HomeMy WebLinkAboutERC_SEPA Cond 3 Reconsideration RequestRequest for Reconsideration of SEPA MDNS Condition #3
Request for Reconsideration of MDNS SEPA Condition
Project File No.: PR22-000301
Project Name: Sounders FC Center at Longacres
Land Use File No.: LUA22-000357; SA-H; CU-H; ECF; MOD
Date: November 18, 2022
I. Request for Reconsideration of SEPA MDNA Condition #3:
Co-applicants Unico Properties 1 and Seattle Soccer LLC, respectfully ask the Responsible SEPA
Official for the City of Renton to reconsider the wording of Condition #3 of the Environmental
Review Committee Report issued November 7, 2022 for the above-referenced application, for the
reasons stated below.
II. Current Condition #3:
“The fill material used on the synthetic fields shall be comprised of a material that would be non -
toxic to fish and other wildlife.”
III. Proposed Substitute Condition #3:
The applicant proposes the following alternative condition which, if approved, would satisfy the
purpose of condition #3:
“The artificial turf field program, including field design, construction and operation, together with
stormwater management and water quality treatment for drainage from the artificial turf fields,
shall assure that the field materials do not result in a probable significant adverse environmental
impact on fish and wildlife.”
IV. Explanation of Request for Reconsideration
Sounders believe that the intent of the City’s Condition #3 is that the artificial turf fields will not
result in a probable significant adverse environmental impact to fish and wildlife. Sounders have
designed their artificial turf fields to achieve that result. However, the wording of Condition 3 is
problematic, because it asks the applicant to prove a negative, i.e. that the turf material itself is
“non-toxic to fish and other wildlife.” The applicant cannot meet this standard, especially because
of the limited peer-reviewed scientific studies analyzing field-related materials in constructed,
operating synthetic turf athletic fields. This lack of information could cause confusion and
uncertainty during subsequent permitting.
Analysis of the impact of any par ticular material on the environment must also include the manner,
intensity, and duration of exposure created. Notwithstanding the lack of definitive information
regarding the materials themselves, there are many mitigation factors that can limit risk to the
1 The Unico Properties applicant entities are: Unico Longacres South Building LLC, Unico Longacres
South Campus Land LLC, Unico Longacres Central Drainage LLC.
natural environment. Means of control to limit transfer of turf and turf components to the
environment include field design, the stormwater management and water quality system for the
fields, and operational practices that control and minimize material transport.
This request for reconsideration is supported by the attached letter prepared by Eric Gold of DA
Hogan, the field design consultant for Sounders FC Center at Longacres, which is attached as
Exhibit A. Please see Exhibit A for further discussion of these mitigation factors, and how they
have been incorporated into the proposal for two or more artificial t urf fields at the Sounders FC
Center at Longacres.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the co-applicants,
THARSIS LAW P.S.
Jeremy Eckert
1450 114th Ave SE Page 1 of 2 p. 206-285-0400
Suite 225 f. 206-285-0480
Bellevue, WA 98004 www.dahogan.com
EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM
To: Julia Reeve, UNICO
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom, Seattle Sounders FC
Tom Chiado, Chiado LLC
Gretchen Blaine, Generator Studio
Cc: File
From: Eric Gold
Date: November 17, 2022
Re: Seattle Sounders FC HQ / Longacres Property
City of Renton SEPA Mitigation Condition 3
My Name is Eric Gold. I have over 20 years of experience on a wide range of public facilities, including parks,
recreational, and sports field development projects throughout Western Washington. I am the landscape architect
and field design consultant for the Sounders FC Center at Longacres.
As the field design consultant for the Sounders FC Center at Longacres, DA Hogan has significant concerns with the
wording of Condition #3 of the issued SEPA MDNS for the project. The condition reads: The fill material used on the
synthetic fields shall be comprised of a material that would be non -toxic to fish and other wildlife. We are not aware
of any synthetic field material that has been scientifically proven to meet this standard, so we do not know how we
could meet it. Initially, I would like to note that I am not an industrial hygienist or chemist. However, a s a professional
athletic field designer, I am very familiar with the ongoing conversations between grass and synthetic turf fields. Most
of these conversations focus on the perceived negative aspects of synthetic turf. DA Hogan has no stake in this debate
as we design grass and synthetic fields equally.
▪ Regarding the subject condition, its w ording selects a single attribute of synthetic fields, the “fill material,” as
the sole means for controlling impacts to the environment. But other field attributes can also effectively protect the
environment. Methods of field design, construction and operation can provide reasonable assurance that synthetic
materials remain in place as intended, and are not transported off site in quantities that are anything more than
incidental. The Sounders fields have been designed with these controls in place.
▪ Ways infill is prevented from “escaping into the wild” in the Project, as proposed, include:
à Field Section is vertically draining, i.e., precipitation is infiltrated at a high rate directly downward by
force of gravity, through the infill, turf backing, 2” of finely graded stone, 8”+ of coarse graded stone,
collected in subsurface drainage pipes and collectors, and conveyed and discharged to a water
quality treatment system. This is a closed system.
à Water quality treatment meets GULD Enhanced Basic requirements as described by the King County
Surface Water Design Manual.
à Fields are surrounded by a perimeter concrete containment curb that is designed to meet and match
to infill elevation at installation. Typically we can expect settlement of the initial 1.5” of infill by 15-
20%, meaning it is maintained slightly below the containment curb.
à The synthetic turf fields are surrounded by security and ball control fencing, with a continuous
woven vinyl wind screen material secured to it. This design would deflect most airborne material
back onto the field.
1450 114th Ave SE Page 2 of 2 p. 206-285-0400
Suite 225 f. 206-285-0480
Bellevue, WA 98004 www.dahogan.com
à Operationally, this is the training facility for a professional sports franchise , and use of the fields is
supervised. Random, unintended acts that might result in significant transport of infills off -site at a
local park, such as a giant snowball rolled around by kids ending up in a creek, are not likely to occur.
à The fields are designed at 1.5’ above flood stage (FG 21.50 over 20.00) to prevent material from
migrating with floodwater in the event of flood.
à The synthetic fields have been deliberately located further from Wetland A and its buffer, to provide
additional protection against transport to sensitive areas.
▪ Current status of the Turf System Design:
à The Project Team is finalizing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to be distributed to a shortlisted group
of 3 synthetic turf vendors.
à The structure of the RFP includes base bid and alternate bid options for a variety of synthetic turf
assemblies, that specify a variety of infill materials including SBR Crumb Rubber, Granular Cork, TPE,
and EPDM. We expect that sometime around mid-February sufficient pricing, availability, and
performance criteria will be available to the Sounders to make an informed decision.
à As stated at the beginning, we have no certification or surety that any of the materials described
above “would be non-toxic to fish or wildlife”.
Conclusion: In our experience, the field design, construction and operation measures are effective means to control
the transport of synthetic field material off-site.
Second Request for Reconsideration of SEPA MDNS Condition #3
Second Request for Reconsideration of MDNS SEPA Condition
Project File No.: PR22-000301
Project Name: Sounders FC Center at Longacres
Land Use File No.: LUA22-000357; SA-H; CU-H; ECF; MOD
Date: November 23, 2022
I. Second Request for Reconsideration of SEPA MDNA Condition #3:
On behalf of Co-applicant Seattle Sounders FC, we write to ask the ERC to further reconsider
the language of SEPA Condition 3. We had first asked the City not to set a standard that required
the Sounders to prove a negative, regarding synthetic turf materials being non-toxic to fish and
wildlife. We proposed alternative language that we believed met the purpose to assure the
synthetic fields would not pose probable adverse environmental impacts to fish and wildlife.1 We
appreciate the ERC willingness to consider the applicants’ concern with Condition 3. We
understand that the ERC had questions on Friday, and is now considering imposing a prohibition
on using crumb rubber manufactured from recycled tires (hereafter “SBR Crumb Rubber”) as
infill material for synthetic turf field assemblies. For reasons explained below, this would be an
intrusive condition on the proposal, which we believe to be unwarranted and not legally
supportable under SEPA, and it would generate significant unanticipated costs to the proposal.
We appreciate the opportunity to further explain why the proposed prohibition is unwarranted,
and the impacts it would have on Sounders FC Center at Longacres.
II. Impacts of Departing from Industry Standard
Field Turf is the industry standard material for competitive and practice fields in Major League
Soccer (MLS). Field Turf comes in several varieties, most of which include SBR Crumb Rubber
as infill material. The playing surface in Lumen Field, the Sounders competition field, is made of
Field Turf composed with SBR Crumb Rubber. Professional soccer best practices which manage
professional athlete load and physiological impacts across a grueling 10-month calendar, require
consistent field conditions for both match-competition pitches and training pitches.
Because SBR Crumb Rubber is the industry standard for MLS, it would be a substantial impact to
Sounders FC to have the City prohibit use of that material. The impact is felt in several ways. First,
there is inadequate information available to know how the substitute materials perform for MLS
play, and how the materials hold up as compared to the known standard: SBR Crumb Rubber. The
ability to source less standard substitute materials and potential timing impacts also create
uncertainty for the accelerated timeline to have the fields ready for World Cup use in 2026.
Finally, replacing SBR Crumb Rubber with the known available substitute for two to three fields
at Sounders FC Center is estimated to cost somewhere from $750,000 to more than $1 million.
This would be a significant economic factor in addition to existing known costs of a new
headquarters and training facility in the City of Renton.
1 The applicants’ language actually tracked SEPA phrasing to prevent “probable significant adverse environmental
impacts.” We understand the City prefers to strike the word “significant” from that phrase, and the applicant does
not object to that change.
III. Stormwater Regulations Require Treatment for Constituents of Concern
Renton has adopted the King County Surface Water Design Manual (2021) (KCSWDM or “Design
Manual” as its stormwater regulations. These regulations are applicable to the Sounders FC Center
at Longacres.2 The Design Manual classifies athletic fields as “pollution generating pervious
surfaces,” and requires higher levels of water quality treatment for these uses in commercial
zones.3 The applicant’s field designer and stormwater engineer have collaborated on a field design
and drainage system that meets the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment requirements of
KCSWDM. The Enhanced Basic treatment system treats for metals in stormwater, which includes
treatment to remove copper and zinc, the two main constituents of potential concern with regard
to stormwater drainage from athletic fields using SBR Crumb Rubber if they were designed
without this protection. The treatment type selected by the design team has been approved by the
State Department of Ecology. If the City desires additional information about how the selected
treatment works to remove these constituents of potential concern, we can arrange to have our
consultants address those questions. Accordingly, the proposal with its elevated water quality
treatment is already mitigating for the use of SBR Crumb Rubber infill. Further mitigation is not
required, and a prohibition against using the material is not warranted.
In addition, while Sounders acknowledge the ongoing conversation nationwide regarding the use
of SBR Crumb Rubber in synthetic turf for playing fields, we can provide the City with a reputable,
local study that looked carefully at the issue and concluded that synthetic field drainage does not
pose an environmental impact to surface waters.4 The attached Woodland Park Study was two
pronged, including both a survey of existing literature on the topic, including studies performed in
Washington State, and a rigorous sampling program from synthetic turf fields at Seattle’s
Woodland Park playfields. Those fields included a surface made from SBR Crumb Rubber infill
(Playfield #7). The Report concluded that “Water quality results for the three base flow samples
and eight storm samples collected from Playfield #7 drain show that pollutant concentrations were
very low in synthetic turf field drainage and do not pose an environmental impact to Green Lake.
None of the pollutant concentrations in synthetic turf field drainage exceeded Washington State
surface water quality standards.”5
Although we find the Woodland Park Study well-conducted and persuasive, we are aware that
other literature speculates differently. We are also aware that infill materials for synthetic athletic
fields are under continual review and study by regulatory entities, primarily and importantly due
to their prevalence in youth and amateur athletics. But the controlling factors here based on the
proposed design outweigh the speculation: (1) the required Enhanced Basic water quality treatment
addresses the zinc and copper constituents most associated with toxicity to fish; (2) the stormwater
system effectively captures the stormwater drainage for treatment; (3) the fields are fenced and
maintained as a professional MLS facility; and (4) access controls avoid inadvertent transfer of the
infill material. We ask that the City not impose a condition prohibiting the industry standard
2 Renton has adopted a few amendments to the Design Manual, not relevant here.
3 See applicable excerpts from the KCSWDM at Exhibit A.
4 See attached Exhibit B, Water Quality Report, Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study, p.
51 (June 2010), prepared for Seattle Parks and Recreation by Herrera Consultants.
5 Id.
material when there is not definitive science or standards that mandate such a condition.
Nonetheless, we also want the City to know that Seattle Sounders FC cares deeply about its
environmental footprint, and desires to be an environmentally responsible new member of the
Renton community. For that reason, we would propose the following mitigation in lieu of the SBR
Crumb Rubber prohibition.
IV. Prohibition Exceeds Adopted SEPA Standards
Under SEPA, mitigation measures must be based on policies, plans, rules, or regulations formally
designated by the agency as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when the
DNS is issued.6 We can find no adopted policy or regulation of the City of Renton that would
authorize the prohibition of the use of SBR Crumb Rubber on soccer fields in this case, where
water quality measures will be in place. Moreover, before requiring mitigation measures, the
agency must consider whether local, state or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate
an identified impact.7 As we have pointed out, the project is required by the city’s stormwater
regulations to implement enhanced water quality measures that are specifically designed and
adopted to prevent pollution from synthetic turf athletic fields. For these reasons, and because there
is no specific, adverse environmental impact associated with the use of SBR Crumb Rubber
identified in any environmental documents for the proposal, we ask that the City not condition the
project to prohibit the use of SBR Crumb Rubber infill.
V. Substitute Mitigation Proposal
The Sounders FC Center at Longacres will implement Enhanced Basic water quality treatment for
all playing field drainage. Although the KCSWDM does not require monitoring, Sounders would
undertake quarterly water quality tests of field drainage, during the 2-year maintenance period for
the stormwater system. The Sounders field and stormwater consultants will work with City of
Renton to determine a reasonable and appropriate monitoring protocol to test for SBR Crumb
Rubber constituents of concern in field drainage.
This request for reconsideration is supported by the attached exhibits. We would be happy to
answer any questions. Thank you for attention to this second request for reconsideration of SEPA
Condition #3.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the co-applicants
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
Ann Gygi
Ann Gygi
999 Third Avenue | Suite 4600 | Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 470-7638
ann.gygi@hcmp.com
6 WAC 197-11-660(1)(a).
7 WAC 197-11-660(1)(e).
Exhibit A
Excerpts from King County Surface Water Design Manual
KCSWDM, 2021, Ch. 1: Key Terms and Definitions.
KCSWDM, 2021, Ch. 1, Sec. 1.2.8.2.A, p. 1-71, -72
KCSWDM, 2021, Sec. 6.1.2, p. 6-7
Exhibit B
Woodland Park Water Quality Study
(Please Click on Attached pdf)
09-04418-000
Woodland Park Water Quality Report 2010 06 07 (1).pdf
Exhibit B
WATER QUALITY REPORT
Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field
Stormwater Drainage Study
Prepared for
Seattle Parks and Recreation
June 2010
Note:
Some pages in this document have been purposefully skipped or blank pages inserted so that this
document will copy correctly when duplexed.
WATER QUALITY REPORT
Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field
Stormwater Drainage Study
Prepared for
Seattle Parks and Recreation
800 Maynard Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98134-1336
Prepared by
Herrera Environmental Consultants
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100
Seattle, Washington 98121
Telephone: 206.441.9080
June 7, 2010
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background Information ................................................................................................................. 3
Project Background ................................................................................................................. 3
Synthetic Turf Studies ............................................................................................................. 4
Norway Synthetic Turf Study ........................................................................................ 4
Connecticut Synthetic Turf Study .................................................................................. 9
New York Synthetic Turf Study .................................................................................... 9
Redmond Synthetic Turf Study .................................................................................... 10
Magnuson Park Synthetic Turf Study .......................................................................... 10
EPA Synthetic Turf Study ............................................................................................ 10
Woodland Park Stormwater Study ........................................................................................ 11
Monitoring Methods ..................................................................................................................... 15
Sampling Design .................................................................................................................... 15
Monitoring Locations ............................................................................................................ 19
Station P2S – Playfield #2 Drainage ............................................................................ 19
Station P7E – Playfield #7 Drainage ............................................................................ 19
Station P7S – Background Cinder/Grass Drainage (Storm Flow) ............................... 21
Station P7SD – Background Cinder/Grass Drainage (Base Flow) .............................. 21
Station SD – Background Storm Drain Drainage ........................................................ 23
Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................................. 23
Measurement Procedures ....................................................................................................... 24
Data Quality Control Objectives and Procedures .................................................................. 26
Monitoring Results........................................................................................................................ 27
Data Quality Review Results ................................................................................................. 33
Precipitation and Discharge ................................................................................................... 33
pH .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Hardness ................................................................................................................................ 35
Total Suspended Solids .......................................................................................................... 35
Phosphorus ............................................................................................................................. 38
Fecal Coliform Bacteria ......................................................................................................... 40
Copper .................................................................................................................................... 41
Lead ....................................................................................................................................... 43
Zinc ........................................................................................................................................ 44
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) ......................................................................... 46
Wood Light Pole Sample Analysis ........................................................................................ 48
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 51
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 53
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
i
References ..................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Playfield Drainage Plans
Appendix B Data Quality Assurance Report and Laboratory Data Reports
Appendix C Database
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
ii
Tables
Table 1. Comparison of synthetic turf field study data to water quality criteria. ....................... 5
Table 2. Median stormwater monitoring results for six grab samples collected in
November and December 2004 from Woodland Park. ............................................... 12
Table 3. Comparison of historical stormwater monitoring results for 1992-1995 and
2004 at the Woodland Park South Outfall. ................................................................. 12
Table 4. Comparison of the sampling design to the actual sampling conducted for the
Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Study. ........................................................................ 16
Table 5. Analytical methods, reporting limits, and quality control limits. ............................... 25
Table 6. Base flow monitoring results for the Woodland Park Turf Study (three
samples/station)........................................................................................................... 28
Table 7. Storm flow monitoring results for the Woodland Park Turf Study (eight
samples/station)........................................................................................................... 29
Table 8. Pollutant loading rates for the Woodland Park Turf Study......................................... 30
Table 9. Statistical comparison of pollutant concentrations among stations for the
Woodland Park Turf Study. ........................................................................................ 31
Table 10. Statistical comparison of pollutant concentrations between base and storm
flow for the Woodland Park Turf Study. .................................................................... 32
Table 11. Monitoring event precipitation characteristics for the Woodland Park Turf
Study. .......................................................................................................................... 34
Table 12. Wood light pole composite sample results for detected semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) at Woodland Park, Seattle, Washington. ................................. 49
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity map.................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Stormwater drainage features and historical sampling locations in the
Woodland Park basin of Green Lake (Herrera 2005). ................................................ 13
Figure 3. Stormwater drainage features and sampling locations for the Woodland Park
Synthetic Turf Stormwater Drainage Study. ............................................................... 17
Figure 4. Synthetic turf fields at Playfield #2 (above) and Playfield #7 (below) in
Woodland Park, Seattle, Washington. ........................................................................ 20
Figure 5. French drain east of station P7S (above) and new portion of French drain
constructed in December 2009 (below) during Storm 4 on January 15, 2010. .......... 22
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
iii
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
iv
Figure 6. Total suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations measured
for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Study and compared to historical data. ......... 36
Figure 7. Total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured
for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Study and compared to historical data. ......... 39
Figure 8. Dissolved and total copper concentrations measured for the Woodland Park
Synthetic Turf Study. .................................................................................................. 42
Figure 9. Dissolved and total zinc concentrations measured for the Woodland Park
Synthetic Turf Study. .................................................................................................. 45
Figure 10. Pentachlorophenol concentrations measured for the Woodland Park Synthetic
Turf Study. .................................................................................................................. 47
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Introduction
The Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (Seattle Parks and Recreation) contracted with
Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) to study the environmental effects of two synthetic
turf fields recently constructed in Woodland Park, located adjacent to Green Lake in Seattle,
Washington (Figure 1). Seattle Parks and Recreation replaced two sand play fields at Woodland
Park (Playfields #2 and #7) with synthetic turf fields in the fall of 2009. Playfield #2 was
constructed using AstroTurf® and Playfield #7 was constructed using FieldTurf®. The primary
purpose of this study is to identify any potential water quality impacts associated with drainage
from the synthetic turf fields by evaluating contaminant concentrations in drainage from the
synthetic turf fields and other areas in Woodland Park.
