.6 71 Di-n-Butylphthatate 8.7 J 19 1,400 380 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 50 Q 1.300 500 ❑ielhylphlhalate < 19 U 19 200 Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 63 Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19 6,200 39 PHENOLS Phenol <19 U 19 420 120 2-Methyiphenol < 9-6 U 9.6 4-Methylphenol < 19 U 19 670 260 2,4-Dim ethyl phenol"' < 19.1 U 19.1 Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 400 1,200 MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTIBLES Benzoic Acid <190 U <190 650 2900 Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19 Carbazole < 19 U 19 900 Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19 540 200 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 9.6 28 - - Notes: Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) I'I MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are uglKg) uI Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Gntdelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and DMMP User's Manual t'l Total shown for Naphthalene. 1-Methyl Naphthalene. and 2-Methyl Napthahalene tot Totals shown are for both b and k Benzofluoranthenes to) Does not include undetected parameters or 1-and 2-methylnaphthalene, estimated (J} parameters at 112 reported I°f Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,Benzo(blllk)Fluaranthenes and Benzo(a)anthracene. Total does not include undetected parameters. I`1 Total PAHs calculated er Table 6.2.3 DMMP User Manual °l Method B - Soil Ingestion Pathway ly! Initial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re analyzed 2,4-dimethylphenol via 8270D SIM - I.Imd & Associates. Inc Page 15 of 30 -016-'1 - Sediment Sampling KCS11115 UMmi,i-I Sample: 07042016IBarbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: PSDDA Samivolatiies by SW8270D GCIMS* Extraction Method: SW3546 Results MTCA Screening Levels"' SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS u l -d Q LOO Method A"' Marine (Sl Fresh (Su) CHLORINATED ORGANICS I,4-Dichlorobenzene < 9-6 U 9-6 110 I,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9-6 U 9-6 35 1,2,4-Trichicrobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 31 Hexachlorobutadiene < 9.6 U 9.6 Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 22 beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 0.49 7.2 PAHs Naphthalene < 19 U 19 5000"' 2,100 Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 560 Acenapthene 8.7 J 19 500 Fluorene 8.7 J 19 540 Phenanthrene 40 19 1,500 Anthracene 9.6 J 19 960 2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000"' 670 1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000"' Total LPAH'°' 67 5,200 Fluoranthene 88 19 1,700 Pyrene 66 19 2,600 Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 e - 1,300 Chrysene 30 19 c -- 1,400 Benzo(bljik)fluoranthenes 55 38 c 3,200"1 Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 10011' 1,600 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c 600 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 U 19 c 230 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19 670 Total HPAH"' 328 12,000 Total ii (talc. w1 TEF) 36.3 Total PAHt" 395 17,000 PH THALA TES Dimethyiphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 71 Di-n-Butylphthalate 8.7 J 19 1,400 380 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 s0 Q 1,300 500 Diethylphthalate < 19 U 19 200 Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 63 Di-n-Outylphthalate < 19 U 19 6,200 39 PHENOLS Phenol < 19 U 19 420 120 2-Methylphenol < 9.6 U 9.6 4-Methylphenol < 19 U 19 670 260 2,4-Dimethylphenol"' < 19.1 U 19.1 Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 400 1,200 MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTIBLES Benzoic Add <190 U <190 650 2900 Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19 Carbazole < 19 U 19 900 Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19 540 200 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 9.6 28 - - Notes ' Analytical Rescurces, Inc. (Tukwila. WA 98168-3240) t" MTCA Sod Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1(. Units are ugi t" Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals Of Concern and DMMP Users Manual Total shown for Naphthalene, 1-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalene Totals shown are for both b and k Benzofluoranthenes t°' Does not include undetected parameters or t-and 2-methylnaphthalene, estimated (J) parameters at 112 reported 01 Benzo(alpyrene, Chrysena, Dibenzo(a,h(anthracene, Indenc(1,2,3-ed)pyrene.Benzo(bljfk)fluoranthenes and Benzo(a(anthracene. Total does not include undetected parameters t" Total PAHs calculated er Table 8.2 3 DMMP User Manual tO' Method B -Soil Ingestion Pathway Initial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re analyzed 2,4-dimethylphenol via 6270D SIM. Lloyd & Associates_ Inc. Page 16 of 30 2016-2 1i Scdimcm 5ainpling PciiItS I) I\V'-I Table 3-4: Sediment Results / Pesticides and PCBs Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GCIECD - Pesticides /PCBs* Results PESTICIDES & PCBS ug/Kg-dry Q LOQ/RL Heptachlor < 0.49 U 0.49 Aldrin < 0.49 U 0.49 Dieldrin < 0.98 U 0.98 4,4 '-DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 4,4 '-DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 4,4 '-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 Endrin Ketone < 0.98 U 0.98 trans -Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49 cis -Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49 2,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 2,4'-DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 2,4'-DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 Oxychlordane < 0.98 U 0.98 cis-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98 trans-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98 sum of 2,4'-DDD & 4,4'DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 sum of 2,4'-DDE & 4,4'DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 sum of 2,4'-DDT & 4,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 Total DDT....... < 0.98 U 0.98 Total Chlorodane(5) < 1.47 U 0.98 Notes: MTCA Screening Levels�2j Method A"' ug/Kg(') Marine (SL1) Fresh (SU) -- 1.5 - - 9.5 - - - - 1.9 4.9 -- 9 -- -- 16 -- -- 12 -- -- -- 8.5 -- -- 310 -- -- 21 -- - 100 3000 - -- -- 2.8 -- Aroclor 1016 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - Aroclor 1242 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - - Aroclor 1248 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - Aroclor 1254 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - Aroclor 1260 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - Aroclor 1221 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - - Aroclor 1232 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - 130 110 Total Aroclors < 3.9 U - 1000 130 110 * Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) (1) MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg (2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and DMMP User's Manual (current edition) (4) Includes DDE, DDD, DDT (5) Sum of cis & trans chlordane, cis & trans nonachlor, and oxychlorodane Llmd & Atisnciaics. Inc Page 17 of 30 '016-?13 Scdinunt Samhl 'Ti _ R"Al It> I)tiIW -I Table 3.5: Sediment Results I Petroleum Hydrocarbons Sample: 07042016IDarbee-C Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: GCIFID - NWTPHD* Resu;ts MTCA Screening Levels (2) NWTPHD mg/Kg-dry Q RL Method W� Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) Diesel 8.3 6.3 2000 - - 340 Motor Oil 39 12 2000 - - 3600 Notes: * Analyticai Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) c1> MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg f f Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual (current edition) Llovd & :Associates. Inc Page 18 of 30 2(116-21 , Sediment ti;mplin Kewults 1)MML-1 Table 3-6: Sediment Results Dioxins / Furans Sample: 1072016/Barbee/C Description: Sediment Sample DMMU-1 Analytical Method: Dioxins/Furans by EPA 16136* MTCA Screening Levels(2) Results Method A"' Dioxins 1 Furans (ng/Kg) 0 RL ng/Kgs'° Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1) 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.0776 BJEMPC 0.970 - - - - 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.145 JEMPC 0.970 - - - - - - 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.0737 BJEMPC 0.970 - - - - - - 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF < 0.0563 U 0.970 - - - - - 1. 2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.182 BJEMPC 0,970 - - - - - 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.114 BJEMPC 0 970 - - - - - 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.111 BJ 0.970 -- - - 2,3,4,67,8-HxCDF 0.136 BJEMPC 0.970 - - - 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.130 BJEMPC 0,970 -- - - 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.242 BJEMPC 0,970 - - -- 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.532 BJEMPC 0,970 -- - -- 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.464 BJ 0.970 - - -- 1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDE 1.59 0.970 - - - - 1,2,3,4.7,8,9-HpCDD < 0,101 U 0.970 - - - - 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 9.93 B 2.42 - - - - OCFD 2.62 1.94 - - - - - OCDD 62.9 B 0 970 - - - - - Total TCDF 0.911 EMPC 0.970 - - - - Total TCDD 1.52 EMPC 0.970 - - - - - Total PeCDF 1.43 EMPC 1.94 - - - - Total PeeDJ 1.06 EMPC 0.970 - - - - - Total HxCDE' 3.15 EMPC 1.94 - - - - - - Total HxCDD 5.46 EMPC 1.94 - - - - - Total HxCDF 4.34 1.94 - - - - Total HpCDD 21.2 1.94 - - - - Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents 0.64 - - 4.0 - (ND = 0, Including EMPC) Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents 0.65 - - 4.0 - - (ND = 0.5 Including EMPC) Notes: Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240) c+l MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ngtKg or pgtg zl Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual Lla%J R Associates. Inc. Page 19 of 30 2016-21 3 Sediment Sul Plinu Results I)MMI -I 4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources, Inc., Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. As described in the previous section, the composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide low level detection limits for 07042016Barbee-C. Quality Assurance for the project included (where applicable): • Matrix Spikes • Matrix Spike Duplicates • Blank Spikes • Certified Standard Reference Material SRM 1944 • Puget Sound Reference SRM. • Laboratory controls Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and PSEP protocols (see Attachment C) Conventional Testing Results The QA review summary for Conventional Parameters is provide in Attachment C / Conventionals. Precision data was acceptable with an RPD less than 4 % (except for Sulfide at less than 17%) for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was acceptable for all parameters, and Standard Reference recoveries were greater than 80%. All Method Blanks were at or below reporting/detection limits. All conventional data reported in Table 3-1 is believed acceptable as reported by ARI. Total Metals Composite Sample 07042016/SED-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are provided in Table 3-2. Hexavalent Chromium was also analyzed and reported by ARI as a conventional parameter. As summarized in Attachment C / Metals. Precision data for metals (except Mercury and Hexavalent Chromium) was with control limits for all matrix spike duplicate data. Spike recoveries ranged from 90.3 to 120% and were deemed acceptable. Laboratory Control Sample Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate I.Imd & Assoeiate.s. Inc Page 20 of 30 2UI6 1 +ScdinicnI SaMPIFlu ReLdk l>MNII,-I data were within acceptable limits. Method Blank spike recoveries were acceptable, although trace quantities of zinc and silver were detected in the method blank. Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met the Advisory Range for all metals. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All metals data presented in Table 3-2 are acceptable as qualified by the laboratory. Semivolatile Organic Compounds Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee/C was analyzed for semivolatile organics by EPA GCMS Method 8270D, following PSDDA protocols. Sample reports and QC reports are provided in Attachment C. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 20% for all parameters. Matrix spike and matrix spike recovery data were acceptable, as well acceptably reproducible. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria. Surrogate recovers were with QC warning limits. Initial instrument calibration for bis(2-Ethylhexyi)phthalate was out of control and appropriately qualified, as Q. Standard Reference (SRM-070716) recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All semivolatile organic data reported in Table 3-4 is deemed acceptable as qualified. Pesticides and PCBs Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/ECD (Dual Column - Methods 8081 A and Method 8082, respectively) following PSDDA protocols. As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PCBs were detected at reporting limits. All reporting limits for all pesticides and PCB's were not detected and less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally, all undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use. A detailed quality assurance summary of pesticide and PCB data, respectively is provided in Attachment 3. Surrogate recoveries were acceptable and duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 17% for all pesticide parameters and less that 6% for PCB's. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50%. Spike recoveries were greater than zero for all parameters and within acceptance criteria. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates. Standard Reference recoveries for Laboratory Controls for pesticides and PCBs (SRM PSR) were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blanks results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-5 is deemed acceptable as reported by the laboratory. ].load & Associates_ Inc Page 21 of 30 2016-211 SedimemSampinw Rest it DM%VI-I Petroleum Hydrocarbons Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by GC/FID (Method NWTHH-D). Results are provided in Table 3-6. Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. Spike recoveries gave acceptable precision, and spike duplicate analyses indicated acceptable accuracy. All data reported in Table 3-6 for petroleum hydrocarbons is acceptable as reported. Dioxins and Furans Analysis was performed using the application specific RTX-Dioxin 2 column, which has a unique isomer separation for the 2378-TCDF, eliminating the need for second column confirmation. Initial calibration and continuing calibration verifications were within method requirements. However, the initial calibration verification fell outside the control limits low for 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF, 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, and 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF. All other compounds were within control limits. Both extraction and cleanup surrogates had recoveries within control limits, and the method blank contained reportable responses for several compounds. 'B" qualifiers were applied to associated results that were less than ten times the levels found in the method blank. The laboratory control sample gave percent recoveries were within control limits. The PSR SRM (SRM-072116) was analyzed as a reference material. Specific results have been flagged "EMPC", indicating a response not meeting all requirements of positive identification. The EMPC values were treated as undetects. I.1o)d c- Associates. Inc Page 22 of 30 20 16-2 13 tiediinrn1 SaIT! hling Results MI -I 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Sediment Sampling Sampling work conducted at the Barbee Navigational - Maintenance Dredging area was informative. Prior to sampling we had anticipated that medium to course sandy materials would be encountered based on previous experience. Portions of the proposed dredge area outside of the boathouse were most recently dredged in 2011 and previously in 2002. Depositional infill sediments, currently within the proposed dredge profile, tend to be finer sediments unsuitable for shallow water fish habitat enhancement along the rockery to the immediate south. Therefore, all dredged materials will be disposed in open water. Core sampling in sandy sediments was marginal at best at SED-1 where recoveries were low at 37.5% Nevertheless, we arrived on site with a number of sampling devices. The gravity corer worked out reasonable well, and the vanVeen sampler worked great for the shallow sample near the boathouse. However, given the poor recoveries at SED-1, a better choice for sample collection might be a vibrocore sampler where a longer continuous core is desirable. Nevertheless, vibrocore samplers have similar limitations in dealing with fine sands, as were encountered at the project site. Based on our experience in sampling conditions encountered, it is not clear that a vibrocore sampler would have worked out better. Because actual proposed dredging depths are relatively shallow and generally less than 10 feet, additional sampling data seems unnecessary although a Z sample could be collected for conformational analyses. At no time will dredging reach former lakebed elevations as dredged in 2002 or 2011. In major part the growth of the May Creek Delta severely limits the steepness of slopes that can be sustained within the project area. There are also financial considerations. The project proponent is not interested dredging to the maximum that may be possible. The purpose is to maintain navigational access, not see how much money can be spent to restore historical lakebed elevations in Lake Washington. Sediment Sampling Results - Summary Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-1) is very limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for I lo}d & Associates. Inc Page 23 of 30 _'�1 ?-213SeJonellt',umI)lniirResuIts I)MVI!-I all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis). Based on Analytical Testing Data and Screening Level comparisons, sediments to be dredged in 2017 at the project site are suitable for open -water disposal. Llmd & Associates. Inc, Page 24 of 30 2UIb-21 ; Sedimcm Samhlm,g IZ01bIt; I)\M'-I Attachment A — Sediment Sampling Lags HoNd k, Associates. I«c Page 25 of 30 Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Location: About 45' S. of Osprey Nesting Pole SAMPLING SUMMARY State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft) Coordinates: Proposed Actual Easting: 1,301,380 1,301,394 Northing: 195,438 195,431 Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 Depth (D) to Mudline: 2.08 Dredged Profile El. (ft. MSL): 14.5 SED Design Thickness: 4.0 % Recovery: 37.5% SAMPLING EQUIPMENT 2" Gravity corer driven to depth Low recovery attributed to fine to medium sand lost during extraction of corer Second core drive gave same results SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Sediment Type: Fine to medium sand (SP) Densitv:l Compact (very loose midd rive Color: -Grey Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel Odor: None Stratification: Fine sand at 15.5 feet Vegetation : None Debris: I None Oilv Sheen: None (Other: INOTES/COMMENTS I Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden Locks (206-783-7000) Station moved to avoid milfoil bottom and deeper water than anticipated Density / Consistency estimated by resistance to penetration of sampler. Sediment description based on visual -manual ASTM Method Sample Collected: SED-1 lichael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) ect Manager Sample Location: 07042016SED-1 Sample Date: 7/4/2016 Sample Time: 1235 Sample Type: Gravity core Sediment Section: DMMU-1 EL D (ft) Lithol2gy Description 20.6 Lake Elevation Water is very clear 18.5 1 2.1 1 p I Mudline Contact SP lFine to medium grained sand Scatered gravel at surface 16.0 1 4,6 Loose material in middle of drive fine sand to bottom with low resistance to penetration. 1 14.5 1 6.1 1 i IDesia.n Dredoe Elevation (est) Note: Sediments collected have very little water observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content areater than 75% Geo oyd & Associates, Inc. diment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Location: )LING SUMMARY State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft) Coordinates: Proposed Actual Easting: 1,301,509 1,301,509 Northing: 195,448 195,448 Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 Depth (D) to Mudline: 1.5 ;d Profile El. (ft. MSL): 16.0 SED Thickness: 3.1 % Recovery: 80.0% )LING EQUIPMENT 2" Gravity corer driven to depth Bottom 8" believed to be fine to medium sand Sand lost during extraction of corer Second core drive gave same results 'LE DESCRIPTION Sediment Type: SP Density: moderately dense Color: Grey Consistency: fine to medium sand Odor: None Stratification: Coarse grading to fine sand Vegetation: None Debris: None Oily Sheen: None :S/COMMENTS Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden Locks (206-783-7000) Density/Consistency estimated by resistance to penetration of sampler. Sediment description based on visual -manual ASTM Method Sample Collected: SED-2 Project Manager Sample Location: 07042016SED-2 Sample Date: 7/4/2016 Sample Time: 1115 Sample Type: Gravity core Sediment Section: DMMU-1 EL D (ft) Lithology Description 20.6 Lake Elevation 19.1" 1 1.5 Q I Mudline Contact SIP Surfce ravel/dense Medium to fine sand 16.0 4.6 ir IDesiqn Dredge Elevation (est) Note: Sediments collected have very little water observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content greater than 75% 1 "I Revised 12112 to correcttvggraohical error. Berta istered G Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sample Location: 07042016SED-3 Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 714l2016 Weather: Sunny and warm Sample Time: 0930 Sample Type: Grab Location: Adjacent to Boathouse on west side Sediment Section: DMMU-1 SAMPLING SUMMARY EL D (ft) Lfthology Description State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft) 20.6 lake Elevation Coordinates: Proposed Actual 13.0 7.6 Q Mudline Contact Easting: 1201635 1,301,612 Leaf litter, stems Northing: 195475 195,477 Milfoil Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 ISilty with some coaser sand Depth (D) to Mudline: 7.6 12.6 8.0 IDesign Dredge Elevation (e: Dredged Profile El. (ft. MSL): 8.0 SED Thickness: 0.4 % Recovery: 100.0% SAMPLING EQUIPMENT 2" Van Veen Sampler Penetration about 6" SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Sediment Type: Grab Density: Loose/soup Color: Grey to blackish brown Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel Odor: Slight rotting smell Stratification: None Vegetation: Milfoii Debris: twigs, leaf litter 25) Oiiv Sheen: 1 None, looks like decavinq leaf 1 Other: NOTES/COMMENTS Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden Locks(206-783-7000) Boathouse locked no access. Sampled near entry of garage door. Sample collected with a van Veen sampler Sediment description based on visual -manual ASTM Method Sample Collected: SED-3 Project M istered Geologist Project 2016-1 Sampling Information 4 20 16.xls Page 3 of 5 Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Location: COMPOSITE SUMMARY SED-i SED-2 SED-3 Barbee Sample Location: Sample Date: Composite Time: Sample Type: Sediment Section: 07042016SED-C 7/4/2016 1300 Composite DMMU-1 45% of SED-1 The majority of material to be dredged arises near SED-1 and SED-2. It is unlikely that more than 1% of all material 45% of SED-2 to be dredged arises at SED-3 near the boathouse. 10% of SED-3 Weighting at 10 % is on the high side and may skew chemical and physical testing data. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Sediment Type: Composite Density: Compact, rapidly draining Color: Grey to Black Consistency: gritty Odor: None Stratification: NIA Veaetation: Minor leaf litter Debris: Oilv Sheen:1 None Ma Geol Revised to Project 2007-1 Sampling Information 4 20 16.x1s Page 4 of 5 7 I I1 ,-21 ; 5cdmicnt Rcs<<Ils I)%lMI'-I Attachment B — Grain Size Distribution I.knd K, Associates_ Inr_ Page 26 of 30 Geotechnical Analysis Report and Summary QC Forms ARI Job ID: BCW1 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geutechnical Engineering ■ Special Inspection a Materials Testing a Envimntoental Consulting Project: BARBEE DREDGING Date Reeelved: July 5, 2016 Project 4: BCW I Sampled By: Others Client : Analytical Resources, Inc. Date Tested: July 21, 2016 Source: 07042016BARBEE-C Tested By: B. Goble, K. O'Connell MTC Sample#: T16-1143 CASE NARRATIVE 1. One sample was submitted for grain size analysis according to Puget Sound Estuary Protocol (PSEP) methodology, 2. The sample was run in a single batch and was tun in triplicate. The triplicate data is reported on the QA summary. 3. Two of the sub samples did not contain the required amount of fines (5-25 grams). A sample could not be resplit to meet the required amount of fines and stay within the capacity of the balance. The samples have been qualified on the QA summary. 4. The data is provided in summary tables and plots. 5. There were no other noted anomalies in this project Ally Wii wvly arty to a+ui 1v aid IICM &rayed. Ai a MLMtW PW6cLka b dki , ft publt wdawwrm. Pa wgris w sywwd is I -.SdOWW prymy cd elkau, wd aAWulva[id fur prAlicatq¢vlsuie+nnMs.ewwJuim�o<eam�rr tranarq�adis�a�rryv� unao.d�.q oc �+iaw �rw+l Reviewed by: Corporate - 777 Chrysler Drive a Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755`1990 + Feu (360) 755-1980 Regional 011],ces: Olympia - 360.534.9777 Bellingham - 360-647.6111 Silverdale - 360.698.6787 Tukwila - 206.241.1974 Visit ourweb5itc, Www,mtc-inc,net C4 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechoical Engineering - Special Inspecunn • Materials Testing • Environntenlal Consulting Project: BARSEE DREDGING Client: Analytical Resowces, Inc. Project #: BCW 1 Date Received: July 5, 2016 Sampled by: Others Date Tested: July 21, 2016 _ - Tested by: B. Goble, K. O'Conneil Apparent Grain Size Mtribudon Summary Percent Finer Than Indicated Size Sample No. Gravel ver� Coarse Medium Fine Sand Very Fine Silt Clay Sand Sand Sand Phi Size -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sieve Size (microns) 3/8' *4 1110 #19 #35 860 4120 #230 31.0 15.6 7.8 3.9 4.0 1.0 (4750) (200G) (1000) (500) (2501 (12s1 (631 100.0 83.6 80.1 75.9 62.4 24.0 5.5 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 07042016BARBEE- 100.0 80.9 76.4 72.4 59.9 23.6 6.0 2.9 2.2 1.6 1A 0.9 0.7 0.6 C 100.0 84.6 80.6 76.6 1 63.4 1 25.6 7.2 4.0 2.3 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6 Notes to the Teatrat. Organic matter was M rumved prior to teatin8, thus the reporud values arc the "apparent' gain size diatrihutian SEC narrative for discussion of the testitrg Reviewed by: Corporate 777 Cbrysler Drive - Burlington, WA 9=3 - Phone (360) 755-1990 - Fax (360) 755-1990 Regional Officm: Olympia - 360.534.9777 Bellingham -- 360.647.6111 Silverdale - 360.698,6797 Tukwila - 206.241.1974 Visit our website: www.mtt3-incmei Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Gectechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting Project: BARBEE DREDGING Clime: Analytical Resources, Inc. Project 9: BCW 1 Date Received: July 5, 2016 Sampled by: Others Date Tested: July 21, 2016 Tested by: B- Goble, K- O'Connell Apparent Grain Size Dlstdbu6on Summary Percent Retained in Each Size Fraction Ama Sample No. P Gravel V07y CQW-W Sattd COS Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Coarse Silt Medium Silt Fine Silt Very Fine Silt Clay Total Fines Phi Size <-I -I too Olo1 1102 2to3 304 4to5 5to6 6to7 7to8 8to9 9to10 }!0 >4 Sieve Size (microns) >014 (2000) 10�19 ( IWO) 18-35 ii000-5w) 3S40 (500-250) 60-129 (250 125) 120-230 (12"2) 62.5-31.0 31.045.6 15.E-7.$ TS-3-9 3.9-2.0 2.0-1.0 <1.0 <230 (<62) F2016BARBEE 19.9 4.2 13.6 1 383 1 19.6 1 3.2 1 0.0 0.6 0-4 03 0.2 0.1 0.6 2.2 23.6 4.! 12.5 36.3 17.6 3.1 0.7 0,6 0.2 0.5 03 0-1 0-6 29 19.4 1 4,0 L. 13.2 37.8 18.4 3.2 1.7 0.6 1 0.4 1 0.4 I 0.2 0-1 0.6 1 4.0 T otesto fie Tediar Organic matter was nor mmoved prior to testing, thus the reparted vahm are the "appamw' gain size dist6butiam Sea n Live for dixwWon of dke testing. Reviewed by: Corporate - 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 99233 • Phone (360) 75S-199d • Fax (360) 755-1990 Regional Offices: Olympia -- 360.534.9777 Bellingham - 360.647.6111 Silverdale _ 360.698.6787 Tukwila - 206 241 1974 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.oet '21 l It' f-L Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geweehnkal Fngincaing - Spacial laspectim - Materials Testing - Environmental Consulting Project: BARBEE DREDGING Project 4: WWI - Date Received: July 5, 2016 Date Tested: July 21 2016 Client: Anal) ical Resources, Inc. Sampled by: Others Tested by: B. Gable, K. CYGonnal Relative Standard Deviation, By Phi Size Sample ID -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4OZ. 6 7 8 9 10 07042016HARBEE-C 100-0 93.6 90.1 75.9 62.4 24.0 5.5 2.2 1.6 1.2 0-9 0-7 0-6 100.0 80.9 76.4 72.4 59.9 23.6 6.0 2.9 16 1.4 0.9 0.7 0-6 100.0 94.6 90.6 76.6 63.4 2S.6 72 4.0 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.7 06 AVE 100.0 83.0 79.0 75.0 61.9 24.4 6.2 3.0 1.6 13 0.9 0.7 0.6 STDEV 0.0 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5 0.9 07 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0-0 9%RSD 0.0 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.3 3.5 11.8 24.0L 2.4 5.9 2.9 2A 0-8 The Triplicate Applies Tone Followin Sam es Client ID bate 5 amplcd Date Extracted Dale Complete QA Itatio (95-105) Data Qualifiers Pipette Portion (5.0- 25.0 7/4/2016 WM016 7/20/2016 99.1 SS 2.7 07042016BARBEE-C 714/2016 7/7/Z016 7/20/2016 99.7 SS 3.6 7/4/2016 7j7/20 M 7/20J2016 100.6 5.1 i bttC tntmnnl QA limits = 91-105% Nolen to tie Tiestlrg: Orpm matter vvas nut removed prim in telling„ thus the reported val,tea ale the "apparent" gain size distrihudoa. Sae narrative For disl wwm oC the tmtmr. 154 1s K1 Reviewed by: ice• Corporate - 777 Chrysler Drive - Burlington, WA 98233 - Phone (360) 755-1990 - Fax (360) 755-19$0 Regional Offices: Olympia - 360.534.9777 Bellingham - 360.647,6111 Silverdale - 360.698-6787 Tukwila - 206.241.1974 Visit our website: www.rtw-inc-net Materials Vesting & Consulting, Inc. MTC Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting k. Project: BARBEE DREDGING Date Received: July 5, 2016 Project M; BCW 1 Sampled By: Others Client: Analytical Resources, Inc. Date Tested: Jul 21, 2016 Source: 07042016BARBEE-C Tested By: B. Goble, K. O'Connell MTC Sample#: T16-1143 Data Qualifiers PSEP Grain Size Analysis SM - The sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This normally refers to samples contaminated with an organic product that interferes with the sieving process and/or moisture content, porosity and saturation calculations - SS - The sample did not contain the proportion of "tines" required to perform the pipette portion of the gain size analysis. W - The weight of the sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level required for accurate weighing. F - The samples were frozen prior to panicle side deterrnination. LV - Due to low sample volume provided, the samples could not be rerun to r eert QA requirements. Reviewed thy: _- Corporate _ 777 Chryster Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 Regional Offices: Olympia - 360,534.9777 Bellingham - 360,047.6111 Silverdale - 360,698.6787 Tukwila - 206.241.1974 Visit our website: www.mte-ine.net PSEP Grain Size Distribution Triplicate Sample Plot GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY 100 90 - BO -- - --- 70 I -- 50 40 -- -- 30 I 20 10 0 10000 1000 100 10 1 Particle Diameter (microns) __ _ --�-07042016BARBEE-C-o-07042016BARBEE-C--�1r--47F7 1BBARBEE-G Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc- PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS MTC Job No.. l jQMTC Sample IDT1U -1 tP-l3-1 Client CSample No.: C? � (yi 24 1 (6 � < Set up Date: �- Sample Description: S�_�fl SOLIDS CONTENT Moisture Content Initials: Container No. Tare Weight �. L(S Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight+ Tare { �- & Test Sample Initials: Container No. I Tare Weight Wet Weight + Tare l Dry Weight + Tare { Calgon Batch # -3? P19WIS PIPETTE ANALYSIS Ternp:22 Initials: bA- TIME 12:30:00 Tare ID Tare VVt�o Dry Wt & Tare 12:3020 �ttk1 - k A--44 1 s6cl i_ 51 37:15 I� 58.59 { 1 1. q- 1 5 Is Z26.00 !1231:49 �oe► t �'-aaio� �'� 1 l.' 1115F A 1z:V PSEP Particle Size Distribution SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Date: 1. ( l- i (P SieveSett. Initials: - Steve Size Weight Retained Tare., 4i.1.