Synthetic turf fields consist of plastic fibers woven into a plastic mesh backing. The more
recently installed fields include infill material, which is typically comprised of rubber pellets
made from recycled automobile tires, known as “crumb rubber.” Other infill materials may also
be used instead of, or mixed with, crumb rubber. Much of the human and environmental health
concern has focused on crumb rubber. Both of the Woodland Park fields use crumb rubber for
the infill material.
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was prepared for this study that described the sample
process design and included a literature review to compile background data for comparison
purposes (Herrera 2009). The QAPP also specified sampling procedures, measurement
procedures, data management, and data verification and validation processes.
This report includes background information about the study, a summary of data collected from
other relevant studies, study methods and quality control procedures, and the results of the
stormwater monitoring. The results of the this study are compared to state and federal water
quality standards, results of previous stormwater monitoring collected at Woodland Park by
Herrera (2005), and results of other synthetic turf studies.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Green Lake
Lake Union
Salmon
B
a
y
N 50th St
N 45th St
NW Market St15th Ave NWW Nicke
r
s
o
n
S
t Stone Way NE Green Lake Way NN 85th St
N 80th St
5
99
99
520
522
WoodlandPark
WoodlandParkZoo
P A C I F I C O C E A NO R E G O N I D A H OArea ofmap detail
Figure 1. Vicinity map.Legend
Project area
Highway
Street
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
K:\Projects\09-04418-000\Project\green_lake_vicinity_map.mxd
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Background Information
Background information is provided below about the project, other synthetic turf studies, and
previous stormwater sampling at Woodland Park.
Project Background
Seattle Parks and Recreation recently replaced two sand playfields at Woodland Park
(Playfields #2 and #7) with synthetic turf fields. Funding for the construction of the new
synthetic turf fields was provided by the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy passed by the City
of Seattle. As part of the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy, the Seattle City Council passed
Resolution 31073 that directed Seattle Parks and Recreation to conduct a review of the best
available technology of synthetic turf fields (Seattle 2008). Potential water quality impacts
associated with drainage from synthetic turf fields were indentified in this review. To address
those concerns, Seattle Parks and Recreation recommended water quality monitoring of the
Woodland Park synthetic turf fields because they drain directly into Green Lake, which is a
sensitive water body and valuable resource (SDPR 2009).
Seattle Parks and Recreation installed synthetic turf fields due in part to the several advantages
that synthetic fields offer over traditional playfield surfaces (i.e., natural grass, sand, etc.). The
advantages in using synthetic turf fields include cost savings due to lower maintenance costs and
the lack of need for fuel-powered equipment (TRC 2008). Synthetic turf fields also do not
require any chemical pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers, providing several water quality benefits
(Joyce 1998). Synthetic turf fields can also sustain repeated heavy use during a variety of
climatic conditions, unlike traditional grass fields, and can be used year-round in most weather
(ASBA 2008). Synthetic turf fields also do not need to be closed periodically to protect or re-sod
grass (ASBA 2008; TRC 2008). Finally, synthetic turf fields offer greater safety to users when
compared to traditional natural grass fields (SDPR 2009).
Although there are several advantages to using synthetic fields, Seattle Parks and Recreation also
recognizes that there are public concerns over the risks of artificial turf to public health and the
environment (SDPR 2009). One of the common components of infill used in synthetic turf fields
is tire crumb (crumb rubber) (NYSDEC 2009). Crumb rubber is generally manufactured from
automotive and/or truck scrap tires, in which steel and polyester/nylon fiber are removed from
the tire, leaving the remaining tire rubber with a granular consistency (TRC 2008). Several
contaminants have been documented in crumb rubber in high concentrations using complete
digestion techniques, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and certain metals (NBRI 2004;
TRC 2008). However, complete digestion techniques do not take into account the leaching
potential or the bioavailability of crumb rubber when it is used as infill material (Johns and
Goodlin 2008).
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Both of the synthetic turf fields at Woodland Park have been constructed using crumb rubber
infill. However, each playfield was constructed using different surfaces provided by separate
synthetic turf manufacturers. Playfield #2 was constructed with an AstroTurf® GameDay Grass
3D synthetic turf surface, which consists of approximately 2 inches of crumb rubber infill mixed
into the field fibers. Playfield #7 was constructed with a FieldTurf® synthetic turf surface, which
consists of a mix of silica sand and crumb rubber that is layered into the synthetic field fibers.
The primary purpose of this stormwater drainage characterization study is to identify any water
quality concerns that may be associated with the two synthetic turf fields in Woodland Park. In
addition, this study also assesses representative stormwater from two additional sites in
Woodland Park for comparison. The results of this study will be compared to state and federal
water quality standards, water quality data reported for other synthetic turf drainage studies, and
results of previous stormwater monitoring conducted at Woodland Park by Herrera (2005).
Synthetic Turf Studies
A brief review of available scientific and grey literature was conducted regarding the potential
risks synthetic turf fields may pose to the environment. This review specifically focused on
studies that tested the water quality of stormwater after infiltrating through synthetic turf fields
containing crumb rubber infill. Due to the widespread use of synthetic turf fields and public
concern regarding the environmental risks posed by these fields, several scientific studies have
been performed to assess the environmental risk. The scientific studies include laboratory tests
conducted under controlled conditions and field studies testing stormwater runoff under a variety
of conditions.
In general, the majority of the scientific studies testing synthetic turf fields showed little risk to
stormwater and the environment. A literature review conducted by Johns and Goodlin (2008)
concluded that most chemicals leached out of synthetic turf fields were at such low levels that
they were of little environmental relevance. They also found that zinc had the highest mobility
compared to all other organic and inorganic chemicals studied.
Data reported for several recent laboratory and field studies of synthetic turf are summarized in
Table 1. These results are compared to acute and chronic criteria established by the Washington
State Surface Water Quality Standards (Ecology 2006; WAC 173-201A) and the National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA 2009). Also included in Table 1 are human health
criteria for consumption of fish and other aquatic organisms (EPA 2009). Test results for these
and other relevant studies are briefly summarized separately below.
Norway Synthetic Turf Study
Several simplified laboratory studies have been conducted to test the types of chemicals that
might leach through crumb rubber following precipitation events. A laboratory leachate study of
synthetic turf field material was conducted by the Norwegian Building Research Institute, in
which deionized water was mixed with crumb rubber for 24 hours and tested (NBRI 2004).
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 4 June 7, 2010
ParameterAcute Chronic Acute Chronic Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range MeanReferenceEPA 2009Number of Locations--- --- --- --- ---Number of Samples--- --- --- --- ---Sample Period--- --- --- --- ---Conventional ParametersTotal suspended solids (mg/L)--- --- --- --- --- 2 - 46 9.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.3 - 2.9 2.4pH--- 6.5 - 8.5 --- 6.5 - 9.0 ------ --- 6.37 - 7.29 6.55 --- --- 7.30 - 7.85 7.48 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.5 - 11.4 7.8Total hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)--- --- --- --- ------ ---66 - 11285.7 --- 346 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Table 1. Comparison of synthetic turf field study data to water quality criteria.NorwayConneticutInfill Leachate SamplesConneticutGroundwater SamplesNew YorkWashington Freshwater CriteriaaEPA Freshwater Criteriab Seattle (Magnuson)EPA Human Health for Fish Consump-tioncEcology 2006 EPA 2009Redmond, WANew YorkdNew YorkdMilone/MacBroom 2008 NBRI 2004Talasaea 2003432334/20093810/2007 - 7/2008NYSDEC 2009Milone/MacBroom 200820083610/2007 - 10/2008NYSDEC 2009NA6NA2008431Stormwater Drainage SamplesSheffer 20101412/2009 - 3/201012/2002 - 2/2003110NYSDEC 2010(g3)66 112Total phosphorus (µg/L)--- --- --- 19.5 19.5 54 - 82 62 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Fecal coliform bacteria (CFU/100 mL) 10050e--- --- --- < 1 - 113e--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Metals (ug/L)Arsenic, total360 (d) 190 (d) 340 (d) 150 (d) 0.14 < 50 < 50 --- --- SE= ±1.714.8 --- --- --- --- < 10 < 10< 4 < 4--- ---Cadmium, total3.7 (d) 1.0 (d) 2.0 (d) 0.25 (d) ------ --- --- --- < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 --- --- < 5 < 5< 1 - < 5 < 4--- ---Chromium, total549 (d) 178 (d) 570 (d) 74 (d) ------ --- --- --- < 10 < 10 --- --- --- --- < 10 < 10< 50 < 50< 2 < 2Copper, total17 (d) 11.4 (d) 13 (d) 9 (d) 1,300 5 - 14 9.8 < 6< 6< 20 < 20 --- --- --- --- SE= ±121 296< 4 < 4--- ---Lead, total64.6 (d) 2.5 (d) 65 (d) 2.5 (d) --- < 20 < 20 --- --- SE= ±2.7 12.9 < 1 < 1 --- --- SE= ±1.2 12.84 - < 13 < 6--- ---Mercury, total2.1 0.012 1.4 0.77 ------ --- --- --- < 0.2 < 0.2 --- --- --- --- < 0.2 < 0.2< 2 < 2--- ---Nickel, total1415 (d) 157 (d) 470 (d) 52 (d) 4,600 --- --- --- --- < 40 < 40 --- --- --- --- < 40 < 40< 5 < 5--- ---Selenium, total20 5.0---5.0 (d) ------ --- --- --- < 10 < 10 < 2 - < 10 < 3 --- --- < 10 < 10< 2 - <10 < 7--- ---Silver, total3.4 (d) --- 3.2 (d)---4,200 --- --- --- --- < 10 < 10 --- --- --- --- < 10 < 10< 20 < 20--- ---Zinc, total114 (d) 104.5 (d) 120 (d) 120 (d) 26,000 < 10 < 10< 6 - 19 11.3SE= ±2.7 25.1 < 2 - 36 18.4 --- --- SE= ±419 1,947910 - 4,700 2,10280 - 2290 1,510Aromatic Hydrocarbons (ug/L)LPAHs2-Methylnaphthalene--------- ------ < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.42 < 0.42 --- --- --- ---ypAcenaphthene--- ------ ---990 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.38 < 0.38 < 10 < 10 --- ---0.02 - 0.03 0.03Acenaphthylene--- ------ ------ < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.72 < 0.72 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 - 0.27 0.14Anthracene--- ------ ---40,000 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.5 < 0.5 < 10 < 10 --- ---0.03 0.03Fluorene--- ------ ---5,300 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.55 < 0.55 < 10 < 10 --- ---0.04 0.04Naphthalene--- ------ ------ < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.49 < 0.49 SE= ±0.2 1.4 --- ---< 0.01 - 0.15 0.08Phenanthrene--- ------ ------ < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.31 < 0.31 < 10 < 10 --- ---0.16 - 0.17 0.17HPAHsBenzo(a)anthracene--- ------ ---0.018 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.24 < 0.24 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(b)fluoranthene--- ------ ---0.018 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.36 < 0.36 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(k)fluoranthene--- ------ ---0.018 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.33 < 0.33 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(g,h,i)perylene--- ------ ------ < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.3 < 0.3 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(a)pyrene--- ------ ---0.018 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.5 < 0.5 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Chrysene--- ------ ---0.018 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.6 < 0.6 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Dibenz(a,h)anthracene--- ------ ---0.018 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.32 < 0.32 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Fluoranthene--- ------ ---140 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.44 < 0.44 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene--- ------ ---0.018 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.44 < 0.44 < 10 < 10 --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Pyrene--- ------ ---4,000 < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.44 < 0.44 < 10 < 10 --- ---0.12 - 0.13 0.13Phth l t ( /L)Phthalates (ug/L)Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate--- ------ ---2.2 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.27 < 0.27 SE= ±0.2 1.6 --- --- --- ---Butylbenzylphthalate--- ------ ---1,900 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.64 < 0.64 < 10 < 11 --- --- --- ---Di-n-butylphthalate--- ------ ---4,500 --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- -- -- -- --- --- --- ---Di-n-octylphthalate--- ------ --------- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- -- -- -- --- ---2.9 - 4.4 3.7Diethylphthalate--- ------ ---44,000 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.55 < 0.55 SE= ±0.2 1.7 --- ---6.6 - 8.3 7.5Dimethylphthalate--- ------ ---1,100,000 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.7 < 0.7 < 10 < 11 --- ---0.6 - 1.6 1.1Misc. Semivolatile Organics (ug/L)1,2-Dichlorobenzene--- ------ ---1,300 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.86 < 0.86 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---1,3-Dichlorobenzene--- ------ ---960 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.6 < 0.6 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---1,4-Dichlorobenzene--- ------ ---190 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.28 < 0.28 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene --- ------ ---70--- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.62 < 0.62 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---O:\proj\Y2009\09-04418-000\Word Processing\reports\Woodland Park Water Quality Report\tables\09-04418-000 Table 1 Summary of Turf Studies.xlsHerrera Environmental Consultants
ParameterAcute Chronic Acute Chronic Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Table 1 (continued). Comparison of synthetic turf field study data to water quality criteria.NorwayConneticutInfill Leachate SamplesConneticutGroundwater SamplesNew YorkWashington Freshwater CriteriaaEPA Freshwater Criteriab Seattle (Magnuson)EPA Human Health for Fish Consump-tioncRedmond, WANew YorkdNew YorkdStormwater Drainage SamplesMisc. Semivolatile Organics (cont'd)2-Chloronaphthalene--- ------ ---1,600 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.32 < 0.32 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---2-Chlorophenol--- ------ ---150 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.32 < 0.32 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---2-Methylphenol--- ------ --------- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.54 < 0.54 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---2-Nitroaniline--- ------ --------- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 14 < 15 < 50 < 50 --- --- --- ---2-Nitrophenol--- ------ --------- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.76 < 0.76 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---2,2'-Oxybis(1-chloropropane)--- ------ --------- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- -- -- -- --- --- --- ---2,4-Dichlorophenol--- ------ ---290 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.59 < 0.60 < 50 < 50 --- --- --- ---2,4-Dimethylphenol--- ------ ---850 --- --- --- --- < 10 < 10 --- --- < 1.6 < 1.6 SE= ±0.4 2.6 --- --- --- ---5 300f21 21 10 102,4-Dinitrophenol--- --- ------ 5,300 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 21 < 21 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---2,4-Dinitrotoluene--- --- --- --- 3.4 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.68 < 0.68 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---2,4,5-Trichlorophenol--- --------- ------ --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.55 < 0.55 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---2,4,6-Trichlorophenol------------ 2.4 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.43 < 0.43 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---2,6-Dinitrotoluene--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.75 < 0.75 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---3-Nitroaniline--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 9.3 < 9.3 < 50 < 50 --- --- --- ---3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine--- --- --- --- 0.028 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.46 < 0.46 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---4-Chloroaniline--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.63 < 0.63 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---4-Bromophenyl-phenylether--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.67 < 0.67 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---4-Chloro-3-methylphenol------------ ------ --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.72 < 0.72 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- -- -- -- --- --- --- ---4-Methylphenol--- ------ --------- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.78 < 0.79 SE= ±0.3 3.2 --- --- --- ---4-Nitroaniline--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 10 < 11 < 50 < 50 --- --- --- ---4-Nitrophenol--- --------- ------ --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 6.2 < 6.3 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol------------ 280 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.86 < 0.87 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---Benzoic acid--- ------ --------- --- --- --- f --- --- --- -- -- SE= ±5.7 19.8 --- --- --- ---Benzyl alcohol--- ------ --------- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.55 < 0.55 2.8 2.8 --- --- --- ---bis (2 chloroethyl) Ether053f<063 <063<10 <10bis-(2-chloroethyl) Ether--- ------ ---0.53--- --- --- ---f--- --- ---< 0.63< 0.63< 10< 10--- --- --- ---bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane--- ------ --------- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.66 < 0.66 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---Carbazole--- ------ --------- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.42 < 0.42 SE= ±0.1 1.4 --- --- --- ---Dibenzofuran--- ------ ------ < 1 < 1 --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.49 < 0.49 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)--- ------ ---0.00029 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.42 < 0.42 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---Hexachlorobutadiene--- ------ ---18--- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.6 < 0.6 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---Hexachlorocyclopentadiene--- --- --- --- 1,100 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.53 < 0.53 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---Hexachloroethane--- --- --- --- 3.3 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.7 < 0.7 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---Isophorone--- --- --- --- 960 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.56 < 0.56 SE= ±0.3 3.6 --- --- --- ---N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine--- --- --- --- 0.51 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.37 < 0.37 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---N-Nitrosodiphenylamine--- ------ ---6.0 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.47 < 0.47 SE= ±0.3 3.6 --- --- --- ---Nitrobenzene--- ------ ---690 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 0.59 < 0.59 < 10 < 10 --- --- --- ---Pentachlorophenol9.1 5.7 8.7 6.7 3.0 --- --- --- --- f --- --- --- < 16 < 16 < 50 < 50 --- --- --- ---Phenol--- ------ ---860,000 --- --- --- --- < 10 < 10 --- --- < 0.59 < 0.59 SE= ±1.1 12.8 --- --- --- ---Total PCBs (ug/L)--- --- --- --- 0.000064 --- ------ ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---< 0.01 < 0.01Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)--- --------- ------ ------ ---f --- --- --- < 1 < 1 --- --- --- --- --- ---bMetals criteria noted by (d) are for dissoved metals at a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCOand pentachlorophenol criteria are based on a pH of 7 00 (EPA 2009)a Metals criteria noted by (d) are for dissolved metals at a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 using a 1-hour average concentration for comparison to acute criteria and a 4-day average concentration for comparison to chronic criteria. Pentachlorophenol criteria are based on a pH of 7.00 (Ecology 2006; WAC 173-201A).b Metals criteria noted by (d) are for dissoved metals at a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 and pentachlorophenol criteria are based on a pH of 7.00 (EPA 2009).d Mean of detected values only and standard error (SE) of detected values is reported rather than a range for detected parameters.e Geometric mean for fecal coliform bacteriaf Not deteted in one sample collected from same location in 2009.c National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for consumption of aquatic organisms only (EPA 2009).O:\proj\Y2009\09-04418-000\Word Processing\reports\Woodland Park Water Quality Report\tables\09-04418-000 Table 1 Summary of Turf Studies.xlsHerrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Results of six leachate sample tests indicate that some samples contained measureable quantities
of zinc, PAHs, phthalates (plasticizers), and phenols while the majority of the other analytes
were below laboratory detection limits (see Table 1).
Connecticut Synthetic Turf Study
A recent study of synthetic turf fields in Connecticut State included testing of both infill leachate
and stormwater drainage samples (Milone and MacBroom 2008). A total of six infill samples
consisting of crumb rubber and silica sand were collected from three synthetic turf fields, and the
samples were extracted using a synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP) to evaluate
metals concentrations in the leachate. The study found high concentrations of dissolved zinc
(910 to 4,700 µg/L), while all other metals were below detection limits in the leachate samples
(see Table 1).
A total of eight stormwater drainage samples were collected from the three synthetic turf fields
and analyzed for select dissolved metals. Only dissolved zinc was detected in the drainage
samples where concentrations ranged up to a maximum of 36 µg/L, which is two orders of
magnitude less than the maximum concentration (4,700 µg/L) observed in the leachate samples
(see Table 1).
New York Synthetic Turf Study
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) performed a
recent study of synthetic turf fields in 2008 that included testing of infill leachate, shallow
groundwater, and stormwater drainage samples (NYSDEC 2009). A total of 31 crumb rubber
samples were collected from four crumb rubber processing facilities in New York State and
leachate samples were tested using a synthetic precipitation leaching procedure ([SPLP] EPA
SW-846 Method 1312) where the crumb rubber was mixed with water at pH 4.2 to simulate
acid rain conditions. Several metals and organic compounds were detected in all samples, with
concentrations of zinc (mean of 1,947 µg/L) and two semivolatile organic compounds (means of
103 µg/L for aniline and 12.8 µg/L for phenol) that typically exceeded groundwater standards for
New York State. The majority of other semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were below
the laboratory detection limit (NYSDEC 2009, see Table 1).
The NYSDEC also conducted leaching tests of two types of crumb rubber using a laboratory
column procedure designed to more closely mimic ambient conditions at synthetic turf fields.
As expected, results of the 24 column tests showed much lower contaminant concentrations than
the SPLP test results (e.g., mean concentrations of 292 µg/L for zinc 38 µg/L for aniline and
0.7 µg/L for phenol) (NYSDEC 2009).