-lD 10-ti 18 • 4 Tab 35 9-4. % � 60 NLA.V?,13 120 Mole .a 4 230 lam' •p PAN �•Q+(+-�` SALT CORRECTION Date: Initials: Tare W ' ht Dry We ht + Tare Rev. 001 9/21/l3 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS MTC ,lob No.,. XILI � 1-SZMTC Sample ID:311a - Itj3-tCllent Sample Na_:()-T0Z'Qj1QtA ►� � [ Set Up Date: JjU Sample Description:'Of SM L -- SOLIDS CONTENT Moisture Content Initials: Container No. E Tare Weight t Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight + Tare Test Sample Initials: Container No. Tare Weight 5M, 2 Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight + Tare (— Calgon Batch 4- 3� 7I WM16 PIPETTE ANALYSIS rs'nl)'22 Initials: TIME 12:33:00 Tare Tare VVt Dry Wt & Tare 12:3320 `ID 12:34:49 , Z Z 1 12:40:15 I t�- •t �. S ) z'O 13:01:59 l �y { "t 3 . Ji 1 2- 14:29,00 t4 .�f / tr O IV p I (.4840 1115F A PEEP Particle Size Distribution SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Dater - ( ( - t Sieve Set #: —L Initials: - Sieve Size Weight Retained Tare �;T).9?>V1- 4 IN. WOt 10 jw) ,(--qC & 18 Fs-. ;L-A 35 iot.o373 60 I Dtf3 120 t (A .{ 230 PAN b. 'Ie SALT CORRECTION Date: Initials: Tare Weight D We' ht + Tare Rev. 001 9/21113 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS MTC Job No.:jUi- Dg MTC Sample ID. fl'-1 - iient Sample No.:C 110q 2-01 %8 E Set Up Date. -4 Sample Description: SOLIDS CONTENT Moisture Content Initials: Container No. Tare Weight y } 30 Wet Weight + Tare _2 Dry Weight + Tare _ Test Sample initials: Container No. Tare Weight S I. Z Z 5- Wet Weight + Tane 2106, Dry Weight + Tare �" 1p• (),Fq r Calgon Batch#: i� 7119/2016 PIPETTE ANALYSIS Temp:22 Initials: TIME 4 12.36:00 Tare 10 Tare Wt Dry VYl & Tare 12:36:20 Iiu ; 12.37.49 12-43:15 �. fcD� 1 cz�l 13:04:59 i 11 113 14.32:00 �r IlU '3 ti-(4 qE- — _+� t� I -,A I 1115FA PSEP Particle Size Distribution SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Date. Sieve Set 1: Initials: Sieve Size Weight Retained Tare,' 4 10 TLZ --Y-Y' I 35 9,6 60 120 230 PAN Q. o-Gi SALT CORRECTION Date: Initials: Tare Wein ht. D We ht + Tare Rev. 001 9121113 tel.:iW 1 : 021 :9 Cugini Property Boathouse Expansion of the Existing Lake Washington Dredge Prism Biological Assessment Action Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prepared by Meridian Environmental, Inc. August 27, 2012 Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism CONTENTS I. Background / History...................................................................................................................1 A. Project and Federal Action History ............................................................................................... 3 II. Description of the Action and Action Area....................................................................................4 A. Federal Action and Legal Authority..............................................................................................4 B. Project Description.......................................................................................................................4 Timing and Duration of Work....................................................................................................... 5 SedimentDisposal........................................................................................................................ 5 Conservation Measures................................................................................................................ 6 C. Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions............................................................................. 7 D. Project Area and Action Area Defined.......................................................................................... 7 III. Status of Species and Critical Habitat........................................................................................... 9 A. Species Lists from the Services (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS)............................ I........................ 9 Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DP5............................................................................... 9 Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH.........................................10 B. Description of Species.................................................................................................................11 ChinookSalmon.......................................................................................................................... 11 SteeIhead....................................................................................................................................15 BullTrout....................................................................................................................................17 CohoSalmon............................................................................................................................... 20 IV. Environmental Baseline.............................................................................................................. 22 A. Description of the Action Area and Project Area........................................................................ 22 Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington)......................................................................... 22 ProjectArea................................................................................................................................25 B. Description of the Environmental Baseline................................................................................ 39 Environmental Baseline Matrix.................................................................................................. 39 V. Effects of The Action on Fish Species.......................................................................................... 46 A. Direct Effects............................................................................................................................... 47 DirectEffects on Fish..................................................................................................................47 Direct Effects on Habitat............................................................................................................ 48 Direct Effects on Water Quality.................................................................................................. 49 B. Indirect Effects............................................................................................................................ 50 C. Effects from Interdependent and Interrelated Actions.............................................................. 50 D. Effects from Ongoing Project Activities...................................................................................... 50 E, Description of How the Environmental Baseline would be Affected.........................................51 F. Cumulative Effects......................................................................................................................51 G. Take Analysis............................................................................................................................... 51 H. Critical Habitat Effects Analysis.................................................................................................. 52 VI. Effects Determination for Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat ................................... 53 VII. Essential Fish Habitat................................................................................................................. 53 Biological Assessment Page i QAPrgiects\Barhee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 RA 082712 doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism A. Description of the Proposed Action....... ..... _ .............................................................................. 54 B. Appropriate Fisheries Management Plan(s)............................................................................... 54 C. Effects of the Proposed Action................................................................................................... 54 D. Proposed Conservation Measures........_ .................................................................................... 54 E. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................54 References......................................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix A Site Maps — Dredge Area Expansion LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the proposed project area...................................................................... 2 Figure 2. High elevation aerial photograph of the proposed project area and action area in Lake Washington............................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. May Creek delta 2012 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations ........................................... 26 Figure 4. Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet during the 2005 SCUBA survey (Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005).......................................................................................27 Figure 5. Photograph of juvenile coho observed near the existing boathouse structure during the 2012 SCUBA survey (located inside the yellow rectangle) ............................................... 31 Figure 6. Photograph of prickly sculpin observed along transect 1 during the 2012 SCUBA survey...................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 7. Photo graph of the culvert structure located at the eastern end of transect 1(2012 survey)..................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 8. Historical aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site............................................................... 33 Figure 9. Riparian condition at the confluence of May Creek with Lake Washington in 2012 (looking west from the boathouse dock at the proposed expanded dredging area) ............. 33 Figure 10. Curly -leaf pondweed photographed along transect 6 (2012 SCUBA survey) ......................... 35 Figure 11. Riprap cobble substrate and caddisfly larvae observed along transect 1 during the 2012 SCUBA survey................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 12. Gravel substrate observed along transect 2 during the 2012 SCUBA survey ......................... 37 Figure 13. Silt substrate observed along transect 4 at a depth of approximately 16 feet during the 2012 SCUBA survey................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 14. Existing riparian conditions along lower May Creek, located to the north of the proposedaction area.............................................................................................................. 38 Figure 15. The dock and boathouse dock structures located to the east of the proposed expandeddredging area.. ........................................................................................................ 39 Biological Assessment Page ii Q TroiectstiBarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft HA12012 BA 082712.doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of recent ESA dredging consultations....................................................................... 3 Table 2. Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson -Stevens Act (MSA) Species . ..... 10 Table 3. Summary of May 3 and May 17, 2012 SCUBA survey results within the proposed projectarea............................................................................................................................. 29 Table 4. Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental baseline on relevantindicators................................................................................................................... 40 Table 5. Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11 days of sampling over thedredging period)................................................................................................................ 50 Biological Assessment Page iii QAPrajec&Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism I. BACKGROUND / HISTORY This Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to obtain a modification of the Cugini's existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) programmatic permit (NW5-2007-1019-NO) which allows maintenance dredging activities in the amount of 2,000 to 4,000 cubic yards from a 10,000-square- foot area of Lake Washington near the May Creek delta over a 10-year period (Figure 1). The proposed action is to allow dredging of up to an additional 2,700 cubic yards (up to 14,000 square feet of lakebed) adjacent to the existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). This expansion of the dredge prism would align it with the dredge area permitted by the City of Renton in 2006; expand the current permitted dredge footprint to the west by approximately 160 feet (to the Inner Harbor Line), and align the dredge footprint along the property line on the north of Lot A (Appendix A, Sheets 1 through 4). The purpose of this proposed expansion is to facilitate safe navigational access to the boathouse and promote future recreational uses. While periodic maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments has occurred within and near the May Creek delta for over 50 years, the proposed expanded dredging project addressed in this BA is focused on the zone shown in Appendix A, Sheets 1 through 4). Based on the project proponent's experience over the past 50 years, dredging of this area would be necessary every 3 to 5 years to maintain navigational depths and other project objectives. In addition to expanding the existing dredging prism, the proposed action would involve three environmental enhancements in the local area. These include placing 10 cubic yards of rounded river rock adjacent to the existing boat launch and boathouse to enhance shallow water habitat for fishes; removing two dolphins (6 creosote piles) at south side of Lot D and replacing them with two 12-inch-diameter galvanized pipe piles; and removing three large creosote pilings near the delta, coupled with the installation of a fish friendly float with grated decking. Biological Assessment Page i Q Troiects\Barbee BA 201T2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the proposed project area. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) directs federal departments and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, and/or conducted by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such species. Section 7(c) of the ESA requires that federal agencies contact the U-S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), subsequently referred to as the Services, before beginning any construction activity to determine if federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species or designated critical habitat may be present in the vicinity of a proposed project. A BA must be prepared if such species or habitat are present. With respect to the proposed action, federal permits from the USACE would be needed to complete the project. The Services have determined that T&E species, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout may be present in the proposed project action area; therefore, this BA is required by the ESA to ensure that the proposed expanded dredging project would not jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of these listed species. This document also contains an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. The MSA includes a mandate that NMFS identify EFH for federally managed marine fish. In addition, federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fish and coastal pelagic fisheries. The ESA consultation process can be used to address EFH (NMFS 2001). This BA addresses EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, which are the only MSA-managed species that may be present in the project area. Biological Assessment Page z Q %Pr ieetslBarbee BA 201212012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism The objective of this BA is to review all pertinent and available information on the potential effects of the proposed project on MSA managed species, EFH, ESA listed T&E species, and associated critical habitats under NMFS and USFWS jurisdiction. Based on our analysis in Section V, the proposed project would likely cause a short-term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended sediment in the action area and a reduction in benthic invertebrates in the dredging zone. However, overall water quality would likely be improved over the long term through the removal of the toxic creosote pilings near the dredging area. Primary productivity and the fish forage base within the project vicinity would also be improved through the installation of a fish friendly float and the placement of additional "fish rock" along the Lake Washington shoreline. For these reasons, implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project would be expected to benefit listed Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. Take of any listed species is very unlikely, and designated Chinook and bull trout critical habitat would not be destroyed or adversely modified by the project. Therefore, the proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to adversely affect" Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. In addition, the proposed project would not adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, and would not hinder a sustainable fishery for these two species. A. PROJECT AND FEDERAL ACTION HISTORY Dredging of the May Creek delta and boathouse area has occurred for over 50 years on a 3- to 4- year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. Since the delta area was dredged in 2002, an estimated 20,000 to 24,000 cubic yards have been deposited at the delta in Lake Washington. The most recent dredging occurred in 2011. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment have been removed during each dredging cycle. The dredged material was previously stockpiled on upland areas of the Barbee Mill property (owned by the Cugini family) and sold as clean construction fill material. Previous consultations with the USACE were completed for May Creek delta dredging and for bark debris removal in Lake Washington adjacent to Barbee Mill. Bark removal work was voluntarily undertaken to restore aquatic habitat under lease agreements with the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Most recent consultations for these projects at the Barbee Mill site (summarized in Table 1) resulted in a "not likely to adversely affect" determinations for listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Table 1. Summary of recent ESA dredging consultations. USACE Project Implementation Year Reference # Action Consultation Date 2001 195-2-0097 May Creek delta "May affect, not likely to 2001 dredging adversely affect" for all species 2002 1995-2-00997 Lake Washington "May affect, not likely to 2002 bark removal adversely affect" for all species 2008 NWS-2007-1019-NO May Creek delta "May affect, not likely to 2011 dredging adversely affect" for all species Biological Assessment Page 3 QAN(jectslBarbee BA 2012/2012 [Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND ACTION AREA A. FEDERAL ACTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY It is anticipated that the USACE would be the lead federal agency for this ESA consultation, as USACE permits are the only federal approvals (i.e., federal action) required for the proposed dredging project. Therefore, this BA follows the USAGE BA template. This BA is required by the ESA to ensure that dredging actions that may be authorized by the USACE under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed action would involve amending the current USACE programmatic permit to allow dredging of an additional 2,700 cubic yards of sediment (1,400 square feet of lakebed) in an area located adjacent to the existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). This expansion of the dredge prism would align it with the Cugini property and inner harbor lines, facilitate safe navigational access to the boathouse, and promote future recreational uses. The current permit reference is N WS-2007-1019-NO. For decades, the Barbee Mill site (owned by the Cugini family) and May Creek delta have been affected by ongoing development in the upper May Creek valley. Upstream development has resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased impervious surface in the watershed. Peak flows have increased approximately 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year flood event return intervals (King County 2001). In addition, this increased run-off has resulted in severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper basin, which is deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. Subsequently, wave action in take Washington transports fine sediment from the delta to the boathouse area, which is located to the south of the May Creek delta. Dredging of the May Creek delta and Cugini property boathouse area has occurred for over 50 years on a 3- to 4-year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. As is allowed under the existing permit, a small dredge and clamshell bucket would be used and the material would be disposed of at an approved upland location. The sediment from this area has been tested in the past using the procedures specified by the Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) and the DMMP has determined that all of the material is suitable for appropriate beneficial use. Under the proposed action, dredging events would continue to occur in both the existing and expanded dredge prisms over a 3- to 5-day period every 3 to 5 years within the approved in -water work period. Up to a maximum of 2,700 cubic yards of additional sediment would be removed to accomplish the desired navigational depth profile. Dredging would deepen the expanded dredge prism by approximately 10 feet over 1,400-square-feet of lake bed (Appendix A). Periodic evaluation of sediment depth would trigger future dredging activities. As is currently permitted, accumulated sediments would be removed with a small dredge and clamshell bucket. Portions of the work may also be conducted with a long -reach excavator from the land or an excavator mounted on a fenced flat barge. Use of any other type of dredge would require prior approval from Biological Assessment Page 4 QAr}r0ieC1STarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 HA 1182712.doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism the USACE and Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Sediments would be loaded on a barge, transported, and off-loaded at an approved fill material stockpile zone for beneficial upland uses. Based on monitoring records from previous and currently permitted dredging actions at the site, conservation measures such as silt curtains to reduce turbidity should not be required. During 2002 dredging, the highest turbidity values recorded were less than 7 NTU. However, turbidity would be monitored during future dredging. Conservation measures, such as silt curtains, would be deployed as necessary following conditions set by the WDOE 401 certification for this project. It is anticipated that the WDOE would require the deployment of a silt curtain if turbidity in the dredging zone exceeds 10 NTU above background levels. To enhance aquatic habitat in the project vicinity, the project proponent is also proposing to place an additional 10 cubic yards of 3- to 6-inch diameter "fish rock" along the Lake Washington shoreline just south of the existing boathouse. The Cuginis would also extract and replace three existing creosote piles with two 8 inch diameter galvanized pipe piles and demolish and replace the existing solid -surface 38-foot float with a grated float that is 24 feet long. The grated float would increase light transmission to the shallow water habitat. Grating specifications would comply with previously approved permit conditions for light transmission. In addition to these measures, two dolphins (six creosote piles) at the south side of Lot D would be extracted and replaced with two 12- inch diameter galvanized pipe piles. Piles would be pulled concurrent with the Area 2 enhancement work. As previously approved in the existing USACE permit, all creosote treated pilings would be cut into 4-foot lengths and disposed of in an approved upland landfill, consistent with existing permit requirements. Timing and Duration of Work Conducting all dredging and habitat enhancement work addressed in this BA within the existing NMFS approved in -water work period and implementing conservations measures detailed in this BA, would minimize or avoid impacts to listed fish species and their habitat in the action area. Detailed information for each project element is presented below. The NMFS approved lake Washington in - water work time, which is designed to limit impacts to aquatic species, is July 16th to September 15th (NMFS 2008). Consistent with the existing permit, the proposed expanded dredge area would be dredged during this time frame, once approximately every 3 to 5 years over the existing permit's 10-year period. Sediment Disposal Sediments from the expanded dredge area would be dredged and transported by barge for off- loading at the adjacent Quendail Terminals located immediately north of the delta. Dredged materials would be loaded into a dredge scow and unloaded with a long -reach excavator. Sediments would be used for upland beneficial uses, subject to an assessment of sampling results and chemical analysis. All debris (larger than 2 feet in any dimension) would be removed from the dredged sediment prior to disposal. Biological Assessment Page 5 Q \Projects\Barbec BA 2012\2012 Draft BA%2012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Conservation Measures Conservation measures are activities that the applicant would implement to avoid or minimize take of listed species and avoid or reduce impacts to their habitat. As part of the proposed action, the applicant would implement several conservation measures to minimize impacts to (listed species. These measures are consistent with the existing dredge permit and are listed below. The applicant would: 1. Limit the duration of in -water work to the extent necessary to accomplish project objectives, estimated to be 7 to 10 days of work, once every 3 to 5 years. Work would be conducted during the approved NMFS Lake Washington in -water work time (July 16 to September 15). 2. Monitor water quality during each dredging event in accordance with the WDOE 401 water quality certification. Monitoring would be conducted at least daily within and adjacent to the dredging zone in order to determine the background turbidity level and any increases caused by dredging. 3. If construction induced turbidity levels in the work zone exceed 10 NTU over background levels, modify dredging activities by employing standard methods such as silt curtains to reduce the opportunity for fish exposure to turbidity. Dredged material would not be stockpiled on a temporary or permanent basis below the ordinary high water line. 4. If oil or other unknown substances appear on the water surface or in dredged material while equipment is being operated, cease operations immediately to identify the source of the contaminant and remedy the problem. If necessary, use an oil absorbent boom secured to a debris boom to encircle the work zone to capture sheen or potential floating debris. 10. Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline north of the dredging zone to protect nearshore habitat that may be used by rearing Chinook salmon or steelhead. 11. Conduct a post -dredge bathymetry survey to ensure that only the specified amount of material was removed. 12. Confine dredging impacts to the minimum area necessary to complete the project. During dredging, the Cuginis would have a boat available on site at all times to retrieve debris from the water. 13. Prepare and make available a summary report documenting monitoring activities immediately following the dredging to confirm that these conservation measures were implemented. 14. Comply with any additional measures that are currently required in the existing Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008) and Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WDOE 2008). Biological Assessment Page 6 Q Trojects\Barbee BA 2012Q012 Draft 9AQ012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism C. RELATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO OTHER ACTIONS The proposed expansion of the dredge prism is directly related to the existing (permitted) dredging activities occurring just south of the May Creek delta. The purpose of this proposed expansion is to align it with the existing property and inner harbor lines, facilitate safe navigational access to the boathouse, and promote future recreational uses. D. PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA DEFINED The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402-02). The action area for this proposed project is in the Lake Washington shoreline corresponding to the immediate vicinity of 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard Avenue, near Renton (Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 32). The action area includes EFH for Chinook salmon and coho salmon. Appendix A shows the proposed expanded dredging zone. The removal of up to a maximum of 2,700 cubic yards of sediment would disturb approximately 14,000 square feet of substrate in Lake Washington. In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during dredging, the action area for this project encompasses the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington within approximately one half mile of the May Creek delta (Figure 2). It is anticipated that the one half mile action area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in turbidity during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in the delta. Biological Assessment: Page 7 QTT(r Jcctsl brbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA�2012 BA 082712 docx ,vc-3 O � � my � -_ �_ rrgl• _, Mercer Island Ix .. , w nvalan Obi `�•• a •/� �'`•,� ,, ! F1enton ir Lake Washington y. _N 31 d sxKenriy'd'aie 1, y .f 5151•- _ __.__ — �f ��� l� l l.l� 2nco t ''�`' a .{ � _ f1 1 L 'nage!y Jaie 8."5'26', 19w 4-313E _5 . 22:22.'2" ..er, 18 P. Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism III. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT A. SPECIES LISTS FROM THE SERVICES (NOAA FISHERIES AND USFWS) A list of federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may occur in the action area was compiled using the NMFS and USFWS electronic species list websites and critical habitat designations. The USFWS and NMFS websites were accessed on June 1, 2012. Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DPS On March 24, 1999, the NMFS listed Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshowytscho) in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the ESA (64 FR 14308), and the listing was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Washington, as well as twenty-six artificial propagation programs. Puget Sound steelhead (O, mykrss) were listed as threatened under the ESA on May 11, 2007 (72 FIR 26722). The Distinct Population Segment (DPS) includes all naturally -spawned anadromous winter - run and summer -run steelhead populations in streams in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to the west by the Elwha River (inclusive) and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek (inclusive), as well as the Green River natural and Hamma Hamma winter -run steelhead hatchery stocks. The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS was listed as threatened under the ESA on November 1, 1999 (63 FIR 31693). The Coastal -Puget Sound DPS comprises all Pacific coast and Puget Sound bull trout populations within Washington State, including the Snohomish River and its tributaries. This population segment is geographically segregated from other subpopulations by the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range. It is significant to the species as a whole because it is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the coterminous United States. Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon (O. krsutch) are not listed under the ESA; however, they were classified as a Species of Concern on April 15, 2004 due to specific risk factors. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon from drainages of Puget Sound and Hood Canal, the eastern Olympic Peninsula (east of Salt Creek), and the Strait of Georgia from the eastern side of Vancouver Island and the British Columbia mainland (north to and including the Campbell and Powell Rivers), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope. Table 2 summarizes the federally -listed, proposed, and candidate fish and marine mammal species that are known to occur near the action area or that may be potentially affected by the propose action. The table also indicates whether critical habitat or EFH has been designated or proposed for each species. Biological Assessment Page 9 Q,'Trojecls\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Table 2. Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson -Stevens Act (MSA) Species. Designated Proposed ESA Status ESA Critical ESA Critical MSA Managed Species (Listing Unit) Habitat Habitat with EFH Chinook salmon Threatened No Yes Yes (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Puget Sound ESU') Steelhead ESA listed Threatened N/A under No (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Puget Sound DPS2) development Bull trout Threatened (Salvelinus confluentus) (Coastal / No Yes No Puget Sound DPS2) Coho salmon Species of Concern (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (Puge(Sound I NIA N/A Yes Strait of Georgia ESU) Evolutionary Significant Unit 2 Distinct Population Segment Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH The NMFS issued a final rule designating critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (with an effective date of January 2, 2006). Designated critical habitat Puget Sound Chinook salmon includes Lake Washington (freshwater rearing and freshwater migration); however, no critical habitat is designated in May Creek. On January 19, 2007, the NMFS adopted a final ESA recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Shared Strategy Development Committee 2007). The plan includes specific protection and restoration actions for each watershed in the Puget Sound region as well as actions at the regional ESU scale. The action area contains juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and migration primary constituent elements (PCEs) and adult Chinook salmon migration PCEs. ESA critical habitat was proposed by the USFWS for the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS on tune 24, 2004 (50 CFR Part 17). Proposed critical habitat for the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS includes Lake Washington, but does not include any Lake Washington tributaries, except the upper Cedar River. Lake Washington is proposed as foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO) critical habitat for bull trout. Proposed Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Steelhead is currently under review by the NMFS. A recovery plan has not yet been developed for the Puget Sound Steelhead DPS. The MSA defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary for fish use in spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. MSA manages species that may occur in the action area, including Chinook and coho salmon. Freshwater EFH for these salmon species includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to these species in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Lake Washington is designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon. There are four major components of freshwater EFH for salmon including 1) spawning and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration corridors Biological Assessment Page io Q:1Pro1ects\Barbee BA 201212012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712,doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism and adult holding habitat. The components of EFH in the action area include juvenile rearing and migration corridors, and adult migration corridors and holding habitat. B. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES Chinook Salmon Status of the ESU The Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has been defined to include all PS Chinook salmon populations residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing natural water falls) in the Puget Sound region from the Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive. The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is assessed based on their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. Within the action area in Lake Washington, there are two native populations (the North Lake Washington population and the Cedar River population) that use the area from rearing and migration. A third population, the Issaquah stock, is not included in the assessment because they are a non-native stock from the Issaquah Hatchery that has been in operation since the 1930s (WDFW 2004). Overall abundance of this ESU has declined substantially from historical levels, and many populations are small enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively high (March 9, 1998, 63 FIR 11494). Historic abundance has been estimated to be approximately 609,000 adult returns (Myers et al. 1998), while average present day (1998-2002) abundance of natural origin spawners is 30,182 fish (NMFS 2005). NMFS (Good et al. 2005) listed approximately 331 geometric mean spawners in North Lake Washington population and 327 in the Cedar River population, and no estimates of historical abundance for comparison. The general trend in the abundance for the North Lake Washington Tributary Chinook salmon has remained generally consistent, with escapements between 200 and 500 adults (WDFW 2004). The Cedar River Chinook salmon have shown a long-term negative trend in escapements and chronically low escapement values (WDFW 2004). The lambda (productivity estimate) for North Lake Washington Chinook (short term trend) is 1.07 (±0.07) (Good et al., 2005), indicating the population is just replacing itself. For the Cedar River, short term lambda is (0.99±0.07) also indicating the population is probably just replacing itself. Significant population growth would require an increase in productivity. For salmon recovery, the target goal lambda amount is 3.4 to increase abundance to a level that would remove the populations from the threat of extinction. Genetic analysis of the three populations in the Lake Washington basin indicated that the North Lake Washington Tributary population and the Cedar River Chinook are significantly different (WDFW 2004). Therefore, the genetic differentiation between the two populations increases the possibility for recovery when faced with an environmental change and an increase of available habitat. Life History and Habitat Requirements Throughout their range, Chinook salmon exhibit diverse and complex life history strategies. Differences exist in age at seaward migration; freshwater, estuarine, and ocean residence; and in age and season of spawning migration (Healey 1991, page 314; Myers et al. 1998, page 9). Most of Biological Assessment Page 11 QAProiectslBarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA'12012 BA 082712Aocr Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism this variation is exhibited in two distinct behavioral forms commonly referred to as stream -type and ocean -type (Healey 1991, page 314). Stream -type Chinook rear in freshwater for a year or more before migrating to sea, perform extensive offshore migrations, and return to their natal river in spring or summer, several months prior to spawning. Ocean -type Chinook typically migrate to sea in their first year of life, only a few months after emergence, remain in nearby coastal areas, and normally return to their natal river in the late summer or fall, a few days or weeks before spawning. Ocean residence for both stream -type and ocean -type Chinook usually ranges from 1 to 6 years; however, a small proportion of yearling males, called "jacks" mature in freshwater or return to freshwater after 2 to 3 months in salt water. Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU typically exhibit an ocean -type life history; however, a number of spring -run populations in the ESU include a high proportion of yearling smolt emigrants. Adult Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound typically return to freshwater in August and spawn in the lower and middle reaches of rivers from late September through January (WDF et al. 1993). Preferred water temperatures for spawning range from 42.1 and 577 (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Often, the preferred spawning sites are located near deep pools and in areas with abundant instream cover. Adequate spawning area, abundant clean gravel (0.5 to 4 inches in diameter), a relatively stable stream channel (with minimal bedload movement), and sub -gravel flow are very important in the selection of redd sites (Healey 1991, page 323). Depending on water temperature, incubation takes between 90 and 150 days. While rearing in freshwater, juvenile Chinook are normally associated with low gradient, meandering, unconstrained stream reaches. As they grow, submerged and overhead cover in the form of rocks, submerged aquatic vegetation, logs, riparian vegetation, and undercut banks provide food and shade and protect juveniles from predation. When adult Chinook return to spawn, they often rely on deep pools for resting. These pools provide an energetic refuge from river currents, a thermal refuge from high summer and autumn water temperatures, and protection from potential predators. Chinook stocks in Lake Washington exhibit ocean -type life history patterns, with juveniles typically migrating to sea within the first three months after emergence. However, juveniles have also been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended time periods (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). In Lake Washington, Tabor et al. (2004) found that juvenile Chinook salmon prefer shallow, low -gradient delta and shoreline habitats composed of sand and gravel substrates with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris accumulations. The preferred temperature range for Chinook salmon fry ranges from 54 to 56.8"F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). After a variable freshwater residence time, Chinook salmon juveniles migrate to estuaries. Migrations occur primarily during spring and early summer, but continue at lower levels through the fall (USFWS 1983). Chinook salmon in the Skagit River estuary occupied the inner estuarine salt marshes for 2 to 3 days before emigrating farther out in the estuary (USFWS 1983). Smolts congregated in tidal streams at low tide, with the majority of fish observed in deep, slow water over soft substrates (USFWS 1983). The highest nearshore juvenile Chinook salmon densities occurred in tidal areas without any freshwater influence (Shepard 1981). Factors of Decline Threats to the Chinook salmon include watershed development, such as forest practices, mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water manipulation and Biological Assessment Page 12 QTrojectslBarbee BA 20121,2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712 docx ini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism withdrawal. Over -fishing, artificial propagation and introduction of nonnative species have also impacted Chinook salmon. Forest practices, mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water withdrawal have resulted in increased sedimentation, changes in flow regimes and channel morphology, decrease in water quality and quantity, loss of riparian habitat, loss of large woody debris (LWD), and loss of LWD recruitment, higher water temperatures, decreased gravel recruitment, reduction in pools and spawning and rearing areas, rerouting of stream channels, degradation of streambanks and loss of estuarine rearing areas (Bishop and Morgan 1996; Myers et al. 1998). These changes have affected the spawning and rearing environment of Chinook salmon. Harvest, hatchery practices and the introduction of nonnative species have also impacted the expression of the varied life history strategies of Chinook salmon within the ESU. Current and future development pose many risks to the Chinook salmon populations in Lake Washington, primarily through increased water pollution and further habitat degradation by such mechanism as increased impervious surface, which alters stream hydrology causing increased erosion and sedimentation of Chinook spawning grounds. A detailed discussion of Chinook limiting factors in the Lake Washington basin is given in Kerwin (2001). In addition to extensive shoreline development, other factors that can compromise the survival of juvenile Chinook salmon include poor water quality and high water temperatures in the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks. All juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids must pass through the Ship Canal during migrations to and from saltwater. The significant differences in water temperature and salinity encountered at the Ballard Locks require a rapid transition by the fish and may cause severe stress. For example, recorded delays in egg development in returning adult salmon may be connected to the temperature transition when entering freshwater and prolonged exposure to high temperatures in the Ship Canal (Kerwin 2001). In addition, the sharp demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a stressor for juvenile salmonid out -migrants. The Locks are also a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation on adult salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem. Hatcheries continue to pose risk to natural spawning Chinook salmon in Lake Washington, although hatchery impacts are becoming increasingly recognized and efforts are being made to reduce hatchery effects listed populations. Several hatcheries and hatchery programs exist in the Lake Washington basin. Releases of fall -run Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington system accounted for about five percent of all Puget Sound releases from 1991 through 2000, with about 2.6 million fish per year. In Puget Sound, hatchery fish greatly outnumber natural origin fish in terms of juvenile out -migrants and adult returns (NMFS 2003). Detailed descriptions of harvest rates for Lake Washington Chinook stocks are provided in (NMFS 2003). While harvest rates frequently change, the harvest rate of Lake Washington Chinook has diminished over time. The total exploitation rate for Chinook salmon returning to the Lake Washington watershed was 67 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 26 percent from 1997 through 2000. Local Stock Information The primary Chinook salmon stock in the project vicinity (the southern portion of Lake Washington) originates from the Cedar River. The Cedar River Chinook run, although a naturally spawning population without current supplementation from hatchery stocks, is not native to Lake Biological Assessment Page 13 Q `Projecis\0arbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Washington. May Creek is not thought to have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon run and individuals using the stream are likely strays from the Cedar River. Chinook are reported to use the lower three miles of May Creek for limited spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Lucchetti (2002) rated the lower May Creek sub -basin (from mouth to RM 3.0) as moderate to high for spawning habitat. This rating signifies areas in which Chinook are known to spawn and that are characterized by adequate flows and physical attributes (e.g., channel size, gradient, and substrate) that typically support Chinook spawning (Lucchetti 2002). According to King County (2011), nearly all spawning occurs in the lower two miles of May Creek, though spawning has been observed up to RM 3.0. The number of Chinook observed in May Creek varies between zero and 12 fish annually (pers. comm. Aaron Bosworth, WDFW, November 15, 2010, as cited in King County 2011). Adult Cedar River Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington through the Ballard Locks from late June through September, with the run peaking in late August. Spawning occurs from mid -September through mid- to late -November, with a peak in early to mid -October (WDF et al. 1993). In the Cedar River, fry probably begin to emerge in February and continue through March and perhaps April (City of Seattle 2000), which is also probably true in May Creek as well. Unlike most systems in which juvenile Chinook rear in rivers and estuaries, juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington rear in the littoral areas of the lake from January to July. While rearing in the south end of Lake Washington, the nocturnal distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon appears to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Tabor et al. (2004) studied juvenile Chinook salmon use of shoreline habitats in Lake Washington and found that juvenile Chinook were concentrated in very shallow water, approximately 1.3 feet in depth, and prefer low gradient shorelines and deltas with substrates composed of sand and gravel. In comparison to lake shore reference sites, the delta sites had a higher density of juvenile Chinook salmon. On average, the delta sites had almost twice as many fish as the lake reference site. Of the delta sites studied, Tabor et al. (2004) found that juvenile Chinook appeared to use low gradient and shallow deltas that were close to natal streams (such as the Cedar River). Tabor et al. (2004) also found that juvenile Chinook had no preference for woody debris piles alone; however, they did show a preference for woody debris piles in combination with overhanging vegetation. In fact, over 80 percent of juvenile Chinook observed during the study were found along shallow sites in association with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris. The majority of juvenile Chinook observed by Tabor et al. (2004) were concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington from February to May, with peak abundance occurring in May. The last shoreline survey was conducted on July 14, when only one juvenile Chinook was observed out of five sample sites. The lower 912 feet of May Creek and the May Creek delta (convergence pool) were included in the study sites evaluated by Tabor et al. (2004). Tabor et al. (2004) also surveyed a lake reference site located approximately 2,000 feet south of the May Creek delta (the Kennydale Beach Park swim beach). In March of 2002, only two Chinook salmon were observed during the surveys, one in the convergence pool and one in a pool in May Creek. The density of juvenile Chinook salmon was similar between the lake reference site and delta area. Juvenile coho salmon were also present primarily in the convergence pool, while large trout primarily occupied the upstream pools. Small resident trout were scattered throughout the study Biological Assessment Page 14 Q-Troiects',Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712_docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism reach. Tabor et al. (2004) noted that predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by large trout has been documented in Lake Washington (Tabor and Chan 1996) and the Cedar River. Few predatory fish were present in the shallower deltas, which were used by up to 10 times more Chinook compared to the May Creek delta. Based on habitat preference, Tabor et al. (2004) hypothesized that the presence of large trout and large sculpin in the large tributaries may inhibit the use of the convergence pool and other stream habitats by Chinook. It may be that the lack of juvenile Chinook in the deep delta habitat has more to do with this habitat type being preferred by predatory fish, and not that deep delta habitats are not "good" Chinook habitat. Steelhead Status of the DPS The NMFS defined the Puget Sound Steelhead DPS to include naturally spawning steelhead stocks below natural and manmade impassable barriers, in streams and rivers ranging from the Canadian border (Nooksack River basin), south through Puget Sound and Hood Canal, north and west to the Elwha River, which empties into the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Puget Sound Steelhead are at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, and were listed as threatened on June 11, 2007 (72 FIR 26722). The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is assessed based on their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. The two populations of steelhead found in lake Washington use the lake for migrating, holding and rearing. Early abundance analysis from catch records in 1889 indicate that the catch peaked at 163,796 individuals in 1895 (Little, 1898). Assuming a harvest rate of 30 to 50 percent, Little (1898) estimated that the peak run size ranged from 327,592 to 545,987 fish. In the 1990s the total run size for major stocks in this DPS was greater than 45,000, with total natural escapement of about 22,000, a fraction of the 1889 abundance. The abundance treat for the Cedar River population is decreasing. Counts between 1980 and 2004 estimate an escapement of 137.9 natural spawners, and more recent data (2000-2004) has the estimates at 36.8, showing a steep decline (Hard et al. 2007). The Lake Washington population shows a similar declining trend with 308.1 natural spawners between 1980 and 2004, and 36.8 between 2000 and 2004 (Hard et al. 2007). To estimate existing productivity in Lake Washington steelhead, Scott and Gill (2006) used escapement data or indices of escapement from the previous eight years to create a time series. Population viability analyses were conducted under the assumption that only anadromous spawners contribute to the abundance of each population. This assumption may result in estimates of extinction that are too high because the presence of resident forms of O. mykiss (rainbow trout) may reduce the likelihood of extinction. The Lake Washington winter -run steelhead last escapement data was listed at 44, with a growth rate estimate of -0.16, indicating a decrease in productivity. The relative risk of extinction for populations of steelhead in the Puget Sound region is very high, because productivity is poor. More recent productivity analysis included lambda calculations, showing Cedar River steelhead lambda at 0.808 (±0.004), and Lake Washington steelhead lambda at 0.802 (±0.002) (Hard et al. 2007), supporting Scott and Gill's (2006) productivity decline. Allozyme analysis of steelhead sampled in the Cedar River in 1994 clusters them with winter steelhead in the Green, White, and Puyallup rivers, and with some Snohomish basin steelhead stocks (WDFW 2004). The Cedar River population is a distinct population that has undergone minimal hatchery introgression (Hard et al. 2007). Biological Assessment Page 15 Q TrojectslBarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism The status of the Lake Washington winter steelhead was defined in the SaSI report (WDFW 2004). Based on the chronically low escapement and short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock status declined from "depressed" in 1994 to "critical" in 2002. Past hatchery practices by WDFW included planting of steelhead fry throughout tributaries in the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin and were unsuccessful in producing return adult spawners. The Cedar River has a naturally spawning population of steelhead and weekly surveys are conducted annually to assess abundance. Redd counts have been steadily declining and 2010 surveys observed only one redd (pens. comm. Hans Berge, King County, November 22, 2010, as cited in King County 2011). Life History and Habitat Requirements Unless otherwise cited, the following steelhead information is summarized from the federal register proposal to list Puget Sound steelhead as threatened (50 CFR Part 223). Steelhead is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of the biological species Oncorhynchus mykiss, which includes rainbow trout). The present distribution of steelhead extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to Alaska, and extending south along the Pacific coast to the U.S. Mexico border. O. mykiss exhibit a complex suite of life -history traits and can be anadromous (i.e. steelhead), or freshwater residents (rainbow or redband trout), and under some circumstances yield offspring of the opposite life -history form. Steelhead juveniles generally migrate to sea at age 2 to 3, but can spend up to 7 years in freshwater. Peak outmigration to the sea is generally in the late spring and early summer. Steelhead generally spend 1 to 2 years at sea before returning to freshwater to spawn. O. mykiss may spawn more than once, whereas the Pacific salmon species are principally spawn once and die. As with most salmonids, spawning typically occurs in streams where the water is cool, clear, and well oxygenated. The optimum spawning temperature for steelhead is about 45°F, but they have been reported spawning at temperatures of 39 to 55"F. After emergence, steelhead fry form small schools and inhabit the margins of the stream. As they grow larger and more active, they slowly begin to disperse downstream. Steelhead prefer relatively small, fast flowing streams with a high proportion of riffles and pools. Most steelhead in their first year of life in riffles, but some larger fish also inhabit pools or deep fast runs. Instream cover such as large rocks, logs, root wads, and aquatic vegetation are very important for juvenile steelhead. This cover provides resting areas, visual isolation from competing salmonids, food, and protection from predators. Often steelhead densities are highest in streams with abundant instream cover. The preferred water temperature for rearing steelhead ranges from 50 to 55°F. Factors of Decline Factors leading to the decline of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS are essentially the same as described previously for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and generally include habitat degradation by human disturbance such as forestry, agriculture, and general urbanization. Access to large reaches of spawning and rearing habitat has been blocked by dams and other manmade barriers. Existing regulatory mechanisms inadequately protect steelhead habitats as evidenced by the historical and continued threat posed by the loss and degradation. Hatchery practices have had genetic and life history effects, and lead to competition between naturally produced and hatchery fish. Over - harvest has also reduced abundance throughout the DPS. Biological Assessment Page 16 QAProiectS\BartVe BA 2012'C012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Local Stock Information Steelhead occurring in the project action area are part of the Lake Washington winter -run population (a native stock). They typically enterfresh water between November and April and spawn from mid -December through early June. Abundance of this stock has greatly declined over the past decade. The escapement goal for Lake Washington winter steelhead is 1,600 adult fish. However, from 2000 to 2004, the total Lake Washington winter steelhead spawner escapement estimate ranged from only 20 to 48 fish, far below the escapement goal. WDFW considers the status of the Lake Washington stock as "critical" due to chronically low escapements and a short- term severe decline in escapement. Steelhead spawning occurs throughout the Lake Washington basin including the Sammamish River and its tributaries, Issaquah Creek, Coal Creek, May Creek, the lower Cedar River and several smaller Lake Washington tributaries. Survey data from 1984 through 1987 observed steelhead in the lower reaches of May Creek (Newcastle 2002 as cited in King County 2011). Data from the WDFW Salmon Scape website report that steelhead have been observed in the lowerthree miles of May Creek. Bull Trout Status of the DPS Bull trout, a member of the family Salmonidae, are a char native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. The species historically occurred in mayor river drainages in the Pacific Northwest from about 41% to 60'N latitude, from the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). The Coastal -Puget Sound DPS comprises all Pacific coast and Puget Sound bull trout populations within Washington State. This population segment is geographically segregated from other subpopulations by the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range. It is significant to the species as a whole because it is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the coterminous United States. The USFWS conducted a 5-year review of the ESA listing status for bull trout in the coterminous United States that was published in April, 2008 (USFWS 2008a). This review includes the following observations: most population trends are unknown; there is a broad distribution of risk across the landscape; most core area bull trout populations are at high risk or at risk of extirpation; and the smallest core areas tend to be at a higher risk. Ultimately, the USFWS determined that "threatened" status remains warranted for bull trout, including the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS. The 5-year review final report indicated the USFWS would initiate a new, separate assessment to identify the individual status of each current DPS and determine if they need reorganization (possibly into smaller spatial units). This effort has not yet been completed. Although bull trout remain threatened in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS, many of the local populations are apparently healthy enough to sustain angling and harvest in the Puget Sound region in several core areas. The Skagit and Snohomish River basins are seasonally open to angling and harvest of bull trout. This is a significant distinction, as on a rangewide basis, most core areas are closed to angling and harvest of bull trout. Biological Assessment Page 17 QAPrgjects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Life History and Habitat Requirements Throughout their range, bull trout are primarily freshwater species that exhibit both resident and migratory life -history patterns. The entire lifecycle of the resident bull trout takes place in headwater streams. Resident fish spawn, rear, and live as adults generally in one headwater stream, although short migrations may occur. Migratory bull trout spawn and rear in headwater streams, then after two to four years rearing in their home stream, juveniles migrate downstream to larger rivers (fluvial) or lakes and reservoirs (adfluvial) where they grow to maturity. Migrations can range from a few miles to well over 50 miles (Goetz et al. 2004). Mature adults migrate back upstream to spawn in headwater reaches. There is increasing evidence that several coastal and Puget Sound populations have an anadromous or amphidromous component in Washington (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Kraemer 1999; Goetz et al. 2004; Volk 2000; Goetz et al. 2004). Adult anadromous char are thought to prey primarily on fish. A study by Brenkman (2002) at the mouth of the Hoh River on the Olympic Peninsula found that surf smelt (Hypomesus pretious) was the primary prey item and was found in 96 percent of the stomachs analyzed; other species included herring (Clupeo harengus pollasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and sculpin (Cottus spp.). Other limited stomach content work and feeding observations in Skagit Bay and Port Susan also indicate that anadromous char feed most commonly on surf smelt, and other fish such as herring, sand lance, pink and chum salmon fry, and a number of invertebrates (Kraemer 1999). Kraemer (1999) and Brenkman (2002) suspected the distribution of char in marine waters is closely tied to the distribution of forage fish, especially spawning beaches for surf smelt and herring. Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall from late August into December (timing varies based on local conditions) and is thought to be correlated with particular flows, water temperatures, and photo period. Peak spawning usually occurs in September and October for most populations (Brenkman et al. 2001). Bull trout spawning generally occurs when water temperature drops below 487. Bull trout spawn in substrate ranging from large sand to gravel over 2 inches in diameter. In western Washington, bull trout spawning occurs above an elevation of 1,000 feet or in streams with very cold temperatures similar to high elevation streams (Kraemer 1999). Fry emerge from spring into the summer months (McPhail and Murray 1979). Mature adult bull trout can spawn more than once in a lifetime. First spawning is often noted after age four, with individuals living ten or more years (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Sexual maturity for both sexes has been documented in fish smaller than 6 inches fork length in resident populations (Hemmingsen et al. 2001). Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), requiring cold clean water and a high degree of habitat complexity (Dambacher et al. 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Water temperatures over approximately 50°F are thought to limit their distribution; however, bull trout may be able to migrate through reaches with elevated water temperatures for short durations. Factors of Decline Bull trout are threatened by habitat degradation and fragmentation from past and ongoing land management activities such as mining, road construction and maintenance, timber harvest, hydropower, water diversions/withdrawals, agriculture, and grazing. Bull trout are also threatened by interactions and hybridization with introduced non-native fishes such as brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namoycush). Although some strongholds still exist, bull trout Biological Assessment Page 18 Q TrojectslBarbee BA 20121,2012 Draft RA12012 BA 082712.docx ni Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism generally occur as isolated sub -populations in headwater lakes or tributaries where migratory fish have been lost. Although the bull trout distribution in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS is less fragmented than the Columbia River DPS, bull trout subpopulation distribution within individual river systems has contracted and abundance has declined. The decline of the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS has been attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers, interaction with introduced species, water quality degradation, and past management practices. Commercial and recreational fisheries also impact native char populations in Puget Sound. Native char are occasionally caught in sport and commercial fisheries in Puget Sound, as well as by in -river net fisheries. They are common in nearshore marine areas of Puget Sound from Everett north, and are vulnerable to beach seine and set net fisheries. Current and future population pressures on bull trout in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook. Local Stock Information The following Lake Washington bull trout information is summarized from USFW5 (2004) unless otherwise cited. The Cedar River watershed upstream of the Masonry Dam supports the only known self-sustaining population of bull trout in the Lake Washington basin. The Chester Morse Lake bull trout core area is located within the Cedar River in the upper reaches of the Cedar River drainage, upstream of a natural migration barrier at Lower Cedar Falls (river mile 34.4). The level of emigration of bull trout occurring from Chester Morse Lake to the lower Cedar River is unknown. The only means for bull trout to leave the reservoir complex and pass to the lower Cedar River is during use of the emergency spill gates and/or the smaller spillway near the south end of the Masonry Dam. These gates are rarely opened except under emergency conditions of high reservoir elevation (e.g., 1990 flood) or for special operational purposes. It is presumed impossible for live fish to pass through the other structure used to release water from Masonry Pool (Masonry Dam spill valve/Howell-Bunger valve) at the base of the Masonry Dam. It is possible that bull trout do successfully pass through the spill gates when water is released and thereby gain access to the `canyon reach' and the lower Cedar River, but no accurate estimate of numbers of fish passing the dam has been made. No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning populations are known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse. The potential for spawning in the Lake Washington basin is believed to be very low as a majority of accessible habitat is low elevation, below 500 feet, and thus not expected to have the proper thermal regime to sustain successful spawning. However, there are some Coldwater springs and tributaries that may come close to suitable spawning temperatures and that may provide thermal refuge for rearing or foraging during warm summer periods. These include Rock Creek (tributary to the Cedar River below Landsburg Diversion) and Coldwater Creek, a tributary to Cottage Lake Creek immediately below Cottage Lake. In addition, the upper reaches of Holder and Carey creeks, the two main branches of Issaquah Creek, have good to excellent habitat conditions and may hold potential for bull trout spawning due to their elevation and aspect. However, despite survey efforts by King County (Berge and Mavros 2001), no evidence of bull trout spawning or rearing has been found. The connection with the Chester Morse Lake core area is one-way only, and currently the level of connectivity with other core areas is unknown. However, a number of observations of subadult and adult sized bull trout have been made in Lake Washington and at the Ballard Locks (Shepard and Biological Assessment Page 19 Q:1ProjecLsiBarbee BA 2012\2012 Malt BA12012 BA 082712 docx Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Pr'sm Dykeman 1977; KCDNR 2000). Observations of bull trout in the Ballard Locks and cursory hydroacoustic tagging suggest that these fish may be migrating to the Lake Washington area from other watersheds such as the Stillaguamish or Snohomish systems (Goetz et al. 2004). Bull trout have been caught in Shilshole Bay and the Ballard Locks during late spring and early summer in recent times. In 2000, eight adult and subadult fish (mean size 370 millimeters; 14.5 inches) were caught in Shilshole Bay below the locks between May and July. These fish were found preying upon juvenile salmon (40 percent of diet) and marine forage fish (60 percent of diet) (Footen 2000, 2003). In 2001, five adult bull trout were captured in areas within the Ballard Locks and immediately below the locks. One bull trout was captured in the large lock in June, and in May one adult was captured while migrating upstream through the fish ladder in the adult steelhead trap. Three adult bull trout were also captured below the tailrace during the peak of juvenile salmon migration on June 18 (Goetz et al. 2004). Colo Salmon Status of the ESU The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon ESU includes populations from drainages of Puget Sound and Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula east of Salt Creek, and the Strait of Georgia from the east side of Vancouver Island (north to and including Campbell River) and the British Columbia mainland (north to and including Powell River), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope. WDF et al. (1993) identified 40 coho populations within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. While most were sustained by natural production, only three of these populations were determined to be of native origin. Weitkamp et al. (1995) noted that while coho salmon within the Puget Sound ESU were abundant, and with some exceptions run sizes and natural spawning escapements generally stable, there are substantial risks to whatever native production remains. The Puget Sound coho ESU remains a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. From 1991 through 2000, the annual run size of coho populations entering Puget Sound was 669,000, of which 44 percent were derived from natural spawning. Over this same period, wild coho escapement increased, which is primarily attributed to a reduction in Puget Sound fisheries, allowing more fish to reach spawning grounds even though total run sizes decreased. High harvest rates and a recent decline in average size of spawners is a concern because of the potential for reduced fecundity and/or productivity (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Hatchery coho programs are also intensive in Puget Sound, influencing population trends. From 1991 through 2000, an average of approximately 24 million hatchery - produced juvenile coho were released into Puget Sound annually. Over this period, total hatchery releases decreased from about 40 million in 1991 to less than 10 million in 2000 (PSMFC 2002). Life History and Habitat Requirements The coho salmon life history roughly consists of 18 months of freshwater rearing followed by 18 months of ocean rearing (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon typically spawn in relatively shallow tributary streams from October through February. Spawning generally occurs in temperatures ranging from 42 to 49°F. Coho salmon spawning gravel ranges from 0.5 to 4 inches (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Fry emerge in the spring and occupy most stream habitats, but are usually associated with the channel margin. Coho salmon fry densities are greatest in backwater pools, beaver dam pools, and off -channel areas (WDW 1991). Biological Assessment Page 20 Q TrojectslBarbce BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712_dnex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism At least one year of freshwater residence is normal for coho salmon juveniles (USFWS 1986a). Coho salmon parr are frequently associated with side channels, wetlands, and off -channel sloughs for rearing (Sandercock 1991). Other important juvenile habitats include large wood accumulations, undercut banks, and complex pool habitats. Coho salmon juveniles are generally absent in channels lacking cover. Mason and Chapman (1965) reported that coho salmon juveniles are aggressive and territorial soon after emergence, and establish intraspecific dominance hierarchies. Where coho and Chinook salmon juveniles occurred together in streams, the coho were socially dominant, defending optimum feeding territory (Stein et al. 1972). Water temperatures that average between 50 to 590F in the summer are considered optimum for juvenile coho salmon rearing (USFWS 1986a). Bell (1973) reported the upper lethal limit to be 78.57, Out -migration of smolts to marine areas usually occurs from April to August of the year following their hatching, with peak migrations in May in nearly all areas (USFWS 1986a). Factors of Decline Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho salmon stocks include high harvest rates, widespread habitat degradation, hatchery practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions. The genetic fitness of Puget Sound coho salmon stocks has been affected by widespread artificial propagation that includes inter -basin transfers of brood stock, and by hatchery fish escapement and introgression with wild populations (Weitcamp et al. 1995). Current and future population pressures on coho salmon in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook. Local Stock Information Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production; therefore, recent studies have not been able to fully evaluate the status of self-sustaining naturally spawning coho populations in the region. Trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions (Fresh 1994; WDF et al. 1993). Naturally spawning coho escapement (which could be a mix of native and hatchery origin coho) in Lake Washington was as high as 30,000 fish in 1970 and declined to less than 2,000 in 1992 (Fresh 1994). Index escapement values for Cedar River coho in the 1990s have declined to levels far below those observed in the 1980s, so the stock is now rated depressed by WDFW due to both the long-term negative trend in the index values and the chronically low nature of the indicator values. The Lake Washington/Sammamish tributaries coho stock is also rated as depressed by WDFW for the same factors (WDFW 2002). Available spawning survey information for May Creek suggests the same negative trend. Spawning surveys conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found peak coho adult spawner densities in lower May Creek at 23, 5, and 55 coho per mile, respectively, while surveys in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities of only 2 fish per mile (Foster Wheeler 1995). Biological Assessment Page 21 Q:TrojcctslBarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prfsm IV, ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process 50 CFR § 402.02(d). The baseline provides a reference for NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS to evaluate the species' current status in relationship to the proposed action. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND PROJECT AREA The action area for the proposed project encompasses the southern portion of the May Creek Delta (southern Lake Washington) (Figure 2). The environmental baseline of the action area is generally described below, including the Lake Washington basin, May Creek watershed, and the project area. Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington) May Creek May Creek drains approximately 14 square miles between the Coal Creek and Cedar River basins. The basin contains approximately 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres of wetlands (Foster Wheeler 1998). The mouth of May Creek is located on Lake Washington approximately two miles north of the Cedar River in Renton, Washington. Historically, the May Creek watershed was forested with predominantly coniferous stands. Over recent decades, land uses in the western one-third of the basin have changed to intensive residential development, with some industrial development in the lowermost reaches, including the Barbee Lumber Mill. The eastern two-thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural residential, small farms, and some forested areas (King County 2001). Developed communities in the watershed include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honey Creek, and Lake Kathleen (Foster Wheeler 1998), The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban -scale development from encroaching on the headwaters of the basin. Land development in the lower basin has substantially reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces, and filled wetlands. Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage basin -wide is approximately 7 percent. In addition, under current zoning, full build -out would result in approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being covered in impervious surfaces (King County 2001). This is significant, as basin -wide impervious surface areas of 10 percent or greater have been found to have significant impacts on the health of aquatic ecosystems (May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991). Logging, coal mining, and agricultural activities have resulted in channelized streams, floodplain encroachment, and eroding slopes in the May Creek watershed. The lower flour miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the creek experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of LWD (Foster Wheeler 1998). The lack of LWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat. Biological Assessment Page 22 QAPro*1s\Barhee BA 2012/2012 Draft BAQ012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to forest removal, the presence of rock quarries, and the expansion of road networks. Vegetation removal throughout the basin has resulted in higher maximum flows and lower minimum flows. Higher flows than what naturally occurred can result in stream substrate scour, which may negatively impact salmon redds (Foster Wheeler 1998). The increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding and sediment deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and flooding and sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 2001). Peak flows have increased moderately in May Valley, on the order of 15 to 20 percent greater than the predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year return intervals (King County 2001). From approximately RM 3.9 to 7.0, the riparian area of May Creek is heavily impacted by grazing (Foster Wheeler 1998). Agricultural activities in May Valley have drained historic wetlands and channelized May Creek (Buchanan 2003). The South Fork of May Creek starts at RM 7.0. Portions of the South Fork go dry in the summer from RM 7.0 to 9.1. A 128-foot-long culvert blocks anadromous fish passage at RM 7.7. The North Fork of May Creek parallels State Route (SR) 900, resulting in degraded riparian conditions and channelization. Three quarries along the North Fork contribute to high sediment loading in the system (Foster Wheeler 1998). The East Fork of May Creek flows into the South Fork at RM 7.2. Habitat conditions in the East Fork are highly degraded due to the presence of man-made berms, culverts, and man-made ponds (Foster Wheeler 1998). Almost all of the basin's nearly 80 identified wetlands have been disturbed by deforestation, filling, draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring since the wetlands were first inventoried in 1983 (King County 2001). The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) includes several goals, one of which is to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin. Implementation of habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on funding availability, Restoration work along May Creek has recently taken place; the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge to Lake Washington Boulevard by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation. In this area (located upstream from the proposed dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width from 5 to over 100 feet in width. Despite the current habitat conditions, the lower reaches of May Creek experience the heaviest use by fish (Foster Wheeler 1998). Steelhead, cutthroat trout, Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon spawn in May Creek, Spawning gravel, although embedded, likely supports successful incubation (Buchanan 2003). The primary limiting factor for Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is available spawning area and incubation success (Foster Wheeler 1998). The primary limiting factor for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and over -wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998). Lake Washington Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state of Washington with 80 miles of shoreline, including about 30 miles along the shore of Mercer island (Shared Strategy, 2007). Over 82 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored and is shaded by more than 2,700 piers and docks (Shared Strategy, 2007). Regulated lake levels and extensive armoring have hampered sediment transport and sandy beaches need to be augmented by periodic sediment supplies. Additional factors affecting the habitat features in the Lake Washington basin include a lack of riparian vegetation due to clearing and development; loss of channel and shoreline complexity Biological Assessment Page 23 O:1ProjcctslBarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism including a lack of woody debris and pools; the development of fish passage barriers with the construction of road crossings, weirs, and dams; and degraded water and sediment quality caused by increases in pollutants and high temperatures (Shared Strategy, 2007). The Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and Sammamish, and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It also includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain into the system from the north. Historically, Lake Washington had a vegetated shoreline of wetlands, trees, brush, and other mixed vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for juvenile salmonids. The shoreline's natural structural complexity was beneficial for fish and other aquatic species. Larger conifers that grew in the riparian area provided shade and contributed plant material (branches, needles) and terrestrial insects to the aquatic food chain. The United States Fish Commission Bulletin published in 1898 describes the lake as follows; "Only in a few places along the shore of the entire lake is the bottom sufficiently free from snags, fallen trees, and other material to permit the successful hauling of nets". In the past 150 years, the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish watershed has been dramatically altered from its historical condition. Habitat degradation started with heavy logging of old growth forest throughout much of the watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle began diverting water out of the upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910 through 1920, the natural Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake Washington to Lake Union and then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake that was not connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of the Lake Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to 10 feet and the loss of over ten miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. During that same decade, the Cedar !fiver was redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington. In the ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been the expansion of urban and suburban development. In the upper Cedar River, land is devoted almost entirely to preservation of forests. Residential, industrial, and commercial uses prevail in the lower reaches of virtually all the streams. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into the lake, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). Piers are also used heavily as ambush cover by non-native species such as bass, which may prey heavily on native juvenile salmonids. The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat. The current lake level is artificially regulated within a two -foot range. The high water/low water regime is reversed from the natural state. High water occurs during the summer for extensive operation of the Ballard Locks. Low water occurs during the winter protect property from winter wave action. Biological Assessment Page 24 Q TfoiecisTarbee BA 2012/2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Despite the heavy alteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support numerous salmonid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest salmonid populations, the Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye, coho, koka nee, steelhead, rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char. Some of the small independent Puget Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and cutthroat. Maps illustrating known and presumed distributions for each of these species are available in Kerwin (2001). Additionally, at least 40 non- native fish species (of which approximately 24 persist) have been introduced into the Lake Washington basin, most notably smallmouth and largemouth bass, creating numerous trophic interactions with native species, most notably predation on native salmonids. Sockeye salmon in the lake system are believed to be primarily the descendants of fry transplanted from Baker Lake in the 1930s. While many species have been introduced, native species such as Cedar River pink and chum salmon have been extirpated. Project Area On May 3 and May 17, 2012, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed detailed aquatic habitat and fish presence surveys in the area of Lake Washington located immediately south of the May Creek delta. The objective of these surveys was to document the existing aquatic habitat conditions; determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the survey. An additional objective was to compare the results of 2005 surveys with the results of fish habitat and fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in 1993, 2000, 2001, and 2005 (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001, Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005). It should be noted that the timing of the 2012 surveys was designed to coincide with the expected residence period of juvenile coho, steelhead, and Chinook. Survey Methods Eight underwater (SCUBA) transects were placed between the south end of the May Creek delta and the existing dock and log boom located at the south end of the proposed project area (Figure 3). Transects ranged from 75 to 250 feet in length, and extended approximately 480 feet into Lake Washington. Transects 1, 2 and 8 were shallow -water snorkel survey transects located along the north and southeast shoreline. Transects 4, 5, and 5 paralleled each other, oriented from roughly 20' to 200°, and transect 3 extended from an area located just southeast of the osprey nesting platform to the end of the log boom (Figure 3). Biological Assessment Page 25 Q''%PrgiectslBarbee BA 2012\2012 Drall BA12012 BA 082712.docx Ole - TAnseet 2 r•'� ` Transect 8 Transect 3 Transect2 Transect 5 Transect 6 Transect 4 ~' •,.Transect7. a �� � rid W 1 e.artl 175 ft - 2472 000glc' • _. d ^s : ima9eiy Dale sn w2d11 $ 199u 47 31'39 B3- N 122'1717 8B' W eiev 1 'ft -� '. _ _ _ _ �°„ .4 _ v Eye ail 612 r1 C Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Two fisheries biologists used SCUBA gear/snorkeling equipment to swim each of the eight survey transects approximately 3 feet above the surface of the lake bed. While swimming each transect, surveyors counted and identified fish to species. Fish age classes and species associations were also noted. In addition, divers recorded the depth, dominant substrate, macrophyte species composition and density, and underwater visibility at a series of five square yard stations along each transect. Aquatic macrophyte densities were visually estimated classified as low (less than or equal to 10 stems per square yard), moderate (11 to 100 stems per square yard), or high (greater than 100 stems per square yard). Underwater photographs of representative habitat conditions and fish were also taken along selected transects. Survey Results Fish Use Over the past 19 years numerous salmonid species have been documented at or near the project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, and rainbow and cutthroat trout (Figure 4). Non- salmonid species documented during surveys included largemouth and smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three -spine stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005, and Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005). Figure 4. Coho salmon juveniles Feeding near the culvert outlet during the 2005 SCUBA survey (Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005). Biological Assessment Page 27 Q',f ruicc1,'�Iliubcc 14A 2 i 12%2(11'_ DialL I I A 101' 1i 1 [i8l-711_ d,)c,, Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Fish species observed during the May 3 and May 17, 2012 surveys included Chinook and coho salmon, rainbow troutfsteelhead, three -spine stickleback, and prickly sculpin (Table 3) (Figures 5 and 6). As in past years, the majority of all fish observed were found in relatively shallow water (less than 6 feet deep) along transects 1, 2, and 8. Typically these fish were associated with overhead and underwater cover in the form of riprap, emergent vegetation, submerged logs, the existing boathouse dock, and the small culvert located adjacent to the existing boathouse dock. In 2012, the coho and Chinook were observed adjacent to and under the boathouse dock (at the eastern end of transect 1 and northern end of transect 2) (Figure 7); however, coho and rainbow trout were also observed using nearshore emergent vegetation as cover along transect 1. Biological Assessment Page 28 Q TrojectslBarbee BA 2012%2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx i Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Table 3. Summary of May 3 and May 17, 2012 SCUBA survey results within the proposed project area. Depth Aquatic Transect Survey Distance Range Macrophyte Aquatic Macrophy to Comments 1 Fish Observations Comments ! Fish Observations Number Method Bearing (feet) (feet) Substrate Density Species May 3, 20102 Survey May 17, 20102 Survey 1 Snorkel 80' and 185 0-4 Sand, NA Abundant emergent One Chinook (fry) and 5 coho Ten three -spine stickleback. 2 Survey 65, cobble, riparian vegetation and (fry) near the boat dock; 1 sculpin sculpin (sp.), 7 coho yearlings, 1 and floating American (sp.). 1 crayfish, abundant coho fry, 6 trout fry (not identified gravel waterweed (Eodea neomysis, and caddisfly larvae. to species), 1 adult (12") canadensis), Brazilian Water temperature 47.3°F smallmouth bass, and 7 pond elodea (Egerra densa), turtles. Yearling coho were Eurasian watermilfoil observed under the dock. Water (Myrrophydlurrl temperature 61.0° F. spicatum), and pondweed (Pofamogeton spp.). 2 Snorkel 40°, 250 0-4 Sand, NA Floating American No fish observed. Abundant One 8" smallmouth bass and 1 Survey 45°, 0°, cobble, waterweed, Eurasian neomysis, and caddisfly larvae. western pond turtle. Abundant and rip -rap, watermilfoil and neomysis and caddisfly larvae. 330° and pondweed. gravel 3 SCUBA 240' 250 8-23 silt High (<12 feet American waterweed No fish observed. Several "holes" One sculpin (sp.) and 1 (8') Survey and deep) to none and Eurasian in the silt substrate measuring smallmouth bass. Abundant Stations 200' (>16 feet watermilfoil approximately 18' in diameter neomysis and fresh water 1-5 deep) and 6" deep. Abundant neomysis mussels. Visibility approximately and approximately 10 fresh water 4-5 feet mussels. Visibility 6-8 feet. 4 SCUBA 200° 235 3-21 Silt, sand High (<12 feet American waterweed No fish observed. Abundant Spooked 1 unidentified large fish. Survey (at depths deep) to none and sparse Eurasian neomysis and several fresh water Macrophyte line at 16 feet deep. Stations less than (>16 feet watermilfoil. mussels. Sediments from the May Creek 1-5 5 feet) deep) delta appear to inhibit macrophyte growth. 5 SCUBA 200' 185 3-12 Silt, sand High (<12 feet American waterweed No fish observed. Abundant Spooked 2 unidentified large fish. Survey (at depths deep) to none and Eurasian neomysis and several fresh water Abundant caddisfly larvae. Stations less than (>16 feet watermilfoil mussels. Numerous holes In the 1-5 8 feet) deep silt substrate (possibly resulting from past dredging). One 8" diameter log. 6 SCUBA 200° 185 2-12 Silt, sand High at depths American watemeed, No fish observed. Abundant One (3") pumpkinseed sunfish, 1 Survey (at depths ranging from Pofamogeton (sp.), and neomysis and fresh several water three -spine stickleback, and 1 Stations less than 5-9 feet. Eurasian watermill mussels. juvenile (7) smallmouth bass 1.5 5 feet) Biological Assessment Page 29 QAProjeclslRarbcc BA 201212012 Draft RA12012 BA ()$2712doca Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Transect Number Survey Method Bearing Distance (feet) Depth Range (feet) Substrata Aquatic Macrophyte Density Aquatic Macnophyte Species Comments 1 Fish Observations May 3, 20102 Survey Comments ! Fish Observations May 17, 20102 Survey 7 SCUBA Parallel 185 6-12 Silt, sand Medium to American waterweed, No fish observed. Six juvenile smallmouth bass (2- Survey to the (at depths high Potamogeton (sp.), and T) using the dock as cover. One 5 south less than Eurasian waterilfoil. dead juvenile smallmouth bass. dock 5 feet) 8 Snorkel Parallel 75 2-7 Sand and Medium to American waterweed, No fish observed. One western No fish observed. Survey to the silt high Potamogeton (sp.), and painted turtle under the north Eurasian watermilfoil. boathouse dock. dock Biological Assessment Page 30 Q.Trojects%Barbee BA 201212012 Drag BA12012 BA 082712,docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Figure 5. Photograph of juvenile coho observed near the existing boathouse structure during the 2012 SCUBA survey (located inside the yellow rectangle). Figure 6. Photograph of prickly sculpin observed along transect I during the 2012 SCUBA survey. Biological Assessment Page 31 QTToiects'.Bark)ee BA 201212012 Dratl BA12012 BA 082712 tlocx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Figure 7. Photo graph of the culvert structure located at the easter>i end of transect 1 (2012 survey), Riparian Condition Historically, the Barbee Mill property, located adjacent to the May Creek delta, was highly modified, with mill operations dominating the land use (Figure 8). Approximately 85 percent of the site was covered by impervious surfaces in the form of pavement associated with mill operations and approximately 15 structures used for mill offices, log handling, sawing, milling, and storage of wood products. In the past 5 years, coinciding with the construction of the Barbee Mill housing development, the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area at the confluence with Lake Washington and upstream from the lowermost bridge by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation. In this area (located to the north of the proposed expanded dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width from approximately 5 to over 100 feet in width. Immediately adjacent to the May Creek delta, the riparian area is characterized by willow shrub, blackberry, and grass cover (Figure 9). In addition, the Barbee Mill Company has placed clean gravel over 2,100 square feet of the shoreline along the rockery shoreline to the south of the boathouse dock to enhance shallow water habitat for fish. Biological Assessment Page 32 Q 'Tro.1cc1s\Ba&ee F3A 201212012 Draft BA12012 RA 082712.doex Figure S Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Historical aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site. Figure 9. Riparian condition at the confluence of May Creek with Lake Washington in 2012 (looking west from the boathouse dock at the proposed expanded dredging area). Biological Assessment page 33 Q IProiccis\Barbcc RA 2012\2012 Drab pA'�21012 BA 082712.docN Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Aquatic Macrophytes Six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented within and near the proposed expanded dredging area during past SCUBA/snorkel surveys. These include American waterweed (Elodea canodensis), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyilum spicaturn), white -stemmed pondweed (Potomogeton prelongus), curly -leaf pondweed (P. crispus), American wild celery (Vallisneria americans), and common water nymph (Nojos guadalupensis) (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001; Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2005). American waterweed is a native species found throughout most of Lake Washington. It is nodally rooting and forms large mats in shallow water, nearshore areas. Eurasian watermilfoil is a non-native species that first appeared in Lake Washington in the mid-1970s. This species spreads rapidly and now dominates the aquatic macrophyte community in the nearshore areas of the lake (Harza 1993; Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2005). According to Kerwin (2001), Eurasian watermilfoil has colonized a large percentage of the littoral zone and replaced much of the native aquatic vegetation present in littoral areas of Lake Washington. Curly -leaf pondweed also forms mats of vegetation in lakes and streams, and provides a large area of leaf surface. It is native to Europe, introduced in North America, and known to occur in both central and western Washington. American wild celery is native to eastern North America; however, Hitchcock et al_ (1969) notes that it was introduced into several lakes in Washington, including Lake Washington (Harza 1993). Common water nymph exists throughout Washington and is often found in ponds, lakes and sluggish streams to depths of 12 feet. In addition to the above species, the surveyors documented low densities of Brazilian elodea (Egeria denso) along transects 1 and 2 during the 2012 surveys. Brazilian elodea is a noxious, non-native freshwater perennial plant found in both still and flowing waters including lakes, ponds and quiet streams. This aggressive aquatic plant has spread into many western Washington lakes including Lakes Washington, Union, and Sammamish. When it is introduced into freshwater, it forms dense beds that reduce water quality and impede recreational activities'. Based on the results of underwater surveys conducted in 1993, 2000, 2001, 2005, and 2012 (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001, Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2005), the distribution and abundance of these macrophyte communities fluctuates considerably on a seasonal basis within the survey area_ In general, high densities of American waterweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, and curly -leaf pondweed have been observed in the nearshore portion (depths less than 12 feet) of the proposed expanded project area during the summer months. The highest abundance is typically seen in depths of 6 to 9 feet. Along the deeper water transects (greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and less abundant. Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15 feet (Harza 1993 and 2000; Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005). During the winter and early spring the densities of these species are relatively low, as most of their growth occurs during the summer months. In 2012, biologists observed high densities of American waterweed and Eurasian watermilfoil and relatively low densities of pondweed and Brazilian elodea in the proposed expanded dredging area at depths less than approximately 12 feet (Table 3). At depths greater than 12 feet, aquatic macrophyte densities (all species) were very low. Densities were highest along transects 5 and 6, and the northern end of transect 4 at depths less than 12 feet (Figure 10) and lowest along the 1 http://www.kingcounty.Pov/environment/anlmalsAnc]Plar)Ls/noxious-weeds/weCd-identification/brazilian- elodea.aspx Biological Assessment Page 34 Q Tiolemi ',Borbee BA 2012'\2012 Drat! 14A' 2012 BA 082712.doo, Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism shallow portions of transects 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 (at depths less than 3 feet) and deeper portions of transects of 3, 4, and 5 (at depths greater than 15 feet). As in past surveys, American waterweed was the dominant aquatic plant species both in distribution and abundance throughout the proposed project area. Figure 10. Curly -leaf pondweed photographed along transect 6 (2012 SCUBA survey). Shoreline Condition As discussed previously, the littoral zone and shoreline of Lake Washington has been extensively modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake level; construction of piers, docks, and bulkheads; removal of LWD; and the expansion of Eurasian watermilfoil and other non-native aquatic macrophytes (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000). Riparian habitat, once dominated by hardstem bulrush and willow, has been replaced by developed and hardened shorelines with landscaped yards. According to Toft (2001), an estimated 71 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored with riprap or bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers have been built. This loss of natural shoreline has reduced the occurrence of complex shoreline habitat features such as overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen trees with branches and/or rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches, which in turn has reduced the availability of refuge habitat and forage for juvenile salmonids_ Like most of the shoreline along Lake Washington, the shoreline in the proposed project area is armored with riprap; however, emergent vegetation (soft rush, grasses, sedges, etc.) was observed growing along transect 1, with a substantial increase in the amount of vegetation observed in 2012. In 2005 and 2012, juvenile rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, coho salmon, sculpin, and sticklebacks were observed using this using this emergent vegetation as cover. Biological Assessment Page 35 Q:',..PTOjccls\Barbee AA 201212O12 Draft BA12012 BA OH2712 doe\ Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Substrate As in past SCUBA/snorkel surveys, the substrate in the proposed project area was observed to be a mixture of silt and sand, riprap cobble, and gravel patches. Riprap cobble, sand, and gravel were the dominant substrates observed along transects 1 and 2 (Table 3). The riprap cobble and gravel was typically located within 6 feet of the shoreline to a depth of approximately 3 feet (Figures 11 and 12). Silt was the only substrate type observed along transect 3 and silt and sand were the dominant substrates along transects 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (Figure 13). Figure 11. Riprap cobble substrate and caddisfly larvae observed along transect 1 during the 2012 SCUBA survey. Biological Assessment Page 36 Q;111rniectsiBarbee HA 2012%20I2' Dull BA%2u 12 ©A 082712 doc� Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Figure 12. Gravel substrate observed along transect 2 during the 2012 SCUBA survey. Figure 13. Silt substrate observed along transect 4 at a depth of approximately 16 feet during the 2012 SCUBA survey. Biological Assessment Page 37 Q �Projcct,;%iBancce RA 20121,2012 Draft BA�2012 BA 082712 doc% Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Overall Aquatic Habitat Complexity While the recent riparian plantings and added gravel along the Lake Washington shoreline near the proposed project area have greatly improved nearshore aquatic habitat conditions in the past 5 years (Figure 14), complex habitat features (other than aquatic macrophytes and the log boom) remain extremely limited in the planned expanded dredging area. Silt and sand are the dominant substrates and the western portion of the expanded dredge area appears to be continually impacted by large amounts of sediment (primarily sand) entering the lake from May Creek. The dock, boathouse dock, and culvert located to the northeast of the project provide overhead cover for juvenile salmonids at depths less than approximately 2 feet (Figure 15). At depths greater than 2 feet, these structures also appeared to provide cover forjuvenile smallmouth bass; however, no adult large or smallmouth bass were observed near the boathouse dock or under the dock located to the south of the dredging area in 2012. The riprap surrounding the May Creek delta and southeastern shoreline also limits the amount of shallow -water refuge habitat forjuvenile salmonids and other fish species by preventing the establishment of shoreline vegetation cover. However, the large interstitial spaces found within the riprap shoreline did appear to provide ambush habitat for native cottids (also known to prey on juvenile salmonids). In summary, aquatic habitat conditions have greatly improved within and near the May Creek delta in the past 5 years. However, juvenile salmonid rearing habitat conditions in the proposed expanded dredging area are still considered poor due to the lack of shallow water structure such as large and small woody debris and brush. Figure 14. Existing riparian conditions along lower May Creek, located to the north of the proposed action area. Biological Assessment Page 38 (d:' 1ro1ects%13arhez B,1 2012,2012lhatt BA%2U12 [3n U82712,docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Figure 15. The dock and boathouse dock structures located to the east of the proposed expanded dredging area. B. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE Environmental Baseline Matrix For proposed actions that affect freshwater habitat, the Services usually define the biological requirements for listed species in terms of a concept called properly functioning condition (PFC). PFC is the sustained presence of natural habitat -forming processes in a watershed (e.g., riparian community succession, bedload transport, precipitation runoff pattern, channel migration) that are necessary for the long-term survival of the species through the full range of environmental variation. PFC, then, constitutes the habitat component of a species' biological requirements. The indicators of PFC vary between different landscapes based on unique physiographic and geologic features. For example, aquatic habitats on timberlands in glacial mountain valleys are controlled by natural processes operating at different scales and rates than are habitats on low -elevation coastal rivers or lake systems. In the NMFS PFC framework, baseline environmental conditions are described as "properly functioning" (PFC), "at risk" (AR), or "not properly functioning" (NPF). USFWS also has a PFC framework that defines baseline environmental conditions in terms of "functioning appropriately" (FA), "functioning at risk" (AR), or "functioning at unacceptable risk" (UR). The PFC concept includes a recognition that natural patterns of habitat disturbance will continue to occur. For example, floods, landslides, wind damage, and wildfires result in spatial and temporal variability in habitat characteristics, as would anthropogenic perturbations. If a proposed project would be likely to Biological Assessment Page 39 Q Trnlecls�,Hancce HA 201212012 (haft BA\2012 BA 082712.docr Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it would usually be found likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both, depending upon the specific considerations of the analysis. Such considerations may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the quality of the available information. In this section of the BA, we summarize existing environmental conditions and parameters for the action area and present the status of each indicator as PFC, AR, or NPF following the NMFS and USFWS "pathways and indicators" matrices (Table 6). For the purposes of this analysis we have integrated the NMFS and USFWS matrices in order to facilitate an analysis of the effects of the proposed project on bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook salmon simultaneously. For consistency we have used the terms PFC, AR, or NPF (NMFS terminology) for rating specific environmental indicators applicable to bull trout from the USFWS (1998) matrix. For practical purposes, PFC, AR, or NPF (NMFS terminology) are equivalent to FA, AR, and UR (USFWS terminology). Criteria for PFC, AR and NPF are described in detail in NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998), but summarized for each indicator following Table 4 along with justification for the status of each indicator in the action area. The effects that the proposed project may have on each environmental indicator are analyzed subsequently in Section V. It is important to note that the current status of a particular environmental indicator may not be related to a proposed project. For example, road density in the Lake Washington basin may rate as "not properly functioning" under existing conditions even though the proposed project has no influence on this indicator. In addition, the 1996 NMFS matrix was originally designed by the U.S. Forest Service to evaluate timber harvest activities on rangeland watersheds. Therefore, not all of the parameters below are necessarily applicable to the small spatial scale of the proposed project, although it is still a useful tool in characterizing the baseline conditions, which can be used to assess potential effects of the proposed project. Table 4. Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental baseline on relevant indicators. Baseline Environmental Conditions Cause of Degradation from Poway Indicators Function Description PFC Water Quality Temperature NPF High water temperatures present Loss of riparian vegetation due during bull trout spawning, to development; natural low incubation, and migration, and watershed elevation, and during Chinook and steelhead naturally warm lake surface spawning, rearing, and migration during the summer Sediment/Turbidity NPF High sediment loads in May Creek Increased runoff due to and Lake Washington development has increased bank erosion and sediment transport in May Creek and resultant fine sediment in the project area of Lake Washington Biological Assessment Page 40 Q Trojects'Marbee RA 201212012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712 docx n's Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Baseline Environmental Conditions Cause of Degradation from Pathway Indicators Function Description PFC Chemical NPF 303(d) reaches present Residential and commercial Contamination/ development has increased Nutrients polluted runoff (point and non - point sources); agricultural I hobby farm run-off to May Creek flows into the lake adjacent to the project site HabitatAccess Physical Barriers AR Man-made instream structures Ballard Locks is a predation present bottleneck and is a quick transition between salt and freshwaters, which is undesirable for salmon smolts Habitat Elements Substrate NPF High fne sediment loads in May Increased runoff due to Creek and Lake Washington development has increased bank erosion and sediment transport in May Creek and resultant sediment accumulation in the lake at the project site Large Woody Debris NPF Little LWD along the lake shore Development, historic wood removal, loss of riparian forest Pool Frequency and NPF NA not applicable to lake habitat NA Quality type Off -Channel Habitat NPF Little if any wetland/off-channel Wetland degradation and habitat present along the lake shore wetland loss due to development, lowering of Lake Washington Refugia NPF No pristine PFC aquatic habitat Wide -scale urbanization has present in the action area degraded the Lake Washington subbasin Channel Conditions and Dynamics WidthlDepth Ratio NPF NA (not applicable) to lake habitat NA type Streambank Condition NPF Lake Washington's shore is Shoreline armoring along the extensively hardened with bulk- lake for residential and heads and piers commercial development Floodplain NPF Limited floodplain connectivity Lake Washington was lowered, Connectivity permanently dewatering shallow wetlands and lake margin habitat. FlawlHydrology Change in Peak/Base NPF Not applicable to lake habitat type NA Flow Biological Assessment Page 41 Q,TrojecisTarbee BA 201212012 Draft BA',2012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Baseline Environmental Conditions Cause of Degradation from Pathway Indicators Function Description PFC Increase in Drainage NPF Not applicable to lake habitat type NA Network Watershed Conditions Road Density and NPF High road density Lake Washington is a highly Location urbanized area with a well - developed road network Disturbance History NPF Massive human caused landscape Diversion of the Cedar River, altering events have occurred lowering of Lake Washington and general urbanization have dramatically altered the historic landscape Riparian Reserves NPF Few forested areas compared to Wide -spread clearing in the historic conditions Lake Washington subbasin Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria) Population Size NA No local bull trout subpopulation in No bull trout subpopulations the action area, although foraging are known or suspected to individuals may be present from occur in May Creek; the Cedar other basins such as the Snohomish River population is resident and Stiliaguamish, or from the upper above a natural barrier and Cedar River was not historically connected to Lake Washington Growth and Survival NA Same as above Same as above Life History Diversity NA Same as above Same as above and Isolation Persistence and NA Same as above Same as above Genetic Integrity Water Temperature For Chinook and steelhead, NMFS (1996) defines PFC as water temperatures ranging from 50 to 57°F. AR conditions range from 57 to 607 for spawning and from 57 to 64 ° for migration and rearing. NPF is defined as greater than 60T for spawning and greater than 64°F for rearing. USFWS (1998) defines PFC for bull trout as water temperatures ranging from 35.6 to 41°F for incubation, 39.2 to 53.6°F for rearing, and 39.2 to 48.2'F for spawning. NPF is defined as temperatures outside the above criteria, with rearing areas and migration corridor temperatures over 59°F. Water temperatures in the area (East Mercer Channel) are generally below 50°F during the winter and between 62 and 75"F during the summer at depths of 3.3 feet. At a depth of 33 feet, water temperatures are about 457 in the winter and between 59° and 68°F during the summer (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/site0840.htm). Under the USFWS (1998) criteria these values would rate as NPF for bull trout spawning and incubation and summer migration corridors. Under the NMFS (1996) criteria, these values would rate between NPF and AR for Chinook and steelhead spawning, rearing and migration. Biological Assessment Page 42 QAProjectslBarbee BA 2012/2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Sediment/Turbidity NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as containing less than 12 percent fines in gravel, and NPF is defined as having greater than 17 percent surface fines (greater than 20 percent surface fines under USFWS 1998). The surficial substrate in the proposed expanded dredging zone is comprised of silt and sand. This condition is likely caused by the increased erosion and sedimentation deposition occurring in May Creek and in the May Creek delta. According to King County (2001), sediment deposition has occurred from natural erosion but has been accelerated by increased storm water runoff from upstream development and changes in the watershed land cover. Based on the documentation of increased erosion and sedimentation, this indicator is likely NPF. Chemical Contamination/Nutrients NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as characterized by low levels of contamination with no 303(d) designated reaches, and NPF is defined as high levels of chemical contamination and nutrients and more than one 303(d) listed reach. Lake Washington is a 303(d) water body for fecal coliform concentrations. In addition, Ecology has given several public warnings regarding Lake Washington fish consumption due to high levels of mercury contamination (Ecology 2004). Based on known water quality degradation in Lake Washington, this indicator rates as NPF. Physical Barriers NMFS, (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as man-made barriers that allow upstream and downstream passage at all flows without significant levels of mortality or delay, and NPF as man- made barriers that do not allow upstream and downstream fish passage at a range of flows. The fish passage facilities at the Ballard Locks provide adult access to Lake Washington and smolt passage to the Puget Sound; however, the locks are a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation on adult salmon at the locks is a common and recurring problem. In addition, the sharp demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a stressor for juvenile salmonid out -migrants. Therefore, the "Physical Barriers" indicator should be considered AR. Substrate NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as reach embeddedness of less than 20 percent and NPF as embeddedness greater than 30 percent. The substrate in the project area is comprised of sand and silt, based on the results of multiple SCUBA surveys. According to King County (2001) fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek is an ongoing problem. This fine sediment is transported immediately to the south to the boathouse area by wave action. Based on chronic fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek and the boathouse area, this indicator rates as NPF. Biological Assessment Page 43 Q_Tnr )ects\Barbee BA 2012N2012 Draft BAQ012 BA 082712A)cx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Large Woody Debris NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as greater than 80 pieces of wood per mile, which are greater than 24 inches in diameter and greater than 50 feet long. NPF is defined as wood that does not meet the criteria of PFC and sources of LWD recruitment are lacking. This indicator does not apply to the proposed action. Off -channel Habitat NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for off -channel habitat as many backwaters with cover and low energy, off -channel areas, including ponds and oxbows. NPF is defined as a watershed with few or none of these habitat types. Lowering of Lake Washington in the early 1900s resulted in the loss of over 10 miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high -quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. Based on loss of wetlands, this indicator rates as NPF. Refugia NMFS (1996) defines PFC for refugia as habitats that are adequately buffered by intact riparian reserves of sufficient size, number and connectivity to maintain viable populations and subpopulations. NPF is defined as no adequate habitat refugia. USFWS (1998) defines PFC for refugia as habitats capable of supporting strong and significant populations of bull trout that are protected, well distributed, and connected for all life stages and forms. NPF is defined as the absence of habitat refugia. The action area has been extensively altered over the past 100 years by human development and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed is likely one of the most highly disturbed urban watersheds in the state. Although adequate bull trout habitat exists in the upper Cedar River, no bull trout refugia exists in the action area due to high summer water temperatures. The action area also lacks adequate local refugia for Chinook and steelhead due to extensive riparian, instream, and shoreline habitat alterations. Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF. Streambank Condition NMF5 (1996) defines PFC as greater than 90 percent (80 percent under USFWS criteria) of any stream reach of which 90 percent or more is stable NPF is defined as less than 80 percent stability. The USFWS (1998) defines NPF as less than 50 percent of any stream reach that is characterized as at least 90 percent stable. The shoreline along the action area is developed and bulkheaded. The banks are not actively eroding, but the bulkheads have disrupted natural shoreline processes. In addition, over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington. Lowering of the lake in the early 1900s substantially altered the Lake Washington shoreline, resulting in the loss of approximately 10 miles of lake shore perimeter. Due to extensive alteration of the Lake Washington shoreline, this indicator rates as NPF. However, Streambank condition adjacent to the proposed project site has improved substantially in the past 5 years. Biological Assessment Page 44 Q.Trojecis\Barbee BA 2012Q012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712 doe Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Floodplain Connectivity NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as well-connected, off -channel areas with overbank flows of sufficient frequency to maintain function. NPF is defined as a severe reduction in hydrologic connection with off -channel habitats. Lake Washington has been lowered, disconnecting the mouths of streams from their floodplains. Therefore this indicator rates as NPF. Road Density and Location NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as less than 1 mile of road per square mile with no valley bottom roads and NPF as greater than 2.4 miles of road per square mile with many valley bottom roads. The action area has been heavily urbanized and has a well -developed road network. Road densities, although not estimated for this analysis, likely rate as NPF. Disturbance History NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as having less than 15 percent equivalent clear-cut area (entire watershed) with no concentration of disturbance in unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area; and for Northwest Forest Plan area (except adaptive management areas), 15 percent retention of late successional old growth timber in the watershed. The "Disturbance History" indicator rates as NPF based on extensive historic and ongoing development. Riparian Reserves NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as a riparian reserve system that provides adequate shade, LWD recruitment, habitat protection, and connectivity to all sub -watersheds. This reserve must be greater than 80 percent intact and the vegetation must be greater than 50 percent similar to the potential natural community composition. Riparian habitat in the action area along Lake Washington has been highly altered and extensively cleared, primarily for residential development. This indicator rates as NPF. Population Size USFWS (1998) defines FA as the mean subpopulation size or a local habitat capacity of more than several thousand individuals and all life stages evenly represented in the subpopulation. AR is defined as fewer than 500 adults in a subpopulation, but more than 50. The Lake Chester Morse bull trout population in the upper Cedar River would be classified as FA under the USFWS criteria; however, this is a naturally resident population located upstream of a passage barrier. In addition, the Cedar River historically was not connected to Lake Washington. There are no known current or historic (but now extinct) bull trout populations located within the Lake Washington basin, except for the Chester Morse population. However, it appears that individuals from the Chester Morse population may pass downstream into Lake Washington and Biological Assessment Page 45 Q:Trojects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism that anadromous bull trout migrate to the Lake Washington vicinity from other basins such as the Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and possibly the Skagit River basins. Bull trout typically exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine watersheds. There is no indication that a bull trout population historically would have occupied May Creek. Generally, self-sustaining local bull trout subpopulations are only found in watersheds that have accessible stream habitat above the average winter snow line (where winter snowpack accumulates) which is approximately 900 feet in western Washington (USFWS 2004), The May Creek watershed headwaters only extend to an elevation of approximately 500 feet, with no areas of winter snowpack accumulation. Bull trout spawning in May Creek would not be expected currently or historically because the water temperature regime is likely too warm due to the low elevation and lack of substantial cold springs, glaciers, or winter snowpack. As there is no current or historic local self-sustaining bull trout population or subpopulation indigenous to the action area, this indicator is not applicable. Growth and Survival USFWS (1998) defines FA as a subpopulation with the resilience to recoverfrom short-term disturbances in 5 to 10 years. Additionally, the subpopulation is increasing or stable, with at least 10 years of data to support such a trend. As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area, therefore this indicator is not applicable. Life History Diversity and Isolation USFWS (1998) defines FA as presence of the migratory form with subpopulations in close proximity to other spawning and rearing groups_ There is high likelihood of neighboring subpopulations straying and adults mixing with other groups. UR is defined as an absence of the migratory form and the subpopulation is isolated to a local stream and unlikely to support more than 2,000 fish. As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area; therefore, this indicator is not applicable. While this indicator is meant to apply to local subpopulations within an action area, there may be migratory bull trout straying from other basins, such as the Snohomish and Stillaguamish River basins or the upper Cedar River. Persistence and Genetic Integrity USFWS (1998) defines FA as possessing high connectivity among more than five subpopulations with at least several thousand fish each. UR is defined as having little or no connectivity and subpopulations that are in low numbers or in decline. As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area; therefore, this indicator is not applicable. V. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON FISH SPECIES "Effects of the action" means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the listed species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that would be added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02). Effects of the Biological Assessment Page 46 Q Trojects'�Barbee BA 201 212012 Drafl BA12012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism action that reduce the ability of a listed species to meet its biological requirements may increase the likelihood that the proposed action would result in jeopardy to that listed species or in destruction or adverse modification of a designated critical habitat. The proposed action may affect Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout by causing physical changes to the environmental baseline and through indirect effects to the species. These effects may impact migrating and rearing juvenile Chinook and steelhead within the action area. The major concern of the proposed action is the alteration of Chinook and bull trout critical habitat caused by dredging in the proposed expanded dredging prism (Appendix A). A. DIRECT EFFECTS In this section we analyze the direct effects of the proposed project on three primary elements that may be influenced by the action. These elements are direct effects on individual fish, such as harassment or actual mortality through contact with the dredging equipment, pile removal, and root wad placement; direct effects on habitat by physically disturbing the substrate and removing sediments from the proposed expanded dredging area; and direct effects on water quality during dredging and fish rock placement. Direct Effects on Fish Take of bull trout in the nearshore area of Lake Washington during the summer is extremely unlikely. Water quality monitoring in 2002 (within the silt curtain of the dredging zone and immediately outside the silt curtain) strongly suggest that water temperatures during July and August (proposed dredge timing) exceed the generally reported upper limit of bull trout temperature tolerance of approximately 59°F. Temperatures in the dredging zone (within the silt curtain) from July to late September 2002 exceeded 65°F and averaged 69.4°F. Due to probable high water temperatures outside the species tolerance range in the dredging zone during summer, it would be extremely unlikely for bull trout to be present in the dredging area and, therefore, take of individual bull trout is not expected. Adult Chinook typically migrate into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid -June, peaking in late August (Kerwin 2001). Spawning typically occurs from mid -September through November (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from approximately January through June (Kerwin 2001). Most juvenile Chinook move through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the entire out -migration period is unknown (Kerwin 2001). Limiting in -water work to the NMFS approved July 16 — September 15 work window would minimize the potential to adversely affect juvenile Chinook, as the vast majority of juveniles in Lake Washington are expected to migrate prior to July. Because the proposed in -water work window would overlap with the adult Chinook migration period, there is some chance that adult Chinook salmon may be present in the dredging zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by dredging activities. However, it is anticipated that adult Chinook would avoid direct contact with the clamshell dredging equipment, and would not be physically injured or killed by the dredging activities. Short term increases in turbidity are not expected to adversely affect adult Chinook. Adult steelhead spawn from mid -December through early June in the Lake Washington basin. Adults migrate to spawning grounds beginning in the fall. Adult steelhead do not necessarily die after spawning and post -spawn adults (kelts) migrate downstream back to saltwater after spawning. Biological Assessment Page 47 Q TraiectsTarbee BA 201212012 draft BA12012 BA 082712 doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Therefore, adult steelhead could be present in Lake Washington from the fall through the early summer. Juveniles can spend several years in freshwater before migrating to saltwater and could be present in Lake Washington all year. Similar to Chinook, there is some chance that adult or juvenile steelhead may be present in the dredging zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by dredging activities. However, it is anticipated that adult and juvenile steelhead would avoid direct contact with the clamshell dredging equipment, and would not be physically injured or killed by the dredging activities. Coho begin entering Lake Washington in late August and continue to enter the lake through early December. Most coho spawning occurs in November and December (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater. In Lake Washington, the peak of the outmigration occurs in early May (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho are present in the project area in the spring and adult coho are known to spawn in May Creek in the fall. The proposed dredging period, while optimally designed to avoid the presence of juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids, does overlap with the coho rearing and out -migration time and adult coho migration. It is most likely that coho juveniles may be present during dredging and may be temporarily displaced, but as with Chinook and steelhead, it is not anticipated that coho would come into direct contact with dredging equipment and be physically injured or killed. Direct Effects on Habitat It is apparent from Tabor et al. (2004) that juvenile Chinook salmon in the south end of Lake Washington prefer shallow (1 to 2 feet in depth) stream delta habitat with sand and gravel substrates. Water depths in the proposed expanded dredging zone are generally deeper than those preferred by rearing juvenile Chinook. In addition, the aquatic habitat located immediately to the south of the May Creek delta and along the shoreline of the lake to the south is not heavily used by juvenile Chinook (Taboret al., 2004 and Table 4). Even though the proposed project would impact habitats that are not known to be preferred by juvenile Chinook, the project proponent would enhance the lakeshore margin with a "fish rock" gravel mix to create additional shallow water habitat, which Tabor et al. (2004) suggests might be preferred by rearing Chinook. Similar information regarding juvenile steelhead and coho use of Lake Washington shoreline habitat is not available; however, many rainbow trout (same species as steelhead) and coho were observed by Tabor et al. (2004) and during the SCUBA surveys conducted in 2005. Based on the recent SCUBA survey observations within and near the proposed project area, it appears that juvenile steelhead and coho prefer the shallow water habitat located along the shoreline to the north and northeast of the proposed expanded dredging area, and are typically associated with overhanging brush and emergent vegetation. Juvenile coho were also abundant in the shallow water areas (<3 feet deep) located along the northeastern corner of the boathouse dock. No steelhead or coho were observed at depths greater than approximately 3 feet. Based on these findings, it appears that juvenile steelhead and coho habitat would not be directly affected by the proposed action. Due to the overall low numbers of bull trout, if any, and lack of information concerning their habitat use in Lake Washington, effects of dredging on bull trout habitat use is unknown, but is suspected to be negligible. The effect on forage species habitat is likewise unknown, but due to the relatively small area, the effect is suspected to be discountable. Biological Assessment Page 48 Q WrolectslBarhee BA 201212012 Draft BAQ012 BA 082712.doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Direct Effects on Water Quality The proposed dredging project has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e., reduce water clarity) and increase total suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action area. Turbidity and TSS levels have been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect salmonid survival. The potential for adverse effects depends upon several factors, including the duration of TSS increases, the area of the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambient water (dilution factor), and the size of suspended sediments. In the case of the proposed project, increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and increases would last for only short periods of time, expected to be less than several hours. Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as such conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms, landslides, or other natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic exposure to increased turbidity that has been found to be the most potentially damaging to salmonids (The Watershed Company et al. 2000). Studies have found that when habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid localized areas of increased turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological impacts (Bisson and Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003). Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and Martens 1991), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a, 1987b). Studies have found that fish that inhabit waters with elevated TSS may experience a reduction in predation from piscivorous fish and birds (Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases, salmonids may actually increase foraging activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from predators (Gregory 1993). However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in excess of 70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mg/L suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/L of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982). The highest turbidity values recorded during recent dredging activity in 2002 were less than 7 NTU, and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less than 1.4 NTU greater than turbidity outside the dredging zone (Table 5). Overall turbidity values of less than 7 NTU are very low, and the effect of slightly increasing turbidity by 1 or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be considered discountable. Washington state water quality regulations allow a short term increase of 10 NTU when background turbidity is less than 50 NTU (WAC 273-201A-030). Based on the 2002 monitoring results, future dredging would likely meet this standard. Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short-term (7 to 10 days every 3 to 5 years) and localized elevation of turbidity (less than 5 NTU elevation above background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed project would rise to the levels that would be expected to cause harm to Chinook, steelhead, or bull trout that may be present in the dredging zone. Biological Assessment Page 49 QAPrgiecWBarbee BA 20 M2012 Drat BA'l2012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Table 5. Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11 days of sampling over the dredging period). Within silt curtain (in dredge zone) Outside silt curtain (out of dredge zone) Minimum 11 NTU 1.1 NTU Average 2.1 NTU 1.4 NTU Maximum 5.2 NTU 3.1 NTU In -water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the spill of toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging or pile placement equipment. This potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by maintaining a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a SPCCP would specify areas for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention and emergency response strategies, requirements for keeping emergency response spill containment kits onsite, and for having trained personnel be onsite during in -water work. A SPCCP would be developed by the dredging contractor and approved by appropriate agencies, such as the WDOE, before dredging occurs. Preparation of a SPCCP would limit the potential for toxic material spills during dredging and pile replacement. B. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects associated with the proposed project could affect the Chinook, bull trout, steelhead and coho prey base (e.g., aquatic macroinvertebrates and small forage fish), or through the creation of deep water habitat conditions that favor species known to prey on juvenile salmonids (i.e., large trout, bass, and sculpin). ESA -listed salmonids feed on certain macroinvertebrates, and therefore any loss of these prey items via dredging or disposal may harm these species. However, these effects would be localized to deepwater areas of low importance to these species. As a result, short-term impacts to macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity are likely to be limited. In addition, the continued growth of overhanging riparian vegetation along the delta (as a result of recent habitat enhancement) would likely increase the abundance and rate of terrestrial insects falling into the shallow margins of the lake to some degree, which would result in an increase in the juvenile salmonid prey base along the lake margin. C. EFFECTS FROM INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED ACTIONS No interdependent or interrelated actions have been identified in association with the proposed expanded dredging project. D. EFFECTS FROM ONGOING PROJECT ACTIVITIES These effects are the same as previously described under direct effects of dredging. The only ongoing portion of the proposed project would be the periodic dredging of the boathouse area to maintain navigational depths every 3 to 5 years. Biological Assessment Page 50 Q:\Projem',Barbee RA 201212012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism E. DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE WOULD BE AFFECTED As discussed previously, the PFC framework for ESA consultation characterizes baseline environmental conditions as "properly functioning," "at risk," or "not properly functioning." If a proposed project is likely to impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it is usually found likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both, depending on the specific consideration of the analysis. Such considerations may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the quality of available information. Actions that do not compromise a species' biological requirements to the degree that appreciably reduces the species' viability and chances of survival in the action area are considered not to reduce or retard. The project would provide an overall increase in water quality by removing the toxic creosote pilings, increasing primary productivity and the fish forage base within the lake by increasing light transmission, and increasing shallow water habitat along the shoreline. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an overall improvement to the aquatic habitat environmental baseline of Lake Washington, F. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects are defined in 50 CFR § 402.02 as "those effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area." All areas within approximately 1 mile of the May Creek delta could be affected cumulatively by the proposed action. Potential cumulative effects may arise due to increased development in the action area. Expansion of the local economy and diversification would likely contribute to population growth. This growth is expected to increase demand for electricity, water, and buildable land in the action area which would, in turn, increase demand for transportation, communication and other social infrastructure. These actions would affect habitat features such as water quality and quantity which would directly affect the listed aquatic species. This is currently evidenced by the fact that runoff, erosion, and sedimentation has increased in May Creek as development has increased. It is expected that this trend would continue and be further exacerbated as additional development occurs and as impervious surfaces increase upstream in the watershed. As sediment deposition increases in the delta and sediment is transported to the boathouse area by wave action, more frequent dredging may be required to maintain navigational depths. G. TAKE ANALYSIS Steelhead and Chinook would likely avoid the proposed expanded dredging zone; therefore, direct mortality of these species is not expected. The potential displacement of a few Chinook should not be considered harassment because the attributes of the proposed expanded zone are not considered preferred habitat for Chinook, based on recent SCUBA surveys and on the data presented in Tabor et al. (2004). Similarly, potential displacement of a few steelhead should not be considered harassment, as there appears to be ample nearby habitat of similar condition which any Biological Assessment Page 51 Q Trojecls\Barbee BA 201212012 Draft BA12012 RA 082712.docx i Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism displaced steelhead could occupy. Therefore, take of Chinook and steelhead should be considered discountable. Due to the overall lack of migratory bull trout within the Lake Washington basin, take of bull trout as a result of the proposed project is extremely unlikely. H. CRITICAL HABITAT EFFECTS ANALYSIS This critical habitat effects analysis determines whether the proposed project would destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for listed species by examining any change in the conservation value of the essential features of that critical habitat. This analysis relies on statutory provisions of the ESA, including those in Section 3 that define "critical habitat" and "conservation," those in Section 4 that describe the designation process, and those in Section 7 that set forth the substantive protections and procedural aspects of consultation; and on agency guidance for application of the "destruction or adverse modification" standard. With respect to designated critical habitat, the following analysis relies only on the statutory provisions of the ESA, and not on the regulatory definition of "destruction or adverse modification" at 50 CFR 402.02. The action area is designated critical habitat for Chinook. Juvenile Chinook may use the Lake Washington shore adjacent to the proposed expanded dredging area for foraging and rearing and adult Chinook may use the area as a migration corridor. The proposed project would have no influence on the ability of adult Chinook to migrate to spawning tributaries. Furthermore, current habitat conditions in the project area would not be considered optimal for juvenile Chinook rearing (Tabor et al. 2004). The proposed project would improve habitat conditions for rearing juvenile Chinook by creating additional shallow -water shoreline and instream habitat. Primary productivity and the fish forage base would be improved by allowing greater light penetration to the lakebed substrate by removing the three existing creosote pilings and replacing the floating platform with a more fish friendly float with grated decking. While the effects of this project may temporarily affect water quality through increased turbidity and reduce the fish forage base by removing lake sediments that contain benthic invertebrates, overall these attributes would be improved by increasing primary productivity as a result of increased light transmission, removing the toxic creosote pilings, and enhancing shallow -water habitats with gravel. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in long-term destruction or adverse modification of designated Chinook salmon critical habitat, but would result in a net improvement of critical habitat. Due to the very small project area and overall lack of migratory bull trout juveniles or adults within the Lake Washington basin, we conclude that bull trout critical habitat primary constituent elements would not be affected by the proposed project. Designated bull trout critical habitat would not be destroyed or adversely modified. Biological Assessment Page 52 Q Trojecls,Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 HA 082711doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT The primary objective of this BA is to determine the effect the proposed project would have on ESA - listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. This determination will be used by NMFS and USFWS to determine whether the proposed project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or to adversely modify their critical habitats (if applicable). To facilitate and standardize the determination of effects for ESA consultations, the Services use the following definitions for listed species (USFWS and NMFS 1998): No effect: This determination is only appropriate "if the proposed project will literally have no effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect or an effect that is unlikely to occur." Furthermore, actions that result in a "beneficial effect" do not qualify as a no - effect determination. May affect, not likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when effects on the species or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. May affect, likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when there is "more than a negligible potential to have adverse effects on the species or critical habitat." In the event the overall effect of the proposed project is beneficial to the listed species or critical habitat, but may also cause some adverse effects to individuals of the listed species or segments of the critical habitat, then the proposed project is "likely to adversely affect" the listed species or critical habitat. It is not possible for NMFS to concur on a "not likely to adversely affect" determination if the proposed project will cause harm to the listed species. Implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project would benefit listed Chinook, steeihead, and bull trout by increasing light penetration (primary productivity) and shoreline shallow water habitat (fish gravel), which has been shown to be used more by juvenile Chinook when compared to existing conditions. Take of any species is unlikely, and designated bull trout and Chinook critical habitat would not be destroyed or adversely modified. Therefore, the proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to adversely affect" Chinook, steeihead, and bull trout. VII. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT The MSA-established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to the MSA, federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH (Section 305(b)(2)). Essential Fish Habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting this definition of EFH, "waters" Biological Assessment Page 53 Q)Projeos',Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle (50 CFR 600.10). "Adverse effect" means any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site -specific or habitat -wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). An EFH consultation with NMFS is required for any federal agency action that may adversely affect EFH, including actions that occur outside EFH, such as certain upstream and upslope activities. The objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed project would adversely affect designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to EFH. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project and action area are described in Section II of this document. B. APPROPRIATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN(S) Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for three species of federally -managed Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon (PFMC 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (PFMC 1999). Detailed descriptions and identification of EFH for salmon are found in Appendix A to Amendment 14 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan {PFMC 1999). In the Lake Washington basin, EFH is designated for Chinook and coho salmon; therefore, EFH is designated in the action area of the proposed project. C. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION As previously described in Sections V and VI of this document, the proposed project would result in the improvement of aquatic habitat. The effects on Chinook salmon critical habitat are the same as for designated EFH. D. PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES Proposed conservation measures to minimize impacts to designated Chinook and coho salmon EFH are the same as those described in Section II B. E. CONCLUSION Following the listed conservation measures, as outlined in Section Il 8 of this document, the proposed project may cause a short-term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended sediment and a Biological Assessment Page 54 Q:TrojectslBarbee BA 2012\2012 Drafl BA12012 BA 082712 docx i Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism reduction in benthic invertebrates in the dredging zone. However, overall long-term water quality would be improved by removal of the toxic creosote pilings. Primary productivity and the fish forage base would be improved as a result of increased light penetration into the lake, and shoreline and instream habitat quality would be improved through the addition of fish rock. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, and would not hinder a sustainable fishery far these two species. Biological Assessment rage 55 Q \ProjcctsVBarbcc BA 2012�2012 (haft BA12012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism REFERENCES Bell, M.C. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. Contract DACW57-68-0086. Berge, H.B., and B.V. Mavros. 2001. King County Bull Trout Program: 2000 Bull Trout Surveys. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington. Biological Review Team (BRT). 2005. Status review update for Puget Sound steelhead, 26 July 2005. 2005 Puget Sound Steelhead Biological Review Team, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington . Bishop, S., and A. Morgan, (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural Chinook salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA 105 pp. Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371-374. Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of bull trout and the effects of human activity on the species. pp.1-4 In: Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan (eds.). Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the Am. Fish. Soc., Corvallis, OR. Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems — measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings of the Watershed'93 Conference. U.S. GPO, Washington D.C. Brenkman, S.J. 2002. Unpublished data on bull trout investigations. Olympic National Park. Washington. Brenkman, S.J., G.L. Larson, and R E. Gresswell. 2001. Spawning Migration of Lacustrine- Adfluvial Bull Trout in a Natural Area. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 130:981-987. Brenkman, S.J., S.C. Corbett, and E.C. Valk. 2007. Use of otolith chemistry and radiotelemetry to determine age -specific migratory patterns of anadromous bull trout in the Hoh River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1-11. Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerances of young Pacific salmon. Oncorhynchus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 9(6):264-323. Biological Assessment Page 56 Q_TrojectslBarbee BA 2012/2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712_docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brevin. 1997. Distribution Maps for Bull Trout in Alberta. pp.206- 216 In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita (eds.). Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Buchanan, K. 2003. Stream Habitat Conditions During Low Flow Conditions: Coal Creek, May Creek, Lower Cedar River, and Selected Tributaries, 1-405 North Renton. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Carrasco, K., S. Foley, B. Mavros, and K. Walter. 1998. 1998 Chinook spawner survey data technical report for the Lake Washington watershed. King County Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvehr;U5 confluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64:139-174. City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities. Seattle, WA. April 2000. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91. Dambacher, J.M., M.W. Buktenica, and G.L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, abundance and habitat utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Pages 30-36 in P. L. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. Footen, B. 2000. Preliminary results of an investigation into the impacts of piscivorous predation on juvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and other salmonids in Salmon and Shilshole Bays, King Co. Washington. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Presentation at the 2000 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by King County Department of Natural Resources. Footen, B. 2003. Piscivorous impacts on Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscho) in the Salmon Bay estuary, the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Sammamish, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Presentation at the 2003 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by Seattle Public Utilities. Biological Assessment Page 57 QaProjectslBarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.ducx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1995. May Creek Basin Phase 1 Solutions Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water Utility, November 1995. Bellevue, Washington. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and the City of Menton Surface Water Utility. Bothell, Washington. Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. In: Lake and Reservoir Management. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 148-151. Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous salmonids in the Lake Washington watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525-544 in E.E. Knudsen, C.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and Q.W. Reiser (editors). Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton. Goetz, F.A., E. Jeanes, and E. Beamer. June 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore, preliminary draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/Prelim_Bull_Trout_Report.p df Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241-246. Gregory, R.S., and C.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(2):275-285. Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization Assessment for the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA. Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA. Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311- 393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press. Vancouver, B. C. Hemmingsen, A.R., S.L. Gunckel and P.J. Howell. 2001. Bull trout life history, genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon, 1999 Annual Report. Project Number 199405400, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, and M. Ownbey. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1: vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Biological Assessment Page 58 Q TrojectslBarbee BA 2012QO12 Draft BA12012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Howell, P., J.B. Dunham, P. Sankovich, and G. Chandler. 2005. Water temperatures used by migratory bull trout from the Lostine River. Presentation made at the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, February 18, 2005, Corvallis, OR. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long -neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications, 1:66-84. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar- Sammamish basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 2001. Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA. 587 pp. King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 2001. King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 2000. Literature review and recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Seattle, Washington. Kraemer, C. 1999. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Solvelinus molma) and bull trout (Solvelinus confluentus) of the north Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington. Leary, R.F., and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Notes — genetic confirmation of sympatric bull trout and Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:715-720. Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, and J.E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. in T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide, editors. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. Mason, J.C., and D.W. Chapman. 1965. Significance of early emergence, environmental rearing capacity, and behavioral ecology of juvenile coho salmon in stream channels. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 22(1): 172-190. Mavros, B., S. Foley, K. Burton, and K. Walter. 1999. 1999 Chinook spawner survey data technical report for the Lake Washington Watershed. King County Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4): 483-494. Biological Assessment Page 59 Q \Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BAQ012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (5alvelinus confluentus) life -history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries management report no. 104. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C. McPhail, J.D., and R. Carveth. 1992. A foundation for conservation: the nature and origin of the freshwater fish fauna of British Columbia. Fish Museum, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C. McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life -history and ecology of Dolly Varden (5alvelinus malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Department of Zoology and Institute of Animal Resources, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 2001. Cugini property May 2001, aquatic habitat and fish population survey and joint -use dock biological assessment. June 25, 2001. Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 p. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and Technical Services Division Habitat Conservation Branch. August 1996, NMFS. 2001. Guidance for integrating Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act EFH consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations. January 2001. NMFS. 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW. Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003. NMFS. 2005. Biological Opinion - Section 7 Endangered Species Act Interagency Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Strosahl/Niven New Pier and Maintenance Deck and Tosti New Pier Projects, Lake Washington, HUC 171100120301, King County, Washington, March 11, 2005. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon (March 1999). Biologica[ Assessment Page 6o Q \ProjectslBarbee BA 201212012 Draft BAL012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2002. Regional mark information service December 2002 database search of hatchery release information by the William Douglas Company, Seattle, Washington. Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide (Eds). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume I. U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management with assistance from the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station, PNW-GTR-405. Pages 1-351. Redding, J.M., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:737-744. Reiser, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids. In: W.R. Meehan (ed). Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America, pp. 1-54. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep, PNW-96. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), In C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), Pacific salmon life histories, pp. 396-445. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa. Servizi, J.A., and Martens, D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48. 493-497, Seymour, A.H. 1956. Effects of temperature upon young Chinook salmon. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Shepard, M.F. 1981. Status and review of the knowledge pertaining to the estuarine habitat requirements and life history of chum and Chinook salmon juveniles in Puget Sound. Final Rep. Wash. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Shepard M.F., and R.G. Dykeman. 1977. A study of the aquatic biota and some physical parameters of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Sheffleton Power Plant, Renton, Washington 1975-1976. Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Biological Assessment Page 61 QAProjeu&,Bar)ee BA 2012/2012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712,doex Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between juvenile coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon. Journal of the Fishery Research Board of Canada 29:1737-1748. Tabor, R.A., and J. Chan. 1996. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by piscivorous fishes in the lower Cedar River and southern Lake Washington. Miscellaneous report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, Washington. Tabor, R.A., J.A. Scheurer, H.A. Gearns and E.P. Bixler. 2004. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division, Lacey, Washington, February 2004. Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for icing County Department of Natural Resources. TRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team). 2002. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines for the delisting and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. April 30, 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Management of anadromous fish habitat on public lands. Report No. BLM-ID-PT. U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service (USFWS). 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) — Chinook salmon. USFWS, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. USFWS. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) — coho salmon. USFWS Biol. Rep. 82(11.48) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. USFWS. 1998. DRAFT - A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale, February 1998. USFWS. 2004. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat; candidate species, and species of concern in western Washington web page. http://westernwashington.fws.gov/se/SE_List/endangered—Species.asp. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Olympia, WA. USFWS and NMFS. 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Version: 19 May 2002 IX. Biological Assessment Page 62 Q Trojecls\Harbee BA 2012QQ12 Draft BAN2012 BA 082712.docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Washington Department of Fisheries and Washington Department of Wildlife, and eastern Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and Steelhead stock inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington salmonid stock inventory: bull trout and Dolly Varden. Wash. Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 437 p. WDFW. 2002. Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/ Washington State Department of Health (WDOH). 2004. Final Report: Evaluation of Contaminants in Fish from Lake Washington King County, Washington. September 2004. Prepared by: Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health Assessments. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Watershed Company, M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA - listed salmonids in lakes. Prepared for the City of Bellevue. July 12, 2000, Weitkamp LA, TC Wainwright, GJ Bryant, GB Milner, DJ Teel, RG Kope, and RS Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-24. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon. 1982. Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 111:63-69. Wydoski, R. S. and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle, University of Washington Press. Biological Assessment Page 63 Q Trojects\Barbee BA 201212012 Draft BA12012 BA 082712 docx Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Appendix A Site Maps - Dredge Area Expansion Sheet 1 - Notes: 1. Propoaod expansion of the permitted maintramw dredge area is approximately 142000 of to provide for continued navigational aooess to Hoathoase Expansion to, the west will follow property out to law Harbor 4�` for distance of 2. Expansion area is within the permitted dredge boundary approved by the City of Renton under a 10 year permit granted in 2" (Labe WmhmgWnWay Creek Dredging Permit - LUA-05-138). 3. Aquatic lands to inner Harbor Line owned by project proponents. Property lines are ahown in red. Lxpension of the permitted dredge area will not enavach on publically owned aquatic lands. 4. Approval ofthe expanded Arnie roes does not supersede approvals that may be required by the City of Renton, State of Washington (HPA, Shames, Water Quality, etc.), or other federal peonitting wAbority). .a 5. All permit conditions specified in USAGE Permit NWS-2007-1019-No will apply to dw pv]ect as amended. _,Rr 6. Hasemap and supplement made Ws provided by —FOTAK and Touma Hngieeerg, cedvely. Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area Reference: NWS-2007-101 S-NO Applicant: Barbee Company M I�61W City of i-nton Permitted Dredge Area Boundary n �aey Neu aOL - UME DATW Gjaa\f, day F A USAGE Permitted Dredge Area OHWL = 21 _i3+ 13 0 rj Site Map - Dredge Area Expansion Supplemental Sheet 1 of 6 M. Lloyd 8/21/2012 Hydrographic Survey - Notes: 1. Boathouse area last dredged in August, 2012. Approximate y 600 - 650 CY of sediment h infilled into the US E Permitted Dredge Area sinr, AU;st, 2011 during severe winter storm events last winter. 2. Approximately 2,000 CY of sediment has been depositied in the Dredge Exansion area since this area was surveyed in March, 2010. 2 4 3. All lakebed elecations are USACE verd�al d� utur where the OHWL is 21.8 feet MSL. �, 1 0 �■I G, eey M + City of Fenton Permitted Dredge Area Boundary 8 10 + 12 14 OHWL = 21.8' `\) 18 20 (wsL - usACE a� 5e l'Y ii 7 \ E Permitted 7 �DreT�Expsion Area dge Area SCALE - -M IW,IM 12 4 OHWL = 1.8' o d rirw Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area Current Hydrographic Contours Reference: NWS-2007-1019-NO Supplemental Sheet 2 of 6 Applicant: Barbee Company M. Lloyd 8/21/2012 Sheet 3 -Notes: 1_ Cemtours shown m rvd = from the permitted ofpamit NWS-2M-101xO + City of Rton Permitted Dredge Area Boundary 2. Elevation ccmtum shown in bhIv , comprise the anticipated dredge profile of the expansion area. 3_ All elevations are shown in USAGE vertical datum where the OHWL — 21.i1' MSL 4. The City of Reatton pa fitted dredge area is outlinedd The major +. depositional area of the May Crwk Delta — T OHWL 21.8' will not be dredged.OAt = r u� Mn"2Q S. See Shoot 6 for Cmss-Sections A B, 10 `a N 1,8 and 13-C —$ _ 6. Basemap and suppIomeudal materials provided by OTAK and Tourna Engineers, revectively. 4 / Dredge Expansion Ara � 2` + / 0 "Kim Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area Reference: NWS-2007-1019-NO Applicant: Barbee Company t7 SCALE ,- I i OHWL = 21.8' / A Amended Dredge Contours Supplemental Sheet 3 of B M. Lloyd 8/21/2012 Habitat Enhancemnent Notert 1. Enhancement Area 1 Rounded River Rock ("flab rock') will be Placed adjacant to boat ramp to provide for i nproved shallow water babrtat for fyshm Appraacmetcly 500 of to be covered wA44 CY of rock as a permanent shallow water habitat ebhmwemen. 2. Enhwoeme nt Area 2 An existing solid float and three crrosote piles vnU be ranoved from the project area. Float and piles will be cut up and dispoadha O an approved hmdfill A 24' float with grstimg S will replace the existing solid sonata float. Additionally, two galvanized pipe piles will Y cc replace tam existing three creosote piles J 3. Enhancement Area 3 Two dolphins oondsting of 3 p'Linge eaci- will be extracted and replaced with two 12" galvanizod pile pile. All treated wood piles will be cut up and disposed in approved landfill. + \ 1 + + + AV, owl + CRY or R6W Permitted + + + Dredge Area $oWdery + + aHWL-rx ,��! Dre�ye �e;�sforAre� r------------------- B Q� f a i Fish --Ttt to i5 rJ t + + cement Area 2 / + �al Z L 1.F Anw .? 7-00 A7OV&Ie w�+i7grah+aiRa►rdwp�vepa"fas jt2� ,Slpr a�oEaa� pates tb b� Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area Reference: N WS-2007-1019-NO Applicant: Barbee Company rrr�ng said flbat with tliost for �drt irerrsrnittal, extract 3 rfnosota piles, and replace YAM 2 gakWLkled pipe PN". + f tax' RSI193 Rc t Area ! river rod*) n6ar boat ramp 3t18itOW water C: Amended Dredge Contours Supplemental Sheet 4 of 6 M. Lloyd 8/21/2012 OFf A �/ i -,,I-., Enhance,,ent Area 1 Fish rocky rounded river rock) — ~ will boaced near boat ramp to Orthance shallow water abitat for fishes hancement Area 2 ^9*ace rotting solid float with �.rated float for light transmittal, extract 3 creosote piles, and replace with 2 galvanized pipe piles. + .+ a�rlmbel�pa =12 Anne � wamw a Notes: 376. J 4, r�ra i FentArea 3 WALE Two dalplubs to be pulled andemplaced w& 2 galvanized stee/plpe piles (f2 J Six c119osoto piles to be pulled. Enhaucenwat Area 1- Fish Rock Placemeat. Just south of the boathouse adjacent to an existing host ramp is a area of eppruximately 500 sf. This arts is typically less than 1-3 feet deep at Ordinary High Water, and it is currently covered in 3"-6" crushed rock. Place 10 CY of rounded river rock adjacent to the existing boat launch and boathouse for enhoodug shallow water habitat for fishes. This same rounded rock was employed to expand shallow water habitat along the rockery to the south and has been approved by the Washington State Department of Fish and Came. Enhancement Area 2 - Flot Replacement. Three creosote piles will be attracted and replaced with two 8" galvanized pipe piles. The eaing solid surface 38- float will be demoolished and replaced with a grated float that is 24' long. The grated float will increase light transmission to the shallow water habitat. Grating specification will comply with previously approved permit editions for light transmission. Enhancement Area 3 - Creosote F ng Removal. Two dolphins (6 creosote piles) at south side of Lot D will be extracted and replaces with two 12" galvanized pipe piles, Piles will be pulled concurrent with Area 2 enhancement work. As previously approved in the existing USACE permit, all mmsote treated piling will be cut into 4' lengths and disposed of in an approved upland hurdSlL Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area Reference: NWS-2007-1019-NO Applicant: Barbee Company Habitat Enhancement Areas Supplemental Sheet 5 of 6 M. Lloyd 8/21/2012 Cross -Section A-B (amended dredge area) LM Cross -Section B-C (amended dredge area) B. Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area Reference: N WS-2007-1019-NO Applicant: Barbee Company Sheet b - Notes: 1. See Sheet 3 of 6 far location of sample avwwx,tiams. 2. Tho vaticai elovataon. on =a sectitms A-B and B-C have beam exagerated 2X to better illustrate the proposed dredging profdQ 2. Croea-3ectian A-IR provides as indication of May Creek Delta sedimentation that coatmues to impact navigational access to the boathouse. As spawn m Sheet 2, the major sedimentation impax is on the north side of the navigational access and within the proposed dredge area expansion 3. am -Section B-C has not changed substantially the area was dredged in 2011. sh= approved permitted Dredge Area Cross -Sections Supplemental Sheet 6 of 6 M. Lloyd WIM012 Refer to NMFS No. 2008/00092 Michelle Walker Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch CENWS-OD-RG Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 P"{Oi or c041 }pe UNITRO STATES 13EPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, WA 98115 August 6, 2008 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Barbee Maintenance Dredging and Boathouse Renovation, 6rh Field HUC 171100120302 (Cedar River), King County, Washington Dear Ms. Walker; The enclosed document contains a biological opinion prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects of maintenance dredging and a boathouse renovation in Lake Washington. In this Opinion, the National Marine Fisheries Service concludes that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Soured Chinook and steelhead or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook. As required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service provided an incidental take statement with the biological opinion. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures the National Marine Fisheries Service considers necessary or appropriate to minimize incidental take associated with this action. The tape statement sets forth a nondiscretionary terra and condition. Incidental take from actions that ineet the term and condition will be exempt from the Endangered Species Act take prohibition. This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action's likely effects on Essential Fish Habitat pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and includes two conservation recommendations to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on Essential Fish Habitat. The Conservation Recommendations are not identical to the ESA Terms and Conditions. Section 305(b) (4) (B) of the MSA requires Federal agencies to provide a detailed written response to the National Marine Fisheries Service within 30 days after receiving these recommendations. * Primed on Recycled Paper 1 � �yrrre�� 1` 1� �44 1 ry*�Mnvra�� -2- If the response is inconsistent with the Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendation, the V.S. Army Corps of Engineers must explain why the recommendations will not be followed, including the justification for any disagreements over the effects of the action and the recommendations. In response to increased oversight of overall Essential Fists Habitat program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, the National Marine Fisheries Service established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many conservation recommendations are provided as part of each Essential Fish Habitat consultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, in your statutory reply to the Essential Fish Habitat portion of this consultation, we ask that you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations accepted. If you have questions regarding this consultation, please contact Brianna Blaud at (206) 526- 4749 or brianna.blaud@noaa.gov. Sincerely, /`- D. Robert La Regional Administrator Enclosure cc; Susan Powell, COE Michael Lloyd, L&Ai Barbee Mill Company, Applicant Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological opinion And Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish. Habitat Consultation Barbee Maintenance Dredging and Boathouse Renovation 6" Field HUG 17l 100120302 (Cedar River) King County, Washington Lead Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region Date Issued: August 6, Issued 4y: D. Robert L.ohn Regional Administrator NMFS No.: 2008/00092 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... l Background and Consultation History ........................................................................................ 1 ProposedAction.......................................................................................................................... 1 ActionArea................................................................................................................................. 2 ENDANGEREDSPECIES ACT..... .......... ............................................ ................. ..................... 2 BiologicalOpinion...................................................................................................................... 2 Statusof Species . ......................................................................................................... 2 Status of Critical Habitat..................................................................................................... 6 Environmental Baseline................................................................................................. 6 Effectsof the Action........................................................................................................... 7 Effects on Critical Habitat.................................................................................................. 9 CumulativeEffects.............................................................................................................. 9 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. .... 14 Conservation Recommendations.................................................................................. 10 Reinitiation of Consultation... . ...................................................................... — ................. 11 Incidental Take Statement ........... --........................................................................................ 1 I Amountor Extent of Take .............................................................................................. 11 Reasonable and Prudent Measures.................................................................................... 12 Termsand Conditions...................................................................................................... 12 MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT.......... 13 EIaH Conservation. Recommendations.................................................................................... 13 Statutory Response Requirement.............................................................................................. 14 SupplementalConsultation....................................................................................................... 14 DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE -DISSEMINATION REVIEW ........ 14 LITERATURECITED............................................................................................................... 16 INTRODUCTION The Biological Opinion (Opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this consultation were prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.1531, et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. With respect to designated critical habitat, the following analysis relied only on the statutory provisions of the ESA, and not on the regulatory definition of"destruction or adverse modification" at 50 CFR 402.02. The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation was prepared in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. The administrative record for this consultation is on file at the Washington State Habitat Office in Lacey, Washington. Background and Consultation History On January 9, 2008, NMFS received a letter dated January 8, 2008, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) requesting consultation under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1898 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize the maintenance dredging and boathouse renovation by Barbee Mills Company (applicant), in King County, Washington, The COE determined the proposed action "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and PS Chinook salmon critical habitat. After reviewing the consultation, NMFS determined that the actions may adversely affect the listed species and critical habitat, and initiated a formal consultation. Proposed Action The proposed action is issuance of a permit by the COE under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1898 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize the maintenance dredging and boathouse renovation by Barbee Mills Company (applicant), in King County, . Washington. The dredging maintains navigational access to a boathouse located to the south of May Creek. It is estimated that the area will need dredging every three to four years to maintain navigable depths, but the total amount to be removed over the 10 year life of this Opinion will not exceed 4,000 cubic yards. The proposed dredging area is approximately 10,000 square feet, ranging from 4 feet to 12 feet deep. The only shallow area proposed for excavation is located directly under the boathouse, to make it more boat accessible. The dredging will increase the depth by approximately one foot, maintaining existing slopes, and avoiding any shallow water or nearshore Habitat. To minimize the effects of dredging in the area, 40 cubic yards of spawning gravel will be installed along 2,100 square feet of shoreline and vegetation will be planted along 200 linear feet of shoreline. The boathouse renovations will improve the integrity and the light transmission through the structure. The solid skirting around the boathouse extending from the bottom of the structure to the lake bed will be replaced with an open 4 inch mesh skirting that extends to the ordinary low water level. Approximately 20 percent of the boathouse walls will be replaced with translucent material, improving the light transmission. The surrounding floats will be renovated, replacing the existing eighteen creosote pilings with twelve 18-inch steel pilings using a vibratory pile driver, and replacing the solid decking with grated material. Action Area The action area is in the Lake Washington shoreline corresponding to the immediate vicinity of 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard Avenue, near Renton. The action area includes EFH for Chinook salmon and coho salmon. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The ESA establishes a national program to conserve threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat on which they depend. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS, or both, to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitats. Section 7(b)(4) requires the provision of an incidental take, statement that specifies the impact of any incidental taking and includes reasonable and prudent measures to minimize such impacts. Biological Opinion This Opinion presents NMFS' review of the status of each listed species of Pacific salmon and steelhead' considered in this consultation, the condition of designated critical habitat, the environmental baseline for the action area, all the effects of the action as proposed, and cumulative effects (50 CRF 402.14(g)). For the jeopardy analysis, NMFS analyzed those combined factors to conclude whether the proposed action is likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the affected listed species. The critical habitat analysis determines whether the proposed action will destroy or adversely modify'designated critical habitat for listed species by examining any change in the conservation valued of that critical habitat. This analysis relies on statutory provisions of the ESA, including those in section 3 that define "critical habitat" and "conservation.," in section. 4 that describe the designation process, and in section 7 that sets forth the substantive protections and procedural aspects of consultation, and on agency guidance for application of the "destruction or adverse modification" standard. Status of Species This section defines the biological requirements of each listed species affected by the proposed action, and the status of each designated critical habitat relative to those requirements. Listed 'An `evolutionarily significant unit' (ESU) of Pacific salmon (Waples 1991) and a `distinct population segment' (DPS) of steelhead (final steelhead FR notice) are considered to be `species,' as defined in Section 3 of the ESA. 2 species facing a high risk of extinction and critical habitats with degraded conservation value are more vulnerable to the aggregation of effects considered under the environmental baseline, the effects of the proposed' action, and cumulative effects. Puget Sound Chinook NMFS listed PS Chinook salmon as threatened (March 1999,64 FR 14308). The Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has been defined to include all PS Chinook salmon populations residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing natural water falls) in the Puget Sound region from the Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive, The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is assessed based on their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. Within the action area in Lake Washington, there are two native populations (the North Lake Washington population and the Cedar River population) that use the area from rearing and migration. A third population, the Issaquah stock, is not included in the assessment because they are a non-native stock from the Issaquah Hatchery that has been in operation since the 1930s (WDFW 2004). The Issaquah stock will not be consulted on in this Opinion. Overall abundance of this ESU has declined substantially from historical levels, and many populations are small enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively high (March 9, 1998, 63 FR 11494). Historic abundance has been estimated to be approximately 609,000 adult returns (Myers et al. 1998), while average present day (1998-2002) abundance of natural origin spawners is 30,182 fish (NMFS 2005). NMFS (Good et al. 2005) listed approximately 331 geometric mean spawners in North Lake Washington population and 327 in the Cedar River population, and no estimates of historical abundance for comparison. The general trend in the abundance for the North Lake Washington Tributary Chinook salmon bas remained generally consistent, with escapements between 200 and 500 adults (WDFW 2004). The Cedar River Chinook salmon have shown a long-term negative trend in escapements and chronically low escapement values (WDFW 2004)_ Productivity is the measurement of a population's growth rate through all or a portion of its life - cycle. A tool to estimate productivity is the median population growth rate (lambda), calculated by the measure of long- and short-term trends. Long- and short-term trends are calculated on all spawners, and the short-term lambda is calculated assuming the reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery fish is equivalent to that of natural -origin fish (Good et al. 2005). A lambda greater than I represents a population that is replacing itself. For salmon recovery, the target goal lambda amount is 3.4 to increase abundance to a level that would remove the populations from the threat of extinction. The lambda for North Lake Washington short term trend is 1.07 (±-0.07) (Good et al., 2005), indicating the population is just replacing itself, and a population greater than one indicates an increase in productivity that will result in a rise in abundance. For the Cedar River, short term lambda is (0.99f0.07) also indicating the population is probably just replacing itself. Significant population growth will require an increase in productivity. Diversity is important to population viability because: 1) It allows a species to use a wider array of environments than they could without it; 2) It protects against short term spatial and temporal changes in the environment, increasing the likelihood that some individuals would survive and reproduce when faced with environmental variation; and 3) Genetic diversity provides the raw material for surviving long-term environmental changes. Genetic analysis of the three populations in the Lake Washington basin indicated that the North Lake Washington Tributary population and the Cedar River Chinook are significantly different (WDFW 2004). Therefore, the genetic differentiation between the two populations increases the possibility for recovery when faced with an environmental change and an increase of available habitat. The spatial structure of habitat must support the population at the desired productivity, abundance, and diversity levels through short-term environmental perturbations, longer term environmental oscillations, and through natural patterns of disturbance regimes. Assessing the adequacy of the spatial structure should include considering whether the population has: 1) Enough habitat to support growth, abundance, and diversity criteria; 2) Habitat of sufficient quality to support the life history activities; permanent or seasonal connectivity to allow adequate migration between spawning, rearing, and migration patches, and; 3) A geographical distribution of habitat that minimizes the probability of a significant portion of a population being lost due to a single catastrophic event. The criteria for identifying core areas for spatial structure are focused on spawning, because spawning is the geographic starting point for structuring populations and there is the most information available on this life phase (Martin et A. 2004). In the Cedar River, all but one of the spawning patches are two to four miles apart and ranged from 0. I to 2 miles long (Martin et at. 2004). The status of Chinook salmon populations in the Lake Washington basin were described in the Salmon and Steelhead Inventory (SaSI) report (WDFW and PSIT 2004). The North Lake Washington Tribs Chinook salmon is rated "healthy" based on their consistent escapement. The Cedar Chinook salmon is rated as "depressed" based on their long-term