A total of 32 groundwater samples were collected from two or three wells installed immediately
downgradient of four synthetic turf fields where sandy soil was predominant and the ground
water table ranged from 8 to 70 feet below the surface. The samples were tested for SVOCs and
none of the test results exceeded detection limits, which were typically less than 1 µg/L
(NYSDEC 2009, see Table 1).
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
One stormwater sample was collected in 2008 from a synthetic turf field in New York State
where low concentrations of some metals were detected (e.g., 60 µg/L for zinc), and
concentrations all volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and SVOCs were below laboratory
detection limits (NYSDEC 2009). The NYSDEC collected 10 additional stormwater drainage
samples at the same synthetic turf field during two storm events in April 2009 (NYSDEC
2010). All results for the organic compounds analyzed were below laboratory detection limits
(see Table 1). Total arsenic, lead, and zinc were detected at low concentrations (i.e., mean
concentration of 15 µg/L for arsenic, 13 µg/L for lead, and 25 µg/L for zinc) that did not exceed
surface water standards. The NYSDEC terminated the stormwater sampling program because of
the low concentrations observed (L. Lim, personal communication, March 18, 2010).
Redmond Synthetic Turf Study
Talasaea Consultants (2003) conducted limited stormwater sampling for King County at two
synthetic turf fields located in Redmond, Washington (Talasaea 2003). One grab sample was
collected at Grass Lawn Park and two grab samples were collected at Field #3 at the Microsoft
Campus. The samples were analyzed for copper, zinc, and the Microtox toxicity test using the
marine bacterium Vibrio fisheri. Zinc was detected in two of the samples at low concentrations
(9 and 19 µg/L) and copper was not detected in any of the samples at a detection limit of 6 µg/L
(see Table 1). Microtox tests showed no effect on test organisms for any of the samples
(Talasaea 2003).
Magnuson Park Synthetic Turf Study
Seattle Parks and Recreation recently initiated a long-term study of constructed wetlands in
Warren G. Magnuson Park located on Sand Point Way NE in northeast Seattle. Monthly grab
sampling of drainage water at wetland and upgradient stations began in November 2009
(A. Sheffer, personal communication, April 2010). Laboratory reports were compiled for four
samples collected from one station (station 4b) that includes drainage only from one synthetic
turf field (Field #7) constructed in 2008. The samples were analyzed for select conventional
parameters, metals, and PAHs (see Table 1).
Low concentrations were observed for total suspended solids (2 to 46 mg/L), total phosphorus
(54 to 82 µg/L), and fecal coliform bacteria (<1 to 11 CFU/100 mL). Total copper concentrations
ranged from 5 to 14 µg/L and other metals were not detected in the samples (i.e., arsenic
<50 µg/L, lead <20 µg/L, and zinc <10 µg/L). PAHs were not detected in any of the samples at a
detection limit of 1 µg/L (A. Sheffer, personal communication, April 2010) (see Table 1).
EPA Synthetic Turf Study
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2009) recently conducted a study of potential
human health effects of synthetic turf fields. Air, surface wipe, crumb rubber infill, and turf
blade samples were collected from six synthetic turf fields located in three geographic locations
of the U.S. during the summer and fall of 2008. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in the air samples were extremely low and typical of ambient air concentrations.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 10 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Average concentrations of metals in the various materials tested were below levels of concern
(EPA 2009). For example, total extractable lead concentrations ranged from 11 to 61 mg/kg in
the crumb rubber samples and from 2.4 to 700 mg/kg in the turf blade samples. Only one turf
blade sample exceeded the EPA standard for lead in soil (400 mg/kg). Total extractable lead
concentrations in the surface wipe samples were less than 2 µg/ft2, well below the EPA standard
for lead in residential floor dust (40 µg/ft2). The study did not include analysis of leachate or
stormwater samples.
Woodland Park Stormwater Study
Herrera (2005) conducted a stormwater quality monitoring study of Woodland Park that included
runoff from Playfields #2 and #7 when they were sand playing surfaces. Grab samples were
collected from five stations (Stations 1 through 5) on two occasions during three storm events in
November and December 2004. Station locations and drainage basin boundaries are shown in
Figure 2. Stations 1 through 3 were located in the south basin of the park with Station 1 (South
Outfall) representing the outfall to Green Lake from the entire south basin. Station 3 conveyed
stormwater runoff from portions of Playfields #1 and #2, while Station 2 (located downstream
of Station 3) also conveyed stormwater from Playfield #7 and portions of the tennis courts and
softball fields (Playfields #3, #4, #5, and #6). Stations 4 and 5 were located in the north subbasin
of the park with Station 4 representing the outfall to Green Lake from the north basin. Station 5
conveyed stormwater from the wooded areas to the west, the off-leash dog park, a portion of
West Green Lake Way North, and the tennis courts.
Median concentrations of the measured parameters are presented for each station in Table 2.
All stations exhibited relatively high concentrations of total phosphorus (200 to 714 µg/L) and
dissolved phosphorus (71 to 783 µg/L), while the lowest concentrations were observed at
Station 3. In addition, stormwater samples from all stations greatly exceeded the Washington
State fecal coliform bacteria criterion (i.e., geometric mean of 50 CFU/100 mL). The high
phosphorus and bacteria concentrations were attributed, in part, to leachate from a large wood
chip pile, which primarily drained to the north basin (Stations 4 and 5, see Figure 2). Seattle
Parks and Recreation removed the wood chip pile in response to the study observations.
Drainage of runoff from the sand Playfield #7 contributed to the elevated contaminant
concentrations observed at the two downstream stations (Stations 1 and 2) in the south basin.
The samples were not tested for metals or organic compounds.
KCM (1995) conducted stormwater monitoring in Woodland Park in 1992-1995 for the
restoration analysis of Green Lake. A total of 11 grab samples were collected from the south
outfall before it was relocated to its current location adjacent to the Aquatheater. The outfall
relocation did not change drainage sources to the south outfall.
Results of the 1992-1995 study are compared to those for the 2004 study in Table 3. The
principal change in stormwater quality observed from 1992-1995 to 2004 was the increase in
phosphorus concentrations, which was likely due to the wood chip pile described above.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Table 2. Median stormwater monitoring results for six grab samples collected in
November and December 2004 from Woodland Park.
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5
Discharge (cfs) 0.47 0.44 0.08 0.21 0.21
Total suspended solids (mg/L) 82 88 23 77 57
Total phosphorus (μg/L) 688 643 200 714 677
Total dissolved phosphorus (μg/L) 186 190 71 421 783
Percent dissolved phosphorus (%) 22 25 35 65 71
Fecal coliform bacteria (CFU/100 mL) a 16,400 21,500 14,200 20,300 20,100
Source: Herrera (2005)
Station locations:
1 = South basin outfall to Green Lake
2 = South basin downstream of Playfield #7
3 = South basin downstream of Playfield #2
4 = North basin outfall to Green Lake
5 = North basin downstream of tennis courts
a Geometric mean for fecal coliform bacteria
Table 3. Comparison of historical stormwater monitoring results for 1992-1995 and 2004
at the Woodland Park South Outfall.
1992-1995 a 2004 b
Median Mean Min. Max. Median Mean Min. Max.
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 103 238 26 1,120 82 136 24 480
Total Phosphorus (µg/L) 502 629 179 1,750 688 1,615 225 5,900
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (µg/L) 32 42 8 90 186 1,310 49 4,920
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (CFU/100 mL) 26,000 16,400 1,000 60,000
a Eleven grab samples (KCM 1995)
b Six grab samples (Herrera 2005); geometric mean for fecal coliform bacteria and arithmetic mean for other parameters
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 12 June 7, 2010
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x !?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
Greenlake
Green Lake
4
5
6
3
2
Tennis
Courts
Small Craft
Center
Aquatheater
Off-leash
Dog Park
W. Green Lake Way North E. Green Lake Way NorthWood Chip Pile
Pitch & Putt
Field #7
Softball fields
Field #2
Field #1
#6
#3
#5
#4
6
Aggregate Trench #2
Aggregate Trench #3
Aggregate Trench #4
Glass Trench #5
North Woodland Park Outfall
South Woodland Park Outfall
Sediment Vault
Oil-water separator
Glass Trench #1
3
5
2
1
4
210
220230240
190200 180250 1702602
7
0280
290300310280220290
230
250 190210210210220
180180220270
2
2
0
2401801
9
0 2002502202
5
0290 !?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x !?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
!?x
Greenlake
Green Lake
4
5
6
3
2
Tennis
Courts
Small Craft
Center
Aquatheater
Off-leash
Dog Park
W. Green Lake Way North E. Green Lake Way NorthWood Chip Pile
Pitch & Putt
Field #7
Softball fields
Field #2
Field #1
#6
#3
#5
#4
6
Aggregate Trench #2
Aggregate Trench #3
Aggregate Trench #4
Glass Trench #5
North Woodland Park Outfall
South Woodland Park Outfall
Sediment Vault
Oil-water separator
Glass Trench #1
3
5
2
1
4
210
220230240
190200 180250 1702602
7
0280
290300310280220290
230
250 190210210210220
180180220270
2
2
0
2401801
9
0 2002502202
5
0290
0 250 500125
FeetK:\Projects\03-02489-002\Greenlake closeup2.mxd (9/13/2005) JAS Aerial photo: Seattle (1999)
10
Figure 2. Stormwater drainage features and historical sampling locations in the Woodland Park basin of Green Lake (Herrera 2005).
1 Stormwater monitoring Station 1
Legend
Manhole
Manhole/catch basin
Ten-foot contour elevation
x
South Outfall subbasin boundary.
Number indicates specified
stormwater monitoring station for
subbasin.
North Outfall subbasin boundary.
Number indicates specified
stormwater monitoring station for
subbasin.
North Woodland Park outfall
stormwater pipe
South Woodland Park outfall
stormwater pipe
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Monitoring Methods
Seattle Parks and Recreation initiated this water quality study of the two synthetic turf fields
recently constructed at Woodland Park to determine if drainage from those fields contains high
concentrations of pollutants associated with the synthetic turf and, thus, potentially impact
environmental health. Woodland Park is an optimal location for this study because it drains to
Green Lake, which is one of the most important water resources in the City of Seattle. Drainage
from other synthetic turf fields (e.g., Georgetown and Miller playfields) typically drains to the
combined sewer system.
Monitoring methods generally followed those specified in the QAPP (Herrera 2009). This
section summarizes the sampling design, locations, and procedures, and the data quality
objectives and procedures. Deviations from those methods specified in the QAPP are described.
Major deviations from the QAPP methods include:
No samples were collected at Playfield #2 due to the absence of surface
drainage from this playfield located on sandy soils
A background station (station P7S) representing drainage from adjacent
cinder and grass surfaces was relocated to a downstream location
(station P7SD) during base flow sampling due to the absence of base flow
at the original location
Collection and analysis of one wood sample from light poles to assess
potential sources of pentachlorophenol observed in drainage samples
Sampling Design
As described in the QAPP (Herrera 2009), water samples were to be collected at four locations
in Woodland Park representing drainage from two synthetic turf fields (Playfield #2 and #7),
one background groundwater station located in a catch basin upgradient of Playfield #7, and
one background stormwater station located in the south outfall drainage line upstream of
Playfield #7. The specific locations of each station are presented in Figure 3 and described
below.
Samples were to be collected at these four locations during four storm flow events and three
base flow events (i.e., no rainfall for at least 2 days), for a total of seven sampling events from
November 2009 through February 2010. Two grab samples were to be collected from each
station during each storm event and one grab sample was to be collected from each station during
each base flow event. Thus, up to eight storm flow samples and up to three base flow samples
were to be collected at each station. In addition, three field blanks and three field duplicate
samples were to be collected throughout the study for quality control. The sampling design is
compared to the actual number of samples collected in Table 4.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Table 4. Comparison of the sampling design to the actual sampling conducted for the
Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Study.
Station/QC Sample
Sampling Design in QAPP Actual Sampling Conducted
Number of
Events
Number of
Samples/
Event
Total
Number of
Samples
Number of
Events
Number of
Samples/
Event
Total
Number of
Samples
Base Flow
P2 3 1300 0
P7E 3 1331 3
P7S 3 1300 0
P7SD NA NA NA3 1 3
SD 3 1331 3
Field blank 1 1111 1
Field duplicate 1 1 1 1 1 1
Storm Flow
P2 4 2800 0
P7E 4 2842 8
P7S 4 2842 8
P7SD NA NA NA0 0 0
SD 4 2842 8
Field blank 2 1221 2
Field duplicate 2 1 2 2 1 2
Total Number of Samples: 50 39
Water samples were collected during four storm flow events and three base flow events from
November 2009 through January 2010. No samples were collected at station P2S (Playfield #2)
due to the lack of drainage from the field during all storm flow and base flow sampling events
(see below in Monitoring Locations). Samples were collected at the remaining stations as
planned with one exception. Base flow samples were not collected from station P7S (background
groundwater) due to a lack of flow. Alternatively, base flow samples representing background
groundwater were collected at a location (station P7SD) immediately downstream of station P7S
(see below in Monitoring Locations). This resulted in the collection of 39 water samples
compared to the total of 50 samples specified in the QAPP (see Table 4).
One composite wood sample was collected from three light poles located adjacent to the running
track on the south side of Playfield #7 (see Figure 3). This sample was not specified in the
QAPP, but was added to the sample design to assess potential sources of pentachlorophenol
(wood preservative) present in the collected water samples.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 16 June 7, 2010
TennisCourts
Small CraftCenter
Aquatheater
Off-leashDog Park W. Green Lake Way North E. Green Lake Way NorthPitch & Putt
Playfield #7
Softball fields
Playfield #2
Playfield #1
#6
#3
#5 #4
SouthOutfall
P7S
P7E
P2S
SD
P7SD
Green Lake
2102
2
0
2
3
0
240
200190250
180
260170
27026
0 22021021022018026024021019025
0
2
2
0180 220230250
2302
4
0
210220250
TennisCourts
Small CraftCenter
Aquatheater
Off-leashDog Park W. Green Lake Way North E. Green Lake Way NorthPitch & Putt
Playfield #7
Softball fields
Playfield #2
Playfield #1
#6
#3
#5 #4
SouthOutfall
P7S
P7E
P2S
SD
P7SD
Green Lake
2102
2
0
2
3
0
240
200190250
180
260170
27026
0 22021021022018026024021019025
0
2
2
0180 220230250
2302
4
0
210220250
0 200 400100
FeetK:\Projects\09-04418-000\Project\green_lake_basins_11x17.mxdAerial photo: Seattle (1999)
Figure 3. Stormwater drainage features and sampling locations for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.
Legend
Wood light pole
sampling location
Manhole/intlet
Stormwater monitoring station
Manhole
Woodland Park south
outfall stormwater pipe
Slotted drain pipe
Station SD subbasin boundary
Ten-foot contour elevation10
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Monitoring Locations
Monitoring stations were established at five locations in Woodland Park that are described
below and shown in Figure 3. A series of 4-inch slotted pipes were placed below each playfield
to provide drainage for the fields. Both of the synthetic turf playfield monitoring stations
(stations P2S and P7E) were located in catch basins at the terminus of a series of slotted drainage
pipes located beneath each playfield.
Two background stormwater drainage stations were also selected for this study. Station P7S was
located in a catch basin that receives stormwater drainage from a French drain located upgradient
of Playfield #7 and was used only during storm flow sampling events. An additional station
(station P7SD) was added to the study because no discharge was observed at station P7S during
base flow conditions. Station P7SD was located immediately downstream of station P7S in the
station P7E catch basin at the terminus of a 6-inch solid pipe that collects shallow groundwater
drainage from the P7S catch basin sump. The other background stormwater drainage station
(station SD) was located in the south outfall drainage pipe immediately upstream of inflow from
Playfield #7. Drainage plans for the two synthetic turf fields are presented in Appendix A.
Station P2S – Playfield #2 Drainage
Station P2S was established at a catch basin located at the northwest corner of Playfield #2 (see
Figures 3 and 4). The catch basin is located at the terminus (outfall) of two drainage pipes that
collect drainage from a network of 4-inch slotted pipes (underdrains) located under Playfield #2
(see Playfield #2 plan details in Appendix A). Station P2S was located at the outfall of a 6-inch
solid pipe that enters the catch basin from the south and collects drainage from a series of 4-inch
slotted pipes (underdrains) oriented in an east-west direction under Playfield #2.
No samples were collected at this location due to a lack of drainage from the underdrain system.
No drainage was observed from Playfield #2; it is located on top of a large deposit of sand,
which likely allowed stormwater to infiltrate into the ground before the underdrains could
intercept the drainage (T. Holden, personal communication, November 18, 2009). The elevation
of Playfield #2 (194 feet mean sea level [MSL]) is located approximately 17 feet higher than
Playfield #7 (elevation 177 feet MSL). Playfield #2 is located above Playfield #7 and is located
below the original shoreline of Green Lake before the lake level was lowered in the early 1900s.
Station P7E – Playfield #7 Drainage
Station P7E was established at a catch basin located at the northwest corner of Playfield #7 (see
Figures 3 and 4). The catch basin is located at the terminus (outfall) of two drainage pipes.
Station P7E was located at the outfall of a 4-inch slotted pipe that enters the catch basin from the
east and collects field drainage from a series of 4-inch slotted pipes (underdrains) oriented in
north-south direction under Playfield #7 (see Playfield #7 plan details in Appendix A). The
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 19 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Figure 4. Synthetic turf fields at Playfield #2 (above) and Playfield #7 (below) in
Woodland Park, Seattle, Washington.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 20 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
drainage area for station P7E includes the entire 0.027 acres (1,170 square feet) of playfield
surface.
Grab samples were collected from the mouth of the 4-inch inlet pipe before it drains to the sump
of the catch basin. Station P7E discharge rates were measured or estimated in the 4-inch slotted
pipe immediately before it emptied into the catch basin.
Station P7S – Background Cinder/Grass Drainage (Storm Flow)
Station P7S was established at a catch basin located at the southwest corner of Playfield #7 and
immediately upstream of the 6-inch solid pipe that flows into the station P7E catch basin (see
Figure 3). Flow into the P7S catch basin primarily comes from a 4-inch slotted pipe (French
drain) that extends east from the P7S catch basin along the south side of the cinder running track
located immediately south of Playfield #7 (see Playfield #7 plan details in Appendix A and
Figure 5). An additional 4-inch drain enters the catch basin from the west that contributes minor
amounts of ground water to this catch basin. Outflow from the P7S catch basin flows into the
solid 6-inch pipe that drains to the catch basin containing stations P7SD and P7E.
The French drain constructed along the south side of Playfield #7 collects surface stormwater
runoff from the cinder running track and the grass field immediately adjacent to the French drain.
The French drain was installed during construction of Playfield #7 at the base of a trench with
dimensions of 2 feet wide by 3.5 feet deep, and was backfilled with 1.5-inch aggregate.
Between December 28 and 31, 2009, the French drain was extended approximately 60 feet west
of the P7S catch basin in response to drainage problems observed in that area of the running
track (T. Holden, personal communication, January 8, 2010) (see Figure 5). Drainage from this
new section of the French drain was tied into the existing 4-inch French drain that drains into the
east side of the P7S catch basin.
Grab samples were collected from the mouth of the 4-inch slotted pipe where it drains into the
sump of the P7S catch basin from the east. Station P7S discharge rates were measured in the
4-inch slotted pipe immediately before it empties into the catch basin.
Station P7SD – Background Cinder/Grass Drainage (Base Flow)
Station P7SD was established at the station P7E catch basin located at the northwest corner of
Playfield #7 (see Playfield #7 plan details in Appendix A and Figure 3). Shallow groundwater is
collected by the catch basin sump at station P7S and is conveyed through a solid 6-inch pipe to a
catch basin located in the northwest corner of Playfield #7 (where station P7E is also located).
Station P7SD was not included in the QAPP (Herrera 2009) and was added to the study after no
flow was observed from the French drain at station P7S during base flow conditions.
Grab samples were collected from the mouth of the 6-inch solid pipe that extends along the west
side of Playfield #7 and enters the P7E catch basin from the south. Station P7SD discharge rates
were measured in the 6-inch solid pipe immediately before it empties into the catch basin.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 21 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Figure 5. French drain east of station P7S (above) and new portion of French drain
constructed in December 2009 (below) during Storm 4 on January 15, 2010.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 22 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Station SD – Background Storm Drain Drainage
Station SD was established at maintenance hole 162 (MH 162), which contains an 8-inch
stormwater drainage line that ultimately discharges to the south outfall in Green Lake, via a
stormwater vault located north of West Green Lake Way North (see Figure 3). The 8-inch
drainage line enters MH 162 from the southwest and exits to the northeast. Drainage from
stations P7E and P7S enters MH 162 from the east at the same elevation as the 8-inch drainage
line from the south. There is no sump in MH 162.Station SD collects stormwater runoff from the
majority of the basin draining to the South Woodland Park Outfall (South Outfall). Areas
draining to station SD include the forested area located immediately west of Playfield #2,
Playfields #1 through #6, the asphalt roadway located west of Playfields #1 and #2, the
skateboard park located immediately northwest of Playfield #2, and overflow from a drain that
collects runoff from the tennis courts and adjacent parking lots (see Figure 3). Additional areas
draining to the South Woodland Park Outfall below station SD include Playfield #7, a small area
draining the running track and grassy area north of Playfield #7, and a small portion of the
parking lot located adjacent to the Aquatheater (see Figure 2). The drainage area for station SD is
approximately 29.0 acres.
Grab samples were collected from the center of the 8-inch stormwater drainage line at the
upstream (southwest) side of MH 162, excluding inflow from stations P7E and P7SD. Station SD
discharge rates were measured in the 8-inch drainage line immediately before it entered MH 162.
Sampling Procedures
Water sampling procedures consisted of two rounds of grab samples during four storm flow
events and one round of grab samples during three base flow events. During each storm flow
monitoring event, a minimum of 0.25 inches of precipitation in a 24-hour period was targeted as
an acceptable storm event. Real-time Doppler radar images and precipitation gauges showing the
distribution of rainfall in the watershed and the surrounding region were tracked via the internet
prior to storm sampling. Base flow events were conducted following at least 2 days of dry
weather.
Prior to sample collection, the field technician donned two new sets of disposable gloves (i.e.,
clean, nontalc gloves made of polyethylene) for each sequence of clean or dirty hands operations
that is required for proper implementation of the clean technique protocol. All sample bottles
were immediately stored in a cooler with sufficient ice to maintain the temperature between
2 and 6°C.
A sample extension device was used to directly fill sample at stations P7E, P7S, and P7SD. At
station SD, the filed technician entered the man hole and bottles were directly filled following
the clean hands protocol described in the QAPP during storm flow events. However, due to low
water levels in the 8-inch storm drain during base flow conditions, a pre-cleaned stainless steel
pitcher was used to collect sample water, which was then immediately transferred to the sample
bottles. The pitcher was decontaminated in accordance with the QAPP procedures, wrapped in
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 23 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 24 June 7, 2010
heavy-duty aluminum foil prior to use, and triple-rinsed with sample water immediately prior to
sample collection.
All dissolved metals and dissolved phosphorus samples were filtered by the laboratory (Aquatic
Research, Inc.) immediately after sample collection. In cases where the samples were collected at
night and could not be transported to the laboratory on the day of collection, samples were field
filtered using a new 0.45 micron nylon filter and polycarbonate filtration device. A hand vacuum
pump was used to filter sample water through the filtration device, and the filtered water was
poured into the dissolved metals and phosphorus sample bottles.
One composite wood sample was collected on February 5, 2010 from three light poles located
adjacent to the running track on the south side of Playfield #7 (see Figure 3). Each wood light
pole was sub-sampled at locations of 2, 3, and 4 feet above the ground surface. A 1-inch,
stainless-steel, flat wood bit was drilled approximately 0.5 inches into each location. Sawdust
generated during the drilling was allowed to fall directly into a 16-ounce glass sample container.
The composite wood sample was placed in a cooler with ice and transported immediately to the
laboratory (Aquatic Research, Inc.) for analysis of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) to
assess potential sources of pentachlorophenol (wood preservative) present in previously collected
water samples.
All sample containers were properly labeled prior to the sampling event in accordance with
QAPP procedures. Sample containers and preservation techniques followed guidelines by EPA
(2007).
Measurement Procedures
Analytical methods and reporting limits for all target analytes are shown in Table 5. The samples
were analyzed using EPA-approved methods by Aquatic Research, Inc., which is certified by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for each analytical method. Measurements
of pH and discharge were conducted in the field according to procedures described below.
Sample measurement and equipment calibration data were recorded in a field notebook.
All pH measurements were conducted in the field immediately following collection of each
batch of samples. The pH meter (Hanna Instruments 9023) was calibrated in the field prior to
each sampling event. A two-point calibration was performed to using pH 4 and 7 buffers.
Two methods of discharge measurements were used for this study. Typically, the depth/velocity
method was used where a current meter was used to measure water depth and velocity at the
center of the pipe. The bucket method was used when the depth of flow was too low (e.g., less
than 0.5 inch) for the current meter to function properly. Depending on access and flow rates,
discharge was either collected directly into a calibrated bucket, or into a pitcher and transferred
to a calibrated bucket. The volume of water collected was divided by the collection time to
calculate discharge rate.
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study Table 5. Analytical methods, reporting limits, and quality control limits. Parameter Analytical Method Method Number a Bottle Preservative Maximum Holding Time Target Reporting Limit (RL) Matrix Spike Recovery(%) Blanks Control Sample Recovery(%) Duplicate Precision (RPD)b pH Field meter SM 4500-H+ 125 mL poly None 3 hours None None None None ≤5 Total hardness Titration SM 2340 C 250 mL poly #1None 6 months 2 mg/L 75-125 ≤2 x RL 90-110 ≤20 Total suspended solids Gravimetric, 103°C EPA 160.2 1 L poly Cool to 4°C, dark 7 days 0.50 mg/L NA ≤2 x RL 90-110 ≤20 Total phosphorus Automated ascorbic acid SM 4500-P F 250 mL poly #1Nitric to pH<2, cool to 4°C 28 days 2 µg/L 75-125 ≤2 x RL 90-110 ≤20 Dissolved phosphorus Automated ascorbic acid SM 4500-P F 250 mL poly #1Filter, cool to 4°C 18 hours to filter, 48 hours to analysis 1 µg/L 75-125 ≤2 x RL 90-110 ≤20 Fecal coliform bacteria Membrane filter SM 9222 D 250 mL amber glass None 18 hours 2 CFU/100 mL NA ≤2 x RL NA ≤30 Total copper, lead, and zinc ICP/MS EPA 200.8 250 mL poly #2Nitric to pH<2, cool to 4°C 6 months 1 µg/L 75-125 ≤2 x RL 90-110 ≤20 Dissolved copper, lead, and zinc ICP/MS EPA 200.8 250 mL poly #2Filter, nitric to pH<2, cool to 4°C 18 hours to filter, 6 months to analysis 1 µg/L 75-125 ≤2 x RL 90-110 ≤20 Semivolatile organic compounds GC/MS EPA 8270 1 L amber glassNone 7 days to extraction, 40 days to analysis 0.1 µg /L 50-150 ≤2 x RL 50-150 ≤30 RPD = Relative Percent Difference NA = Not applicable or not available a All methods are approved by EPA. EPA methods are specified by EPA (1983, 1986, 1994, 2007), and SM methods are specified by APHA et al (1995). b The relative percent difference (RPD) of laboratory duplicates will be less than or equal to the percentage shown for values that are greater than 5 times the reporting limit, and ± 2 times the reporting limit for values that are less than or equal to 5 times the reporting limit. jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc June 7, 2010 25 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Data Quality Control Objectives and Procedures
The overall data quality control objective is to ensure that data of known and acceptable quality
are obtained. Data quality control objectives and procedures specified in the QAPP are
summarized in the Quality Assurance Report (Appendix B). Limits for quality control sample
analyses are summarized in Table 5. All field and laboratory data were reviewed in accordance
with the QAPP (Herrera 2009), and results of the data quality review are presented in the Quality
Assurance Report (Appendix B).
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 26 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Monitoring Results
The data quality review results and laboratory data reports are presented in Appendix B.
Monitoring results were entered into a database that is presented in Appendix C. The base flow
and storm flow monitoring results are summarized separately for each station in Tables 6 and 7,
respectively. Pollutant loading rates were calculated for each sample by multiplying the pollutant
concentration by the discharge rate, and those results are summarized in Table 8.
The stormwater monitoring results are compared to applicable state and federal water quality
criteria presented in Table 1. In addition, water quality results are also compared to data
compiled from other synthetic turf studies (see Table 1), and to previous stormwater monitoring
conducted at Woodland Park by Herrera (2005) and KCM (1995) (see Table 2).
The following statistical analyses were performed on the water quality results to determine
significant differences between stations and flow conditions:
Water quality results for the synthetic turf field drainage were compared to
those for the background storm drain (station SD) and background
cinder/grass drainage (stations P7S and P7SD) during base flow and storm
flow conditions using a Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA)
and a nonparametric multiple range test (if differences were detected by
the ANOVA) at a significance level of α = 0.05.
Water quality results for storm flow and base flow conditions at each
station were compared by testing for statistical significant differences
between parameter concentrations using a Mann Whitney U-test at a
significance level of α = 0.05.
Station comparison test results of the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
nonparametric multiple range test for base flow and storm flow are presented in Table 9. Base
flow versus storm flow comparison test results of the Mann-Whitney U-test are presented in
Table 10.
Monitoring results are discussed below in the following order:
Data quality review
Precipitation and discharge
pH
Total hardness
Total suspended solids
Phosphorus
Fecal coliform bacteria
Copper
Lead
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 27 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Storm Drain (SD) l(Table 6. Base flow monitoring results for the Woodland Park Turf Study (3 samples/station) .Turf Playfield (P7E)Cinder/Grass (P7SD)Parame rteMedianMeanaMin.Max.MedianMeanaMin.Max.MedianMeanaMin. Max.Discharge Rate (cfs)0.0020.0023330.0020.0030.0030.0030.0020.0040.070 0.070 0.070 0.070ConventionalspH (unit)6.9376.697.037.036.90 6.647.236.98 6.82 6.55 7.19Hardness (mg CaCO3/L)224219203231145144141145126 126 126 127Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)2.832.83.02.02.21.82.82.5 2.6 2.0 3.3Total Phosphorus (µg/L)293027355354505892 87 73 95Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (µg/L)813822132184361 60 56 62Fecal Coliform Bacteria (CFU/100 mL)22<24<2<2<2<22 2 <2 2MetalsCopper, Total (µg/L)2.32.21.52.81.61.81.22.71.2 1.4 1.2 1.9Copper, Dissolved (µg/L)2.32.32.22.51.11.21.11.31.2 1.2 1.0 1.4Lead, Total (µg/L)<1.0<1.0 <1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 <1.0<1.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Lead, Dissolved (µg/L)<1.0<1.0 <1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 <1.0<1.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Zinc, Total (µg/L)66<56<5<5<56<5<5<5<5Zinc, Dissolved (µg/L)66<56<5<5<5<5<5<5<5<5Semivolatile Organic CompoundsAniline (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.10<0.10<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Phenol(µg/L)Pheno µg/L)<010<0.10<0<0.1010<010<0.10<010<0.10<010<0.100140.<014<010.100210.21<010<010<010<010<0.10<0.10<0.10<0.10Benzyl Alcohol (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.10<0.10<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.102,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.10<0.10<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Pentachlorophenol (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.10<0.100.200.17<0.100.220.21 0.18 <0.10 0.24Di-n-butyl phthalate (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.10<0.10<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Butylbenzyl phthalate (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.10<0.10<0.100.11 <0.100.14<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.10<0.10<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10a Geometric mean for fecal coliform bacteria and arithmetic mean for remaining parameters using the detection limit for undetected values.< = undetected at specified detection limitBold values exceed Washington State or EPA freshwater criteriaCFU = colony forming units09-04418-000 Table 6-7 Storm and base flow summary.xls/Table 6 BaseHerrera Environmental Consultants
ConventMeSeStorm Drain (SD) > = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies presentBold values exceed Washington State and/or EPA freshwater criteriaCFU = colony forming unitsTable 7. Storm flow monitoring results for the Woodland Park Turf Study (8 samples/station) .Turf Playfield (P7E)Cinder/Grass (P7S)ParameterMedianMeanaMin.Max.MedianMeanaMin.Max.MedianMeanaMin. Max.Discharge Rate (cfs)0.0590.0830.0040.1900.0730.1010.0100.2400.330 0.385 0.100 0.770ionalspH (unit)7.026.946.657.357.006.666.217.246.87 6.716.277.04Hardness (mg CaCO3/L)14215092.821185.386.658.011233.5 47.1 22.7 107Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)6.07.42.21530421.611639 32 2.5 61Total Phosphorus (ug/L)3435274718726695660148 181 62 410Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (µg/L)141692681886112738 41 20 85Fecal Coliform Bacteria (CFU/100 mL)15 11 <2 44800 811 240 >4,000 115 10620480talsCopper, Total (µg/L)2.93.52.05.85.66.23.811.33.4 3.5 1.3 6.2Copper, Dissolved (µg/L)2.42.31.42.73.73.52.14.61.1 1.1 <1.0 1.3Lead, Total (µg/L)<1.0<1.0 <1.0<1.01.62.01.04.92.9 2.8 1.0 6.3Lead, Dissolved (µg/L)<1.0<1.0 <1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0 <1.0<1.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Zinc, Total (µg/L)<5<5<56232314341517<538Zinc, Dissolved (µg/L)<5 <5 <5 <5 14 13 7 16 7 8 <5 22mivolatile Organic CompoundsAniline (µg/L)<0.100.31 <0.091.10<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Phenol (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.09<0.10<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Benzyl Alcohol (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.09<0.10<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 0.12 <0.10 0.292,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol (µg/L)<0.10<0.10 <0.09<0.100.460.510.190.96<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Pentachlorophenol (µg/L)<0.100.11 <0.090.169.510.94.420.6<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Di-n-butyl phthalate (µg/L)<0.100.10 <0.090.12<0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Butylbenzyl phthalate (µg/L)<0.10 <0.10 <0.09 <0.10 <0.10 0.13 <0.10 0.36 <0.10 0.15 <0.10 0.53Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (µg/L)<0.10 <0.10 <0.09 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.28 <0.10 1.47a Geometric mean for fecal coliform bacteria and arithmetic mean for remaining parameters using the detection limit for undetected values.< = undetected at specified detection limit09-04418-000 Table 6-7 Storm and base flow summary.xls/Table 7 StormHerrera Environmental Consultants
Stormwater (SD)d)0Table 8. Pollutant loading rates for the Woodland Park Turf Study. Turf Playfield (P7E)Groundwater (P7S/P7SD)aParameterMeanMedianMin.Max.MeanMedianMin.Max.Mean Median Min. Max.Base FlowTotal Suspended Solids (kg/day)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.45 0.43 0.34 0.60Total Phosphorus (g/day)0.180.140.130.260.410.39 0.260.5714.84 15.76 12.50 16.27Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (g/day)0.080.040.040.160.180.06 0.060.4210.22 10.45 9.59 10.62Fecal Coliform Bacteria (billion CFU/day)0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Copper, Total (g/day)0.000.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.25 0.21 0.21 0.33Copper, Dissolved (g/day)0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.21 0.21 0.17 0.24Zinc, Total (g/day)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.860.860.860.86Zinc, Dissolved (g/day)0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Storm FlowTotal Suspended Solids (kg/day)1.821.090.025.8211.535.330.0440.5235.26 41.43 0.81 70.49Total Phosphorus (g/day)7.586.110.2617.4758.0551.292.32144.45174.37 200.44 29.36 371.15Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (g/day)3.602.610.149.5719.0117.301.8338.1730.48 29.46 20.80 48.98Fecal Coliform Bacteria (billion CFU/day)0.040.020.000.143.342.16 0.069.862.42 1.06 0.07 7.87Copper, Total (g/day)0.830.64 0.032.411.441.03 0.093.353.59 3.83 0.32 7.54Copper, Dissolved (g/day)0.470.390.021.040.880.66 0.092.060.99 0.91 0.27 1.88Zinc, Total (g/day)1.020.730.052.325.763.25 0.4216.4416.50 21.80 1.22 26.37ZincDissolved(g/day)Zinc, Dissolve (g/day1021.02070.2720050.052322.323223.22222.020039.398228.2271859612215617.185.961.2215.61a Base flow samples were collected at station P7SD and storm flow samples were collected from station P7SCFU = colony forming units09-04418-000 Table 8 Pollutant loading summary.xls/Table 8 LoadingHerrera Environmental Consultants
0
Table 9. Statistical comparison of pollutant concentrations among stations for the Woodland
Park Turf Study.
Monitoring Stationb
Parameter p-valuea Low Mean Rank High Mean Rank
Base Flow
Total Suspended Solids 0.2761 P7SD SD P7E
Total Phosphorus 0.0273 P7E SD P7SD
So hosluble Reactive P phorus 0.0552 P7E SD P7SD
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 0.3679 P7SD SD P7E
Total Copper 0.3168 SD P7SD P7E
Dissolved Copper 0.0650 P7SD SD P7E
Total Zinc 0.2636 SD P7SD P7E
Dissolved Zinc 0.1017 P7SD SD P7E
Pentachrolo lpheno 0.2246 P7E P7SD SD
Storm Flow
Total Suspended Solids 0.1386 P7E SD P7S
Total Phosphorus 0.0004 P7E SD P7S
So hosluble Reactive P phorus 0.0001 P7E SD P7S
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 0.0007 P7E SD P7S
Total Copper 0.0456 P7E SD P7S
Dissolved CoDissolved Copper 0 0001pper.0001 SDSD P7EP7E P7SP7S
Total Zinc 0.0006 P7E SD P7S
Dissolved Zinc 0.0003 P7E SD P7S
Pentachrolo lpheno 0.0001 P7E SD P7S
a Values in bold indicate significant differences exist between monitoring stations based on a Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA (α = 0.0
b Monitoring stations connected by a single unbroken line are not significantly different based on a nonparametric multiple rang
P7E = Turf Playfield
P7SD = Cinder/Grass
SD = Storm Drain
4418-000 Table 9-10 Statistical Analyses JL 032310.xls/Table 9 Station ANOVA Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table 10. Statistical comparison of pollutant concentrations between base and storm flow
for the Woodland Park Turf Study.
Average Rank Sum
Station/Parameter Base Flow Storm Flow Ua p-valueb
Field Turf Drainage (P7E)
Total Susp olidsended S 0.18 0.82 6.0 0.2788
Total Ph sosphoru 0.21 0.79 8.0 0.4970
Solubl iv se React e Phosphoru 0.41 0.59 3.0 0.0848
Fecal Colif aorm Bacteri 0.15 0.85 4.0 0.1333
Total Copper 0.17 0.83 5.0 0.1939
Dissolved Copper 0.27 0.73 12.0 1.0000
Total Zinc 0.37 0.63 5.5 0.1939
Dissolv inced Z 0.39 0.61 4.0 0.1333
Pentachlorophenol 0.27 0.73 12.0 1.0000
Background Cinder/Grass Drainage (P7S/P7SD)
Total Susp olidsended S 0.14 0.86 3.0 0.0848
Total Ph sosphoru 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Solubl iv se React e Phosphoru 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Total Copper 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Dissolved Copper 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Total Zinc 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Dissolv inced Z 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Pentachlorophenol 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Background Storm Drain Drainage (SD)
To ed stal Suspend Solid 0.12 0.88 2.0 0.0485
Total Ph sosphoru 0.18 0.82 6.0 0.2788
Solubl iv se React e Phosphoru 0.18 0.82 6.0 0.2788
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 0.09 0.91 0.0 0.0121
Total Copper 0.12 0.88 2.0 0.0485
Dissolved Copper 0.34 0.66 7.5 0.3758
Total Zinc 0.11 0.89 1.5 0.0242
Dissolv inced Z 0.14 0.86 3.0 0.0848
Pentachlorophenol 0.39 0.61 4.0 0.1333
a Computed test satatistic from Mann Whitney U-test (α = 0.05).
b Values in bold indicate significant differences exist between base and storm flow concentrations.
09-04418-000 Table 9-10 Statistical Analyses JL 032310.xls/Table 10 Base v Storm U test Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Zinc
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
Wood light pole sample analysis
Data Quality Review Results
A data quality assurance review was conducted for each set of samples submitted to the
laboratory for analysis. Detailed results of the data quality review are presented in Appendix B.
Data quality issues were identified for some quality control elements that resulted in
qualification of data as estimated values (flagged J). No data were rejected and all qualified data
were used in the data analysis. The following sample data were qualified as estimates (flagged J)
for the reasons noted:
The maximum sample holding time for fecal coliform bacteria (18 hours)
was exceeded for the six samples collected during Storm Event 1
(11/26/09) and analyzed 24 hours after sample collection.