negative trend and low escapement numbers. Puget Sound Steelhead The NMFS defined the PS Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) to include naturally spawning steelhead stocks below natural and manmade impassable barriers, in streams and rivers ranging from the Canadian border (Nooksack River basin), south through Puget Sound and Hood Canal, north and west to the Elwha River, which empties into the eastern Strait of Juan. de Fuca. The PS Steelhead are at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, and were listed as 4 threatened on .tune 11, 2007 (72 FR 26722). The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is assessed based on their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. The two populations of steelhead within the Lake Washington populations use Lake Washington for migrating, holding and rearing. Early abundance analysis from catch records in 1889 indicate that the catch peaked at 163,796 individuals in 1895 (Little, 1898). Assuming a harvest rate of 30-50 percent, Little (1898) estimated that the peak run size ranged from 327,592 to 545,987 fish. In the 1990s the total run size for major stocks in this DPS was greater than 45,000, with total natural escapement of about 22,000, a fraction of the 1889 abundance. The abundance treat for the Cedar River population is decreasing. Counts between 1980 and 2004 estimate an escapement of 137.9 natural spawners, and more recent data (2000-2004) has the estimates at 36.8, showing a steep decline (Hard et al. 2007). The Lake Washington population shows a similar declining trend with 308.1 natural spawners between 1980 and 2004, and 36.8 between 2000 and 2004 (Hard et al. 2007). To estimate existing productivity in Lake Washington steelhead, Scott and Gill (2006) used escapement data or indices of escapement from the previous eight years to create a time series. Population viability analyses were conducted under the assumption that only anadromous spawners contribute to the abundance of each population. This assumption may result in estimates of extinction that are too high because the presence of resident forms of O. mykiss (rainbow trout) may reduce the likelihood of extinction. The Lake Washington winter -run steelhead last escapement data was listed at 44, with a growth rate estimate of -0.16, indicating a decrease in productivity. The relative risk of extinction for populations of steelhead in the Puget Sound region is very high, because productivity is poor. More recent productivity analysis included lambda calculations, showing Cedar River steelhead lambda at 0.808 (f0.004), and Lake Washington steelhead lambda at 0.802 (f0,002) (Hard et al. 2007), supporting Scott and Gill's (2006) productivity decline, Examples of diversity among salmonids include morphology, fecundity, run timing, spawn timing, juvenile behavior, age at smolting, age at maturity, egg size, and development rate, among others (McEIhany et al., 2000). Of these traits, some are genetically based, while others are likely a result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Allozyine analysis of steelhead sampled in the Cedar River in 1994 clusters them with winter steelhead in the Green, White, and Puyallup rivers, and with some Snohomish basin steelhead stocks (WDFW 2004). The Cedar River population is a distinct population that has undergone minimal hatchery introgression (Hard et al. 2007), No genetic analysis has been performed on the Lake Washington steelhead population. The metrics and benchmarks for evaluating the adequacy of a population's spatial structure include quantity, quality, connectivity, dynamics, and catastrophic risks. Scott and Gill (2006) estimated that up to 19 percent of the pre -settlement range has been lost for the winter -run steelhead within the CedarlSammamish basin. Based on the above described criteria and conditions, the status of the Lake Washington winter steelhead was defined in the SaSi report (WDFW 2004). Based on the chronically low escapement and short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock status declined from "depressed" in 1994 to "critical" in 2002. Status of Critical Habitat The NMFS reviews the status of designated critical habitat affected by the proposed action by examining the condition and trends of Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) throughout the designated area. The PCEs are the physical and biological features identified as essential to the conservation. Sites include freshwater spawning, freshwater rearing, freshwater migration, estuarine areas, nearshore marine areas, and offshore marine areas. The critical habitat in Lake Washington contains freshwater rearing and freshwater migration. Essential physical and biological features for freshwater rearing and migration include water quantity and floodplain connectivity that support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage that support Juvenile development; and natural cover consisting of shade, large wood, logjams, beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks and water free of artificial obstructions that support juvenile and adult mobility and survival. At the time that each habitat area was designated as critical habitat, that area contained one or more PCEs within the acceptable range of values required to support the biological processes of listed species. As part of the process to designate critical habitat within the PS Chinook salmon ESU, NMFS assessed the conservation value of habitat within freshwater, estuarine and nearshore areas at the fifth field hydrologic unit code (HUC) scale, across the entire range of the ESU. The HUC scale corresponds generally to the watershed scale, and these areas were rated as providing "low", "medium", or "high" conservation value. NMFS rated the fifth field HUC within which the action area lies as having a "medium" conservation value. As described in more detail within the Environmental Baseline section below, PCEs of critical habitat within the project and action area are generally degraded from a variety of hcunan-induced habitat process and structural changes. Environmental Baseline The `environmental baseline' includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02), Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state of Washington with 80 miles of shoreline, including 30 miles along the shore of Mercer island (Shared Strategy 2007). Lake Washington also has the highest human population of any Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) in Washington State. Over 82 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored and is shaded by more than 2,700 piers and docks (Shared Strategy 2007). Regulated lake levels and extensive armoring have hampered sediment transport and sandy beaches need to be augmented by periodic sediment supplies. The lack of riparian vegetation due to clearing and development has led to an increase in temperature, a loss in organic debris, and a reduction in insect recruitment. The loss of channel and shoreline complexity including a lack of woody debris and 6 available shallow water and overwater has led to a decline in nearshore habitat vital to rearing. The presence of in water structures, such as piles, skirting, and piers hinder migration of both juveniles and adults. Many tributaries and streams have fish passage barriers with the construction of road crossings, weirs, and darns, hindering salmon migration and reducing spatial structure. The water quality and sediment quality of Lake Washington have been degraded by pollutants and high temperatures (Shared Strategy 2007). A report by WDFW and PSIT (2004) states that current habitat conditions constrain productivity and prevent the achievement of recovery goals. The action area is located in a cove that is subject to sediment deposits just to the south of May Creek. The water depth is approximately 12 feet deep in the center of the cove with gradual slopes leading to the shoreline. The boathouse is located at the innermost shoreline position of the cove. Skirting extending from the bottom of the structure to the lake bottom completely shades the foot print of the boat house. There is a series of solid decking floats paralleling the shoreline approximately 30 feet waterward, held in place by eighteen creosote treated piles. The proposed dredge footprint is located waterward of the floats and underneath the boathouse. Effects of the Action Adverse effects on listed species include short-term reduction in water quality, such as increases in suspended sediment and noise, and a potential delay in adult migration, and long-term reduction in shallow water habitat, maintenance of overwater shading, and in -water obstacles. Some of the effects of the action will be so small (changes in water quality) or tinned such that salmon and steelhead are exceedingly unlikely to experience them (increased sound pressure levels from pile driving). Best Management Practices, such as the use of silt curtains and sound attenuation devices will further minimize the effects from construction. As such, those effects are insignificant or discountable and are not analyzed further in this consultation. Delayed Spawning Within the South Lake Washington, the work window for construction activities is designed to avoid work in the nearshore during juvenile migration and rearing. Between February and June, most juvenile Chinook salmon migrate and rear along the shore, restricting the in water work window to fall between July 16`h December 31". Adult Chinook salmon migrate and enter streams and tributaries between June and September, and spawning occurs between September and November. Due to the action areas' close proximity to May Creek, the Applicant will voluntarily abstain from dredging activities between mid -September and November; however there may still be overlap hindering adult migration up the streams and tributaries. The dredging activity may temporarily harass and displace juveniles and adults, which may result in delayed spawning activity by temporarily hindering adult access to May Creek to spawning habitat. Under the worst circumstances there will only a few fish will be affected and there it is unlikely to prevent spawning. 7 Loss of Shallow Water habitat Dredging increases water depth by removing material from the lake bottom. The increase in depth potentially degrades habitat conditions for rearing juvenile salmonids that forage on organic debris, insects, plankton, and benthic organisms and seek refuge in shallow water habitat. Greater depths are also used by predator species such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) (Tabor et al. 2007). The loss of the shallow water increases the opportunity for take, due to predation and decreased opportunity for forage. The applicant will avoid dredging in the nearshore shallow water as much as possible, and will improve the nearshore habitat with planting along 200 feet of shoreline and installing spawning gravel over 2100 square feet of the shoreline, In addition the area being dredged is already too deep to provide high quality habitat for juvenile salmonids. Overwater Shading Taft et al. (2007) assessed the abundance of fish at the various types of shoreline and determined that juvenile salmon were not usually observed underneath overwater structures. Juveniles tend to avoid piers because they physically block normal movement patterns or decrease light levels (Toff et al. 2007). Additionally, predatory bass species aggregate around in -water and over - water structures. The amount of light transmission at the project site continues to be compromised through the excessive walkway widths in nearshore floats. By using grated decking on the floats and using transparent siding on 20 percent of the boathouse, the applicant ameliorates some of the adverse affects by increasing the light penetration. However, there is still an excessive amount by the boathouse, which will still completely cover approximately 1,580 square feet, half of that within 30 feet of the shoreline. Migration Obstacles Structures within the water act as barriers and hinder access to habitat. Migration obstacles cause fish to change their course, expending unnecessary energy to avoid pilings, skirting, and other similar obstacles. The proposed action will reduce the number of pilings, and using steel material instead of creosote treated piles will reduce the size of the obstacles. The use of 4 inch mesh skirting will be an improvement over the existing solid skirting that extends to the lake bottom, but the mesh skirting will still extend into the water during ordinary high water, creating migration obstacles for larger fish near the surface. Relevance of the Ef/ects of the Action to Fish Individual Chinook salmon and steelhead will be directly and indirectly affected by the dredging of an inlet south of May Creek, and the repair of a nearby boathouse. The loss of shallow water will slightly decrease the amount of rearing habitat available to juvenile salmonids for foraging and refuge from predation. Although dredging in the nearshore will be kept to a minimum, the degraded nearshore habitat caused by existing structures will be maintained. Construction activities during the approved work window based on the juvenile migration timing may affect adult Chinook salmon, delaying their migration into May Creek. 0 The proposed actions occurred in Lake Washington adjacent to May Creek. The effects of the action are anticipated to affect habitat conditions for the described Chinook salmon and steelhead populations that rear or migrate in the action area, primarily Cedar River populations of PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Predation on juveniles is expected to reduce the number of smolts that migrate from the Lake Washington basin. Although take associated with the action may slightly reduce the abundance and productivity of the Cedar River PS Chinook salmon and PS steclhead, NMFS does not expect the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESUs to be significantly reduced. Effects on Critical Habitat The PCEs that the action area provides are freshwater rearing, and migration. The short term effects of activities at the project site, such changes in water quality (increased turbidity) and noise (increased sound pressure levels from pile driving), are temporary and localized and will not affect the functional role of PCEs, in the action area as a threshold matter. As such, they will have no effect on conservation value of critical habitat in the watershed in which the action area lies. The long term effects of the actions include reduction in shallow water habitat, maintenance of overwater shading, and in -water obstacles. The presence of vertical bulkheads directly impacts the habitat by removing shallow water, a requirement for rearing salmonids. Overwater structures increase the amount of shading, providing cover for predators and decreasing the amount of light that penetrates through to the water. The effects of the overwater structure are minimized through the use of grated decking material, which allow for light transmission. Piling and skirting represent migration barriers and obstacles that hinder access to habitat. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02). By the year 2025, the projected human population growth for King County is 355,356 people, which is a 20 percent increase (Redman et al., 2005). With these projections, NMFS assumes that future private and state actions will continue within the action area, increasing -as population density rises. New development is Iikely to further reduce the conservation value of habitat within the watershed through water withdrawals, stormwater quality degradation and increased volumes, loss of riparian functions, and encroachment to floodplains. The NMFS believes that the existing King County regulatory mechanisms to minimize and avoid impacts to watershed function from future commercial, industrial, and residential development are generally not adequate, and/or not implemented sufficiently. Thus, while these existing regulations could decrease adverse effects to watershed function, they still allow incremental degradation to occur, which accumulate over time, and when added to the degraded 6 environmental baseline, further degrade habitat conditions, and reduce habitat quality and suitability for PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead, Conclusion The effects of action will not affect any of the characteristics of viable salmon or steelhead populations. Nor will the action influence the conservative role of critical habitat at the watershed level. After reviewing the status of PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects, NMFS concludes that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitats for PS Chinook salmon. These conclusions are based on the following considerations- 1 . Dredging will only occur underneath the boathouse and in the center of the cove, waterward of the floats, avoiding dredging in shallow water habitat where possible; 2. Planting along the shoreline and installing spawning gravel will improve the nearshore habitat for rearing juveniles; 3. The use of transparent material on the boathouse and grated decking on the floats improves light transmission; and, 4. The replacement of 20 creosote piles with twelve 18-inch steel piles improves the water quality and decreases migration obstacles. Therefore, the proposed action is not expected to appreciably reduce long-term survival and recovery of PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and endangered species. The following recommendations are discretionary measures that NMFS believes are consistent with this obligation and therefore should be carried out by the COE- 1. Minimize impacts of overwater structures by minimizing the amount of overwater structures near the immediate shoreline (within 30 feet of shore) and limiting the walkway to four feet wide or less. If future actions are taken to modify the existing pier, all other structures such as ells, boatlilfis, or moorage covers, should be relocated to be at least 30 feet from shore, and the size of the walkway should be reduced to a width of four feet. Please notify NMFS if the COE carries out any of these recommendations so that we will be kept informed of actions that minimize or avoid adverse effects and those that benefit listed species or their designated critical habitats. 10 Reinitiation of Consultation Reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by NMFS where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by taw and: (a) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or designated critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (c) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that has an effect to the listed species or designated critical habitat that was not considered in the Opinion; or (d) if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the identified action (50 CFR 402.16). To reinitiate consultation, contact the Washington State Habitat Office of NMFS and refer to the NMFS Number assigned to this consultation. Incidental Take Statement Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA prohibits the taking of endangered species without a specific permit or exemption. Protective regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(d) extend the prohibition to threatened species. Among other things, an action that harasses, wounds, or kills an individual of a listed species or harms a species by altering habitat in a way that significantly impairs its essential behavioral patterns is a taking (50 CFR 222.102). Incidental take refers to takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.02). Section 7(o)(2) exempts any taking that meets the terms and conditions of a written incidental take statement from the taking prohibition. Amount or Extent of Take The affects of the action will co-occur with the presence of both Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead. Fish exposed to those effects will respond to their exposure in various ways, but some are certain to respond by changing their normal behavior in the action area such that they will be injured or killed. Therefore, take of Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound steelhead is reasonably certain to occur. For actions that cause take in the form of harm, NMFS' ability to quantify the amount of take in numbers of fish can be difficult if not impossible to accomplish because of the range of individual fish responses to habitat change. Some will encounter changed habitat and merely react by seeking out a different place in which to express their present life history. Others might change their behavior, causing them to express more, energy, suffer stress, or otherwise respond in ways that impair their present or subsequent life histories. Yet others will experience changed habitat in way that kills them. While this uncertainty makes it impossible to quantify take in the form of harm in terms of numbers of animals injured or killed, the extent of habitat change to which present and future generations of fish will be exposed is readily discemable and presents a reliable measure of the extent of take that can be monitored and tracked. Therefore, when the specific number of individuals "harmed" cannot be predicted, NMFS quantifies the extent of take based on the extent of habitat modified (51 FR 19926 at 19954; June 3, 1986). Take from this project includes reduced production of prey species and spawning delay associated with dredging activities. The extent of habitat affected by dredging is 10,000 square feet, which will occur near the mouth of May Creek. The estimated extent of habitat affected by proposed action represents the extent of take exempted in this incidental take statement. These extents are readily observable and therefore suffice to trigger reinitiation of consultation, if exceeded and necessary (see H.R. Rep. No 97-567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 27, 1982). This consultation does not exempt take from the existing boathouse and float locations. Reasonable and Prudent Measures Reasonable and prudent measures are nondiscretionary measures to avoid or minimize take that must be carried out by cooperators for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The COE has the continuing duty to regulate the activities covered in this incidental take statement where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law. The protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) will lapse if the COE fails to exercise its discretion to require adherence to terms and conditions of the incidental take statement, or to exercise that discretion as necessary to retain the oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and conditions. Similarly, if any applicant fails to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement, protective coverage will lapse. The NMFS believes that full application of conservation measures included as part of the proposed action, together with use of the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions described below, are necessary and appropriate to minimize the Iikelihood of incidental take of listed species due to completion of the proposed action. The COE shall: 1. Change the work window to accommodate migrating adult salmon. Terms and Conditions To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the COE and its cooperators, including the applicant, if any, must fully comply with conservation measures described as part of the proposed action and the following terms and conditions that implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above. Partial compliance with these terms and conditions may invalidate this take exemption, result in more take than anticipated, and lead NMFS to a different conclusion regarding whether the proposed action will result in.1eopardy or the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats, To implement Reasonable and Prudent measure No. 1, the COE shall ensure that: No in -water work takes place during the peak adult migration into streams and tributaries. May Creek is located directly to the north of the action area, and has 12 both vital spawning and rearing habitat. By reducing the work window from July 16"' to September 1 St', it decrease the effect on migrating and spawning adults. NOTICE. If a sick, injured or dead specimen of a threatened or endangered species is found, the finder must notify NMFS Law Enforcement at (206) 526-6133 or (800) 853-1964. The finder must take care in handling of sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment, and in handling dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible condition for later analysis of cause of death. The finder also has the responsibility to carry out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not disturbed unnecessarily. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT The consultation requirement of section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions, or proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. Adverse effects include the direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside EFH, and may include site -specific or EFH-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600,810). Section 305(b) also requires NMFS to recommend measures that may be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH. Based on information provided in the BE and the analysis of effects presented in the ESA portion of this document, NMFS concludes that proposed action will have the following adverse effects on EFH designated for Chinook salmon and who salmon. • Reduced shallow water habitat, important to rearing juvenile salmonids. • Maintain degrading structure placement with the excessive amount of structures within. 30 feet of the shore that create camouflage and cover for predatory species, and decrease the light transmission through the boathouse and floats. EFH Conservation Recommendations The NMFS believes that implementation of one of the following conservation measures are necessary to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of the proposed action on EFH. While NMFS understands that the COE intends to conduct the proposed action with the included minimization and mitigation measures described in the Opinion, it does not believe that these measures are sufficient to address the adverse impacts to EFH described above. 1. Minimize effects on shallow water habitat by avoiding dredging in the nearshore, shallow water habitat. 2. Minimize effects of the overwater structures by increasing the extent of light transmission to the lake bottom beneath the boathouse and piers. 13 Statutory Response Requirement Federal agencies are required to provide a detailed written response to NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations within 30 days of receipt of these recommendations (50 CFR 600.920@(1)). The response must include a description of measures proposed to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse affects of the activity on EFH. If the response is inconsistent with the EFH conservation recommendations, the response must explain the reasons for not following the recommendations. The reasons must include the scientific justification for any disagreements over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects. Supplemental Consultation The COE must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFT4 conservation recommendations [50 CFR 600.920(k)]. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE -DISSEMINATION REVIEW Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-554) (Data Quality Act) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the consultation addresses these Data Quality Act (DQA) components, documents compliance with DQA, and certifies that this consultation has undergone pre -dissemination review. Utility: Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users, The intended users- of this consultation include the COE, the applicant, and citizens of King County interested in the effects of proiects on Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead. Integrity: This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix 111, `Security of Automated Information Resources,' Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act. Objectivity: .Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan. Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They adhere to published standards including MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 CFR 600.920(i). 14 BestAvaiiable Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available information, as referenced in the Literature Cited section. The analyses in this Opinion contain more background on information sources and quality. Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data, and analyses are properly referenced, consistent with standard scientific referencing style. Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in MSA implementation, and reviewed in accordance with Northwest Region quality control and assurance processes. 15 LITERATURE CITED Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams. 2005. Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-66, 597p. Hard, J.J., J.M. Myers, M.F. Ford, R.G. Kope, G.R. Pess, R.S. Waples, G.A. Winans, B.A. Berejikian, F.W. Waknitz, P.B. Adams, P.A. Bisson, D.E. Campton, and R.R. Reisenbichler, 2007, Status Review of Puget Sound Steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss). U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech, Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-81, 1 17p. Little, A.C. 1898. Ninth Annual Report of the State Fish Commissioner to the Governor of the State of Washington. State of Washington, 70 p. Martin, D., L. Benda, and D. Shreffler. 2004. Core Areas: a frameword for identifying critical habitat for salmon. Presented to King County Department of Natuxal Resources and Parks. Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. ftp://dnr.metroke.gov/dnr/library/2004/KCR 1547/ McElhany, P., M. Ruckleshaus, M.J. Ford, T. Wainwright, and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmon Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. 156 p. htti:1/www.nwfsc. noaa, aoy/yublicationsltechmemos/tm42/tm42.pdf Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neeley, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443p. NMFS. 2005. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries' Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. NOAA Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232- 1274. Redman. S. Myers, and D., D. Averill. 2005. Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound (draft, June 28, 2005). http://www. sharedsalmonstrategy.org/pl an/index. htm Scott, J.B. and W.T. Gill. 2006. Oncorhynchus myk2ss: Assessment of Washington State's anadromous populations and programs. Draft for Public Review and Comment. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. [a Shared Strategy Development Committee (Shared Strategy). 2007. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, Volume 1. Plan adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service, January 19, 2007. www.sharedsalmonstrateizy.org. Tabor, R.A., B.A. Footen, K.L. Fresh, M.T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, D.L. Low, and L. Park. 2007. Smallmouth bass and largemouth bass predation on juvenile Chinook salmon and other salmonids in the Lake Washington basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 27(4) :1174-118 8. Toff, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. Fish distribution, abundance, and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound, Forth American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:465-480. Waples, R.S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of "species" under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Nad, Mar. Fish. Serv., Mar. Fish. Rev. 53:11-22. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2004. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaST). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. http://wdfw.v�&aoy/fish/sasi/ WDFW and PSIT (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound Indian Trines). 2004. Comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound Chinook: harvest management component. Washington Department. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. httip://wdfw,Aa.gov/fish/lDWrs/ ps_chinook management/harvest/ps chinook haryest.pdf 17