The control limit for field duplicate precision, based on relative percent
difference (RPD), was not met for one analysis of total suspended solids
(33 percent RPD versus a 20 percent limit for sample P7E-B1), soluble
reactive phosphorus (22 percent RPD versus a 20 percent limit for sample
P7E-B1), and fecal coliform bacteria (86 percent RPD versus a 30 percent
limit for sample P7E-S2-2).
The lower control limit for laboratory control sample analysis (50 percent
recovery) was not met for one or two semivolatile organic compounds in
samples collected during Base Event 2 (1,4-dichlorobenzene and
n-nitroso-n-propylamine in three samples), Base Event 3 (4-nitrophenol
and 2,4-dinitrotoluene in four samples), and Storm Event 3 (4-nitrophenol
in seven samples).
Precipitation and Discharge
Precipitation data are presented for each monitoring event in Table 11. The base flow events
were preceded by at least 5 days of dry weather. Total rainfall amounts ranged from 0.32 to
1.62 inches for the four storm events, and exceeded 0.5 inches for all events except Storm 2. The
storm flow samples were generally collected during the middle or end of the hydrograph. The
average rainfall intensity during the sampled storm events ranged from 0.07 to 0.31 inches/hour.
Discharge monitoring results are summarized in Table 6 (base flow) and Table 7 (storm flow).
Very low discharge rates were observed during base flow sampling at the Playfield #7 and
cinder/grass drains (less than 0.005 cubic feet per second [cfs] at stations P7E and P7SD), while
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 33 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
a much higher discharge rate was observed during base flow sampling at the storm drain
(0.070 cfs for each base flow event at station SD). These base flow values represent the rate of
groundwater inflow to each of the three sampled drains following at least 5 days of dry winter
weather.
Table 11. Monitoring event precipitation characteristics for the Woodland Park Turf
Study.
Event
Type/No. Sample Date
Antecedent
Dry Period a
(hours)
Event
Duration
(hours)
Rainfall Accumulation at Sampling and for
Event Total (inches)
Event
Rainfall
Intensity
(inches/hr) Sample 1 Sample 2 Event Total
Base 1 12/3/09 135 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Base 2 12/28/09 151 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Base 3 1/22/10 127 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storm 1 11/26/09 44 16 1.58 1.61 1.62 0.31
Storm 2 12/16/09 14 18 0.23 0.31 0.32 0.07
Storm 3 1/15/10 47 18 0.30 0.46 0.80 0.15
Storm 4 12/3/09 10 13 0.44 0.59 0.81 0.22
Source: Precipitation data from Woodland Park Zoo rain gauge #9 (A. Aar, personal communication, March 2, 2010).
a Period before each sampling event in which <0.05 inches of rain fell in less than 6 hours.
Storm flow discharge rates were similar at the Playfield #7 drain (0.059 cfs median and 0.004 to
0.190 cfs range at station P7E) and the cinder/grass drain (median of 0.073 cfs and ranged from
0.010 to 0.240 cfs range at station P7S). Much higher storm event discharge rates were observed
at the storm drain (0.330 cfs median and 0.100 to 0.770 cfs range at station SD). The maximum
discharge rate at all three stations was observed during Storm 4, which produced 0.81 inches in a
13-hour period.
No discharge was observed at either of the two underdrains in the Playfield #2 catch basin
(station P2S) during either base flow or storm flow sampling. The lack of discharge at observed
at Playfield #2 suggests that the field does not drain during moderately large storm events and
may never drain to the stormwater conveyance system due to the pervious sandy soils underlying
the synthetic turf field.
pH
The pH was neutral and similar between stations during base flow monitoring, with the median
pH ranging from 6.93 at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) to 7.03 at the cinder/grass drain
(station P7SD) (see Table 6). Neutral pH values were also observed during storm flow
monitoring at all stations, with median pH value ranging from 6.87 to 7.02 (see Table 7).
None of the pH results for the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) were outside the freshwater
criteria range of 6.5 to 8.5. The minimum criterion of 6.5 was not met for two storm flow
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 34 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
samples from the cinder/grass drain (station P7S) and for one storm flow sample from the storm
drain (station SD).
The storm flow pH results were higher than the mean pH value (6.55) for turf drainage samples
collected in Redmond, Washington (Talasaea 2003), and lower than the mean pH value (7.48)
for turf drainage samples collected in Connecticut (Milone and MacBroom 2008). Much higher
pH values (7.5 to 11.4) were reported for the leachate study in Norway by NBRI (2004) (see
Table 1).
Hardness
Hardness concentrations were much higher during base flow (Table 6) than during storm flow
(Table 7). Hardness concentrations were much higher at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) than
the two background stations during both flow conditions. The median base flow hardness
concentration was 224 mg CaCO3/L for the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E), compared to
145 mg CaCO3/L for the cinder/grass drain (station P7SD) and 126 mg CaCO3/L for the storm
drain (station SD). The median storm flow hardness concentration was 142 mg CaCO3/L for the
Playfield #7 drain (station P7E), compared to 85 mg CaCO3/L for the cinder/grass drain
(station P7S) and 34 mg CaCO3/L for the storm drain (station SD).
The higher hardness concentrations observed during base flow than storm flow are because
hardness concentrations are higher in groundwater than stormwater due to the leaching of
calcium and magnesium from soils into groundwater. The higher hardness concentrations in
synthetic turf drainage than other park drainage are due to the leaching of calcium and
magnesium from the base material underlying the synthetic turf.
The storm flow hardness concentrations for the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E), which ranged
of 93 to 211 mg CaCO3/L (see Table 7), were much higher than the storm flow hardness
concentrations reported for turf drainage samples collected in Redmond, Washington (Talasaea
2003), which ranged from 66 to 112 mg CaCO3/L (see Table 1). The higher hardness
concentrations observed at Playfield #7 is likely due to the recent construction of this synthetic
turf field, and it is expected that hardness concentrations in the field drainage will decrease over
time.
Total Suspended Solids
The total suspended solids (TSS) results are presented as separate box and whisker plots for base
flow and storm flow in Figure 6. Historical storm flow data for the South Outfall in Woodland
Park (Herrera 2005; KCM 1995) are included in Figure 6 for comparison. No Washington State
or EPA freshwater criteria are available for total suspended solids.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 35 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
1 Base
Storm
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1 Base
Storm
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (CFU/100 ml)Water quality criterion (50 CFU/100 ml) for comparison to geometric mean
Water quality criterion (100 CFU/100 ml) for comparison to 90th percentile
No Data
Line = median; Point = mean for total suspended solids and geometric mean for fecal coliform bacteria; Box = 25th and 75th
percentiles; Whisker = minimum and maximum
Figure 6. Total suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations measured for the
Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Study and compared to historical data.
jr 09-04418-000 figs 6-10 final box plots for wpsts.doc
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
TSS concentrations and were very low (less than 5.0 mg/L) at all stations during base flow
monitoring. During storm flow monitoring, moderately low TSS concentrations were observed at
the Playfield #7 drain (6.0 mg/L median and 2.2 to 15 mg/L range at station P7E). In contrast,
elevated storm flow TSS concentrations were observed at the cinder/grass drain (30 mg/L
median at station P7SD) and the storm drain stations (39 mg/L median at station SD). However,
no statistical significant differences in TSS concentrations were detected between stations during
base or storm flow (see Table 9).
Correspondingly, TSS loading rates were much lower during base flow than storm flow
monitoring (see Table 8). During storm flow, the median TSS loading rate for the Playfield #7
drain (1.1 kg/day at station P7E) was 3 percent of that observed for the storm drain (41.4 kg/day
at station SD).
High storm flow TSS concentrations were observed at the cinder/grass drain (station P7S) after
the French drain was extended west of the P7S catch basin at the end of December 2009. Prior to
the extension of the French drain, TSS concentrations at station P7S ranged from 1.6 to 10 mg/L
during Storm 1 and 2, in contrast to a range of 50 to 116 mg/L during Storm 3 and 4 after the
French drain extension had been constructed. The French drain extension was constructed
differently than the original drain where fill materials consisted of pea gravel for the extension
and crushed rock for the original drain (T. Holden, personal communication, January 8, 2010).
The TSS results suggest that the fill material used for the extension was responsible for the
observed increase in storm flow TSS concentrations at the cinder/grass drain.
TSS concentrations in four samples of synthetic turf drainage recently collected on a monthly
basis at Magnuson Park (11 mg/L mean and 2 to 46 mg/L range; see Table 1) were somewhat
higher than storm flow concentrations observed at Playfield #7 in Woodland Park (6 mg/L mean
and 2 to 15 mg/L range). No TSS data were located for drainage from other synthetic turf fields.
The higher TSS concentrations and older age (approximately 1 year) of the Magnuson Park field
suggests that suspended solids concentrations may not decrease with time at Woodland Park. In
addition, the Norway synthetic turf study reported low TSS concentrations for infill leachate
ranging from 1.3 to 2.9 mg/L (see Table 1). These results suggest that the base material under the
synthetic turf is the primary source of suspended solids in the field drainage.
The storm flow TSS concentrations for the storm drain (39 mg/L median at station SD) are much
lower than historical observations at the south outfall in 2004 (82 mg/L median) and 1992-1995
(103 mg/L median) (see Figure 6 and Tables 3 and 4). The high historical TSS concentrations
were likely caused by the export of suspended solids from the sand playfields based on visual
observations of high suspended solids concentrations in field runoff and high accumulations of
sediment in the sediment vault located downstream of Playfield #7. This comparison suggests
that TSS concentrations in drainage from Woodland Park have substantially decreased due to the
conversion of the field surface from sand to synthetic turf.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 37 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Phosphorus
The total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) results are presented as separate
box and whisker plots for base flow and storm flow in Figure 7. Historical storm flow data for
the South Outfall in Woodland Park (Herrera 2005; KCM 1995) are included in Figure 7 for
comparison. No Washington State or EPA freshwater criteria are available for total suspended
solids.
Total phosphorus concentrations were lowest at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) during base
flow (29 µg/L median) and storm flow (32 µg/L median). Higher median total phosphorus
concentrations were observed at the background stations during base flow (53 µg/L at
station P7SD and 92 µg/L at station SD) and storm flow (187 µg/L at station P7S and 148 µg/L
at station SD). Total phosphorus concentrations the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) were
significantly lower (p = 0.0273) than station P7SD during base flow, and were significantly
lower (p = 0.0001) than both background stations during storm flow (see Table 9).
Similarly, SRP concentrations were lowest at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) during base
flow (8 µg/L median) and storm flow (14 µg/L median). Higher median SRP concentrations
were observed at the background stations during base flow (13 µg/L at station P7SD and 61 µg/L
at station SD) and storm flow (81 µg/L at station P7S and 38 µg/L at station SD). No significant
differences in SRP concentrations were observed between stations during base flow, while the
storm flow SRP concentrations at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) were significantly lower
(p = 0.0001) than station P7S but not station SD (see Table 9). Significant differences between
base flow and storm flow phosphorus concentrations were only observed at the cinder/grass
drain (p = 0.0121 at station P7S/P7SD, see Table 10).
Total phosphorus concentrations in four samples of synthetic turf drainage recently collected at
Magnuson Park (62 µg/L mean and 54 to 82 µg/L range; see Table 1) were substantially higher
than storm flow concentrations observed at Playfield #7 in Woodland Park (35 µg/L mean and
27 to 47 µg/L range). No phosphorus data were located for drainage from other synthetic turf
fields.
Storm flow total phosphorus concentrations for the storm drain (181 µg/L median at station SD)
are much lower than historical observations at the south outfall in 2004 (688 µg/L median) and
1992-1995 (502 µg/L median) (see Figure 7 and Tables 3 and 4). The storm flow SRP
concentrations for the storm drain (41 µg/L mean at station SD) are much lower than historical
observations at the South Outfall in 2004 (186 µg/L median), but similar to those in 1992-1995
(32 µg/L median) (see Figure 7). The high historical total phosphorus concentrations were likely
caused, in part, by the export of suspended solids from the sand playfields based on visual
observations of suspended solids concentrations in field runoff and high accumulations of
sediment in the vault located downstream of Playfield #7. High SRP concentrations observed in
2004 were primarily due to leachate from a large woodchip pile (see Figure 2) that has since
been removed. This comparison suggests that total phosphorus concentrations in drainage from
Woodland Park have decreased due to the conversion of the field surface from sand to synthetic
turf.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 38 June 7, 2010
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
10
100
1,000
10,000
1 Base
Storm
Total Phosphorus (μg/L)
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
1 Base
Storm
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (μg/L)
Line = median; Point = mean; Box = 25th and 75th percentiles; Whisker = minimum and maximum
Figure 7. Total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured for the
Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Study and compared to historical data.
jr 09-04418-000 figs 6-10 final box plots for wpsts.doc
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The fecal coliform bacteria results are presented as separate for box and whisker plots for base
flow and storm flow in Figure 6. Historical storm flow data for the South Outfall in Woodland
Park (Herrera 2005) are included in Figure 6 for comparison. Washington State freshwater
criteria (i.e., geometric mean less than 50 colony forming units [CFU]/100 mL and 90th
percentile less than 100 CFU/100 mL for the extraordinary primary contact recreation category
that applies to all lakes and their tributaries) are also included in Figure 6 for comparison.
Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were low at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) during
base flow (2 CFU/100 mL geometric mean) and storm flow (11 CFU/100 mL geometric mean).
None of the samples collected from the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) exceeded Washington
State surface water quality criteria for fecal coliform bacteria.
Similar fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were observed at the background stations during
base flow (i.e., ≤2 CFU/100 mL geometric mean at stations P7SD and SD). However, the
background stations exhibited much higher geometric mean concentrations during storm flow
(811 CFU/100 mL at station P7S and 106 CFU/100 mL at station SD). All of the storm flow
samples collected from the cinder/grass drain (station P7S) exceeded the Washington State water
quality criterion for the 90th percentile (100 CFU/100 mL). Fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) were significantly lower (p = 0.0007) than
station P7S during storm flow (see Table 9). In addition, four of the eight storm flow samples
collected from the storm drain (station SD) also exceeded the Washington State water quality for
the 90th percentile (100 CFU/100 mL).
Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in storm flow samples collected at the cinder/grass drain
(station P7S) significantly increased following extension of the French drain to the west of the
P7S catch basin at the end of December 2009. Prior to the extension of the French drain, fecal
coliform bacteria concentrations at station P7S ranged from 240 to 360 CFU/100 mL during
Storms 1 and 2, in contrast to a range of 1,260 to >4,000 CFU/100 mL during Storms 3 and 4
after the French drain extension had been constructed. As noted above for total suspended solids,
the French drain extension was constructed differently than the original drain where fill materials
consisted of pea gravel for the extension and crushed rock for the original drain (T. Holden,
personal communication, January 8, 2010). The observed increase in total suspended solids and
fecal coliform bacteria concentrations suggest that the pea gravel used for the extension allowed
more infiltration of sediment and bacteria through the pea gravel than the crushed rock fill
material, and that the drain extension was primarily responsible for the observed increase in total
suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations during storm flow at the cinder/grass
drain. Seagulls were frequently observed on the grass near the French drain and were likely a
major source of the high fecal coliform bacteria concentrations observed at station P7S.
Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in four samples of synthetic turf drainage recently
collected at Magnuson Park (3 CFU/100 mL geometric mean and <1 to 11 CFU/100 mL range;
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 40 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
see Table 1) were similar to storm flow concentrations observed at Playfield #7 in Woodland
Park. No fecal coliform bacteria data were located for drainage from other synthetic turf fields.
Storm flow fecal coliform bacteria concentrations for the storm drain (106 CFU/100 mL at
station SD) were more than 100 times lower than the South Outfall during the 2004 study
(16,400 CFU/100 mL geometric mean; see Tables 2 and 3). High fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations observed in 2004 were primarily due to leachate from a large woodchip pile (see
Figure 2) that has since been removed. Potential effects of the of the field surface conversion on
fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in park drainage cannot be assessed because historical data
were not collected in 1992-95 prior to placement of the wood chip pile.
Copper
The total and dissolved copper results are presented as separate for box and whisker plots for
base flow and storm flow in Figure 8. No historical storm flow data are available for total or
dissolved copper at the South Outfall in Woodland Park (Herrera 2005; KCM 1995). Surface
water quality standards for Washington State (WAC 173-201A) include acute and chronic
criteria for dissolved copper that are based on hardness. As shown in Figure 8, the freshwater
acute criterion for dissolved copper is 9.2 µg/L based on the flow-weighted average hardness
concentration of 52 mg/L CaCO3 for all storm flow samples and the freshwater chronic criterion
for dissolved copper is 14.2 µg/L based on the flow-weighted average hardness concentration of
130 mg/L CaCO3 for all base flow samples.
Total copper concentrations were low at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) during base flow
(2.3 µg/L median) and storm flow (2.9 µg/L median). Slightly lower median total copper
concentrations were observed at the background stations during base flow (1.6 µg/L at
station P7SD and 1.2 µg/L at station SD). During storm flow, median total copper concentrations
were slightly higher at the background stations (5.6 µg/L at station P7S and 3.4 µg/L at
station SD).
Similarly, low dissolved copper concentrations were observed at the Playfield #7 drain
(station P7E) during base flow (2.3 µg/L median) and storm flow (2.4 µg/L median). Slightly
lower median dissolved copper concentrations were observed at the background stations during
base flow (1.1 µg/L at station P7SD and 1.2 µg/L at station SD). The similar dissolved and total
concentrations observed at each station indicate that very little, if any, particulate copper was
present in all of the base flow samples. During storm flow, the median dissolved copper
concentration was higher at the cinder/grass drain (3.7 µg/L at station P7S) and lower at
station SD (1.1 µg/L) than the Playfield #7 drain (2.9 µg/L at station P7E). None of the dissolved
copper concentrations exceeded acute criteria applied to base flow samples or chronic criteria
applied to storm flow samples.
No significant differences in copper concentrations were observed between stations during base
flow or storm flow with the exception that storm flow dissolved copper concentrations at the
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 41 Herrera Environmental Consultants
jr 09-04418-000 figures 8, 9, 10 revised.doc
Line = median; Point = mean; Box = 25th and 75th percentiles; Whisker = minimum and maximum
Figure 8. Dissolved and total copper concentrations measured for the Woodland Park
Synthetic Turf Study.
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 Base
Storm
Total Copper (μg/L)No DataNo Data
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
1 Base
Storm
Dissolved Copper (μg/L)No DataNo Data
Acute water quality criterion is 9.2 μg/L
based on flow weighted average hardness
concentration of 52 mg/L as CaCO3 from
all storm flow samples.
Chronic water quality criterion is 14.2 μg/L
based on flow weighted average hardness
concentration of 130 mg/L as CaCO3 from
all base flow samples.
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) were significantly lower (p = 0.0001) than both background
stations (stations P7S and SD) (see Table 9). Significant differences between base flow and
storm flow dissolved copper concentrations were only observed at the cinder/grass drain
(p = 0.0121 at station P7S/P7SD; see Table 10). Significant differences between base flow
and storm flow total copper concentrations were observed at both background stations but not
at the Playfield #7 drain.
Total copper concentrations in four samples of synthetic turf drainage recently collected at
Magnuson Park (9.8 µg/L mean and 5 to 14 µg/L range; see Table 1) were slightly higher than
storm flow concentrations observed at Playfield #7 in Woodland Park (2.4 µg/L mean and 1.4 to
2.7 µg/L range). Low total copper concentrations were observed in synthetic turf drainage at
Redmond, Washington (<6 µg/L mean; see Table 1) and New York City (<20 µg/L; see
Table 1). In addition, the Connecticut synthetic turf study reported low total copper
concentrations for infill leachate (<4 µg/L mean; see Table 1). In contrast, New York City
(NYCDEC 2009) reported much higher total copper concentrations (296 µg/L mean, see
Table 1) in leachate from crumb rubber extracted for 24 hours at a pH of 4.2 using the synthetic
precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP). The acidic conditions and extended extraction period
used as part of the SPLP likely contributed to the elevated total copper concentrations observed
during the study.
Lead
Total and dissolved lead were not detected at a detection limit of 1 µg/L in any of the samples
collected from the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) during either base or storm flow sampling
(see Tables 6 and 7). Total and dissolved lead were not detected in any of the base flow samples
collected at the background stations. During storm flow, dissolved lead was not detected in the
background samples, but total lead was detected at low concentrations in the background
samples (1.6 µg/L median at station P7S and 2.9 µg/L median at station SD; see Table 7).
Surface water quality standards for Washington State (WAC 173-201A) include acute and
chronic criteria for dissolved lead that are based on hardness. The detection limit (1 µg/L) is well
below the lowest acute criterion (12.5 µg/L based on the minimum storm flow sample hardness
22.7 mg/L CaCO3) and the lowest chronic criterion (3.2 µg/L based on the minimum base flow
sample hardness 126 mg/L CaCO3).
Total lead was not detected in four samples of synthetic turf drainage recently collected at
Magnuson Park (<20 µg/L mean; see Table 1). A low mean total lead concentration was
observed in synthetic turf drainage at New York City (13 µg/L; see Table 1) and total lead was
not detected in eight samples of synthetic turf drainage collected in Connecticut (<1 µg/L; see
Table 1). In addition, the Connecticut synthetic turf study reported low total lead concentrations
for infill leachate (<6 µg/L mean; see Table 1). In contrast, New York City (NYCDEC 2010)
reported higher total lead concentrations (12.8 µg/L mean, see Table 1) in leachate from crumb
rubber extracted for 24 hours at a pH of 4.2 using the synthetic precipitation leaching procedure
(SPLP). The acidic conditions and extended extraction period used as part of the SPLP likely
contributed to the elevated total lead concentrations observed during the study.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 43 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Zinc
The total and dissolved zinc results are presented as separate for box and whisker plots for base
flow and storm flow in Figure 9. No historical storm flow data are available for total or dissolved
zinc at the South Outfall in Woodland Park (Herrera 2005; KCM 1995). Surface water quality
standards for Washington State (WAC 173-201A) include acute and chronic criteria for
dissolved zinc that are based on hardness. As shown in Figure 8, the freshwater acute criterion
for dissolved zinc is 66.1 µg/L based on the flow-weighted average hardness concentration of
52 mg/L CaCO3 for all storm flow samples and the freshwater chronic criterion for dissolved
zinc is 130.4 µg/L based on the flow-weighted average hardness concentration of 130 mg/L
CaCO3 for all base flow samples.
Total zinc concentrations were below or near the detection limit at the Playfield #7 drain
(station P7E) during base flow (6 µg/L median) and storm flow (<5 µg/L median). At the
background stations, total zinc concentrations also were below or near the detection limit during
base flow (<5 µg/L median at stations P7SD and SD), but increased substantially during storm
flow (23 µg/L median at station P7S and 15 µg/L median at station SD) (see Tables 6 and 7).
Total zinc concentrations at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) were significantly lower than
both background stations during storm flow (p = 0.0006), but not during base flow (p = 0.2636)
(see Table 9). Significant differences between base flow and storm flow total zinc concentrations
were observed at the cinder/grass drain (p = 0.0121 at station P7S/P7SD) and storm drain
(p = 0.0242 at station SD) (see Table 10).
Low dissolved zinc concentrations were also observed at the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E)
during base flow (6 µg/L median) and storm flow (<5 µg/L median). At the background stations,
dissolved zinc concentrations also were below or near the detection limit during base flow
(<5 µg/L median at stations P7SD and SD), but increased during storm flow (14 µg/L median at
station P7S and 7 µg/L median at station SD) (see Tables 5 and 6). No significant differences in
dissolved zinc concentrations were observed between stations during base flow, while the storm
flow dissolved concentrations at the Playfield #7 drain were significantly lower (p = 0.0003) than
the cinder/grass (station P7S) station, but not the storm drain station (see Table 9). Significant
differences between base flow and storm flow dissolved zinc concentrations were only observed
at the cinder/grass drain (p = 0.0121 at station P7S/P7SD) ( see Table 10). None of the dissolved
zinc concentrations exceeded acute criteria applied to base flow samples or chronic criteria
applied to storm flow samples.
Total zinc was not detected in four samples of synthetic turf drainage recently collected at
Magnuson Park (<10 µg/L mean; see Table 1). Low total zinc concentrations were observed in
synthetic turf drainage at Redmond, Washington (11.3 µg/L mean and <6 to 19 µg/L range; see
Table 1) and Connecticut (18.4 µg/L mean and <2 to 36 range; see Table 1). New York City
(NYCDEC 2010) reported a somewhat higher mean total zinc concentration (25.1 µg/L) for
10 synthetic turf drainage samples. Total zinc concentrations were much higher and more
variable in crumb rubber infill leachate samples from studies conducted in New York City
(1,947 µg/L mean), Connecticut (2,102 µg/L mean), and Norway (1,510 µg/L mean) (see
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 44 June 7, 2010
jr 09-04418-000 figures 8, 9, 10 revised.doc
Line = median; Point = mean; Box = 25th and 75th percentiles; Whisker = minimum and maximum
Figure 9. Dissolved and total zinc concentrations measured for the Woodland Park
Synthetic Turf Study.
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 Base
Storm
Total Zinc (μg/L)No DataNo Data
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
1 Base
Storm
Dissolved Zinc (μg/L)No DataNo Data
Acute water quality criterion is 66.1 μg/L
based on flow weighted average hardness
concentration of 52 mg/L as CaCO3 from
all storm flow samples.
Chronic water quality criterion is 130.4 μg/L
based on flow weighted average hardness
concentration of 130 mg/L as CaCO3 from
all base flow samples.
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Table 1). As noted for copper and lead, the acidic conditions and extended extraction period used
for these studies likely contributed to the elevated total zinc concentrations observed.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
The SVOC results for detected compounds are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. All SVOC results
(including non-detected compounds) are presented in the database in Appendix C. The
pentachlorophenol results are presented as separate for box and whisker plots for base flow and
storm flow in Figure 10.
During base flow monitoring, all of the SVOC results for synthetic turf field drainage at the
Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) were below the detection limit (<0.10 µg/L; see Appendix C).
Most SVOCs also were not detected at the background stations (P7SD and SD) during base flow.
Low concentrations of pentachlorophenol were occasionally detected at the storm drain
(0.21 µg/L median at station SD) during base flow. Phenol, pentachlorophenol, and butyl benzyl
phthalate were occasionally detected at low concentrations (ranging from 0.11 to 0.20 µg/L) at
the cinder/grass drain (station P7SD) during base flow monitoring.
During storm flow monitoring, most SVOC concentrations at all three stations were also below
detection limits (<0.10 µg/L; see Appendix C). Three compounds were occasionally detected at
the Playfield #7 drain during storm flow, including aniline in both samples collected during
Storm 4 (1.10 and 0.75 µg/L), pentachlorophenol in one sample collected during Storm 1
(0.16 µg/L), and di-n-butyl phthalate in one sample collected during Storm 4 (0.12 µg/L). Three
compounds were occasionally detected at the storm drain (station SD) during storm flow,
including benzyl alcohol in one sample collected during Storm 4 (0.29 µg/L), butyl benzyl
phthalate on one sample collected during Storm 1 (0.53 µg/L), and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in
one sample collected during Storms 1, 2, and 3 (ranging from 0.10 to 1.47 µg/L). Two
compounds were detected in every storm flow sample collected from the cinder/grass drain
(station P7S), including pentachlorophenol (9.5 µg/L median and 4.4 to 20.6 µg/L range) and
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (0.46 µg/L median and 0.19 to 0.96 µg/L). In addition, butylbenzyl
phthalate was detected in one sample collected from the cinder/grass drain during Storm 2
(0.36 µg/L).
Pentachlorophenol is the only SVOC for which freshwater acute and chronic criteria have been
established by the Washington State surface water quality standards (WAC-173-201A).
Pentachlorophenol criteria increase with pH where the acute criterion is 9.1 µg/L and the chronic
criterion is 5.7 µg/L at a neutral pH of 7.00. The freshwater acute criterion was exceeded at the
cinder/grass drain (station P7S) in both samples collected during Storms 1, 2 and 3.
Pentachlorophenol concentrations for the cinder/grass drain (station P7S) were significantly
higher (p = 0.0001) than concentrations at the other stations during storm flow, but not during
base flow (see Table 9). The elevated concentrations of pentachlorophenol observed in storm
flow samples collected from the cinder/grass drain suggest that this wood preservative may have
leached into the drain from a nearby source of treated wood. A sample was collected from
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 46 June 7, 2010
jr 09-04418-000 figures 8, 9, 10 revised.doc
Line = median; Point = mean; Box = 25th and 75th percentiles; Whisker = minimum and maximum
Figure 10. Pentachlorophenol concentrations measured for the Woodland Park Synthetic
Turf Study.
Turf
(P7E)
Cinder/Grass
(P7S)
Storm Drain
(SD)
Storm Drain
2004 (SO)
Storm Drain
1992-95 (SO)
4
Turf Study Historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
1 Base
Storm
Pentachlorophenol (μg/L)No DataNo Data
Acute water quality criterion (9.1 μg/L) at pH = 7.00
Chronic water quality criterion (5.7 μg/L) at pH = 7.00
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
adjacent wood light poles in response to this observation, and those results are presented in the
following section.
SVOC results for the Playfield #7 drain (station P7E) were similar to stormwater drainage and
groundwater data reported for other synthetic turf field studies (see Table 1). All of the SVOC
results were below detection limits in stormwater drainage (one sample) and downgradient
groundwater (32 samples) analyses conducted for synthetic turf fields by the NYSDEC (2009).
In addition, the NYSDEC collected 10 additional stormwater drainage samples from one
synthetic turf field during two storm events in the fall of 2009, and all of those SVOC results
were below laboratory detection limits (L. Lim, personal communication, March 18, 2010).
Crumb rubber infill leachate studies conducted in New York and Norway (see Table 1)
occasionally detected some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (<3 µg/L), phthalates (<10 µg/L),
and miscellaneous SVOCs (<30 µg/L). As noted above for metals, the acidic conditions and
extended extraction period used for these studies likely contributed to the elevated SVOC
concentrations observed.
Wood Light Pole Sample Analysis
Wood from three wood light poles located along the southeast portion of the Playfield #7
running track in Woodland Park were sampled and analyzed for SVOCs (see Figure 3). The
wood light poles were considered to be a potential source of the elevated pentachlorophenol
concentrations observed in storm flow sampled at the cinder/grass drain (station P7S) because
the primary use of pentachlorophenol is as a preservative for wood (ATSDR 2001). The three
wood light poles are located in close proximity (i.e., less than 5 feet) to the French drain that
conveys stormwater drainage to the cinder/grass drain (station P7S). An additional wood light
pole was stubbed 1 foot below grade during field construction in 2009 (Holden 2010). The
stubbed pole is located approximately 5 feet east of the cinder/grass drain (station P7S) and
adjacent to the French drain.
The SVOC results (excluding non-detected compounds) for the composite wood light pole
sample are presented in Table 12. Several SVOCs were detected at elevated concentrations,
with the highest concentration exhibited by pentachlorophenol (18,000 mg/kg). In addition,
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol was also detected at an elevated concentration of 575 mg/kg. A
variety of other compounds were also detected at lower concentrations ranging from 2.77 to
199 mg/kg that included several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (acenapthene, anthracene,
benzo(k)fluoranthrene, chrysene, fluorene, 2-methyl naphthalene, and naphthalene). These
results clearly indicate that the source of the pentachlorophenol and 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
detected in every storm flow sample at the cinder/grass drain (station P7S) originated from the
wood light poles located along the southern portion of the French drain adjacent to the
Playfield #7 running track.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 48 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 49 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table 12. Wood light pole composite sample results for detected semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) at Woodland Park, Seattle, Washington.
Parameter
Concentration
(mg/kg dry weight)
Acenaphthene 9.55
Anthracene 199
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.77
Chrysene 31.0
Fluorene 54.0
Naphthalene 3.59
Pentachlorophenol 18,000
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 575
2-Methyl naphthalene 15.0
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 12.5
Dibenzofuran 7.54
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Conclusions
Water quality results for the three base flow samples and eight storm flow samples collected
from the Playfield #7 drain show that pollutant concentrations were very low in synthetic turf
field drainage and do not pose an environmental impact to Green Lake. None of the pollutant
concentrations in synthetic turf field drainage exceeded Washington State surface water quality
standards.
Low concentrations of conventional parameters, including total suspended solids (≤15 mg/L),
total phosphorus (≤47 µg/L), soluble reactive phosphorus (≤26 µg/L), and fecal coliform bacteria
(≤44 CFU/100 mL), were observed in the synthetic turf field drainage compared to the two
background (upgradient) station results. Comparison of these study results to historical data for
the South Outfall storm drain indicate that conversion of Playfield #7 from a sand surface to
synthetic turf substantially improved water quality of drainage to Green Lake. The reduction of
total phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in drainage to Green Lake are
particularly important because Green Lake is on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for these two
parameters.
Low concentrations of dissolved and total copper (<6 µg/L), lead (<1 µg/L), and zinc (≤6 µg/L)
were also observed in the synthetic turf field drainage compared to the background storm drain
station, apparently reducing metals concentrations in drainage to Green Lake. Similarly low
metals concentrations have been reported for drainage from other synthetic turf fields in the
states of Washington, New York, and Connecticut. Only three semivolatile organic compounds
(aniline, pentachlorophenol, and di-n-butyl phthalate) were occasionally detected at low
concentrations (≤1 µg/L) in storm flow samples collected at the Playfield #7 drain. These results
indicate that drainage from synthetic turf fields containing crumb rubber do not pose a threat to
public or environmental health.
No samples were collected from the synthetic turf field installed at Playfield #2 due to a lack of
drainage from the underdrain system. The synthetic turf field at Playfield #2 was constructed on
a thick layer of sandy soil that allowed stormwater to infiltrate into the ground before the
underdrains could intercept the drainage. Thus, no comparison could be drawn between the
AstroTurf® used at Playfield #2 and the FieldTurf® used at Playfield #7. Although pollutant
concentrations may vary in drainage from other synthetic turf fields due to differences in field
materials and design, the extremely low concentrations and low variance of those concentrations
observed in drainage from Playfield #7, and the similar results reported for several other
synthetic turf field drainage studies, suggest that drainage from other synthetic turf fields in
Seattle do not have a negative impact on receiving water quality.
In contrast to water quality results for the synthetic turf field at Playfield #7, high concentrations
of fecal coliform bacteria were observed during storm flow at the two background stormwater
drainage stations (P7S and SD). The Washington State surface water quality criterion for fecal
coliform bacteria in lake tributaries (geometric mean not to exceed 50 CFU/100 mL) was
exceeded during storm flow conditions in the cinder/grass drain (811 CFU/100 mL geometric
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 51 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 52 June 7, 2010
mean at station P7S) and the storm drain (106 CFU/100 mL geometric mean at station SD).
Storm flow fecal coliform bacteria concentrations for the storm drain are more than 100 times
lower than the South Outfall during the 2004 study (16,400 CFU/100 mL geometric mean; see
Tables 2 and 3). The high fecal coliform bacteria concentrations observed in 2004 were primarily
due to leachate from a large woodchip pile, which has since been removed.
Elevated pentachlorophenol concentrations (4 to 21 ug/L) were observed during storm flow at
the cinder/grass drain (station P7S), exceeding Washington State surface water quality criteria in
six of the eight collected samples. Results of a wood sample analysis (18,000 mg/kg
pentachlorophenol) confirmed that the wood light poles located adjacent to this drain were the
source of this wood preservative in the storm flow samples. The wood sample also contained
relatively high concentrations of 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (575 mg/kg), which was also detected
at low concentrations (<1 µg/L) in all storm flow samples collected from the cinder/grass drain.
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Recommendations
Based upon the findings of the monitoring conducted as part of this study, the wood light poles
adjacent to the Playfield #7 French drain appear to be a significant source of the elevated
pentachlorophenol concentrations observed in the cinder/grass drain (station P7S) drainage.
Drainage from the cinder running track and grassy areas located adjacent to the wood light poles
rapidly infiltrated to the French drain through the overlying crushed rock. In addition, elevated
total suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were observed in the
cinder/grass drain following extension of the drain to the west in a trench filled with pea gravel
(rather than the crushed rock used for the original trench to the east of station P7S).
It is recommended that Seattle Parks and Recreation plug the French drain inlet to the east side
of the manhole located at the cinder/grass drain sampling station P7S. Plugging the French drain
at this location will reduce the discharge of total suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, and
pentachlorophenol to Green Lake. Essentially, plugging the French drain will allow the trench to
serve as a detention and treatment facility for the contaminated drainage from the cinder/grass
area. Assuming 40 percent void volume for the 1.5-inch aggregate fill material and a trench
volume of 3,000 cubic feet (500 feet long x 2 feet wide x 3 feet deep), the French drain would
provide approximately 1,200 cubic feet of storage volume for stormwater runoff. Assuming the
French drain collects drainage from 15 feet on each side of the drain, the drainage area would be
approximately 15,000 feet2. Based on these approximate calculations, the French drain would
provide enough storage to detain the drainage from a precipitation event totaling 1.0 inches in
depth.
Stormwater detained in the French drain would come into contact with the surrounding soil
where pentachlorophenol would biodegrade by acclimated microbes under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions (ATSDR 2001). In addition, pentachlorophenol also adsorbs to soil particles and
organic matter, especially under acidic soil conditions. Finally, pentachlorophenol is degraded
and adsorbs to soil and organic matter more easily at low concentrations (i.e., less than 40 μg/L)
(ATSDR 2001). Based on the range of concentrations observed at the outlet of the French drain
(4.4 to 20.6 µg/L) during this study, pentachlorophenol would likely attenuate and degrade
in situ, and would not mobilize beyond the immediate vicinity of the French drain and
surrounding soils.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 53 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
References
APHA, AWWA, and WEF. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 19th edition. Edited by A.E. Greenberg, American Public Health Association;
A.D. Eaton, American Water Works Association; and L.S. Clesceri, Water Environment
Federation.
ASBA. 2008. Buyer’s Guide for Synthetic Turf Field Construction. Prepared by the American
Sports Builders Association, Ellicott City, Maryland. Taken from the following web site on
June 20, 2008: http://sportsbuilders.org/page.php?id=748&from%5B%5D=11&.
ATSDR. 2001. Toxicological Profile for Pentachlorophenol. United States Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
September 2001. Taken from the following web site on April 8, 2010:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp51.pdf.
Ecology. 2010. Water Quality Assessment for Washington State. Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology web
site on April 20, 2010: http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wats08/ViewListing.aspx?LISTING_ID=12157.
EPA. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
(EPA-600/4-79-020).
EPA. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods SW-846,
Third Edition, Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, and III. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. December 1986.
EPA. 1994. Method 200.8 Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by
Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectometry. Revision 5.4. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA. 2007. 40 CFR Part 122, 136, 141, 143, 430, 455, and 456; Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants under the Clean Water Act; National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations; and National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Analysis and Sampling
Procedures; Final Rule. Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
Herrera. 2005. Woodland Park Stormwater Investigation Report, Green Lake 2004 Alum
Treatment. Prepared for the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle, Washington, by
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. October 11, 2005.
Herrera. 2009. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater
Drainage Study. Prepared for the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle,
Washington, by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. November 30,
2009.
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
June 7, 2010 55 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
jr 09-04418-000 woodland park water quality report.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 56 June 7, 2010
Johns, Michael D. and Tom Goodlin. 2008. Evaluation of Potential Environmental Risks
Associated with Installing Turf Fields on Bainbridge Island. Prepared by Michael D. Johns,
Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, Washington, and Tom Goodlin, Bainbridge Island,
Washington. February 2008.
Joyce, Stephanie. 1998. Why the Grass Isn’t Always Greener. Focus. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 106-8, 1998: Focus. August 1998. Taken from the following world wide web site
on June 24, 1998: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1998/106-8/focus.html.
KCM. 1995. Green Lake Phase IIC Restoration Project, Volume 1 – Project Completion Report.
Prepared for the City of Seattle Parks and Recreation, Seattle, Washington, by KCM, Inc.,
Seattle, Washington. August 1995.
Milone and MacBroom. 2008. Evaluation of the Environmental Effects of Synthetic Turf
Athletic Fields. Prepared by Milone and MacBroom, Inc., Cheshire, Connecticut. December
2008.
NBRI. 2004. Potential Health and Environmental Effects Linked to Artificial Turf Systems –
Final Report. Prepared by the Norwegian Building Research Institute, Oslo, Norway, for the
Norwegian Football Association, Oslo, Norway. September 10, 2004.
NYSDEC. 2009. An Assessment of Chemical Leaching, Releases to Air and Temperature at
Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Fields. Prepared by Ly Lim, Bureau of Solid Waste,
Reduction & Recycling, Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, New York City, New York, and Randi Walker, Bureau of Air
Quality Analysis and Research, Division of Air Resources, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, New York City, New York. May 2009.
NYSDEC. 2010. Additional Water Quality Survey at Existing Turf Fields that Use Crumb
Rubber as Infill Material. Prepared by Ly Lim, Bureau of Solid Waste, Reduction & Recycling,
Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, New York City, New York. May 2010.
SDPR. 2009. Re: Use of Artificial Turf on Play Fields. Timothy Gallagher, Superintendent,
Seattle Parks and Recreation, Seattle, Washington.
Seattle. 2008. Resolution 31073. The City of Seattle Legislative Department. Filed on July 21,
2008.
Talasaea. 2003. Field Turf Projects in Redmond, Washington, Microtox and Metals Testing
Report. Prepared by Talasaea Consultants, LLC, Woodinville, Washington, for Kate Rhodes of
the King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. February 19, 2003.
TRC. 2008. A Review of the Potential Health and Safety Risks from Synthetic Turf Fields
Containing Crumb Rubber Infill. TRC Project No. 153896. Prepared for the New York City
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York, by TRC, Windsor,
Connecticut. May 2008.
APPENDIX A
Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Playfield
Drainage Plans
APPENDIX B
Data Quality Assurance Report and
Laboratory Data Reports
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Quality Assurance Report
This quality assurance report has been prepared for inclusion with the Woodland Park Synthetic
Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants
(Herrera). Quality assurance procedures generally followed those described in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Herrera 2009).
Quality assurance procedures are identified in the following sections describing field sampling
methods, analytical testing procedures, data quality objectives and assessment procedures, and
data management protocols. Data validation results are then presented for data collected during
the stormwater monitoring period (November 2009 through January 2010). Monitoring consisted
of stormwater sampling and discharge measurements at three stations during three base flow
events and four storm events, and laboratory analysis of the collected stormwater samples.
Sampling Procedures
Sample collection consisted of two rounds of grab samples during each storm event, and one
round during each base flow event. Sampling occurred at three stations (P7E, P7S, and SD).
Station D2, as described in the QAPP, was not sampled due to lack of flow during both base and
storm events. The stormwater grab samples were collected by progressing from station P7E, to
station P7S, and to station SD for each round of sampling, with each round of sampling lasting
approximately 1 to 2 hours apart. Using this approach, monitoring of each storm event was
conducted in a 3- to 5-hour period.
Storm 1: two sampling rounds on November 26, 2009
Base 1: one sampling round on December 3, 2009
Storm 2: two sampling rounds on December 16-17, 2009
Base 2: one sampling round on December 28, 2009
Storm 3: two sampling rounds on January 4, 2010
Storm 4: two sampling rounds on January 15, 2010
Base 3: one sampling round on January 22, 2010
Collection of Grab Samples
Water samples were collected with the use of an extension pole to extend an attached bottle or a
stainless steel pitcher into the drains. Bottles were filled directly in the drains while water
collected in a pitcher was transferred into sample bottles. In general, a stainless steel pitcher was
used only during low flow conditions of baseflow events. Each pitcher was decontaminated prior
to each sampling event and was rinsed with sample water immediately prior to sample collection.
The pitcher was wrapped in heavy-duty aluminum foil following decontamination and between
sampling rounds to prevent contamination of the pitchers.
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
June 7, 2010 B-1 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
The field technician used clean technique to ensure samples are not biased by contamination
during the collection process, as described in the QAPP (Herrera 2009). Sample labeling
conventions and sample container descriptions are also presented in subsequent subsections.
All sample bottles will be immediately stored with sufficient ice in a cooler to maintain the
temperature between 2 and 6°C.
Clean Technique
Sample collection required the proper implementation of the clean technique protocol as
described in detail in the QAPP (Herrera 2009). This protocol involved the field technician, prior
to sample collection, to wear two new sets of disposable gloves (i.e., clean, nontalc gloves made
of polyethylene, latex, or vinyl) for each sequence of clean or dirty hands operations that is
required for proper implementation of the clean technique protocol. Clean hands are required for
the handling of all metals sample containers and are defined as wearing new gloves having only
contacted the stainless steel pitcher. Collection of grab samples using the stainless steel pitcher
and filling other sample bottles could be conducted using gloves that have contacted the
sampling pole or other equipment (i.e., dirty hands). The sequence of clean and dirty hands
operations to be used during sampling is described in detail in the QAPP (Herrera 2009). Grab
sample collection and clean technique procedures were documented in an all-weather field
notebook with indelible ink.
Equipment Decontamination
Stainless steel pitchers were decontaminated prior to each sampling event according to the
procedure described in the QAPP (Herrera 2009).
Collection of Discharge Measurements
Discharge measurements were recorded after the water sample collection at each station.
Discharge was measured using either the depth/velocity method or the bucket method. For the
depth/velocity method, a Marsh-McBirney velocity meter was used to measure water depth and
velocity at the center of the pipe. For the bucket method, a pitcher is used to collect water from
an outfall for a known period of time, and the volume of collected water is measured in a
graduated cylinder.
Sample Labeling Conventions
All sample containers were labeled prior to the sampling event with the following information
using indelible ink and labeling tape:
Sample identification number (monitoring station [P7, or DS] – sampling
event [B for base flow, and S1 for storm event 1, etc.] – sampling round
[1, 2, or 3])
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants B-2 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Date of sample collection (day/month/year: dd/mm/yy)
Time of sample collection (international format [24-hour])
Project name (Woodland Turf) and name of Company (Herrera)
The date and time of sample collection and the initials of the primary field technician were added
to the container label upon termination of the sampling event. QC samples (field duplicates and
blanks) were identified as monitoring stations QC1, QC2, etc. for delivery to the laboratory, but
field personnel maintained a cross-check list of which stations and sample types the QC samples
represent. When results were returned from the laboratory, Herrera correlated the full label
information with the analytical results from the laboratory and populated database fields for each
QC sample and type.
Sample Containers, Preservation, and Holding Times
Sample containers, preservation techniques, and holding times followed guidelines by the EPA.
During each water quality sample collection round, five sample bottles were filled at each
monitoring station. Each bottle was filled leaving a small headspace to allow for preservation
and mixing prior to analysis at the laboratory.
Field Logbooks and Data Forms
Herrera documented all field observations on all-weather field notebooks. Documentation is
sufficient to enable participants to accurately and objectively reconstruct events that occurred
during the project at a later time. Entries were made in waterproof ink, dated, and signed.
Analytical Procedures
The water samples collected at all stations during each event were analyzed for the following
parameters:
pH (field measurement)
Total hardness
Total suspended solids
Total and dissolved phosphorus
Fecal coliform bacteria
Total and dissolved copper, lead, and zinc
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), which include polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, phenols, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, and miscellaneous organic compounds
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
June 7, 2010 B-3 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Analytical methods, detection limits, units of measurement, and maximum sample holding times
are presented in Table B-1.
Table B-1. Analytical methods, detection limits, and holding times for the Woodland Park
Turf Runoff Study.
Parameter
Analytical
Method
Method
Number a Preservative
Detection
Limit/Unit b
Maximum Holding
Time
Total suspended
solids
Gravimetric,
103°C
EPA 160.2 Cool to 4°C, dark 0.50 mg/L 7 days
Total hardness Titration SM 2340 C None 2 mg/L 6 months
Total phosphorus Automated
ascorbic acid
SM 4500-P F Nitric to pH<2,
cool to 4°C
2 µg/L 28 days
Soluble Reactive
Phosphorus
Automated
ascorbic acid
SM 4500-P F Filter, cool to 4°C 1 µg/L 48 hours to filter,
28 days to analysis
Fecal coliform
bacteria
Membrane
filter
SM 9222 D None 2 CFU/100 mL 18 hours
Total copper, lead,
and zinc
ICP/MS EPA 200.8 Nitric to pH<2,
cool to 4°C
1 µg/L 6 months
Dissolved copper,
lead, and zinc
ICP/MS EPA 200.8 Filter, nitric to pH<2,
cool to 4°C
5 µg/L 18 hours to filter,
6 months to analysis
Semivolatile
organic
compounds
GC/MS EPA 8270 None 0.1 µg /L 7 days to extraction,
40 days to analysis
NA = Not applicable or not available
a All methods are approved by EPA. EPA methods are specified by EPA (1983, 1986, 1994, 2007), and SM methods are
specified by APHA et al (1995).
b Detection limit was reported by the laboratory at 5 µg/L, while QAPP specified 1 µg/L.
Data Quality Objectives and Assessment Procedures
The goal of this QAPP is to ensure that data collected during this study are scientifically and
legally defensible. To meet this goal, data were evaluated using the following data quality
indicators:
Precision
A measure of the variability in the results of replicate measurements due
to random error. Precision were assessed based on the analyses of
laboratory and field duplicates, and matrix spike duplicates (MSD).
Precision in these samples were evaluated based on their relative percent
difference (RPD). The RPD of laboratory and field duplicates shall be less
than or equal to 20 percent (30 percent for fecal coliform) for values that
are greater than 5 times the reporting limit, and the difference between
duplicates shall be within +/- 2 times the detection limit for values less
than 5 times the reporting limit.
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants B-4 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Bias
The constant or systematic distortion of a measurement process, different
from random error, which manifests itself as a persistent positive or
negative deviation from the known or true value. This can result from
improper data collection, poorly calibrated analytical or sampling
equipment, or limitations or errors in analytical methods and techniques.
Bias was assessed based on analyses of method blanks, field blanks,
matrix spikes (MS), and laboratory control samples (LCS). Bias in MS
and LCS will be quantified based on percent recovery or the average
(arithmetic mean) of the percent recovery.
Representativeness
The degree to which the data accurately describe the condition being
evaluated, based on the selected sampling locations, sampling frequency
and duration, and sampling methods. This project assessed a range of
water quality conditions during winter storm and base flow conditions.
Sample representativeness was also ensured by employing consistent and
standard sampling procedures.
Completeness
The amount of valid data obtained from the measurement system.
Completeness will be assessed based on the percentage of specified
samples (listed in this QAPP) collected. The completeness goal shall be
90 percent. Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage
of acceptable data out of the total amount of data generated. Acceptable
data is either data that passes all QC criteria, or data that may not pass all
QC criteria but has appropriate corrective actions taken.
Comparability
A qualitative term that expresses the measure of confidence that one data
set can be compared to another and can be combined for the decision(s) to
be made. Data are comparable if sample collection techniques,
measurement procedures, analytical methods, and reporting are equivalent
for samples within a sample set. Standard sampling procedures, analytical
methods, units of measurement, and reporting limits will be applied in this
study to meet the goal of data comparability. The results were tabulated in
standard spreadsheets to facilitate comparison with other study results and
water quality threshold limits (e.g., WAC 173-201A).
Data Validation Results
Quality control problems and correctives actions were summarize in quality assurance
worksheets. Values associated with minor quality control problems shall be considered estimates
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
June 7, 2010 B-5 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
and assigned as J qualifiers. Values associated with major quality control problems shall be
considered rejected and assigned as R qualifiers. Estimates values may be used for evaluation
purposes, while rejected values shall not be used. Quality control data summaries submitted by
the laboratories were reviewed; raw data were not submitted by the laboratories. Data quality
assurance worksheets summarizing the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) review
were completed for each sampling event and are included with the data. Data qualifiers (flags)
were added to the sample results in the laboratory reports. Data validation results are
summarized below followed by definitions of data qualifiers.
Completeness
Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage of acceptable data out of the total
amount of data generated. Acceptable data is either data that passes all QC criteria, or data that
may not pass all QC criteria but has appropriate corrective actions taken.
Methodology
Methodology is assessed by examining and reviewing the field notebook and laboratory reports
for deviation from the sampling and analysis plan. Unacceptable deviations will result in rejected
values R, and will be corrected for any future analyses.
All laboratory reporting limits met the QAPP specified reporting limits for analyses, with the
exception of total and dissolved zinc (see Table B-1). The QAPP reporting limit for zinc was
identified as 1 ug/L while the laboratory reporting limit was 5 ug/L. This may impact data
usability; however, no data were qualified based on laboratory reporting limits.
Holding Times
All samples were analyzed within the required holding times (Table B-1), with the exceptions
below for fecal coliform (Table B-2).
Table B-2. Summary of sample results qualified due to holding time exceedances.
Sample Date Parameter Sample ID Qualifier
11/26/2009 Fecal Coliform P7E-S1-1 J
11/26/2009 Fecal Coliform P7E-S1-2 J
11/26/2009 Fecal Coliform P7S-S1-1 J
11/26/2009 Fecal Coliform P7S-S1-2 J
11/26/2009 Fecal Coliform SD-S1-1 J
11/26/2009 Fecal Coliform SD-S1-2 J
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants B-6 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Method Blanks
Method blanks were analyzed at the required frequency. No analytes were detected in the
method blanks above the reporting limit for any parameters.
Rinsate Blanks
The QAPP specified that an equipment rinsate blank be collected during three of the seven
sampling events prior to the collection of the project samples. However, the equipment blank
was collected after the final event on January 22, 2010. The equipment rinsate blank was
analyzed for all parameters and met the criteria for all parameters. As pitchers were not used as a
means to collect the samples, the equipment rinsate blank was not necessary to determine no
interference from thepitcher. A field filter blank was conducted prior to sample collection for on
December 16-17, 2009 to identify any potential contamination due to the filtering equipment for
SRP and the dissolved metals. The field filter blank was reagent grade water filtered through
0.45 micron nylon filter and polycarbonate filtration device, and a hand vacuum pump will be
used to filter water through the filtration device for both analyses. A transfer blank (to test for
contamination of sampling bottles) was conducted on January 15, 2010 during storm event #4 for
SRP, metals and SVOCs. All blanks samples met criteria for all parameters analyzed.
Laboratory Duplicates
Laboratory duplicate samples were analyzed at the required frequency. The relative percent
difference for all sampling events met the QAPP criteria (80 to 120 percent).
Field Duplicates
The QAPP specified that a field duplicate be collected at a frequency of 7 percent (three
duplicates for 44 project samples) with one field duplicate collected during one base flow event
and two storm flow events. The field duplicate samples will be labeled as separate (blind)
samples and submitted to the laboratory for analysis of all parameters. The resultant data from
these samples were used to assess the observed variation in the analytical results that is
attributable to environmental (natural), sampling, and analytical variability. Relative percent
difference values were calculated for each set of field duplicates from the laboratory results.
With the exception belows, field duplicates precision met the RPD of 20 percent for all
parameters (30 percent fecal coliform) (Table B-3).
Table B-3. Summary of sample results qualified due to field duplicate exceedances.
Sample Date Parameter Sample ID Duplicate ID RPD (%) Qualifier
12/16-17/09 Fecal Coliform P7E-S2-2 QC2 86 J
12/3/2009 TSS P7E-B1 QC1 33 J
12/3/2009 SRP P7E-B1 QC1 22 J
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
June 7, 2010 B-7 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
Laboratory Control Sample Analysis
Laboratory control samples were analyzed at the required frequency. The percent recovery
values for all sampling events met the QAPP criteria (50 to 150 percent for SVOCs, 90 to
110 percent for all other analyses), with the exceptions noted below.
For three sampling events, the lab control percent recoveries were low for one or more SVOCs.
As the bias was low and no semi volatile organic compounds were detected above the reporting
limit for any associated samples, data for these compounds were qualified as “UJ”. These low
lab control percent recoveries included 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (43) and N-Nitroso-n-propyl amine
(49) collected on December 28, 2009, 4-Nitrophenol (48) collected on January 15, 2010, and
4-Nitrophenol (19) and 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (38) collected on January 22, 2010. A summary of the
qualified results due to low lab control recoveries can be found in Table B-4.
Table B-4. Summary of sample results qualified due to low lab control percent
recoveries.
Sample Date Parameter Sample ID Qualifier
12/28/2009 1,4-Dichlorobenzene P7E-B2 UJ
12/28/2009 1,4-Dichlorobenzene P7S-B2 UJ
12/28/2009 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SD-B2 UJ
12/28/2009 N-Nitroso-n-propyl amine P7E-B2 UJ
12/28/2009 N-Nitroso-n-propyl amine P7SD-B2 UJ
12/28/2009 N-Nitroso-n-propyl amine SD-B2 UJ
1/15/2010 4-Nitrophenol P7E-S3-1 UJ
1/15/2010 4-Nitrophenol P7E-S3-2 UJ
1/15/2010 4-Nitrophenol P7S-S3-1 UJ
1/15/2010 4-Nitrophenol P7S-S3-2 UJ
1/15/2010 4-Nitrophenol SD-S3-1 UJ
1/15/2010 4-Nitrophenol SD-S3-2 UJ
1/15/2010 4-Nitrophenol QC6 UJ
1/22/2010 4-Nitrophenol P7E-B3 UJ
1/22/2010 4-Nitrophenol P7SD-B3 UJ
1/22/2010 4-Nitrophenol SD-B3 UJ
1/22/2010 4-Nitrophenol QC7 UJ
1/22/2010 2,4-Dinitrotoluene P7E-B3 UJ
1/22/2010 2,4-Dinitrotoluene P7SD-B3 UJ
1/22/2010 2,4-Dinitrotoluene SD-B3 UJ
1/22/2010 2,4-Dinitrotoluene QC7 UJ
Surrogate Spike Analysis
The surrogate recoveries QC limits used for SVOCs were developed by the laboratory (Aquatic
Research, Inc.), in accordance with the analytical method, and varied for each compound
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants B-8 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
(Table B-5). The surrogate recoveries for the method blank sample on January 15, 2010 for
2-Fluorophenol (32) and p-Terphenyl-d14 (67) recoveries were below the control limits;
however, no samples were qualified, as the surrogates are a base/neutral and an acid.
Table B-5. Surrogate Recoveries QC limits for SVOCs.
Surrogate Recoveries
QC Limits
(percent)
2-Fluorophenol 24 -132
Phenol-d5 0-105
Nitrobenzene-d5 24-136
2-Fluorobiphenyl41-134
2,4,6-Tribromophenol 0-183
p-Terphenyl-d14 80-141
The surrogate recoveries for the lab control sample on January 22, 2010 for 2-Fluorophenol
(158) recoveries were above control limits. No data were qualified because the bias was high and
no volatile organic compounds were detected above the reporting limit for any associated
samples.
Matrix Spike
Matrix spike (MS) samples were analyzed at the required frequency. The percent recovery values
for the MS analyses met the control limits (75 to 125 percent) established by the QAPP, with the
exceptions noted below.
The matrix spike recovery were low for three SVOC compounds, Phenol (46),
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (34), and N-Nitrophenol (21) for the matrix spike duplicate on
November 26, 2009. No data will be qualified as all other criteria were met for these samples
and cannot be qualified based on MS/MSD alone.
The matrix spike recovery were low for three compounds for the matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate on January 4, 2009, Phenol (42, 42), 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (38, 33), and
N-Nitroso-n-propyl amine (49, 45) and high for Pentachlorophenol (163, 158). No data will be
qualified as all other criteria were met for these samples and cannot be qualified based on
MS/MSD alone.
Raw Data Review of Fecal Coliform Data
Accuracy of the fecal coliform bacteria results were assessed during data quality review by
requesting raw data from the laboratory to evaluate results obtained for each sample filtration
volume. The membrane filtration method used to measure bacteria concentrations recommends
that between 20 and 60 colonies are present on each culture plate to achieve the most accurate
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
June 7, 2010 B-9 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
count (APHA et al. 1995). In accordance with this recommendation, results based on plate
counts of less than 20 colonies or greater than 60 colonies were qualified as estimates and
flagged with a “J” in the database (see Appendix C). This data flagging procedure is not required
by the analytical method and was not specified in the QAPP (Herrera 2009), but was conducted
to account for the lower accuracy of results obtained from cultures having counts outside the
recommended range.
Raw data was reviewed for all sample batches. A total of 37 (84 percent) of the 44 bacteria
results were qualified as estimates and flagged with a J because they were based on counts either
less than 20 or greater than 60 per culture plate. In addition, two (less than 5 percent) of the
bacteria results were based on counts greater than 200 per plate. These high counts were
qualified by the laboratory as greater than the upper reporting limit, which was based on
200 colonies at the sample filtration volume. These results were also flagged with a J in addition
to greater than (>) the specified upper reporting limit. It is possible that results based on plate
counts greater than 60 represent may have been underestimated because some colonies may have
originated from more than one bacterium under the crowded growth conditions. It is also
possible that results for high plate counts may have been overestimated because non-coliform
bacteria may have appeared to be blue in color and identified as coliform positive under the
crowded growth conditions. All of the estimated values were used for data analysis.
Definition of Data Qualifiers
Data flags were entered in separate columns adjacent to each data column using the following
coding system taken from USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional
Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (USEPA 2002):
U The material was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the
associated value. The associated value is either the sample quantitation
limit or the sample detection limit.
J The associated value is an estimated quantity.
UJ The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. The associated value
is an estimate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.
R The data are unusable. (Note: analyte may or may not be present.)
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants B-10 June 7, 2010
Water Quality Report—Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study
jr 09-04418-000 apx-b 1 quality assurance report emw.doc
June 7, 2010 B-11 Herrera Environmental Consultants
References
USEPA. 2002. Contract laboratory program national functional guidelines for inorganic data
review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C. (EPA-540/R-01/008).
Herrera. 2009. Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study Quality
Assurance Project Plan, Prepared for City of Seattle, Department of Department of Parks and
Recreation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington. November 2009.
APHA, AWWA, and WEF. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 18th edition. Edited by A.E. Greenburg, American Public Health Association;
L.S. Clesceri, Water Environment Federation, and A.D. Eaton, American Water Works
Association.
Laboratory Data Reports
APPENDIX C
Database
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDate TimeDischarge Rate (cfs)pH(unit)Hardness (mg CaCO3/L)Total Sus-pendedSolids(mg/L)Fecal Coliform Bacteria (CFU/ 100 mL)Total Phosphorus (ug/L)Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (ug/L)Copper,Total(ug/L)Copper,Dis-solved(ug/L)P2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09 1050 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09 1140 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10 1255 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09 0715 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09 0950 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09 1505 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09 2155 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10 0835 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10 0900 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10 0935 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10 1140 0-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09 1220 0.0026.692242.8 J 2 29 8 J2.82.5P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09 1215 0.0026.932312.8 4 27 8 1.5 2.3P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10 1210 0.0037.032033.0 2 U 35 22 2.3 2.2P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09 0740 0.170 6.65 98.3 1434 J 42 235.8 2.5P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09 0905 0.110 6.73 1147.0 40 J 42 265.82.7P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09 1530 0.004 6.81 2062.5 44 27 142.72.4P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09 2105 0.0057.082112.2 20 J 27 17 2.7 2.4P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10 0725 0.0086.972113.7 2 U 28 9 2.0 1.4P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10 0905 0.008 7.35 169 15.02 47 10 3.72.4P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10 1020 0.1707.1795.69.81037123.02.2P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10 1125 0.1907.2792.85.0631142.62.1P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09 1250 0.0026.641452.02 U53131.21.1P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09 1240 0.0037.031452.82 U508 2.7 1.1P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10 1230 0.0047.231411.82 U58431.61.3P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09 0830 0.1306.3093.610340J155935.54.6P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09 0930 0.1006.211098.3260J115874.74.1P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09 1620 0.010 6.65108 1.626095753.83.8P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09 2135 0.0107.001129.724013175 4.4 3.8P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10 0745 0.033 7.01 77.01164000G660127 11.3 2.1P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10 0915 0.0457.2477.0684000G506121 8.2 2.8P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10 0945 0.2407.0558.0691260246615.63.2P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10 1055 0.240 7.14 58.0501680218655.73.5SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09 1330 0.0706.551272.0295561.21.2SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09 1310 0.0706.981263.329262 1.2 1.0SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10 1155 0.0707.191262.52 U73611.91.4SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09 0800 0.2406.5155.56.338 J64421.71.1SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09 0920 0.2606.2770.4 2.520 J6248 2.0 1.2SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/0916000.100 6.76107 3.328120851.31.1SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09 2050 0.2906.9438.15336026140 6.2 1.3SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/1008050.380 6.81 25.8 61.0 120232275.5 1.0 USD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10 0940 0.3707.0428.350110410363.61.0 USD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10 1005 0.6707.0222.743480160204.61.0 USD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/10 1110 0.770 7.03 28.9 35340135263.11.0 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database1 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDate TimeDischarge Rate (cfs)pH(unit)Hardness (mg CaCO3/L)Total Sus-pendedSolids(mg/L)Fecal Coliform Bacteria (CFU/ 100 mL)Total Phosphorus (ug/L)Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (ug/L)Copper,Total(ug/L)Copper,Dis-solved(ug/L)QC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09 1130-- --221 2.02 U 30 10 2.5 2.5QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09 2120-- --2092.7 8 26 18 2.8 2.5QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09 0930-- -- -- -- -- -- 1 U -- 1.0 UQC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10 0815-- --27.452102241 265.11.0 UQC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10 1155-- -- -- -- -- -- 1 U1.0U 1.0 UQC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10 1130-- --2.0U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 1 U1.0U 1.0 UStation ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDate TimePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10 1130-- ----------------Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies presentBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteria09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database2 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/10Lead,Total(ug/L)Lead,Dis-solved(ug/L)Zinc,Total(ug/L)Zinc,Dis-solved(ug/L)N-nitrosodiethylamine (ug/L)Pentachloroethane (ug/L)Aniline (ug/L) Phenol (ug/L)Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (ug/L)2-Chlorophenol (ug/L)------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------1.0U 1.0 U660.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 6 60.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U1.0U5U5U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U1.0U5U5U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U5U5U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 6 5 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 1.1 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.75 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U5U5U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.210.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 6 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U1.0U15150.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U1.0U14130.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U17160.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 20 160.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U4.9 1.0 U 3470.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U2.8 1.0 U 28 110.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U2.31.0 U25120.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U2.11.0 U28140.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U5U5U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U1.0U770.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U1.0U8 80.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U5U5U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U3.51.0 U 36 220.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U6.3 1.0 U 2860.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U4.01.0 U2170.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U2.71.0 U1550.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U3.01.0 U1460.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database3 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteriaLead,Total(ug/L)Lead,Dis-solved(ug/L)Zinc,Total(ug/L)Zinc,Dis-solved(ug/L)N-nitrosodiethylamine (ug/L)Pentachloroethane (ug/L)Aniline (ug/L) Phenol (ug/L)Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (ug/L)2-Chlorophenol (ug/L)1.0U 1.0 U 6 60.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U--1.0U--5U-- ------ ----6.11.0 U2870.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U1.0U 1.0 U 5 U 5 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UN-nitrosodiethylamine (mg/kg)Pentachloroethane (mg/kg)Aniline (mg/kg)Phenol (mg/kg)Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (mg/kg)2-Chlorophenol (mg/kg)------ --0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U0.81 U 0.81 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database4 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/101,3-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L)1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L)1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L)Benzyl Alcohol (ug/L)2-Methyl phenol (ug/L)Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether (ug/L)Aceto-phenone (ug/L)Hexachloro-ethane (ug/L)N-Nitroso-n-propyl amine (ug/L)4-Methyl phenol (ug/L)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UJ 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UJ 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UJ 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.29 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database5 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteria1,3-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L)1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L)1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ug/L)Benzyl Alcohol (ug/L)2-Methyl phenol (ug/L)Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether (ug/L)Aceto-phenone (ug/L)Hexachloro-ethane (ug/L)N-Nitroso-n-propyl amine (ug/L)4-Methyl phenol (ug/L)0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U--------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U1,3-Dichlorobenzene (mg/kg)1,4-Dichlorobenzene (mg/kg)1,2-Dichlorobenzene (mg/kg)Benzyl Alcohol (mg/kg)2-Methyl phenol (mg/kg)Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether (mg/kg)Aceto-phenone (mg/kg)Hexachloro-ethane (mg/kg)N-Nitroso-n-propyl amine (mg/kg)4-Methyl phenol (mg/kg)0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database6 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/10Nitro-benzene (ug/L)N-nitroso-piperidine (ug/L)Isophorone (ug/L)2-Nitrophenol (ug/L)2,4-Dimethyl-phenol (ug/L)Benzoic Acid (ug/L)Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane (ug/L)2,4-Dichloro-phenol (ug/L)1,2,4-Trichloro-benzene (ug/L)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database7 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteriaNitro-benzene (ug/L)N-nitroso-piperidine (ug/L)Isophorone (ug/L)2-Nitrophenol (ug/L)2,4-Dimethyl-phenol (ug/L)Benzoic Acid (ug/L)Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane (ug/L)2,4-Dichloro-phenol (ug/L)1,2,4-Trichloro-benzene (ug/L)0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UNitro-benzene (mg/kg)N-nitroso-piperidine (mg/kg)Isophorone (mg/kg)2-Nitrophenol (mg/kg)2,4-Dimethyl-phenol (mg/kg)Benzoic Acid (mg/kg)Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane (mg/kg)2,4-Dichloro-phenol (mg/kg)1,2,4-Trichloro-benzene (mg/kg)0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database8 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/10Naphthalene (ug/L)4-Chloro-aniline (ug/L)Hexachloro-butadiene (ug/L)N-nitrosodi-n-butylamine (ug/L)4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol (ug/L)2-Methyl naphthalene (ug/L)1,2,4,5-Tetrachloro-benzene (ug/L)Hexachloro-cylcopenta-diene (ug/L)2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol (ug/L)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database9 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteriaNaphthalene (ug/L)4-Chloro-aniline (ug/L)Hexachloro-butadiene (ug/L)N-nitrosodi-n-butylamine (ug/L)4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol (ug/L)2-Methyl naphthalene (ug/L)1,2,4,5-Tetrachloro-benzene (ug/L)Hexachloro-cylcopenta-diene (ug/L)2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol (ug/L)0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UNaphthalene (mg/kg)4-Chloro-aniline (mg/kg)Hexachloro-butadiene (mg/kg)N-nitrosodi-n-butylamine (mg/kg)4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol (mg/kg)2-Methyl naphthalene (mg/kg)1,2,4,5-Tetrachloro-benzene (mg/kg)Hexachloro-cylcopenta-diene (mg/kg)2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol (mg/kg)3.59 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U15.0 U 0.81 U0.81 U 12.5 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database10 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/102,4,5-Trichloro-phenol (ug/L)2-Chloro-naphthalene (ug/L)2-Nitroaniline (ug/L)Dimethyl phthalate (ug/L)Acena-phthylene (ug/L)2,6-Dinitro-toluene (ug/L)3-Nitroaniline (ug/L)Acena-phthene (ug/L)2,4-Dinitro-phenol (ug/L)Dibenzo-furan (ug/L)---------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ----------0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database11 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteria2,4,5-Trichloro-phenol (ug/L)2-Chloro-naphthalene (ug/L)2-Nitroaniline (ug/L)Dimethyl phthalate (ug/L)Acena-phthylene (ug/L)2,6-Dinitro-toluene (ug/L)3-Nitroaniline (ug/L)Acena-phthene (ug/L)2,4-Dinitro-phenol (ug/L)Dibenzo-furan (ug/L)0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U---------- ----------0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U2,4,5-Trichloro-phenol (mg/kg)2-Chloro-naphthalene (mg/kg)2-Nitroaniline (mg/kg)Dimethyl phthalate (mg/kg)Acena-phthylene (mg/kg)2,6-Dinitro-toluene (mg/kg)3-Nitroaniline (mg/kg)Acena-phthene (mg/kg)2,4-Dinitro-phenol (mg/kg)Dibenzo-furan (mg/kg)0.81 U0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 9.55 0.81 U 7.5409-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database12 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/104-Nitrophenol (ug/L)2,4-Dinitro-toluene (ug/L)2,3,4,6-Tetrachloro-phenol (ug/L)Fluorene (ug/L)Diethyl phthalate (ug/L)4-Nitroaniline (ug/L)4-Chloro-phenyl phenyl ether (ug/L)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitro-phenol (ug/L)N-Nitroso-diphenyl amine (ug/L)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 UJ0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.09 UJ 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 UJ0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.380.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.450.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.730.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.960.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.460.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.720.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.190.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.220.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 UJ0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database13 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteria4-Nitrophenol (ug/L)2,4-Dinitro-toluene (ug/L)2,3,4,6-Tetrachloro-phenol (ug/L)Fluorene (ug/L)Diethyl phthalate (ug/L)4-Nitroaniline (ug/L)4-Chloro-phenyl phenyl ether (ug/L)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitro-phenol (ug/L)N-Nitroso-diphenyl amine (ug/L)0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U------------------0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 UJ 0.10 UJ0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U4-Nitrophenol (mg/kg)2,4-Dinitro-toluene (mg/kg)2,3,4,6-Tetrachloro-phenol (mg/kg)Fluorene (mg/kg)Diethyl phthalate (mg/kg)4-Nitroaniline (mg/kg)4-Chloro-phenyl phenyl ether (mg/kg)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitro-phenol (mg/kg)N-Nitroso-diphenyl amine (mg/kg)0.81 U 0.81 U57554.00.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database14 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/10Azobenzene (ug/L)4-Bromo-phenyl phenyl ether (ug/L)a-BHC (ug/L)Hexachloro-benzene (ug/L)b-BHC (ug/L)Penta-chlorophenol (ug/L)g-BHC (Lindane) (ug/L)Phen-anthrene (ug/L)Anthracene (ug/L)d-BHC (ug/L)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.16 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.090.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.22 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.20 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U7.80.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U9.30.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U16.60.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U20.60.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U9.700.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U14.40.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U4.4 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U4.4 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.24 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.21 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.1009-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database15 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteriaAzobenzene (ug/L)4-Bromo-phenyl phenyl ether (ug/L)a-BHC (ug/L)Hexachloro-benzene (ug/L)b-BHC (ug/L)Penta-chlorophenol (ug/L)g-BHC (Lindane) (ug/L)Phen-anthrene (ug/L)Anthracene (ug/L)d-BHC (ug/L)0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10--------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.100.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10Azobenzene (mg/kg)4-Bromo-phenyl phenyl ether (mg/kg)a-BHC (mg/kg)Hexachloro-benzene (mg/kg)b-BHC (mg/kg)Penta-chlorophenol (mg/kg)g-BHC (Lindane) (mg/kg)Phen-anthrene (mg/kg)Anthracene (mg/kg)d-BHC (mg/kg)0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 18,000 0.81 U 0.81 U 199 0.8109-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database16 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/10Di-n-butyl phthalate (ug/L)Heptachlor (ug/L)Aldrin (ug/L)Heptachlor epoxide (ug/L)Fluor-anthrene (ug/L)Pyrene (ug/L)Endosulfan I (ug/L)Benzidine (ug/L)4,4'-DDE (ug/L)Dieldrin (ug/L)------------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.120.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database17 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteriaDi-n-butyl phthalate (ug/L)Heptachlor (ug/L)Aldrin (ug/L)Heptachlor epoxide (ug/L)Fluor-anthrene (ug/L)Pyrene (ug/L)Endosulfan I (ug/L)Benzidine (ug/L)4,4'-DDE (ug/L)Dieldrin (ug/L)U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U------------------ --U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UU 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UDi-n-butyl phthalate (mg/kg)Heptachlor (mg/kg)Aldrin (mg/kg)Heptachlor epoxide (mg/kg)Fluor-anthrene (mg/kg)Pyrene (mg/kg)Endosulfan I (mg/kg)Benzidine (mg/kg)4,4'-DDE (mg/kg)Dieldrin (mg/kg)U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database18 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/10Endrin (ug/L)Endosulfan II (ug/L)4,4'-DDD (ug/L)Endrin aldehyde (ug/L)Butyl-benzenyl phthalate (ug/L)Endosulfan sulfate (ug/L)4,4'-DDT (ug/L)Benzo(a)-anthracene (ug/L)Chrysene (ug/L)3,3'-Dichloro-benzidine (ug/L)---- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ----------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.140.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.360.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.530.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database19 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteriaEndrin (ug/L)Endosulfan II (ug/L)4,4'-DDD (ug/L)Endrin aldehyde (ug/L)Butyl-benzenyl phthalate (ug/L)Endosulfan sulfate (ug/L)4,4'-DDT (ug/L)Benzo(a)-anthracene (ug/L)Chrysene (ug/L)3,3'-Dichloro-benzidine (ug/L)0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U---- ----------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 UEndrin (mg/kg)Endosulfan II (mg/kg)4,4'-DDD (mg/kg)Endrin aldehyde (mg/kg)Butyl-benzenyl phthalate (mg/kg)Endosulfan sulfate (mg/kg)4,4'-DDT (mg/kg)Benzo(a)-anthracene (mg/kg)Chrysene (mg/kg)3,3'-Dichloro-benzidine (mg/kg)0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U 15.0 0.81 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database20 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateP2E -- Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P2E -- Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P2E -- Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 1 -- Field drainage11/26/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 2 -- Field drainage12/16/09P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 3 -- Field drainage01/04/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P2E -- Storm 4 -- Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-B1 Base 1 -- Field drainage12/03/09P7E P7E-B2 Base 2 -- Field drainage12/28/09P7E P7E-B3 Base 3 -- Field drainage01/22/10P7E P7E-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Field drainage11/26/09P7E P7E-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Field drainage12/16/09P7E P7E-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Field drainage01/04/10P7E P7E-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Field drainage01/15/10P7E P7E-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Field drainage01/15/10P7SD P7SD-B1 Base 1 -- Groundwater12/03/09P7SD P7SD-B2 Base 2 -- Groundwater12/28/09P7SD P7SD-B3 Base 3 -- Groundwater01/22/10P7S P7S-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Groundwater11/26/09P7S P7S-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Groundwater12/16/09P7S P7S-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Groundwater01/04/10P7S P7S-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Groundwater01/15/10P7S P7S-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Groundwater01/15/10SD SD-B1 Base 1 -- Stormwater12/03/09SD SD-B2 Base 2 -- Stormwater12/28/09SD SD-B3 Base 3 -- Stormwater01/22/10SD SD-S1-1 Storm 1 1 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S1-2 Storm 1 2 Stormwater11/26/09SD SD-S2-1 Storm 2 1 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S2-2 Storm 2 2 Stormwater12/16/09SD SD-S3-1 Storm 3 1 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S3-2 Storm 3 2 Stormwater01/04/10SD SD-S4-1 Storm 4 1 Stormwater01/15/10SD SD-S4-2 Storm 4 2 Stormwater01/15/10Metho-xychlor (ug/L)Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (ug/L)Di-n-octyl phthalate (ug/L)Benzo(b)-fluoranthrene (ug/L)Benzo(k)-fluoranthrene (ug/L)Benzo(a)-pyrene (ug/L)Indeno-(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (ug/L)Dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene (ug/L)Benzo(g,h,i)-perlyene (ug/L)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U 0.09 U0.09 U 0.09 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.150.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 1.470.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.100.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database21 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants
Table C1. Water quality monitoring database for the Woodland Park Synthetic Turf Field Stormwater Drainage Study.Station ID Sample ID Event Round Sample TypeDateQC1 QC1 Base 1 -- P7E dup12/03/09QC2 QC2 Storm 2 -- P7E (2105) dup12/16/09QC3 QC3 Storm 2 -- Field filter blank12/17/09QC5 QC5 Storm 3 -- SD (0805) dup01/04/10QC6 QC6 Storm 4 -- Transfer blank01/15/10QC7 QC7 Base 3 -- Rinsate blank01/22/10Station ID Sample IDEvent Type Round Sample TypeDatePole Pole Sample na na Wood 02/05/10Data Flag Definition:-- = Value was not determined.U = The analyte was not detected at the associated quantitation or detection limit.J = The associated value is an estimated quantity.G = greater than specified value due to high number of bacteria colonies prBold values exceed Washington State water quality criteriaMetho-xychlor (ug/L)Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (ug/L)Di-n-octyl phthalate (ug/L)Benzo(b)-fluoranthrene (ug/L)Benzo(k)-fluoranthrene (ug/L)Benzo(a)-pyrene (ug/L)Indeno-(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (ug/L)Dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene (ug/L)Benzo(g,h,i)-perlyene (ug/L)0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U------------------0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U0.10 U 0.10 UMetho-xychlor (mg/kg)Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (mg/kg)Di-n-octyl phthalate (mg/kg)Benzo(b)-fluoranthrene (mg/kg)Benzo(k)-fluoranthrene (mg/kg)Benzo(a)-pyrene (mg/kg)Indeno-(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (mg/kg)Dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene (mg/kg)Benzo(g,h,i)-perlyene (mg/kg)0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U0.81 U2.77 0.81 U 0.81 U0.81 U 0.81 U09-04418-000 Apx-C Turf water quality master.xls/Database22 of 22Herrera Environmental Consultants